Talk:Siberian tiger

Archive 1

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 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.[1]. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing conflict / IP vowing / persistent vandalism / personal attack. see page protection dated Aug 11, 2014

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.