Talk:Siberian tiger

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahjee777.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Canine distemper in Siberian tigers
See -- 92.206.11.66 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Pathology Newsletter: ″Einstein and Bronx Zoo Pathologists Find Rare Amur Tigers Affected by Canine Distemper″
 * WCS Russia: ″Canine Distemper Virus: An Emerging Threat to Amur Tigers″ August 13, 2013

Tiger- Bear Interactions
BigCat82 has removed valid, sourced material from this wikipage describing bear-tiger interactions, including:

Brown bear generally dominate Siberian tigers in disputes over kills. Indeed, Russian researchers have identified specific "satellite bears" who regularly "follow tigers over extensive periods of time, sequentially usurping kills" by tracking the tigers in the spring snow.

The justification given by BigCat82 for this removal is that we should use a more reliable source, such as those from a peer-reviewed journal. However, both of the sources given above are most definitely reliable sources as well. The first source (Miquelle et al) is a scientific source from multiple active scientists who study tiger interactions in the wild; it is chapter from a scientific book. This is most definitely a reliable source. In fact, Miquelle is the same researcher who is cited on this very same wikipage for tiger-wolf interactions - which BigCat82 (and other recent editors) of this page appear to have no problem with (Miquelle claims that tigers dominate wolves in one area of the Russia Far East). The second source (Kerley et al) is also from active scientific researchers and is a valid source as well.

In addition, BigCat82 has made the claim (comment on his edit at 20:46 on July 6, 2014) that: "Biased - source clearly stated of all encounters 50% resulted in the death of the bear, 27.3% resulted in the death of the tiger and in 22.7% of encounters both animals parted ways. So in short bears usually got killed by tigers.)"

I am not sure how BigCat82 can make such a conclusion that "in short bears usually got killed by tigers" - the source itself definitely does not make such a claim. If the source states that tigers get killed in 27.3% of tiger-bear interactions and bears get killed in 50%, such interactions definitely do not result in bears "usually" getting killed by tigers. 50% is not the same as "usually", especially if 27.3% of cases result in tiger deaths as well. In reality, both species can be killed in such encounters - which is exactly what I stated in my earlier comments on July 4 (please see the history of the edits).

Also, BigCat82 (in his edit on 21:13 on July 6) claims that Geptner 1972 gives "various weight & age info on the bears killed by tigers". The source is Heptner and Sludski's four-volume Mammals of the Soviet Union. (see Volume II. Part 2. Hyenas and Cats and Volume II Part 1a Canids and Ursids). This source is avaiable for download here: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/46297#/summary. While this source does have a line stating "a tiger will even tackle a bear, sometime one even much larger than itself" and does state "over 15" cases of tigers killing bears (not 15 - my mistake), it does not state that a tiger can acually kill such a large bear, and does not describe any such case actually happening. This source describes several cases of both bears killing tigers and tigers killing bears. In no case does it describe the size and age of bears killed by tigers.  None of the bears killed by tigers described by this source has a known age. As for size, it does state that large bears "escape the tiger's claws" after being chased from their dens (page 177) - that is the closest it gets. None of the bears killed by tigers described by this source has a stated size either. I am not sure how BigCat82 is making the claim that bears of "various weights and ages" are being killed by tigers - this source definitely does not make this claim.

Also, Bigcat 82 wants to count "unrecorded cases" of tigers killing bears (see his comment on 20:33 on July 6). Unrecorded cases do not constitute reliable evidence.

Also, Heptner and Sludski most definitely does state that tiger-bear interactions are rare and of no significance. See Volume II Part 1a Canids and Ursids (page 671): "Since tigers are almost extinct, such cases are rare and have no actual significance." This same source also states that most bears attacked by tigers are attacked "in winter, in the hibernaculum." (same page 671).

Finally, on the Asiatic elephant page Bigcat82 recently made the truly astonishing claim that "adult asiatic elephants always flee from the presence of tigers". See his comment at 19:34 on June 21: "Rm unsourced misinfo - in fact the opposite is true, adult asiatic elephants always flee from the presence of tigers". Bigcat82 did not give a source for this claim that adult Asiatic elephants always flee from tigers.

In conclusion, some of the edits made by BigCat82 have not followed reliable, sourced materials and should be removed. Good day. 72.80.193.185 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Long story short.


 * 1) Multiple reliable existing sources used here suggest tigers dominate bears, e.g. far many more brown bears got killed by tigers than tigers got killed by bears in tiger bear encounters; most bears are afraid of tigers and changed path after coming across tiger trails with a few exceptions; Bears constitute up to 8% of tiger diets etc. However your edits changed the content in such a way to misled readers that bears generally dominate tigers by selectively substituting or omitting the adverbs of frequency and removing certain adjectives that define the conditions of the animals (e.g. age). So common incidents became rare, rare incidents became common and incidents that have never happened appear to have happened after your problematic edits. Your edits were written in such a way to mislead readers that bears generally are not afraid of tigers, and bears usually dominate and even prey on adult tigers while tigers predation on bears are limited to young bears and are less common than bears preying on tigers - all of which are false and the opposite is correct. Your edits obviously constitute original research and cherry picked statements from sources and are not allowed.


 * 2) This article is about siberian tigers but your edits gave undue weight on bears especially on the extremely rare cases which can be omitted as per wikipedia guidelines, such as bears do not change path after coming across tiger trails / a rare case of a bear killing and eating a *young* tiger. You gave undue weight to these rare exceptions, removing the age info, omitting adverbs of frequency and combined these rare incidents to give readers a false impression that they are in fact common incidents. As per wikipedia rules rare exceptions can be omitted, if not, your edits need to accurately reflect the frequency of occurrence. You have double standards here - you are very harsh on contents that favor tigers but become tolerant on problematic contents and even created contents that disfavor tigers. Why are you so biased against tigers?


 * 3) As for the elephant edits I did not add such content in the elephant article - I just raised it and LittleJerry added both the source and content for elephants fleeing from tigers in the main elephant article (and this is irrelevant here). I am an experienced constructive editor and have worked with him and other editors. And I didn't put any of the rest of your false accusations to the article like putting unrecorded tiger killing bear cases etc. Your above message obviously targeted on me instead of the article which gives me the impression that you are not here to contribute constructively but to harass editors, apart from being heavily biased against tigers. If this is the case you will be shown the doorway. If not please talk back to improve the article in a constructive way. Thank you. BigCat82 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please note that I am not the same editor as the other anonymous posters. I am 72.80.193.185 (posted above on this talkpage on July 7) and 72.80.195.34 (posted on the main Siberian tiger page on July 4). However, I am not 97.118.37.107, 71.33.181.29, or 61.145.205.210. If you have a problem with edits made by others, please speak with them.


 * That being said, Heptner and Sludski most definitely do not state that tigers kill bears of "various sizes and ages." As I stated above,  none of the bears killed by tigers described in that source has a known age or known size.  I challenge you (or anyone else) to prove me wrong. As I stated earlier, this source is available online here at: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/46297#/summary. Until proof is provided, that claim of "various sizes and ages" should be removed. Also, "various sizes and ages" is ambiguous and vague - what sizes, which ages? Be specific.


 * Also, my previous talkpage comments most definitely do not constitute "original research" - the content is the research of scientists in the field (Miquelle et al, Kerley et al) or of scientific books (Heptner and Sludski, and Seryodkin) relevant to the topic. These are all mainstream, reliable, and relevant sources - not fringe/marginal sources of an small minority artificially cobbled together to make an argument. Should we exclude them because their content might not agree with our viewpoint? They are also not in any way "cherry-picked" either. In fact, I mentioned Heptner and Sludski in my previous post above specifically because it was already used as a source on the main Siberian tiger wikipage and I fact-checked what this source actually stated. I found that what this source stated (that both tigers killing bears and vice-versa have been recorded multiple times) and what the earlier versions of this Siberian tiger wikipage stated (that tigers "usually" kill bears, but bears only rarely kill tigers) were completely different. This is not cherry-picking - this is verification of the facts. This wikipage must be changed to reflect what its sources state.


 * I am not trying to make this discussion personal in any way. However, you did want to include "unrecorded" cases of tigers killing bears, at least in your comments. Please check your comment on 20:33 on July 6 (on the main Siberian tiger wikipage) where you wrote: "source clearly stated OVER 15 instances. And many more instances being unrecorded". You said "unrecorded" instances. Why did you bring up "unrecorded" instances if you did not want them to be considered by me or by others? I did state the date and time of your comment in my previous post above. As for your elephant claim, I was referring to your comment on 19:34 on June 21. I even quoted your comment in my previous post (see above) , your comment being: "Rm unsourced misinfo - in fact the opposite is true, adult asiatic elephants always flee from the presence of tigers". I am sorry if I did not make that clear.


 * Lastly, I thank you for your comments. Let's keep this civil. Good day.

72.80.196.223 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I have not stated (nor made edits suggesting) that bears killing tigers occur at a greater frequency than tigers killing bears. Both events have occurred multiple times (as I stated above several times). The difference between the frequencies (3+12 vs over 15 + 22) is not significant enough to label one as "rare" and the other as the norm. Also, as I stated above, one of the sources (Heptner) claims that all brown bear-Siberian tiger interactions are rare to begin with (Volume II Part 1a Canids and Ursids, on page 671). Thank you.

72.80.196.223 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * okay points taken. And the article has been revised by you and some other editors, with most of your major concerns taken care of (e.g. various sizes and ages removed) and I gave more details on those rare cases that are not too rare like the bear / tiger death rates on encounters. Just need to point out that this is still an article about Siberian tigers - some of the recent editions by anonymous editors made it obviously biased by starting the section with bears killing tigers as an intro and gave readers the impression as if bears usually killed tigers, while the opposite is the truth according to various sources and scientific studies. If most sources suggest tigers dominating bears, minor views found in some sources can be mentioned briefly but undue weights cannot be given to them as per wikipedia rules. Any further elaborations on the rare cases that bears dominating tigers/killing tigers will easily give readers a false impression that those are important very common instances. As an example, there are records of hyenas killing lions but those are not mentioned nor elaborated in our lion article due to the same undue weight policy, and our lion article has been a featured wikipedia article with content quality thoroughly reviewed. Wikipedia is not a collection of every single information out there. The current section quite accurately reflects what the majority of sources said with brief mentioning of rare cases of bears killing / dominating tigers and it is good enough according to wikipedia editing guidelines. The article already mentioned those rare cases and readers can read the references if they wish to know further on those rare incidents.


 * Moreover, you need to be flexible to be neutral when editing an article as sometimes a statement taken directly from a reliable source can still be biased if you omitted the information implicated or mentioned elsewhere in the source. According to the reliable sources used here, bears almost entirely targeted young and female tigers to challenge while tigers are not so selectively on picking young bears to kill. So even if the study said 22 cases of bears killed and 12 cases of tigers killed in 44 tiger bear encounters, the data alone do not reveal the real picture that bears mainly killed young tigers and tigresses while tigers killed much larger bears in those accounts. But you picked only the data and put them here, it gives readers the false impression that the outcomes were the results of adult tigers vs adult bears as the ages and sexes were not specified. In view of this the current edition is not exactly the most neutral and is already slightly biased towards the bears. If I further pursuit on this issue that statement needs to be changed or removed as per wikipedia rules, but since you insist and the fact that no article is perfect and I just let it here at the moment.


 * Before we brought the main tiger article into GA standards, most of the information there undermined tigers and during the editing and review process we found almost every single misinformation there was deliberate attempt trying to undermine tigers making it the worst big cat ever (e.g. cherry picking the lowest possible hunting success rate while sources gave a broad range; saying elephants dominating tigers in conflicts while sources clearly said the opposite). We have to keep an eye on this and prevent tiger haters from vandalizing tiger articles again. Please also sign your post to avoid editing conflicts. BigCat82 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "bears almost entirely targeted young and female tigers to challenge while tigers are not so selectively on picking young bears to kill". The source states "tiger will even tackle a bear, sometimes one even much larger than itself." The "sometimes" implies that tiger prefer to take smaller bears as well. The article already states that tigers sometimes kill larger bears and bears prefer to kill female and young tigers so in no way is the current version biased in favor of the bear. The article doesn't mention the age of the individuals killed in the statistic because the source doesn't. 174.124.158.58 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay points taken. But it doesn't affect the current content. BigCat82 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I should point out with regards to tigers and elephants, sources state that elephants may flee from tiger calls for fear for their young. They have also been recorded fleeing from lion playbacks as well. Elephants have no special fear of tigers but react to them the same way they do to other large predators they threaten their young. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * actually elephants only slowly form a defensive ring surrounding young elephants when hearing lion roars, not fleeing according to the source I read. BigCat82 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They have also been recorded fleeing the area when alarm calls are played in Africa too.. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link that contains links to scientific, peer reviewed studies. In general, tigers avoid adult bears, especially the males and there are plenty of examples of adult male tigers killed by bears, both males and FEMALES. Bigcat82 is removing sourced material because he disagrees with it. Here is some proof. The links are contained in the article. Adult brown bears dominate tigers, especially males.:

http://www.ofcats.com/2008/05/siberian-tiger.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.218.249 (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Bigcat82 (as if his name doesn't bely his agenda) now says we are giving "undo weight" to bears in the article. Well, the section on tigers and wolves has nearly as much content, yet he has NO problem with it. Why? Simple, he's tiger biased. The idea that tigers dominate adult brown bears is laughable. Sources I have provided clearly state that cub and sub adult females made up ALL of the documented predation of brown bears by tigers in the articles I gave. To prevent editing of this article and keeping his biased material goes against the very thing we are supposed to have, NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.218.249 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * my last warning - if you keep making further personal attack here and in edit history you will be banned. The source you used is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and anyone can host a website like that and they cannot be used as per Wikipedia rules. All the reliable sources here proved tigers dominated bears and this has been explained to you no less than a dozen times. And it was another administrator who stopped you from further vandalism here. I am one of the contributors that took part to bring the original tiger article into the rigorous GA standard and many of the same reliable sources used there have been fully reviewed in the process and are also being used here in the tiger bear interaction section and no further discussion is needed on the reliability of the sources which were contributed by other constructive editors over the years NOT by myself. Besides me, other editors of this article also reverted your biased edits which are purely based on fan sites and youtube. This section has been here for years with more or less the same content. Go back to the bear forum to express your love on bears and no one there will stop you from saying bears are the greatest etc. BigCat82 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The LINKS the site provided were studies from peer reviewed scientific journals. That's why I put it HERE, and NOT as a source on the article page. Peer reviewed really is pretty meaningless anyway. It assumes the study was done without an agenda or bias, and it's pretty hard to replicate the results in many scientific fields, rendering the "review" almost worthless. Many times, the scientist seeking to get their study reviewed gets to hand pick those that review it. Not a personal attack, just trying to point out that you are removing materials that are ALSO peer reviewed studies just because YOU don't agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.217.72 (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Purely based on youtube and fan sites? I dare say you are mistaken. They are AGAIN from peer reviewed scientific studies, some of them the SAME ones you are citing. You are incorrect here. I am FAR from the only one claiming you are removing valid, sourced material from peer reviewed (as worthless as that process is) studies. I put LINKS to the studies here and you erased them. They were NOT going to be used in the article.

As far as undo weight goes, you don't have any problem with the tiger/wolf interactions having nearly as much content. What we have here is an attack against NPOV in my honest opinion. Of course tigers kill bears and predate on them. The sourced materials (peer reviewed) states that almost entirely consists of cubs and 400 pound and under (sub adult) bears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.217.72 (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * what you THINK is not important. Peer reviewed journals are among the most reliable sources as per Wikipedia recommendations, and the same sources are being used in the main tiger article which passed the rigorous GA review process. Also I reviewed the the site you provided but it does NOT link to any scientific study you claimed. And learn what undue weight means. Since none of your above claims is valid, I don't think what else needs to be further discussed here. BigCat82 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

So this wikipedia page use story books such as «tiger in the snow» as «reliable evidence»? This is laughable. And tiger fans that act as kids, shouldn´t be even allowed to post here. We see them filling youtube with 5 or 6 exactly identical videos with exactly the same crap stories and zero publications about conservation videos. This wikipedia page looks like a fight for kids, and as researcher/conservationist this is really sad to me to read this. As much as I like felines, a really big brown bear is a beast, that even the biggest siberian tiger would normally avoid, unless want to die stupidly. That´s why it makes sense, that tigers killing bears, AFAIK, involve 400 pound (or under) bears. Now, this wikipedia should focus less on stories (also very likely to fuel tiger bone industry that´s destroying tiger populations) and more on conservation.

Ok, I see that the problems are the same we have a fanboy directing this page and not someone who has knowledge on the subject. Fortunately, real scientists read the sources and get surprised that the information that´s there isn´t the same that´s posted here or that things aren´t that clear as this wikipedia wants to sound. Impartiality is non existent and stories that «tigers can tackle bears much larger than themselves..» are hunter stories, ambiguous and unsupported data. Being said that tigers «can» it doesn´t mean that they were reported to do it. There´s not a single scientific report about that. However I know for sure that sun bears can kill tigers much bigger than themselves, because that have happened (if someone wants the scientific article describing it, the original article is on the web, but I can post it here later, before abandon this page and direct this wikipedia to the wikipedia staff about abusive and non reliable information and will publish blog with scientific data, replying to all the points posted here). However, I won´t use that sun bear incident, has a proof of something. I´m not a fool. However, this situation is supported unlike those hunter stories of tigers that possibly can do this or that. Tigers are lone predators they risk much less than some people think. Plus those irreal percentages of bears on the tiger menu haven´t been supported by any modern scientific study. Even 8,5% must be rare and ocasional and highly based on very young animals (as usual for tigers). Also that statement (on feeding habits) that tigers take bears over 450 kgs, is hilarious! Amur bears with that weight are very rare and they wouldn´t be vulnerable to tiger attacks actually it´s the other way around.

Tigers with erratic behavior that attack bears blindly don´t last long in siberia taiga. A radiocolared tigress was «recently» killed because of that. It seems clear that both species benefit each other, by killing the sick, disease and weak individuals of both. Male adults of both brown bears and siberian tigers have advantage over the adult females of both, and adult males avoid each other. If anything, brown bears would have advantage due to sheer bulk and size advantage.

Chapter 19 published on WCS Siberia (http://www.wcsrussia.org/en-us/projects/siberiantigerproject.aspx) search for chapter 19, there it´s clearly stated in all the years of investigation, NO adult male brown bear were reported to be killed by tigers. Curiously I do remember about 1 (scientific) case of an adult male tiger being killed by amur brown bear, but not the other way around (I have the sources and I´ll post it here). Though this case is very well known. Almost surely that the same author that posts on this insignificant wikipedia page and deletes the information that he doesn´t like, knows it.

This obsessive and useless fanboyism behavior, in nothing helps siberian tigers.

More tiger-bear interaction issues
Oh my. I hadn't noticed that this kind of thing has been percolating for some while here.

- I just removed all material that was only sourced to http://www.ofcats.com/2008/05/siberian-tiger.html. Not only is this factually unreferenced material from the comments on a blog (broken Photobucket links don't exactly qualify), you also copypasted the entire text, which you are not allowed to to do - see WP:COPYVIO. This on top of the questionable decision to adorn an encyclopedia article with half a dozen accounts in lurid detail about a sub-topic that is at most tangentially important. Can we please resist turning this article into "MonsterFight: BEAR vs TIGER!" ?--Elmidae (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this. Many of the tiger fan boy assertions come from unsourced or invalidly sourced material that constitute original research. It's funny that Bigcats, the tiger fan boy who ruined all tiger and bear pages, had no problem with these additions and allowed absolutely ridiculous claims of bears constituting over 40% of a tiger's diet in some areas, when the valid, peer reviewed studies came up with a figure of brown bears constituting 1.5% of a tigers diet. The cherry picking and original research makes it look as if tigers dominate and prey on bears of all sizes rather than the accepted scientific consensus of tigers preying on cubs and young adult females. There has never been a documented case of a tiger preying on or killing an adult male bear. Always conveniently left out are the five known cases of adult male tigers killed by bears. This article, due to the tiger fan boys such as bigcats is full of cherry picked data, original research, and undue weight given to minority opinions. The truth is tigers eat bears, though almost always cubs and sub adults with a few smaller adult females taken at times. Where tigers have been radio collared and found to be predating on bears, not a single bear taken weighed over 330 pounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.216.135 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At least I put information about bears and tigers there, using a source that had been there, before subsequent changes were made, with all due respect. Leo1pard (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Misnomer
I believe that in the first (top) section of the article, it should be mentioned that the "Siberian Tiger" is a misnomer, as it is located mostly in Korea, China, and Russia's Far East Region, rather than Siberia.Tangleymere (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But, similarly, Bengal tigers are not restricted to coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal, and Caspian tigers were not restricted to coastal areas of the Caspian Sea, and according to various reports, Panthera leo persica was not limited to Iran, rather, they are today limited to India, in the wilderness, so does it matter? Regards Leo1pard (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues with page
A user named Leo1pard has added some false and unnecessary information to this page. The most obvious being their false claim that lions are the same size as the largest tiger species, which goes against facts and common knowledge, and add ligers, which are hybrids, not a species, which is unnecessary and already mentioned on the liger page. Based on this users edits and comments, he seems identical to past editors who like to attack animal pages with false information and engage in editing wars. Yet for some reason these edits are not only allowed on this page, but all attempts to fix it were met with simply restoring the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.173.175 (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So I took a look at his sources. At least two of them completely contradict his claims. One states that the tiger is the largest cat species, and another states that the lion is the second biggest cat and is smaller than the tiger. One just goes to a brief page about lion growth with no mention of actual size or comparison to tigers and apparently you have to pay for the full article, so there's no way to verify this source unless you pay for it. The last one is a book in it's entirety(as is the first source already mentioned. Neither is linked to any page containing information that would back him up, and for the first book I found the contradictory information a few pages later) which dates back to 1913 and in it the author pretty much admits he knows little about the sizes of tigers and lions other than what he had heard from others.

So as far as his sources is concerned: Two contradict his claims completely One can't be verified directly and requires payment One is a really old book by someone with limited knowledge on the size of these animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C601:C950:CCA7:A7FD:FA22:19B1 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I did not merely say that lions and tigers are the same size, but that the Siberian, Caspian and Bengal tigers were the largest felidae apart from lions and hybrids like ligers, because ligers can be bigger than Siberian tigers in size, and there are references of lions exceeding 249.5 kg in weight, which would make them rival Bengal tigers, which today reportedly weigh 180 - 258 kg in the wild, and Caspian tigers, which apparently weighed 170 - 240 kg in the wild, at least, and I mentioned those references, but you also have to be careful of bias, because to mention Siberian, Caspian and Bengal tigers as being the biggest cats, quoting one reference, and excluding other references, constitutes bias, and it's like you did not take time to carefully read the references which I provided to talk about huge lions. Leo1pard (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is, however, worth mentioning that I had provided some other references which User BhagyaMani deleted in the article Caspian tiger, so I decided not to put those references here, out of respect. Leo1pard (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * But that's pretty much your entire claim, or what you are trying to imply, is it not? Again your argument is that because the four sources you posted apparently claim that a couple of lions in the past(not today's lions or lions on average from both past and present, but only a few past lions) allegedly reached weights that rivaled today's Amur or Bengal tigers(not past tigers, just today's tigers), that means that overall tigers and lions are the same size. Nevermind the fact that since those alleged weights are the highest lions could reach, and according to your argument the largest lions in the past could only, at best, rival today's smaller or average sized Bengal and Amur tigers, and not past tigers(which were larger than present tigers and certainly larger than lions), and certainly not the largest Tigers of both past and present. So the largest tigers are still larger than the largest lions, past tigers were larger than past lions, today's tigers are larger than today's lions, and on average overall tigers are larger than lions. But of course that doesn't count. All that matters is apparently a couple of allegedly huge lions supposedly reached weights that rivaled the size of average or smaller individuals of the largest tiger species, so therefore that means overall tigers and lions are the same size. Can you see why it doesn't work that way?


 * And once again I did look at your sources, though they were extremely difficult to deal with. Two of them are books in there entirety, and would take way too long to read the whole thing just to see if they back up your claims. The first however didn't take too long, as only a couple of pages after the page that you linked to, it states that the tiger is the largest cat species. The second book I used the search to find information regarding this topic(the first book's didn't work for me for some reason), and it's pretty much the author mentioning weights that they had heard from others, but they also repeatedly makes comments along the lines of "now I don't know much about ___", particularly regarding topics such as size and tigers. Does that sound like a credible source to you? Another source is just a brief page on lion growth that gives little to no information, and requires you to pay to see the full article, so there's no way for an observer to view any information that would either confirm or debunk your statements unless they pay for it. The only source that directly links to any information without having to dig through an entire book or pay for anything also blatantly states that lions are the second largest cat species and smaller than the tiger.


 * So the article(as well as the Caspian tiger article) merely groups in lions with Bengal, Amur, and Caspian tigers as the biggest cat species(along with ligers) with no explanation excluding links to four sources, with two that make it clear that tiger is the largest cat species and lions are smaller, even with mentions of your "huge lions", another is a book from someone who constantly mentions their lack of knowledge on certain subjects, especially the topics relevant to your claims, and one that doesn't display any information directly and requires payment. Since everybody with any knowledge of animals knows that tigers are the largest natural cat species(specifically the ones mentioned in the article) if they were to view this page they would be confused by the "apart from lions" addition. Since this contradicts with a well-known fact and has no explanation behind it, they will probably view the sources to try to find one. Two confirm what they already knew and contradict Wikipedia's exclusive claim, which would further confuse them, as well as a source that doesn't have any information and one being a lengthy old book in which the author repeatedly admits ignorance on the subjects relevant to this claim. All it does it hurt the credibility of these articles and Wikipedia. And please do not add the alleged weights of lions to these articles as they are about tigers, not lions and at least one of your sources is questionable in that regard.


 * You can find information on tigers being the largest natural cat species pretty much everywhere. If every source stating such were listed here it would be mass overkill, hence why previous editors felt only a few were enough. If more are needed then we'll simply add more. It's not "bias" to call out such a radical claim that contrasts with common animal knowledge, especially with sources that either contradict the claim, don't give information supporting it directly, or are questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C601:C950:5C25:63D0:7A89:BD5F (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I did not dispute that the largest tigers were larger than the largest lions, rather, I put in more information and references on Caspian tigers and huge lions, do you want more sources on huge lions? Leo1pard (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, it has been edited to more accurately say what is in the references. Leo1pard (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is to say that information represented in a way that it would look like original research has been edited, so that there is no OR in it, but at the same time, multiple references have been used to eliminate bias, instead of one reference by Mazák, who did not seem to know about lions weighing 225 - 249.5 kg or more, or about hybrids like ligers, which can outweigh tigers. Leo1pard (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, just...wow. You continue to sink to new lows.

You do realize that Mazak was not the one who originally made the claim that Tigers were the largest cat species. It's a well-known fact and common knowledge amongst anyone who knows anything about animals and is pretty much mentioned everywhere, including SOME OF YOUR OWN SOURCES, who DID know about your allegedly "huge lions". The only reason there was a single source here was because really only one was needed and probably to not spam the top of the page with a laundry list of sources as you just did. And how do you know that Mazak never heard of of them? So basically you are falsely implying that the fact that tigers being the largest cat species was originally claimed by Mazak simply because the only source listed on this page is from him and according to you Mazak "made that claim" because "he didn't know about these 'huge Lions'" and thus imply your list of sources dispute "his" claims. None of which is true. You are deliberately misleading readers of this page to promote your agenda. Not to mention the undue weight given to lions and ligers.

Speaking of your sources, along with two of your previous ones, yet ANOTHER blatantly states that tigers are the largest cat species. On the Big Zoo site there is a Sumatran tiger page, which states that the tiger is the largest cat species(referring to the larger subspecies such as the Bengal tiger, referred to as the Indian tiger on the page, as the Sumatran tiger is smaller, which the page mentions). And there's one source that I swear you only saw mention of a lion "exceeding 500 pounds" and didn't even bother reading the rest. It basically dismisses the "lion over 500 pounds" as unreliable and says that a lion over 400 pounds is "exceptionally large", and makes it clear that these are only the few largest individuals, not the average size of lions. The entire reason for your edits is to promote these "huge lions exceeding 500 pounds" and yet you post a source that pretty says claims of lions exceeding that are unreliable with nothing to back them up and that even a lion exceeding 400 pounds is exceptionally large and uncommon. It's like you aren't expecting anyone to actually look at your sources, or at least all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.173.175 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that the largest tigers were not larger than lions, it's that, to say that Siberian, Caspian and Bengal tigers are larger than lions, is not the same thing as saying that the largest tigers are larger than the largest lions, because, if you check the measurements, Mazák (1981) gave the general weights of Caspian tigers as being 170 - 240 kg, excluding exceptional specimens mentioned by Heptner and Sludskii (1972), likewise, African lions reportedly weighed 150 - 249.5 kg, excluding exceptional specimens, check all of those references, not just the one about lions weighing much more than 400 lb, at least, so it's like you didn't read all of those references, or it's a bit as if you're saying that because tigers are bigger than lions, Sumatran tigers (100 - 140 kg) must be bigger than Asiatic lions (160 - 190 kg). Leo1pard (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again you completely ignore or fail to address anything I mentioned. Instead you simply constantly reply with "I didn't merely say tigers and lions with the same size"(despite this whole thing trying to imply it), "I didn't dispute that the largest tigers were larger than the largest lions", "look at my sources and my huge lions" etc. You've just made edits that claim to be more "fair" to Mazak(though I don't see much of a difference), showing that you completely missed the point of my entire complaint, which was the fact you falsely implied that it was Mazak who made the claim that tigers were the largest cat species, which is not the case. That's misleading information and flat out lying. You also claim he did so because he was unaware of your "huge lions" and ligers, which again is false because once more he didn't originate the claim and you have no evidence to support the claim he was unaware of the allegedly huge lions and ligers. That is you again misleading and lying to readers of this page and because you based all this on nothing, that's original research. You didn't delete it, you just added more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.173.175 (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, check it again. Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I now understand that lions can rival even Bengal and Siberian tigers in weight, depending on the population or subspecies. What knowledge or understanding I had about lions and tigers 2 years ago is little compared to what I have now. Leo1pard (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I treat P. t. virgata as a synonym for P. t. altaica, nevertheless?
The page Masai lion mentions that it has 2 trinomial names: P. l. massaica and P. l. nubica, and that of Cape lion says that the 'black-maned' Cape lion could be considered as a population of the Transvaal lion, due to their close relationship, even though the latter 2 articles have been kept separate. Leo1pard (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, how many people noticed the overlap of the ranges of the Caspian tiger and Asiatic lion? Leo1pard (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradicting or confusing information
On one hand, studies show that, on average, Bengal tigers are heavier than Southern African lions and Siberian tigers. On the other hand, the sentence "An average adult male Siberian outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb)," which was derived from "An average adult male tiger from Northern India or Siberia outweighs an average adult male lion by around 45.5 kg (100 lb)" gives the impression that northern Bengal and Siberian tigers are about the same, on average. Leo1pard (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Leo1pard (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Bergmann's rule for tigers
See this. Leo1pard (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016
Remove duplicate text in the intro section:

"A comparison of data on body weights of Siberian tigers indicates that up to the first half of the 20th century both males and females were on average heavier than post-1970 ones. Today's wild Siberian tigers are lighter than Bengal tigers. Their reduced weight as compared to historical Siberian tigers may be due to a combination of causes: when captured, they were usually sick or injured and involved in a conflict situation with people.[8]"

Restcoser (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reclassification of subspecies
While the proposed reclassification of all tigers into only two subspecies has been praised by some, until it has been apparently accepted by a majority of genetic taxonomists, such as by the ITIS group, it seems best to me to leave this proposal only as being described in WP as a "proposal," and not yet taking the liberty of describing it as if it were a "generally accepted fact." Accordingly, I have moved this info to the main Tiger page at: Proposed reclassification of tiger subspecies. Thanks, Warrenfrank (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This review of the 'Cat Classification Task Force' was endorsed by the IUCN Species Survival Commission and is indeed based on results of genetic research carried out in the past couple of years. So it does reflect the latest state of the art. --BhagyaMani (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are certainly correct that it was indeed a thorough scientific review of the state of the science, and it may well in fact be the most thorough scientific treatment of the topic to date, however, sadly, until more political organizations such as ITIS officially accept it, it must unfortunately still remain as an academic "minority view," certainly worthy of citation on the Tiger page, but not yet represented in WP as if it were in fact a majority view.  Unfortunately, academic majority views and academic minority views are not always about pure science, and often involve a bit of politicking.  Sigh...Warrenfrank (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) (Notification:)
 * True is that this was an academic exercise. Subspecific status of populations is not (yet) relevant for in situ conservation. And it may take yeeeears to become significant for ITIS' or other orgs' decisions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Siberian tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224090426/http://uml.wl.dvgu.ru/rscv.php?id=74 to http://uml.wl.dvgu.ru/rscv.php?id=74
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826004608/http://www.globaltigerinitiative.org/download/St_Petersburg/GTRP_Nov11_Final_Version_Eng.pdf to http://www.globaltigerinitiative.org/download/St_Petersburg/GTRP_Nov11_Final_Version_Eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013162226/http://nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/tigers.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/tigers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Siberian tiger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423162028/http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home to http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=3060&TEMPLATE=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831151718/http://amur.org.uk/ to http://www.amur.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the Amur tiger the biggest tiger?
I noticed that sometimes people may try to put in information about the Siberian tiger being the biggest tiger. Though a number of WP:reliable sources made this claim, the reality appears to be that it is the biggest tiger in captivity, not necessarily in the wilderness. Please see this, besides links that have been posted there, for additional details, if you are uncertain of what I mean. Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Another setback, I noticed that that a Bengal tiger from north India had a longer skull than even the longest stated skull of any Amur or Manchurian tiger. Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Siberian tiger versus brown bear
Hi. Sorry to jump in. The discussion on Siberian tiger vs. brown bear interactions is interesting. It is clear that age and size are important factors in the outcome of aggressive encounters. It seems quite clear that the advantage goes to the brown bear in encounters between fully grown male species of each. The loose skin and tissue of the brown bear, larger fixed claws, and an immense advantage in terms of body weight make the outcome clearly to the advantage of the brown bear. Real world encounters obviously involve various weight, sex, and ages, so the outcome can vary depending on those factors. However, there is no question whatsoever, that when we are talking about fully grown male brown bears of 1200 pounds or greater, the bear would prevail even against the largest example of Siberian tiger in most every case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CF0A:CD40:B5C8:A620:C425:EBDE (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In a fair fight between the tiger and bear, as opposed to a usual situation in which the tiger would ambush the bear, yes, the odds would be in favour of the bigger bear, but it need not always be the case the the bear will win. Leo1pard (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018
The Amur tiger and the Ussuri brown bear coexist in Russia, both have shown evidence of predation and competition upon one another. There are many detailed accounts and records of tigers attacking and killing bears and vice versa. The conclusion we can draw from these records is that tigers have attacked and killed more bears. The factual book series called Mammals of the Soviet Union describes one instance of a bear killing a tiger. In 1956, a three-year old tiger was killed by a bear in a predatory attack

The factual novel series called Mammals of the Soviet Union cited three different instances of bears killing tigers.

in 1957, a young tiger was killed in a fair fight with a roaming bear.

In 1960, an adult tigress was killed while defending her cubs from a bear.

In 1962, another young tiger was killed in combat with a large bear

Between 1985 and 1996, a mortality study of Siberian tigers was conducted.

It was found that seven tigers were killed by bears in that time period

In 2010, a two and a half-year old tigress named Anya was killed by a bear:

The Kolumbe River basin is perhaps the least accessible area of the reserve, with no trails or cabins. For this reason, on February 17th, Siberian Tiger Project specialists took a helicopter out to the place where Anya’s last location was taken, to determine what went wrong. We had all been hoping that Anya simply lost her collar. However, when our specialists reached the ground, they discovered that Anya had been killed and eaten by a bear.

It is very disappointing to lose a beautiful, healthy young tigress, who had just begun to live on her own, and could have had many litters of cubs in her lifetime. Our only consolation is that hers at least was a natural death.

In 1882, the factual novel called Thirteen Years Among the Wild Beasts of India published multiple accounts of tigers killing bears.

Multiple bears were ambushed and killed by the tiger, including a large female and her cub

The factual novel series called Mammals of the Soviet Union explains an account of a tigress killing a sexually mature female bear and her cubs.

In 1948, a tigress killed a motherly bear and her two yearlings

The factual novel series called Mammals of the Soviet Union describes an account of a bear being killed by a tigress.

In 1961, a 170 kilogram bear was killed by a tigress who raided its den

In 2009, a factual novel called The Better to Eat You With published an account of a bear being killed by a tiger.

The bear was an adult specimen

In 2009, a video uploaded to YouTube showed the finding of a carcass of a large bear that was killed by a tiger.

The video uploader alleged the bear to be a large male weighing 800 to 900 pounds

According to this data, the Amur tiger generally holds the advantage over the Ussuri brown bear in Russia: In the Russian Far East, the Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), brown bear (Ursus arctos) and Asiatic black bear (U. thibetanus) all share the same habitat. These three species all prefer deciduous and mixed wood forests. In the Sikhote-Alin protected area, the relationship between bears and a tiger were studied during extensive telemetry research in the region. During the non-denning period bears scavenged 16.7% of surveyed tiger kills (n=427). Brown bears scavenged tiger kills 6.7 times more often, than Asiatic black bears. The frequency of autumn scavenging by bears was less than spring (X2 = 8.7, df= 1, p= 0.003) and summer (X2 = 10.5, df= 1, p= 0.012). In 44.4% of cases the bears scavenged tiger kills only after the tiger had abandoned the kill site. In at least 4 cases (11.1 %) bears displaced tigers from a kill, while in 4 cases both tigers and bears utilized the kill during the same period. Analysis has shown that 2.1% of bears diet is obtained from tiger kills, 1.4% for brown bears and 0.7% from Asiatic black bears. In 44 recorded encounters between tigers and bears, the tiger initiated contact in 12 cases while the bear initiated contact in 8 cases. Of these encounters, 50% resulted in the death of the bear, 27.3% resulted in the death of the tiger and in 22.7% of encounters both animals survived and parted ways. Records of tigers killing Asiatic black bears are unclear. Tigers can prey on denning bears, and the Asiatic black bear have better protected dens then brown bears. Bears often follow tiger tracks through deep snow for ease of movement, to scavenge tiger kills and to potentially prey on tigers. Tigers, brown bears and Asiatic black bears all use the same mark and rub trees. On page 64 of this document is a study of tiger and brown bear interactions

According to this source, tiger is generally victor However, interest in nature, as a rule, arises from attempts to find answers to "childish" questions. In fairness, it should be noted that the issues of the relationship between the Ussuri tiger and the brown bear still attracted the attention of professionals. Nevertheless, there is not much reliable information about the resolution of conflict situations between the two "masters" of the taiga. S.P. Kucherenko notes that the average tiger is always stronger than the average bear. Of the 17, reliably known to him, cases of fights of a tiger with a brown bear in the Sikhote-Alin in 1965-1976. in 8 cases the animals dispersed, in 6 the tiger defeated, in 3 the bear was defeated. In addition, there were recorded 9 cases of tiger attack on bears in dens (the tiger crushed and ate 7 adult animals and 9 cubs). But a careful analysis of the relationship of these predators, leads the author to the conclusion, that the brown bear is more aggressive (especially in a hungry time). The tiger tries to attack small bears. Tigress, defending cubs, fights with any bear and more often perishes. Based on the materials of the zoologist V.E. Kostoglod, of the 28 cases studied by him, the fights of these two predators, the priority in the attack was on the side of the brown bear. V.E. Kostoglod recorded 7 attacks of brown bears on tigers and 6 attacks of tigers on bears. Of the 28 fights mentioned already between the tiger and the bear, in 11 cases the tiger won, in 9 cases the bear won, in 8 cases the beasts dispersed. Among the 9 dead tigers of adults were 5, the rest - cubs. The data of V.E. Kostoglod about the greater initiative of bears in the power resolution of conflicts with the tiger, were later confirmed by the same SP. Kucherenko, who pointed out, that out of 44 authentically documented cases, the fist initiative in the attack belonged to the bear in 13, the tiger - in nine (in 22 cases, the instigator could not be determined). In the course of these fights, 14 bears and 8 tigers died (in 22 cases the animals parted, having received quite severe wounds). V. Sysoev reports 4 battles of a tiger with a bear (two ended in favour of a bear, one won a tiger and one more beast separated). Okhotovid G. Gorokhov pointed out that out of 10 collisions of adult tigers with a brown bear, in 5 cases the predators diverged, in 3 the tiger won, in 2 bears. V.S. Khramtsov in his work "On the relationship between bears and tigers in the spurs of the Reserve Range" wrote that in 1989-1990, 8 cases of death of white-bears from tigers were established in the Lazovsky Reserve and only one case of the death of a brown bear from the "master of the jungle" was recorded. There were no facts of tiger deaths from bears. A.G. Yudakov and IG Nikolaev, for three seasons of winter stationary observations, only twice faced the facts of tigers eating bears. And then, it was about the white-throated bears. At the same time, according to K.N. Tkachenko, in the tiger he studied, the brown bear accounted for 18.5%, while the share of the white-beared bear was only 14.8%. In general, in the ration of the tiger, the brown bear firmly retained an honourable third place, allowing only wild boar (37%) and izyubra (29.6%) to go forward. Biologist N.N. Rukovsky interviewed 42 hunter-guard of the Primorsky Territory to clarify the relationship between the tiger and the bear. Of these, 7 people answered that the tiger specifically hunted for a bear; Six people said that the bear walks in the footprints of the tiger, collecting the remains of food; 14 - told of fights of a tiger with a bear without a tragic outcome; two remember the cases when the bear strangled the tiger; 11 claimed that the tiger killed the bear. N.N. Rukovsky himself in the footsteps once determined that a brown bear killed a tiger. The bear was very large (it was visible in the footsteps), and the tiger is young - about 4 years old (it was visible on the skull). The very battlefield (broken fir trunks with arm thick, scattered wisps of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle. N. Rukovsky himself, as well as most other authors, believes that fights between predators occur more often in hungry (for the bear) years, when the connecting rods face tigers near the killed animals. And only in rare cases can a victim become a tiger (most often young). The tiger prefers to hunt not on brown, but on Himalayan bears. The very battlefield (broken fir trunks with arm thick, scattered wisps of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle. and the tiger is young - about 4 years old (it was visible on the skull). The very battlefield (broken fir trunks with arm thick, scattered wisps of wool, blood) testified to a long and fierce struggle. In conclusion, a few words about the television series "Animal Battles", where allegedly from a scientific standpoint the victory was definitively and irrevocably awarded to a bear. This project demonstrates how television can ditch any good idea, and how with the help of "scientific methods" you can powder your brains. To begin with, the authors of the "Feral Battles" did not bother to get acquainted with the literature on this issue. But it follows from the scientific literature that the tiger is not only inferior to a bear, but even more often it is a winner. 112.118.211.190 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your request is unclear. Please make a specific request to change the article, in the form "Change X to Y". If you're requesting that this entire text be added, please specify where you would like it added, and seek consensus on the talk page prior to using the template. As is, this goes into an inordinate level of detail about one topic which is already addressed to some extent in the article, and I would not change the article without a supporting consensus. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The section "Interspecific predatory relationships" shows that bears and tigers have killed each other, even if not in the same detail as how you described. Leo1pard (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018
Refer title Interspecific predatory relationships

A part of original content is : Some studies show that bears frequently track down tigers to usurp their kills, with occasional fatal outcomes for the tiger. A report from 1973 describes twelve known cases of brown bears killing tigers, including adult males; in all cases the tigers were subsequently eaten by the bears.[46][47]

My request is change this part content to : Some studies show that bears frequently track down tigers to usurp their kills, with occasional fatal outcomes for the tiger. A report from 1973 describes twelve known cases of brown bears killing tigers, including Young-adults males; in all cases the tigers were subsequently eaten by the bears.[46][47]

& add resource : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322963058/download

My reason: Refer above resource & The reason is Young-adults tiger (>3 to 5 years) & Prime-adults tiger (>5 to 10 years) & By three  years  most  tigers  are  close  to  full  adult  size ,  but  continue  to accumulate weight up to 4-4.5 years of age. Adult males range from 200 to 260 kg,  while  adult  females  range  from  110  to  180  kg  showing  a  pronounced  sexual dimorphism in size. By this stage, the face is no longer cub like with full snout and adult skull proportions. Belly gets rounded, often with a slight sag which increases with age. 119.236.217.147 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the study you are referring to appears to be about Bengal tigers, rather than Siberian tigers. The authors, Jhala and Sadhu, are from the Wildlife Institute of India, and the tigers shown in the photos are definitely not Siberian tigers, which inhabit the temperate region where Russia, China and Korea meet. Leo1pard (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo   13:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we consider reliable a study on tiger size where tigers are measured if they are 35 months old?
I consider the study quite confusing, taking into account male tigers don't reach their full size till they are 5-6 years old.

Using statistics where there are 2 year 11month-old tigers is not reliable concerning adult tigers.

It's like if we make an statistic on the average height of Croatians taking into account 14 and 15-year old Croatians.

Which are your views in this particular matter? 83.54.182.12 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * May I ask which study you're referring to? Leo1pard (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the 2005 study by American, Russian, Indian zoologists referred in the section 1.1 (Body Size) of the article.83.63.197.221 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Subspecies classification
, would you please refrain from changing the infobox and lede classification of subspecies without discussion? Adding the results of new studies to the appropriate section, as you have done now, is great; but there is a higher threshold for the up-front classification, which follows the widely accepted standard. We generally take this to be reflected in the usage of the IUCN and the main taxonomic databases. A 2018 study could hardly be expected to have percolated through all of these yet, and in fact that appears not to be the case. So please hold your horses here; the study is mentioned in the article, as it should be, but we will likely want to wait for general uptake before following a reclassification. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have read the study you would know that it ended the whole debate (which had been ongoing) and provided the most concrete evidence with whole genome studies (which has never been done before) that 6 sub species of tigers exist. Overall there has not been much update on reclassification, but it seems like its proven now. Tijkil (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Elmidae's line of arguments. How old are subspecies according to these authors? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Which authors are you referring to, what do you mean by how old?Tijkil (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the authors: Liu et al. 2018; how old : how many generations, or how many thousand years? I.e. how do they define the term 'subspecies'? The summary does not provide an answer. But you seem to have read the whole article? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are the divergence times from the article, in kya: sumatrae 67.3 (tigris 52.9 ((jacksoni 27.6 corbetti) 45.2 (altaica 33.8 amoyensis))) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I literally just now got access to the article. Here it is: https://wildfact.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=2726 Tijkil (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is with it seems like its proven now. That is just what we need the scientific consensus to state, outright. Basically, multiple published statements along the line of "As Li et al. (2018) conclusively demonstrated, there remains little doubt that tigers should be classified as six distinct subspecies"; and uptake by the major databases. It's not up to us to decide that the question has been settled. We wait for the field at large to decide so and to state it. THEN we follow suit. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes sure, i know and concur! Still, I'd like to know their definition or dating of subspeciation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (that was addressed to Tijkil; mind your indenting to make this easier ;) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is what the study said (page 9):


 * A subspecies has been defined as ‘‘a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species’’[36] with later clarifications that ‘‘subspecies designation should come from the concordant distribution of multiple, independent,genetically based traits.’’ [37] and, more recently, ‘‘a population,or collection of populations, that appears to be a separately evolving lineage with discontinuities resulting from geography,ecological specialization, or other forces that restrict gene flowto the point that the population or collection of populations is diagnosably distinct’’ [38]. Because many of the conservation policies and measurements regarding the tiger, including coordinated captive breeding programs and legislations in several tiger range countries, are based on ‘‘subspecies taxonomy,’’ an appropriate description of subspecies is vitally important [39, 40]. Considering the subspecies concepts presented above, the genome-wide signatures of phylogeographic partitioning and evidence for long-term restriction of gene flow and adaptive divergence jointly allow us to elucidate tiger evolution and corroborate six phylo geographic units (Figures 1,2, and3). These findings provide the strongest genetic evidence for sub-species delineation in tigers to date, evidence stronger than that used to define subspecies in nearly any felid reported thus far. These population units correspond precisely with the geographic subspecies named much earlier: (1)P.t. tigris (Lin-naeus, 1758), Bengal tiger; (2)P.t. altaica( Temminck, 1844),Amur tiger; (3)P.t. amoyensis (Hilzheimer, 1905), South China tiger (further sampling is needed); (4)P.t. sumatrae Pocock,1929, Sumatran tiger; (5)P.t. corbetti Mazak, 1968, Indochinese tiger; and (6)P.t. jacksoni Luo et al. 2004, Malayan tiger.Understanding the tiger’s natural history from a genomic perspective provides a data-driven foundation for subspeciesr ecognition, conservation strategic planning, and manage mentactions. Our general goals are to reverse the species’ decline by maximizing the efforts to preserve the genetic diversity, evolutionary uniqueness, and potential of the species Panthera tigris.


 * https://wildfact.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=2726


 * Overall it seems like the subspecies should be seen as they are, thats basically what the whole world says on them, if you ask anybody about subspecies they can tell you and differentiate between them. I have no doubt that people got confused when they read the wiki page. Tijkil (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * And Luo and Driscoll happen to be members of the Cat Specialist Group, as mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The Siberian tiger or Amur tiger extinction in the Korean Peninsula.
Hello everyone. I am Korean and I know many information on tigers in my country. Primitive Japanese wiped out tigers in the Korean Peninsula.

I saw you delete this sentence "The Siberian tiger was once common in the Korean Peninsula. However, the tigers in Korea were hunted into extinction by the Japanese during the Japanese occupation. The last known Siberian tiger in South Korea was killed in 1922. Heat sensing camera traps set up in the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea did not record any tigers." I don't know why did you deleted that sentence, but that sentence must be there. Japanese is also responsible for current situation of the Amur leopard as well in the last century!!!!! I am so angry and upset in this world that most people don't even know why Amur leopard became critical endangered despite they love Amur leopard and Amur tiger!

Here is the source link. This is interview with professor in Korea. He is trying to work with the team in Russia to reestablish Amur tiger back into Korea. If you can read Korean language, then you would know that tigers in the Korean Peninsula were extinct by Japanese's hunting. https://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=028&aid=0002229388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceanimal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did not read my respective edit summary regarding this paragraph: it was copy-pasted from a book, but unref'ed. You need to provide a WP:RS for the allegation 'hunted into extinction by Japanese', not just an interview in a newspaper. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The tiger may be extinct in South Korea, but North Korea is nevertheless a potential tiger territory, due to its proximity to Manchuria, so it's nevertheless possible that the northern part of the Korean Peninsula has a few tigers that crossed over from China and Russia. Leo1pard (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC); edited 05:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude. You are not Korean. You can't even understand Korean language. You are not big cat scientist. You don't know anything of tigers of Korea. I am telling you the truth of jap wiped out tigers. There is a book named "Junghoki." It was the japanese business man wrote diary of his hunting party in Korea. He leaded exterminate of large carniores in the Korean Peninsula. Japanese even used dynamite to hunt tigers in Korea, Manchuria, and border of the Russia as well. 그는 또 조선 총독부의 자료를 통해 호랑이와 표범이 한반도에서 사라지게 된 직접적 원인이 일제 강점기의 (해로운 짐승을 제거한다는) ‘해수 구제’ 정책이었음을 처음 밝히기도 했다. 일제가 치명타를 가한 것은 사실이다. If you and Wikipedia are writing fake and wrong information. Then what is the purpose of Wkipedia? There is a book, but I don't think there is any published paper on tigers in Korea. I hope someone to publish that idiotic japanese is responsible of wiping out precious Amur tiger and Amur leopard in my country. japan is also caused critically endangered status of the Amur leopard today, but Amur leopard was not just japanese's fault.
 * Are you here to chat up and rail? Or are you also able to read ? About 3 weeks ago, I added with ref that tigers were killed in the peninsula between 1910 and 1945. Next time, watch your language and sign your comments. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Siberian tiger
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Siberian tiger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Driscoll2009": From Tiger:  From Caspian tiger:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020
Sooyang Park is one man who have dedicated his entire life for studying siberian tiger. I couldn't find reference of his name in this page. Can someone acknowledge his work. Wiki.durairaj (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not for general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about first sentence structure
See Talk:Bengal_tiger. AnomalousAtom (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tiger in Beringia ?
Certainly NOT. See " What Is a Tiger? Biogeography, Morphology, and Taxonomy" by Kitchener & Yamaguchi (2010) who wrote: The fossils found in these areas were consistent with molecular work using ancient DNA techniques suggesting Beringian ‘tigers’ were in fact lions. and referenced Barnett et al. (2009) about phylogeography of lions revealing three distinct taxa. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The information about the relationship with the brown bear is wrong.
The Siberian tiger always hunts and defeats the brown bear.source; https://animalscomparison.com/compare-grizzly-bear-vs-siberian-tiger/ https://animalhype.com/mammals/bear-vs-tiger/
 * And how do you know that the statements on these 2 websites are correct? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021
Change "In December 1997, an injured Amur tiger attacked, killed and consumed two people.

To "In December 1997, an injured Amur tiger attacked, killed and partially consumed a poacher by the name of Vladimir Markov. Markov had shot it and stolen the Tiger's kill, resulting in a response described by many as 'premeditated and vengeful . " AreebSiddiqui14 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither names nor this incidence are important enough to add. imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Increasing the importance of the name Amur tiger
I would like to suggest either renaming the article to Amur tiger or changing the wording at the start of the article so that it says "Siberian tiger or Amur tiger". The reason is that various sources on the Internet are using the name Amur tiger now. For example: https://en.wwfchina.org/en/what_we_do/species/fs/amurtiger/ https://www.blackpoolzoo.org.uk/animals/tiger-amur https://www.oregonzoo.org/discover/animals/amur-tiger Bright Orion | talk  15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The name and page title has been in use for ages + is well established. So I do NOT agree to renaming it. I would agree to add the name 'Amur tiger' in the lead, but withOUT a link to Amur River. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the title has been in use for ages or not is irrelevant. Science changes and language changes. The links I listed say "Amur tiger (formerly known as Siberian tiger)". Please see the link below for more info on why the name appears to have been changed.
 * http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/amur.html
 * Bright Orion | talk  20:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Names used on websites are IRrelevant here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not irrelevant when the said websites are of the World Wide Fund for Nature and of various zoos around the world. Bright Orion | talk  23:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Siberian tiger → Amur tiger – The name 'Siberian' tiger was because this subspecies was originally found across much of Siberia but now its territory is so reduced that this tiger is almost entirely restricted to a small area in eastern Russia called Amur. Consequently, zoos around the world now call it the Amur tiger. (Please see discussion above called "Increasing the importance of the name Amur tiger".) Bright Orion | talk  23:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This title has been operational since 2004, so is well established + linked. True is that both names have been used for ages; 'Amur tiger' is NOT a new name because of population decline. – BhagyaMani (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Amur is not a new name because of population decline, but in many places it has become the favoured name because of population decline. Siberia covers a much larger area than Amur. Bright Orion |  talk  11:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Extirpation or near-extirpation is not a valid reason to rename a (sub)species's common name, especially when there is no official impetus to change the name in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article isn't renamed, then at the very least the name "Amur tiger" should be right up there in the lead. Siberian tiger or Amur tiger, as it is in the French and German versions of this article, as examples.
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigre_de_Sib%C3%A9rie
 * https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibirischer_Tiger  Bright Orion |  talk  10:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again: we usually don't go by names on websites. You seem to not have read + noticed yet that Amur tiger has been a redirect for decades already. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That all depends on what website it is. You can't just dismiss any sources on the Internet for goodness' sake. A redirect is not the same as saying it in the lead. You'll also notice that in the French version, "Amur" links to the "Amur river", as I had done on the English article until someone reverted it because it was "not an improvement". Bright Orion |  talk  11:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of common names in wiki pages does NOT depend on websites, but on their use in referenced sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. In this case, referenced sources, on the Internet. Bright Orion |  talk  11:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't get my point: these names existed looong before the internet was invented. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, already at the common and most familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to remind: the sources in the above section are important and relevant, but not outside the context of allllllllllllllllllllll these significant print sources. Oppose Red   Slash  18:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's interesting. But it's what you'd expect, given that the common name used to be Siberian tiger. Many sources say the common name has changed to Amur tiger now because it isn't actually found in Siberia any more. Bright Orion |  talk  20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per above: Siberian tiger is undoubtedly the common name here. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Synonyms?
Should we add this in the taxobox?


 * Formerly recognised as a distinct subspecies:


 * P. t. amurensis
 * P. t. altaica (Temminck, 1884)
 * P. t. coreensis
 * P. t. mandshurica
 * P. t. mikadoi

— Some1 talk to me 14:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as is all explained in section *Taxonomy*. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

lead img
dont you think we should update the img? its been maybe more than 3-4 years with that img. I suggest File:Tiger in the snow at the Detroit Zoo March 2008 pic 2.jpg. Some1 {talk} 18:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * what do you think about here too? -- Some1 {talk} 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lede images are not something that need to be updated or changed regularity. Please stop this hopping across articles to propose image changes. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. This playing around with images is unconstructive bosh. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Skull
The greater sagittal crest height in Siberian tigers in comparison to Indian tigers is likely to be in part a plastic response to the differences in environment and diet between their ranges. The height of the sagittal crest has been shown to be highly plastic between captive and wild individuals: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220697 195.195.244.20 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Maps of tiger territory
The bengal tiger page has labelled the countries in which the tiger is seen, the Siberian tiger map does not. This does not reflect Wikipedia’s goals of neutrality. Thanks. 77.56.87.109 (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed update to body-size.
Currently, the average body-weight of the Siberian Tiger is listed as being 176.4kg & 117.9kg, for males and females respectively - with a study released in 2005 for reference. However, additional individuals have been sampled since the publishing of the aforementioned study: https://www.scribd.com/document/55288084/Size-and-weight-AmurTiger-2015

A poster by the username of Raul Valvert gathered data of reliably measured Tigers whose measurements were taken from the year of 1992, to 2012, and proceeded to post these in the form of tables. Table 1 concerned male tigers of >3 years of age. The calculated average for these specimens (n=23) was 190.0 kg. Table 2 concerned female tigers. The same trend of the newer average being greater than the last is present here as well, (n=15) 121.0 kg

It should be noted that this data shouldn't necessarily be taken to represent the comtemporary Amur Tiger population. Most individuals sampled here should be long dead; there's an evident need for a more modern and extensive study. Nevertheless, it's what we'll have to work with for now.

Therefore, I suggest we update the present information to account for more recent samples.

Separate note:''

A user before me raised the question of whether Tigers who can be considered sub-adults should be included in our mean average values; likening it to including teenagers when discussing the body-weights of adult humans. I decided to take the liberty of calculating the mean value with the updated exclusion of <4 year old specimens: (n=14) 194.07'' kg. The reason for their exclusion is that sexual maturity isn't reached before 4 year of age.

References were provided for each Tiger. Von Herre (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Update:
 * Of the references listed for the 23 males sampled, only 6 of them seem to be accessible for reading without the need of extensive searching. These ase are made up of by the 4 males weighed by the Amur Tiger Programme (type in their names + ATP in the Google search bar), and the two males registered as PT90 & PT100 (AMUR TIGER PREDATION AND ENERGETIC REQUIREMENTS IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST). These half a dozen provide a mean of 203.5 kg. None of these date further back than to 2010. This is the most contemporary of data available at the moment.
 * Or that isn't entirely the case. There is further evidence that needs to be evaluated as reliable or subpar. Feng Limin, a well-established Chinese field expert and biologist especially familiar with the Amur Tiger, confessed that the largest specimen he personally weighed was of 270kg. He would also go on to verify the existence of another exceptionally sized individual weighing 250kg: https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-on-the-edge-of-extinction-a-the-tiger-panthera-tigris?page=181 (see posts by username Apex)
 * If accepted, this would bring the contemporary mean (2010 onwards) all the way up to 217.625kg.
 * The 2005 study that is presently quoted on the page is outdated as all of the individuals sampled (n=10) have been long dead. Furthermore, sub-adults and old individuals were included. At the very least the data presented shouldn't be labelled as contemporary, especially since updated samples are available.
 * Depending on what approach one takes they'll end up with 6 different means.
 * Mean 1 (includes the 2005 study as well as data gained since the onset of 2010 - not including those associated with Feng Limin): 186.5625 kg (n=16).
 * Mean 2 (includes the aforementioned data but removes two sub-adults from the 2005 study - with the ID of 49 & 63 in the table posted in my first submission): 190 kg (n=14).
 * Mean 3 (includes the data used in mean 1 as well as the exceptionally sized specimens referenced by Feng Limin): 194.72 kg (n=18).
 * Mean 4 (same data as in mean 2 but with Feng Limin): 198.75 kg (n=16).
 * Mean 5 (contemporary data since 2010 but no Feng Limin): 203.5 kg (n=6).
 * Mean 6 (contemporary date + Feng limin): 217.625kg (n=8).
 * At the very least I believe this Wikipedia article should be updated to reflect mean 4. Though I believe a solid case can be made for the higher means. Von Herre (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: Wikipedia article should be updated to reflect mean 3, at the very least.
 * Here are the sources for the 6 males sampled since 2010:
 * Luk (212kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/24787
 * Banzai (212kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25260
 * Professor (204kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/11208
 * Leopardovy (200kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/15226
 * PT90/193kg & PT100/200kg (see table 3-4): https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/AMUR-TIGER-PREDATATION-AND-ENERGETIC-REIREMENTS-IN-Miller/19767dd41023040e1b2520c8b54db5c9c6986da0 Von Herre (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024
I propose a change to the average body-weight values listed in the body-size section under characteristics, to account for more recent samples. Half a dozen of them (all being males).
 * PT90/Ivan (200kg) & PT100 (193kg): https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/AMUR-TIGER-PREDATION-AND-ENERGETIC-REQUIREMENTS-IN-Miller/19767dd41023040e1b2520c8b54db5c9c6986da0 (see figure 3-4)
 * Luk (212kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/24787
 * Banzai (212kg): http://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/25260
 * Professor (204kg): http://programmes.putin.kremli.ru/en/tiger/news/11208
 * Leopardovy (200kg): https://programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/en/tiger/news/15226

The weight average currently listed for wild male Amur Tigers is 176.4kg - with a study from 2005 being referenced (n=18). Taking into account the more contemporary samples shown above, that average would be raised to 183.175kg. This update is my proposed change. Von Herre (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These individuals are all within the weight range referred to in the main text. So no need to add them. – BhagyaMani (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but wouldn't they raise the average still? In any case I went into more detail in my submission above, so that might be of more interest. I also erroneously listed the sample size of the 2005 study as being 16 when it's actually 10. Again this and more is accounted for in my submission above. Von Herre (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We can't just average new measurements into a calculation from another study, that would be original research. Jamedeus (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree with you but I'm convinced our situation should serve as a rare exception.
 * The procedure followed by field-experts for the gathering of body-weight data on the Amur Tiger is as straightforward as: capturing specimens > weighing them on a scale (these can then be referenced) > derive mean. The applied methodology is the same for all of these samples.
 * Therefore whether intended to or not, once a sample has been acknowledged as reliable it will as a natural byproduct of its recognized status, factor into talks of means - because (in this case) they all employ the same methodology and are interconnected to one another. If no objections are made to the validity of these recent measurements then I don't see how I'm taking any particular proactive liberties with my proposals. Admission of the reliability of their nature is an admission of their right to be accounted for in the general body-weight data.
 * Once again I want to emphasise that these changes would simply be contemporary continuations to the material presented in the 2005 study. Von Herre (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTH !! BhagyaMani (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I'm being obtuse, but I feel like the point I raised in my preceding comment still stands, or was left unanswered as to why it shouldn't. How can we accept these outlined measurements as valid in isolation, while at the same time denying their role and influence in the greater population statistic? If a sample is given the go-ahead then it's going to, by default, be reflected in the related but more general data. I don't have to go out on a limb and extend the weight samples of these individual tigers onto the greater population because that's something which happens automatically at the point of being given recognition.
 * The only thing that would change apart from the mean would be the cut-off date of the data. Apart from that I'm not diverging from what the 2005 study did; collected samples from a specified time period and calculated the mean. We'd just be updating the time period.
 * The article you linked seems to be great for outlining general inaccuracies in the synthesis of published material but I just don't think it applies to the case-specific contents of my proposals. Per the words of the article: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". If applied to my proposals then wouldn't it also apply to the study published in 2005 since they did the same as me; gathered samples from (different sources) and derived a mean. Von Herre (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an exception, namely WP:CALC, that may allow such a calculation to be made. However, recent interpretations of WP:CALC (e.g. 1, 2) tend to give more weight to the complexity of context and analysis rather than the calculation itself, which has generally made these interpretations very conservative. In this specific case, while calculating a new average is mathematically simple, determining that this methodology is valid and that the new average is representative of all male Siberian tigers requires expert analysis, which is beyond our capabilities and constitutes WP:OR.
 * While you have claimed that the accepted methodology is, in fact, as simple as averaging all available samples, explicitly verifying this claim requires additional sourcing (a direct description of the methodology is needed, not just based on how these research papers are written, as there may be additional interpretation or calculations not included in publications), and generally it's not worth going so far just to update a statistic.
 * If necessary, we can also bring this to WP:NORN for further discussion, although I'd rather avoid taking it as far as WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Liu1126 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a well-written answer.
 * So deliberation on my proposal is dependent on my ability to provide evidence, that would demonstrate the methodology concerned with these samples is sufficiently uniform? I'd imagine this would require me to do something like referencing an official publication and step-for-step identify the presence of such a simple methodology. Von Herre (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, that would be sufficient, although it would also be dependent on how hard it actually would be to verify this methodology. On the other hand, application of WP:CALC requires positive consensus, and we don't have that right now; wider participation would be needed. Liu1126 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)