Talk:Bengal tiger

, the "royal" thing was a reference to the royal grace of the Tiger, King of the Jungle, and not colonial. I'm not sure, of course.... --Ragib 07:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

India's national animal is Royal bengal tiger

No mention of height?

There is no mention at all of the average height. Can someone please fix this? - 203.188.235.9 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Tigers in India" Entry, What to Do with It?

Please see this entry, which has been proposed for merger in the overall "Tiger" entry, though I think it might fit better in the "Bengal Tiger" entry:

Tigers in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigers_in_India

Please note that although I revised the article grammatically, I don't know if it is factually accurate or not.

I can't believe you've made as many contributions as you have and yet still don't seem to know how to link to a page within Wikipedia other than by c&p'ing the URL. -- Smjg 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see how to do it.--Skb8721 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed - Northern indian tiger

Both this and Siberian Tiger claim to be the biggest. Which is correct? -- Smjg 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this claim has been removed from the article, but the Amur/Siberian Tiger is definitely the largest subspecies. - Slow Graffiti 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right. However, it's not that much bigger than the Bengal, only about 25 - 30kg larger.

Can you say something on this page about the distribution of tigers. Can you explain why there are lions in both Asia and Africa but no tigers in Africa.

No tiger in Africa: that's natural selection. And, the southern Bengal tiger averages 220 kg, the Northern bengal 250 kg, the Siberian 230 kg. But, the number of tiger in the south and central > the north, so, as a subspecies, the bengal is "considered" 2nd largest. However, for the question: where in the world, tigers are of largest size? The answer will be: Northern India and Nepal, not Siberia. One of the reason for being so large is to kill giant preys: gaur and buffalo

(links removed)

You see, the largest Siberian tiger is unoficially known as 384 kg, but there is one official Northern Bnegal tiger of 388 kg. The siberian tiger hunts small preys, no need to develop large body. They just have an extra fat layer, that's all.

The above statement is correct. Guinness Book of World Records is probably the most reliable source on this issue. They published, back in the seventies, a book only on animal records and facts, and here it is clearly stated that a male tiger weighing 388 kg was shot in Northern India. It can now be seen in the Smithsonian. Everyone, it seems, has opinions on the matter; most of you are having knee-jerk reflexes because all your ZooBooks in grammar school said 'Siberians are the largest' and people tend to defend what they grew up with. But, the facts are more confusing than that. So, get out of your comfort zone and embrace the fact that Northern Bengals may be as large, or larger, than Siberians, regardless of what your favorite childhood book on tigers, said.

And don't forget, a Myanmar bengal tiger with an unbelievable deed: pulling a 2 ton gaur carcass. This tiger must be easily 900 pounds, to be most conservative. It may hav been 450 kg. Not surprising considering the size of the gaur.

Let's do the math. 1 man (forest dweller) can drag a sambar 150 kg, no problem. So 13 men can drag 1950 kg, at the very, very least. And 13 men together stronger than 13 men counted individually, so 2100 kg no big deal. But the carcass didn't even move. And the tiger may have eaten 35-40 kg, plus other loss, could be 50 kg. So, this gaur may weigh 2.2 - 2.4 tons inact. What a southeast asian gaur! The tiger no doubt over 400 kg.

The size thing is a messy issue due to the differing wild situations of the sub-species. While in India there's a broad range of conditions between the different population pockets that probably provide a fair number of lighter tigers under stressed conditions as well as peak specimens in more generous conditions that permit them to find food more easily and reach a decent age. By contrast Siberians are under stress as a population as a whole and their sizes will be necessarily larger due to poaching of both their prey species and of the tigers themselves, shortening their lifespan and thus their attainable sizes. Thus we have under the best conditions Bengals that are larger/heavier then Siberians found under mediocre conditions, but in zoos we see the opposite trend. Obviously zoos aren't going to be preferred sourcing for the size and capability of animals but it's either comparing record sizes there or simply compare the -average- weight of Bengals across all the various habitats instead of cherry picking those with the good fortune to find themselves in a well managed park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.158.42 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious tag

Someone inserted a dubious tag about the size of the Bengal tiger.... that is, it being the largest of its family. In that case, may we have some references that shows otherwise? What type of tiger is even larger than Bengal tiger? Examples, references would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Ragib 16:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I already just gave such a reference: the Siberian Tiger page right here on Wikipedia. Also compare the Google hits for Siberian Tiger largest and Bengal Tiger largest.

Of course the might both be the largest by different interpretations. For example, one kind might have the greatest average adult size, and the other might have the largest known individual. Or they might be variously comparing height, length, volume or weight. But if this is so, it would need to be clarified. -- Smjg 11:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me ... superlatives always carry the possibility of being misused ... so whenever we have such statements, it is always better to have a reference to back it up. Thanks. --Ragib 14:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In every single book or article on tigers I have ever read, the Siberian tiger is mentioned as the largest.Osprey39 09:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Not every book says so, the book Tiger in the snow written by Peter matthiesen about the Siberian tiger, doubts this claim.

One Bengal was heavier than one Siberian by twenty some kilograms. Could it be that the Bengal just had a big sit-down dinner, and the Siberian had recently recovered from diarrhea. I do remember from my grade school books that "One Swallow Does Not Spring Make." 69.158.106.68 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

In the next couple of days I plan to expand this article a great deal, I have seperated the article in sections and have relocated the maneater section from the main tiger article to this article because it is more relevant here.

Please cite sources

Where does this story come from? A famous incident involved a maneater pouncing from the water to grab a forest official who was playing cards with others on a patrol boat. The tiger managed to drag the body and jump into the water escaping being caught. Incidentally these officials were sent to hunt down the very tiger that had struck that night. UrbaneLegend 02:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"and have a greatest skull length of 329 to 378 mm (13 to 15 in.)" I'm not relly sure what is trying to be said here but I'm quite sure that you can't say a greatest anything, surely its poor english. John.radom 05:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with maneating section

It is not the Bengal tiger which has a tendency to eat humans, it is only the Bengal Tiger in the Sunderbans. This section makes it seem as though all Bengal tigers eat humans, and that is overly broad. I wrote a section on the Sunderbans about these tigers (they are very important to that topic), and I believe it should be deleted from this part. This is because, as I stated in my section, there are things about the Sunderbans tigers that make them unique (no fear of humans, they drink salt water and the like). Since the Bengal tigers in other areas have a history of maneating (like the Champawat maneater), that part should be kept, but the description of the Sunderbans tigers should be kept minimal, with the bulk of that information coming in the Sunderbans article. I will take respsonsibility for the changes, but first I think we should reach a consensus. Considering the reasons Ive shown, what do you guys think? --Pal5017 03:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had it with your pro-tiger, anti-human slant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.213.7 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tusker and tiger

If you live in india or Indochina, you must have known of cases wherein tiger takes down bull elephant in one-on-one combat. One such an attack has been recorded in the book : The vanishing tiger by Vivek Sinha. In my country, it has happened in the past too, especially during the time when elephants and tigers both are numberous.

gaur carcass 5 times the tiger weight

With more than 1 sources claim the fact and cites the same reference, I don't think this is any nonsensible. If you don't agree, why not come to the source web pages and ask the authors first, before cancelling my edition?

Here is a useful internet link for more in depth information on tiger (Bengal) conservation in the Sundarbans:

www.sundarbanstigerproject.info

Adam Barlow

Tiger - The true king

In terms of power.

http://onlypunjab.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html

http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/polo/95/

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8132/liontiger7hddi6.jpg

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/165/proof21gner3.png

Traditionally tiger censuses in India have been carried out by collecting plaster casts of pugmarks (usually of a tiger’s left hind foot) found in an area during a specified time. http://www.globalwarming360.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.149.242 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

thre used to be a story on wildlywise.com in which, a tiger fought and killed 4 buffaloes simultaneously. Unfortunately, the site is gone now. I still maintain acopy of the doc on my computer. The name of the doc: Tigers!! Off the beaten track. Here is the quote:

"On the other hand a kill made by a mature male or female tiger is relatively clean, with injuries confined to the back of the neck or through the wind pipe, the latter being the classic method of killing its prey. In both cases the neck is very often broken.In one amazing incident I came across four large buffaloes with their necks broken. This is what happened - A young cowherd was grazing his buffaloes on a remote hill. A very large male tiger appeared and brought down a calf and started dragging it into the forest. The mother of the calf charged the tiger and butted him. The tiger retaliated by attacking the buffalo. While the tiger was engaged with the mother buffaloes three more buffaloes came charging towards him. What happened next was a free for all with the buffaloes bellowing and the tiger roaring. One by one the tiger managed to kill the buffaloes over the next fifteen minutes. Each one died with a broken neck caused by a mighty swipe of the tiger's paw. The tiger then picked up the carcass of the calf, ignored the cowherd, and ambled off. I was unable to establish whether or not the tiger suffered any injuries. The poor cowherd remained deaf for a week after the attack. "

And this:

"On one occasion I heard a fight being waged between a tiger and a herd of elephants that lasted for twenty minutes. I was a kilometer away separated from the scene by a river. The next morning I went to the scene of the battle but found no evidence of blood -apparently the fight was a draw."

Please Stop.

This man-made rivalry between tigers vs. lions, elephants,zebras, etc. is getting out of hand.

I am no expert on the topic of Bengal tigers, but I am truly disappointed at people who just cannot understand that Tigers vs. Lions will never be pitted against each other in the WILD. If the two species decide to battle in a zoo, there are so many factors outlying against the validation of the fight. Such as the enviroment they're fighting in and which animal is more adapted to the enviroment.

PS. On the comment made above titled: "Tigers -The True King"

Sorry, but your links for pictures are so bogus and uncreditable. Especially the news article that was truly poorly written with spelling and grammar mistakes and the tone of a 15 year old instead of a journalist. Nice try.

Huh, now that u say it, I am Not sure if you are lion supporters, but note that, tiger-the true king is the topic. I'm not comparing it to lions, then why "I am no expert on the topic of Bengal tigers, but I am truly disappointed at people who just cannot understand that Tigers vs. Lions will never be pitted against each other in the WILD.". That's lion-specific. Who cares about lion alone? The link is about tiger fighting others, anything. The newspaper I don't care much, but the report and pic are great. Let me rephrase, to eliminate misunderstanding: Tiger - the true king of fighter. When it comes to skills, we have tiger the best.

PS. Eventhough other predators are one with their fangs, they still need them. On facing the uncanny tigers of a different realm, death is inevitable. --S--

Could somone delete the reference to 'Royal' in the article. The only reason Bengal tigers are refred to as 'royal' is because of the past practice of them being kept by the Raj households as pets. There is nothing 'royal' or 'king-like' about the tigers since the terms are not descriptive of any of their biological or zoological qualities.--Mrg3105 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiger's have the Chinese character for king on their forehead Mrg3105. And have you ever seen the eyes of a tiger? Those, along with eagles' are the most intense eyes yi've ever seen, as well as imposing. kron650 20:38 march 11th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.135.20 (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Priority

I was watching a programme on the National Geographic Channel. During the whole period I was wondering whether the pictures are filmed in Bangladesh. Although Bengali comment had been heard, I thought it could have been West Bengal. But right at the end it was said quite clearly that "Bangladeshi Sunderbans" is the biggest source for the Royal Bengal Tiger. In that case shouldn't the name of Bangladesh would come first(before India)? Indians please don't get angry. India is probably adversing more about Royal Bengal tigers any way.Tarif Ezaz Bangladesh 10:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I fixed the lack of a </rev> in one part near the top which completely screwed up the References section (which has been like that for quite a few revisions and nobody has fixed it), as well as the arbitrarily long ref names.

Also, I removed what seems to be a large block of text copy pasted straight from a website, and moved some links to where they belong.

Feel free to fix some of these things if you can, without screwing the page up again like it has been for a while 4 days ;) Arilakon 13:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

HABITAT

PLease help improve and expand the habitat section. It says nothing about the Sunderbans, or the range of the R>B>T. WoodElf 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Above the picture it says bengaY tiger, not BengaL tiger

New information

FYI. news source can be traced to original source and included in article. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-India-Missing-Tigers.html Report: 8 Rare Tigers Missing in India By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: April 22, 2007 Marcus 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

LSU mascot controversy

I have mixed feelings about whether this "controversy" is noteable enough to merit inclusion in this general article on the Bengal tiger. It's not the first time tigers in captivity have been protested and I doubt it will be the last. There's a separate "Mike the Tiger" entry and the controversy can be detailed there, but I'm not sure this is the right place for it. I'm interested in others' thoughts on this. Ronnymexico 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

size

Male Bengal Tigers measure around 275-290 cm, sometimes up to 305 cm with their tail. The tail of a large male is usually 85-95 cm long. Their weight is normally around 200-220 kilograms (440-485 pounds). The heaviest Bengal Tiger with confirmed weight was 258 kg (568.79 lbs) and was shot in Northern India in 1938. Females are considerably smaller and have an average weight of 100-130 kg (220-287 lbs) and reach seldom more than 160 kg ref: Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596.

Several IPs are editing these data without adding references, but the data accord with the reference (Mazak) and walker´s mammals of the world. If someone changes these data, he should bring really good sources. These two books are really highly scientifical books, which should be preferred to popular-science picture books.--Altaileopard 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Any source which converts 258 kg to 568.79 lbs doesn't strike me as a model of concern for accuracy. How do we even know that the 258 kg wasn't itself a conversion from 570 lb?

Give me that accessible popular-science picture book—I'd just as soon take my chances relying on it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bengal in England?

"about 300 tigers living in England"

What is that? Is that referring to zoos? Why is that sentence there? 24.166.188.29 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The metric system

In the chapter named "Physical characteristics" there is an obvious mistake with metric units. Did you know that Tigers are very broad animals, "3.10 m between shoulders". That is roughly 10 feet. Such a Tiger should be around 60 feet long (20m) and 6m high. I would correct the mistake but the page is protected. It should probably say 0.31 m (or 31 cm) between the shoulders, but that sounds too little to me. It depends on how you measure and where you measure. I suggest the parenthesis is simply deleted unless somebody can find better info about shoulder widths. Roger491127 15:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Title?

The title is Bengal Tiger. Shouldn't the "T" be lowercase? --Dan Leveille^TALK 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever used in a normal sentence, the latter 't' must be in lower case, since the tiger isn't a proper name, however, here it is written as a title. It's the same as in some book times, such as 'Cat in a Hat'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.93.236 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Using technology to save tigers in the wild"

I suggest we delete this section altogether; it reads like a newspaper editorial and is more focused on the methods used to count tigers than the animal itself. Funnyhat (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital-T?

Why is Tiger capitalized in the article name? — PhilHibbs | talk 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not specific for bengal tigers

The tiger replaces the lion as King of the Beasts in cultures of eastern Asia,[71] representing royalty, fearlessness and wrath.[72] Its forehead has a marking which resembles the Chinese character 王, which means "king"; consequently, many cartoon depictions of tigers in China and Korea are drawn with 王 on their forehead.[citation needed]

Of great importance in Chinese myth and culture, the tiger is one of the 12 Chinese zodiac animals. Also in various Chinese art and martial art, the tiger is depicted as an earth symbol and equal rival of the Chinese dragon- the two representing matter and spirit respectively. In fact, the Southern Chinese martial art Hung Ga is based on the movements of the Tiger and the Crane. In Imperial China, a tiger was the personification of war and often represented the highest army general (or present day defense secretary),[72] while the emperor and empress were represented by a dragon and phoenix, respectively. The White Tiger (Chinese: 白虎; pinyin: Bái Hǔ) is one of the Four Symbols of the Chinese constellations. It is sometimes called the White Tiger of the West (西方白虎), and it represents the west and the autumn season.[72]

In Buddhism, it is also one of the Three Senseless Creatures, symbolizing anger, with the monkey representing greed and the deer lovesickness.[72]

The Tungusic people considered the Siberian tiger a near-deity and often referred to it as "Grandfather" or "Old man". The Udege and Nanai called it "Amba". The Manchu considered the Siberian tiger as Hu Lin, the king.[35]

The widely worshiped Hindu goddess Durga, an aspect of Devi-Parvati, is a ten-armed warrior who rides the tigress Damon into battle. In southern India the god Aiyappa was associated with a tiger.[73]

The weretiger replaces the werewolf in shapeshifting folklore in Asia;[74] in India they were evil sorcerers while in Indonesia and Malaysia they were somewhat more benign.[75]

"Nimer" (tiger) is a common Arabic male first name (see 'Abd al-Majid Nimer Zaghmout, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], ), fulfilling a similar function (i.e. calling a man by the name of a strong and powerful animal) as "lion" names such as Leon, Leo or Leonard in various European languagues.

The tiger continued to be a subject in literature; both Rudyard Kipling in The Jungle Book and William Blake in Songs of Experience depict the tiger as a menacing and fearful animal. In The Jungle Book, the tiger, Shere Khan, is the wicked mortal enemy of the protagonist, Mowgli. However, other depictions are more benign: Tigger, the tiger from A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh stories, is cuddly and likable. In the Man Booker Prize winning novel "Life of Pi," the protagonist, Pi Patel, sole human survivor of a ship wreck in the Pacific Ocean, befriends another survivor: a large Bengal Tiger. The famous comic strip Calvin and Hobbes features Calvin and his stuffed tiger, Hobbes. A tiger is also featured on the cover of the popular cereal "Frosted Flakes" (also marketed as "Frosties") bearing the name "Tony the Tiger".

copied fromthe article by Altaileopard --Altaileopard (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "der-tiger" :
  • Vratislav Mazak: ''Der Tiger''. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983.Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596
  • Vratislav Mazak: ''Der Tiger''. Nachdruck der 3. Auflage von 1983. Westarp Wissenschaften Hohenwarsleben, 2004 ISBN 3 894327596

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-wilding project in South Africa

This entire section as it is now is extremely disorganized, POV and improperly sourced. It has to be NPOV or deleted. In fact, what even makes this Re-wilding project worth mentioning? I'm inclined to delete the whole section. Djd sd (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That section is too long, and by and large irrelevant as far as the subject of this article goes.~~Belsavis~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belsavis (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Does not provide specific information on the average size of a female bengal tiger

Gmonkeys (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Royal"

I understand that the term is associated with the Bengal tiger (hence the Royal Bengal Tigers cricket team) but does anyone have RS explaining why? There's quite a bit of conflicting (OR?) comment on this page on this point, but verified information will do nicely. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Size of the tiger

Why disapper the section about the tiger size? I write a paragraph about this topic, but I state just scientific info, not shooting records source. I don't want to start a size-war so please, if some one is going to change something, please first present your reference. This article talk much about the hybrid topic and is very poor about the animal biology. I will try to enlarge the biological topics. Its like this place was forgoten. --AmbaDarla (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Editions with no references

There was some editions that don't present references. First, the total length of the males is normaly around 270 to 290 cm and sometimes of 310 cm. However, if someone is going to change that, I prefer the new form that I do it. Second, the normal weight of the females is of 100-130 kg, stated by Mazak, but someone put a weight of 140 kg for all the females, however I think that if I change this, other one is going to put it again, so I will not change it, at least that some one put a reliable reference of the average weight of ALL the females (not just those of Nepal). Third, there was no one tiger, correctly measured, of more than 322 cm. All the Bengal tiger measuring 330-360 was measured over curves. I put a referece that state this. Apart from this, every one can ask an expert of tigers, like Dr. Sunquist, and discover this. Again, if some one is going to change something, PLEASE, put the references.--AmbaDarla (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of references

Is it really necessary to have ten (!) sources provided for one sentence about genetic pollution? Funnyhat (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right Funnyhat, this article talk too much about the genetic pollution and have little information about biological issues. --AmbaDarla (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Much Added

I was given this page as an assignment to add information to, but I am new to Wikipedia and its style of article. Please feel free to edit any information I have added, and I would appreciate feedback as to what I should do differently in the future. Most of the information is fairly raw, and most likely will require revision, but most of it is backed up by sources so I would like to see it edited and revised rather than deleted. I am impressed with the work that has gone into this page, and would appreciate all of your help in teaching me to write wikipedia articles. (Laxdefender22)(talk) 17 April 2009

New size and new references

I have made some changes in the section of size. My previous edition doesn’t count with an actualization, so I cite new documents from Dr. Karanth and Slaght et al. This new information refreshes a little the theme of the tiger morphology and even suggests (in the case of Slagh et al.) that is the Bengal, and not the Siberian, the largest of the tigers in this time. Also I add the Guinness tiger, which I have been omitted in the English versions of Wikipedia. Good night.--AmbaDarla (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Who erase the section of records?

Who is changing the section on the tiger size? This is stupid and unethical. I put all this figures with its specific references and ALL of them came from highly reliable sources. Besides, some one is changing the averages figures and putting nonsense’s. Like I say before, this is NOT a playground and is obvious that some lion-fans are changing this for idiotic reasons.

Be professionals and stop vandalizing this articles just because YOU are not agreed with them.

I am going to restore this section. --AmbaDarla (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary habitat

The Sundarbans is the primary habitat of the tiger, and the mangrove forest of the Sundarbans is shared between Bangladesh and India. I find Ronz's argument flawed -- he claims that because India has approx 1400 tigers, and Bangladesh has 400, India alone is the primary habitat. But if the primary habitat is a shared region, then this claim is incorrect. --Ragib (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this.

Since no one has any sources, I'm trying just to apply some common sense, judging by the percentage of the population and area in which they range. Maybe we should just remove it? --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar

Thoughts about adding a note about the reference to Bengal tigers in the movie Avatar to the in popular culture section? "The Bengal tiger, extinct for over a century, is making a comeback. These cloned tiger cubs at the Beijing Zoo are..." 74.70.106.13 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiger.

{{edit semi-protected}} Recent studies show that Bengal tiger can weight up to 300+ kg.The tigers from northern India averages between 510lbs and 600lbs.They occationaly reach up to 700lbs.

121.245.161.155 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Already done The article already has the figures of the weight of the tigers. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Bengal tiger has been a national symbol of India since about the 25th century BCE when it was displayed on the Pashupati seal of the Indus Valley Civilisation." - Is that meant to be a joke? The seal doesn't even represent Shiva according to all major historians. And here someone is claiming Bengal tiger was a national animal of India in 2500BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Panthera tigris is the national animal of India.

Why this line has to be here, what this line has to do anything with Bengal tiger? Its proper place is either in India page or in Panthera tigris page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.253.30 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"His" Tiger

In one of the pictures, the fifth one down including the main image, the caption says that it is a picture of "A male tiger with his cub at the Bandhavgarh National Park, in India." On the Tiger page it has the same picture but with the caption "A Bengal tigress with her cub." Now of course, it's a either a male tiger or a female tiger. I would think that it is a female tiger as within the description of a tiger's life it talks about how female tigers raise their cubs for about 18 months. Cornellbob (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cornellbob. Actually, that “tiger-tigress” is no less tan B2, the famous male Bengal tiger that have dominated the tourist region of the Bandhavgarh NP. In the general article of the tiger you will see a large discussion about this. Sadly, a group of guys, which apparently don’t know the individual tigers, don’t accept the evidence that this particular tiger is the male B2 and that the new evidence, brought to light by George Schaller, Valmik Thapar and Ullas Karanth (no less) suggest that the male tigers actually take care of its cubs in a form that resemble the male lions, at least, in the populations of Ranthambore, Kanha and Bandhavgarh. Besides, there are at least two reports of male tigers feeding its cubs when the mother simple left them. I quoted the books, but some people prefer to stay in the old myths. AmbaDarla (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion mentioned by AMbaDarla actually closely examines the image of B2 against the image in this picture with the cub. You can examine the comparisons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiger#About_the_male_tiger_with_the_cub and you will see that the image of the tigress with her cub does not match that of an accepted image of B2. I have therefore changed the caption to read that of a tigress with her cub. I will note that I am not saying male tigers have not been seen taking care of their cubs. I am merely saying that this particular photo is not evidence of such. Lighthope (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Detroit Tigers

Is there any source for the statement that the Detroit Tigers MLB team has ever been referred to as the "Bengals"? If not, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.106.24 (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewilding Project in SA editing wars?

There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.

Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.

What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? We are just trying to keep the page's integrity, trying to edit and update when neccessary, not removing whole chunk of information which has been here for over 3 years. What is the use of removing everything and adding a few words with no references. If there is any need to edit, it should be to edit and update the page from its originality, not remove everything. That has never been the policy of wikipedia. NicRoets, please read this.

China's Tiger (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I question the necessity of such a detailed subsection when it doesn't really have to do with Bengal tigers, but by its own admission is about "not purebred Bengal tigers". The article is also heavily biased and spammed onto other tiger pages. With regards to the subject of reintroducing (or introducing) tigers into the jungle, the effort may merit its own page in which multiple efforts can be documented. I would also suggest not using the term "rewilding" as it is not an accepted word in the scientific community, though certainly "rewilding" can be redirected to an appropriately named article. Lighthope (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)