Talk:Siberian tiger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edited The Interspecies Conflict Section With Sourced Material and NPOV

The latest edits are from poorly cited sources and misinterpretation due to someone's bias in favor of tigers. It is far from NPOV. I have cited more material and stated in with NPOV. The truth is both species have killed each other and are rivals.

I have edited the section on brown bears and tigers and provided SOURCED material in a NPOV, because these latest edits by a fellow named "bigcat82" reek of bias and violate this sites NPOV policy. He misstates the sourced material and inserts his own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.181.29 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Quit undoing this edit! The material is sourced and follows the NPOV policy. The other material DOES NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.181.29 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the edit that violates wikipedia's NPOV policy and properly cited the sources. Please do not undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.205.210 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is The siberian tiger really leading to extinction?

I am Researching for a report.... If you reply to this msg please tell where you got your info from (For book :Author,Date it was published The Publishers)ETC. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.238.190 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.wcsrussia.org/

I'd recommend consulting there as they're in charge of the Siberian Tiger Project the chief conservation organization for the sub-species and probably the best collection of researchers on tigers out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.158.42 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiger Vs Bear NPOV

IP vowing / persistent vandalism. see page protection dated Aug 11, 2014

The interspecific interactions section on this page and several related pages is clearly biased in favor of the tiger concerning tiger-bear interactions. While either species have killed the other, this article only briefly mentions the fact that brown bears have killed adult and young tigers - all in just one sentence. In comparison, the rest of the entire 16 line paragraph describes tigers killing bears in immense detail (purported killing technique, times of year, trails, etc). That purported killing technique, is also not sourced (the part about tigers feeding on bear fat deposits is sourced, but the sentences about tigers waiting for bears to pass by and grabbing under the chin,etc, are not sourced and are speculation until a source is found). Then, the the onyly mother fuker yuo are is yuouer mother kill "young" tigers or only kill females, whereas they have killed adults and males as well. Note that this information about bears killing adult tigers was taken from one of the same sources that the tiger-advocates used (V.G. Heptner & A.A. Sludskii. Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2.) I do not see bear advocates claiming tigers only kill bear cubs on this page. When all of this is added up, it is clear that there is a problem of NPOV in favor of the tiger on wikipedia. Why would this be the case? Well, I am aware of various internet websites where tiger-advocates and bear and lion enthusiasts argue vociferously about "which species is tougher", "faster", etc, etc. This seems to be where the problem is coming from The part about tigers waiting for bears IS sourced. It is from Mammals of the Soviet Union. See here: http://books.google.com/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&pg=PA175&dq=A+Having+tracked+its+victim+the+predator+chin&cd=1#v=onepage&q=A%20Having%20tracked%20its%20victim%20the%20predator%20chin&f=false The reason there are more detailed accounts on how tigers kill bears than vice versa is simply that they have been observed more often. It has nothing to do with an anti-bear agenda. It is no different to writing about how tigers kill deer. I do not see any deer advocates complaining. Mariomassone (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Surely, the tiger vs brown bear relations is completely different from those of tigers and deers. First of all, there are many known instances of bears killing tigers (12 vs 25 the other way around). Second, deers do not dominate over tiger's kills but male adult brown bears do. Third, a large brown bear can even predate upon a tiger in Winter or early Spring. A deer will probably not. The last difference, an experienced tiger will try to take down any deer, on the other hand, any tiger will usually avoid a fully grown male brown bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.102 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I cannot see how ANYONE can think any siberian tiger, no matter how big, would be a match for a bear in a head to head fight. A HUGE male tiger might weigh 600 pounds, with no where NEAR the bite force of a bear of roughly equal size, though somewhat larger teeth. An average female brown bear in these areas will weigh 660 - 1100 pounds, and is an animal that can BEHEAD a fully grown bull moose weighing nearly a ton. I do not dispute the tiger's ability to predate on young bears. Someone show me a DOCUMENTED case where a bear over 600 pounds was killed by a tiger. JUST ONE! It makes no sense. A bear has so much more fat and protective hide than a tiger that it can take many fold more punishment than a sleek feline. This can not include the examples of smaller female bears attacked when they were hibernating. A bear coming out of hibernation is disoriented for quite some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.105.135 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone's suggesting that tigers wrestle bears into submission on a regular basis but that's not what predation is about, that's just a brawl. Predation means for the tiger sneaking up and ambushing the bear that seems weakest, yeah that's not 'fair' because you'll tend to be comparing bigger male tigers to smaller female bears but get over it, nature isn't fair. It -counts- when you have smaller female bears attacked out of hibernation and actually counts more then winning some brawl, that suggests intent to locate bears when they're vulnerable and kill them, predation. It's completely accurate to say that tigers hunt and kill bears, even brown bears, just as it's completely accurate to say that lions hunt water buffalo but don't tend to go after the big fit males. Now, as stated earlier bears can and will win a brawl with a tiger, they're better built for it, however since this would often result as a mere chance confrontation I think it's understandable that there be emphasis on the tiger's hunting behavior, especially since this is an article about tigers, not bears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.158.42 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above information is your own opinions. Existing sources used here include peer reviewed research articles and all point to the same conclusion that tigers dominate bears. And as explained to you in numerous times in other sections, you have no consensus among contributors of this article to change it to a bear article. BigCat82 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Source Problems

IP vowing / persistent vandalism. see page protection dated Aug 11, 2014

Also, there are problems with one of the main sources favoring the tiger. The article claims that brown bears and asiatic black bears make up 5-8% of the siberian tiger diet, and that the brown makes up 1-1.5%. There are several problems with this: 1) The first problem is different wikipedia articles give different sources for this same information. This siberian tiger article gives the source as "The ecology, behavior, management and conservation status of brown bears in Sikhote-Alin (Russian)". Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, Russia. pp. 1–252. In contrast, the main tiger wikiarticle gives the source as "http://uml.wl.dvgu.ru/rscv.php?id=74.^ a b c d e f (German) Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596". So, which one is it? This is not an academic question. For a controversial point as this one (see those internet websites), the source must be correct. 2) The second problem is that both of the possible sources listed above are foreign language sources being used on an english language wikipedia. While I have no blanket opposition to using foreign language sources, this does raise the issue that the best evidence favoring the tiger has to be gleaned from obscure sources - sources that are difficult to verify. While using Russian source can be understood (the siberian tiger lives in Russian-controlled territory), why a German or Czech (see below) source, when there are many credible English language tiger researchers? It really appears that the tiger advocates searched far and wide for sources favoring their opinion - if so, this is called data mining. Also, the important issue of verification of the source still remains. Can you read Russian, German, AND perhaps Czech also? (Vratislav Mazak is listed as being of Czech background on his wikipage). I would like to ask people with the ability to read Russian and German to verify that the sources really do state what they are claimed to state. If they do not, these sources must be removed. 3) Lastly, even if black and brown bears make up a certain percentage of a tiger's diet, this does not necessarily mean that the tiger killed the bear, which is what the tiger-advocates seem to be trying to push. Like nearly all carnivores, tigers do scavenge. They even scavenge from other carnivores, such as leopards and from single dholes or small packs of dholes. See this video from the BBC of a tiger scavenging from a dhole (the rest of the pack had already left the carcass - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqAOugffWA). I can give you sources showing that cattle and elk make up a certain percentage of a coyote's or bobcat's diet, but coyotes or bobcats killing adults of either of those species (or even young elk as well) would be an extraordinary event. Similarly, giant squid beaks have been found in certain sleeper sharks (see the wikiarticle), but that does not necessarily mean that the shark killed the squid. Most likely, the percentage of diet figures from the sources listed above are from scat samples or perhaps from examination of gut contents. If so, they indicate that tigers feed on bears, but they do not show that tigers kill bears. All in all, this article has NPOV issues that need addressing. The problem right now is that we have a fellow named bigcat82 vandalizing the article and undoing well sourced, NPOV edits with sources in which he words in a biased way. I don't think he realizes what a bear even is. A radio collared tiger, a 420 pound adult male named Dale, killed four brown bears while he was being tracked. EVERY SINGLE one was smaller than he was, which translates to subadults and cubs. Female Ussuri brown bears weigh on average 450 - 900 lbs with 650 a good average. Again, he lists instances where tigers kill bears, and they are largely cubs and subadults. Whereareas, the sources ITSELF says bears GENERALLY DOMINATE tigers in disuptes over kills, and a documented case of a 600 pound plus bear being killed by a tiger cannot be found, while MULTIPLE cases of adult male tigers being killed by bears, both females and even asiatic black bears, have been documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.218.249 (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. Existing sources used here include peer reviewed research articles and all point to the same conclusion that tigers dominate bears. And as explained to you in numerous times in other sections, you have no consensus among contributors of this article to change it to a bear article. BigCat82 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC) BigCat82 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

links to habitat

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2010/WWFPresitem17536.html could be added in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A female Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), a subspecies of tiger native to Central Asia, and her cub. The Siberian tiger is the largest of the extant tiger subspecies as well as the largest felid, attaining 320 kg (710 lb) in an exceptional specimen. Considered an endangered subspecies, the wild population is down to several hundred individuals and is limited to eastern Siberia.Photo: Dave Pape

question

what is the domain of a sibeirian tigar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.54.26 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Silk Road migration

How could the ancestors of the Siberian tiger have migrated via the Silk Road, if that route only came into existence over 7000 years after their migration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Silk Road was a migration route long before it was used for trading silk. How about reading the referenced article yourself? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the correct name? Amur or Siberian

I have heard that the name 'Siberian' tiger is old and the 'correct' name (according to the couple of zoos that I've visited recently) is the Amur tiger.

To back this up, the IUCN red list website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/15956/0) lists it as the Amur tiger (but interestingly Tigre de Sibérie in French).

Should the name of this page be changed to Amur tiger with a redirect from Siberian tiger? Agentgonzo (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Liger

Are Siberian tigers bigger than ligers? Or should we change the text to "largest living felid in the wild"? 24.18.50.139 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ligers are larger, the text should be changed. 70.20.42.218 (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is wrong in saying that the siberian tiger has a longer skull than african lion

In the world of the big cats is the lion which has the longest skull. Indeed, in a french article an African lion was killed in Zimbabwe in 1999 with a record lenght of skull 425,3mm (or 42,53 cm) in lenght which exceeds that of the siberian tiger whose record size in this section is 40,6 cm (406 mm) http://www.chassons.com/encyclopedie/animaux/lion/lion.htm -rourébrébé-217.128.55.164 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

i would like a link on how to write a diary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.99.212 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I had to rephrase some sentences that were copy-pasted from one of the cited scientific articles. This article needs to be checked to make sure there isn't any other plagiarised sentences here. 209.162.56.112 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition of plagiarism ! The source of the sentences in question is properly referenced, i.e. nobody ever "wrongful appropriated" them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Generally, a simple inline reference is only sufficient for source material that has been summarized in your own words; verbatim quotes have to always be identified as such by the additional use of quotation marks. Try anything else in your college papers and you′ll receive a failing grade if you′re lucky, or get suspended if you′re not. Wikipedia furthermore asks for in-text naming of the source for verbatim quotes, whether direct or indirect. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Plagiarism_on_Wikipedia, ′Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution′ and ′Quotation marks and in-text attribution′. -- 92.206.11.66 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statistics on morphology

Can someone who is an authority on Siberian tigers please provide more concise and clear statistics on the min. and max. of this subspecies' height, weight and length? As it is now there are 69 different numbers to go through, which is absurd. I know several people want to prove their numbers as the "record breakers", but at the loss of clarity, this is unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasvburgeson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)