From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa / Western Sahara (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Cats (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Cheetah is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Cheetah at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Kill rate?[edit]

The cheetah success rate as cited in reference 8 is incorrect. I read the article and it makes no mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunTzuWarmaster (talkcontribs) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They do have a 100% success rate with Thompson Gazelle fawns.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that? Mokele (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There would be no citation as its dead wrong. Cheetahs have a 50% kill rate of most animals including Gazelle, I have seen footage of a gazelle fawn escaping from a cheetah and it lived to tell the tale. ZooPro 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind putting the link on here? Was it a adult? Many sites like and books say they have a 100% rate with gazelle fawns. I will be checking a couple books for more information. Will be getting back soon.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Its like banging my head against a brick wall. So I will try and put it as blunt as possibe. The website u gave is CRAP, is stolen from alot of different articles and the information misinterpreted. You would have to be the stupidist person on earth to believe any animal has a 100% kill rate of anything. As for you giving other editors wrong information about wikipedia policy and guidelines i suggest you stop as you are misleading editors. You clearly have NO knowledge of anything to do with felines or carnivores at all and merely think they are cute and cuddly. This is an encyclopedia not a childrens book. ZooPro 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to further my point that website references wikipedia; that itself is unreliable unless referenced (still couldnt find the information in the article anyway). It also contradicts itself multiple times, prob written by a cat mad idiot who knows nothing about the animal itself other then "its fast and has spots' ZooPro 12:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would consider the cheetah outreach as good information.
Thanks--Snowleopard100 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, therefore is useless. Mokele (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, and I agree with you. The only problem is getting information that is peer-reviewed.--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunting success rate is definitely 50%. A great source of information that includes peer reviewed publications is the Cheetah Conservaation Fund web site. About the Cheetah section includes a virtual tour that covers the cheetah's history, biology, ecology and conservation efforts. The section What We Do covers some of the work being done on behalf of the wild cheetah, and a library of resources with scientific publications. Thanks! Crocsetal (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I do not speak well English and I have no references others than me, but in the link that in posted Snowleopard100 the 50 mph speed for the small thomson's gazelle is overestimated in reality she turns around seen 50-60 mph and 70 mph of the cheetah

Concerning the fastest of African gazelles, on the other hand the speed of springboks, Grant's gazelle is good of 60-70 mph in reality, it runs faster than the thomson because they are bigger on legs and so high and fast that the cheetah and its gazelles / antelopes make of grants jumps and are very good also in long-distance race, it is reference athlets for the ferverts of athletics.

The gazelles of thomson runs to the same speed as the leopard. But it is especially the female cheetah which hunts her, this small gazelle makes exactly zigzags very fast masi in a straight line it is overtaken by the cheetah, nevertheless thommy can run on a distance longer than cheetahs--Angel310 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheetahs have over sized lungs so they can run long distances at 70 miles per hour without running out of breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I will do some digging before replyin to this comment. ZooPro 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I cannot understand most of what your saying as it does not make sense, you contradict yourself a number of times in your comment, I will follow suit with the advice left on your talk page and ask you to please stick to editing your native language, please dont edit the page unless it is in complete and fully understandable english and you provide legitimate sources. ZooPro 14:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronghorn Antelope have a top speed of around 80 mph (130 km/h) [1] ! It is the fastest antelope Pronghorn, moreover it is bigger tall at the shoulder than the cheetah contrary to the Thomson gazelle, it is Pronghorn which affects the fastest record of the ground mammals to 80 mph (130 km/h), and a beautiful reference to prove it to you. The cheetah does not exceed 75 mph 120 km/h, it is enough to compare their measurements, to see that she is better.

Springboks and Impalas are also recognized for their extraordinary jumps.-- (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the speed, we have multiple citations from reliable sources topping out at 62 mph. The reference pointed to here is a state web site (not a scientific book or site), and it's hard to justify changing the speed based on this single statement. It is not the fastest antelope, as it is not a true antelope. It is generally cited as the second fastest land mammal -- certainly making it the fastest prey species. I see no reason to change the Cheetah article to "second fastest" unless there is a lot more scientific consensus around the speed of both species. Don Lammers (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am Jesus-Christ, I know all the same that she animal is the fastest, it is my speciality, but you are right, Pronghorn is an antelope has part. In Africa it is Grant's gazelles, Sommering's gazelles and Springbok South Africa which run so fast as the cheetah moreover he often misses his animals when they are in good phisique condition.

Groung mammals top speed record:

  • Pronghorn antelope (American): 40 mph (60 km/h) on 8 kilometers, 63 mph (103 km/h) on average a distance of 3000 meters, with the top speed 80 mph (130 km/h) a short distance 600 meters
  • Grant's & Soemmering's gazelle: 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 500 meters
  • Cheetah: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 1 kilometers, 58 mph (93 km/h) on average a distance of 450 meters, with the top speed 75 mph (120 km/h) a short distance 80 meters
  • Springbok gazelle: 30 mph (50 km/h) on 6 kilometers, 55 mph (88 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 71 mph (115 km/h) a short distance 500 meters
  • Blackbuck antelope (India): 52 mph (83 km/h) on average a distance of 2500 meters, with the top speed 69 mph (110 km/h) a short distance 450 meters
  • Rhim gazelle: 45 mph (73 km/h) on average of 2000 meters, with the top speed 62 mph (100 km/h) a short distance 400 meters
  • Thomson's gazelle & Dorcas gazelle: 25 mph (40 km/h) on 5 kilometers, 42 mph (67 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 58 mph (94 km/h) a short distance 400 meters
  • Impala: 36 mph (58 km/h) on average a distance of 2000 meters, with the top speed 53 mph (85 km/h) a short distance 400 meters

The predators attack only preys, weak, young, hurt, patient, old, female in gestation and most of the time he fails in front of antelopes in good phisique condition, and herbivores are better than them.

Impala is less fast than the other gazelles, impala he very agile with his spectacular jumps. For example the Thomson's gazelle can easily escape a cheetah, because it makes zig-zags faster than the cheetah. The impala does not live to him in plain and runs around trees and bushes, thus not very practical for the cheetah to pursue it furthermore she makes great air jumps and also makes zig-zags fast, in spite of she runs less faster than Thomson gazelle.

The impala has the same phisical measurement that Grant's gazelles, springboks... but it is too much developed the muscle, its running and less fast. Needs to say that genus gazelles, even the small as the Thomson and Dorcas are extremely fast. In term of evolution are the best herbivores and the cheetah is the best carnivore hurriedly of running.

Pronghorn is an antelope of a new genus, more recent than the African with measurements except standards, which exceeds all other mammals in the running. She does not meet the cheetah in the nature, the adults in good phisiques conditions have no predator in North America. There is a beautiful collection of antelopes worldwide so fast as the cheetah.--Angel310 (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheetah (Satan) run reality record speed:

  • The females cheetah on average 67 to 82 km/h (42-51 mph) a distance of on 300-350 meters, with the top speed 94 to 109 km/h (58-68 mph) a very short distance 50 meters, according to the individuals.
  • The best males average 78 to 93 km/h (48-58 mph) a distance of 400-450 meters - with the peak 105 to 120 km/h (65-75 mph) 75 meters, according to the individuals.--Angel310 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the above is cited. Where do you get this information (if it's from the same state site as above, then I have already answered to the issues)? Not even Jesus Christ is allowed to post original research on WikiPedia (see WP:OR).
Donlammers I can only say that the fastest I've seen in person is 73mph. I work with and do research on Cheetahs and in reality a full out study of the cheetah's maximum speed hasn't been done. As popular as the cheetah is, we actually don't know the true maximum speed of a to say a cheetah let's say hitting 80mph isn't exactly crazy. However, at the same time a scientific study has never been done to conclude the actual maximum speed. It will take a lot of work to get the actual results done. However, this is quite an interesting question that still hasn't been truly answered.Mcelite (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not quote 80 mph for the cheetah, read again I, but 75 mph at most, and it is a scientific value, because she corresponds as high as the best male, is 94 cms in height what gives a 94 km/h average speed onto 450 meters with a peak in 120 km/h (75 mph) on 75 meters. It is the real record of the sort, but however females cheetahs are less fast of made than they are smaller.

It is the male antilocapre pronghorn (103 cms tall the shoulder), that scientifically can indeed reach 130 km/h (80 mph).--Angel310 (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides the size the weight is a criterion of the most important in athletics for the speed records, that is why gazelles and cheetahs are faster than the zebras and the lions. Gazelles and cheetahs are animals which we be create for the running, to be the best in this category, while a zebra or a lion in spite of they are also very fast are especially very strong and very powerful.

I like cheetahs, I am at the same time the good and the evil contrary to Satan who is only the evil, I am just anxious to put back things to their place that's it.--Angel310 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the opening paragraph should be slightly reworded "The cheetah can run faster than any other land animal— as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph)" and gives citations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at that point. I went through all citations to find the quoted speeds. 3 = 64.9mph, 5 = 63mph, 6 = 62mph, 7 = 61mph and 8 = 65mph. Citation 4 had reference to a claim from an animal "show" that claimed over 70mph but the citation itself said this was unreliable. So of all the other citations with reliabe claims we have 62-65mph, not the 70-75mph that the citations appear to refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


[they are endangerd animals] www.buzle.asiatic

And it also says it on the page. May I ask why you are bringing it up?--Snowleopard100 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They are endangered because people poach them and use their spotty skin as coats and handbags eg. They also have lost their habitat which means not many prey to eat leading to starvation. Another thing is that the Live stock farmers have their live stock eaten by the Cheetahs and then tend to shoot at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory material[edit]

Some info directly contradicts itself in the re-wilding in India section:

"...cheetahs in India became extinct before the twentieth century ... cheetahs have been extinct in India since the 1940s." Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not extinct but extirpated. The Asiatic cheetah still does have numbers. I'll look into it.Mcelite (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheetahs went extinct in India in the 1940s. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"India: Extinct in 1952. Last known cheetah found in Hyderadad in 1951 and Chitoor in 1952. Indians were importing cheetahs from Africa to be used as hunting leopards in 1929 due to the rarity of local cheetahs. There has been talk of reintroducing cheetah back to India, but availability of prey species and unsuitable habitat are limiting factors. A captive breeding effort may be launched." Source: Marker, L. Aspects of Namibian Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Biology, Ecology and Conservation Strategies. PhD. Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocsetal (talkcontribs) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction: the article says there is very little genetic variation, but then says there are six subspecies. How can this be right?Manormadman (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 8, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-10-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Cheetah cub

A close-up view of a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) cub. Unlike some other cats, the cheetah is born with its characteristic spots, as well as a downy underlying fur on their necks extending to mid-back, which gives the cub the appearance of the Honey Badger, to scare away potential aggressors. Despite this, up to 90% of cheetah cubs are killed by predators in the early weeks of life. Healthy adult cheetahs have few predators because of their speed.

Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


This article contains a number of pictures that don't seem to add anything to the article (largely repeating one another), and seem to be included simply because they're available. How many pictures of cheetahs sitting there do you need? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering most of the images have been in the article for a while now and you are the only person to have complained I would assume that your opinion does not reflect consensus. The article has around the same amount of images per article as does many other well developed articles. However if you think you can improve the article then do so. Regards ZooPro 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Just keep scrolling down. There are pictures of cheetahs running round doing other things than just sitting there. --Beirne (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


I read once (Bob Crampsey, The First Hundred Years, Glasgow: Scottish Football League, 1990, pp. 94-96) that during the 1920s and 1930s it was not unusual for Scottish football (soccer) stadia, many of which also had tracks for greyhound racing, to stage cheetah races. This is just mentioned in passing in the book and I personally know nothing else about the practice but I was wondering if this was just a Depression fad in Scotland or if there is a history of this sort of thing in a wider context. If so it might be worth adding something about it to the articles, most likely in the 'taming' section. Any thoughts? Keresaspa (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg (2)[edit]

Cheetah cub close-up edit2.jpg

Is it possible to change the picture of a cheetah cub to something that looks more common? Most cheetah cubs don't look like the current picture. I'm thinking of it being changed to a picture that looks more normal and common. Any more ideas, comments, rebuttal, and thoughts are encouraged.

Plus I think we need a larger variety of pictures for the cheetah, I've only seen three cheetah cub pictures (one of which is not a close-up, the other isn't a common cheetah, and the last is one of a very young cheetah). And I agree with a past discussion creator that there are a lot of pictures of cheetahs sitting around, and maybe more pictures of them running is a good idea, or feeding on a kill etc. ~ Zeus Gold Asterri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeus Gold Asterri (talkcontribs) 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt a collection of images, yes the cub looks a bit odd but a cheetah cub none the less, if you feel you can improve it please feel free to change it to a better image. regards ZooPro 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been reported that only a six pair of cheetah in Tanzania remain. excalations in poaching are the cause of this sudden drop in cheetah populations. Over 50 poachers have be put under arrest within the last month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inciter1 (talkcontribs) 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


I have changed the spelling of this article to International English from American English. It is my view that spelling should be defaulted to International English whenever the subject does not pertain to the United States. Cheetahs are found in Africa, where International English is predominant. For example, if the article were pertaining to the Jaguar population of Florida, then American English would be acceptable.

retractable claws[edit]

Cheetah claws are virtually identical in anatomy and function to those of other cats, except they lack sheaths. That's why they appear to be only partially retracted. It is a common misconception to believe that they cannot fully retract. In fact, when the claws are relaxed, though they are still visible, they are fully retracted just like with every other species of cat. There are numerous sources that confirm this. Here's one:

The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, By John D. Skinner, Christian T. Chimimba, pp. 378, 379.

I've cited that particular source because those pages can be viewed online at Google Books:here

As stated, there are many other valid and reliable sources that confirm that the cheetah's claws function identically to those of other cats. They retract fully. For accuracy, the article should be edited to reflect this.

Incidentally, this is also true for other cats mistakenly thought to have partially-retractable claws, like the fishing cat and flat-headed cat.

Rufuslynx (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it ASAP.Mcelite (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Use the NEWS ARTICLES listed here to improve this article[edit]

Asiatic Cheetah Blog [2].

Thanks mrigthrishna (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC) The cheetah was jast born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No ZooPro 11:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oddness above the table of contents.[edit]

At the top, a "}}" appears. I dont believe it should be there. But I also dont know how to banish it! (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Banished! --Seduisant (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add to...Cheetahs for hunting[edit]

The Nomadic tribes of the San people in the Kalahari Desert continue to use tame Cheetahs for hunting. Though they’re killers in the wild, these big cats are surprisingly easy to domesticate.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2012[edit]

In first paragraph it states "As such, it is the only felid with non-retractable claws and pads"

Then under the description it states: "The cheetah's paws have semi-retractable claws (known only in three other cat species" (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - Nice catch. The correct designation should be semi-retractable, as stated in the description. The claws do actually retract somewhat, but do not become completely sheathed, leaving some portion of the claws still exposed. I've added one of several sources confirming this, and edited the lead to make this clear. The other three felids in the description alleged to have semi-retractable claws seem OK, except maybe for the Iromote cat, for which data is still scarce. Cheers! --Seduisant (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Word CHEETAH comes from Sanskrit word Cittaa for the same animal and is used in many Indian languages that derive parentage from Sanskrit like Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati etc.. The Sanskrit word Cittaa in turn comes from word Citta meaning mind ( or heart (center of feelings) which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talkcontribs) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What a load of bulldust. ZooPro 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless you can point to a more reliable source than we already have, rather than just speculating, I have to agree with ZooPro. The derivation is completely different in the American Heritage Dictionary, which is currently cited. Don Lammers (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement in ths article is "derived from the Sanskrit word citrakāyaḥ, meaning "variegated", via the Hindi चीता cītā". The dispute here is not what a particular word means, but what word it was derived from. According to the current source (an English dictionary), it was not derived from Chittaa, so the meaning of this word is irrelevant. In addition, you are pointing to the main page of a source, not the page that supports your point of view (which I can't find, though that may be more a reflection of my search abilities). Finally, given a choice of sources, I think I would point to the English dictionary as the more reliable source anyway. Don Lammers (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit word citrakaya is also used for lion in Apte Sanskrit Dictionary ( Also see ( for meaning of cita which you did not find earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talkcontribs) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

neither are reputable or acceptable. ZooPro 10:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When I studied Sanskrit, Apte Sanskrit Dictionary was considered standard in India, the motherland of Sanskrit. Please list out names of reputable Sanskrit Dictionaries so that I can cite them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talkcontribs) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to reputability of the dictionaries, as I have not expertise in this. However, neither one returns anything for "cheetah", which means neither are suitable as sources for speculation about the derivation of the word. It may be that the use of citrakaya for lion should make us somewhat suspicious of the American Heritage Dictionary (or maybe not, since they are both large cats), but even if we raise this suspicion, that does not support anything like "which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it". this sounds much more far-fetched than coming from "variegated", even if that is sometimes used for "lion". Don Lammers (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit word citrakaya is made of two words, citra meaning picture or picturesque and kaya means body, thus entire word means one with picturesque body. There is absolutely nothing to suggest a cat, big or small.

Nor is there anything to suggest cat, large or small, in your unsupported suggestion. I think cheetahs have very picturesque bodies, and personally I like your definition better than "variegated". As I said, I'm not arguing about the meaning of the word(s). The current source suggests a derivation. You have provided no alternative source for derivation, and your speculation sounds like pure mumbo jumbo. Don Lammers (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I only meant that word citrakaya can be used for anybody not necessarily animal from big cat family. By the way, cheetahs do have picturesque body but then same word is used for lion (in dictionary). Nobody would dispute that lions also have picturesque body. Thus your derivation is not free from doubt to say the least. If you consult a sanskrit knowing person he would surely agree with me. In fact I came to know of my etymology of cheetah from a Times of India article but unfortunately I did not keep its record.

Further you say you are not arguing about meaning of words. Words can not be separated from their meanings. The very purpose of words is to convey meaning. It is the meaning that makes bunch of alphabets a word. SIMVHA (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have checked ALL of the available options in your two sources looking for the English word "Cheetah" and for the sanscrit "Cittaa", and I get no results at all. As far as I can tell there is no evidence in these sources that either "Cheetah" (English) translates into anything in Sanscrit or that "cittaa" (Sanscrit) translates into anything in English. You have to do better than this. If you don't have a definition match in the source, then you need to cite a source for the derivation. Even if you get that far, you need to still cite a source for "The Sanskrit word Cittaa in turn comes from word Citta meaning mind ( or heart (center of feelings) which is considered to be the fastest and hence the fastest animal is named after it." This source indeed says that citta means mind. It's a big jump from there to say all the rest in your statement. Don Lammers (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing when you accept Cheetah from Sanskrit citrakaya or Hindi cita ( the fact you have cited in your earlier comment ) but not from Sanskrit citta ( meaning interalia mind, heart ( not in physiological sense ), thought which imply sheer speed ). Problem it seems is that I am debating with those who are unaware of intricacies of Sanskrit or plainly resistant to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIMVHA (talkcontribs) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are amused, but obviously you fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia despite having edited on and off for several years now. Original research (i.e., your own opinion) is not allowed (see WP:OR) and entries must be verifiable from an external source (see WP:Verifiability). You may or may not be correct, but it does not matter if you can't point to someone else saying so. I found support for the current etymology here, here, here, here, here, and here (that last one is probably cheating because it's a sister project) in just a few minutes, but in all of the above you have not pointed to a single external source that supports what is obviously your own opinion.
I have no opinion as to which derivation is true (nor does it matter). I do not know Sanskrit or Hindi at all, let alone know any of their intricacies. If you want to do original research on the subject and publish your opinion on how the intricacies of another language eventually translated to English, that's a very good subject of a scholarly paper, but it is NOT appropriate for Wikipedia. If your paper is accepted by enough people for the opinion to make it into the English dictionaries and etymology texts, then we can point to those texts and change this article. Until then, neither my opinion or yours matter -- only what we can point to for verification. Don Lammers (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a great fan of Wikipedia and I respect what you've said above but I must also point out that WI in Devanagari script( used for Sanskrit) on Wikipedia earth sign was being depicted wrongly for many years, only recently the error was rectified. What were Wikipedia editors doing then ? SIMVHA (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recessive gene cause of rare king cheetahs[edit]

The section on King Cheetahs states that the markings are due to a recessive gene and that this is "why it is so rare"... Perhaps someone with better knowledge of genetics can help out here but the fact that a gene is recessive doesn't necessarily mean that it, or it's "symptoms" are rare. If enough of a population carry the gene that it's effects can be quite common. I know this isn't the case with the king cheetah.. but the wording is surely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchin Man (talkcontribs) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2012[edit]

I would like to edit grammar Lolman200616 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vacationnine 20:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013[edit]

There is a mistake in this article about ability to acceleration: "and has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in three seconds.[9][10]"
First of all source [9] doesn't contain information about cheetah's ability to acceleration and source [10] isn't absolutely reliable source of information. Secondly simple calculations (rectilinear uniform accelerated motion for the first part of the distance and rectilinear uniform motion for the second part) with parameters: distance 100m, total time 6s, max velocity 100 kmph shows that required time for acceleration from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) is about 5s. Karavadgoo (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

With the age and edit count of your account, you should be able to edit this page yourself. Be bold RudolfRed (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, just a non-mathematician here, but it doesn't make sense that you can calculate accelleration by knowing only top speed and distance. I am not claiming that the BBC article is correct (though it does support the statement -- see WP:CITE), but from the article we don't really know where in the course the cheetah reached top speed. It could have been after 25 meters or 50 meters. Unless I am toatlly mistaken, the accelleration would be different in the two cases (in fact, by a factor of two). I also note that the fox news article quoted above (which is no more reliable than BBC) does not support any statement about accelleration -- only about top speed. In fact, it says "Sarah covered 100 meters at 61 mph (98 kph)", but doesn't even tell us whether that was after reaching top speed or from a standing start. Usually "land speed records" are NOT from a standing start, so the article says nothing about accelleration, leaving the BBC as the sole source for such information, and your calculations at original research (see WP:OR). Don Lammers (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

cheetahs can get up to speeds of 75 miles per hour — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlaff skyler (talkcontribs) 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013[edit]

please add reference to the following to "In Popular Culture" In the Asterix comic book "Asterix and Cleopatra", Cleopatra has two cheetahs that exhibit a great deal of curiosity. (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Doesn't seem to be a notable example. GoingBatty (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013[edit]

Dear editors for cheetah-wiki.

In the article: A cheetah with hardly any spots was shot in Tanzania in 1921 I would like to add the recent sightings of this color-morph at the end of the paragraph: "Other color variations" Something like: This colour-morph has recently been photographed in Kenya.

Links: (original article)


PieterOliehoek (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013[edit]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Change "has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in five seconds." to "has the ability to accelerate from 0 to over 100 km/h (62 mph) in three seconds." Zoological Society of London is a better source than the Fox News source currently used. Phil.wasag (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for suggesting an improvement. --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

Remove "while" from the last sentence of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Northwest Africa?[edit]

Re: "Northwest Africa (Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Tunisia)". Someone ought to do something about the geographical descriptions in this article. I don't know the best way to fix them. For starters, Egypt and Djibouti are definitely not "Northwest Africa".HowardJWilk (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Mr. Jairam Ramesh is no longer incumbent Ministry of Environment and Forests — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


How come there's no mention of the Cheetahmen here? They are literally half-human and half-cheetah creatures. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here: I think the Cheetahmen would be worthy of mentioning in this article. Would you agree? --I Am the Pony Boy (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead photo license[edit]

The lead photo of this article is not available under a free Creative Commons license; it exists on Wikimedia Commons due to a loophole that permits GFDL-licensed images. I'm not contending that there is any policy violation here, but I think it would be a good idea -- especially since there are so many good freely licensed photos of cheetahs on Commons -- to replace the lead image with something licensed CC BY, or CC BY-SA, or in the public domain.

In 2008, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Moeller advised that we should stop uploading new GFDL images. This image was uploaded in 2012.

The reason this is a problem is that it introduces pitfalls for potential reusers of the file. Unlike almost all files hosted on Wikimedia Commons, this file cannot be readily used alongside other freely licensed files. This is not merely a theoretical concern: Wikimedia Foundation staff used this file in a presentation, which now appears will need to be deleted from Commons (or modified to eliminate the photo) for this reason. It would be better if a highly prominent photo in a highly prominent article did not lead our readers and potential media reusers in this direction.

Here is one high quality image that might serve as a replacement -- but I have no preference, if there are others: commons:File:Hunting Cheetah.jpg (see also many other photos here: commons:Category:Acinonyx jubatus) -Pete (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the suggested replacement file. Given the potential for reuse, I think it's a good idea. I'll come back tomorrow, and if there is no further comment, I'll make the switch. --Seduisant (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pete for bringing this matter again. I fully agree with you, and due to the same reasons we disallowed "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only licenses" from commons:COM:FPC on 18 October 2012. The same proposal was raised at Wikipedia too; but failed. See Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed raised by Colin too. I think it is better to avoid GFDL only licensed files from our article lead pictures whenever possible. It will definitely force our photographers to reconsider their decisions. Jee 02:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the statement "this file cannot be readily used alongside other freely licensed files" is accurate. Wikipedia itself is a testament to the fact that GFDL images can be used alongside CC images and dual-licenced images and text. Embedding this in a document, for example, just requires the GFDL licence requirements are met (i.e. attribution, licence indicated and full licence text embedded in the document). These requirements are just about practical for a PDF or book, but clearly ridiculous for a slideshow or many other media formats. But as long as Wikipedia allows GFDL-only images to be used (this one has a CC licence but it is NC), then I believe image choice for articles should remain an editorial decision. We use the best image. I fully sympathise with the aims but believe deprecating GFDL-only image use on Wikipedia needs to be a community supported policy. Too many people currently think Wikipedia is a free-to-read website (like the BBC News) rather than that a free-content project. -- Colin°Talk 08:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Colin:, I completely agree this is an editorial decision. The image should only be replaced if there's an equally desirable photo available under a more flexible license -- the article's quality should not suffer. I haven't worked on this article before, so I leave it to others with more knowledge of the topic to make any decision. -Pete (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies - I didn't spot this discussion before making an edit to the page that changed the lead image. (Thanks Pete for pointing me towards this discussion)!
I've changed the file to a photo that looked good from thumbnails, but it may well not be the best one to use here. Please do make sure that the lead image here is compatible with the CC license that the content is made available under, though - I'm currently trying to fix the problem with the licensing of a PDF of this page at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation that includes the photo that is -NC licensed, and it's a right pain to deal with. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cheetah, there is nothing wrong in changing that picture. Jee 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 21 August 2014[edit]

The following sentences were added in the "Diet and Hunting" section on 27 July 2014:

Cheetahs can run at a very high speed. In just two seconds they can run at a speed of 75 kilometers per hour. Means at a speed of 37.5 kilometers per hour in just one seconds.[41] The top speed of cheetah estimately recorded at 90 to 128 kilometers per hour. But there are some disputes between them. But cheetahs refused to run when their body temperature reaches at 40.5°C.

Please change them to something that makes sense. Or possibly roll back those changes entirely, since it all seems like repeat, conflicting, and/or unsubstantiated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with whoever wrote this, the aforementioned section just seems like a lot of poorly worded repetition. If it is felt that the information presented in it is necessary, then rewording it would be nice. Something along the lines of "Cheetahs can run at very high speeds, accelerating at 75 kilometers per hour in just two seconds. Cheetahs reach a top speed, in a full on sprint, somewhere between 90-128 kilometers per hour; however this causes the cheetah's body to heat up very quickly, and upon reaching 40.5°C they can no longer run." Even in this revision there's some bulk that could be done away with, such as "at a full on sprint", however it's easier to follow. Lastly, I would argue with the removal of the portion that states "the top speed of cheetah estimately recorded at 90 to 128 kilometers per hour", or at the very least have it match up with the information stated in other areas on the site. In the opening statement it clearly states "The cheetah can run faster than any other land animal— as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph)", with a number of verified sources to back it up, so there's no reason to change it for this portion. I also did remove the portion that stated "but there are some disputes between them" simply because it seems redundant, there's no way to test this to a point where there's no error, so of course there's going to be some debate. Hauser.120 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauser.120 (talkcontribs) 02:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A video shot at 1200 fps documenting the movement of a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) over a set run. These felines run faster than any other land animal — as fast as 112 to 120 km/h (70 to 75 mph) in short bursts covering distances up to 500 m (1,600 ft) — and can accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 3 seconds.

Video: Gregory Wilson
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


It might be helpful to add a citation about the dating of the population bottleneck or about specific evidence of the bottleneck.

It could also be useful to provide a citation that highlights the lack of genetic diversity in cheetahs. I know I have read studies where multiple microsatellites in the cheetah genome have been mapped and it has been shown that there is little to no variance in these microsatellites.

There have been recent studies to show that free-ranging populations of cheetahs are relatively healthy, whereas captive populations are more likely to suffer from infectious diseases. It could be beneficial to discuss this in the article.

In the conservation status section of this article, it is noted that the decline of the cheetah is most likely due to factors other than genetics. It might be helpful to support this by adding that captive cheetahs tend to have higher susceptibility to diseases than cheetahs in the wild despite the fact the cheetahs in the wild stem from the same gene pool, suggesting that conditions in captivity are the cause of vulnerability of these cheetahs.[1]

Wagner.925 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


I would like to point out that under the Diet and Hunting section, in the third paragraph it is mentioned that "the cheetah has an average hunting success rate of around 50%" with "The Cheetah in Genetic Peril" as its source, however, after browsing the article a number of times, I never found a single reference to them being successful in 50% of hunts. The closest I could come up with was in the opening statement where it states that cheetahs have a higher success rate than lions, but that's still far from saying it's 50%. The primary reason I bring this up, is because after reviewing another article, "Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs", their data states that the cheetah was only successful in 25-26% of its hunts on average. With about 20% of hunts in grassland and 31% in dense cover being successful respectively. [2]

Another suggestion would be adding warthogs to the dietary section of cheetahs, as again, according to the above mentioned article, one of the cheetahs they sampled that was in high vegetation areas was often observed eating them.

It would also be very interesting to include more detail on the population bottleneck, I'm sure a lot of people don't know anything about it, aside form those that study animals, and it would be very interesting to learn about.

Lastly, to play along with a few other things briefly mentioned here, it has been shown that one of the plausible reasons for increased susceptibility of captive cheetahs to diseases is stress. Captive cheetahs in North American zoos had higher fecal glucocorticoid concentrations, and a larger adrenal corticomedullary ratio, indicative of stress, than those of free-ranging Namibian cheetahs. These two populations originated from the same gene pool, so any susceptibility to diseases is likely not a result of low genetic variability, which bodes well for cheetahs as a whole. [3] Hauser.120 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request[edit]

I suggest creating a subtitle about captive cheetahs with under the relationship with humans section of the article with the following text:

Recent research has suggested that cheetahs in captivity actually experience more illness and have lower reproductive success than cheetahs in the wild[4]. For example,a new study found that the Helicobacter species, a bacterium that often causes disease in cheetahs, that was so prevalent in the captive species actually does not typically cause as much harm to cheetahs in the wild, suggesting that cheetahs are not actually predisposed for this diseases, but rather that some factor of being in captivity is the cause. One suggestion as to why there is such a marked difference between the health of captive and wild cheetah populations is that cheetahs are maladapted to captivity. It has been hypothesized that captivity can lead to increased stress levels which in turn causes poorer health and lower reproductive ability. In a study comparing the adrenal cortices and corticoid concentrations in captive and native cheetahs, it was found that captive cheetahs had larger adrenal cortices and higher corticoid concentrations[5]. This strongly indicates that stress is a factor in the lower health of captive cheetahs. Although it is still unknown as to why exactly cheetahs in captivity experience such increases stress levels as compared to their wild counterparts, one theory suggests that the stress is due to the fact that cheetahs are designed to run, but in captivity they do not have room to do so. Another theory as to why captive cheetahs are so much worse off than wild cheetahs invokes the red queen hypothesis in order to explain the discrepancies between wild and captive cheetahs. Wild cheetahs are exposed to a number of parasites whereas captive cheetahs are routinely given medication to ensure that they are not infected by parasites. However, these parasites may actually aide in the suppression of the inflammatory response in wild cheetahs, a trait which the parasites evolved in order to survive within the host, thereby making them less susceptible to certain types of diseases[6].

Wagner.925 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tear stripes[edit]

"These stripes serve to enhance the cat's facial expressions, especially its snarl, during which the black outlines of the lips become a continuation of the tear stripes. There may be a considerable advantage to the cheetah having a fierce-looking snarl, as it depends largely on its snarling and posturing to intimidate a competitor, rather than its ability to attack. The fanciful suggestion that the tear stripes exist as an anti-glare device does not seem plausible." Paul Bosman and Anthony Hall-Martin: Cats of Africa. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. ISBN 1-560-98-760-X

I don't have the courage to edit the Wiki article, but I suspect that the anti-glare theory may be just an old myth that has been repeated so much that it's taken as a truth. I think this idea of enhancing facial expressions should be mentioned in the article. Harjasusi (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I have a fair bit of out of date information and encountered several errors while taking a look at this article. I am going to go through the entire thing and check it all. Any help is welcome and would be appreciated. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"tear-streak" lines[edit]

What are "tear-streak" lines? By the way, the "New section" button isn't working.-- (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The "new section" button just worked fine for me. The "tear-streak lines" - look at any picture of a Cheetah's face. They're the very dark lines that run from the inner corners of the eyes down either side of the nose. They are not the result of actual tears. Jeh (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


I recently deleted an editor's comment on here and I would like to sincerely apologise. Jeh has correctly brought to my attention that it is extremely frowned upon to edit another's posting here. This was never my intention. I actually thought I was editing the main article itself. I do hope I did not cause offense. Sorry.DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Meaningless "reference" inserted by IP[edit]

IP inserted this "reference" at the top of the page, replacing the talk page header template. This resulted in a footnote indicator at the top of the page that was not a footnote to anything, as it was the very first thing. Nor is this even a properly stated reference. Since we're not supposed to remove things from talk pages, I've moved it here to the end of the page. Also nowiki'd the IP's text so it doesn't pretend to be a reference when it isn't. Jeh (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

<ref>St. Louis Zoo </ref>

- the above "ref" added by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at 2015-09-12T22:09:58‎ UTC

Collecting refs[edit]

I am entering this section simply to collect refs into this thread so these do not keep appearing after the last posting.DrChrissy (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005. 
  2. ^ Wilson, A. M., Lowe, J. C., Roskilly, K., Hudson, P. E., Golabek, K. A., & McNutt, J. W. (2013). Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs. Nature, 498(7453), 185-189.
  3. ^ Thalwitzer, H.; Wachter, B.; Robert, N.; Wibbelt, G.; Muller, T.; Lonzer, J.; Meli, M. L.; Bay, G.; Hofer, H.; Lutz (February 2010). "Seroprevalences to Viral Pathogens in Free-Ranging and Captive Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) on Namibian Farmland". CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY 17 (2): 232–238.  Text "DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00345-09" ignored (help); More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help)
  4. ^ Wachter, Bettina; Thalwitzer, Susanne; Hofer, Heribert; Lonzer, Johann; Hildebrandt, Thomas B.; Hermes, Robert (February 2011). "Reproductive history and absence of predators are important determinants of reproductive fitness: the cheetah controversy revisited". Conservation Letters 4 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00142.x. 
  5. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005. 
  6. ^ Terio, K. A.; Munson, L.; Marker, L.; Aldridge, B. M.; Solnick, J. V. (5 January 2005). "Comparison of Helicobacter spp. in Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) with and without Gastritis". Journal of Clinical Microbiology 43 (1): 229–234. doi:10.1128/JCM.43.1.229-234.2005. 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheetah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Other color variation section[edit]

I'm voting to have the variations listed with no citations removed. I seriously feel it degrades the article and exceptional work done on this article over time. Please voice your opinions before I or another editor removes the variations with no citations or validity.Mcelite (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)