Talk:Asiatic lion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Asiatic Lion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible Asiatic Lion captured in Iraq?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GvHA0V8rz0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent shooter (talkcontribs) 17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the Asiatic Lions living outside the GIR Forest?[edit]

Yes, there are 359 lions (last census) living inside the Gir Forest. What about the 2,000 plus now living outside the forest and not covered by the census? Why aren't these mentioned in the main article? - Dr. Ian A. Inman Beefy_SAFC (Talk) 11.15 pm, 14th September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.223 (talk)

This is a good point. If you can cite your source for the existence of these 2,000 other lions (are they in India, or are you referring to zoo populations?) please include this. If you need help developing a paragraph to include into the text, I'll be willing to help. --Kpstewart (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Pundareekam is Tiger?[edit]

Pundareek is Sanskrit for Lotus, this is a fact, one can find that online everywhere. Somebody on the net has wrongly translated it as "Tiger", and that reference is being used here on Wikipedia, how can we correct that please? The actual sanskrit word for Tiger is "Vyaghra", which is the root for the modern Hindi word for Tiger "Baagh" Lilaac (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Lions i have responded to this question on tigers talk page (were you also posted this).ZooPro 03:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic range of the Asiatic lion[edit]

The sentence in the section ==Distribution and habitat==

"The historic range of the Asiatic lion of the Panthera leo Persica subspecies is believed to have extended from Northern India in the east through modern Iran, south throughout the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula and west into the Mediterranean towards modern Greece and Italy."

is referenced with this source (Barnett et. al 2006). I read this source word for word but did not find any sentence that would justify citing this source for the above sentence.
Barnett et. al (2006) provides very little info about Asiatic lion habitat. I do not disagree in general using it in the context of this article, but only in the context of Asiatic lion distribution. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The historic range of the Modern lion can be seen in Figure 1 and Table 1 of Barnett et. al 2006. The fact that haplotypes M9 (Gir For. Sanct.), M10 (Iran, Mid.East), and M11 (North Africa, Mediterranean) are the same "mtDNA distance" from each other (Fig. 2) indicate they are least the same sub-species Panthera leo Persica' (Asiatic lion) and not the more distance Panthera leo leo (African lion).
  • You have also deleted:"Indeed, multiple fossil localities of the related subspecies Panthera leo spelaea have been discovered throughout North Africa, the Middle East, Siberia, Alaska and much of Europe going as far north as Scotland." This statement is supported by O’Brien et al. 1987 in Figure 1 and the text in first paragraph of page 115. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For Barnett et. al (2006) see the third paragraph in the section Historical range of lions. Re: fossil records of Panthera leo spelaea -- O’Brien et al. (1987) refer to Kurtén (1968), which I referenced in the first paragraph of this same section. So I did not delete the references you used, but only moved them to this context of historic range, so that the section ==Distribution and habitat== focuses more on current range. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true and talking about the present range is helpful, and having a discussion of the former range in another section. However the "Distribution and habitat" section still mentions talks about the historic range: "The Asiatic lion formerly occurred in Persia, Mesopotamia, Baluchistan, and in northern India where they once ranged to the state of Bihar..." This should be either (1)removed from the section or (2) updated to state that in its former range, P.leo Persica "... extended from Northern India in the east through modern Iran, south throughout the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula and west into the Mediterranean towards modern Greece and Italy."-- Sjschen (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I added this paragraph recently. But you are right : if we decide to put the focus on CURRENT range, then this shouldn't be there. I see two options now: either we move this to the section about historic range; or we make a subsection ===Former range===, into which we place all the info regarding P. l. persica, so that the section ==Historical range of lions== contains only info that is not about persica but about P. l. spelea and Panthera leo. What do you think ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. having a "Former" and a "Current" range sections does sound better than piling them altogether, or isolating them in their a paragraph somewhere. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again. As we have discussed and seen from Barnett et. al 2006, the information about the Asian lion subspecies P. l. persica, which consists of closely related modern lions of similar mtDNA genetic markers (M9,M10,M11) and range extending from North India into North Africa, belongs in the section "Former Range". They can be considered paleological, but they are at the very least also the same subspecies. The Holarctic cave lion (Panthera leo spelaea) can remain in the "Historical", which incidently is still a mess without coherent content. -- Sjschen (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sjschen. Nice that you are back, and we can continue our discussion. Let me start with questions, because am not sure whether I understood you right. You titled this subsection "paleological range". But is the prehistoric range really what you intend to describe ? After what you wrote above, I have the impression you refer much more to the similarities and differences -- genetical, morphological -- between the spelea and persica subspecies, maybe even including the African subspecies. If this is so, what do you think of titling this section "Evolution" ? That way we can shift the focus to how the Asiatic lion evolved from predecessors, both in time and space, and explain something like a migration route over the centuries until about the Middle Ages, or later. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a need for further discussion and that we understood each other. I'm okay with the changes to the section now titled "Evolution" and rest of the the changes. But the following sentence describing the former range of the Asiatic lion hould be included back into section "Historical Range" in one form or another:

  • "The phylogenetic study revealed that the former range of the Asiatic lion extended across Northern India into Iran and the periphery of Arabia and into Northwest Africa.<ref name=Barnett/>"

This sentence does not describe the lion's evolution in the strictest sense but rather talks about the former range of the identifiable persica subspecies in recent history. It also shows that persica was prevalent throughout the range of Northern Africa, the middle east, all the way to India. -- Sjschen (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lions in South India![edit]

It is guessable that lions and tigers competed in areas where they existed, in the North, but did anyone notice that, perhaps due to being driven out from areas in the North, they migrated southwards? There is an article in The Sydney Mail, dated to the year 1889, that a lion and Bengal tiger fought in the region of Bangalore in what is now Karnataka in the South! <ref name="SydneyMail1889">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=18891221&id=8pJRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VJMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7172,7165143&hl=en |title=A Terrible Struggle |publisher=The Sydney Mail |date=1889-12-21 |accessdate=2016-12-29}}</ref>

Three natural historians were well acquainted with Indian fauna in the 19th century: Jerdon, Sterndale and Blanford. All agree that lion was distributed in north-western and central India, but not in the south. For details see Jerdon (1874) Sterndale (1884) and Blanford (1889) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, they do no not say that the lion has never been in South India, and I noticed a difference in opinion about whether or not they were in the area of Cutch. It's a bit like you're using a sentence like this "In Africa, lions are found in Senegal, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa ..." to deny that they have been outside Africa, when that sentence is strictly talking about the distribution of lions in Africa, not about whether or not lions are found only in Africa. There are also some other things noteworthy about the reference I used. Leo1pard (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This does not make the story in The Sydney Mail a reliable source. Do you seriously want to suggest that Jerdon, Sterndale, Blanford and Pocock were wrong by omitting South India as lion range? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
No, that article by the Sydney Morning Herald, about lions occurring in a place outside their regular range, does not mean that those guys were wrong. Strictly speaking, they mentioned that the lion occurred in the north, and they did not say that the lion did not occur in the South at all, so that article about lions occurring outside their range, at least once upon a time, does not really contradict those guys. Leo1pard (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
This narrative does not have an author, i.e. is anonymous; and therefore none who could be regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. See also Identifying reliable sources and reliable sources checklist -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the rules, it should be mentioned like this:
"The Sydney Mail Christmas Supplement (1889, xxvii) mentioned that a hunter went to a region where lions were not usually found, out of interest ...<ref name="SydneyMail1889">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=18891221&id=8pJRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VJMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7172,7165143&hl=en |title=A Terrible Struggle |publisher=The Sydney Mail |date=1889-12-21 |accessdate=2016-12-29}}</ref>"
Is it? Leo1pard (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the rules, neither anonymous author nor publisher is "authoritative in relation to the subject". But the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society is, which published this article by Norman Boyd Kinnear in 1920 -- again no record listed anywhere south of central India. --BhagyaMani (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, that guy said "the southern limit APPEARS to be the Nerbudda River," but also mentions limitations to his knowledge of the lion's distribution, like about whether or not it was in the east, which was mentioned elsewhere. Apart from that, this source by the University of Minnesota<ref name=minn>{{cite web |url=http://cbs.umn.edu/research/labs/lionresearch/faq |title=Frequently asked questions |publisher=[[University of Minnesota]] Lion Research Project |accessdate=28 June 2011}}</ref> does not say where it actually got its information on fights between lions and tigers, and it has been on Wikipedia for some time, and that's why I used that article by the Sydney Morning Herald,<ref name="SydneyMail1889">{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1302&dat=18891221&id=8pJRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VJMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7172,7165143&hl=en |title=A Terrible Struggle |publisher=The Sydney Mail |date=1889-12-21 |accessdate=2016-12-29}}</ref> to back it up. Like you mentioned, sometimes, references have to be backed up, so, ignoring what the Sydney Mail (1889) said regarding an exceptional occurrence of the lion outside its regular range, is it fine at least to use these 2 sources<ref name=minn/><ref name="SydneyMail1889"/> to make a point of their main topics, that the Asiatic lion did indeed compete with the Bengal tiger, and this topic has been treated with relevance on Wikipedia, and there are references similar to the one by the Sydney Mail on this topic, such as that by the Gettysburg Compiler,<ref name="Lion against tiger">{{cite news |title=Lion against tiger |journal=Gettysburg Compiler |date=7 February 1899 |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A-MyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3641,6045584&dq=tiger+lion+fight+1899&hl=en |accessdate=2016-02-28}}</ref> which was backed up by a reference from the Baltimore Sun,<ref name=lat>{{cite book |url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/access/1647483302.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jan+26,+1899&author=&pub=The+Sun+(1837-1985)&desc=LION+AGAINST+TIGER&pqatl=google |date=26 January 1899 |journal=[[The Baltimore Sun]] |page=3 |title=Lion against tiger}}</ref> about a fight between a Bengal tiger and Barbary lion, for some time now? Leo1pard (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not exclude the possibility per se that clashes and fights between lion and tiger occurred in the wild in India. But I do not consider articles in newspapers of the 19th century as valid evidence. These articles were meant to thrill the 19th century public about the "dangerous beasts" in far-away countries. Such incidents have not been authenticated at the time by zoologists and naturalists and cannot be authenticated any more today. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Apart from that, I would like to mention that you made a mistake in that edit to the former range, because one of them casts doubt as to whether or not the lion was in Khandesh, so you have an issue of conflict between references, or between what that reference said, and what you said. Leo1pard (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing the doubts re Khandesh out. I amended this. --

Asiatic Lion kinds[edit]

Actually, it is true. The Asiatic lion had never been only one species. There were three subspecies of them. After being separated for more than 100,000 years from their African cousins, the lions were found in multiple locations of Asia, in West, Central and South Asia, not just Gujarat. They all have disappeared after less than 70 years.

Three of them were known as the Bengal lion from the South, Southwest and Central Asia, Persian lion from the West and Southwest Asia, and the Maneless lion of Gujarat from West India, South Asia. One subspecies of the Asiatic lion is confirmed to still exist in the wild, the Gir lions. The other lions from other parts of Asia have not completely disappeared, they had been extinct from the wildlife of their former ranges.

It may be mere speculations, but there were sightings of other Asiatic lions from the Gir Forest looking like the usual black maned Bengal lions and the light-colored Persian or Arabian lion, and some presumed pure Gir lions with larger and well developed brown mane looking similar to the majestic African lions in recent days, which they never had, they were said to be maneless. Some have less developed brown mane or others have bigger manes. They are not doubts that some of them are descendants of the surviving Gir lions, and it's possible for them to be descended from other subspecies of lions extinct in the wild of other ranges. They could be hybrids, but regardless the subspecies might still exist. Which may possibly be why they are mostly related to the North and West African lions, as they were said to be distinct from the current extant Asiatic lions. Some of the survivals from Arabia and India may have lived on the Gir Forest National Park with the original Gir lions, breeding together, so Gir lions can have larger sizes, bigger black mane, well developed and brown mane, and light-colored skin and mane. But that's just original research though it's possible.

But the point is, the Asiatic lions had other subspecies just as the African lions.--FierceJake754 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Asiatic lion is a subspecies. Giving different names to one and the same subspecies, doesn't make it several different subspecies. And as you can see from my recent revision under Taxonomic history, these different scientific names were given to Asiatic lions on the basis of just a few body parts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, after the Persian lions and the Bengal lions' extinction in the wild, it was once stated that they survived and were transferred to the Gir Forest to breed with these manelsss Gir lions. It turned out to be true, after more than 70 years, they were breeding together. Generations later, maneless Gir lions were found with less developed manes and or bigger manes looking identical to that of said Asiatic lions from other parts of Asia. That would make all Asiatic lions only one subspecies of the lions. All of them Asiatic lions are Persian, Bengal, Gir lions at the same time. But regardless of what I feel, it's true the Asiatic lions are viewed as one subspecies today, right? I always viewed Asiatic lions separate to African lions like the Asian elephants is to African elephants.
I personally hope the government of the Asiatic lion's reintruduction knows there is hope to bring back Persian lions and Bengal lions of their respective appearances back to their natural habitat and released into the wild. But with all Asiatic lions being one subspecies, it is still possible to bring back Asiatic lions of their former habitat back, and new ones in other parts of Asia. That is just what I hope, what I imagine, what I envisioned. But that wasn't the same for Asiatic cheetahs. They aren't separate, they are cousins of the African cheetahs. And that wouldn't be respectable if African species be reintroduced to India and other parts of Asia, unless they had no longer Asian kinds. Asiatic cheetahs need to produce more before the former king of Asia rules over the Asian Animal Kingdom again.--FierceJake754 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Lions from Persia and Bengal were not transferred to the Gir forest, but the population in Gir is the only Asiatic lion population that survived. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A few sources said otherwise. But if so, then the Maneless Lions of Gujarat are probably one of the oldest lions (despite being only one Asian species) and the ones mostly related their ancestors which moved from Africa. Another theory is that, since the Asiatic lions have always been one species, while considering the three kinds of their respecive regions, well the Persian and Bengal lions had moved a lot in historic times. Seeing the other way around, it's the Persian lions which is the actual species origin. West Asia is closer to Africa than South Asia. Which must be why it's often called "P. l. Persica". No wonder they can "reproduce" the Persian and Bengal lions despite that. It takes more than 100,000 to become a subspecies. The Asiatic cheetah never had that...

But whatever I said never change the facts. They had always been one Asian species, still they had dark-maned Bengal lions from Indian regions and Central Asia, and light-colored Persian lions in West Asia, and maneless Gir lions from one place. Still it means the same, it's always been the same one and only species. They are ancient, well respected and endangered species actually. These kinds of species, like the oldest South China tigers, are so easy to evolve thanks to people's aid and attention. But the Asiatic cheetahs must be reintroduced first before the lions take over India with the tigers, leopards and irbises, and the rest of Central and West Asia again.--FierceJake754 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@FierceJake754: Or it was considered a subspecies of the modern lion,[1] before the Cat Specialist Group subsumed it to Panthera leo leo in 2017, given its relationship with the Barbary lion.[2] Leo1pard (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henschel, P.; Bauer, H.; Sogbohoussou, E. & Nowell, K. (2016). "Panthera leo (West Africa subpopulation". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016.2. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 
  2. ^ Cat Specialist Group (2017). "Revised taxonomy of the Felidae. Subfamily Pantherinae". Cat News special issue (11): 76. 

Bergmann's rule for lions[edit]

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asiatic lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Asiatic lion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is in great condition! There is a lot of good and interesting information. The photos and layout are wonderful. I think all this article needs is a few more references to support some of the text. Also, many of the citation are not much more than bare urls. An effort should be made to include full citation of references and to check the references to make sure they are reliable and support the claims made in the text. This article is almost to the level that it could be a "Good article" candidate! Kpstewart (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asiatic lion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asiatic lion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Asiatic lion versus tiger[edit]

Should these images be included?[edit]

What are ten main reasons why you do not want these contributions on the asiatic lion page:

Her reasons were that the Asiatic lion page has too much pictures:

The asiatic lion page as less than 30 pictures wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_lion

The lion page has almost 60 pictures there are 58 pictures on the lion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion

These arguments for removal are not good reasons, nor does Wikipedia have any where that restricts limits of how many pictures per page, the arguments are contradicting to her statement as already shown the lion page has 3x more pictures than the asiatic page yet she does not limit the amount for the lion page nor has any proof of what she is talking about. Bernate (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bernate (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

My first edit here is to direct readers to my Talk pageUser:DrChrissy#Asiatic lion where the OP has already tried to discuss this.DrChrissy (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Since (talk) does not give valid restrictions other than contradicting her self, she should be the one to UNDO it and restore the contribution to wikiepdia.

Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts is an information article. It states Don't overload articles with images. To the best of my knowledge, there are no hard and fast rules of how many images an article should have, but both myself and another editor have deleted these two images leaving the edit summary "but the article is already overloaded with pictures". So, at least two editors have the opinion these images are not needed. I would like to hear from the OP why these images should be included. What do they add to article? DrChrissy (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:DrChrissy has given zero evidence to her claims and has displayed a bias towards the content, please prove they are restrictions to over loading images on Wikipedia, I did not load 200 pictures but merely 2. The contraindication should thence be applied to the lion page which has three times as more pictures, of course she is not going to remove any of them because removing of supposedly overloaded imaging was not her motive and reason. The former member stated it was not on topic, how can a link that highlights the asiatic lion IN THE WILD, not be on topic, please feel free to expand on this argument. Bernate (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not try to read my mind. I removed the images because the article is already IMO overloaded with images (stop comparing to other articles - that is their business, not ours) and the images do not add anything to the article. DrChrissy (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(User talk:Bernate) Two images is not overloaded, and they have links beneath them that illustrate what the stories are stating, two of the art show a lion defeating a tiger, two of the links showed a lion killed a tiger in the wild, one in surat and the other the ganges yamuna. Since your purpose is not a restriction, (merely two add ons) it does not back your arguments of overload, how and why cant I compare the lion article, they are nearly exactly similar and have most of the same content, yet you just don't want to add this on because it is against your ulterior agenda other wise cite a valid restriction. You have none. Bernate (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bernate. There is no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Please stop edit warring. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus from the admins:

  1. Acalamari (talk · contribs · logs)
  2. Acdixon (talk · contribs · logs)
  3. Acroterion (talk · contribs · logs)
  4. Adam Bishop (talk · contribs · logs)
  5. Agathoclea (talk · contribs · logs)
  6. Airplaneman (talk · contribs · logs)
  7. Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · logs)
  8. Alexf (talk · contribs · logs)
  9. AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · logs)
  10. Allen3 (talk · contribs · logs)
  11. Amakuru (talk · contribs · logs)
  12. Amire80 (talk · contribs · logs)
  13. Anachronist (talk · contribs · logs)
  14. Ancheta Wis (talk · contribs · logs)
  15. Andrew Gray (talk · contribs · logs)
  16. Andrewa (talk · contribs · logs)
  17. Andrwsc (talk · contribs · logs)
  18. AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs · logs)
  19. Angr (talk · contribs · logs)

Please show where it is restricted as these other members have claimed. And give reasons why these should not be part of the asiatic lions page when it is fully related and on topic, are you saying it isnt about the asiatic lion? That is a false claim and proven wrong. Bernate (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this works, please learn how things work. You might find the essay WP:BRD useful. The burden is on you to show why these images should be added. Pinging a bunch of admins will likely not get you anywhere. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Administrators don't make consensus, please do not canvass or ping them. Work it out with other editors here. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Right. And since I was canvassed, I'll say that I agree the article is overloaded with images. It could do with less. Keep any that are particularly striking, unique, or informative, get rid of the rest. It's up to the community here to come to a consensus on that, not a handful of admins whose usernames happen to start with the letter 'A'. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's really canvassing, not in the spirit of the guideline at least, as there was no attempt to preselect recipients according to their established opinions or intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. It does violate the advice to keep the number of notifications small, but that's all.
And as it stands personally I think the balance of pictures is fine. Those there are good, on-topic and add greatly to the article. Even a few more would not hurt provided they enhance the article. But I say that purely as a fellow contributor. I have no greater say in these matters as an admin, often a great deal less in fact, as if I'm to act as an admin I need to remain uninvolved in the discussion. I can't be in both roles at once.
So pinging admins on this was probably not terribly constructive. As has been said above. We have several chronic backlogs on pages that need admin action. Work to build consensus here, or there are a couple of more appropriate ways to seek wider input. Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy and Oshwah: Interestingly, a user called Vetato challenged me about this same subject on my talk page recently. I asked him/her several times to move and continue the dispute on this talk page, to no avail. Then I decided to not reply any more, and s/he's been quiet ever since. Now user Bernate comes on the scene with similar belligerence, spending more time to dispute than to contribute. How odd is this?
Regarding the images : I agree these are not important, as there are enough drawings already. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Thanks for this. I have read your talk page and I agree there appear to be strong similarities. I guess we should wait and see what happens after the block expires. DrChrissy (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bit late to this; sorry, been away. I reverted the pictures on first addition for the reason stated. This was based on two similar images with the same very specific theme (lion killing tiger) being added, to an article with already limited real estate, without a good thematic connection to justify those images and particularly more than one. I think one of those might be okay (as I said, I think these are interesting for the reader) , but possibly something else might have to be removed instead - and no clear candidate comes to mind. A better alternative might be insert one of the two images into Tiger#Interaction_with_other_predators, which would be more topical. It's also looking a bit crowded over there, however.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that the page is already crowded with images - on my screen, a least, they extend well past the end of the article text. Having said that, many of them don't present anything distinct; there's an awful lot of pictures of "male Asiatic lion at place X" that add nothing to the images already present. So I think there probably is some scope for trimming. As for the new proposed images, I don't see anything wrong with them per se, so long as we make space by removing others. But I can't see any purpose to having both of them in the article, especially since there isn't any discussion of lion attacks on tigers in the text. If it comes to it, I'd prefer the colour image, but I don't have a strong feeling about it. Anaxial (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If these images were photographs, I'd be ready to consider them as evidence that such fights happened and were witnessed. But they are illustrations meant to thrill the 19th century public about the "dangerous beasts" in far-away countries. Therefore, they'd be better placed in the art section, if at all. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that does make sense, at least in the absence of any good evidence to the contrary. Anaxial (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue of image stackup shouldn't affect whether or not relevant images are added, there are far better ways of dealing with it than by deleting material.
The issue should be, the two images in question don't seem to support the current text at all. The topic they might support probably belongs in the section In mythology, religion and art, but it's not there yet.
If suitable sources can be found, such text could of course be added. But even then to add both images seems overkill to me, and smacks of WP:OR, undue weight or perhaps even POV... depending exactly what the new text were to say, of course.
Again stressing I speak just as an editor, not as an admin. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

So at least the pinging worked and some admins have expressed possibility, as I do not think those two users should dictate what is on wikipedia. With talk saying: I think one of those might be okay...and with Andrewa saying: If suitable sources can be found, such text could of course be added....There are text below it. Read the links below it.


  1. Bagumba (talk · contribs · logs)
  2. Barek (talk · contribs · logs)
  3. Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs)
  4. BD2412 (talk · contribs · logs)
  5. BDD (talk · contribs · logs)
  6. Bduke (talk · contribs · logs)
  7. Bearcat (talk · contribs · logs)
  8. Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs)
  9. Beetstra (talk · contribs · logs)
  10. Beland (talk · contribs · logs)
  11. Ben MacDui (talk · contribs · logs)
  12. Bencherlite (talk · contribs · logs)
  13. BethNaught (talk · contribs · logs)
  14. Bgwhite (talk · contribs · logs)
  15. Bhadani (talk · contribs · logs)
  16. Biblioworm (talk · contribs · logs)
  17. BigDom (talk · contribs · logs)
  18. BigHaz (talk · contribs · logs)
  19. Bilby (talk · contribs · logs)
  20. Billinghurst (talk · contribs · logs)
  21. Bishonen (talk · contribs · logs)
  22. Bkonrad (talk · contribs · logs)
  23. Black Kite (talk · contribs · logs)
  24. Bobak (talk · contribs · logs)
  25. Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · logs)
  26. Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · logs)
  27. Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · logs)
  28. BOZ (talk · contribs · logs)
  29. Brianga (talk · contribs · logs)
  30. Brookie (talk · contribs · logs)
  31. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · logs)
  32. BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · logs)
  33. Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · logs)
  34. Bumm13 (talk · contribs · logs)

If not the pictures of the lion killing the tigers, why not the stories below it, here is what the stories state:

CHAPTER XXIII.

Domus. Surat. The Nature of the Jungles beyond. A Boa

Constrictor. A Tiger. A Lion. Terrible Conflict

Our destination was the province called Guzerat, which is a large peninsula northwest of Bombay. We could have proceeded thither in a short time by sea, but Mr. Barrill took the circuitous land route, in order to see the country. At the end of the first day's journey we en camped at the base of a range of mountains " the height of which I supposed was fifteen hundred feet. These mountains extend entirely through western India. In the vicinity of our encampment, they were steep and stony. On aU sides were forests of bamboo, presenting a straighter and more regular aspet, than any woodland I had ever HINDOO HABITS….

At Domus, Mr. Barrill disposed of his tusks to a Parsee merchant, for about one-half the price he could have obtained if he had conveyed them to Surat. But he was glad to ged rid of the burden. Domus -n-as a small town. The inhabitants were courteous enough, but we understood that some of them were strongly suspected of being engaged in piracy. Our servants informed us that the Parsees were very numerous in the country northward, and their enterprise was the chief source of its prosperity. At noon the second day after our arrival at Domus, we came within sight of the celebrated city of Surat. Its towers and pagodas gave it an imposing appearance… but as we approached the walls age and decay were strikingly evident. This city is situated on the Taptee, about twenty miles from the point where the mouth, or bay, empties into the gulf of Cambay. It is about six miles in circumference, and shaped like a bow, the cord being the Taptee, having near its center, a small castle garrisoned by a few sepoys and Europeans. On ofner sides, the town is surrounded by a wall, flanked with semicircular towers. Without the walls we found some good European houses, formerly occupied by the French, but now, the residence of English officers; but the houses within the town were very inferior, consisting only of timber frames filled up with bricks, their upper stories projecting over each other. The streets were narrow and irregular. Only small boats, called ketches, can ascend the river to Surat " yet the city once had a very extensive* commerce.

We remained three days in Surat. During this period, Mr. Barrill made some valuable acquaintance among the English, and purchased some small articles which he deemed necessary for our comfort. We found that nearly all the business of the city was carried on by the Parsees " the Hindoos being generally as indolent as they were superstitious…

The jungle was beautiful and luxuriant " the dark green foliage of the bamboo contrasting finely with the lighter verdure of the palm and the blossoms of numerous other trees for which I had no name. The encounter of the day before had left an impression not easily effaced, and we took care to avoid, as far as we could, consistently with our designs upon the game, the thickest jungle, where it was difficult to see beyond a few yards on each side. The Hindoos were all eye as they marched, and I thought, that each moment, one of them shuddered as if he expected the terrible tiger to spring from the bushes and dash him to the ground. We had proceeded about six or seven niiles, without meeting with any animals, deemed worthy of our rifles, and were growing more confident in our march. ^Lr. Barrill and I had fallen into conversation about the contrast between the forests of India and South Africa, when a tremendous roar, and the shrieks of the Hindoos, rang fearfully in our ears, and brought our shuddering horses to a halt. The case flashed on our eyes we turned. The Parsees stood as if paralyzed " the Hindoos shrieked and danced, and seemed senseless with fright. Hurrying away through the jungle we could occasionally catch a glimpse of the striped hack of a tiger ' and a faint shriek told us what he had dared to seize foi his meal. Humanity and our own burning thirst for distinction in this region, new to us, banished all feelings uf dread, and we started away, with ready rifles in pursuit, the rest of the party following, not knowing what else to do for safety. The tiger had disappeared beneath the thick foliage of the bushes, and the cessation of the victim's shrieks left us no clue to the ferocious animal's whereabouts.


When suddenly, within about fifty yards, sounded the tremendous voice of a lion " a sound we could never forget; and a succession of awful growls, snaps, and loud rustics among the bushes, led us to believe that the two tyrants of the forests were contending for the mastery. Anxious to gain a view of such a fearful struggle, we pressed forward^ till emerging from a clump of bushes, we beheld almost at our horse's feet, the lion and tiger rolling over and over, in a conflict which only death could interrupt. The mangled Hindoo was lying senseless upon his face, within a few yards of the ferocious combatants. We did not fire, but reserved our bullets till the conflict should destroy one of the beasts.

It was a horrible struggle. The tiger was quite as large as the lion, and much quicker in his movements. But the lion showed a decided superiority of strength, and his great mane effectually covered his head. Still his hack and sides were torn hy the tiger's claws, and for some minutes the contest was doubtful. Both possessed equal courage and determination, and no disposition was evinced to have a drawn battle. It was one of the compensations of nature. The tyrants of the woods, who had so long preyed upon the weaker animals, were now paying each other in due form. Draw near, ye ghosts of mangled cattle, stags and lesser beasts, to gloat over your revenge! Our presence seemed a matter of indifference to the combatants, so intent were they in that struggle of strength and activity. But the endurance of the lion prevailed " seizing the tiger by the throat, he turned it on its back, and with his strong claws tore open its belly, and, thus put an end to its ferocious life. Hail, king of beasts, for so thou art I This had scarcely been achieved when simultaneous balls from our rifles, stretched the lion beside the foe whom he had vanquished, and their blood mingled among the grass….

We immediately dismounted, hastened to the wounded Hindoo, while his companions busied themselves in striking their spears into the helpless tiger " and patting the head of the lion. Raising the poor fellow, we found that he was so dreadfully bitten and torn about the throat and breast, that his chance of living was but small. He could not speak. After a short time spent in reeking their cowardly vengeance on the tiger, his Hindoo companions said that they had quite enough of hunting tigers on foot, and that they would take the wounded man back to Elaw as quickly as possible. Mr. Barrill agreed with them that it was the best course they could pursue, and gave them the skin of the tiger to take with them as a kind compensation for their fright. They constructed a rude litter of branches, on which they laid their wounded companion " then skinned the tigers-cutting ofi" his head " while our Parsees were skinning the lion, and then bade us adieu. The lion was not as large as those we had killed in Africa " His skin was of a yellowish hue, the mane being some shades deeper. In other respects, there seemed to be no difference between the lions of Asia and Africa.

The tiger was a beautiful animal, the skin being striped as splendidly as that of the African zebra. The form resembled that of the common cat. The eyes were of a greenish grey color, having a ferocious glare " and the appearance of the teeth and claws was enough to send a thrill of terror through a person of timid nerves. The roar of this monster, which was the first intelligence of his presence we had received, resembled that of the lion, but was not so deep and grand. When enraged as it was during the conflict with the lion, it makes a shrill cry which pierces the ear in a most disagreeable way.

https://ia801302.us.archive.org/17/items/cu31924016407698/cu31924016407698.pdf

It states non-fiction: http://www.readanybook.com/author/peregrine-herne-10860

It states it’s an autobiography: http://www.gregorrarebooks.com/cgi-bin/gregor/19933.html?id=DHdpg6en

Here is Herne being noted as one of the first hunters of his era: http://www.shakariconnection.com/early-african-hunter-books.html

31’st of March, 1851, In the “Landshuter Zeitung” (“Landshut Newspaper”)


A drama at the Ganges.


I’ll tell of one of these terrible fights, one you wouldn’t see again in a hundred years, a scene of blood and death that forever will haunt my mind. […] The lion and his rival, the tiger, need air and space in great quantity. Here, and only here, are they really able to live and to rule. […] (A long description of lions and tigers and how fierce both of them are, the actual event follows now) A Malayan slave ran towards us and shouted: “Lion! Lion! Down there, at the river! It’s a big, fierce lion!”


“One more reason to take shelter in the house,” continued the colonel. “Come, my friends, take the weapons! The lion is a troublesome guest.”


We closed the house’s doors; the slaves got weapons and guarded the basement. We, to welcome this guest admirably, climbed up to the gallery from which we could overlook the Ganges. An unusually big lion walked haughtily down there, not looking around as he does when he has to fight an opponent, but instead ambling slowly and thoughtfully like a philosopher, he walked there. He stopped from time to time to rest a minute, and then continued majestically his way. Under a magnificent palm, he stopped, turned around two times, and finally lay down in the shadow. This was the rest of a magnificent ruler that had nothing to fear from any adversary. He rested easily, as do those who have made no enemies.


Scarcely ten minutes had the lion lain there, when suddenly, he jumped up as though struck by lightning, roaring very deeply and scratching the ground with both hind legs, as though challenging an adversary. He lowered his head and, in a single bound, jumped at the palm’s stem to look about, to the right and left. Then he jumped down to ground to wait again, and his gaze lingered at one particular spot on the horizon.


“An enemy seems to approach,” the colonel said, “a terrible enemy, if we look at the lion’s reaction. I predict that it will be a fierce fight, and many rich people would pay a great sum to see it if they were here right now.”


“And why,” I asked, “don’t they stage some fights from time to time, if they would pay so much?”


“Because what we have here is very rare. The lion won’t fight against a human but against a fierce animal, one as strong as he himself, such as a rhinoceros, an elephant, or a tiger.”


“A tiger! It’s really a tiger!” one of us shouted pointing a finger at the dangerous beast which jumped in huge leaps towards the lion. It was breathtaking, our eyes wandered from the lion to the tiger and from the tiger to the lion. The lion still was lurking. It was a terrible spectacle and we wagered who will win. Now they stood eyeball to eyeball with each other. They’d seen each other and wouldn’t leave unless one of them was lying dead at the ground. The tiger was unbelievably huge and beautiful with his long black stripes distributed all over his yellowish body. His fearful eyes seemed to burn, his head was lowered. We stood, at the most, 200 feet away. The sun shone brightly, so we could see their every move. I don’t think I have to mention that our hearts were in our mouths. The tiger closed in on the lion, but the lion remained calm. In the latter, we could see the force of the calmness in his powerful position; in the tiger, one could believe to see the violent tension of someone who has the impudence to disrespect a close danger, one who had the will to assault it. We could see a certain twitch in his legs, but he wasn’t about to flee. Did the crouching tiger want to kill the lion? I believe it did, and I admire the royal tiger’s courage, he would rather lie down in a burning furnace than be accused of cowardice!


The lion had not moved at all, but we could see what was happening inside him by looking at his erected mane. From time to time, his countenance suggested a submissive gesture. But he, the king of animals, didn’t want to show any fear, but rather boldness, to his opponent. A duel was now inevitable. For the tiger it may be a glorious day, but for the lion it was certainly a festive day.


With one leap, they could grab, bite, tear each other; with one leap they’d jump over the space of 20 feet that separated them from each other. Then, they leaped! The crash equaled the crash of two ships in a tempest! We could hear the bones breaking under the weight of their terrible paws, we could see chunks of flesh falling to the ground. They made no sound, but their gruff moaning indicated their rage and pain. Neither showed superiority and we wondered who would win. If the lion were to think that he had overpowered the tiger, the latter could earn the victory with a single move, shattering the surprised lion.


The fight now lasted 10 minutes, and suddenly, as if they came to an agreement, both loosened their grip to gain their breath again. It was the motionlessness of the rage, but it was the calmness of the king. A few moments later, an unexpected incident which resurrected the fight took place: The tiger, which saw not only his defeat but also his death, used the moment. While his opponent was licking his wounded hind leg, he leaped 10 feet up the palm’s stem and stayed there. The lion looked around and couldn’t see his foe anymore; he roared, looked upwards, and he jumped at the tiger. But in this position it was impossible to continue the fight. They knew that only one of them would survive. The tiger jumped down and the lion followed him, but his leg caused him to shiver. A long fight wasn’t possible any more. Their claws were blunted, their jaws were tired, and they had lost much blood.


The fighters’ jaws were wedged in each other as they bit at each others’ heads; we could feel the bones crushing. Suddenly the tiger retreated, wavered and fell down. The lion seized him with his terrible paws and it seemed like he wanted to punish the defeated opponent for his resistance.


He didn’t loosen his grip, the merciless king of the forest, the feared lord of the wilderness; he tore the tiger apart, he crushed its skull. Suddenly a crocodile appeared out of the river. It seized the lion at his injured hind leg and dragged him into the water. The only remains of this fight were the dead tiger under the palm and some read streams of blood on the water surface.

Translated into English from German

https://books.google.de/books?id=ghtEAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA50&dq=l%C3%B6we+tiger+kampf&hl=de&ei=aSZETeLmFYTAswbU6IHVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q=l%C3%B6we%20tiger%20kampf&f=false

So why not use these for the page, it is after all about the asiatic lion.

WP:BRD

@Bernate: Please sign your posts. DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I suspect what is above is a massive copyright violation. As well, you (Bernate) still don't seem to understand how things work. Admins are no arbiters of content. That's just not how it works. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Message reposted after it was deleted by User:Bernate: Bernate, what is the information you wish to convey in the article? Is it "Asiatic lions sometimes kill lions tigers"? DrChrissy (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You suspect or you pointed out? Google books is cited on thousands of references, the surat account it self says it is free for public use and is from a university, so it is peer reviewed, try to read them before making false claims. This is why the admins were contacted as well, because you will suppress your agendas instead of being truthful.

What of: Ranjitsinhji who stated this: http://s18.postimg.org/xeuxxfjux/Screenshot_99.png

source: http://www.zoosprint.org/ZooPrintMagazine/2007/July/3-8.pdf

Or this article: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19520508&id=fwNZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jk8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3615,3750010&hl=en

or this book: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=%22In+the+Maharaj+Bagh%2C+while+transferring+wild+animals+from+one+cage+to+another%2C+a+lioness+attacked+a+tigress+and+killed+her.%22&oq=%22In+the+Maharaj+Bagh%2C+while+transferring+wild+animals+from+one+cage+to+another%2C+a+lioness+attacked+a+tigress+and+killed+her.%22&gs_l=serp.3...13041.18007.0.18190.5.5.0.0.0.0.115.115.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1j2.64.serp..4.0.0.0.7j5slyBXpQQ

Or this article: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_QNFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z7cMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3206,4386439&dq=zoo+tiger+succumbs+fight+with+lion&hl=en

Or this article: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MWSB&p_theme=mwsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB82D10F0087120&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Or this article: http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/5164c0a633a445a8b586130ded2bfd7c.jpg

This would then reduce the prey base of the tigers. Not only that, lions may even attack and kill tigers.http://www.indiawest.com/blogs/tiger-lio

Or this statement by an indian man:

http://www.circusesandsideshows.com/performers/damudhotre.html

THE FAMOUS Dhotre, an Indian animal trainer who appeared with many European and American circuses during the 1940s and 1950s was once asked whether a lion or a tiger would win in a battle to the death. Dhotre said he would back a lion. although the tiger is faster, the lion is at least equal in strength. Although the tiger is as fierce and savage as any animal in the jungle the lion has boundless courage" he said in his memoirs in 1961 The heavy mane around the lion's neck also makes it difficult for another animal to grip the lion's throat with his teeth, according to Dhotre. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22damoo%22+%22The+heavy+mane+surrounding+his+neck+makes+it+very+difficult+for+another+animal+to+grip+the+lion%27s+throat+with+his+teeth%22&oq=%22damoo%22+%22The+heavy+mane+surrounding+his+neck+makes+it+very+difficult+for+another+animal+to+grip+the+lion%27s+throat+with+his+teeth%22&gs_l=serp.3...4641.6175.0.6323.3.3.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..3.0.0.PeEozSMs-eU

What exactly bothers you of these accounts that you want them hidden from the world? All these accounts are SPECIFICALLY about the ASIATIC lion. Where are their any restrictions and copy right laws on them, show me. And (talk) where did I erase your post? I didnt erase anything, first you guys claim wiki rules state there is a limit to pictures, then you say these exact ones have copy right infringements (when it clearly stated it didnt if you read them) and now you are accusing me or erasing your post? The bias is getting thicker and thicker in here, despite some of teh admins said they don't have a problem with it, and look at your post, you just said a asiatic lion can't kill a lion? Its like taboo for you people to even say a asiatic can kill a TIGER, not lion. What is your guys problem, why such the bias? Bernate (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We cannot copy and paste stuff here, again, it just doesn't work that way, and it seems you have. As well, never delete others' comments as you did here [1] unless there is a violation of policy. What bothers me is really nothing. What I am trying to do is point out that there is no consensus for your changes. Establish a consensus (which you don't do by pinging admins) and go form there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should I seek a consensus from YOU, you already showed your agenda and bias towards the content by falsely stating they were copy righted, when it states ON TH FIRST PAGE INTRO, it is not copy righted: https://ia801302.us.archive.org/17/items/cu31924016407698/cu31924016407698.pdf

This is why the admins were pinged in, to evaluate the situation of bias, and I did not erase chrissys post, she probably did it her self on accident, because I didnt. What do you mean you cannot copy and past stuff here? You don't even know what you are talking about at this point. I also enjoy hearing the admins opinions as well, even if they do not take action on this page, their evaluations is needed as shown you two already have made a wave of false claims:

  1. Cactus.man (talk · contribs · logs)
  2. Callanecc (talk · contribs · logs)
  3. Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · logs)
  4. CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · logs)
  5. Canadian Paul (talk · contribs · logs)
  6. Canley (talk · contribs · logs)
  7. Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · logs)
  8. Capitalistroadster (talk · contribs · logs)
  9. Carcharoth (talk · contribs · logs)
  10. Carioca (talk · contribs · logs)
  11. Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · logs)
  12. Casliber (talk · contribs · logs)
  13. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs · logs)
  14. Cbl62 (talk · contribs · logs)
  15. Cenarium (talk · contribs · logs)
  16. Ceyockey (talk · contribs · logs)
  17. C.Fred (talk · contribs · logs)
  18. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · logs)
  19. Choess (talk · contribs · logs)
  20. Cholmes75 (talk · contribs · logs)
  21. ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs · logs)
  22. Chuq (talk · contribs · logs)
  23. CIreland (talk · contribs · logs)
  24. CLW (talk · contribs · logs)
  25. Connormah (talk · contribs · logs)
  26. CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · logs)
  27. Courcelles (talk · contribs · logs)
  28. CRGreathouse (talk · contribs · logs)
  29. Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · logs)
  30. Cryptic (talk · contribs · logs)
  31. Cuchullain (talk · contribs · logs)
  32. Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs · logs)
  33. Cydebot (talk · contribs · logs)
  34. Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs · logs)
  35. Czar (talk · contribs · logs)

I see no reason why these pictures along with the sources of lions killing tigers (IN THE WILD) cannot be apart of this page, as one of the admins already stated, UNIQUE things should be added in, these fit the criteria, and are all from reliable sources. Bernate (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I congratulate the editor with the iron will to read through the above wall of text. The standard procedure for getting outside feedback is to create a new section with an objective proposal, then to give your personal opinion concisely underneath it, and then to invite feedback via communal talk pages. I suggest taking that route here. I am no longer watching this page--ping if you'd like a response czar 22:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Bernate, you'll find that pinging admins does little to help you. User conduct problems are handled at WP:ANI. You can, of course, report me there for my 'biased' conduct. I would, however, really advise against it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking as an admin: this is a content dispute. Content disputes are best settled by discussion among interested users on the talk page. Even if done in the best of spirit, haphazardly selecting admins to get involved is not the best way to cast the net wider. If only two people are participating, request a third opinion. If more than two people are participating but no clear consensus is emerging, use the requests for comment process.
Also, all participants should assume good faith toward other editors. Don't assume that every edit is done from malice. As an example, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so an edit to remove content that is perceived to violate content is generally a good-faith edit. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bernate: This diff here[2] clearly shows you deleted my post. DrChrissy (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk) I see nothing, I added in two massive stories with tons of text, if I did erased it it wasnt deliberate, as if you had some type of game changing facts that disputes mines anyway. I apologize if I Accidentally did it, but it still stands as nothing. And (talk) I also pinged the admins in to have a out side and fair evaluation, some admins already have done so, if not for their opinions, these two would have already ran me off with false claims and have already put blocks as if I am 100% wrong and broke all the rules, which I haven't, in fact it is they who so far have made the false claims then try to cover it up with...well everyone agrees with me bandwagon tactics. Not working on me. All these have reliable sources, none copy righted restrictions and all can be used to improve the historical consensus on this page, like the other admin said, it could even be apart of the asiatic lions competition in the wild, afterall it did have experts from india who are Indian men confirming these occasions as........ empirical evidence.

So basically I just post this and a third person will come in? ....

request for comment

Bernate (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a shame you can not see the diff I provided shows beyond doubt that you deleted my message. I am prepared to assume good faith on this occasion, but please take care not to do this again. DrChrissy (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Bernate, your first move is to try to convince people here to agree on the additions you want to make. I assure you there is no bias against you (I can only speak for myself, but I think that is true of DrChrissy as well). We are both following policy. This place can be confusing, and there are many policies and guidelines to learn. Please try to learn them. I'll leave you a message on your talk page with some of them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking third opinion, or in fact many more:

So C.Fred, basically posting those will add in more people? Bernate (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bernate: However, it calls in people from areas outside the scope of this discussion. What WikiProject is affected by this discussion? What technical issue is at play? I can see how this is related to science and, since it's an Asiatic lion, there's a tangential issue with geography. However, it seems awfully scatter-shot. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk) Thanks, I did not see any that were biologist, ecologist, historians, archaeologist, ect if you know of any that could call upon request from those who are interested or major in those category's, please do post them, because at this point, the other two have already expressed they don't want the changes (for explicit reasons) whether if its bias or not, they give no good reasons why the Asiatic lion page should not have these on, such as not related (which is ridiculously a absurd statement). I think these should be featured on, as like the other mods have stated it is unique, not just unique but rare as well. Bernate (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Bernate (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bernate: and anybody else involved: before starting a Request for Comment, please read WP:RFC and also WP:WRFC. This thread - and the one below - are making a hopeless mess of pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates. Select the RfC categories carefully - what we have here is a content dispute concerning some images on an article that is about an animal. It could be categorised in |hist= (History and geography) also in |sci (Maths, science, and technology) but I don't think that any others are relevant, especially not |style (Wikipedia style and naming), |policy (Wikipedia policies and guidelines), |proj (WikiProjects and collaborations), |tech (Wikipedia technical issues and templates) or |prop (Wikipedia proposals). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that these images, or the information should be for another article that deals with the topic. Leo1pard (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Should those images be included along with asiatic lions historical competition records?[edit]

Since UserDrChrissy yet again is trying to erase my post and stated to make a newer topic, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asiatic_lion&diff=750866951&oldid=750865315 this newer discussion should be if all the added links shown previous (the above discussion), be a part of the page as a historical consensus of ASIATIC lions in competition with tigers both captive and WILD.

Reasons:

1.) They bring a further historical understanding of the lion of India (even more should be found and added in)

2.) As one of the mods said, unique things should be added and these are unique.

3.) They offer up a wider range of distribution thence formerly thought

4.) They show the capability's of the lion as a apex predator, which is even more amazing because the historic records were 1 on 1, not pride vs lone tiger, which most people think assume is the tigers advantage.

5.) These are all confirmed to being the ASIATIC lion, not african and they are backed by experts such as Jam sahib, Kailash sankhala, Damoo dhotre ect, all which should hold more significance than others because they are either native or indegnous to india.

6.) They all are based on tangibility and empirical evidence.

7.) Like the admin stated, these records should also be featured on the TIGER page as well.

8.) A collaboration between wikipedias ecologist, biologist, and historians to further add in more of the content SPECIFICALLY and only from either asiatic lion, or records from INDIA. Unless they can find other means of records that deals with the asiatic lion.

Asiatic lion in competition with other predators of india in captivity and the wild[edit]

Sankhala with a tiger
The Tiger Man
  • John Campbell Merriam Stated there are records of asiatic lion killing the Siberian tiger as well<ref>http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1911-07-30/ed-1/seq-39/</ref>

Bernate (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations against me. They have already resulted in you being blocked. I made the change in the heading of the thread previous to this one because you were adding in another aspect of the article way into the discussion. The thread above is already way too long so I reverted back the original heading and suggested you make a new one to discuss this new aspect. The fact that you have included discussion about the images again in this new thread will only confuse matters, however, I will not change the heading as I do not wish to appear to be warring with you. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy

I see no further contributions from you other than vandalizing or going off topic. What purpose do you have to make any other remarks other than false claims? Again some other topics are 10x larger and longer, who are you to play admin and erase things of mine that have literally no restrictions on them? I already requested third opinions because at this point I see you only as a person who doesnt want them on for things already stated. Since even if I reverted it and restored it (because you gave no valid restrictions) you will still undo it and call it edit war (on the sole purpose of you not wanting it on here) I will leave it to others who will, because you will never restore it so theres no sense I elaborate with you. I will give you the good gesture and take back what I said, but the fact that you remain consistent with no validity, I will leave it as is. Leave this topcic alone for those who wish to improve the asiatic lion page, because you're not going to. Bernate (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. I will herewith go on record as opposing the inclusion of either image, despite my stated impression above that they are interesting and that a place could be found for one of them in the article. This is because Bernate seems to have taken the initial opposition as an excuse to unleash an unprecedented three-ring circus of pasting walls of text, spamming reams of photos, pinging a hundred random admins despite being repeatedly told to knock it off, and denigrating everyone who doesn't share their view. I see no reason to enable or reward this type of behaviour. Deal with content conflicts calmly and politely, rather than trying to claw up support for your position by this kind of ridiculous tantrum.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no clue where to put this, and I'm not going to read through the mess above. I was summoned by FRS [3], which is a bit weird, as I'm only signed up for policy RFCs. (Glares at whoever miscatagorized this) On the merits, I think the page has too many images already. It's not so much that we shouldn't add more, as that we need more text first. So I oppose adding more images.
Now, on to user conduct. Just skimming this, Bernate need to take a step back and chill out. I'm not going to speculate as to intentions, but pinging 30+ admins on what is definitely not an emergency is WP:DISRUPTIVE. So is pasting walls of text and images. So many people have told you this, and you just won't listen. Just step back, take a wikibreak, whatever you need to calm down. If you keep this up, someone is going to do something. That is not a threat, just a warning. I'm trying to help. Use WP:COMMONSENSE, and if everyone disagrees with you, listen. Tamwin (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tamwin: It was a policy RfC (because of this edit), until I saw how it was listed there and terminated the RfC 29 days early. As for Bernate (talk · contribs) taking a step back - they've been forced to take a 7-day wikibreak. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thanks. Maybe I should try to read a little more in future. There's just so much text, and I was mainly here to talk about the content (we're all here to build an encyclopedia, after all). I think most of my advice still holds (whether or not I'm in a position to give advice is an open question, but this is a wiki...) . Not that it matters for now, because it seems the account is also globally locked? Looks like other wikis are also having problems with them. Tamwin (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, spamming the same chunk of English-language text into their equivalents of this article in various non-English Wikipedias, like German, Irish, Korean, Russian. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that these images should be for another article that deals with the topic. Leo1pard (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
And... Bernate is a sock puppet. Figures. (See user page, SPI) Tamwin (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion needs serious refactoring and cleanup. At the very least, Bernate's comments need hatting. I think that's reasonable here given the Talk page guidelines. (Not to mention that they're a sock. See above) As a first step, I've BOLDly removed the flood of images from the side, leaving only the originals. Tamwin (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tamwin: Whilst I totally understand your frustration at how messy this thread is, I am not sure we should be editing it simply to make things look tidy. The editor received sanctions for being disruptive. Several editors mention the stream of images as being part of that disruption, but that "evidence" has now been deleted. I thought myself about hatting the lists of admins that were pinged, but in the end, I thought it was best left alone. Would you consider replacing the images? DrChrissy (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: This is complicated. I don't think we should delete the material. On the other hand, it is long, off topic, attacks an editor (you), and is generally not intended to improve the encyclopedia. The editor who wrote that was a sockpuppet, and they have been blocked and globally locked. I realize that those actions aren't punitive, but they show that text was not well intended. That wall of text hardly speaks for itself, or if it does, it's in a negative way. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing to do is to hat the discussion. An argument could be made for deleting it, but that's a... strong action. I suggest that we either hat the whole thing, or find any constructive bits/ replies from others and save them. I don't see how that wall of text does anyone any good. I also don't see a harm in hatting it. A suitably neutral summary should be left, describing the situation accurately and fairly. In this situation that would probably include both the conduct involved, and the status of the editor who made it (block evading sockpuppet). I'm open to argument on this (I'm hardly the most experienced editor ever), but it seems to me that if there is ever a time to at least remove someone's comments from view, this is it. (And I can put the images back if you want, especially if they're going to be hatted. In the mean time they're here Tamwin (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly about this, but I am not sure of the advantages of hatting this. DrChrissy (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: I put the images back. You seemed to be arguing against hatting? Sorry for not being very clear, and for not responding. The latter due to real life stuff. Basically, I don't think everyone who reads the talk page should be forced to deal with all this non-constructive mess. Tamwin (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not really in support of hatting as it tends to "sanitise" the disruptive behaviour. But as I said, I do not feel strongly about this so please hat away if that is your wish. DrChrissy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Leaving it. Tamwin (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Part IV[edit]

As with the issue of whether tigers are bigger than lions or not, which I mentioned here, I would prefer that most of the information or pictures regarding the issue of tiger versus lion be kept there, and indeed I put some of the pictures above over there, with other articles, such as this one, having not most of them, but some. Leo1pard (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of sources[edit]

Y'day I reverted an addition by @Leo1pard: who cited a certain Khalaf von Jaffa about the strength of the Asiatic lion. I argued that Jaffa is not a reliable source. Leo1pard wants to know "how come guys like Pocock, Haas, Heptner and Sludskii are reliable, but not Doctor Norman ‘Ali Bassam ‘Ali Taher Khalaf-von Jaffa?" Here is why: None of Jaffa's opinions has been published in peer-reviewed journals, but foremost in the internet or in his own magazine. Whereas the other people you mention are widely recognised zoologists, whose writings were published in a number of scientific journals issued by natural history museums and scientific institutions. Pocock extensively studied the zoological collection in the British Museum for years. Heptner and Sludskii were even translated into English.
Apart from this, I think that the information about sizes, weights and other characteristics of the Asiatic lion provided in this article is sufficient and well documented, and that Jaffa's opinion is irrelevant. Measurements of wildlife were important for zoologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Digging all of this old stuff out and adding it to articles about lion does not improve the resp. articles but overloads them with details. Contemporary zoologists long ago shifted focus to ecology and conservation issues. Why did you not yet? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, there is something else that I can see, using more than one source, for the Asiatic lion. Leo1pard (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a couple of comments here.
First, the content that has been reverted appears to be trivial. I would not include it in the article.
Second, the source originally provided appears to be self-published - a reliable source should have been provided
Third, I noticed the original source stated "This article was published in "Gazelle : The Palestinian Biological Bulletin". Number 58, October 2006, pp. 1-13.". I have managed to source the journal, but cannot find the article, so at the moment, I would say this is non-verifiable. DrChrissy (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Gotta agree with DrChrissy on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming, DrChrissy and Dbrodbeck! Self-published seems to be Jaffa's trademark. Many years ago, I asked a colleague about this person and only received a laugh. --BhagyaMani (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Partly the point that I had when I said "In that case, there is something else that I can see ..." if one has to mention a work like that, then it should be backed up, in a reliable manner. Leo1pard (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The much larger part of the point is : you do NOT HAVE "to mention a work like that", nor back it up, because -- see above -- it is irrelevant and trivial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I was not talking about the strength of Iraqi lions compared to Indian lions. There is something 'symbolic' missing in this article, for which there are a number of sources. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Gallery for any old photograph of an Asiatic lion outside Gir Forest or India[edit]

Today, I noticed a type of photograph that is different to photographs we would normally have. Normally, if you see a photograph of an Asiatic lion, then it would be a lion in Gir Forest, or, if it is in captivity, descended from lions in Gir, right? Look at this old photograph of a lion in Iran:

Antoin Sevruguin 7 Men with live lion.jpg

Should there be a gallery for a photograph like this? Leo1pard (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Notice that it is roped up, which to me suggests that it is a wild lioness that ventured into human territory, or a pet that escaped a captor. Leo1pard (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Second thought[edit]

On second thought, I have decided to replace a sketch in the Section "Former range" with this photograph, because, that sketch does not really demonstrate that the Asiatic lion has been outside what is now Gujarat, and besides, it is available elsewhere. Leo1pard (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Second image of a cub[edit]

The article now has two images of cubs. Previously, I moved a sketch to another, related article, thinking that you would not wish to have another image here, but now, I think that that sketch that I moved to the article Wildlife of Iran might be useful to describe its characteristics, like that the Mesopotamian lion had a distinctive patch of hair on the belly, which can be seen for captive lions, and was seen for Barbary and Cape lions, in the past. Should I shift that second photograph of the cub to Wildlife of Iran, and move that sketch beck here? Leo1pard (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been thinking about deleting one of these images. There is no need to have two images of "a cub" unless these clearly show different aspects of the animal. If you are going to edit these images, please indicate in the caption/s what they are intended to show. DrChrissy (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Leo1pard (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusion between official territory and actual territory[edit]

According to the map provided by Jhala et al. (2008, page 10) the nearest actual territory of the Bengal tiger to that of the Indian lion is the place where the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh meet, not Melghat Tiger Reserve (page 13). Melghat Tiger Reserve is an official territory of the tiger, like Gir Forest is an official territory of the Indian lion, but that does not mean that the tiger and lion are found only in those areas, respectively. They can migrate outside protected habitats.[1] Leo1pard (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jhala, Y. V.; Gopal, R.; Qureshi, Q., eds. (2008). Status of the Tigers, Co-predators, and Prey in India (PDF). TR 08/001. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi; Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2013. 

Leo1pard (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Asiatic lion. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

Leo1pard (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)