Talk:White tiger

message: Woah - an article written entirely by anonymous users! *impressed*
Just a few comments: should this article be moved to white tiger, following Wikipedia naming guidelines? Also, the article needs proper categorization and better formatting, so I'm putting up a stub warning. But seriously, awesome jobs - you guys should sign up! Cheers, Gaurav 19:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nor do i. is the text copied from somewhere?? Xah Lee 07:18, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on the "Pure White Tiger"? It's origination?
165.139.228.115 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: I just restored the deleted material but I don't seem to have the correct Korean fonts  on this computer. Can someone put them back from here. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean version 

message: Are you all studying the white tiger?
If so...you can google white tiger.
Duh.-.-
Uhh, maybe not, we just want our articlesto look good for people who are.
Utube video was cute!
THE WHITE TIGER HAS BEEN INBRED BY CAPITALIST PIGS BEYOND ALL HOPE. MOST ARE BORN WITH DEFECTS AND NEVER REACH ADULTHOOD. There's a reason why you don't reproduce with your own family, and the only way to ensure more cubs, zoos inbreed them constantly. This cruelty needs to stop and I feel this wiki page is part of the problem, not even taking the issue seriously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.8.69 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to you people. 

message: Ed Maruska, the director of the Cincinnati Zoo, had this to say on the subject of the white tiger's infant mortality rate: " We have not experienced premature death among our white tigers. Forty-two animals born in our collection are still living. Mohan, a large white tiger, died just short of his 20th birthday, an enviable age for a male of any subspecies since most males live shorter lives in captivity. Premature deaths in other collections may be artifacts of captive environmental conditions." " In 52 births we had four stillbirths, one of which was an unexplained loss. We lost two additional cubs from viral pneumonia, which is not excessive. Without data from non-inbred tiger lines, it is difficult to determine whether this number is high or low with any degree of accuracy." Maruska, Edward J., "White Tiger Phantom Or Freak?", Chapter 33, Part IV White Tiger Politics, Tigers Of The World, The Biology, Biopolitics, Management And Conservation Of An Endangered Species, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey USA 1987, pg. 374  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  infant mortality 

message: I think that stating that a white tiger simply has orange genes that are "switched off" is more accurate than simply stating that a white gene is non-exsistant. It is my knowledge that this is true and far more informative as far as biology and genetics goes. Perhaps a link to the page on genes in animals would be a nice addition as well. Anyone agree? --Catmoongirl 07:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genes "switched off"

message: Shouldn't the extent of where they reside be listed? Drakonis 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of Population?

message: Question: Why is this article full of the misconception that this "species" is endangered?  It's not a species.  It's a genetic mutation promulgated by zoos via inbreeding.  Technically this "species" is severely over-populated and will be until it no longer exists.
:Answer: Nowhere does the article state that white tigers are a species or that they are endangered. The graphic refers to the Bengal tiger as endangered. The article never claims that white tigers are a species, much less an endangered species. White tigers are tigers and tigers are an endangered species. In India white tigers are considered part of the culture and national treasures. In India white tigers are a subpopulation of the endangered Bengal tiger.
::Its not a genetic mutation.  Its a recessive gene. Orange tigers also carry the gene for white coloration and can have white offspring. White tigers are just as endangered as orange tigers. Bioextra (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth on White Tigers

message: Okay, I took out some of the biased language (I replaced "freaks with no conservation value" with "anomalies that do not have the same conservation value," etc.) but we really need some sources on the idea that white tigers do not have any conservation value.  Common sense seems to tell me that a general wild tiger population will have a few white tigers in it, just like human populations have a few purple-eyed humans in them, and I can see why breeding a pretty but not representative form of the animal wouldn't be the best conservation strategy, but can anyone back it up with studies or articles or quotes from the experts?12.144.50.194 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Ron Tilson of the Minnesota Zoo and Catherine Latinen who was with the Detroit Zoo. They're experts, but it seems to be the opinion of just about everybody that white tigers have no value to conservation. Also John Seidensticker of the National Zoo. Here's another one: Karanth, K. Ullas, The Way of the Tiger, Voyager Press Inc. 2001. pg. 16 "White tigers are genetic mutants derived by repeatedly crossbreeding the progeny derived from a single wild caught ancestor (he's wrong about that). While white tigers are undoubtedly cute oddities, they have little conservation value." I just found this in "The Year Of The Tiger" pg. 82 "but geneticists consider such animals' bloodlines useless for maintaining healthy captive populations of distinct subspecies." There are no white tigers in wild populations. I don't think there are any purple eyed humans. Thank you for the suggestions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.128.186.201 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation Value

message: I think this article would benefit from some family trees. From what I understand, Mohan was bred with his daughter Radha and then he was bred with the product of that union, granddaughter-daughter Sukeshi to produce tigers who were simutaneously his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Some of these were bred in lines issuing from Radha's full-sisters, so there are tigers with many, many more lines from him. Charles 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family trees 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Sankhala" :
** Kailash Sankhala 1976
**  This creates a controversy about color-based inbreeding, since is possible to produce white tigers from unrelated parents-- examples are given below in the sections on Tony and The Orissa White Tigers-- but in practice, such cases are exceedingly rare.<ref name="Iverson"> Iverson, S.J., (1982) "Breeding white tigers." Zoogoer 11:5-12; 
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: This sprawling mess is approximately the same length as the article on World War II. Since the subject of "white tigers" has been appropriately classified as "mid-importance," a summary would suffice.drone5 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article exists only because in popular discourse these are seen as different from other tigers. There is nothing to distinguish white tigers from their Bengal tiger relatives otherwise. 118.90.17.167 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The size of the article will reflect the time that an author is willing to put into it. In the case of WWII it is useful to note that whole sections have been spun out into other articles. Something that might be hard to do here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neverending Story 

message: From my talk page "Surely the taxobox should be used only on articles about a particular genus/species/etc.? White tigers do not constitute a species on their own, and only hold significance in popular discourse. As I wrote on the edit summary, red headed humans and blonde humans are both Homo sapiens sapiens but red heads don't get to have a taxobox. 118.90.17.167 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the reasoning. Yes the white tiger is not a seperate genus/species but I think that the box helps people to understand that. Though it should be noted that different breeds of dogs don't get taxoboxes. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxobox does not belong of this page since it is not about a taxonomic group, the species where the box belongs is linked in the intro. Hardyplants (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree. It should have a tax box to enhance understanding and make the topic interesting.Bioextra (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but Hardyplants and 118.90.17.167 are correct. This is not a seperate species/taxonomic group and the box is not correct. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox

message: The article is way too long and rambles on and an on with lots of useless verbage.Bioextra (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: This article really needs to be cleaned up. It seems all over the place and keeps repeating things over and over again. And I found this gem in the article on inbreeding:
:The white gene is recessive, and therefore must be inherited from both parents, to produce a white tiger. Inbreeding is a conscious strategy to promote homozygosity in white tigers. There's really no such thing as a white gene. Rather white tigers carry orange genes which are latent, switched off or suppressed by an inhibitor, which is the chinchilla gene.
So the entire time the article has been talking about there being a white gene.. and now its really not a gene at all? Erm. -- 205.200.0.105 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this makes no sense 

message: There is no point in having either a section or a Wikipedia article titled Heterozygous Tiger. You are confusing heterozygous tigers with golden tabby tigers. 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heterozygous Tiger 

message: All of the information concerning ailments and defects associated with inbreeding in white tigers has been deleted repeatedly for no apparent reason. Also all information pertaining to white tigers having adverse reactions to anaesthesia has also been deleted repeatedly for no apparent reason. The correct term is "visual pathway abnormality". There's no point in deleting the word "abnormality". This just makes the sentences meaningless and the article incomprehensible. There's no point in dividing the references into two sections and titling one Sources. There's no point in having either a section or a Wikipedia article titled "Heterozygous Tiger". Enough has been said about heterozygous tigers in the article, and should'nt there also be a section titled Homozygous Tiger? What about Heterozygous Chimpanzee or Heterozygous Hippo? There must be a Wikipedia page which defines the term heterozygous. Why do you think that heterozygous tigers are the rarest? What's your source for that? Should'nt there be article and sections covering this topic for every species? There's no point in adding general information on tigers which is available elsewhere in Wikipedia and which is off topic and adds to the length of the article. Why delete information on white tigers and then add information which is off topic while complaining about the length of the article? This makes no sense. Information on Siegfried & Roy has been rewritten repeatedly so that it is inaccurate. It was entirely accuarate to begin with. Why say that Siegfried & Roy bred two white tigers and used them in their shows? Siegfried & Roy had at least 60 white tigers. I would imagine they bred most of them themselves.72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: The latest addition has to much detail and makes the page cumbersome to get through. Hardyplants (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have fixed that problem. An anon editor actually copied the page from before a merge sometime ago, hence why it had a merge tag attached. The page has been Semi-Protected in an attempt to correct this problem. ZooPro 03:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To much detail

message: Allow me to quote the relative parts: "Another genetic characteristic makes the stripes of the tiger very pale; white tigers of this type are called snow-white or "pure white". This occurs when a tiger inherits two copies of the recessive gene for the paler coloration, which is rare." that contradicts with this: "White tigers are not albinos and do not constitute a separate subspecies of their own and can breed with orange ones, although all of the resulting offspring will be heterozygous for the recessive white gene, and their fur will be orange."
Heterozygous means (in this case) having one copy of the recessive allele, and one copy of the dominant allele. The quotes above first state that white tigers are heterozygous, while the second quote states that they are homozygous for the recessive allele.  MrKimm (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To "fix" this I removed the first paragraph completely. Why the first one? you may ask... my answer is: I (as a biologist) find the second paragraph more believable. MrKimm (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a "side effect" of the white amur tiger article merge. I agree with your changes. ZooPro 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contradicts itself! 

message: Waaay too much emphasis on genetics and overuse of its jargon for an introductory pargraph - merely a section of the larger article and a turn-off to novice readers...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.44.216 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First section 

message: I think something needs to be done about the references section: half of it is numbered with the reflist, but the other half is just a bulleted list. Ideas? Brambleclawx 21:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the ticket. It looks like all of the end sections need a bit of a going over though. Fairly quickly I found two references that were already part of the citations, and two identical citations to consolidate. In general, my take of the Manual of Style is that all the end sections except citations should be minimized. See also items should be linked in the body, and references and most external links should be turned into citations for specific points in the article. Too much work for now. Maybe a bit at a time. Donlammers (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: This is a terribly written article. The whole page reads as if the white tiger is a different species of tiger. The species classification box should be removed and the opening sentences should clearly sate this is not a separate species of tiger.
"White tigers are a kind of tiger whose fur is white or almost white." -- a terrible opening sentence to an encyclopedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.18.119 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the opening sentence so that it states clearly it is just a color variation. I'm not completely sure what WikiProject Animals usually does in terms of classification boxes on articles. Brambleclawx 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to tweak the intro however it needs more work and have fixed the taxo box. Seems to be a problem in a few other articles as well. ZooPro 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Article

message: "White tigers do not constitute a separate subspecies of their own and can breed with orange ones. Although, assuming the orange parent is heterozygous domiant for the recessive gene, all of the resulting offspring will be heterozygous for the recessive white gene, and their fur will be orange. The only exception would be if the orange parent was itself already a heterozygous tiger, which would give each cub a 50% chance of being either double-recessive white or heterozygous orange."
The bolded section doesn't make any since, in order for a breeding of a white tiger and an orange tiger to produce nothing but heterozygous young the orange parent must be homozygous for the dominant gene. I would change it myself but every time I try to edit it wipes the whole page clean . ClawClaw (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in section on genetics 

message: White tigers are not often in zoos, I think in Las Vegas, san diego, singapore, Florida, Massachusetts, Buenos Aires & Cincinnati are the only zoos with white tigers. A list like the in zoos list from the great panda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda#In_zoos
would be nice and interesting!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.2.254 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In zoos 

message: This article calls Siegfried & Roy's white tiger "Mantecore" twice with no citation, while the Siegfried & Roy article calls him "Montecore" many times with citations. I therefore assume that the "Montecore" spelling is correct. Can someone with editing privileges make that change? This article is currently unavailable to edit. 74.71.72.223 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: News stories from the time of the attack called the tiger Montecore, but those from when the tiger died call it Mantecore.  The Sieg & Roy Facebook post reporting the death  calls the tiger Mantecore, which has to be viewed as definitive.  No change to this page is needed, but it should be changed on the Sieg & Roy page. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantecore/Montecore 

message: Lest this become an edit war, let me wxplain the removal of information on a temperature sensitive tyrosinase mutation.  Our article included the statement that the white tiger has a tyrosinase mutation, and that mutated  tyrosinase in other species can lead to a temperature sensitive colouration.  For this we cited a 1992 work.  However, this source is obsolete.  In the 2013 study that identified the genetic cause of the white tiger phenotype, they determined that the tyrosinase gene was completely normal, and that the mutation was instead in a gene called SLC45A2.  That means that these tigers are not albino (a complete tyrosinase knockout, as they were sometimes called in the past), that it is only a coincidence that they bear similarity to the chinchilla phenotype seen in other mammals (which is due to a less severe tyrosinase mutation) and that any temperature sensitivity of their coat colouration can have nothing to do with a temperature sensitive tyrosinase mutation seen in other species, because they do not have a tyrosinase mutation.  Any effect on tyrosinase would be secondary, an indirect result of the SLC45A2 mutation.  Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrosinase 

message: Six white tigers were observed living at the Municiple Zoo, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.  The animals appeared in good health, but were caged in small enclosures.  For all the words written on this Wikipedia page, there is no mention of this Merida pride.  I wonder why not?  And I wonder how many other white tigers exist around the world that are not mentioned in Wikipedia’s quite-acamedic White Tiger entry?  This weakness puts the veracity all information in Wikipedia in some doubt.
Dale Nankivell
Toronto, Canada
dale.nankivell@gmail.com 122.148.194.42 (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the purpose of this article to catalog every single white tiger on the planet. What makes this particular pride of white tigers noteworthy?  Also, you need to follow the directions - what is the specific text you are proposing be added?  A general complaint is not something that can be acted upon. Be sure to include verifiability - what source attributes a pride too this zoo?  Personal observations are insufficient. Agricolae (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017 

message: There have been recent accounts of white tigers or pale tigers spotted in the wild. Wildlife photographer Nilanjan Ray spotted a pale or white tiger on July 5 2017 in Nilgiris. Mr.Ray said his pictures, reviewed by Parvesh Pandya, a zoologist with Sanctuary Asia and Belinda Wright, a conservationist and film-maker, point to a condition known as “color morphism,”. On November 8, 2017 this tiger was seen along with his brother who was also white. The family of four was sighted spending some quality time together in the Nilgiris Biosphere Reserve by M. Santhanaraman, additional government pleader for Forest departm-ent at the Madras High Court and Dr. C.P. Rajkumar, a member of the Tamil Nadu State Wildlife Board. Of them are mother and three cubs. One of the cubs is female and the other two are white males. But it is said that neither of these cubs are 100% white.  They are pale, with coats much lighter than the usual orangey yellow. Parvezspa (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: There isn't any doubt in the article that white tigers are seen in the wild, so a detailed description of one particular encounter, with possible COI problems, is not necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: Though they may be originally descended from a wild Bengal tiger, apart from the issue of hybridization with Amur tigers, are not most confirmed white tigers today in captivity, if not all of them (thank you  for these)? Leo1pard (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The page history for Captive white tigers indicates that it was split out from this article and the part moved was already almost 58,000 characters long.  Moving a 58k character detailed accounting of a few specific captive tigers out of this article is probably a good thing from the perspective of this article being a simple description of the phenomenon.  My only question is whether any useful purpose is served by that other page, or, as with a lot of material on Wikipedia, somebody named a few captive tigers and before anyone knew it, it had become bloated all out of proportion with an obsessive accounting of some editors' favorite captive tigers, just because we can.  Certainly I would not want to see all that merged back into this article without a rather severe haircut. Agricolae (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I had in mind more of a buzz cut, or maybe a tonsure.  I just don't think there is a place on the white tiger page for hardly any of the information on Captive white tigers, which I find (personally, no offence meant to those who think otherwise) to be pointless WP:UNDUE trivia - a WP:NOTGENEALOGY violation in tiger form.  At most one paragraph summarizing the whole thing is about all I would be comfortable seeing returned to white tiger were the two to be brought back together. Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is ''[[Captive white tigers]]'' a separate article to ''White tiger''?