Talk:Lion/Archive 1

message: "However, according to the Kenyan Wildlife Federation the inbred Kenyan stocks have shown a marked increase in the size of the average litter of cubs per female.  The Federation predicts that due to the increase in fertility the population will triple over the next 10 years "
This edit seems suspect as it doesnt fit with the rest of the entry. And I can not find a refrance on the page linked. 
Nmarshall 15:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in this edit . The reference does not refer to this assertion. It looks like a Colbert-vandalism to me, so I removed it. Rasmus (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population and distribution

message: I removed this claim from the article. As I have pointed out in past edits, it has actually been disproven by researchers that the lion mane protects males in fights, not proven. Darwin was the first person to propose that the mane provided protection in fights, but he has since been proven wrong. The mane is actually related to sexual selection. Female lions prefer male lions with darker and larger manes. See August (2002 I think it was) issue of Science for vertification.
June 20, 2006: Removed this bogus claim yet again. (Third time I think?)
Once again, research has shown that the mane DOES NOT provide protection in fights. See August 2002 issue of Science for the real purpose of the mane.
You know, the mane may not be there as a designed tool for fighting, but you can't despute the fact that it does offer protection, intentional or not.   A puffy mane most certainly lessens the force of a blow or a scratch, or even a bite.
Thanks for the reference on manes not being protective in fights. I have yet to look it up but I do think one can also use reason here, if only for a starter. When you see clips of lions fighting other lions or tigers (i.e. on youtube.com) it certainly does seem an advantage to have a mane. To me it looks like a tiger has, on several different shots, bitten, only to get a mouthful of hair. That this is not an advantage to the manes owner is like asking if you would rather have a dog bite your hair or your shoulder (or even throat). Finally, that a mane would also cushion seems very likely.
I agree with the mane used for protection unintentionally. Dora Nichov 08:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lion mane and protection in fights 

message: this article feels funny. i think we should model it after the german-language version. anyone agree?
--Danreitz 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model after German verison? 

message: may i ask why this was deleated? just wondering 
-Schuyler s. 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lions in the Wild 

message: The first part of the article says they live in the jungles of South Africa and South America. Later part of the article says that they don't live in the jungle, they mostly live in plains. Could someone who knows lions better correct this? --65.208.187.200 21:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitat? 

message: The man-eating lion section of this article is imported from Everything2.  Since I wrote it, I am free to do so... -- Emperorbma 23:20, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not happy with the man eating lion stuff.  It's not neutral.  Okay, some lions do attack men, and some famous.  But's its probably a case of if "man bites dog".  There is good reason for lions to be scared of humans, and they were often killed by humans since they can kill cattle.  And they were probably eliminated from Europe this way
The man-eating section dosn't follow contemporary research, it is now accepted that maneless lions are not aberrant, that the worn teeth were not a cause for the attacks, and that man-eating may in fact be a social trait, passed from generation to generation.  66.212.222.143 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man eating 

message: The crossbreed section seems a little long, and only tangentially related. It's certainly interesting, but it seems this info would go best in the Liger and Tion  bmjxfgjksdtyjfgarticles, with a mere "see also" link here. Does anyone object?  – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. 68.81.231.127 07:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suspect that the relatively large tangent about hybrids is out of place in this article.  I left it all for now, but made some comments.  For one, 'Siberian tigers' are no longer called such because it's become apparent that the distribution of the subspecies is not limited to Siberia.  They've been renamed as 'Amur tigers' as their distribution largely covers the area around the river of that name.  Also, I explained why tigons are less common.  I am in favour of this section being shortened - only a mention of hybrids with links to their respective pages.  It seems silly to only mention lion/tiger crosses when leopards and lions have been crossed as well (sometimes with jaguars, even).  Slow Graffiti 07:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ligers and Tigons (oh my!) 

message: The lion, as all the other animals fears unknown objects, for instance, if a lion goes you to attack and you to show for him a toilet paper, he will retreat.
:Can anyone confirm this? It sounds rather implausible. jdb ❋ 05:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. This article attracts a fair amount of overt vandalism, but there is also some stealth vandalism: the edit before yours removed a suspicious line about lions hibernating that has been part of the article for quite some time. 68.81.231.127 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fear of the unknown 

message: Any one know about lions in South America
: Other than the Mountain Lion or Puma ( & Lion Tamarins and Sea Lions :p), I cannot find any credible references to lions in South America in recent times. I did find one reference to prehistoric lions on the Smithsonian Zoo website, to quote: "More than 10,000 years ago, lions thrived from North and South America to Europe, Africa, and Asia." It does not state which species/subspecies they were referring to. Information and distribution maps about prehistoric & extinct species from other sources tend to conflict with this statement. Does anyone else have more info? - Rooivalk 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are currently no lions in the Americas, only pumas.  In prehistoric times there was what's called an American lion, which is classified in the same genus as lions and tigers (panthera), but it is not agreed how closely related they are to modern lions.  In addition, the Americas had several other prehistoric big cats, including the miracinonyx (sometimes called the American cheetah) and the smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger), although only the latter lived in South America so far as I know.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: about 10.000 yaers ago American lions (Panthera leo atrox) occured in South America. Altaileopard 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lions in South America

message: Please help us, at Talk:Bible scientific foresight, where we are having to argue that almost all naturalists believe that lions kill their prey by biting, rather than attempting to strangle their prey. (The discussion is about whether naturalists believe that lions strangle their prey, or whether this is a ridiculous minority viewpoint amongst naturalists) Clinkophonist 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  strangulation 

message: I noticed that there is a 'lions in media' section that includes reference to 'The Lion King', perhaps it would be worth adding a 'lions in literature' section including, for example Aslan in 'The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe'?
:And Simson of course. If you can think of enough lions, why not? Feel free and go ahead... Caesarion 11:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lions in literature? 

message: The article contradicts itself, in one part it states that there are 300 Asiatic lions, in a later part it says there are only 200.  Which is correct? 66.212.222.143 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUCN Red List says about 250 (in 2000). A 1990 census counted some 221 adults living within the Gir Lion Reserve with a further 30-40 lions living in the surrounding agricultural areas. Since August (2005), after the June census recorded 359 lions, at least nine lions have died, some suspiciously. Wells like Bhimabhai's are death traps for unsuspecting Asiatic lions, who fall into them and either end up maimed or dead. This is the most current number, 350 thus. Sources: http://www.asiatic-lion.org and http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php?species=15952&tab=all Pmaas 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory 

message: Someone (88.153.247.168 and User:N.i) keep on reverting! Changing it from "extinct" into "extinct in the wild". I've changed it already too much back in extinct, and will stop doing that for now. Sorry for that. He or she refuses to comment back on his talk page (User_talk:N.i) or in this discussion page or that of Talk:Barbary_Lion.
Hopefully I get some funded opinions from other people here. Is the Barbary Lion extinct or extinct in the wild? Peter Maas 15:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that the Barbary Lion is extinct. Why? See following points. Peter Maas 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to inform you all: I've recieved an email from Dr Nobuyuki Yamaguchi (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit Oxford University, Department of Zoology). He does a lot of research to the Barbary lion (he is the (co-)author of the most recent scientific articles on this subject). This is what he says: "Based on the best knowledge available at the moment, I would say they have become extinct at least in the wild. If one would carry out a worldwide survey on the genetic characteristics of captive lions, the answer may be changed. Also, the concept of conservation of lion genetic diversity may also change the concept of extinction in the future." Do you have a problem with changing it into: "The Barbary Lion, Atlas lion or Nubian lion Panthera leo leo is a subspecies of lion that has become extinct at least in the wild." Please respond this time on the talk pages. Peter Maas 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbary Lion: extinct or not? 

message: As much as we may not like Lion-baiting it certainly is a part of the lions history.  You might want to vote on this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion-baiting
Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lion-baiting]]

message: As such a valuable topic, this article should at least be good.  But to reach that it will need massive improvement.  Any one got ideas on what needs the most work?--Esprit15d 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement 

message: There is a standard form to Wikipedia articles, part of which consists of having a brief intro summarizing the main points of the article, a kind a synopsis. This intro will often consist of three short paragraphs, and the information contained in them will be elaborated later in the article. That was the reason for my re-write of the intro, but at this point I shall withdraw and let you shape the article as you see fit. The only bone of contention remains the deleted material on the sexuality of the lion. Haiduc 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lion sexuality". I've heard it all now. Ros Power 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality - intro issues 

message: One of our references is to a news article at this page. Unfortunately, there's a typo in it that makes its meaning unclear:
:: ...he has never come across any prolonged homosexual behaviour in the wild. However, he does mention ‘a couple of cases of genetic mutant males that behaved exactly like males’.
You can't tell whether the intended meaning is females acting like males, or males acting like females. What do we do in cases like this? Is the source "spoiled"? That would be too bad, as it's certainly on-topic.
Additionally, the page is linked to the statement that same-sex mounting is dominance behavior. However, the article makes no mention of dominance behavior! It presents same-sex relationships as companionate. DanB†DanD 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same problem with it, I am sure we can interpret it as meaning to say "females" since it makes no sense otherwise. As for whether it should be kept or not, I'll leave that up to others. We still have the problem with the corruption to the Bagemihl text, which at this point misrepresents the conclusions of those researchers. Haiduc 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfortunate typo in source

message: I look forward to the time when this matter can be resolved on its merits, and not by means of insulting one's fello editors. Until then, and until the monkey business (primates are NOT felines) is removed from the article, it needs to be tagged as biased. Haiduc 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeping politics out of zoology 

message: Please post specific snippets from Bagemihl's book that clarify the context under which he uses the following references:
* J.B. Cooper, "An Exploratory Study on African Lions" in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48; 
* R.L. Eaton, "The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion" in Eaton, ed. The World's Cats, vol.II; pp.3-58; Seattle, 1974; 
* G.B. Schaller, The Serengeti Lion; University of Chicago Press, 1972
If these works do not contain studies that further the notion of homosexuality as presented by Bagemihl then I dont see any reason why these should be used in this article to lend credence to Bagemihl's work.
:Bagemihl paraphrases rather quoting, and his references have been included as per standard Wikipedia procedure, and since no creditable source exists to question his integrity we will not engage here in wild goose chases. Haiduc 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on references for homosexuality 

message: I must take issue with your categorization of my deletion of the text on the lion page as "vandalism." Although you refer to the action being "against consensus," in reading the lion talk page it seems to me that there is far from a consensus that the passage is worthy of inclusion in the article itself. I will not revert the edit back to the way it was, but please understand that there is not a consensus on that issue as there are a number of opposing views on the subject. I will continue to present my own view on the talk page rather than reverting the edit but I do not consider what I did to be vandalism. Thank you. 149.79.54.95 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC consensus appears to me that the section belongs in the article.  There was some disagreement over terminology, but wholesale blanking was inappropriate. Durova 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of controversial section 

message: I do not believe that the article is yet a good article candidate as there still seems to be significant disagreement, particularly on the talk page, re the "Same-Sex Relations" portion of the article. Thus, I would not yet define it as "stable", which is one of the requirements for "good articles." Likewise, I'm not entirely sure that all points of view are presented fairly, but the primary reason I did not pass the article was for the reason of stability. I think it may be a better candidate once this issue becomes resolved at some point down the road. Ronnymexico 01:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Failure

message: The following was copied from Lions in Europe. (Author was User:Pmaas; Main Edit)
Lions in European zoos
Lions are kept in most European zoos. Most of these captive lions are from Africa, but some zoos also keep Asiatic lions. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) runs European Endangered Species Programmes (EEP) and European StudBooks (ESB) programmes for over 250 species, and this number continues to grow. One of those species is the Asiatic lion which is included in the EAZA Felid Taxon Advisory Group (TAG). There is an EEP for the Asiatic lion, which is coordinated by Stefan Jonsson in Parken Zoo in Eskilstuna, Sweden. [3]
(European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. 2005. Animal Collections - Taxon Advisory Groups - European breeding programmes. Downloaded on 1st June 2006 from http://www.eaza.net.)
If everybody agrees, I will integrate it slightly modified into the lion-article. as "lions in zoos" User:Altaileopard 12:15, 05 Okt 2006 (UTC)
:It seems fine to me as a starting point, though a little heavy on the acronyms. The European Studbooks can probably be removed, as its focus is amphibians and reptiles. I know the Felid Taxon Group conserves big cats, and I'm guessing one of its big conservation programmes is for the Asiatic lion. TransUtopian 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And fine by me! Peter Maas 10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from lions in Europe 

message: "Lions can reach speeds of about 60 km/h (37 mph), but they are not very arduous, so they have to come quite close to their prey before starting the attack. They sneak up to the victim until they reach a distance of about 30 m (98 feet) or less."
Arduous? From context, I assume that means they don't have the endurance to be long-distance runners. Is that correct, and if so, I think a different word/description there'd be good. TransUtopian 00:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. thank you for correction, I changed it.  Altai 15:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Altaileopard, for importing and translating the Habitat, Diet and Evolution sections from the German Wikipedia. You're a star. TransUtopian 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arduous 

message: The material regarding same-sex relations should be removed from this page.  If advocates of the research-in-question wish to promote such research, they can do so within an article on homosexuality or homosexual acts within the animal kingdom, etc.  The inclusion of such material detracts from this article.--Black Flag 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC response

message: I can't seem to get the vadalism on the top of the page off, that  being (MY FAVORITE BIG CAT, BESIDES THE TIGER, WHICH IS ALSO AWSOME). When I go to the edit page, it claims that the vadalism is an old edit, and has since been taken off in the current version. Yet, everytime I return to the article page itself, the vadalism is clearly there. Is there an issue with the code, or Wikipedia itself, or is it my current computer? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Zidel333 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Issue/Vandal 

message: Taking a look at the sexuality section, other then the dispute of whether to call it homosexual behaviour or something else (which is a dispute I don't want to get in to) I don't really get why there is any fuss. We are simply reported a documented facet of lion behaviour. It's only 3 sentences in a resonably long article and it's clearly not overwhelming the article Nil Einne 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: I ran across this article while tracking edits made by another vandal, and I've noticed much vandalism here, along with some apparently incomplete removal. I'm commenting here so my reversion to an edit 3 days old doesn't seem suspicious. For instance, on December 5, 86.3.33.75 made the following three edits:   . The net result () was the moving of an entire section (with no changes; I checked with an external tool) and the deletion of an entire section (and the text "hello"). I'm assuming the move/delete was without good reason. The deletion was never restored. It appears that the last version by Amyeis () is the last good one, so I'm reverting to that for now. There has been no new content added since then. I'm hoping I didn't miss something even further back. A quick scan of the article doesn't reveal any obvious problems. --Fru1tbat 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism removal