Talk:Bengal Tiger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
Bengal Tiger is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template.
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
I think the "royal" denomination is colonial and should be avoided. , 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)
Contents |
[edit] "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)
[edit] Disputed
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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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
[edit] 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
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."
[edit] Please Stop.
This man-made rivalry between tigers vs. lions, elephants, 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
