User talk:Altaileopard

Hello!

Altaileopard is more present in the german Wiki You can learn more about me at my page Deutscher Altaileopard. If I don´t aswer you here, leave me a message on my german diskussion.

Thank you!

There are 2 subspecies of tigers in africa training, 2 of them are bengal tigers, and the other 3 are south china tigers. Pls see the facts before editing. Do not edit anything on the south china tigers yet before u read this page. http://www.savechinastigers.org/ This website is the homepage of the african rewilding project of south china tigers. All of the new pictures are found there. And are u a tiger expert? The pictures clearly show south china tigers, the stripe pattern of the south china tiger may be similiar to the indochinese tiger but if u look closely enough ,u can see the difference. So please stop editing the facts.

Sorry. I can not find anything about P. t. amoynesis in africa on this page and moreover I don´t think, that this page is a reliable source!!!! --Altaileopard 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found something, but even if there is an introduction project in africa, this should be mentioned only in one or two sentences and it is enough to show a single image of this tigers. That is not typical for the subspecies. And..... Do you have the permission, to load these images up in wikimedia?--Altaileopard 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Ya, i have the permission of the webpage. Anyways, south china tigers are very cricitally endangered, it is rare to see their pictures thus i uploaded so many pictures for people to look at.

Do you have a reference to the study that you site regarding the hyoid bone? "But new studies show, that the ability to roar is due to other morpholigical features, especially of thelarynx." Dddstone 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The refernece is walkers mammals of the world (in the article under Literature). I dont have the book here at the moment, so I am not shure about the page. Its somewhere under Genus Panthera.--Altaileopard 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to ask about the page too, but having the rest of the book info is sufficient for now.

Thank you for your contribution, and I appreciate you asking me to look over it. I tweaked a few punctuation/grammar things and one spelling, but most of mine was linking a few things and adding a cite template. The latter is *not* required but often desired, to know more exactly the parts of the article the references refer to. TransUtopian 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TransUtopian, for looking over it. I think you are right, it would have been better to make a cite template in this case.--Altaileopard 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atulsnischal, Good work with the Reintroduction of asiatic lion in Kuno-Palpur, but I think it is not necessary to have a separate article for that. As the same text is also contained in Asiatic Lion and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, I think that Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project should be deleted. Moreover I think the block "Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project" should be deleted either in Asiatic lion or in Kuno Wildlife sanctuary. I think it is not good to have the same contents twice ore more. What do you think about that? Gruß, --Altaileopard 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leopard

I just made a basic tempelate of the information for the three pages hoping they will evolve into three seperate paragraphs in time with a basic introduction on two pages and the Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project can have the project in more detail as it is a very important and costly project that has got caught in state politics. Year by year new achievements can be added to the project page (with time in dacades to come and relevent news links etc).

Thanks

Atulsnischal

Hmm, I would prefer to have the main info in the article Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary and a short overwiev with a link to that page on Asiatic lion (or probably the other way round). There are so many introduction projects for several animals in the world. I dont think it is good to have an article for each of them in the wiki. And if the three articles evolve to three different, but equal pages about that theme, the user has to read all three to be shure that he will get the whole information. Otherwise you have to do all changes always in three articles. Actually you can add new achievements also in an article about Kuno sanctuary. In the german wiki we always try to avoid redundant contents. Anyway.... the asiatic lion is a great animal. Greetings --Altaileopard 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User talk:Flavio.brandani:

In this edit you added P. l. goojratensis and several invalid "subspecies" to the lion subspecies. What are your sources for that? Where was the range of this "subspecies"? The indian subspecies (in Gir as well as in captivity) is called P. l. persica and the link of goojratensis leads to this subspecies.

The status of the Marozi is doubtful and by far not clear. Even in the article it is claimed to be a hybrid. Moreover its already mentioned in an extra part under the subspecies. After "A. Turner: The big cats and their fossil relatives. Columbia University Press, 1997.ISBN 0-231-10229-1" P. toscana is not a lion subspecies. About P (l.) youngi I am not shure, but I will try to find good sources. You said my edit was vandalism, but you added wrong information which is not confirmed by sources. I would rather call this vandalism.--Altaileopard 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

1)P. leo goojratensis is a synonim of p. leo persica institueted by Smee

2)P. leo youngi is a real prehistorical subspecies of a lion... see it.wiki for more dettails

3)Marozi is an hybrid of a leopard to a lion

Excuse me if I told that yours edits were crudelty vandalics... but you do not theath me to blocked... I am an Italian user persecuitated on it.wiki for pest control...

I WORK FOR ADORNED EN.WIKI I'M NOT A VANDAL Flavio/Tigre Reietta 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me too, I was a bit irritated, but let´s talk about the facts.

• If goojratensis is a synonym for persica, the name should be mentioned in this way behind this valid subspecies or completely left away.

• I am not well informed Panthera (leo) youngi, but this article shows no sources for the information about this animal to me.

• The marozi is likely a hybrid and should not be mentioned under the lion subspecies exept the sentence which is already at the bottom of the block.

--Altaileopard 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Flavio.brandani:

Hello, its me again. You called my revert cruel vandalism do you have a proper reference for this edit ?Otherwise I will revert it again.Greetings--Altaileopard 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Leopard..I study the tiger for many years and I'm absolutly certainly that Lecoqui tiger is a synonyms of Caspian tiger... Search on google and do not rollback my legal edits...I'M VERY ANGRY WITH YOU....EN WIKI IS MY last possibility to exist... On it.wiki I were blocked for pest controll by the cruel user Ribbeck...I WAS INNOCENCE..YOU KNOW? I WAS INNOCENCE... Flavio/Tigre Reietta 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not a proper source.--Altaileopard 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching a bit and found a good source for the synonym P. t. lecoqi for P. t. virgata. [1].

But that should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Almost every tiger subspecies has several invalid scientific names. If you want to have it in the article, I think you should write a short extra block and note also the other synonyms like serpentrionalis ect. --Altaileopard 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear leopard... forgive me if I bollate yours edit as vandalism... however lecoqui existed... I'm not a vandal but unhappines exiliated user...:-) kiss tvb Flavio/Wiki pest 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Altai leopard if do you speak italian and english could you menthoring me? I have desperated. yours Flavio/Tigre Reietta 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Did I get you right? you wants me to be your mentor? I don´t know how to do this, but I can try to answer, you if you have questions.--Altaileopard 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know my native language dear AltaiLeopard (P. pardus orientalis ;-) )? Now I tent to explain you in my atrocious english why should I research a menthor. Uther SRG (Stacey Robert Greenstein) is a patient (=moderate) user. But he will be block me for 6 month if I continued to put incorrect or partial incorrect edits. So I research a user who try to help me to become a good wikipedian. For dettails in better english you could contact Uther SRG. Yours Flavio/Wiki pest 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It seems to be, that you are probably a strange guy, but i believe you, that you want to help wikipedia. In this edit you added two subspecies. But the problem is that you gave no sources from where this info is. If i search in google scholar, which shows usually good papers ect. i can find nothing about V. t. lankavensis: [2]. You have to add comprehensible, reliable sources to your edits. If your englisch is to bad, ask native speakers, (if no one wants you can ask also me). Thats in principle all you have to do.--Altaileopard 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thumb What makes you certain this is actually a Marbled Cat?--Pharos 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every picture I ever saw of a clouded leopard, shows quite big black spots on the forelimbs.[3] [4] [5][6]

The animal on the image shows very small spots like a typical marbled cat.[7][8][9]. Moreover the whole body is to slender built for a clouded leopard. I am 99,999 % shure this image shows Pardofelis marmorata.--Altaileopard 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I notice you removed all of the weight of the Bengal tiger, as well as inf regarding northern bengal tiger > siberian tiger, saying the data is unconfirmed. As far as I see, they are all confirmed and sourced . What do you mean by unconfirmed? and with the largest siberian 40 kg less than the largest northern bengal tiger, the comparison statement is so obvious, what do you think?

We should use only zoological, reliable, references in wikipedia. lists of hunting records for example, are no good sources. A skin of a tiger can be stretched easily for half a meter. And if you measure over the curves, you can pull the measuring tape into the skin to "elongate" a dead animal enormously. A hunter wants always a very big animal...

In: Vratislav Mazak: Der Tiger. (1983) ISBN 3 894327596 are used only good, confirmed data. Mazak writes that the longest siberian tiger measured 350 cm (J A N K O W S K I ) in total lenght "over the curves", what would be about 330-335 cm "between the pegs". (The wheigt was estimated to be arround 300 kg.) Even this tiger is not defintiely confirmed, but it is the largest tiger, for which autentic data exist. The maximum wheight for Indian tigers from credible sources is 570 lb (258,2kg). This animal was shot in the Terai Region. The heaviest siberian tiger, for which we have reliable sources weighed 306 kg and was from Bouglione Menagerie. The heaviest wild amur tiger, for which Mazak has confirmed, exact data, weighed 270 kg. Mazak writes: All weights, which say 340 kg or even 384 kg for the heaviest tigers are not conirmed!!!!! I will change the article in this way, cause the book is really a good reference. Walkers mammals of the world says the same.... I have also some quite good books, which say that tigers are heavier and even Mazak wrote in his early times, that hey can grow bigger, but all these data depend on unconfrimed narratives.--Altaileopard 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Altai,

100 - 130 kg was by no means the average weight for Bengal tigress, all the specimens > 140 kg, so I changed it. If you have any objection, please let me know here before reverting. Thanks! Btw, Siberian < Bengal, we should discuss this, it's really serious!

I will answer you this evening.--Altaileopard 09:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at first I reverted your edit in siberian tiger. You can not write anything, what is contradictionary to the standard book about mammals (Walker´s) without giving really good references (Papers ect.) Now I will have a look at the bengal tiger.--Altaileopard 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Makak:Der Tiger and Walker's Mammals of the World amur tigers are on average larger than bengal tigers. I do not completely exclude, that (northern) bengal tigers reach the dimensions of the siberian race, but we should follow really serious literature here. The book about big cats (Big Cats: Kingdom of Might), mentioned by you, is not enough to be a reference against these two highly scientifical books. That does not mean, that this book is not good.I think it´s okay and I will buy it in the near future.

But what can we do? Does this book (Big Cats: Kingdom of Might) really says, bengal tigers are on average larger than siberian tigers? If this is the case, we can write, that the bengal race is sometimes considered to be as big as or even larger than the siberian tiger.

Could you give me the exact text passage for this satement in this case?

Now let´s talk about the maximum weight. This was your edit:

The largest wild Bengal tiger, also the largest wild tiger ever recorded, was shot in Northern India in 1967, 3.35m in total length and weighed 388 kg, (857 lbs), while another, killed in Nepal in 1942, weighed 320 kg * G. Schaller: The deer and the tiger. Chicago Press, 1967.. I am shure Mazak knows about them (He also mentioned the 384 kg siberian male), but he took only data, which are from really reliable sources. Whatever, are both maximum weights from Schallers book? If we keep them in the article, we should mention, that they are debatable and not accepted in other scientific literature. Can you please write down here the original text of Schallers book. Otherwise I have to buy this book, too.--Altaileopard 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

No, I dont think so. Mazak only knew what he had read, the fact that he made no mention of any of the specimens from Nepal, measured by Dr. Mel Sunquist in 1975- 1976, and later on, by Dave Smith and Chuck Mcdougal is proof. Without specimens, all the average weight mentioned by Mazak, is at best, speculation or based on some other books. And the average weight he gave the Bengal is WRONG. Let's face it: Female:100-130 kg, 2.4 - 2.65m. Oh dear, the smallest female, T106 captured by Mr. Sunquist is 141 kg, 2.6m. Lakshmi tigress, T107 2.82m, 148 kg, Number One, T101 tigress, 164 kg, 2.77m. Even a 18 month old cub, tigress 103 weigh 114 kg, 2.61m.

Where is the refernce for me to read this?

That's proof that female Bengal averages much heavier and longer than Mazak figures. Males too, 105 3.1m, 102 2.92m, 104, 18 months old, brother of 103, weighed 160 kg and 2.89 m long. All straight measure. I've nothing against Mazak, because he didn't know about live specimens, so he relied on some scientific sources to come up with the fig 100-130, but those sources too, are guessworks. Btw, the 384 kg is so notorious, everyone knows about it(though it's garbage), thanks to media. Schaller mentioned the 320 kg(705 lbs) from Nepal in 1942. I read the book a while ago, it's not avail. in library now(lost), but I place an order. As soon as it comes in, I'll give u the words.

Okay, i think I also will buy it. I think we should wait with edits until one of us has the book, and we have the exact text passage.

All the myth about Northern Bengal is rubbish. The only confirmed superior tigers are those from Assam and Myanmar, with those from kaziranga being an example. Apart from Sunquist, Valmik Thapar himself, in his book: land of the tiger, also observed an ERNOMOUS tiger of Kaziranga being chased by a wild buffalo. Another report of a very large tigress jumps on top of elephant in Kaziranga national park, Assam.

http://www.toftiger.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=5

That said, apart from Assam, Nepal tigers or Northern Indian tigers have no size advantage compared to other Bengal. Nagarahole tiger ecology project (1986-1995), conducted by Dr. Ullas Karanth, a student of Mel Sunquist, provides some insight:

1 tigress, aka Sundari, weighed 150 kg. Another, T-02, weighed 177 kg, 2.5m. T-03, adult male, 257 kg, killed by a gaur. T-04, 3-4 year old male, 250 kg, 2.9m. T-01:old male, 231 kg. he mentioned another 240 kg collared male starving to death with broken canines. publications: The tiger:Power and fragility; Predator-prey relationships among the large mammals of Nagarhole National Park (India). Karanth, K.U. 1993a. Ph.D. thesis, Mangalore Univ., Mangalore. One more female, aka Bigfoot, has pugmark as big as a male.

A PhD. thesis is not a good refernece. A published paper is atually the minimum for such debatable changes. Another problem is that I can not find it in the net. Do you have it, can you send it to me?

You see, all the weight suggest a 245 kg average for male, and no fem. < 150 kg. Higher than Nepal, no? This to end the myth of Nepal tigers. There's another ecology prj in Panna, Central provinces, I'm trying to find reliable ref. Btw, Walker's is an encyc., not a specialist book of a particular species, so it should only be treated as a gen. ref, at lower level than specialist books or papers.

And now, Siberian vs Bengal. Mazak, as I said, no data he held, save for the 306 kg, so it was just pure speculation. Siberian averages < Bengal. I already said about it, and now, with even more specimens, I think it's all over now. Have a look, my friend! Another evidence from Baikov:

www.tigers.ru/books/baikov/he1.html

I can not open this page.

Ignoring all the BS of average weight, focus on live specimens he mentioned. You got it, long and light Siberian. Stay tuned...I'll be back.

Okay. I will be on hollyday for the next three weeks. When I come back, we have to discuss probably again. greetings--Altaileopard 09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

You can't , me too, it's taken off the net, probably too valuable to give for free any longer. Luckily I saved a copy, heh. So, how can I send it to u?

All Nepal specimens are from the book: Tiger moon, 1988. Now, all of Baikov specimen accounts are reliable, according to Dr. Ullas Karanth. Here are the words:"Informative, if not wholly accurate regional accounts of tigers were published by Nikolai Baikov in Russia, William baze in Indochina..."(Karanth, 2001). Great stuff! Karanth also said in the same book, that measured bengal and Siberian specimens are about the same size.

First, I gave you the words from Big cats:Kingdom of might.Cheer up, most books I'v read so far, the authors, haunted by the continous bombard of media propaganda about the Siberian thruout the 20th century, say that Siberian biggest. Nevermind, they said it without any evidence, rather, a social obsession. At least the honest Tom brakefield, though still saying Siberian biggest, gave us some instances of bengal tiger larger than 300 kg. He didn't mention the notorious 384 kg (words in brackets are mine): "Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger, it's less massive(my sympathy, he derived this from all the ref. he read)... The longest accurately measured BT, recorded in 1907, stretched 10 ft, 7in or 3.22m , of which, 3 ft, 7in was tail, and weighed a surprisingly light 491 lbs (this one killed in the terai). A huge male killed in Nepal in 1942 weighed 705 lbs, while another giant, killed in India in 1910, weighed 700 lbs, and spanned 9ft, 11.5 in in length. However, all of these are dwarfed by a gigantic cat killed in Northern India in 1967(the same province Corbett shot the Bachelor), which measured 10ft, 7in and weighed a mind-boggling 857 lbs". The largest mentioned Siberian is 771 lbs, in 1934. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is probably the last answer berfore my hollidays. Actually you should be able to write an e-mail with the button on the left side. But perhaps that is working only on my german account. I can not find the book "tiger moon".

Another thing: I have often problems to follow your references and from where your datas are respectively. From where is this passage for example? :

Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger, it's less massive(my sympathy, he derived this from all the ref. he read)... The longest accurately measured BT, recorded in 1907, stretched 10 ft, 7in or 3.22m , of which, 3 ft, 7in was tail, and weighed a surprisingly light 491 lbs (this one killed in the terai). A huge male killed in Nepal in 1942 weighed 705 lbs, while another giant, killed in India in 1910, weighed 700 lbs, and spanned 9ft, 11.5 in in length. However, all of these are dwarfed by a gigantic cat killed in Northern India in 1967(the same province Corbett shot the Bachelor), which measured 10ft, 7in and weighed a mind-boggling 857 lbs

But anyway... I must say, that this text sounds uncritical and a bit lurid to me in comparison to Mazak, who gave the tigers size and the problems about measuring them a whole chapter. As you might have regonized in the meantime, I am very very critical about the exeptional large tiger giants. Moreover their existence would not say, that the bengal tigers are larger on average than siberian tigers. For this conclusion, we need any referneces, which say exactly this. Everything else is original research, wo is forbidden for wikipedia.....Though the bengal tiger (BT) may reach the same length as the Siberian tiger This sentence does not say a lot about the sizes of the subspecies. I does not say the bengal tiger is larger, not even in case of some (probably unconfirmed) exeptional large males.

An intermediate result could be:

• Alomst all literature (scientific and popular) says the siberian tiger is on average larger than the bengal tiger.
• You say the opposite is true. Your mentioned literature is still doubtful to me. (Sorry, but I can not follow your references exactly for this statement. That does not mean, that I will exclude that. I have a book from John Sidesticker: Riding the tiger and I mean to rember, that it says the bengal form could be of the same size than the siberian. Unfortunately I found not one exact data of size in this book. But I will check this book for infos.
• You say Big cats:Kingdom of might is comparable in reliability to Mazak the tiger and walker´s mammals of the world. I don´t think that is the case.

Probaly we have to ask some other "specialists" about their opinion to this question.

I will be in the Altai for three weeks, where tigers were found in the southern slopes and as intruders until the middle of the 19. century. Here it was the caspian tiger, which was probably nearly as large as the bengal tiger (and in your view nearly as large as the siberian form.) --Altaileopard 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I want to send u the Baikov account of Siberian, what says you, if I create an email acct and give u the usernm & pwd to check? That Ok?

Now, we must be clear on the point of debate: Biggest subspecies. Speaking of this, we should consider average size. If Bengal(or Siberian) is lager on average, then that subspecies is the biggest. Science Lion records of 270 kg, and even 311 kg reliable hunting records have been found, still, it doesn't mean lion > Bengal or Siberian , as they average lower. We need to get this point straight before going further. You agree with this?

Now, u said:"Alomst all literature (scientific and popular) says the siberian tiger is on average larger than the bengal tiger.". But, most of them, if not all, hold no specimen data, they just follow each other's fashion, no? And I'm very sure that Walker's encyc. just copied data and statements from Mazak, check their ref at the back ;-)

I say, based on specimens, which speak louder than any of the above, we can come up with new conclusion. I'll get u exceprt from tiger moon and Karanth papers next time. But first, let's talk about Pocock ref. of gaur carcass 13 men cant move. It's a reliable ref, with the prestige of Reginald Pocock, great zoologist of early 20th century. His work has been ref. by many great authors, inclu. Mazak himself. So, don't edit out this account. 2nd, Dr. Alan Rabinowitz of WCS , with a camera trap survey, revealed about 60 tigers in Huakaung valley, Myanmar in 2002. . Here's the excerpt from "Black Market:inside the endangered species trade in Asia". This book is new, u should be able to get to it(and see what's really happening to these species, that most publications overlook): "in late 2002, a team of wcs researchers led by Tony Lynam, a young Aussie biologist, spent 2.5 months usrveying the most promising jungle sites in Hukaung valley. They also collected some 4000 photos from special infrared cameras strapped to trees. The finding indicated there could be as many as 60 tigers in this remote valley, perhaps the largest viable tiger population in Myanmar." And then, in 2004, Huakung valley tiger reserve of 8400 sq miles was created. So, please don't edit out this either.

Back to size, let's list all specimens we have: first, Cnetral India, Panna tiger ecology project conducted by Dr.Raghu Chundawat, two males of 250 kg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/323feature3.shtml

Regarding specialist opinion, I got 3 for you next time. I'll be back for excerpt from Nagarahole, Chitwan, Siberia.

"I have a book from John Sidesticker: Riding the tiger and I mean to rember, that it says the bengal form could be of the same size than the siberian." . U know why? Cos he was with Mel Sunquist in chitwan project in 1970s, so he knows.

Just one more thing for this time: Can u get me the detail of the 270 and 306 kg SIberian tigers? How are they captured, what year, where, and how are they weighted? Cos' Scientists usually bring inadequate scales. I love to have more specimens for my tiger collection.

This is some excerpt from Tiger moon, written by Mel & Fiona Sunquist: "The next few hours were filled with activity & anxiety. While Mel and 5 Shikaris struggled to raised the tiger off the ground, I read the weight from the gauge. He was a big animal, weighing 440 lbs, nearly beyond the capacity of the scale." This is T102, a 4 year old male.

"Just as we were debating whether to return to the camp, another set of pugmarks appeared in the dust of the road. There was no question as to whose they were. Size alone told us they belonged to the 600 lbs Sauraha tiger. He was the territorial male at the Sauraha end of the park,..." This is T105

"Male cubs seem to grow faster and learn to kill on their own more quickly than females. When the Roaring Tigress and Tiger 104 were both 18 months old, she weighed 250 lbs and her brother was 100 lbs heavier." The Roaring Tigress is T103. I'll be back with Siberian data. For now, a present:

The Deer & the Tiger http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=12488

here's Excerpts from Tigers in the snow By Matthiessen, during the time he spent with the Siberian tiger project members: "Though large males of both races may range from 9-12 feet in lenght, P.t. Altaica, which must hunt harder and more widely for its food, may actually weigh less: Igor Nikolaev,the Siberian tiger project researcher with most field experience, knows of no wild Amur tiger exceeding 650 lbs, a weight also claimed for P.t. tigris. In theory, a large wild Amur tigress might reach 450 lbs, but as of 1999, the project had weighed some 15 tigress without finding one larger than about 320 lbs. In anycase, the average weights recorded by the project seem to be lower than those noted in the past. At least 1 authority suspects this's the difference btw real weights and hunters' estimates."

"In june 1992, we made our 2nd capture, a BIG, mature tigress we named Lena." Lena weight of 252 lbs, or 115 kg has been give later in this book.

"Tiger #12, a 400 lbs male (called Dale after Mr. Dale Miquelle), was located in a birch copse on a high rock pinnacle. Having no place to run, he must've been lying motionless on the sunny snow..."

"The large project tiger, nicknamed Dale dine regualrly on bears, which constituted the bulk of his diet".

Ullas karanth PHD thesis is a published paper, but not on the internet, it mentioned this one:T-02, weighed 177 kg, 2.5m. Another paper: The tiger:Power and fragility, mentions these tigers: 1 tigress, aka Sundari, weighed 150 kg. T-03, adult male, 257 kg, killed by a gaur. T-04, 3-4 year old male, 250 kg, 2.9m. T-01:old male, 231 kg. he mentioned another 240 kg collared male starving to death with broken canines.

So we have data from South, central, and north India, plus Siberian data. So far, the weights seem to favor Bengal.

Karanth, Sunquist, Seidensticker, and Siberian tiger project members state the same: Bengal and Siberian tigers are of similar sizes. So, I think satements like: At these sizes, Siberian tiger is the largest subspecies should be modified or removed. These 2 subspecies should get equal treatment. I'm fine with a compromise, but things like Siberian largest, and Bengal tiger's weight ranges of 100-140 for female, 205-227 for male are rubbish.

Mazak's ref. is great, but walker´s mammals of the world is not so creditable. It has not so accurate inf. regarding brown bear and wild cattles. Things like Kodiak bear of 780 kg, 3.6m tall etc.

This is the sexual dimorphism in wild Bengal tiger. The male looks twice the female:

http://indianaturewatch.net/displayimage.php?id=13800

Hi Altai, have a look, this is published by Igor G. Nikolaev and Victor G. Yudin , the former is the Siberian tiger project staff with most field experience:

http://www.tigers.ru/articles/nickl_e.html

the table shows the weight.

I forgot this: How does Mazak come up with the weight range for Amur tiger? Did he weigh, and if so, how many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.80.71 (talk) 08:40, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am fine with the idea to leave sentences like siberian tiger is the largest. Actually I am quite a bit sick of discussions about largest subsecies, species ect.. I think we also can add even exeptionally large males (far over 300kg) to the articles, but we should mention that they are debatable. To your questions: The 306 kg male was called "Circa". It was captured as a cub in the Ussuri Region and died in 1960 at Bouglione-Menagerie in France with an age of 10 years. Weights of amur tiger males, (most were shot in the wild) for which Mazak has really confirmed data are nine individuals: 245 kg, 250kg, 184 kg, 196 kg, 217 kg, 195 kg, 270 kg, 250 kg and 221 kg. Together with two tigers killed during an expedition (217 kg and 249 kg) and the 306 kg male he calculates a mean weight of 233 kg for male siberian tigers. --Altaileopard 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altai, So the 306 kg turned out to be a captive specimen? I suppose you have Schaller book now. He mentioned 2 large males, one 292 kg and another 320 kg. The 292 kg was 3.2m long, shot in Kumaon, by E.H. Morbey. This weight seems so reasonable with this size.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to continue debating which is the largest any more. But if you're interested enough in tigers, you may be interested in this: Madla and another male of Panna,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/323feature3.shtml

are not 250 kg. Dr. Chundawat sloppily(in my opinion, supidly) brought a 550 lbs scale, and both males easily bottom it out. Madla has a neck diameter of 90cm, much larger than the 80 cm neck of the 600 lbs Sauraha tiger, so his chest girth is supposed to be larger too. And looking at the picture(he's the bigger of the 2 in the photo at the top of the page), you can see his enormous forequarter. When I first saw his pic (on another site), I thought it must've been a Kaziranga male, cos' this is the most muscular, and the largest too, of all the tigers I've seen, larger even than the bachelor of Powlagarh. The 250 kg Charger and the 600 lbs B2 of Bandhavgarh (B2's pic appear on both the tiger and bengal tiger wiki articles) look nothing like him. So all in all, Madla apparently weighs way way above 250 kg. But the largest of them all is Hairyfoot, which was never scaled, and was estimated at 600 lbs, was described to be much more massive than Madla, and the largest tiger Chundawat's seen. In my opinion, if the appearance difference is noticeable between tigers of these sizes and builds, their weight may be as much as 50, 60 kg, or even more apart. The biggest astonishment is that Panna has a low-prey density than other parts of India. They both appear in this documentary: Tigers of Emerald forest. It's good to know that 350 - 360 kg tigers still survive in the wild today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.243.66 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I still do not have "The deer and the tiger". It costs 40 Euro and it is quite old, so I am not shure if I should buy it, but perhaps I can get it per university-library. But I have Big Cats: Kingdom of Might and found that, they describe the reputed 385 kg male as a bulky cattle killer. (Probably not able to hunt fast wild prey). I think it is a good, but actually not really high scientific book, but I am still glad to have it, as the photos are really great, especially these of the snow leopard.

To the link: I know these documentation about the tigers of Panna from TV (and recorded it on VHS-Video) and I am always astonished again about the size of this huge male Madla, when it walks over the road in one scene. Actually I am not shure right now, if the male in the photo at the top of the page of your link, shows Madla, but I am shure that these two animals are mating in the TV-documentation and the smaller one is a female. Compared to the female, this male (Madla?) looks big, but not really giant.... But thanks for the link.--Altaileopard 13:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's Madla. And I've seen the photo of the 2.48 m long, 177 kg T-2 tigress of Nagarahole, taken by Karanth. Compared to the Panna female in the pic, she's just a shrimp. And Madla makes the 257kg T-3 and 250 kg T-4 look like bantamweight boxers. The 857 lbs tiger didn't eat a buffalo, he ate a buffalo calf the night before, according to the Smithsonian institute now housing him, so his weight is surely larger than the estimated 715 lbs empty-stomached. You may be also interested in this: the longest tigers are from the north, but the largest chest girths are from south/central India. Brander recorded a 150cm chest-girthed male in his book:Wild animals in central India. present-day madla and Hairyfoot, tigers of Kanha, and those short, stocky Nagarahole tigers are proof. That means, tigers of south/central provinces are shorter but stockier than Northern tiger (Kaziranga excluded perhaps). So the myth of northern Indian tigers bulkier(weighing heavier) than others is complete BS. In fact, there's an enormous HERMAPHRODITE tiger/tigress killed by M.D. Goring-Jones in Nigiri hills, south India in 1941, weighing at least 318 kg, 3.04 m long. The most bizarre stuff here's not the weight, but the fact that it's a HERMAPHRODITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.147.75 (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's the only male lion I saw at Tsavo. I also saw two lone females and a group of lions resting in the grass with only their ears visible. This National Geographic article might be of interest, though. Regards, Mgiganteus1 12:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought we'd try and get the whole capitalization issue sorted before we lionized further so I wanted to get everyone's feelings on it - can you please input into the capitalization debate on lion talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have seen your posts on the Snow Leopard talk page, I wonder if you could take a look at Talk:Snow_Leopard#Recent_Changes. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just pointing out that the eland quote is correct - you may read the articles at [10] - also, I have a great many very good leopard and lion photos if you whish to add them to the sites you are editing. If so, I can download them.

Profberger 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not understand that with the eland. Which edit do you mean? Really good images are always nice, but I think especially in case of lion there are already many good pictures at wikimedia commons. Some good images of wild leopards would be still desirable.--Altaileopard 08:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean that Talk:leopard#Eland. I don´t want to exclude completely, that a leopard can kill an eland. But this page is not a reliable refernece to me. And an adult eland is very Iarge. I once saw on TV a female leopard attacking a injured Hartebeest, and even that animal was to much for the cat.--Altaileopard 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This video could be of interest.--Altaileopard 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague of mine and I published the paper in question documenting the kill of an adult eland by a leopard. As you may note in the references, leopard have in fact killed animals as large as eland and young giraffe. I have a number of good leopard photos. Where would you like me to download them?

Profberger 16:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF did not open when I tried it for the first time, but now it works. It looks like a reliable source to me. You can write in the leopard article, that leopards kill in rare cases even adult elands. Please add a citation to that edit. If you do not know how to do that, just ask. At Wikimedia commons you can create an account and than it is very simple to upload Images.--Altaileopard 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your leopard images are really good. Thanks.--Altaileopard 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tend to disagree, the Shou and MacNeill's Deer actually are Central Asian Red Deer. What I do agree with, is that the Bactrian Deer, Yarkand Deer, and Kashmir Stag are more closely related. However, the shou has 5-pronged antlers much like the rest of the Central Asian Red Deer. My understanding is Shou is often referred to subspecifically as "wallichi" and "affinis" interchangeably. There have been discoveries of another subspecies distinct from Shou and MacNeill's deer, but not much is known at the point. Also, it has already been determined that "macneilli" and "kansuensis" are the same animal and designated as "macneilli".

The best person to contact or email is Dr. Valerius Geist, who has written many books on deer. (User: dlc_73) December 15, 2007

Thank you, and thanks for upgrading the lion article. One Year ago this article was really bad and now it is great. I have seen, that you already started to work on the tiger. Probably I can help you a bit also with this cat.--Altaileopard 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altai,

I found a web page containing the pics of some of the largest bengal tigers in history, including the 600 lbs Sauraha male tiger, T-105 measured by Mel Sunquist in "tiger moon" (the last pic), and there's a pic of The Bachelor of Powalgarh too. I find the Sauraha male(3.1m total length, 1.4m chest girth), smaller, less stockier than the Bachelor. You might be interested:

http://ppardus.012webpages.com/

Btw, in "Der tiger", did mazak say anything about the size of the bear-killer male tiger? Is he especially big? And did he mention case of Bengal tigers hunting gaur/water buffalo?

Lastly, did Mazak provide any morphological method of estimating tiger weight based on body measurements, like body length, girth etc? This is the data I got of the largest tiger from central India, measured by Dunbar Brander and mentioned in his classic: Wild animals of Central India:

Total length 9' 11" (302 cm) Head+body 7ft 3" (221 cm) !!! Chest 59" (150 cm) Forearm: 21" Head: 39" (99 cm) Shoulder height: 43" (110 cm)

If Mazak dis mention morphology methods, do you mind giving me some guess about this huge male weight? Brander estimated a weight of 272 kg(600 lbs), but I disagree. From the data, he's larger than the Sauraha male(head and body 1.95m, chest 140, and shoulder height about 1m). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.146.29 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I think that looks like a good thing. I plan to expand the snow leopard next week.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Altaileopard

You have make a mistake in article about Canis lupus lycaon and Canis lycaon. Because eastern wolf in Algonquin,Algonquin-type is really distinct species(or more probably is some species as red wolf), type Ontario-type Eeastern wolf is only Canis lupus (in larger than Canis rufus lycaon and description in XIX century). This is two separate form wolf for mistake. The earlier article about two wolves Eastern was proper.

Yo look. for sources PDF: http://www.nrdpfc.ca/files/Report_to_COSEWIC2001.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caniche (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canis lycaon and C. lupus lycaon describes the same animal:

"Eastern wolves are mainly viewed as: (1) a smaller subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon)... ...Although debate persists, recent molecular studies suggest that the eastern wolf is not a gray wolf subspecies, nor the result of gray wolf/coyote hybridization. Eastern wolves were more likely a distinct species, C. lycaon"

(from C.J. Kyle, A.R. Johnson, B.R. Patterson, P.J. Wilson, K. Shami, S.K. Grewal and B.N. White: Genetic nature of eastern wolves: Past, present and future. Conservation Genetics, Volume 7, Number 2 / April 2006. Pages 273-287 )

See at Talk:Eastern Wolf#C. (l.) lycaon.

Your PDF is bot a proper reference, because it is not published.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have all article or only abstract? Eeee. Canis lupus lycaon is not smaller subsepcies - this is medium size, the Canis lycaon is true small. How often I must repeat YOu!!!! You conversation with biologist know Eastern Wolf. I see that You weak know population wolves in America. End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caniche (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the whole publication and I will discuss with you only on base of proper references. --Altaileopard (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately the picture is too small, only the headlines are readable. And the headlines don't say anything about the leopard being anatolian it just says the "the leopard that tore apart (or can tear apart) people" --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. But the newspaper is from Turkey, right? Then the leopard might also be....--Altaileopard (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a research paper on hunting in antiquity. I would like to know where you got the information regarding the historical range of the wild boar, especially in the areas of modern Jordan and Israel. 0:23, 8 April, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod2003 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i was inactive for some time. This map is based mostly on:

• V. G. Heptner: Mammals of the Sowjetunion Vol. I Ungulates. Leiden, New York, 1989 ISBN 9004088741

By looking at the range of Jordan and Israel I saw, that there may be a mistake in the map. I did this map a long time ago and tried to combine present and historical range. Therefore I had some mistakes in this map after uplodading it. I already changed most of them by uploading a new map, but I actually forgot to change the "near east" in the new version. I have no literature here at the moment but I think they occured in israel in historical times. Sorry for my mistake. I will change the map and give you more detailed informtion soon.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"sorry, but that is vandalism. You can not make an edit without a refernce only because of what you think. I woud appreciate to see your account deleted. You are a either vandal, stupid or just to young."

Do you really think that's an appropriate tone to take with another editor? see WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. He's made a lot of useful edits, this is just one mistake. He's not a vandal, because it wasn't vandalism. He's not stupid, because he was able to justify his actions, and he's not too young or i'd expect the rest of the edits to be a similar quality. Try and take a nicer tone next time? preferably without personal attacks. Ironholds 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hä? whats going on here? My first question to him was in a very appropriate tone: User talk:The Shadow-Fighter#Are you a vandal? because of this edit . That is a very bad edit, and he added this wrong information in many more articles. I gave him an introduction how to make a reference User talk:The Shadow-Fighter#ABOUT THE SHADOW-FIGHTER and told him that this is very important to work in wikipedia. Instead of doing better edits with references I had to read this: wrong unreferenced edit about Caspian tiger after warning at Talk:Caspian Tiger#"Extinct in the wild". That made me to think that he is a vandal. Sorry, but I have not seen any good (perhaps not even one correct) edit from the Shadow-Fighter in the mammal articles. But if he wants I will try to help him getting better.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VANDAL for the correct procedure for warning users of vandalism. Leaving messages on the user's talk page directly accusing them of being a vandal is not constructive, and does not help the community. -- Mark Chovain 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accuse only Users, who make obvioulsy wrong and vandalazing edits. Many edits (all?) of Platypus929 User talk:Platypus929 are real vandalism. I do not like to have such people in the community. So I can not see the problem. Probably the professional users in the engl. wiki should be a bit more draconic against vandals and dilettants and not so draconic against users, which really want to upgrade articles. Perhaps the quality would be not so low here and the "community" would be more like a community. --Altaileopard (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe vandals should be blocked faster than they are these days. The problem is, if you don't use the standard edit warnings, then it makes it hard to block them. By putting hand written warnings on their page, you actually delay them being blocked. -- Mark Chovain 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will try to follow the correct prcedure in the next case.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care much about the detail, then don't leave your comment on the talkpage for Thylacoleonidae. You comment is about the species T.carnifex, commonly known as the "marsupial lion". So go and move your comment to that page. By the way, the ony reason they use Pleistocene is to be more descriptive. Cazique (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And because the Name Pleistocene marsupial lion is more descriptive, we should use it for this species. The term "marsupial lion" can be used for all thylocoleonids.--Altaileopard (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your viewpoint, please don't try and decide something for the world to follow. Yes, it is more descriptive but fact is the "Marsupial Lion" is the name of the animal. You can't go making up your own name just because you think it is a better name. That's like me changing your user to leopardman because I think that name is better. Cazique (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true and I think it´s not fair, there are many scientific publications calling it Pleistocene marsupial lion (See for example: [11].--Altaileopard (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, what's your point? I already told you scientific publications such as that only add Pleistocene to be more descriptive. The common name is "Marsupial Lion", just like the common name for Panthera Tigris is "Tiger". Cazique (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no nomeclature for common names. Every common name is only to be more descriptive. you can write (1) the felid Panthera tigris altaica, (2) the tiger Panthera tigris altaica and (3) the Siberian tiger Panthera tigris altaica. None of them is wrong, but the last one is the most descriptive and therefore the best. And as there is only one species of Pleistocene marsupial lions, it would be the best name for an article about T. carnifex.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't because it is not it's name. Just like the Wooly Mammoth. The Wooly Mammoth is called the "Wooly Mammoth". The Marsupial Lion is called the "Marsupial Lion". The Wooly Mammoth is not called the "Pleistocene Wooly Mammoth" even though this is more descriptive. The Marsupial Lion is not called the "Pleistocene Marsupial Lion" even though this is more descriptive. Do you understand? Cazique (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one, who decides, what´s an animals common name! There are rules for latin names, but not for the common names!. As there is only one mammoth species for which we know that it had a wooly fur and other mammoths are called steppe mammoth ect., the term wooly mammoth is sufficient for the species and therefore very frequently used in scientific literature. This frequent usage is the reason why it is called in wikipedia wooly mammoth, not because "it is it´s name". It´s name is Mammuthus primigenius! --Altaileopard (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not add your POV and try and change the world. Fact is "Marsupial Lion" is the common name. You want to change this common name through wikipedia, but this is not the place to do such a thing. I'm blunt and honest, you need to accept the facts. Cazique (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment.--Altaileopard (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Wish I'd thought of that. Well done!—GRM (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You also did a good job in the steenbok article for example.--Altaileopard (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers—GRM (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Altaileopard,

Is it not possible that the ibexes form some sort of sub-grouping among the wild goats, e.g. subgenus?—GRM (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is actually impossible. All genetic analyses showed, that the Siberian ibex for example is a distinct group, which stands "against" all other Capra species. See Capra (genus).--Altaileopard (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing so many category tags? How did you reach the conclusion that it's too many? - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stricktly against categories like mammals or even worser fauna of any country or region because....

1. most categories will never be completed (The fauna of germany has thousands of species...) 2. many species have a wide range covering many states ore regions. you would have a full page below the leopard articel if you add the complete cat list of all regions and epochs this animal lived in 3. An article about the fauna of france for example or a section in the article is much better than a cat, because a cat has never a reference.

Categories on taxonomic background are easy to make, but we have to find a consense about geographical cats of animals. probably the best way would be to have very taxon specific (like mammals, birds...) or even mor specific (carnivora, artiodactyla...) of large regions... The best would be perhaps the Ecozones:

• Nearctic 22.9 mil. km² (including most of North America)
• Palearctic 54.1 mil. km² (including the bulk of Eurasia and North Africa)
• Afrotropic 22.1 mil. km² (including Sub-Saharan Africa)
• Indomalaya 7.5 mil. km² (including Afghanistan and Pakistan, the South Asian subcontinent and Southeast Asia)
• Australasia 7.7 mil. km² (including Australia, New Guinea, and neighbouring islands). The northern boundary of this zone is known as the Wallace line.
• Neotropic 19.0 mil. km² (including South America and the Caribbean)
• Oceania 1.0 mil. km² (including Polynesia, Fiji and Micronesia)
• Antarctic 0.3 mil. km² (including Antarctica).

I would help to find a consense on that issue but until that, I will delete every new geographical category, which is to specific in my eyes. cheers--Altaileopard (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm more or less with you on the "Fauna of..." cats, but i have only recently created "Mammals of..." cats that were of a useful size (Southeast, Southwest Asia). you delete away if that floats your boat, but i WILL put those particular categories back. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very unproductive working.... but until there is no consense I will not accept changes on that issue. I am a bit sick incomplete categories like that one Category:Megafauna of Africa... and there are hundreds more! Perhaps we can start here to find a resolution on this problem. But probably we should also ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life.

To the problem: I did not deleted categories like "Mammals of South east Asia" ect. only those, which are specific for one country. The reason is, that animals with a hughe distribution will have hundreds of categories on the bottom. Another reason is, that you can not see the references in a category. Therefore the categories are based mainly on the articles, which are sometimes wrong or incomplete. This problem is not so big if you use larger regions. For specific regions like single countries a separate article like List of mammals in Germany is better in my opinion.

A problem on large region categories is the amount of articles, which they would include. Even "mammal of..." categories are probably to large. According to List of mammals in Thailand, There are 264 mammal species in this country. Several subspecies would probably enlarge such a category. I think in Europe about 400 species of birds occure.

Therefore the first thing, which has to be clearified is: what is the maximum article number for a good category?..I would say perhaps 500, what would be not more than 100-300 species probably. --Altaileopard (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And actually I think we are not to far away with our opinion, because that for example was a very good edit!--Altaileopard (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree to an extent. categories should be helpful, and if they are too big, or too small, or too inspecific, then they aren't. you are right, it is something that ToL should look into. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. San Pedro is an island in Chiloe Archipelago (San Pedro in GoogleMaps). Darwin found the fox there. I haven't his Diary in English, but in Spanish it appears in Capítulo XIII. Chiloé y las islas Chonos (Chapter 13. Chiloe and Chonos islands). Bye. Lin linao (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Okay thank you... Perhaps we should clearify that in the fox article.--Altaileopard (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this picture of an Indian leopard is from Van Vihar National Park, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Thanks--burdak (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was browsing through the archives of the wiki "Jaguar" page, and noticed your question -Are there still occasional sightings of jaguars in the USA?

AFAIK yes, and there is a number of camera-trap photographs of at least two male jaguars from Arizona/New Mexico on the web. One of them, Macho B, died in March 2009 at an old age of 16. It is not likely that a viable population exists in the US, but there are still some in Northern Mexico. See here: http://www.northernjaguarproject.org/photo-gallery/jaguars

Belsavis (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for information, but the "Northern Jaguar Reserve" seems to lie in Mexico and not in the USA.--Altaileopard (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here is a summary of jaguar presence (with map) and conservation assessment for northern Mexico and southern US, as of March 2009: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/es/documents/JAGCTConservationAssessment.20090316.DraftFinal18.PublicReview_001.pdf

(PDF, 650 KB) Belsavis (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, a lot for this review. So there are still jaguars in USA.--Altaileopard (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You discussed some issues at Talk:Eupleridae some time ago that remained unresolved; you may be interested in the new information I added there. Ucucha 01:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you. I will will have a look at it.--Altaileopard (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest fossil evidence I can find is:

• Asia, Punjab, Pakistan, est. age: 11.61—5.33 Ma. John Finarelli, Ph.D., University of Michigan. March 28, 2002.
• Europe, Seneze (Domeyrat), France. Est age: 5.33—0.011 Ma. A. Turner, Ph.D., Liverpool John Moores University, H. O'Regan, Ph.D, Sept 6, 2004.
• N. America, U.S. (Florida). Est age: 7.9—7.8 Ma (Appearance Event Ordination), Nick Pyenson, Ph.D., University of California-Berkely[12] and Mark D. Uhen, Ph.D., George Mason University, [13] Sept. 27, 1993.

I believe the specimen from N. America will be the most accurate since it does use the AEO method for more exact dating.

Also, why are you using a category inclusion on this discussion page? Noles1984 (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC), Reviewer, TALK TO ME HERE[reply]

I answered on your talk page.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and not nonsense like this!!![edit]

Whatever links or info you placed on my discussion page was nothing I entered and not my sources. You need to recheck the entries and watch your manners. Again, why are you applying a category to this page? Noles1984 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gave only some links to university guys. That is not a reference!!!!! And please answer at your talk page.--Altaileopard (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that source http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/10 and try to edit the "Mustelidae" article accordingly. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Altaileopard, I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article Moorunde Wildlife Reserve--The layout of the article makes it very clear. However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors: the article does not contain in-line citations, and so doesn't follow Wikipedia style guidelines. Kind regards and happy editing! Jipinghe (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jipinghe. All the information is taken from the external site, which is given in the article. I could add it also as an in-line citation. Unfortunately I have no other sources regarding the reserve (papers ect.). Cheers, --Altaileopard (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm afraid I had to revert your move of Lycaon pictus, as you used a copy-and-paste move which means we loose the history. This raises a few problems with licensing, as it doesn't retain the contribution history. I was going to request that the target be deleted so we could make the move that way, but looking at the talk page of Lycaon pictus, it seems that the current name is the result of a discussion, so I think you would need to open up a discussion first. - Bilby (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby. True, you are right. My main intention was actually to start a discussion about this problem. I don´t know, what is the easiest way to move the article with history to another lemma. Regards, --Altaileopard (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kein problem. Wikipedia is everyone's to edit and we all slip up one in a while :) -- Sjschen (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my mistake. Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, the passage in the article Asiatic lion is still somewhat problematic. The problem is, that every lion from (northern?) Eurasia older than 10.000 years is usually called spelaea, whereas younger lions are placed into the leo or persica group, regardless of morphological features. But I have to find the reference for this and a way to communicate it in the article:-). Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Banteng (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kaeng Krachan

Golestan National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chorasan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I realized you did an edit for this map Could you extend the Alpine Tundra to the Venezuelan Andes? http://www.bioweb.uncc.edu/bierregaard/maps11/Bob-Venezuela_Topography.gif (Venezuelan Andes are all the high mountains in the west side, also in the extreme west border between Venezuela and Colombia). Thank you :)

If you need source see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordillera_de_M%C3%A9rida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1ramo http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/polar-and-alpine-tundra-f-e-wielgolaski/1002169372 Thank you once again! --Pankoroku (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ähem,, it is already extended, right? Or do you mean something else? Cheers--Altaileopard (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Ah, sorry. I see now what you mean. The mountain ridge going to the east. I can do that. Perhaps today. Cheers, --Altaileopard (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you are the author of the distribution map in the article Red deer. May I ask you to add the area of distribution of Kashmir stag (Cervus elaphus hanglu) to the map? Belsavis (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The Kashmir stag belongs to the wapitis (it is at least more closely related to wapitis than to Western red deer). It´s range is included in the waptit map, which was also done by myself. Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taxkorgan Reserve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pamir and Taxkorgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that´s fine. I usually try to avoid wikilinks, which lead to disambiguation pages, but it happens. I will just fix it. Cheers, --Altaileopard (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dzanga-Sangha Special Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bongo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pape Nature Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WWF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done!, thanks..--Altaileopard (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masai lion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsavo National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franconian cuisine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• served with a maind dish include Franconian [[potato salad]], which is made with [[Broth]], [[Mixed] salad or [[Coleslaw]] (german: ''Krautsalat''). A Brotzeit dish is the [[Wurstsalat]] (for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, the West African lion (formerly Panthera leo senegalensis) was considered to be a subspecies of its own, before genetic tests demonstrated that it is related to the Barbary lion (Panthera leo leo) and Asiatic lion (formerly Panthera leo persica), and then in 2017, the Cat Classification Taskforce of the Cat Specialist Group revised subspecies of felids including the lion, so now the West African lion is included in the Northern lion subspecies (Panthera leo leo).^[1] Can we merge your article into Northern lion? Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not "my" article, but lumping all northern lions into one article is not good in my opinion, even if some scientists come to the conclusion, that this would be the current taxonomy. As you have experienced yourself, taxonomic views change and if wikipedia follows the paper, you have cited, you should still keep the article. You can mention, that it is currently not recognized as a subspecies. It is not good scientific practice, to follow every new paper. Wikipedia should always wait for other papers, which confirm this perpective. I will restore the article and mention it as a not recognized subspecies.

Best,--Altaileopard (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Altaileopard. Since you recently also edited the lion articles, I would like to know your opinion regarding titles. The names Northern lion and Southern lion are not at all established as common names and have to date not been used in ANY scientific publication. In view of this, what do you think of moving both to Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita, respectively, i.e. using italic Latin names?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BhagyaMani, difficult question. I am generally not a fan of latin namees as lemmas for wikipedia articles, but it is also not good scientific practice, to use a name, which is not used anywhere else. Also a future problem could be, if P. atrox and P. spelaea would turn out to be a single species. Than this would be perhaps the "Northern lion".... well, I have no real opinion. I am fine with both solutions. In fact, I think it is very sad, that the IUCN cat group decided to recognize only two subspecies instead of the well defined six clades, which reflect very much the classical subspecies. The main reason for that decsion was probably, the complex geographical situation of the southeastern and southwestern clade and the admixture zone around Kruger Park. I would favour a seperate article for each of the clades and I do not care to much about the currently accepted two subspecies. I hope that will change in near future. The main reason for my opinion is, that I think the genetically unique and maneless west african lions should recieve more attention and should never be mixed up with Asaitic lions or Central african lions. If it would be considered as a distinct subspecies, the West African lion would be the most engandered large cat in the world (perhaps alongside the Asaitic cheetah). Best wishes, --Altaileopard (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply!! I fully agree with you in regards to compiling the available info clade-wise and did this in my recent edits in the Central African and West African lion articles. As to the extinct lions: they have well-established common names also in scientific literature; therefore, i think it rather unlikely that in the near future a scientist comes up with a proposal for renaming them. And even if, that does not necessarily entail a radical change in article titles for these species. So whether or not the name 'Northern lion' will perhaps be needed for a different article, is not the question. It's an irrelevant name for the ssp. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But a problem with the clades is that they are not always fixed by region, as determined by phylogeographic analyses. For example, there is no single Central African clade of lions, especially within the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The name 'Central' in the diagram is just a name for a particular clade of lions in Central Africa, which was also found to be present in Northeast or East Africa, where it apparently overlaps with another clade to form a genetically mixed population of lions, it does not represent all lions in Central Africa, just as the "East/Southern" clade does not represent all lions in Eastern and Southern Africa, particularly in Ethiopia and Angola (which is also regarded as being a Central African country)! If there are articles that were meant to be about groups of lions that are easily distinguishable by genetics, then they are Northern lion and Southern lion. Leo1pard (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not see that as a problem. The Siberian tiger also occures in the Far East of China (outside Siberia) and the European bison exists in the Caucasus in Asia (outside Europe). The Sumatran rhino is not confined to Sumatra. These are just names. The only problem is, that the lion articles in wikipedia were based strongly on African subregions and not on lion clades. Lions don´t care about human borders. I think in most articles, that is changed already. The only article, which does not care at all about clades but only about regions is the Southern lion. I am planning to correct that and add a table of populations, similar to that one in the West African lion. Best.--Altaileopard (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will be cooperative ↑!! And yes: not only lions do NOT care about human concepts of borders and names. Re 'I think in most articles, that is changed already.' : alas, has been reverted.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been some discussion of lion articles, and I came here to ask you about altering some range maps. However, a glance at your page indicates you may wish to participate in discussion or organisation of the articles, most of which is centralised at talk:Lion. cygnis insignis 20:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern lion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luangwa National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should have known not to do this edit [14] or this edit [15]. This has already been extensively discussed on the talk page and has already been through dispute resolution (WP:3O, where I came in.) Even before WP:3O it was clear that multiple editors oppose these Frutolf-based edits and that there is no significant support for such edits on the talk page. Don't keep putting stuff into an article that's been opposed on the talk page, that there's no consensus for on the talk page, or that keeps getting reverted. When others revert your edits to the original, long-standing version they are not editwarring, but when you put your edit (or something similar) in again you are editwarring. Please don't do it again.

I think I understand how you feel: you see your point of view as true, simple and obvious and you're scratching your head wondering why others don't seem to understand it. Meanwhile, they may be scratching their heads wondering why you don't follow their arguments. This is a very, very common situation on Wikipedia. You can start up your own website and put on it what seems to you to be the truth, but on Wikipedia you must collaborate with others even if you don't understand why they take the position they do on what should or shouldn't go in the article.

It's been clearly decided on the talk page of that article that mention of Frutolf, or related theories, should not be mentioned in the article, per WP:SYNTH. I also agree that it should not go in the article. You can discuss it further on the talk page but please don't put similar stuff in again. It wastes other peoples' time and I don't have any more patience for it. I'm also putting a comment on Ermenrich's talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coppertwig. In my view, this is about two indenpendent points. I made the second edit you posted above after the discussion, whether it was ever questioned, if Theodric the Great and Dietrich von Bern are the same figure. I did that, because noone responded for a few days and took into consideration the feelings and arguments of the opponents. I think that point is kind of solved now. The edit mentioned as number one, is completely independent in my view. It would be a totally different discussion, if someone demands, to leave out Frutolfs important statement completely. Best, --Altaileopard (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be one word about my point of view regarding Heinz Ritter-Schaumburgs. I have done quite some research about the old germanic legends. My conclusion is, that it is almost impossible to decide, how they exactly evolved. I am biologist and we have the advantage, that we can do experiments to proof or disproof things. In the old legends, we lack this possibility and some things have to be assumed but can not be prooven. Both sides (Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg and the traditional point of view) have strong arguments on their side. I have to admit, that I tend to Ritters thesis. But that is just my personal view. More importantly, I think it is wrong, that scientists in the field, consider their interpretation (Theoderich the Great is Dietrich von Bern!) as "true" beyond any doubt. But of course, as an encyclopedia we should reflect this point of view and it would be totally wrong to write the article in another way. But that is also just my point of view. I also want to have the article reflecting the ccurrent view of science. But there were clearly wrong statements defended in the article (it was never questioned, that DvB and TtG were the same person), just because they might solidify the current point of view. And that was it, what made me to insist here so heavily. By the way, it does not make a real difference for the Hypothesis of Heinz Ritter Schaumburg, whether people in the middle ages believed Dietrich von Bern is Theoderic the great or not.... Best regards,--Altaileopard (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks a lot for responding calmly to my message. I think it's neither true nor untrue that Dietrich von Bern was Theodoric the Great. If we could go back in a time machine and look at what happened in the real world, we would never find out whether Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas were the same person or not; we would never see someone flying through the air in a sleigh. It's fiction, or legend; there is no fact to be decided as true or false. I don't know what are the two competing theses you're talking about. Perhaps you could state them? Do they make sense? Are they real questions that would have real answers if we could go back with a time machine to look?

After I posted my message to you I thought maybe I had made a mistake. Your edit about Frutolf was in a different part of the article. So, maybe it's related to the discussion and maybe it isn't. However, when I read it now, I do think it is part of the same discussion. Frutolf is a primary source and shouldn't be put in like that, per WP:SYNTH, and this is what other editors keep telling you, and you should only need to be told once. They don't have to keep repeating themselves. If you don't agree you can try to convince them using the talk page. When there is no talking for a few days, that is not a license for you to put in your edit. You were already outvoted even before 3O. It shouldn't even have gone to 3O. People are not required to keep up a constant discussion in order to keep your edit out of the article. I thought maybe the discussion was finished because Doric Loon's version may have been moderately acceptable to everyone. Your edit to the first sentence in the paragraph should not have been done because it doesn't reflect the emphatic nature of the source that says "never questioned", which (as I interpret the discussion) some editors feel it's important to include. I don't think the version of the sentence you put in had been suggested on the talk page, and I don't think there were several editors expressing support for it; but there was at least once other version that did have support of at least 3 editors (Cethegus' version?) so there was no excuse for you to put that in. Also you unnecessarily used the word "scholars" which had been objected to.

You can work on making your arguments more complete, logical and organized. For example, maybe put an English translation of the entire passage that was quoted in German, and put the whole argument, from the source to your conclusion, in one place, including a clear statement of what your conclusion is. Also, work on understanding the points of view of other editors. When you understand how they think, you'll know better how to try to convince them; and you might even shift your own point of view a little. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coppertwig. I will try to answer all your points one by one.

Well, my knowlege about Saint Nicholas is not extensive, but I will try to stick to the example. If we could go back in time, we would probably clearly see, that Saint Nicholas was a bishop in Myra at arround 300. But we would probably see many differences to the legendary Saint Nicholas we know today. Perhaps we could also find out, by which figure the even more legendary (actually rather fictionally) Santa Claus was inspired. Probably at least partly by Saint Nicholas, perhaps also by the good Woden (Odin). My knowledge in the origins of germanic gods is not huge, but I think odin might be either completely fictional or he was based on an ancient person, which was celebrated in such a way, that he was treated like a good in the oral tradition at one point. Bt even if such a person would have existed, it wouldnot have been flying arround with a sleigh. Perhaps it would not even had a white beard. In any case it would be so different from Sanata Claus, that I would say, Santa Claus never lived in reality... with Woden I am not sure.

That was just guessing without having done any reasearch on that topic. But let´s have a look on the persons of our interest, because examples have always weaknesses.

The common believe, how the legends about Dietrich von Bern evolved (as far as i understand it) is the following: There were stories about Theoderich the great, which were probably quite close to the original figure at the beginning. A young prince was born on the Balkans, lived in Constantinople for a while, became king and invaded Italy, where he killed his opponent Odoacre. So that is the live of Theoderic, as we can read it also in Jordanis Getica for example. There is a common believe (often considered as a fact) among scientists in the filed, that there is a strong tendency to include different great persons (which were often not contemporaries) into one story. According to that, it was very early (before the ninth century) introduced in the old tales about Theoderic, that he went to exile to the hun king Attila for many years and came back to reclaim his realm in Italy. There are several more or less satisfying explanations, why that would have happened. Very early the legend about Theodric must have been connected to the legend about the Nibelungs, since this connection is already reported in the Edda. At one point of the development of the legend Dietrich was associated with Verona, an important city in his kingom. In addition stories about dragons and dwarfs and giants were added at some point.

The opposing concept is the folllowing: There was another Dietrich (perhaps Theuderic I) or another nowadays unknown king) who inspired the legends a lot. That would explain the discepancies between the lives of Dietrich von Bern and Theodric the great. The most detailed and concrete concept in this direction is from Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg: According tho this hypothesis at arround 500 AD, there was king called Didrik or Theudric (you know already that they are all versions of the same name) ruling about Bonn (which was reportedly called Bern in the middle ages) and the neighboring area. He was driven into exile by his unlce king Ermenrich, who was ruling at the same time over a somewhat larger kingdom called Rome or Romaburg. Ritter believed this is the old roman capital Trier, which was still a very roman city until a germanic leader conquered it in the 5th century. This Didrik went to Susat (old name for Soest), the capital of Hunaland to a king, called Atala (perhaps also Aktilius, Atli or similar). While living in Susat, he was whitness of a battle between the Nibelungs and the Atalas men. After ca. 30 years (perhaps at arround 510-530 AD) he claimed back his throne and reconquered Bonnn and also Trier, after Ermenrich had died. For a few years he ruled over this area until Theuderic I or his sone Theudebert took his kingdom. The songs about this king were orally transported for about 200 years until they were written down (perhaps in in the 8th century). Somewhen in the early middle ages, when first cronicles were written in Germany, scholars mixed up king Attila the hun with king Atala from Hunaland and they also mixed up Didrik von Bern with Theodric the Great. Because of this misinterpreatation some italian place names (not a lot) went even in the Thidrekssaga,which is otherwise still close to the historic truth. Of course such a proposed Didrik in Bonn did not fight giants and dragons in reality. They arejust legends. Infact, i f you read the Thidrekssaga, the giants don´t seem to be real giants. It feels, if they would be just a bit bigger than normal. Ritter invested quite some effort and tried to explain every mystic detail in the legends. He argued, that the legend is a detailed cronicle with just some mystic elements. That is in my opinion (and that is sharedby most people who follow Hinz Ritter-Schaumburg a a certain extend) a bit to far fetched. But Ithink it is likely, that there were real figures exisiting in Germany, which inspired the legends and were later confused with Theoderic the Great and Attila the hun.

Some strong arguments argue for the common hypothesis. A big point in that theory is the fact, that one of the oldest versions of the legend (the Hildebrandslied from the 9th century) tells us already, that Dietrich and his "friend" Hildebrand were in exile at Attilas place, but the enemy of Dietrich is here still Odoacre (in contrast to all later versions of the legend). In later versions of the Saga Ermenrich and his advisor Sibich become the main enemies. Another early Version of the legend (Waltarius) clearly says, that Attila was a king in Hungary. The Thidreksaga, which is the most basal Version of the legend according to Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg, is much younger (13th century) than the Waltharius. A point in Ritters Hypothsis is probably, that there are old chronicles telling about Dietrich von Bern mentioned by Frutolf. It is also hard to explain, why Theoderic would been transformedvery quickly in such a way, that hardly any detail of his live is shared by the legend. The same is true for Attila. The Annals of Quedlinburg mention Attilas death in 532. That would fit for the Atala proposed by Ritter, but not for the real Attila. Bede mentions huns in northern Germany in ca.700 AD. Another big point for Ritter-Schaumburg is, that the place names of the Thidrekssaga (which clearly point to Germany) form a geographically absolutely rational network: (Rhine, Dune, Musula, Lurawald, Visara, Ballofa and so on... But this network only make perfectly sense, if you assume that Bern means Bonn and Rome is somewhere at the Rhine or Moselle.

My personal interest in the Legend is actually the following: Is it theoertically possible, that there was a king living in Bonn, who was fighting Nibelungen in Soest. And I think yes, that is abasolutely possible. If it is likely... well hard to say.

So back to the edits. The edit I did under the different section is of course related to our discussion. But there is no doubt, that Frutolf is a very important source, when we talk about Dietrich von Bern. He lived in the 11th century, so almost 200 years before the today known versions of Nibelungenlied and Thidrekssaga were written down. And he was the first to recognize, the discrepancies between Dietrich von Bern (what he heard from oral tradition and read "in some chronicals") and Theoderich the Great (according to Jordanis). So there should be no doubt, that any good article about Dietrich von Bern has to mention and discuss Frutolfs statments carefully.

Our discussion was about the point, that one sentence in the article said: "it was never questioned throughout the entire Middle Ages that the two were the same figure". The reference was based on one sentence of Lienert: "The identification of the legendary hero with the Ostrogothic King, Dietrich von Bern with Theodoric the Great, is never in question in the attestations, even if sometimes mistakes occur, confusion or even purposeful conflation with other bearers of the name, especially with the Visigothic King Theuderic I, Attila's opponent in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields." Lienert is usually a reliable and good reference but here she is obviously contradicting herself and that, what Frutolf said in the 11th century: "either Jordanes is wrong or the Saga is wrong or the latter is about another Ermanarich and another Theoderich" Normally a secondary source, which is already interpretating facts and taking different aspects into consideration, should be preffered to a primary source. But since, the secondary source was quite unclear at this specific point (and actually wrong), the question was if we can or have to consider Frutolf despite he is a primary source. And I think yes. In my opion a good article should anyway give more than one reference to such an important statement, especially if it is a clearly doubtful statement.

It was actually not very nice, to be accused of editwarring after these (in my point of view) rather unfair disccusions, but I think you misunderstood this part of the discussion so I am fine with it. In this first discussion (explained above), I was outvoted by two "friends", who (in my impression) somehow decided to guard the article against anything, which could weaken the tradtional concept of the development of the legend, even beyond false information. I do not know, what exactly happend before in the article (I guess it was too much in favor of Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg), but that is absolutely no excuse for me, to insert (and especially to defend!) wrong information in an article. That is why I was actually asking for third opinion. Since you (thanks al lot for that) and User:Cethegus, who is clearly not a fan of Ritters hypothesis, argued in the same way as i did (Lienert is contradicting Frutolf and herself in the argument) and there came no reponse after a while from User:Ermenrich, I did it by myself after some days. I was actually hoping that he would admit the mistake and do the correction himself. Since he apparently refuesd that, I did it. The edit about Frutolf in the other section, I introduced after I was pointing out another mistake! in the article here Talk:Dietrich von Bern#Kaiserchronik and got (sadly enough) no response. For me, the whole thing is a very sad story but may be we all learned something out of it. Best regards--Altaileopard (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your long message. I read it and understand more. OK, there could be a valid question as to whether the Dietrich von Bern stories were originally based (primarily) on Theodoric the Great or on some other ruler. However, any discussion of it in the article would have to be based on secondary sources. I'm sorry it doesn't feel good to be accused of editwarring. However, we can't each put in our own version of the truth. I don't support mentioning Frutolf in the article; we have to base the article on what the secondary sources say, not try to argue against the secondary sources. If you're writing for publication in a scholarly journal you can make that kind of argument. You've argued that Frutolf contradicts the secondary sources but you haven't convinced me or the other editors, and even if we were convinced, according to Wikipedia policy it still has to be based on the secondary sources. You need to be sensitive to realize what other editors have expressed opposition to and which therefore you shouldn't put in the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for the response. Just one thing. I do not want to put my version of the truth (actually i do not even have one, its just think that Ritter hypothesis sounds more plausible). I really want to have the aricle reflecting the current opinion of recent scientists and only tosome extent relevant other hypothsis well explained, with pros and cons. And of course we should base the article entirely on secondary sources. That is why I added as a reference not Frutolf, but Heinzle (1999), reffering to Frutolf [16]. But there was actually never a discussion about this edit. i think also Ermenrich agrees, that Frutolf has to be mentioned as one of the most important sources for the development of the legends. And of course, one should never base articles on own research, but if I would read in an (otherwise excellent) encyclopeida for example, that tigers can grow 5 meters, i would just not use it as a reference for this particular point (especially if it would state in a second sentence that the head and body is 2,5 m and the tail 1 m, so contradicting itself). Cheers--Altaileopard (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

,

I like the part where someone has a name similar to Attilla, etc. I don't know whether you have secondary sources for that information. I don't know who Ritter is.

The tiger example is good. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, so Wikipedia usually doesn't use it as a reference. If that were the only source and if it were a secondary source, I would argue that the Wikipedia article should just say nothing about the length of the tiger, or say something vague like "The tiger is a species of large cat: an animal in the same family as the lion, lynx etc." which vaguely implies that it's probably a couple of metres long, not small like house cats. Some Wikipedians would argue that the article should say "The tiger can grow 5 meters"; I wouldn't agree with them but their argument is reasonable within Wikipedia policy. However, it would be against Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH for the article to say, based on this reference, "The tiger can grow 3.5 meters."; and also wrong to say "The length the tiger can grow to can be deduced from the fact that its head and body are 2.5 m and its tail 1 m." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's fine to use that as a reference for the tiger being 3.5 m if you're writing a book or research paper or blog post etc., but not in a Wikipedia article. Also: if one or more Wikipedians think a source is contradictory, they could be wrong, even if they think it looks obvious. What you just said about tigers looks obviously contradictory, but it might not be. Who are we as Wikipedians to contradict a source which has been approved by expert editors and peer reviewers? It might be wrong, but it might be right. In the tiger example, maybe the editor had pointed this out to the author saying it was a contradiction, the author explained it to the editor, and the editor said OK then and left it that way. Maybe it's not contradictory. Maybe it means the average tiger is 3.5 m, but a few unusually large tigers have been measured when their forepaws are stretched out in front of them and the tail stretched out behind, and were 5 m. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HelloCoppertwig, I am trying to reply to the most important points:

"I like the part where someone has a name similar to Attilla, etc. I don't know whether you have secondary sources for that information. I don't know who Ritter is."

Ritter is Heinz Ritter-Schaumburg and he developed a hypothsis,that the Attala/Attila/Aktilius/Atli/Etzel (all different variants of the same name) from the germanic legends is not primarely based on Attila the hun, but on another king, residing in Soest.

"Maybe it means the average tiger is 3.5 m, but a few unusually large tigers have been measured when their forepaws are stretched out in front of them and the tail stretched out behind, and were 5 m."

You are right, my example is not fully self-contradicting. A better example would be a source, saying the average length is 5 m, with a second sentence saying, that the head and body is on average 2,5 m and the tail on average 1 m, so clearly contradicting itself.) I personally would not use that as a reference for this case, especailly not for the 5m. And as a wikipedia-reader, I hope that other eidtors in wikipedia would act the same way. Any book can have mistakes, even the best papers and encypclopedias.--Altaileopard (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books can have mistakes, certainly. My point is that when something seems clearly contradictory to one person, or several people, it still might not be contradictory. Even in your clarified example, it looks clearly contradictory to you, but to me it still is not contradictory: by "length" it could mean with the forepaws stretched out in front, giving a length greater than the total of head, body and tail (where body means torso; obviously it's not the entire animal if it doesn't contain the head, so maybe it doesn't contain the forepaws either).

Ahem. I'm a human being. I did an edit on the article which later I thought might be considered edit-warring. Just one edit, but it's the kind of thing I might tell others should have been discussed on the talk page first. But of course because I was doing it, I saw it from my point of view and it looked justified for one reason or another. So, I'm not perfect. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]