Talk:Bengal tiger/Archive 2

Culture
Please use before going for the GAN. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image (August 2021)
I'm looking forward to seeing some discussion here from the two of you about the merits of your two proposed infobox images, rather than continued edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well my image of the tiger seemed more clear to me. Plus the lighting in your background seems too bright and the tiger doesnt look right. Thats why I added mu image. Shaan Vinoth (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I replaced the image File:BengalTiger in Mudumalai National Park.jpg as it shows a tiger with one leg cut off. Please also see my edit summaries, in which I repeatedly argued that the quality of this image is not as good as File:Tiger_in_Ranthambhore.jpg. Latter image has been shown in the taxobox for a few years already, as it is the best available one for this purpose to date. Shaan Vinoth did not provide an explanation via edit summary, and I look forward to their argument for insisting on a poor quality image in the taxobox. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While the Mudmalai image is not bad, I must concur with BhagyaMani that the Rathambore image is better. It shows the whole of the tiger in a dynamic pose, but facing the camera. Additionally, it irregular and discouraged for editors to push their own images to be in the taxobox. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gianni Demasco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

National animal
The sentence in the lead section "It is the national animal of India and Bangladesh." is not part of ANY of the four sources cited at the end of this paragraph. Therefore, I have placed this sentence separately with a reference to [books.google.com/books?id=ZsswQ9oTa0wC&pg=PA313&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true this book]. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

'Bengal tiger' is NOT National animal of India. India's national animal is 'Panthera tigris' and Bengal tiger's scientific name is 'Panthera tigris tigris' which is national animal of Bangladesh only. I can put all links about it but hopefully someone can check on net.

Correction and unreliable/inconclusive body sizes of male adult tigers
Hi,

Im from the german tiger wiki site and wanted to add many things.

Many of the weight and measurement informations about the bengal tigers are wrong and that mainly due to the lack of large sampled datas. And the lack of knowledge to mention curve and straight body measurements. The study from Chitwan NP Nepal didnt have 7 males but 7 captures. Looking at the paper they made 49 captures with 26 tigers, which means recaptures are included. The males that were weighed by the project are 181 kg, 200 kg, 204 kg, 270 kg, 270 kg and one seperated male is mentioned by Dr. Mishra that was hunted by the Kind in the 1960s and weighed 181 kg. One can see that the average was raised by the 2 exceptional males.

Also the claim that Terai tiger contantly reach weighst of 227 kg is not true. One of the most respected naturalist weighed a tally of 20 male tigers ranging from 167-258 kg and the averaged worked out at 200 kg. In Central India A.A. Dunbar Brander weighed 42 adult males in Kanha NP area and the average was 190 kg. And also from Assam, Duars and C.behaar 44 males averaged at 205 kg.

One should look at the table made in the german wiki website: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigstiger

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufCatLover (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources provided in the German page are more than 45 years older than the ones ref'ed here. I don't think it relevant to list the same old sources as well. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional Point regarding the sizes of male tigers
First of all the measurements are not accurate as most of these are curve measurements AND not staright measurements.

Recently the datas presented by me were refuted in a bad way. One source came by one of the most known naturalist/scientists. But besides that that wont change the main point.

Male tigers in Terai WONT weigh constantly 227 kglooking even at the new studies. I will list the males and averages (weight, length and food intake) provided by the scientists working for the study. First of all are the "false" sample sizes. The new study disagrees as well. The 200 kg male had average measurements and the 2 272 kg tigers had stomach content and therefore estimated at 261 kg without stomach content with a 140cm chest girth. Nepal males consumed 57 kg in 3 days. If the posts here will change after i present all source i would do it... otherwise its too much work to be at the end ignored by the former users without a valid(reasonable) reason. The tigers had the same measurements as today bengal tigers.... no wonder as they are the same species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufCatLover (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Stating the number of countries in which the tiger is found
I propose adding the bold wording "The Bengal had a much larger range historically. It is currently found in four countries. India's tiger population was estimated at..." It clarifies that the tiger is found in ONLY those countries. Something that is not mentioned in the article elsewhere. BhagyaMani obviously disagrees and has reverted this edit twice now. Bright Orion &#124; talk  10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement is UNsourced and meanwhile also incorrect. See subsection Tibet under Distribution and habitat. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at a distribution map you will see that it is found in only those four countries. That's the source. If you think it is present in Tibet, you could say "It has currently been confirmed in four countries (and possibly exists in Tibet)" or such like. Bright Orion &#124;  talk  10:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That source Luo et al. is 17 years old. Just read the source I added fore record in Tibet : it even contains a photo of the tiger. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is any controversy with regard to which countries it is found in, it would be good to state that in the article. Currently, the article just gives tiger numbers for four countries, and so I assumed it was found only in those countries. Bright Orion &#124;  talk  10:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Luo et al (2004) source says the Bengal tiger is found in western China and western Myanmar in the text. I'd take that over trying to interpret the distribution in a map that doesn't mark country borders. There is also a Luo (2004) article on the status of tigers in China where she presents a table stating 8-12 tigers in Motuo County, Tibet. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the map in the infobox, country borders are shown in white. Bright Orion &#124;  talk  11:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I also ask why my edit mentioning that historically it was found in Pakistan was removed? Bright Orion &#124; talk  11:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also an article by Kang et al. (2010) about historical records in southern Tibet. The borders between the former subspecies was never clearly defined along political borders anyway. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This reference that I added shows it was historically in Pakistan. You just deleted that as if you own the article BhagyaMani. Bright Orion &#124;  talk  11:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historic-and-Current-Geographic-Distribution-of-Tigers-Corresponding-to-the-Eight_fig1_8143646

Your text Can I also ask why my edit mentioning that historically it was found in Pakistan was removed? Bright Orion &#124; talk  11:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also an article by Kang et al. (2010) about historical records in southern Tibet. The borders between the former subspecies was never clearly defined along political borders anyway. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't recall a historical record in Pakistan. You, Jts1882? Pakistan being shown in a map is not evidence for a record there. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It shows the tiger in Pakistan, not just Pakistan. Are you OK? Bright Orion &#124;  talk  11:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pocock didn't have a skin that originated in pre-independence Pakistan. I didn't find any mention on tiger in Pakistan in the writings of early 20th century naturalists like Jepson, Eardley-Wilmot, Stebbing, Champion. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And therefore it was never there, right? Bright Orion &#124;  talk  12:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Solved. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Solved" tells me nothing. So it was in Pakistan, you agree? How about reverting back to my edit in that case? I wrote "The Bengal had a much larger range historically, covering almost all of India and stretching into Pakistan in the west. " I'll revert it, OK? Bright Orion &#124;  talk  12:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, my next suggestion is to say on the article as follows. “The Bengal had a much larger range historically. Its range covered almost all of India and stretched into Pakistan in the west. It is currently found in at least six countries—India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, western China and western Myanmar—and possibly also exists in Tibet." Is this OK with everyone? Bright Orion &#124;  talk  12:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added similar text to this now. Bright Orion &#124;  talk  13:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to reflect what the sources are telling us. However, it is not necessary to count. Cleaner text would be "The Bengal had a much larger range historically. Its range covered almost all of India and stretched into Pakistan in the west. It is currently found in India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, western China, and western Myanmar, and possibly also in Tibet."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I much prefer is present instead of "can be found" or "is found". The word possibly before Tibet needs to be removed, as it was photographed there in spring 2019. Western China is wrong as this refers to a much laaaarger area than just southern Tibet, and all records in Myanmar are in the Indochinese tiger page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I believe this issue is sorted now.  Bright  Orion (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There has never been any systematic survey for identifying individuals and estimating the tiger population in Tibet. So it is INCORRECT to state a population number here that is a guesstimate at best. xx tigers photographed is NOT equal to population size. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Calm down BhagyaMani, or should I say, "easy tiger!" Why, then, does it say "A small population of Bengal tigers, estimated at only 8-12 individuals" in the main Tibet section? Adding numbers in the third paragraph of the article makes sense, because numbers are given for all the other countries. Before you reverted my edit (I think this is the fourth or fifth time now) it said "around a dozen" which is somewhat vague anyway.  Also, a word of advice, if I may. Constantly reverting the same editor's work does tend to irritate them BhagyaMani. I have been on Wikipedia for over 5 years now and created 84 articles, so I do actually know what I'm doing. Thanks.  Bright  Orion  (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Rfc on tiger population
Please see the above "Stating the number of countries in which the tiger is found" I would like to state the number of tigers in Tibet in the third paragraph of the article. BhagyaMani disagrees. Specifically, I propose "India's tiger population was estimated at 2,603–3,346 individuals by 2018. Around 300–500 individuals are estimated in Bangladesh, 220–274 in Nepal, 103 in Bhutan as of 2005, and 10-12 in Tibet.  Bright  Orion (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey


 * If you want to state the population size of Bengal tigers in Tibet, you had better have a dang good and recent source that has a very good basis for that estimate- and right now, a quick search on Google Scholar is saying that Bengal tigers were only recently photographed in Tibet and that they had last been reported there in the 1990s based on livestock predation - but there is a distinct lack of population estimates. So, oppose. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE, and per the definition of the WP:LEAD as summarizing "the most important information" in the body of the article, which isn't even clear about this point. If anything is added to the lead at all about this, it should be vague, and minimal; possibly something like "...and there may be a handful of individuals in Tibet" or some such, but I don't think it warrants mention at all in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Too old datas used (CItwan Study)
Hi,

Firstly as shared before in the other comment i want the exact reason why these datas should be excluded. I couldnt found any evidence in the study to do it like that. The males are bengal tigers captures just 100 years ago in the areas were tigers nowadays accur or accured just few years ago, which is in a genetical view nothing. The measurements didnt change from these times as these are bengal tigers ! (Kanha National Park are mainly and only males from MP), (From Terai including Nepal and the Corbett NP area) and from Assam, C.Behaar and Duars were tiger accur today.

If a study is quoted i want exact excerpts. When the species, measurements and areas are proven to be the same then there is no point denieying it. For a new subspecies significant different lifestyles for hundred of thousand are needed to form a "new" subspecies, which still wont change the dimensions (The Etosha "sea" lions for example)

The study for terai tigers.... well the tigers were captured in 1973 thus contradicting the logic used by the previous user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufCatLover (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)