Talk:Tiger/Archive 2

message: i just want to show my friends this.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger4951 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maneaters

message: Tiger is endangered in general, and the Indochinese tiger is critically endangered. According to outdated Census, their “current” number is 1200 -1800, which is none but a bitter joke. Face it: the census says there are roughly 200 tigers in Vietnam, but in Vietnam, the last sighting of tiger was about 15 years ago, in early 1990s. No tiger has ever been seen in the wild since then, nor can their track be found. According to Professor Vo Quy, leading VietNam wildlife conservationist of the National university, there are only about 10 - 15 Indochinese tigers in VietNam, occurring in scattered forests, meaning they are isolated and so, doomed to extinct unless some serious conservation project is carried out to protect the remmant tigers and extend its habitat, which is heavily and gradually destroyed to give land for agricultural fields. In Laos, the very same situation occurs, with hardly any tiger has been observed in the wild for many years. Cambodia used to have about 400 tigers, but only in five years between 1998 -2003, more than 200 tigers have been poached, for the value of a dead tiger is too high, and the people in tiger regions are so poor, they have to resort to poaching to feed their families, to say nothing about organized poaching teams. Till now, there is no strict enforcement in place in these countries, and high ranking officials are often bribed to allow for poaching. In Myanmar, the tiger, both Bengal and Indochinese, have been virtually eradicated by poachers and militants, so now, they keep the tiger trade going on by…importing tigers from neighboring countries, namely India, Cambodia, Bhutan, Nepal, Thailand. If this this trend goes on, in only 4-5 years from now, the Indochinese tiger will simply be a distant memory. In Malaysia peninsular, about 600 tigers remain, but again, that’s from the census, just like they say there are about 400 sumatran wild tigers remaining in Indonesia. Another exaggeration! If you have been to Sumatra, u know the situation. Government’s deliberate ignorance of tiger poaching; illegal logging that reduces forest area; human’s animosity toward tigers due to killing livestocks and men, so they kill tigers by every means they can think of: trapping, poisoning, shooting etc; all of that, make the tiger number steadily decline. In a new tiger fact sheet published on the wwf global web site, it reads: “A more recent TRAFFIC report published in 2004 revealed that at least 50 Sumatran tigers were poached per year between 1998 and 2002”. That’s it, that’s poaching alone! Something the report doesn't say is once a mother tiger dies, all of her cubs will reunite her very soon, they have no chance on their own. The Sumatran tigers, numbering at best 100 in the wild now, will die a painful death, just like the Indochinese, if we just sit here and listen to pathetic and exaggerated tiger census. If you have read this book, “Of tiger and men”, Valmik Thapar, an Indian tiger experts, has the same view about the tiger. He says, there are at best 700-800 matured tigers in India, as opposed to about 1800-2000 breeding individuals in the census, 100 tigers in Thailand(opposed to 400-500), and a total of 2000 tigers in the world now. So sorry that I have to agree. Not enough habitats exist anymore in Southeast Asia to support that unusually high no of census tigers, not anymore, to say nothing of constant poaching pressure from time to time. Census tends to give a higher number of paper tigers than the real ones. Why? First, they are largely based on pugmark identification, which often give a higher number than the real one. Second, if they don’t do so, it’s just like admitting their failure to save the tigers. It’s so obvious that once the Indochinese tigers go extinct, it will be the Bengal tiger that receives the death sentence. In fact, it is already starting now, with the Bengal tigers being poached and exported to Myanmar, where they will be exported to the rest of the world, especially Japan, China, including Taiwan, taipei and Hong kong.  According to the tiger newsletter I got, also from the wwf global website panda.org, last updated feb 2005: “In recent months there have been several seizures of tiger skins and parts by Indian authorities. WWF was instrumental in aiding some of these seizures. However, at the same time, we learn from news reports that two important Tiger Reserves in India, Sariska and Ranthambore, have lost most of their tigers".
If you don’t belive what I have said above, read this book:
BLACK MARKET: Inside the endangered species trade in Asia.
It just published in 2005, and therefore, would be available now. I highly recommended this one, as it will give you factual accounts of the endangered species trade in the world then, now and tomorrow if we just sit here and believe these animals will somehow be rescued.Once u read it, u will see that the outlook is not as bright as the some whitepapers tell you. In fact, it may be a little too dark. I always knew these animals are brutally treated by human, but I couldn’t imagine it was that brutal until I read this book. 
One last thing I want to note: How cruely the tiger are treated, that very same way for all other endangered species, be it asian elephants, rhinos, gaur, pangolin, banteng… Please keep that in mind when you read these lines. So if we are animal lovers and care about the existence and thrive of these magnificent animals, act now to save these species. We together, will make a difference.  The easiest yet the most effective thing we can do is to convince people surrounding us to stop using wildlife products. That way, we can stop the demand for wildlife products, and so, the supply.
Tiger is indeed dwindling. "While Bhutan and Russia have also reported a stable tiger population, the species is fast dwindling in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Laos."
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=241924
India is no exception. 4500 is a joke, Sariska and ranthambore are two great examples of theory and reality
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.220.146.21 (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a point to this editorial?  Should it be deleted as not relevant to the tiger article? Lighthope 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper tigers - pathetic census 

message: do they hunt in grougs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.1.1 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was "in grouPs". 68.101.123.219 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tigers  

message: The Lion, according to the Lion Page, is the second largest cat behind the Tiger.  The Tiger, according to the Tiger Page, is the second largest of the cats - at least in the introduction paragraph.  The next paragraph says its the largest.  ??
People keep vandalizing the page for they think lion is the most powerful big cat! What a nonsense! First, tiger is much bigger than lion, average or largest. Second, even a 120 kg male sumatran tiger will take down a 200 kg male lion in 5 - 10 minutes. Strongest in what way? In one way: strong in number.
: The Lion is the second largest cat found in the wild.  The Tiger is the largest.  The Liger, which is very, very rarely found in the wild but which does exist in captivity in several places, is larger than either.  The Lion page could be changed to reflect this.  The second paragraph of the Tiger page says it is the largest feline in the wild, so it is accurate.
: It doesn't matter which is stronger between the Lion and the Tiger.  It is simply not the sort of thing that you put in an encyclopedia article.  It is childish nonsense.  The Elephant article doesn't mention that the Elephant is the "most powerful" land animal - we just note that it is the heaviest, because that is all that need be mentioned. - Atarr 18:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: The word 'pink' appears incorrectly at the bottom of the infobox.  This could probably be quickly repaired by someone who isn't afraid of breaking the infobox. 69.181.181.156 05:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox typo 

message: What idiot wrote in this:  "Adult elephants are too dangerous to tigers to serve as common prey, but conflicts between tuskers and tigers sometimes take place, which often end up with the tuskers being backed off by the big cat." ???
Tigers DO NOT back off elephants!  No more than lions back off elephants.   That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.   It needs to be removed all together.   The elephant is far too much for ANY cat.  Dumb Tiger fanboys.
Calm down, folk. Tigers do not back off elephant, true! They KILL them:
http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html
But, look at this! Unbelievable! 
http://www.resourceshimalaya.org/contemporary_issues/india/tiger_kills_man_injures_elephant.htm
4 elephants fighting alongside fail to bring down a Northern Indian tiger. Yes, 4 against 1, without having the tiger dead, and 1 elephant is even badly wounded, despite outnumbering the cat. Unimaginable!
 
Please, stop comparing lions to tigers. We don't say: a lion, we say: Lions. But for tiger, it's: a tiger. A whole lion pride is always needed to kill cape buffalo. Yet, a cape buffalo is far cry from the Asian wild buffalo:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KG7tgRN2UNc
and the gaur, the king of all wild ox:
(link removed ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afew cases have apperently been reported, where tigers killed even adult elephant bulls. One case from Kumaon is reported by  Smythies (published in Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 1940) and confirmed by Corbett, where two tigers killed an adult elephant bull with 55 kg tuskers in a three hours fight.  Smythies alo mentioned here 9 other cases of heavy tiger attacks on elephants.  (Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 . Page 78)--Altaileopard 11:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tigers And Elephants Error

message: I think it would be good to add this info. I dont know how accurate it is!
I am new to wiki so I cant edit the tiger page. 
Elizabeth von Muggenthaler is a bioacoustician from the Fauna Communications Research Institute in North Carolina. Bioacoustics studies animal behavior by analyzing the volume, pitch, frequency, and duration of the animal's sounds. 
Von Muggenthaler believes that a tiger's roar has the power to paralyze listeners, including prey animals, and even human trainers. "When a tiger roars-the sound will rattle and paralyze you," she says. "Although untested, we suspect that this is caused by the low frequencies and loudness of the sound." Certainly, anyone who has heard the spine-tingling roar of a tiger in a manmade zoo den can attest to the intimidating result.
The bioacoustician and her colleagues have recorded the growls, chuffs, hisses, and roars of 24 tigers in hopes of learning more about their behavior, with the ultimate goal of protecting them from extinction.
http://cats.about.com/b/a/032702.htm 
ArthurHerbetFonzarelli 07:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger's roar has the power to paralyze listeners!!! 

message: This segment should have more details on the critically endangered status of the tiger in India, home to the world's largest wild population. The following paras can complete the section (sources listed below):
In January 2005, The Indian Express broke the news that India's Sariska tiger reserve had lost all its tigers.1 After initial denials, the government confirmed the news in March 2005 when India's Central Bureau of Invstigation submitted their probe report, citing rampant poaching.(2)(3) 
In the following months, disturbing news were reported from tiger reserves across the country. In November 2005, an investigation by The Indian Express revealed how a group of poachers killed 22 tigers in Ranthambhore tiger reserve.4 Going by an interim report of the Wildlife Institute of India released in May 2007, the surviving tiger population in the country may not cross the 2000-mark.5 Before this report, official figures claimed more than 3700 wild tigers in India.
1http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=63280
2http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=66639
3http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1064958.cms
4http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/archive_full_story.php?content_id=82342
5http://www.indianexpress.com/story/31720.html
122.162.91.230 21:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tiger: extinction threats 

message: I would like to add a link to http://www.tijgeritorium.net/, because it has a lot of information about these beautiful animals.
:I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semi-protected, so anyone with this page on their watchlist will see the request. Or, if you prefer, you can create an account and wait a couple of days in order to edit the page yourself. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of factual errors on that webpage.  Needs some cleaning up first. Lighthope 22:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for changing protected page 

message: Obviously this is trivial, but does anyone know for what reason a tiger's gums are white when healthy?  I know that they turn blue-white if they are not well but not why they are white to begin with.  In the most sincere manner, -</font>A Sprig of Fig & a lock of holly 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gums 

message: I see Myanmar was reverted to Burma by Local yokel. Since Burma changed its name to Myanmar, I think it makes more sense to use the new name. Even in Wiki Burma defaults to the Myanmar page. Other countries have changed their names, like Ceylon to Sri Lanka, and the new name should replace the old one. I'll change it unless someone has a good argument not to. Bob98133 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burma/Myanmar?

message: The article says the tiger population today has dwindled to 2,500. But I found atleast one other source which claims a minimum headcount of 5,000 to a maximum headcount of 7,500 tigers today.  Anwar 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article says, there are not more than 2500 breeding individulas. --Altaileopard 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger population

message: There was a formatting error in the references in the food section of this article.  I can't figure out what version of the section was the most appropriate, and don't have time to search through diffs right now.  I think someone went to add some cited information, but added the citation incorrectly and wiped out most of the information about food.  I can't tell, but I think the IP address that kept making edits was actually trying to fix the formatting, but just didn't know how. --JayHenry 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting error in food section 

message: I deleted two small parts, as they are probably speculative and unconfirmed.
*and both tend to avoid each other. (tigers and brown bears). According to Mazak (Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983.) tiger attacks on bears are probably more common than usually believed. He knows 17 attacks on bears between 1944 and 190 in the russian far East and 15 attacks on bears alone in the central Sikchote Alin between 1950 and 1959. Four different studies (all mentioned in the book) reveal, that bears make up 5-8% of the Siberian tigers diet. It is probably right, that tigers, which a not very hungry tend to avoid adult brown bears, but this is actually not confirmed. Even adult males are among the victims. At least one case (it is described in the book) is reported where an large adult male brown bear was killed by a male tiger and one case is described in the same book, where a tigress pulled an adult brown bear female  (with cubs)out of a den and killed it..... An indian tiger, which specialized on killing sloth bears is also mentioned in the book.
*after their hibernation. (Tigers ambush adult brown bears....) perhaps it is not wrong, but it is also not confirmed. The above mentioned tigress killed the female brown bear in February, the large male bear was killed in winter!?
--Altaileopard 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brown bear as prey 

message: The amount of original research which keeps getting posted with no proof or references, mainly regarding size and prey, is just getting ridiculous now (example; The siberian tiger article mentioned that siberian tigers killed kodiak bears, despite the blatantly obvious difference in geography present in their names). I think it would benefit the articles on all tiger subspecies a lot if they were all in a state of semi-protection. Just look at the grey wolf article, and you'll see that it is a model animal article as a result.83.187.226.129 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger articles seriously need protection 

message: He eliminado la vista comparativa entre un humano y un tigre de Siberia, pues el tamaño del tigre en esa ilustración es exagerado, ya si el humano mide 1.80 m (6 pies), el tigre mediría alrededor de 1.50 m (5 pies) a la altura de la cruz, ningun tigre actual tiene ese tamaño.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  201.166.113.73 (talk • contribs).
: I noticed that you have posted comments  in a language other than English.  When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments.  For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.   --Dubidub 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: En inglés, por favor. (Assuming Sr. there doesn't know English). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Es exagerado. 

message: For an encyclopedic article, this one has no mention of the average lifespan of tigers in general or that of the various subspecies!
Please correct this!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.87.106 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of average life span of tigers! 

message: There is a picture of a supposed 'liger' on the Tiger wiki page... there is no such thing as a Liger, it is a fictional animal from the movie Napoleon Dynamite.  The picture is a nice looking fake, but makes this wiki look silly.  I suggest delting the Liger picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdg9 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger wiki ERROR 

message: This section is in major need of revision from recent sources. In light of the recognition of the Malayan tiger as a seperae subspecies. For example it still claims the largest population is in Malaysia. Is this true? I suspect most or all of the Malaysian tigers are Malayan tigers so probably not. The numbers also need to be looked at. We can presume any number predating the 2004 article would include Malayan tigers. This also applies to the Indochinese tiger article to some extent Nil Einne 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indochinese tigers 

message: OK, I cut-and-pasted this here as some can be reincorporated with refs once there is a structure to this bit rather than the mess it is now. I have a couple of symbolism books. The idea would be a chronological progression much like lion but shorter. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuttled cultural depiction part 

message: In Encarta () it says that although in the past the Tiger family was divided into eight subspecies, recent studies show no reason to keep them apart, and therefore no subspecies (or just one) is nowadays recognized. From that point on it only talks about the species.
Does the article here need an update, is Encarta wrong, or is the matter still non-universally accepted?
--Deepfield 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is news to me.  And Encarta doesn't cite any references to support this claim, either.  So until it can be verified, I don't see any reason to change the article. Lighthope 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger subspecies 

message: Is there a way to display the media section more compactly? It's sort of distracting and long. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: I wanted to suggest that you move the picture of the Sumatran tiger next to the "Habitat" section down to where you discuss the Flehmen response, since that Sumatran tiger is exhibiting the flehmen response. I know other animals such as rhinos and deer also do the Flehmen thing. Also you discuss Tara the tigress in two different sections. Why not combine them? She was donated by the Frankfurt Zoological Society to Billy Singh for the reintroduction project. You've actually given me some ideas for another article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.195.4 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flehmen response 

message: I removed the following from the list of places where tigers are "national animals": 
* Former Nazi Germany along with the black eagle (currently it is the black eagle (Bundesadler) (official) and leopard (unofficial)
* Former USSR (Siberian Tiger) (currently it is the Bear and golden bicephalic eagle)
First, the wording implies that both Nazi Germany and the USSR are still in existence.  Second, both statements are questionable and unsourced.  I've personally never heard of either being represented by tigers.  Thirdly, the parentheses are miscounted.  Some administrative regions and cities in the Russian Federation (e.g. Primorsky Krai) do feature tigers as official mascots or on their crests, but I don't personally feel that's notable enough to mention. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Symbols 

message: Is it really necessary to have so many videos posted? Many of them are the same as the others and really should be removed in my opinion. I makes the page look ugly. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely second the motion, especially since the videos are not particularly informative - revealing nothing biological except for how dull life in captivity can be.  Easier access to the Citations, References and External Links would be welcome.  If they were entirely removed - or perhaps all but one - that would be just fine by me. Any more opinions?  Eliezg (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they're in Commons, just the Commons box in the external links should be enough. Before, it was fine when the videos required a separate media player to play, but now with browser play there's a big ugly screen instead. Endorse removal. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, what the heck, I did it.  If anyone feels strongly otherwise they're welcome to revert.  Looking over the article there are lots of other problems.  The "conservation" section is all about poaching, chinese medicine and rewilding programs (truly excessive - these can be summarized in a vouple of sentences no?) - there is only a cursory and choppy mention of status, habitat, prospects, historical trends, international conservation efforts - in a paragraph dominated by the image of Chinese businessmen chewing tiger penis!  An expert's input (and some heavy-handed editing) would be welcome.  No?   Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The recent clean-up of Lion to Featured Article status could serve as a model here.  But you're right that tiger needs a huge amount of work. --JayHenry (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - lots of work needed. Many of these huge sub-sub sections can be forked into seperate wikis. Some sections need merging. Too much material about specific projects in few parts of the world, but no worthwhile overview. Very unbalanced. AshLin (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Videos

message: I performed a great purging and rewriting of material in the Conservation section. It remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, but at least it doesn't consume tens of thousands of kilobytes of questionable material (POV, OR, self-endorsements, trivial material). In case people want to look through it and see if there is anything worth gleaning I dumped most of it in a page here: Talk:Tiger/Extractions.  Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did some more of the same, moving the salient bit of the Maneater section to the "Relationship with Humans" section, and the bulk of the overly long and specific stuff to: Talk:Tiger/Maneaters.  Actually, I think there is enough interesting and well-referenced material there to warrant a new Wikipedia article: Tiger Maneaters or Maneating Tigers.  It looks almost good to go as is.  Thoughts?  Eliezg (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and created a new Man-eating tiger page from the purged material.  It just seemed a shame to leave all that stuff in limbo, especially since someone had obviously put a lot of effort into it!  I did try to improve the encyclopedic style of the article, but succeeded only to a point.  It probably need to be cross-linked and tagged and categorized in a dozen different ways, but it's there.  Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purging

message: "...12,000 tigers are being kept as private pets in the USA, which is significantly more than the world's entire wild population.[62] 4000 are believed to be in captivity in Texas alone.[62]...The SPCA estimate there are now 500 lions, tigers and other big cats in private ownership just in the Houston area.[62]" 
All of the references for the claims of vast numbers of pet tigers are citing a book version of a TV quiz show.  Is this up to Wikipedia's reference standards for such an amazing claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 (talk • contribs) 
: Yeah, that can't possibly be true. --JayHenry (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These figures must be more reliable. http://www.felineconservation.org/species/dynamics.asp?key=190 Shyamal (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12,000 pet tigers in the US?!? 

message: Should there be refrence made to the fact Tatiana the Tiger in San Francisco was able to scale and leap over a wall over 12 feet tall?
: Not until this is unambiguously confirmed.  I haven't heard that negligence on the part of keepers has been entirely ruled out.  That said, I'm sure there are sources somewhere reporting on the leaping ability of tigers. Eliezg (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tigers have the ability to leap over 6+ foot fences while carrying a full grown deer.  It was mentioned in a couple of books I read on tigers by hunters/conservationists like Jim Corbett.  But I can't recall the exact book, so I can't source it. Lighthope (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEAPING ABILITY