Talk:Siberian tiger

Edited The Interspecies Conflict Section With Sourced Material and NPOV

The latest edits are from poorly cited sources and misinterpretation due to someone's bias in favor of tigers. It is far from NPOV. I have cited more material and stated in with NPOV. The truth is both species have killed each other and are rivals.

I have edited the section on brown bears and tigers and provided SOURCED material in a NPOV, because these latest edits by a fellow named "bigcat82" reek of bias and violate this sites NPOV policy. He misstates the sourced material and inserts his own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.181.29 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Quit undoing this edit! The material is sourced and follows the NPOV policy. The other material DOES NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.181.29 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the edit that violates wikipedia's NPOV policy and properly cited the sources. Please do not undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.205.210 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is The siberian tiger really leading to extinction?

I am Researching for a report.... If you reply to this msg please tell where you got your info from (For book :Author,Date it was published The Publishers)ETC. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.238.190 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.wcsrussia.org/

I'd recommend consulting there as they're in charge of the Siberian Tiger Project the chief conservation organization for the sub-species and probably the best collection of researchers on tigers out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.158.42 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiger Vs Bear NPOV

The interspecific interactions section on this page and several related pages is clearly biased in favor of the tiger concerning tiger-bear interactions. While either species have killed the other, this article only briefly mentions the fact that brown bears have killed adult and young tigers - all in just one sentence. In comparison, the rest of the entire 16 line paragraph describes tigers killing bears in immense detail (purported killing technique, times of year, trails, etc). That purported killing technique, is also not sourced (the part about tigers feeding on bear fat deposits is sourced, but the sentences about tigers waiting for bears to pass by and grabbing under the chin,etc, are not sourced and are speculation until a source is found). Then, the the onyly mother fuker yuo are is yuouer mother kill "young" tigers or only kill females, whereas they have killed adults and males as well. Note that this information about bears killing adult tigers was taken from one of the same sources that the tiger-advocates used (V.G. Heptner & A.A. Sludskii. Mammals of the Soviet Union, Volume II, Part 2.) I do not see bear advocates claiming tigers only kill bear cubs on this page. When all of this is added up, it is clear that there is a problem of NPOV in favor of the tiger on wikipedia. Why would this be the case? Well, I am aware of various internet websites where tiger-advocates and bear and lion enthusiasts argue vociferously about "which species is tougher", "faster", etc, etc. This seems to be where the problem is coming from

The part about tigers waiting for bears IS sourced. It is from Mammals of the Soviet Union. See here: http://books.google.com/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&pg=PA175&dq=A+Having+tracked+its+victim+the+predator+chin&cd=1#v=onepage&q=A%20Having%20tracked%20its%20victim%20the%20predator%20chin&f=false

The reason there are more detailed accounts on how tigers kill bears than vice versa is simply that they have been observed more often. It has nothing to do with an anti-bear agenda. It is no different to writing about how tigers kill deer. I do not see any deer advocates complaining. Mariomassone (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely, the tiger vs brown bear relations is completely different from those of tigers and deers. First of all, there are many known instances of bears killing tigers (12 vs 25 the other way around). Second, deers do not dominate over tiger's kills but male adult brown bears do. Third, a large brown bear can even predate upon a tiger in Winter or early Spring. A deer will probably not. The last difference, an experienced tiger will try to take down any deer, on the other hand, any tiger will usually avoid a fully grown male brown bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.102 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how ANYONE can think any siberian tiger, no matter how big, would be a match for a bear in a head to head fight. A HUGE male tiger might weigh 600 pounds, with no where NEAR the bite force of a bear of roughly equal size, though somewhat larger teeth. An average female brown bear in these areas will weigh 660 - 1100 pounds, and is an animal that can BEHEAD a fully grown bull moose weighing nearly a ton. I do not dispute the tiger's ability to predate on young bears. Someone show me a DOCUMENTED case where a bear over 600 pounds was killed by a tiger. JUST ONE! It makes no sense. A bear has so much more fat and protective hide than a tiger that it can take many fold more punishment than a sleek feline. This can not include the examples of smaller female bears attacked when they were hibernating. A bear coming out of hibernation is disoriented for quite some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.105.135 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that tigers wrestle bears into submission on a regular basis but that's not what predation is about, that's just a brawl. Predation means for the tiger sneaking up and ambushing the bear that seems weakest, yeah that's not 'fair' because you'll tend to be comparing bigger male tigers to smaller female bears but get over it, nature isn't fair. It -counts- when you have smaller female bears attacked out of hibernation and actually counts more then winning some brawl, that suggests intent to locate bears when they're vulnerable and kill them, predation. It's completely accurate to say that tigers hunt and kill bears, even brown bears, just as it's completely accurate to say that lions hunt water buffalo but don't tend to go after the big fit males. Now, as stated earlier bears can and will win a brawl with a tiger, they're better built for it, however since this would often result as a mere chance confrontation I think it's understandable that there be emphasis on the tiger's hunting behavior, especially since this is an article about tigers, not bears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.158.42 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source Problems

Also, there are problems with one of the main sources favoring the tiger. The article claims that brown bears and asiatic black bears make up 5-8% of the siberian tiger diet, and that the brown makes up 1-1.5%. There are several problems with this:

1) The first problem is different wikipedia articles give different sources for this same information. This siberian tiger article gives the source as "The ecology, behavior, management and conservation status of brown bears in Sikhote-Alin (Russian)". Far Eastern National University, Vladivostok, Russia. pp. 1–252. In contrast, the main tiger wikiarticle gives the source as "http://uml.wl.dvgu.ru/rscv.php?id=74.^ a b c d e f (German) Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596".

So, which one is it? This is not an academic question. For a controversial point as this one (see those internet websites), the source must be correct.

2) The second problem is that both of the possible sources listed above are foreign language sources being used on an english language wikipedia. While I have no blanket opposition to using foreign language sources, this does raise the issue that the best evidence favoring the tiger has to be gleaned from obscure sources - sources that are difficult to verify. While using Russian source can be understood (the siberian tiger lives in Russian-controlled territory), why a German or Czech (see below) source, when there are many credible English language tiger researchers? It really appears that the tiger advocates searched far and wide for sources favoring their opinion - if so, this is called data mining. Also, the important issue of verification of the source still remains. Can you read Russian, German, AND perhaps Czech also? (Vratislav Mazak is listed as being of Czech background on his wikipage). I would like to ask people with the ability to read Russian and German to verify that the sources really do state what they are claimed to state. If they do not, these sources must be removed.

3) Lastly, even if black and brown bears make up a certain percentage of a tiger's diet, this does not necessarily mean that the tiger killed the bear, which is what the tiger-advocates seem to be trying to push. Like nearly all carnivores, tigers do scavenge. They even scavenge from other carnivores, such as leopards and from single dholes or small packs of dholes. See this video from the BBC of a tiger scavenging from a dhole (the rest of the pack had already left the carcass - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqAOugffWA). I can give you sources showing that cattle and elk make up a certain percentage of a coyote's or bobcat's diet, but coyotes or bobcats killing adults of either of those species (or even young elk as well) would be an extraordinary event. Similarly, giant squid beaks have been found in certain sleeper sharks (see the wikiarticle), but that does not necessarily mean that the shark killed the squid. Most likely, the percentage of diet figures from the sources listed above are from scat samples or perhaps from examination of gut contents. If so, they indicate that tigers feed on bears, but they do not show that tigers kill bears.

All in all, this article has NPOV issues that need addressing.

links to habitat

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2010/WWFPresitem17536.html could be added in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Panthera tigris altaica 13 - Buffalo Zoo.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A female Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), a subspecies of tiger native to Central Asia, and her cub. The Siberian tiger is the largest of the extant tiger subspecies as well as the largest felid, attaining 320 kg (710 lb) in an exceptional specimen. Considered an endangered subspecies, the wild population is down to several hundred individuals and is limited to eastern Siberia.Photo: Dave Pape

question

what is the domain of a sibeirian tigar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.22.54.26 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Silk Road migration

How could the ancestors of the Siberian tiger have migrated via the Silk Road, if that route only came into existence over 7000 years after their migration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Silk Road was a migration route long before it was used for trading silk. How about reading the referenced article yourself? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the correct name? Amur or Siberian

I have heard that the name 'Siberian' tiger is old and the 'correct' name (according to the couple of zoos that I've visited recently) is the Amur tiger.

To back this up, the IUCN red list website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/15956/0) lists it as the Amur tiger (but interestingly Tigre de Sibérie in French).

Should the name of this page be changed to Amur tiger with a redirect from Siberian tiger? Agentgonzo (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Liger

Are Siberian tigers bigger than ligers? Or should we change the text to "largest living felid in the wild"? 24.18.50.139 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ligers are larger, the text should be changed. 70.20.42.218 (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is wrong in saying that the siberian tiger has a longer skull than african lion

In the world of the big cats is the lion which has the longest skull. Indeed, in a french article an African lion was killed in Zimbabwe in 1999 with a record lenght of skull 425,3mm (or 42,53 cm) in lenght which exceeds that of the siberian tiger whose record size in this section is 40,6 cm (406 mm) http://www.chassons.com/encyclopedie/animaux/lion/lion.htm -rourébrébé-217.128.55.164 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

i would like a link on how to write a diary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.99.212 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I had to rephrase some sentences that were copy-pasted from one of the cited scientific articles. This article needs to be checked to make sure there isn't any other plagiarised sentences here. 209.162.56.112 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition of plagiarism ! The source of the sentences in question is properly referenced, i.e. nobody ever "wrongful appropriated" them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Generally, a simple inline reference is only sufficient for source material that has been summarized in your own words; verbatim quotes have to always be identified as such by the additional use of quotation marks. Try anything else in your college papers and you′ll receive a failing grade if you′re lucky, or get suspended if you′re not. Wikipedia furthermore asks for in-text naming of the source for verbatim quotes, whether direct or indirect. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Plagiarism_on_Wikipedia, ′Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution′ and ′Quotation marks and in-text attribution′. -- 92.206.11.66 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Statistics on morphology

Can someone who is an authority on Siberian tigers please provide more concise and clear statistics on the min. and max. of this subspecies' height, weight and length? As it is now there are 69 different numbers to go through, which is absurd. I know several people want to prove their numbers as the "record breakers", but at the loss of clarity, this is unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasvburgeson (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canine distemper in Siberian tigers

See

• 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

-- 92.206.11.66 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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 selected smaller bears as well. 174.124.158.58 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)