Talk:Central African lion

Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Genetic diversity of Central African lions


Not only was the work of Reginald Innes Pocock (who is accepted as being reliable) on the size of Central African lions removed from this article again, even though the 'improve' tag had been added after you did that the first time, your actions suggest that the works of people like Allen, Haas et al., and Heptner and Sludskii (1972), on Central African lions are irrelevant, even though I just recently explained that Central African lions are not all the same, genetically speaking. Leo1pard (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A so-called 'Central African lion' is neither mentioned in any of those references nor was it described as having a distinct subspecific status in past centuries. That is why these refs are irrelevant in the context. Bertola et al.'s map clearly shows that from a genetic point of view admixture of leo and melanochaita did NOT occur in central Africa, but in eastern Africa. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ... Except for a small group in D. R. Congo, which is connected to lions in Uganda in East Africa. In addition, if you did not want this article to have come up in the first place, then you should not have removed all that information about Panthera leo senegalensis occurring in Central Africa. Just as the Bengal tiger is not strictly restricted to the Bengali region, the Senegal lion is not strictly restricted to Senegal or Western Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Who -- and where in all those refs you keep repeating -- ever claimed that the subspecies named 'Senegal lion' occurs in Central Africa? By far most contemporary authors dispensed with referring to subspecific names of populations. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are asking me this question, after deleting a lot of referenced information in articles like West African lion. It is a bit as if you were to delete referenced information about the Bengal tiger in places outside the Bengali region, such as Ranthambore National Park, and then ask me "Who -- and where in all those refs you keep repeating -- ever claimed that the subspecies named 'Bengal tiger' occurs outside the Bengali region?" Because of that, I prefer not to answer your question directly here, with an exception, but that I should restore much of the referenced information that you took time to delete in favor of other information with other references, so that you can go over it again, including the references that were used for them. In addition, to answer your earlier comment "A so-called 'Central African lion' is neither mentioned in any of those references nor was it described as having a distinct subspecific status in past centuries. That is why these refs are irrelevant in the context ..." this is wrong, Pocock (1939, Page 216) said that "the Indian lion is approximately the same size as Central African lions." Leo1pard (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And this is not the first time that I have had to point to certain details which you did not notice, so kindly be careful about deleting referenced information, be it from me or someone else, in favor of your viewpoint, which can constitute WP:Bias. What I would often do, if there is a piece of information that I find objectionable, but is appropriately referenced, is not to delete the reference, but add another reference, making adjustments to the information if possible. Leo1pard (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * When Pocock wrote about size, then in the context of skull size, but not about body weight or body size. The museum did not have complete lion skeletons. He understood that body weight is not a typical characteristic of a subspecies or criteria for designation of one. That is why he measured and described so many skulls in minute detail. Remember: in the section that I deleted YOU referenced body weight using Pocock (1939), as if Pocock had ever written anything about body weight of lions in Central Africa in this book. This is what I call: pretending, which is why I deleted it.
 * Btw: there are indeed lots of publications using both Panthera tigris tigris and common name 'Bengal tiger' about tiger in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Just have a look at the long list of references in the resp. article. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) If that was the case, then why did you not edit it that way in the first place?
 * 2) The bit about skulls was mentioned after Pocock talked about the body sizes, it was in the section about body sizes that Pocock talked about Indian lions being similar in size to Central African lions. It was Pocock who said that two Gir lions had head-and-body measurements of 198 cm each, with tail-lengths of 89 and 79 cm, and total lengths of 287 and 282 cm, respectively, quoting people like Lord Lavington. Since when does a lion's skull measure something like 198 cm? The record total length for a lion's skull was 41.9 cm (Best et al., 1962). Leo1pard (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Pocock (1939)'s focus was clearly NOT African mammals, so he did NOT give detailed measurements of African lions. Btw Heptner and Sludskii focus was neither African but mammals in SU and neighbouring region. Hence both not appropriate refs in this context. What's your reason for ignoring more suitable publications about African lions? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, they put information about African lions, even if that was not their main focus, and now you are calling the work of Pocock and Heptner and Sludskii 'irrelevant', even though these are references that you have respected before? Leo1pard (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And for your allegation "What's your reason for ignoring more suitable publications about African lions?" You have ignored publications on African lions, such as what Haas et al. did regarding the range of the Senegal lion from Western to Central Africa, yourself. You removed work that referenced publications like that of Haas et al., yourself. It is because you delete work that references sources like Haas et al., that I make sections like this. I would look at sources like that of Nowell and Jackson, and Haas et al., and add what they said, but then you would delete information like that, a number of times. Leo1pard (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I did NOT write their work is irrelevant per se, but only 'not appropriate refs in this context'. More suitable would have been, and still is, to reference publications about African lions, some of which Haas et al. also used, e.g. Smithers, Kingdon, Schaller and then the contemporary ones like Funston, Packer, Mills, Henschel, Sogbohossou .. quite a few people who worked and still work on African lions, and collated significantly more data about them than Pocock or Heptner and Sludskii. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * But still, you delete information that references sources like Haas et al., for a topic like that of African lions. Leo1pard (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At least 260 peer-reviewed publications since 1950 about lions in Africa: pity that you keep referring to so very few. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So you you agree that I can make certain changes, based on their work? Leo1pard (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest it really worthwhile to incorporate and reference more info from so far neglected sources. It may not be possible to screen and use all of the 260+ publications. But frankly: Haas et al.'s is basically just a summary of what was known until 2005. And since then, more than 100 were published!! Show the diversity of authors and knowledge collated rather than using this well trodden article as a sole source. Enjoyed the discussion! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, in the context of Africa, defining the Leonic clade (P. l. leo) as the clade of lions that are related to the Asiatic lion, and the Melanochaitan clade (P. l. melanochaita) as the clade of lions in Eastern and Southern Africa which are less closely related to the Asian, the first sentence ("The Central African lion (Panthera leo leo) is a lion population in Central Africa") suggests that all lions in Central Africa are Leonic, rather than Melanochaitan, but the work of Bertola et al. (2016) shows that lions in parts of Central Africa that are adjacent to Eastern and Southern Africa are related to lions in the latter areas, therefore, that the former are of the Melanochaitan clade. Secondly, Uganda is in East Africa, not Central Africa. Leo1pard (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That is not how I read it. The "Central African lion is a lion population in Central Africa" does not mean all lions in Central Africa are Central African lions, although I can see why someone might assume they were. Perhaps something like the "Central African lion is a lion population in the northern Savanna region of Central Africa" would be better. Alternatively "a lion population found north of the tropical forests of Central Africa".  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you mean the Congo lion, which had the trinomen Panthera leo azandica, and is found in Virunga National Park? I know that Congo lion now redirects to this page, but then, just as not all Southern African lions are Kalahari lions, not all Central African lions are Congolese lions.

Hi, can I ask why you decided to redirect your article Central African lion clade to this page, and make this page more or less reflect what you put in there, when what you are talking about is the "Central clade" mentioned by Bertola et al., which was treated as being part of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), whereas other Central African lions were found to be related to the southern subspecies (P. l. melanochaita), which I explained in the page to which I had redirected Central African lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The lion population referred to as the Central African lion is the northern subspecies. Not all lions in countries referred to as geopolitical Central Africa are part of this population. The ones in the south of Congo are the southwest African population and it is possible that some in the east of Congo are eastern lions. As I said just over a year ago (see a few posts above) the Central African lion is only found in the northern part of geographical Central Africa. Why is this such a problem with lions. There is no problem with Siberian/Amur or Indian/Bengal tigers in China.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "Central African lion" was actually used by Reginald Innes Pocock in 1939, long before people like Bertola et al. conducted phylogeographic tests on lions in places like Central Africa, so the term "Central African lion" doesn't necessarily mean lions in Central Africa that are of the "Central clade" of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), particularly considering that the Northeast Congo lion (formerly P. l. azandica) was suspected to be closely related to lions in East Africa (which were treated as belonging to the southern subspecies (P. l. melanochaita)), and that does appear to be the case. As for the question of why there should be such a problem with African lions and not tigers, I have two things to say:
 * 1) The Cat Specialist Group said "Few species have received so much scientific attention regarding

subspecific taxonomy as the tiger," and it seems that even the formerly recognized subspecies of tigers are better known than the formerly recognized subspecies of African lions, and I suspect that this may have to do with the fact that whereas only 8 or 9 subspecies of tigers had been recognized before 2017, depending on whether or not you treat the Malayan tiger (formerly Panthera tigris jacksoni) separately from the Indochinese tiger (formerly P. t. corbetti), formerly recognized subspecies of African lions are much more numerous; 9 subspecies of lions (including the Nubian lion (formerly P. l. nubica), Abyssinian or Ethiopian lion (P. l. roosevelti), Somali lion (P. l. somaliensis or P. l. webbiensis), Sotik lion (P. l. hollisteri), Masai lion (P. l. massaica), and Ugandan lion (P. l. nyanzæ)) had been described East Africa alone.
 * 2) With the possible exception of the Malayan and (northern) Indochinese tigers on one hand, and the Amur (formerly P. t. altaica) and Caspian tigers (formerly P. t. virgata) on the other, whereas geographic divisions exist between populations of tigers, such as the Bengal tiger (P. t. tigris) of South Asia, Siberian tiger (formerly P. lt. altaica) of the Far East, and Sumatran tiger (formerly P. t. sumatræ), and between the 2 newly classified subspecies, the Mainland Asian tiger (P. t. tigris) and Sunda Island tiger (P. t. sondaica), the 2 newly classified subspecies of lions, the northern (P. l. leo) and southern (P. l. melanochaita) subspecies, share the same continent, Africa, and overlap there, given their migratory nature. Leo1pard (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We can't merely say that Central African lions are P. l. leo because firstly, genetic assessments show that not all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), and secondly, the Cat Specialist Group expressed uncertainty regarding its classification of lions, because unlike tiger subspecies, which are geographically separated, the two subspecies of lions share the same landmass, that is Africa, and likely overlap there, and they just said that P. l. leo exists in places like Central Africa, not that all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies. Not only did they put a question mark over their map in Page 72, they admitted that morphological diagnoses were unknown, so we should not act as if the recognition of P. l. leo as existing in Central Africa means that all Central African lions are of this subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC); edited 07:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is clearly and unmistakable defined in the lead, in which part of Central Africa P. l. leo occurs, namely in the northern part. And the resp. range countries are listed in the table with LCUs that has been copy-pasted into the African lion page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Even then, there's an issue, because within northern Central Africa, certain lions were found by Barnett et al. to be maternally related to the Southern subspecies, so what you're talking about here is what you would call the "Central African lion clade" or what Bertola et al. referred to as the "Central clade", which is also present in East Africa, rather than the Central African lion that was originally described by Pocock in 1939. Leo1pard (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC); edited 12:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The Central African lion population in Bénoué National Park and Waza National Park is related to Panthera leo leo, and the population in Virunga National Park, East Africa, is closely related to Panthera leo melanochaita. Both populations in Waza & Bénoué and in Virunga National Park are parts of Central African lion population. So, I put Cameroon lion for Waza, and Congo lion for Virunga National Park. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not telling us anything new!! Again : the term 'Central African lion' is clearly and unmistakably defined in the VERY 1st sentence as a leo population occuring in NORTHERN parts of Central Africa. What do you not understand about this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to give WP:biased judgements about what is what? I already told you that it's your page "Central African lion clade" that is the P. l. leo population in northern parts of Central Africa, and that my article is about Central African lions in general. Punetor i Rregullt5 has understood this, and once again you are showing the attitude that nobody else can tell you what you don't know. Leo1pard (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Cameroon lion (formerly P. l. kamptzi) is part of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), and the Northeast Congo lion (formerly P. l. azandica) is related to Southeast African lions (P. l. melanochaita) in neighbouring Uganda, though other Congolese lions are different, as per Bertola et al. Leo1pard (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to talk only about the clade of northern lions that is present in East and northern Central Africa, then do so in your page "Central African lion clade", not this article of mine. My article is about lions in Central Africa, whether or not they are of the northern clade or subspecies, it is your page that was created specifically for the northern lions there. is right to state what reliable sources say about Central African lions being of the different subspecies, in this page. Leo1pard (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The synonym "P. l. bleyenberghi" it is used for both, for lions of Virunga National Park and for Southern subspecies according to Bertola et al, 2016. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, bleyenberghi was for lions in the Katanga Province, in the southern part of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, whereas Virunga National Park is in the northeastern of the country, so bleyenberghi lions were called "Katanga lions", whereas azandica lions were called "Northeast Congo lions" or "Congo lions". Leo1pard (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No more lions in the north?
Hi, can I ask what you meant by "no more lions in the north", considering where Virunga National Park is located? Leo1pard (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Request to update link and name of park
On behalf of African Parks via the Wyss Foundation, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am submitting a request to have "Odzala National Park" changed to "Odzala-Kokoua National Park", the park's official name. Since the Wikipedia article has been moved (see Talk:Odzala-Kokoua National Park), I am trying to update links throughout the encyclopedia, but I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest. I am not looking to add a link, I'm only looking to have the existing link/text corrected. Thank you in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
I need a source that is labeled with the new hyphenated name.      Spintendo       23:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo, the title of the source currently used as an inline citation is "The status of savanna carnivores in the Odzala-Kokoua National Park, northern Republic of Congo", which is why I did not provide sourcing here. I think this URL is the same source, if you want to add to the citation. Inkian Jason (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Change made. Both the wikipedia article on the park (and references therein) and reference given inline uses the name that has been requested.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are lions in Sudan Central African?
This contains the details. Leo1pard (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Cameroon lion
Lets have a look at this paragraph and references therein: "The Cameroon lion (formerly P. l. kamptzi) is found in the western part of Central Africa. Several studies have shown that the population at Bénoué National Park is closely related to the West African lion and other lions in the northern part of Africa as well as with the Asiatic lion. Lions occur in Bénoué National Park and Waza National Park.  The Cameroon national football team is nicknamed "The Indomitable Lions" based on the lion's strength in Cameroon."

1) Bauer et al. (2004) does not mention anything about lions from Cameroon being related to any other lions. This article is about an inventory of populations. 2) In the IUCN Red List account, the word 'Cameroon' is mentioned ONCE, and this ONE mention not in regards to any relatedness, but listed as a lion range country. The Cat SG indeed refers to Bertola et al (2016) and other studies about lion phylogeography. So these should be referenced here. The football stuff has NOTHING AT ALL to do with taxonomy or phylogeography, hence is completely misplaced in this context. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been changed :) Leo1pard (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you convince about Congo and Cameroon lions population? — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, because doesn't want to listen to others, even if he's wrong. He's a WP:Disruptive editor with a history of doing simply what he wants, not just in articles like this. Look what's happened in Terai and its talk-page, for example. He's been like this for years, and I warned him that I know what's been going on even in 2013, but that doesn't seem to matter to him. It's when things like this happen that he stops ignoring others, but things like that have happened again and again, so he doesn't really want to change his disruptive style of editing or the way he treats others. Leo1pard (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Lets have a look at this sentence: "Several studies have shown that some captive lions in Ethiopia's Addis Ababa Zoo were found to be genetically similar to wild lions from Cameroon and Chad."

1) only ONE article is referenced, so writing 'several .. have shown' is INcorrect!! 2) linking 'lions' to 'African lion#Northeast African population' is a case of WP:EGG. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that I rearranged the thing to be more accurate about what relevant sources say, but you reverted that, and as per WP:EGG, "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense," which is not the case here, especially as that section says something that you've been saying all along, that those lions are linked to Central African lions. Leo1pard (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Congo lion
"Lets have a look at this paragraph and references therein: The Congo lion (formerly P. l. azandica) is found in Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo. Several studies have showed that the population in Virunga National Park is closely related to southern subspecies. The Southeast African lion (P. l. melanochaita) is believed to be in parts of D. R. Congo or Central Africa that are adjacent to East African countries like Uganda."

1) azandica Allen1924 are ALREADY mentioned in the list with subspecific names, so this is duplicated info, hence redundant. 2) Jackson perhaps repeats Allen, so what is this ref good for. 3) The info about lions in Virunga NP is superfluous in this page, as these are contiguous with lions in East Africa, see East African lion, so is NOT within the scope of this page. 4) The Cat SG did NOT EVEN use the term 'Southeast African lion' in conjunction with P. l. melanochaita -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * See this. The same refs are used in African lion as well but nobody has moved them for about 2-3 months. So, now, I just made a "simple" and a "correct" edit, and you are moving my edits repeatedly for the purpose that "Congo lion is included in the Central African lion population" but should not be placed there because "you have mentioned it before".
 * That's because nobody but you care about this page. That it's there does not make it necessary to repeat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong, I care about this page, and because of your biased edits here even in the beginning, I've had to talk to you as far back as 2017 regarding your misleading, biased, hence disruptive style of editing. Leo1pard (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Change your habit : Sign your talks. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I can ask you where is the information contained in the section of "Cameroon" and "Congo lion"?


 * Cameroon lion - part of P. l. leo and also part of West African population
 * Congo lion - part of P. l. melanochaita in East Africa and Central African population

And if I copied the text, please delete the previous text and replace it with my text (for more correctness) — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the additions I made at the end of the section *Phylogeographic research* about which samples clustered in the so-called 'central clade'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is about Central African lions in general, not just the 'Central' clade that was referred to Bertola et al. It is your page "Central African lion clade" that was created specifically for the Central clade, not my article. How many times do I have to tell you this? Leo1pard (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be about the genetically defined population. Central African lion is a name. If the article was about lions from the geopolitical area it would be called Central African lions or, less ambiguously, Lions of Central Africa as there is more than one lion. I don't think such an article would pass the Wikipedia notability test as it includes different lion populations which are only united by being in a region that is defined differently in different contexts.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jts1882!! That was exactly my aim to limit this to the genetically defined population. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You turned it back into an article, even though I told you many times that your page "Central African lion clade" is about the clade that was defined by Bertola et al. Leo1pard (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to say here that it's 's page "Central African lion clade" that was supposed to be about the genetically defined clade which is present not only in northern Central Africa, but also East Africa, according to Bertola et al., and that I had repeatedly said to him that if he wants to talk specifically about that, then he should do so there, not here, and I wasn't always keen on this being an article, but supported the notion of his page being an article that is actually about the genetically defined population, but BhagyaMani himself hasn't been keen on that, despite being the creator of that page. He's the one who created the page to talk specifically about the Central clade, before changing his mind about what it should be like. In addition, I see that he has one rule for himself, and one rule for others. After I made edits to be more accurate about what relevant sources say, considering what was said here, about what references say what, he reverted that with the excuse that people like me are supposed to first respond in the talk-page, before making more edits that show that he's not keen on what's in the talk-page himself:, , Leo1pard (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't have seperate articles on Central African lion and Central African lion clade. It's questionable whether either meet Wikipedia standards for notability. In my opinion the clade probably does because it contains lions previously defined as races or subspecies for which there are a number of scientific references to meet wikipedia standards for verifiability. The lions of Central Africa are three populations that just happen to be in the region Central Africa. It makes no more sense than article on Tigers of China to cover Amur, Bengal, South Chinese and Indochinese tigers (is there a 5th?). There isn't much support for these articles from other editors and if they get put up for deletion again I suspect there will be support for deletion. The only way of retaining a central african lion article of some kind is a clearly defined article with sources for the content. I think this can be done for the clade, but not the region.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (+) The name "Central African lion" has been used in more than one source, just as "Amur tiger", which redirects to Siberian tiger has its use in sources, so I wanted this page to be a redirect for a bigger article that says which clade, population or subspecies are where, with the relevant references, and that "Central African lion clade" should be the article about the defined clade. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 16:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The term central African lion has generally been used loosely to refer to lions in Central Africa, not any particular population or group of populations with something in common (apart from geography). This is certainly how Pocock used it to compare size with the Indian tiger (I made this comment in more detail within the last hour somewhere within the lion article complex). There is nothing on the lions of Central Africa that can't be included in the African lion article.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, African lion can contain information on lions in the different regions of Africa, particularly Central Africa, especially if it concerns populations which the CSG had trouble assigning to either P. l. leo or P. l. melanochaita, or where clades belonging to both subspecies are shown by genetic assessments to be present. Leo1pard (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

--- Lets have a look at this sentence and references therein: "The Southeast African lion (P. l. melanochaita) is believed to be in parts of D. R. Congo or Central Africa that are adjacent to East African countries like Uganda."

1) The ref CatSG2017 does NOT refer to the term 'Southeast African lion (P. l. melanochaita)', in fact: they do NOT refer to ANY vernacular name at all in the chapter on Panthera leo. 2) The authors of Bertola_al2016 did NOT have a single sample from Uganda, nor from Virunga NP, see the table in supplements of this article; so this is MISinterpreting a source. 3) this is a grammar flaw '.. lion .. is believed to be in parts of', or what is this construction intend to mean?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Lets have a look at this sentence: "Several studies have showed that the population in Virunga National Park is closely related to southern subspecies."

1) Which studies?? As mentioned above, Bertola_al2016 did NOT have a single sample from Virunga NP. 2) 'have showed' is grammatically not correct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going to say that I rearranged the thing to be more accurate about what relevant sources say, but you reverted that. Leo1pard (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

MISinterpreting sources

 * imo, you ruined the article by insisting to keep above content on Cameroon lion and Congo lion. You did NOT address any of the issues I raised regarding MISinterpreting sources, such as: 1) Kitchener et al. (2017) did NOT use the term 'Southeast African lion (P. l. melanochaita)'; 2) Bertola et al. (2016) did NOT have a lion sample from Virunga NP and did NOT comment on relatedness of this particular population; 3) that ‘several studies have shown that some captive lions in Ethiopia's Zoo .. ‘ is also wrong: there was only this ONE ref’ed. 4) The int link in this sentence is case of WP:EGG. Apart from that, you inserted the sign ‘x’ into the infobox; note that this is used for Hybrid (biology) breeds, i.e. domesticated or captive wildlife and plant cultivation, see in particular Hybrid_(biology). In summary, you added false and misleading info, for which in my culture this term has recently become popular: fake info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Scope of this page

 * You should look at what you have done to this article, before pointing your finger at others, such as . For example, you made it look as if all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), despite evidence in WP:reliable sources that a number are actually of the southern subspecies, and though you created the article "Central African lion clade" to talk specifically for the clade defined by Bertola et al., and I earlier created this page to talk about Central African lions in general, before deciding that this need not be an article of its own, and that your page can be an article that talks about the 'Central' clade, you repeatedly interfered with efforts to have that done, such as by turning this back into an article to reflect what you would say in Central African lion clade, despite attempts to talk to you about this, and when I saw your complaints here about interpreting references, I made rearrangements to be more accurate about what relevant sources say, but you reverted that with the excuse that people like me are supposed to first respond in the talk-page, before making more edits that show that you're not always keen on what's in the talk-page yourself. Leo1pard (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, you neither address my comments above in regards to false info and misinterpreted sources, but instead divert to different issues. But since you address scope of this page: 1) I did not misinterpret sources that I referenced, but clearly defined the scope of this page in the lead, namely the P. l. leo pop in the Sahel of northern Central Africa. 2) Already in 2005, participants of the workshop held in Pretoria to discuss lion conservation strategy included Virunga NP and adjacent protected areas into the East and Southern African Lion Conservation Units (LCUs), i.e. long before any of these pops were genetically defined. And subsequent authors followed this same model, also those who did not even participate in this workshop. 3) Some of my additions to this page apparently impressed you enough to copy-paste and duplicate them into the Northern lion and African lion pages without having the decency to properly WP:PATT them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You ignored certain things said in references, even earlier denying that Pocock had used the name "Central African lion", and don't forget the fact that you turned this page back into an article, after contents that were here were shifted to the other 2 pages, and were ignoring what I was saying to you about this. If this article had been kept as redirect to African lion, and your work on the Central clade defined by Bertola et al. was kept in Central African lion clade, then this situation could have been avoided, so when will your page Central African lion clade be a proper article that is about the Central clade defined by Bertola et al., and this page be a redirect to African lion? Leo1pard (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC); edited 13:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don’t know, I won’t do it. Because I’m fed up with the continuous struggle and disputes over titles, names, redirects, content of, and misinterpretation of sources in lion subpages, all to the detriment of these pages’ notability. As mentioned elsewhere already, I much prefer to improve pages on the many other ‘little people’ on this beautiful planet. Like at present the Egyptian mongoose page that despite its name does not only occur in Egypt. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

kamptzi
In the present version, kamptzi is used five times. It is therefore NOT necessary to use it again in an image caption. It is an obsolete subspecific name!! The correct subspecific name is P. l. leo now!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

please read my above remark about obsolete subspecific names. Also names like 'Northeast Congo lion' or 'Cameroon lion' are obsolete, none of them has been used in scientific publications about lion ecology and conservation since at least the 1980s, and if so, then ONLY in regards to taxonomic history. So why do you insist on using them? Please explain. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to use common names in image captions because it specifies what kind of the lion is that in image. So, as we have two subspecies (Congo lion per P. l. melanochaita and Cameroon lion per P. l. leo) the caption indicate which is which. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment again: these names are NOT common names . I have not seen them in any of the umpteen publications that I have in my library. No scientist uses them nowadays. So why should we in wikipedia use them ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't be using obsolete names. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As with populations of tigers that used to be considered subspecies, such as Bengal and Siberian tigers, there is nothing wrong with using their names, because like I said before, the reclassification of subspecies by the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group did not even stop them from referring to African and Asiatic lions as African and Asiatic lions respectively, and people aren't necessarily going to care whether for example Asiatic lions and Bengal tigers are subspecies or not, they still use those names, as shown by the provided links, as they are definitely kinds of animals, even if not subspecies. Anyway, the thing that I was getting at earlier was redirecting this page to a larger page that does have WP:Reliable sources on issues like this population of lions, and turning Central African lion clade into an article that talks about the 'Central' clade that was defined by Bertola et al., as I agreed with someone else before. Leo1pard (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with, because per 'Siberian tiger' we also use Amur tiger or vice versa as I used 'Northeast Congolese lion' in image caption.


 * The major difference is that scientists still use both names, Siberian and Amur tiger, in recent publications, i.e. in 2018. But NEITHER 'Congo lion' NOR 'Cameroon lion' has been used in THIS century as a common name in scientific articles. I did not find any. If you did, show me please. Not a single one in the present reflist with 40+ publications. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I do remember instances where, for example, "North East Congo lion" was used in 21st century publications, and I'm not just talking about books like this. Leo1pard (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

About "merge":


I'm thinking to redirect Central lion here. I see no point to redirect Central lion to P. l. leo (as mentioned), as this population is divided to leo and melanochaita. — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 17:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no point placing a redirect to an article that won't exit in the near future. There is no evidence that the "Central African lion" is a mixed population. Central African lion either refers to the population in the central sahel/savanna belt or it comprises three distinct popululations that happen to fall within the geopolitical construct Central Africa.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm giving you some evidences;
 * Cameroon is located at Central and West Africa, so, lions there are closely releated to each other belonging to Panthera leo leo. Both of these populations were formerly classified as Panthera leo kamptzi.
 * Lions in southern parts of Central Africa (at Virunga National Park, D. R. Congo regions) are closely releated to lions in Uganda. Those populations were formerly classified as Panthera leo azandica. And also, Cat Specialist Group put a question mark there.
 * The synonym P. l. bleyenberghi was used per lions in the Katanga Province, in the southern part of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so bleyenberghi lions were called "Katanga lions", whereas azandica lions were called "Northeast Congo lions" or "Congo lions".

So now I think that you have "those evidences". Here are some more:     — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd have to convince everyone else on the merger discussion. This could all be summarised with one or two sentences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with and !! For several reasons : 1) you, , seem to not have properly read and / or understood the refs you listed; none of them provides ANY evidence for a what you call a ‘mixed lion population’ in Central Africa, in contrary : the lion samples from the Central African Sahel zone analyzed by Bertola et al. (2011 and 2016) were clearly NOT mixed, but clustered with what they called the ‘central clade’; 2) the authors of the pre-2008 refs in your list NEITHER considered the possibility of such a ‘mixed population’, so are NOT ‘evidence’ for your assumption; 3) as mentioned before elsewhere : your creation of a page titled ‘mixed lion population’ consists mostly, if not only, of odd ends copy-pasted from the redirected African lion page, but without ANY WP:PATT despite several friendly instructions that you received on your talk page; 4) you seem to completely neglect the current trend of the merger discussion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC), added addressee -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I warned you to stop these secretive tactics against me and, though you pinged and , you did not ping us here when you spoke about either of us, even though we had pinged you elsewhere, and I had already told you that 'mixed' means that either genetic analyses for lions in certain places were mixed, as in, they gave different results for the same country or region, as you know, or that clades of lions overlap to form genetically admixed populations, not necessarily that all these lions are admixed. For example, the northern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was shown to have both northern and southern lions, even if they do not overlap to form an admixed population, whereas the Horn of Africa is indicated as being a place of genetic admixture by Bertola et al. For example, the northeastern part of D R Congo has both Haplotypes 9 and 15, with H9 belonging to the northern group, and H15 belonging to the southern group. Though the clade map does not say that these overlap to form an admixed population, their ranges are nevertheless quite close, since they are both in the northeastern part of the D R Congo. In addition, your allegation that there was no WP:PATT is wrong, and that is not all. Despite your rationale in reverting certain edits of mine and Punetor's in articles like here that these should not happen when discussions from the 6th of November are ongoing, you get involved in the newer discussions regarding articles that were not initially part of those discussions, so do not say "you seem to completely neglect the current trend of the merger discussion" without first considering what you have done. I did not want these extra discussions to happen whilst those earlier discussions were happening, I warned  that things would get more complicated if focus drifted to other articles, but that was not taken seriously, and now this has become more complicated than before. If it had finished a week after it was started, and it had not focused on other articles, then this situation would not have dragged on for close to 2 weeks. Leo1pard (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC); edited 02:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We create articles so people that need informations can read them, we can't create articles just like we want. I know that wants to merge Central lion to P. l. leo but you simply cannot because it is a mixed population between P. l. leo and P. l. melanochaita. — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But the so-called Central African lions are not a mixed population, they are three different populations in different parts of geopolitical Central Africa. The clade map doesn't show overlap. The H15 lions of the Lake Victoria area are separated from the H9 lions of the Zande region in NE Congo. The Central African lion article is the only place which conflates the lions from separated areas into one entity, which can't then be used to justify its existence.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Mixed' means either means that either genetic analyses for lions in certain places were mixed, as in, they gave different results for the same country or region, which is the case for lions in the northeastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as BhagyaMani knows, or that clades of lions overlap to form genetically admixed populations, not necessarily that all these lions are admixed. Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't move the refs and paragraphs in Congo lion section. You yourself put them in "Phylogeographic research", and I put them in Congo lion section. — Punëtor i Rregullt5 {talk} 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I put these refs in Phylogeographic research, because that is where they belong : none of them refers to the name 'Congo lion' nor to azandica. As mentioned above: you seem not to have read / understood them properly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, I would have wished that the initial discussions (Talk:Panthera leo melanochaita and Talk:Northern lion) from the 6th of November should have finished first, without attention drifting towards other articles, and though I warned that focusing on other articles would lead to complications, it was not heeded, and those discussions became focused on other articles that I wished should not be part of them, and new discussions have been opened up regarding them, so close to 2 weeks after those initial discussions started, they are not closed, and have become more complicated over time, with more people making more comments that were not initially relevant to the discussions, and mixing what was in the newer discussions with these older discussions. Leo1pard (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change the fact that >90% of the content of most of these articles is duplicated and unneccessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)