Talk:Lion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Population and distribution

"However, according to the Kenyan Wildlife Federation the inbred Kenyan stocks have shown a marked increase in the size of the average litter of cubs per female. The Federation predicts that due to the increase in fertility the population will triple over the next 10 years " This edit seems suspect as it doesnt fit with the rest of the entry. And I can not find a refrance on the page linked.

Nmarshall 15:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It was added in this edit [1]. The reference does not refer to this assertion. It looks like a Colbert-vandalism to me, so I removed it. Rasmus (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lion mane and protection in fights

I removed this claim from the article. As I have pointed out in past edits, it has actually been disproven by researchers that the lion mane protects males in fights, not proven. Darwin was the first person to propose that the mane provided protection in fights, but he has since been proven wrong. The mane is actually related to sexual selection. Female lions prefer male lions with darker and larger manes. See August (2002 I think it was) issue of Science for vertification.

June 20, 2006: Removed this bogus claim yet again. (Third time I think?)

Once again, research has shown that the mane DOES NOT provide protection in fights. See August 2002 issue of Science for the real purpose of the mane.

You know, the mane may not be there as a designed tool for fighting, but you can't despute the fact that it does offer protection, intentional or not. A puffy mane most certainly lessens the force of a blow or a scratch, or even a bite.

Thanks for the reference on manes not being protective in fights. I have yet to look it up but I do think one can also use reason here, if only for a starter. When you see clips of lions fighting other lions or tigers (i.e. on youtube.com) it certainly does seem an advantage to have a mane. To me it looks like a tiger has, on several different shots, bitten, only to get a mouthful of hair. That this is not an advantage to the manes owner is like asking if you would rather have a dog bite your hair or your shoulder (or even throat). Finally, that a mane would also cushion seems very likely.

I agree with the mane used for protection unintentionally. Dora Nichov 08:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If the mane is used for protection unintentioanlly, Dr Craig Packer and his group should be able to detech this kind of protective function after many years of research. However, according to their paper in Science, such protective function has never been found. No matter whether mane protects or not, the research data clearly show that mane lack significant protective effect, if not opposite. They also claimed that mane is an extra energy waste for male lion.

Yeah, I heard THAT before... Dora Nichov 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Model after German verison?

this article feels funny. i think we should model it after the german-language version. anyone agree? --Danreitz 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify. What feels funny about it? I think that the 'gallery' in the middle of the page ought to be done away with. Also, there are too many pictures around the subspecies area, though I agree that the picture of the Asiatic lioness is worth its inclusion. Perhaps the other two can be moved or done away with. A picture of a black-maned Kalahari lion would be nice. - Slow Graffiti 18:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lions in the Wild

may i ask why this was deleated? just wondering

-Schuyler s. 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I am dissapointed this gives me now information that I neeed. It is my favourite website.

Habitat?

The first part of the article says they live in the jungles of South Africa and South America. Later part of the article says that they don't live in the jungle, they mostly live in plains. Could someone who knows lions better correct this? --65.208.187.200 21:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

They DON'T live in South America or in jungles. They live in Africa (NOT in the jungle parts) and the Gir Forest in Asia. Dora Nichov 08:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel competent to address this myself but since there is a section about "man eating" under lion I think it might have a note that this may occur during extraordinary periods of population pressure, such as the drought in the Gir forest of India in the early 1900's (which is where the last of the asiatic lions now lived) that seems to have caused a number of the lions there to prey on humans. But, I can't really speak about this knowledgeably.

Man eating

The man-eating lion section of this article is imported from Everything2. Since I wrote it, I am free to do so... -- Emperorbma 23:20, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not happy with the man eating lion stuff. It's not neutral. Okay, some lions do attack men, and some famous. But's its probably a case of if "man bites dog". There is good reason for lions to be scared of humans, and they were often killed by humans since they can kill cattle. And they were probably eliminated from Europe this way

The man-eating section dosn't follow contemporary research, it is now accepted that maneless lions are not aberrant, that the worn teeth were not a cause for the attacks, and that man-eating may in fact be a social trait, passed from generation to generation. 66.212.222.143 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you throw a little girl into a cage with a lion, what do you think it would do?

Ligers and Tigons (oh my!)

The crossbreed section seems a little long, and only tangentially related. It's certainly interesting, but it seems this info would go best in the Liger and Tion bmjxfgjksdtyjfgarticles, with a mere "see also" link here. Does anyone object? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 68.81.231.127 07:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually some of the size info on Togon is rather nonsense, they are nothing like a house cat. Though smaller than their parents in average, theey still weigh about 150 kg and have the size of female lion - nothing like a house cat. Source : http://www.tiger-online.org/tigbib/bigcats/bigcats.htm perhaps they mean newborns? i know a tigon is more slender, and thus its cub would look something like a housecat fully grown..

I have corrected the data on tigon size to match the information in the article on tigons and the information presented here in the discussion. The 80% figure is a simple, rounded calculation of 150/180*100%. While it would certainly be cool to have a housecat-sized big cat, it does not look like the tigon will fill that role. --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I also suspect that the relatively large tangent about hybrids is out of place in this article. I left it all for now, but made some comments. For one, 'Siberian tigers' are no longer called such because it's become apparent that the distribution of the subspecies is not limited to Siberia. They've been renamed as 'Amur tigers' as their distribution largely covers the area around the river of that name. Also, I explained why tigons are less common. I am in favour of this section being shortened - only a mention of hybrids with links to their respective pages. It seems silly to only mention lion/tiger crosses when leopards and lions have been crossed as well (sometimes with jaguars, even). Slow Graffiti 07:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Well on that bit that the Lion is the most powerful in combat and you alls source is a site with not one source to back the claim up sad. The Tiger (Bengal and Siberian) is on average larger, Stronger, Faster, and certainly more agile than the Lion (after the Tiger is also a hunter, but won't hesitate to fight) To the picture where the Lion slaps the Tiger

I wrote that piece being commented on above: The heaviest tigers shot were indeed heavier than the heaviest lions shot in the wild (388 kg and 313 kg, respectively). But, the classical assertion that tigers be larger than lions is surprisingly poorly documented, considering how often it is encountered. The largest tigers and lions are very close to each other in size, as can be verified by anyone visiting a large museum of natural history. There is no proof presented on this page, or anywhere else acccesible by googling 'lion' or 'tiger' to suggest that tigers have an advantage in speed or muscle power. I request that such claims be substantiated before being put forward. It is puzzling to see that there is a very strong 'fan club' for the tiger on the internet, doing its best to refute any evidence that lions may be more successful in combat when the two are confronted. Let me end with considering four cases in point to suggest this 'lobbying' and attempt to bend the facts to reach a desired conclusion: 1)The most thorough theoretical investigation of the relative strengths of these animals would probably be 'Animal Face Off: tiger vs lion'. This has been widely discarded as superficial and unrealistic. But, using i) extensive filming to establish fighting techniques and behaviour, ii) robots to reproduce their destructive power and iii) fairly advanced software to analyze their results, all under the supervision people who teach big cat anatomy at SUNY Buffalo, or have reared tigers, or have kept lions in zoos, frankly, I fail to see how one could investigate this question any more seriously, from a theoretical point of view. Hence, we are left with the conclusion that theoretically, the lion is the most powerful. 2)Bogus claims have been made regarding the gender of a tiger fighting a lion on one of the most widely distributed shots of this. This footage from 'The Big Cage' is claimed to be of a female tiger, or tigress, when in fact testes are clearly visible on closer inspection [2]. And, as if to cross firmly over from the 'unlikely to be true' to the truely bizarre, the legend text with the footage claims that the 'tigress' kills the lion, when in fact the lion can clearly be seen leaving the cage at the end of the shot (perhaps we are witnessing the first verified shot in history of a ghost leaving the body (???), in which case this is indeed a very interesting short film). Back to the point; I live next to a zoo where lions and tigers can be seen for no charge. The tigers are Amurs and I can testify to the female of this subspecies being much smaller than a male African lion. On the footage, they can be seen to be of very similar size which further suggests that it is extremely unlikely be a female tiger. 3)While I have yet to see the opposite, we do have evidence that lions have defeated tigers in combat such as this video [3] that does seem to end with the killing of the tiger. You will see plenty of claims of videos of tigers having killed lions, but as point two exemplifies, the lions tend to do very well for killed animals, in these videos. 4) Lairweb [4], an excellent source on tigers on the internet, concludes that 'the modern male lion has no equal in the cat world when it comes to his fighting ability'. This site has been dismissed by tiger fans as superficial, lacking in credibility and, somewhat surprisingly, as biased against the tiger. They have yet to answer for two things: a) providing excellent and verifiable information on so many other aspects of the tiger, why would Lairweb suddenly depart from this impressive standard (which is as good as you will find in any popular science book on tigers) and enter into misguided and grossly incorrect statements on this single issue of tigers in confrontation with lions. b) the rather obvious; by what advanced system of logic do they reach the conclusion that a web page created primarily to celebrate, and inform about, the tiger, be biased against this animal??? This seems the equivalent of saying that your lawyer (who seems to be up to standard on all other issues) helped convict you. MyS

Thank you for being alive! We need more people that can be as logical and detailed as you. Well said!

What the hell every you are nothing more than a Lion Fanatic who treats Lairweb (OR Liar Web as I call it)as a bible. This sight does not offer a single source regaurding animal to animal conclict (Tiger vs Lion).

On that whole Animal face off bit their were a few things on the Tiger's advantages that were not taken into consideration for example it's superior strength. You have to be an ignorant ass to say that the Tiger the largest cat on earth is (with the Lion typically weighing 420 pounds and a Bengal Tiger averaging 480 pounds) is not on "average" stronger than a Lion (at least a Benagl and Siberian). The Lion is the wakest Big Cat on EArth pound for Pound. It also seems you watch animal planet regularly, SO it you watch most extreme you would know that on their strongest animals episode the Tiger came in at number 4 (no other cats on that countdown). The narrator repeatidly says the Tiger (using a BEngal as an example not even considering the much larger and stronger Siberian Tiger) is the largest and most powerful cat on Earth. They also did not take into concsideration that the Tiger has the largest canines of the world. Now in that fight you're are saying that a Tiger having the longest canines of the big cats and a bite force of over 1000 pounds having a picture perfect bite of the Lions throat could not bite through a few inches of hair. That my friend is completely illogical.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Tiger+vs+Lion&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

Just to end this little rant here is a link that includes about 15 fights caught on video between a Tiger and Lion The Tiger wins 12 of those 15. So please quit with this Tiger and Lion being equal in Size, Strength, Agility, and Speed it truely goes against nature to make such comments for the simple fact the Tiger dominates in all categories. Oh and if you feel the need to debate this topic please go to animalelite. A forum basically comprised of topics like who would win between Big Cats.

I'd really love to debate this with you. However, I am no lion fan. Unlike this tiger lobby, I am looking for the truth. You evidently don't hear what I am saying, but just rant off those old cliches. You make the same old, damn mistake that old doctors and scientists make when something new comes along. You won't listen!! About those videos, please! There is not a single shot where the tiger really defeats the lion. Instead of arguing with me, please help me expand my understanding of psychology. Why is it anathema for you to think that the male lion might do what he is selected to do, namely fight, better than a tiger, designed primarily to hunt. Why is this thought unbearable to you?

I agree, VAST majority of the YOUTUBE clips incoplete with most focusing on a few seconds where the tiger is mounting an offense. "Hey the tiger hit the lion, it must mean it won." The tiger fans are incredibly bitter for some reason resorting to cheap editing and even showing cubs at play and using it as a fight reference. In the case of the lion having the advantage they sream "tigress". There is not a clip of a full FIGHT where the male lion loses. 3 second clips of the tiger slaping on jumping on a lion do not count, nor do assumptions that the lion looses. The debate is also useless as there is no final answer. If there was one then we would know by now since the fights have been happening starting back in the Roman times.

I really am not in the mood to have a four page debate with you. I just have to ask if these videos are so quickly passed off by yourself as cheap editing done by Tiger fans than why is that picture of what looks like a Lion panicing because it's about to fall in the water so glorified on this page. I mean seiously have you seen that little statement in this page. The Lion is for more powerful than the Tiger in battle and such and such and then goes right on to use that cheap ass picture and Liar Web as a source behind it's assertions SAD!!!!!

You didn't look twice at that little picture before you concluded that that statement was true. Then you go on about that fight where the Lion has a Tigress under a chair (yes it is a Tigress this has been debated and easily concluded on animalelite when they post the stilled pictured from the actual footage amazingly none of those picture showed a Tiger with balls. Then the Tigress did have a nice little strategy to combat the Lion, run turn around and knock the Lion on it's ass. This was done repeatidly to the Lion at the end of that film (after the whole chair incident). About the footage where the Tiger layed "paws" (LOL) on the Lion. I mean ay if it was the other way around then the Lion would have just been the most feirce and powerful cat on Earth. To bad it didn't go that way instead the Lion got "ROCKED" by the Tiger. The big bad Lion didn't even fight back, where's the king of Beast "natural" fighting instinct. Then there was the footage in which the MALE Lion suppositly tried to sexually harrass a female Tiger and a Male Tiger ran over to the Lion and again layed "paws" on the Lion and eventually knocking the Lion over on it's side. When I say knocked over I mean the Lions hand were up in the air and he was on his hind legs and fell on it's side (a real fall). Suppositly breaking it's ribs. Again another instance where the Lion forgot to use those natural instinct that come so naturally because it's "bred to be a fighter." Then there's the fight in which a Tiger and Lion start off ontop of a hill and the Lion trying to be like it's larger, and stronger cousin (the Tiger) stood up on it's hind legs (the Tigers fighting style) and knocked right back to the ground. Then reapeats the same process. It then cuts to a scene in which the Tiger is litterally lunging at the Lion (while the Lion is trying to retreat) the Tiger then attempts to maul the Lion. Cuts to another scene in which a Whole pride of Lions is ganging up on a lone Tiger yet the Tiger ( the so-called reluctant Fighter) continues to fight. Then cuts to anther scene in which there is a "small" Tiger and he get's chased off by two male Lions. There is the fight if that what you want to call it where a Tiger and Lion are peforming in a circus and the Lion on the top stool some how irritates the reluctant fighter (the Tiger) the Tiger then proceeds to climb the stool steps in order to get a few swats at the Lion. Again not so much as a roar from the Lion. There are more, but like I said I'm not really in the mood for a long debate, I don't even want to get into the Fight between the Tigress and the Lioness are fighting (domination by the Tigress) and the Tigress ends up breaking the Lioness's jaw.

Again it's all right here on this link.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Tiger+vs+Lion&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

I watched all the clips and what you tiger fanboys need to realize is that you have no grounds to prove any tiger dominance, NONE. First and foremost not one clip shows wild animals fighting. Who gives a shit about a zoo lion or a circus tiger! They are mere shells of their wild counterparts. The only way to find out the truth about lions and tigers is to have them actually live together in the wild, same area, hunt the same game. Then you will see fights between REAL lions and tigers. Second, there is not a single clip where the tiger wins, not one shows the ending of a fight with the tiger victorious. Unless you see the lion down and out with the tiger standing over him you got nothing. However, there is the clip of the pit fight where the lion is standing over the tiger at the end (regardless of what piss ass theory you have for the lion's win). That clip is only one that has any merit to it seeing how it shows a clear cut winner (undersputed) and there is a chance of it being between wild animals (not a zoo/movie setting). All your clips of the tiger knocking the lion down ("breaking" his ribs, right! That's based in fact, HA!) or him slapping the lion. Whatever, it's nothing. There is only one fight that shows the tiger victorious in a zoo fight with eitehr a lioness or a very young male, and that's hardly anything to brag about. Tiger fans are so desperate to show off their point that they will resort to mere SECONDS of a tiger's advantage to scream victory. Cheap.

LOL these Tiger and Lio debates are so amusing. I mean I'm giving a blow by blow analysis of the fights and you basically reply back with "The Tiger didn't when a fight." So I guess since there was no dead Lion on any clips the Tiger wins none (Lion fanatic Logic so amusing. I guess the fight that was apart of a 1940's movie in which a Tiger is at one point mauling the Lion up against the wall then cuts to a clip in which the Tiger is laying down (supposityly dead) shows the Lions dominace. So reguardless of if the Tiger was whipping the Lions ass with no rebuttal from the Lion what the ever if the Lion isn't dead then it's worthless LOL so amusing. I guess the picuture in which a Lion suppositly slaps a Tiger (when it's really reluctantly falling into the water) is enough to give that little statement in this article. Even though it's a 99% chance that that picture was taken in captivity. Your debate my friend is truely sad. That Lion fanatic logic for ya, reguardless of how many captivity fights are catpured if they aren't in the Lions favor than they aren't signifigant (even though you quickly used the fight in which the Tiger was under the chair as evdence of the Lion's dominance), I guess the other 8 videos in which the Tiger's whipp the Lions ass's aren't important or worth mentioning LOL.

Good to see that someone (the comment third up) is still able to think straight. He is right of course. There is no support for saying that tigers dominate, or are stronger than, lions looking at these videos. First of all, the big cage scene is still a male tiger (maybe I should take a still, enlarge it and post it on the web so even the blind can see those testes). Second of all, those videos. Yeah the tigers come off alright. But regarding that video where a huge tiger and lion are slugging it out in color; the lion takes some hits but it seems like a very large tiger specimen (Sib. or big Indian) and actually, its the lion that's advancing. Moreover, you could certainly find, if not a bigger lion, then a blackmane with much bigger mane, which would probably work to cushion the tiger blows. Who knows? you might see a big bad Kruger male really taking that tiger to school on proper behavior. Anyhou (as Canadians say :-) based on what we see you cannot in good conscience say that the tiger is the more powerful on wikipedia. and still, as the straight thinking guy from Texas writes, the only video with a definitive victory is the poor quality film in the pit where the tiger is certainly dead (is he (or, I give you that for this video, she) just taking a rest immediately after being all hiked up on epinephrine--come on!!!). I also noted that you conviniently excluded from that parade of films one B/W film where the two fight right next to a circus tent which ends with the tiger fleeing voer the roof of the tent (it is easily found on youtube). The editing and choice of videos, were they an election, would make Russia's elections look like democracy incarnate. If tiger fan boys insist on writing 'most powerful' and shit like that you are not after the thruth. You are just out to make stubborn and uncooperative reality bend to your delusions. You are the popular zoology kin of Hisballah in the Middle East, fighting your futile war against sanity and the facts.

When I watched all these videos, I immediately agree that tiger has superior fight skill. Everytime when tiger and lion come face to face, tiger strikes lion with both front paws. The lion is just slower, less agile and less aggressive. Where is lion's fighting instinct which was considered to be genetics?

Maybe I should tell you a fight happened in China in 1995. A 3 year old Siberian tiger was kept beside a 7 year old male lion. The door between their cages was incidently opened and the lion came into tiger's cage. After an intensive fight, the tiger killed the male lion and held it in mouth.

That technique of the tiger is called Right sky bind, Left earth net, strinking with both paws, blocking the opponent in all directions: left, right, high, low. Lions have no choice but to...run. The technique is too much to handle. People often think: If they are similar in size, they are similar in strength and skills, which is a mistake. Tiger is not one, but three steps ahead the lion. in a documentary named lions behaving badly, 4 male lions have to cooperate to kill a buffalo. A single tiger can kill a buffalo or banteng of the same or sometimes, larger size. Lions born to fight, can you prove? The only fact is that they fight other lions, which are on their same level. Facing something above it: tiger or buffalo, rhino, this so-called fighting instinct is easily blown away. --S--

extinct american lions

apparently north america had lions at the same time as wooly mammoths and such... - Omegatron 18:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. 68.81.231.127 07:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the following bits need a little looking-at, eh? this can't be right.

-The lion, as all the other animals fears unknown objects, for instance, if a lion goes you to attack and you to show for him a toilet paper, he will retreat.
-Lions hibernate during the winter time.

also, i don't think the asiatic lioness picture should be so close to the bit about ligers, it's confusing.

I have moved the Asiatic lioness picture to the section on subspecies. Does this solve the problem? --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

fear of the unknown

The lion, as all the other animals fears unknown objects, for instance, if a lion goes you to attack and you to show for him a toilet paper, he will retreat.

Can anyone confirm this? It sounds rather implausible. jdb ❋ 05:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. This article attracts a fair amount of overt vandalism, but there is also some stealth vandalism: the edit before yours removed a suspicious line about lions hibernating that has been part of the article for quite some time. 68.81.231.127 22:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purring Lions?

I was just curious; do lions Purr? Its a basic trait for felines to purr, but the page on purring, and this lion page doesn't say anything regarding purring. Does anyone know if Lions, or big cats in general, purr?

  • I'd like to think they do, but i honestly dont know. Jdcooper 16:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All cats (and only cats) purr; however, whilst domestic cats can purr continuously as they breathes in and out, lions and suchlike can only purr when exhaling. — Chameleon 17:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I understand that the largest cat that purrs is actually the mountain lion. However, this information comes from a children's educational show (whose name escapes me) so I cannot provide a reliable source. Prehaps there is some debate about what qualifies as purring? --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • Lions do not truly purr. They can make a sound that resembles purring, but unlike house cats and other cats in the Felis genus which make the sound from their diaphragm, lions and other catc in the Panthera genus make the sound from their vocal chords.

the real nickname of the lion, it the king of the beasts, not the king of the jungle.

why wikipedia dosent have link to the bigcatrescue.org website?

It is linked to a number of other big cat entries. Also, 'true big cats' or 'great cats' - if it means anything - denote the cats that can roar, and only purr when exhaling: tigers, lions, leopards, and jaguars. Larger cats excluded by this are pumas, snow leopards, clouded leopards, and cheetahs. Slow Graffiti 07:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

White lions

It is known that the white tiger is just simply an albino tiger. Same with white lions. That is a mistake to say that they can only be found in certain areas because though they might have been spotted there, they probably can be found in other areas as well. No one goes around looking for a white lion all day, so no one can say the albino lions are found in one spot only. Also, on the subject of jungle versus plains, lions prefer the plains because they blend in and there is room for them to run after their prey. In the thick jungles they would have a difficult time catching prey because it takes alot more energy to wind around obstacles and they do not blend in so prey would run off. Plus, most of their prey animals live on the plains. --BeccaRose 04:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

White lions are not albinos, the unusual colouration is caused by a recessive gene. Pigmentation is still present, as seen in the eye, paw pad and lip colour etc. albinism is the lack of pigmentation, this is not to say that albino lions cannot exist.
All the white lions in the world today are in zoos and captive breeding programs. Almost all of them trace their lineage to the Timbavati area in South Africa. There are exceptions, near white (not bright white) cubs have been born in captivity to parents who where not previously known to carry the genes. Timbavati is the only place in the world where they have been credibly documented to exist in the wild.
African game parks and reserves, particularly those in southern Africa, are not as devoid of people as they may seem, most are permanently staffed by wardens and guards, and many have on-going monitoring and research projects, any new sightings of white lion would soon surface in the 'outside' world.
'Jungle' is often, confusingly used to describe almost anything that isn't grassland or plains (Scrub, bush, thickets etc)[On second thoughts even these can be misleading].
Lions are not restricted to the plains, they occur in a wide range of habitats from the savannah woodlands of East Africa to the Kalahari desert. They are not 'run down the prey' species like the wild dog or cheetah, they rely on camouflage and stealth (bushes are useful) to get as close as possible for a quick dash. - Rooivalk 02:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
To further clarify, white tigers are generally not albino either. White tigers with stripes are clearly not albino - otherwise, the pigmentation to produce the normal stripes would not be present. You'd be well-advised to check out the 'white tiger' information linked to on the tiger entry here. Slow Graffiti 07:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lions in South America

Any one know about lions in South America

Other than the Mountain Lion or Puma ( & Lion Tamarins and Sea Lions :p), I cannot find any credible references to lions in South America in recent times. I did find one reference to prehistoric lions on the Smithsonian Zoo website, to quote: "More than 10,000 years ago, lions thrived from North and South America to Europe, Africa, and Asia." It does not state which species/subspecies they were referring to. Information and distribution maps about prehistoric & extinct species from other sources tend to conflict with this statement. Does anyone else have more info? - Rooivalk 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There are currently no lions in the Americas, only pumas. In prehistoric times there was what's called an American lion, which is classified in the same genus as lions and tigers (panthera), but it is not agreed how closely related they are to modern lions. In addition, the Americas had several other prehistoric big cats, including the miracinonyx (sometimes called the American cheetah) and the smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger), although only the latter lived in South America so far as I know. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No such thing. Only mountain lions live in South America and they're not linos. Dora Nichov 08:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

about 10.000 yaers ago American lions (Panthera leo atrox) occured in South America. Altaileopard 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But not now. Dora Nichov 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Subspecies?

Are there any known subspecies of the modern lion species?

Yes! But I don't think there is consensus on how to segregate them. Some talk just of the African lion vs Asiatic lion. Others have many subspecies of lions in Africa such as the Maasai lion of Kenya and Tanzania and Senegalese lions. I'm not sure these are scientifically established but I do think size varies, tending to be larger as the distance to the Equator growns, much like tigers. Two generally recognized African subspecies are the extinct (in the wild at least) Cape and Barbary lions.

strangulation

Please help us, at Talk:Bible scientific foresight, where we are having to argue that almost all naturalists believe that lions kill their prey by biting, rather than attempting to strangle their prey. (The discussion is about whether naturalists believe that lions strangle their prey, or whether this is a ridiculous minority viewpoint amongst naturalists) Clinkophonist 12:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lions in literature?

I noticed that there is a 'lions in media' section that includes reference to 'The Lion King', perhaps it would be worth adding a 'lions in literature' section including, for example Aslan in 'The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe'?

And Simson of course. If you can think of enough lions, why not? Feel free and go ahead... Caesarion 11:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

contradictory

The article contradicts itself, in one part it states that there are 300 Asiatic lions, in a later part it says there are only 200. Which is correct? 66.212.222.143 23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The IUCN Red List says about 250 (in 2000). A 1990 census counted some 221 adults living within the Gir Lion Reserve with a further 30-40 lions living in the surrounding agricultural areas. Since August (2005), after the June census recorded 359 lions, at least nine lions have died, some suspiciously. Wells like Bhimabhai's are death traps for unsuspecting Asiatic lions, who fall into them and either end up maimed or dead. This is the most current number, 350 thus. Sources: http://www.asiatic-lion.org and http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php?species=15952&tab=all Pmaas 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed here in 350. Here the source: Wire fences death traps for big cats. Himanshu Kaushik. Times of India, Thursday, October 27, 2005. [5] Pmaas 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Block user!

Can the following IP be blocked!!! 66.154.192.129 This user deleted the complete content of this article twice. And replaced it with childish nonsence/spam. Peter Maas 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Make that four times now! Is there a moderator or admin somewhere? Peter Maas 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking IPs do not matter. Take me for exmaple, mine changes once in awhile so it wouldn't prevent anything. The only thing it would do is prevent a future user who would recieve my old IP address. OH, AND I'M NOT THE USER PETER IS TALKING ABOUT.

-G

Size and weight

very few wild lions exceed 225kg in the wild. The average weight of a male is 150 - 190kg, not 420lbs(approx 200 kg). Well, folks, if you don't believe me, go and confirm with zoologists specialized on lions. Looking at the appearance of lions suggests a light body weight, as they are pretty skinny. So, that the average weight of a male is 420lbs is completely wrong!

420 lbs=190,5 kg --Anshelm '77 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, as the contents are easily edited by anyone, the accuracy of the information will become lower and lower. I don't really believe what I read in wiki articles, save for some IT stuffs. They are not of much value for me.

Thank you Anshelm for your correction. Still, the average weight of an adult male is not 190kg, but between 150 - 190 kg, that means many male lions weigh below 420lbs. 190kg means a relatively large lion.

150–190 kg is still a range, not an average. I tried to find a more precise number somewhere: WWF said 175–190 kg (385–419 lb) for the males – still a range, but at least a smaller one – whereas American Museum of Natural History put this figure at 375 lb (170 kg). Both put the female average at 120 kg (265 lb). Guinness put the male average at 180–185 kg (397–408 lb), with a shoulder height of 91–97 cm (36–38 in) – of course, the lion is no record holder in feline size, but I guess Guinness put these figures to demonstrate that the tiger is bigger, which even today seems to surprise some. So about 180 kg is a quite consistent figure for the male average (let's say 180±10 kg to play it safe) according to various (respectable) sources; as seems to be the 120 kg for the females.
I myself would be interested to know more about the geographical size variation. Few zoological books address this – size ranges and averages are usually given for the species as a whole – so I presume it to be minimal. Surely it must be lesser than that of the tiger, with the largest subspecies (altaica) averaging about twice the weight of the smallest (sumatrae).
--Anshelm '77 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a dumb argument. There really isn't something like a set weight. Look at human beings. You got full grown males that can be 120 lb and you got some over 600 lb. Some that are 5 feet some that are over 7. You don't think that the same applies to the animals? If the pride lives in an area where the food is pleantiful, you will see large size lions. If in not, they will be smaller. You'll see a 300lb male lion. But you'll see a 500+ lb as well. Again, it depends on what lion you are looking at. There are many subspices. The South African lions are the largest with males being in the upper 400s to lower 500s. It's all relative, there is not one set number.

Yes, and see what you are talking. About lions as a whole man, what is meant is a lion weighs on average, on average 150 - 190kg, and many below 190 kg. look at your lengthy paragraph, in the end, aren't you talking just the same! Watch your argument again before saying anyone else dumb, man!

First of all I did not call anoyone dumb I said the argument was dumb. And second, I did not say anything that agreed with the comments made earlier. The lion does not max out at 420 lb, that's bogus. The range for the lion is not 150 to 190 kg it's 150 to 250 kg. Lions do grow over 500 lb in South Africa and it is not uncommon. A large lion is not 420 lb, that's your personal statement (most likely based on the fact that you are a tiger fanboy and wish to downplay the size of the lion). You're the type of person that would say that a large lion is 400 lb but an AVERAGE tiger is 600 lb. A healthy average male lion is in the low to mid 400s lb. But that not the top of his weight range, you should really do some research, especially on the South African lions.

Vuck you all, especially tiger fanboys

Barbary Lion: extinct or not?

Someone (88.153.247.168 and User:N.i) keep on reverting! Changing it from "extinct" into "extinct in the wild". I've changed it already too much back in extinct, and will stop doing that for now. Sorry for that. He or she refuses to comment back on his talk page (User_talk:N.i) or in this discussion page or that of Talk:Barbary_Lion. Hopefully I get some funded opinions from other people here. Is the Barbary Lion extinct or extinct in the wild? Peter Maas 15:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that the Barbary Lion is extinct. Why? See following points. Peter Maas 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In the past scientists believed that the "distinct" subspecific status of the Barbary lion could be justified by their seemingly fixed external morphology. This morphology was used to identify them. However, now it is known that various extrinsic factors influence the colour and size of a lion’s mane, like the ambient temperature.[2] The cooler ambient temperature in e.g. European and North American zoos can result in heavy mane. Therefore, the heave mane is an inappropriate marker for identifying Barbary lines.
  • The molecular marker for identifying Barbary lions has revealed that five tested samples of lions from the famous Barbary Lion collection of the King of Morocco are not maternally Barbary.
  • There is no proof of any surviving pure Barbary Lion in captivity.

Peter Maas 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to inform you all: I've recieved an email from Dr Nobuyuki Yamaguchi (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit Oxford University, Department of Zoology). He does a lot of research to the Barbary lion (he is the (co-)author of the most recent scientific articles on this subject). This is what he says: "Based on the best knowledge available at the moment, I would say they have become extinct at least in the wild. If one would carry out a worldwide survey on the genetic characteristics of captive lions, the answer may be changed. Also, the concept of conservation of lion genetic diversity may also change the concept of extinction in the future." Do you have a problem with changing it into: "The Barbary Lion, Atlas lion or Nubian lion Panthera leo leo is a subspecies of lion that has become extinct at least in the wild." Please respond this time on the talk pages. Peter Maas 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lion-baiting

As much as we may not like Lion-baiting it certainly is a part of the lions history. You might want to vote on this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion-baiting

Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

As such a valuable topic, this article should at least be good. But to reach that it will need massive improvement. Any one got ideas on what needs the most work?--Esprit15d 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lion sexuality and homosexuality

As I suggested previously, rather than getting into a revert war, why do not those who disagree with the material I brought in discuss it here. If it is found to be in contravention to science or Wikipedia rules I will be happy to let it be deleted. Haiduc 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from the deleted text which I am appending below, the material on lion sexuality comes from Bruce Bagemihl work on animal sexuality. The footnote with the reference was in the paragraph all along, but perhaps it would be a good idea to add to the paragraph several direct quotes so as to quell the doubts of future readers.
Female lions will interact sexually with other females, displaying a number of behaviors associated also with heterosexual interactions. Male lions will initiate homosexual activity with affectionate muzzling and caressing, leading to actual mounting and thrusting. Males, usually of similar ages, will pair-bond for a number of days, engaging in sexual behavior and protecting each other from intrusion by other males. In the wild, about 8% of mountings will be with other males. ref>Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; pp.302-305</ref
As for the present contents of the article, it reads as a repository of inconsequential information about lions, and omits critical information on their sexuality. I have placed a POV tag on it until the editors here address the issues I have brought up, and either refute the material academically or integrate it into the article. Regards, Haiduc 10:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no concensus that lion homosexuality is "critical information". Please show us at least one popular page on the web that discusses basic lion information and homosexuality on the same page. Obscure information does not belong to a page that aims to educate people on basic lion facts. About the "inconsequential" material on this page - yes some of it is a little inconsequential but since they have been there for a long time, they havent been edited out. The lion page requires some cleanup and it will be done soon but currently the aim is not to allow any more clutter. If you wish to educate people on animal homosexuality (I noticed that you have dedicated most of your posts to that end) why dont you write a new page and link other pages to it. If people are interested they will follow the link. I agree that lion homosexuality is not what most people would be interested to know so why force it on them? And this minor issue is definitely not a reason to hijack the entire page by declaring a POV dispute. [User: Sohola]

1. Please show me where it says that Wikipedia will only harbor "critical information."
2. Then point to the rule that determines what is critical and what is not.
3. In conclusion, explain to me why you have built an article out of irrelevant apocrypha, but decided to draw the line at the animal's sex life.
The fact is that, aside from your reasoning being inconsistent, it is also totally irrelevant to the building of an encyclopaedia article. We are not charged here to build a compendium of popular web sites' opinions, nor to restrict ourselves to "basic facts" (as if you ever have). We are actually obligated to fully inform our readers about the topic at hand. Sexual behavior that is exhibited in almost one in ten interactions is far from obscure, it is not as if this had happened once or twice who knows where. No. This is what lions do with each other. So please excuse me if I refuse to jump through the hoops you have set up (I do not make a very good lion) and simply point to the fact that this is a book that has been published by a reputable, even exceptional publisher, that is written by a respected academic, and that has garnered excellent reviews: [6], [7], [8], [9].
Please do not personalize this discussion with suppositions about my goals and motives. They are totally irrelevant, and I could indulge in analogous suppositions about those blocking the information, and with far greater profit. But none of this matters. What matters is our obligation to the readers to provide a legible, thorough, erudite and comprehensive article on the lion. If you want to look for views opposing those of Bagemihl, I would welcome their inclusion, if properly presented. In the mean time I will get to work pruning this hopelessly bloated article so that by the time we are done it will be an article and not an assemblage of data flying in loose formation. Regards, Haiduc 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The point I wanted to make was maybe those websites do not discuss homosexuality because there is no concensus among scientists on that issue. I found very little scientific discussion/literature on animal homosexuality and there is certainly no evidence of concensus. It appears Bagemihl's ideas havent been established as facts yet. Until then we should leave it to the scientists to sort out the matter. And why does Baghemihl say that current scientific studies are full of lies? That doesnt do much good to his own credibility. And, maybe Bagemihl's observations can be interpreted in a different way! iirc, more then one Animal Planet show said that same sex mountings among macaques and elephants are displays of domainance or subordination (there is no sexual intercourse involved)! Instead of bluntly stating numbers from the book (which normal people might find incredulous) it might actually be more productive if you add a line like this: "It is also suggested that lions may interact homosexually [linked reference]". User:Sohola

The way we treat topics where there is no consensus amons scientists is that we report both sides, indicating the sources of the arguments. The material you mention is certainly valuable, and if you have sources suggesting that lion same-sex activity is seen by some as hierarchical display then certainly we should add that in. As for reducing the material further, possibly, but not radically. I already condensed several pages of material in Bagemihl's book to just several lines. Any significant reduction would dilute the sense of the material. As for Bagemihl's exposure of the self-censoring of zoological reports, I did not touch on that because it seemed off the topic of this article. It probably should be discussed in the Censorship section. But I fail to see how that discredits him. Even National Geographic discusses it. The censoring of information on same sex relations, whether among people or among animals, is something that goes back almost 2000 years, and that has been clearly documented, attested and discussed by many. Haiduc 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a modified version of the paragraph, including more sources:
Observers have claimed that female lions will interact sexually with other females, displaying a number of behaviors associated also with heterosexual interactions, and that male lions will initiate homosexual activity with affectionate muzzling and caressing, leading to actual mounting and thrusting. Males, usually of similar ages, will pair-bond for a number of days, engaging in sexual behavior and protecting each other from intrusion by other males. In the wild, about 8% of mountings will be with other males, while female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity. References (found by Bagemihl to document lion homosexuality):
  1. Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; pp.302-305
  2. J.B. Cooper, "An Exploratory Study on African Lions" in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48
  3. R.L. Eaton, "The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion" in Eaton, ed. The World's Cats, vol.II; pp.3-58; Seattle, 1974
  4. G.B. Schaller, The Serengeti Lion; University of Chicago Press, 1972
Aside from that, I hope that among the editors here there is no presumption of normative lion heterosexuality, and if there is I would appreciate sources for that claim. Haiduc 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are reporting a moot point, please take the responsibility to find a source that presents a different explanation. Since Animal Planet says same sex mountings are displays of domination, there must be scientific sources around. This is my suggestion (this might be overkill too): Observers have claimed that both males and females may interact homosexually {ref}. Male lions may initiate homosexual activity that leads to mounting and thrusting. Males, usually of similar ages, will pair-bond for a number of days, engaging in sexual behavior and protecting each other from other males. Female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity. However, mounting and thrusting may also be explained as displays of dominance among the same sex {ref}. User:Sohola

Thanks for your response. I do not mind some of your edits, but others seem counterproductive. Below is an amalgam of the two versions. I think it is particularly important to maintain the description of affectionate behavior among males since it contextualizes the behavior, and to quantify it. As for my going to look for opposite viewpoints, I think that it is proper form for each of us to contribute sources supporting our material. Just as I would not ask you to go look for additional sources corroborating homosexual behavior, please do not expect me to go looking for material I am unfamiliar with.
Observers have reported that both males and females may interact homosexually {ref}. Male lions may initiate homosexual activity with affectionate muzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. Males, usually of similar ages, will pair-bond for a number of days, engaging in sexual behavior and protecting each other from other males. In the wild, about 8% of mountings will be with other males, while female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity. However, mounting and thrusting may also be explained as displays of dominance among same sex individuals{ref}.
Haiduc 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Since you are the one presenting a disputed point, it is your responsibility to cite appropriate sources to comply with NPOV. Your points are supported by a biologist but what if tomorrow someone wants to add that lions eat spaghetti? In that case, it wont be fair to assume that it is someone elses responsibility to cite references that say otherwise. It would be nice if you do something about this quick as I see no point in further jeopardizing an entire article for minor points on sexuality. User:Sohola

That seems to me a bit high-handed of you, since it is not appropriate either to get other people to do your work for you, nor to sit here and dictate the terms under which you will countenance changes to the article. Nor is it clear whose point is disputed - the presumption of lion heterosexuality you seem to advance is not backed up by any documentation. I am going to insert the text you and I have evolved into the appropriate location in the article and if it should be deleted I will open this up for input from more people, which would be good regardless of the outcome. And please be so kind as to provide that cite for dominance behavior. Regards, Haiduc 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


What in the name of bejeezus is going on when a person such as myself who goes in good faith to look up information about Lions is presented as the third item on the menu with the word "homosexuality". For heaven's sake. Dogs hump furniture, legs and cats. Is the third item on dogs "fetishism"? Cows hump anything that looks like a cow without much discrimination. They're animals for heaven's sake. Most animals don't pair bond. Is the third item "adultery"? This content is crap being forced down our throats to justify a disordered world view.

Ros Power 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Haiduc, it is unfortunate that you think I am dictating terms. I also see that you didnt exactly present the text as agreed upon - you opened a prominent header as the third item on the page solely for homosexuality when it was agreed upon to have a header for sexuality. You expanded the text too. Regarding the show of dominance, I find it incredulous that you claim there is no documentation. That is something reported in Animal Planet shows many times over to explain same sex mountings so there has to be scientific backing behind it. And no its not my job to find it - I believe Animal Planet over Bagemihl and most other people do too. The reason I am sceptical of your points is because I never heard it in Animal Planet. But then you come by citing a biologist who claims same sex mountings are homosexual. I agree there is room for his opinion on this page but since it isnt defacto standard, NPOV demands alternate views too. Meanwhile I am not going to allow this page to be on a neutrality dispute anymore. This page still has all of its credibility intact even without the bit on homosexuality. And since it is not saying lions do not indulge in homosexuality there is no case for a dispute whatsoever. User:Sohola

Sohola, I am glad that you have come up with a reference for the view that same-sex relations can be an expression of dominance, but please realize that sources here do not "trump" each other in this context, but enrich the overall picture. In general, if you wish to expand the section by detailing the material you have located please do so, but do not use that material to alter mterial that is properly documented. However, I took a look at your sources. This one seems to have nothing about lions, but rather talks about dogs. I understand that you are trying to make an argument that if mounting behavior in dogs is not sexual then neither is it in lions, but this is blatant original research, to say nothing about its more than dubious validity. Unfortunately, your second source exhibits the same problem: it is about primates. It is not for us to say whether what is applicable to one family of vertebrates is also applicable to another. I would also like to point out that a sample of curriculum material from an agricultural school in Connecticut, and Anthro 101 comments from a field trip to the zoo probably will not turn out to be the most reliable or authoritative sources. Haiduc 11:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sohola, I am sorry but in the absence of a response to my comments from yesterday I am removing the material you added, since it is based on irrelevant sources. I am still leaving in your sentence on dominance behavior since it it plausible, but please provide a citation for it, as requested. Haiduc 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid that is unacceptable. I cant allow a widely held view to be supplanted by a view that is relatively obscure - that would be violating NPOV. Basically, Animal Planet is a far more credible source then Bagemihl so I am sceptical of his research. Those sources are not irrelavant - they give valuable insight on same sex mountings and one of them is a famous paper. In some cultures, it is okay for male friends to kiss each other and even hold each other's hands while walking - that doesnt mean they are homosexual. Going by Bagemihl, that would be homosexual. Furthermore, the statement - "Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity" sounds more like assertion of a fact so it is misleading. Not to mention it lacks clear definition. It is clearer to juxtapose both views in the same sentence - the moot point is that the same set of actions are being interpreted in different ways. Thanks. User:Sohola

Dude. "Animal Planet" is more famous than Bruce Bagemihl because one is a popular TV show and the other is an academic biologist. DanB†DanD 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Sohola, I confess with being unfamiliar with your sources, as I do not watch tv. I am sure that Animal Planet is a fine show, but please do not expect me to take seriously the contention that a mass media tv show is an appropriate source for writing an encyclopaedia article on anything other than mass media. Nor for that matter does the prevalence of an opinion reflect in any way its validity. Furthermore, you are fully entitled to your personal skepticism vis-a-vis Bagemihl, but you are not entitled to allow that opinion to color this article. Bagemihl is a professional scientist and we have to give him credence, as we do any other authoritative source you may bring to bear. As for your edit of the article, it is not supported by relevant sources. Please document your position or leave the article as it was. If you must know, I was not too pleased with it either, since there was a great deal more that could have been said on the topic, material which totally refutes your contention that such behavior necessarily is dominance-related. But I was happy to leave matters as they were if that's what it took to reach consensus. If however you will now try to drag the article into a direction of obfuscation of the topic then I will feel justified in documenting the material well enough so as to leave no doubt about the observations which have led these scholars to reach the conclusion that lions have affectionate, freely chosen same-sex relations, both males with males and females with females. Haiduc 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am putting my opinion in that section is preposterous. The only impact my opinion has had is that it strengthened my resolve to present both views such that one does not undermine the other. None of those views should be present unless both can be presented in equal standing. And lets not kid ourselves here - Bagemihl's statements would have had very little credibility if he hadnt extended his research to many other species too. Presenting the possibility of homosexuality in many animal species is one of the strengths of Bagemihl's work and similarly the displays of dominance among elephants, dogs, wolves, tasmenian devils and all primates strengthens the view that same sex mountings among lions may be displays of dominance. I agree not everything shown on Animal Planet is reliable (though they rarely let their standards down) but it is obvious that some shows are quite reliable. And since when did same sex displays of affections amount to homosexuality. Affection need not be sexual. A nephew and uncle might be affectionate towards each other. It is ridiculous to say such a relationship is homosexual. User:Sohola

Sohola, I do not think you will be able to convince any serious editors that your material on monkeys or your reminiscences about past tv shows are allowable sources - on your say-so - in an article on lions. And your suppositions about the reasons for Bagemihl's success with his work are irrelevant. As for your "strengthened resolve" to impose your view or to give it equal time to those of authoritative sources, that seems to me to be a miserable foundation for finding consensus in the compilation of an encyclopaedia article. Where will that lead us? To "strengthened resolve" all around?! Please strengthen instead your resolve to abide by intellectual integrity and the rules of this project. I have attached "fact" tags to some of your more improbable additions. Please document your position properly or retract the material. Haiduc 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite unreasonable. An ordinary man's perception of homosexuality is - sexual relationship among same-sex persons. The text has to be clear that no sexual intercourse was ever observed among lions and primates. Just mentioning "homosexual" is tendentious. I dont care what you think about my perception - I just know that both sides of the coin have to be presented on equal standing. Initially I thought you had that intent too but from your recent edits it is getting clearer that your motive is to discredit any information that doesnt agree to Bagemihl. User:Sohola

Does Bagemihl, or any other source, report same-sex mountings to feature penetration? Do any sources we're aware of expressly deny that they feature it? It seems that a sentence pertaining to the penetration issue only belongs if we have a source that speaks on it, and if no source contradicts it, then it need not be qualified with a weasely "it is claimed that" or similar phrase. If we have two sources that expliticly contradict each other, then that should be so noted as well. I think the question of whether some non-lion animal has penetrative intercourse is irrelevant, as it would require original research on our part to conclude from that that lions do or don't as well.--Atemperman 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This subject is not relevant to a brief entry about lions. Most substantial scientific works do not even address the issue at all and the works mentioned by Bagemihl in his study include only brief commentary that comprises a very small portion of the overall work. The debate about whether Bagemihl's study is legitimate do not really address the point that the issue itself does not receive much attention from most scientific discussions of lion behavior, including the majority of lion-oriented Discovery Channel programs. An entry on possible homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom would be a more appropriate place for this information to appear, it just is not an issue that receives enough attention from the scientific community as a whole that it merits inclusion on a comparatively brief Wiki article about lions.

If you wish to report on a putative debate on the legitimacy of Bagemihl's study I suggest you start an article devoted to that topic. Neither his work, nor that of other workers reporting on this aspect of lion sexuality has been refuted, and until such time there is no valid reason to exclude it from the article. As for the paucity of attention given to this in published work, a great deal has been said about the self-censorship of the scientific community with regard to reporting on non-orthodox animal sexuality. But as this encyclopaedia is not censored there is no need for us to abide by those restrictions. The behavior itself is certainly widespread and very common, and it is far more relevant to "a brief entry about lions" than much of the apocryphal material included in this article. Note however that even if this article was completely devoid of any non-zoological material, this would still be a valid topic for inclusion. Haiduc 11:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The person who made the unsigned comment two before this comment and removed the paragraph on the observations of homosexuality in lions has gone against the consensus of the RfCers on this page. Even the one editor here who is skeptical about including Bagemihl's research without weasel words (Sohola) agrees that the paragraph belongs in this article.--Atemperman 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I will refrain from editing again, but stand by my prior remarks. I continue to believe that this particular subject is not considered significant by the scientific community, as evidenced by the lack of attention it is given in scientific works. The claim that there is "self-censorship" within the scientific community seems to be an attempt to push the Bagemihl POV without specific foundation, sort of a conspiracy theory view in other words. While it's true that "nuzzling" behavior is common among lions, the vast majority of scientists and naturalists do not attribute it to homosexuality, whereas the entry implies that there is sort of split amongst scientistis. In looking below, I see that others also feel this material is inappropriate for a Wiki entry. However, I will refrain from editing back, I simply will leave my comments here as a disagreement with the inclusion of this material so that as the page evolves and others opine on the subject, my vote for removal will be clear and counted.
I do not blame you for feeling as you do, since it does seem nonsensical to presume that nuzzling is homosexual if between two individuals of the same sex. But what is reported in the literature is of a different order altogether. Let me quote a couple of relevant passages: "In female lions, homosexual interactions are often initiated by one female pursuing another and crawling under her to encourage the other female to mount her. When mounting another female, a lioness displays a number of behaviors associated with heterosexual mating, including gently biting the mountee on the neck, growling, making pelvic thrusts, and rolling on her own back afterwards. Sometimes lionesses take turns mounting each other." Regarding males, we read that "homosexual activity often begins with a great deal of affectionate activity (which is also a component of 'greeting' interactions between males). This includes mutual head rubbing (often accompanied by a low moaning or humming noise), presentation of the hindquarters to the other male, sliding and rubbing against each other, circling one another, and rolling on the back with an erect penis. This may lead to intense carressing and eventually mounting of one male by the other, including pelvic thrusting. Sometimes three males rub and roll together, mounting each other in turn. A male lion sometimes courts a particular individual, keeping company with him for several days while engaging in sexual behavior. He typically defends his partner against intruding males, and often other males in the group will join him in attacking any interfering males." So much for nuzzling. As for the paragraph in question, significant material has been eroded away from what was agreed upon, leading - not surprisingly - to this kind of misunderstanding. I will replace what has been excised without proper rationale so that this material is not made to seem absurd to unsuspecting readers. Haiduc 03:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I can see both sides to this discussion. The study is legitimate scientific work, but at the same time it does not represent scientific consensus and therefore may therefore not be relevant to what should be a more broad entry about lions. Also, in browsing through user Haiduc's edits across Wikipedia, it seems clear to me that he or she is pursuing an agenda that does not necessarily include educating Wikipedia users about lions (except with regard to this very specific issue). I feel that this is a troublesome aspect of Wikipedia, as many users attempt to mold entries to fit their own agendas and place this priority above creating useful entries for the user. As a result, even though some of the arguments for maintaining the paragraph are convincing to some extent, I would vote for deletion of this paragraph on the basis that does not reflect scientific consensus. My skepticism about Haiduc's agenda makes it an easier call. 69.251.212.48 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It were better if you could see your own side of this discussion. This is an article about lions, and your attempt to politicize it and to personalize it is in contravention of both common sense and Wikipedia usage. Haiduc 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


From the link you provided: "This is perhaps why one of the world’s best known big cats experts, Peter Jackson, Ex-chair of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group and Advisor and Editor of Cat News, has expressed a note of caution. He says that close friendships develop between individuals of the same sex in many, if not all, species, including humans. But they are not necessarily sexual and it is essential to find out that mating took place. Pati has given photographic evidence of the finding in Gir, with detailed explanations, but as the pair was observed only for one season, it may be premature to draw inferences on whether it is an acquired habit or mere adaptation to circumstances."

Thus, Pati has produced photographic evidence, and the opnly question here is not whether homosexual behavior took place, but only whether, in the case of this particular pair, the relationship will continue beyond one season. But we are already informed by Bagemihl that these relationships are ephemeral, as are, for that matter, heterosexual couplings. So this in no way vitiates the argument presented by Bagemihl. Haiduc 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

and

"According to Dr Craig Packer, professor at the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour in the University of Minnesota who has been working on the lions of Serengeti, he has never come across any prolonged homosexual behaviour in the wild. However, he does mention ‘a couple of cases of genetic mutant males that behaved exactly like males’. Packer says that this condition occasionally occurs in dogs too and is due to a defect in the male hormone receptors. Homosexuality in African lions has been observed only in captive lions and has been attributed to that unusual circumstance. However, what triggered this behaviour in the Asiatic lion is difficult to ascertain. The best choice for Pati and his team would be to extend the study and watch out for larger trends. Meanwhile, it’s a jury that is still out. mating took place. Pati has given photographic evidence of the finding in Gir, with detailed explanations, but as the pair was observed only for one season, it may be premature to draw inferences on whether it is an acquired habit or mere adaptation to circumstances."

My point isn't that observers haven't noticed the same behavior as Bagemihl, it's that they do not consider it to be indicative of homosexuality.

Another argument against the relationships being prolonged. Nothing is said for or against temporary relationships (though if we were to read between the lines, Packer as much as admits he has come across occasional mountings). The thrust of the argument is that these scholars are doubting the existence of monosexual homosexual lions - that is male lions who only engage in sexual relationships with other male lions. They seem to be speaking to the strict sense of "homosexuality," its exclusive sense. But what Bagemihl summarizes (apparently he was not the observer but simply worked from the observations of other zoologists) are observations of lions who engage in homosexual sex in discretionary fashion. As for the genetic mutant theory, apparently the observers have come across a couple of transgendered lions ("behaved exactly like (fe)males"). That is another discussion, tangential to Bagemihl's. Haiduc 01:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually have the Schaller work that Bagemihl apparently draws from and I will search it for reference to homosexuality among male lions. I cannot remember it in reading the work before, but that doesn't mean it isn't in there and I will see. I believe your sources are misleading, as the second states that homosexual behavior has never been observed among African lions, in direct contravention to the point you are trying to emphasize. There is no inidcation that they are speaking of monosexual homosexual lions only in the second article, you seem to be attributing this to them without justification. My contention remains that other zoologists do not view the behavior cited by Bagemihl as indicating "homosexuality" in the human sense, but for now I will research the Schaller piece and report back. 70.22.102.128 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Article quality - intro issues

There is a standard form to Wikipedia articles, part of which consists of having a brief intro summarizing the main points of the article, a kind a synopsis. This intro will often consist of three short paragraphs, and the information contained in them will be elaborated later in the article. That was the reason for my re-write of the intro, but at this point I shall withdraw and let you shape the article as you see fit. The only bone of contention remains the deleted material on the sexuality of the lion. Haiduc 03:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Lion sexuality". I've heard it all now. Ros Power 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment:: Lion same-sex relations

This is a dispute about whether social and sexual behavior documented as frequent and reported on by a number of zoologists should be included in the article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Obscure information does not belong to a page that aims to educate people on basic lion facts. —User: Sohola
  • Sexual behavior that is exhibited in almost one in ten interactions is far from obscure . . . —Haiduc 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This content is crap being forced down our throats to justify a disordered world view. —Ros Power 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • this behavior that is allegedly exhibited in almost one in ten interactions may not be obscure, but attributing it to homosexuality is indeed obscure. Most reference materials do not categorize such becavior as "sexual" at all, but rather view it as establishing social status or dominance. I would agree with user Sohola and Ros Power and argue for its deletion. 149.79.54.95 15:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • This is behavior that is common among lions, and that has been reported by various scholars in published works. It seems essential to include a brief but informative mention in an article on this animal. Here is one possible revision of the paragraph most at the source of this dispute:
Observers have reported that both males and females may interact homosexually. ref>Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; pp.302-305. In his discussion of lion same-sex relations, Bagemihl is making use of published work by: J.B. Cooper, "An Exploratory Study on African Lions" in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48; R.L. Eaton, "The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion" in Eaton, ed. The World's Cats, vol.II; pp.3-58; Seattle, 1974; G.B. Schaller, The Serengeti Lion; University of Chicago Press, 1972</ref Male lions may initiate homosexual activity with affectionate muzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. Males, usually of similar ages, will pair-bond for a number of days, engaging in sexual behavior and protecting each other from other males. In the wild, about 8% of mountings will be with other males, while female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity. However, mounting and thrusting may also be explained as displays of dominance among same sex individuals[citation needed]. Haiduc 23:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing POV or "agenda politics" about including documented zoological observations. At the same time, it seems a little weird that, if same-sex mounting makes up 8% of the observed mounting behaviors, it should take up 50% of our "social behavior" section. These are socially complex animals! The added material should be kept, but placed in the context of an expanded section including details of what the lions do in the other 92% of their social interactions. 67.101.41.67 01:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the fuss is about. It's a documented behaviour, verified and reliable. It should be reported briefly in the appropriate section, not expanded to OTT degrees. Jefffire 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is documented and verifiable, why delete the explicatory text and leave only an uninformative mention?! By the way, here is another mention of such behavior, among Asian lionesses. It is not the whole story, but valuable nonetheless. Haiduc 11:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above comments: lion behavior documented by scientific professionals is worth including in the article. Edit for space to avoid giving the subject undue weight. Durova 16:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Durova. Nice to see the issue has been settled to everyone's satisfaction. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agree with the above comments. I might cut a sentence-worth out of Haiduc's proposed paragraph, just to make sure that this aspect of lions' sexual behavior isn't given undue weight. As for whether Haiduc should have to find research that opposes the research he or she is presenting, that notion should only be entertained if there were serious research that found that Bagemihl's research was shoddy or doctored or otherwise a bad source, and Haiduc were willfully omitting it. Then it would be bad faith on Haiduc's part to include Bagemihl's research without pointing out its weaknesses. As it stands now, Sohola is simply saying that he or she saw something that omitted Bagemihl's research, rather than something that denied it.--Atemperman 00:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Atemperman. It appears this claim is demonstrably true, it is interesting and so it's worthy of mentioning here just so long as it's kept in proportion. The 'crap' 'disordered world view' comment is entirely POV and contributes noting to the debate. 83.217.190.69 17:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here lay in the use of the term "homosexuality". The use of an anthropomorphic connotation for animal is prejudice-prone. Even in human the term "homosexuality" does not always apply to same-sex interactions, see Men who have sex with men . So I would argue that "homosexuality" as such could hardly be applied to lions... I suggest writing "Same-sex interactions have been reported for both male and female lions," and add the references. Roger jg 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several probloems with that approach. First of all, animal homosexuality is addressed as such in the literature, by researchers. Thus it is not up to us to rephrase the discussion in terms other than those employed in this field of study. Secondly, homosexuality can be of many kinds and need not imply a homosexual "orientation" but can be elective (pederasty) or situational (prison sex). Thirdly, we recognize many behaviors in animals which have an analogue in human experience. We see animals yawn, stretch, scratch, fight, court, and mourn. We commonly and uncontroversially use these terms to describe their behavior and everyone knows what we are talking about. Why exclude from that category a physical, observable relationship which includes manifestations of affection and friendship (and yes, researchers do talk about animal friendship as well, an even more intangible and anthropomophic aspect)? Haiduc 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
More and more in human studies and in particular in the field of HIV/AIDS which is higly relevant, researchers tend not to use "homosexuality" anymore because it is a) too restrictive and b) suppose that there is a sexual desire or attraction for the same sex, which is not always proved. Is this demonstrated in lions? Because Homosexuality has numerous meanings such as a "romantic attraction" amongst the other you mentionned, I think it is misleading in the present case to use the term since many of them are irrelevant to lions, but I am not fundamentally against it. Don't forget that for many, homosexuality is still a pathologic condition. Roger jg 12:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If we set the bar too high we cannot demonstrate anything about lions, not same sex atraction, not opposite sex attraction, not aggression, nothing. This is a discourse that started with Skinner, if I am not mistaken, and one to which I am not particularly able to contribute meaningfully. I am not adamantly opposed to taking out the term "homosexual" but, in all fairness, we would have to go into greater description of what goes on between lions, since "same-sex relations" is much more vague. As for the opprobrium attached to "homosexual", it cannot be escaped by changing terminology (just like racism has not ended because we dropped terms like "colored" or "negro"). Haiduc 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you but read again the comment by Ros Power ("...to justify a disordered world view"). That's the kind of objection based in prejudice that you will get and will find hard to fight because they shift the discussion from the factual to the intellectual and the semantic. Readers are not stupid and will associate the term of their choice (homosexual, gay ...) to same-sex sexual relations, whilst nobody would be in a position to say that you are triyng to impose a distorted wolrd view. Roger jg 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sohola, one of your links - this one - is broken. Can you fix it? The second link does not support your point about dominance (as discussed below), and the third is about animal behavior in general, not lions! Unless these problems can be addressed, I don't think your version of the paragraph is going to work.

Regarding "homosexuality" for animals - I don't agree that it's anthropomorphizing. The term has its problems, but it's the most clinical we have. Switching to a clumsy synonym phrase like "same-sex sexual relations" seems pointless to me, especially as it's not just "sexual relations" that are being discussed, but social bonding, muzzling and so on.

On which topic, I think we need an explanation of what "muzzling" is. The meaning of the word seems pretty clear (to nuzzle with your muzzle, I'm guessing?), but it is unusual, and exactly when and how it happens seems important to make clear. DanB†DanD 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

same-sex sexual relation are NOT a synonym for homosexuality. Hard to say it is "clumsy" when it is commonly used for humans. If it is used for humans it is because homosexuality does not reflect what is happening between two human being of the same sex having a sexual relationship. See men who have sex with men on which I am curently working. What really bother me is that this is saying more than what is known or what is happening. I however agree that if considered from a clinical point of view, which would be okay since that's how homosexuality was first defined, it would be okay with me. But will the common reader make the difference between the clinical meaning and the lay understanding of homosexuality? Roger jg 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed a beat here, but how do you see the difference between clinical homosexuality and the lay understanding of homosexuality? Again, I am completely at ease with dropping the term as long as we describe what is going on (probably the best approach, since it does not pull people's chain about "homosexuality" nor invoke their preconceived notions about what it may or may not be. Haiduc 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read again the text as it is today and I am happy with it. I think both point of view are expressed and homosexuality is properly qualified. honestly, it is only because I work with MSM, most of them who would never define themselves as homosexual and not even gay, that I find, in general, that attempt at using the word for animal who never had a chance to express themselves, is a bit pushing. But again, it looks fine like it is Roger jg 07:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the language so that it reflects that the links are about animals in general and not specifically for lions. User:Sohola

The linked-to article that's a guide for an Anthro 101 field trip says that one kind of agonistic behavior is mounting. It is silent on whether mounting can be sexual. The other one, which is about domesticated animals, indeed includes a sentence denying that mounting is sexual. Given the context, this statement may just apply to dogs, or it may just apply to domesticated animals (the subject of the article), or it may be extended to *all* animals. Since the Anthro 101 guide is dubious as a source to begin with, and is not relevant to this subsection regardless of its quality, I'm removing it. Whether the other one is appropriate I think requires more discussion. --Atemperman 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Taking a look at the other article (the one on dogs) two aspects spring out. First, there is evidence of bias since masturbatory behavior in dogs is labeled "misdirected sexual behavior." Secondly, the author does state that "If there is no sexual reason, the mounting is an assertion of social rank," obviously implying that mounting may well be of a sexual nature is there is a sexual reason. Finally, the article is generally about domesticated animals and specifically about dogs. Thus the source is 1.dubious, 2.not supportive of the sense derived from it by Sohola, and 3.off-topic. I see no reason to keep it.
Further to Sohola's suggestion that I do not wish to see contrasting opinions in the article - that is NOT so. I will be glad to see other views represented as long as they are responsibly and appropriately sourced. Articles on dogs, freshman shool trips to the zoo, and your recollections about past tv programs do not fit the bill. Haiduc 11:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


It is now clear you have an agenda since you dont seem to mind lying that I put "recollections about past tv programs" in the article (this is not the first time you have lied about it). I would like to see you back that up with the exact date and diff (after all there are no secrets in wikipedia). User:Sohola

Sohola, rather than focusing on my presumed agenda (a personal attack that it is inappropriate and irrelevant) it would be better if you related to the very real issues I have brought up. The discussion is not about you and me (we are both very imperfect human beings) but about lions and about what is and what is not a germane source for an article on this topic. I am going to remove your article on dogs as a reference since, as I pointed out before, it is not about lions and you have also misused it, perhaps inadvertently, since it does not say what you imply it says. As for the tv program, you are the one who keeps on bring up what you saw on tv as a validity gauge for information related to lions. I will be very happy if you stop bringing it up and if so I promise to not mention it any more. I am also going to remove all information for which I have requested references - you have not provided them and instead decided to engage in ad hominem attacks. Haiduc 01:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I dont think I am interested in any further discussion unless you produce proof that I included "recollections about past tv programs" in the article. Not doing so or inability to do so would hurt your credibility, of course. Your actions speak louder then my words - lying to further your argument could point to a hidden agenda. This is not a personal attack and I have nothing against you personally. This is just a reality check in order to keep this article free from activism. Both points should be laid out in a way that doesnt undermine each other. The TV show itself is not important to the article. Its only context in this is that if not for it then I would have ignorantly gone along with your edits. User:Sohola

If you will review your edits above you will find at least one instance, like your "more then one Animal Planet show said that...". Not an appropriate standard for judging what should or should not go into an encyclopaedia article. But this is not what I want to spend my time doing, and I wish we could move on to discussing the lion article and not old tv shows. Haiduc 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC request. I'm not anyone important, just another Wikipedian with an opinion. My area of focus on Wikepedia is Sexology and Sexuality articles primarily. First, my view is that the primary goal is the wuality and integrity of the article. I think faithfully representing different aspects of the Lion, and its behaviour is one of the goals. If there is a difference in perspective, and we can document both of them with reliable sources, we need to make a balanced article including those perspectives.

Two editors seem to be having a dispute here. I am asking for you to stop pushing against one another, and focus on the quality of the article. Please let the others express their (verifiable) views. It is "our" article, and not any one persons. It makes no difference if one or both of you has an agendum here. There quality of the article is the focus.

My first read of the article gave me an initial perspective that the behavior described did not need to be described as "Homosexual". I looked at the sources referenced, and the primary source, what appears to be a credible source, describes it exactly in that way. My view, as is the view of most scientifically oriented people, is that homosexuality is a behaviour that can be the result of sexual orientation(genetic), or situational and environmental (non-genetic) factors. Although it looks unusual in this context (animal behaviour) it is documentable. As such, it should be one pespective allowed in this article, IMO.

Since the article is not primarily about animal sexuality, this is but one small part of a complex animal, that is part of a larger social structure within an ecosystem. As we hardly understand our own sexuality well, trying to make judgments and opinions about Lion behaviour would seem to be a poor choice. Reporting it accurately, within the larger context seems appropriate. Accordingly, it ought to be a smalll part of this article, with a brief description. People who find that aspect of interest can look at the references for further information. I see one small paragraph here, and it seems to state it factually, without injection of value judgements.

Attempts from either perspective to anthropomorphize this and try to comment on homosexuality within humanity is just not appropriate here. This is a scientific article, and injection of values and moral judgments just doesn't belong.

Are there objections to leaving that portion exactly as it is now, or does some editor want to modify it in some way?

Atom 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also think that this needs to not be politicized, for obvious reasons. The present form of the section is satisfactory, if a bit short, but as I have expressed before, I consider the introduction of the text on primates to be out of place, both because it strikes an "exculpatory" tone where none is needed, and because it confuses the issue by falsely contrasting a discussion about monkeys to one on lions. On the other hand I would welcome a text describing mounting employed to establish hierarchy among lions but not among other species, which would belong in an article on mounting and not in an article on lions. Haiduc 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to the request for Comment - like Atom I'm a random Wikipedian coming across this debate from outside. I have no problems with the short paragraph on homosexual activity (including the use of the word homosexual). I do, however, find the next line about primate sexual activity to be somewhat jarring and out of place. After all this article concerns lions not primates. --Canadian Osprey 15:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate typo in source

One of our references is to a news article at this page. Unfortunately, there's a typo in it that makes its meaning unclear:

...he has never come across any prolonged homosexual behaviour in the wild. However, he does mention ‘a couple of cases of genetic mutant males that behaved exactly like males’.

You can't tell whether the intended meaning is females acting like males, or males acting like females. What do we do in cases like this? Is the source "spoiled"? That would be too bad, as it's certainly on-topic. Additionally, the page is linked to the statement that same-sex mounting is dominance behavior. However, the article makes no mention of dominance behavior! It presents same-sex relationships as companionate. DanB†DanD 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem with it, I am sure we can interpret it as meaning to say "females" since it makes no sense otherwise. As for whether it should be kept or not, I'll leave that up to others. We still have the problem with the corruption to the Bagemihl text, which at this point misrepresents the conclusions of those researchers. Haiduc 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeping politics out of zoology

I look forward to the time when this matter can be resolved on its merits, and not by means of insulting one's fello editors. Until then, and until the monkey business (primates are NOT felines) is removed from the article, it needs to be tagged as biased. Haiduc 23:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ligers and Tigons (SHORT COMMENT)

Ligers and Tigons are very popular in pop culture, but in real life, tigons and ligons are rare. Some do not beleive in these creatures even though the pictures are right in front of them. I can see why it's hard to beleive that lions and tigers actually get along and don't rip each other's fur off during the liger-tigon process. Also, lions are fastinating creatures, as well as tigers.

Clarification on references for homosexuality

Please post specific snippets from Bagemihl's book that clarify the context under which he uses the following references:

  • J.B. Cooper, "An Exploratory Study on African Lions" in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48;
  • R.L. Eaton, "The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion" in Eaton, ed. The World's Cats, vol.II; pp.3-58; Seattle, 1974;
  • G.B. Schaller, The Serengeti Lion; University of Chicago Press, 1972

If these works do not contain studies that further the notion of homosexuality as presented by Bagemihl then I dont see any reason why these should be used in this article to lend credence to Bagemihl's work.

Bagemihl paraphrases rather quoting, and his references have been included as per standard Wikipedia procedure, and since no creditable source exists to question his integrity we will not engage here in wild goose chases. Haiduc 11:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Blanking of controversial section

I must take issue with your categorization of my deletion of the text on the lion page as "vandalism." Although you refer to the action being "against consensus," in reading the lion talk page it seems to me that there is far from a consensus that the passage is worthy of inclusion in the article itself. I will not revert the edit back to the way it was, but please understand that there is not a consensus on that issue as there are a number of opposing views on the subject. I will continue to present my own view on the talk page rather than reverting the edit but I do not consider what I did to be vandalism. Thank you. 149.79.54.95 15:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part. I gave you a blanking warning because you blanked an entire controversial section with no previous discussion on the talk page. I did not mean to offend you, only to warn you that your actions were not the proper method for expressing your disagreement.

I am participating in the discussion on the talk page, because we are trying to reach a consensus. I responded to the RfC to assist in that. So far, we had come to an agreement (cautious, and still new) that the wording being used (the whole section that you blanked) was finally acceptable to all parties participating in the discussion.

Perhaps you can see that when you came along and blanked that section, after many people had agreed to the wording, you upset the balance, and basically stepped on the toes of all of the people who agree with you, as well as the ones who do not agree with you. I think is is perfectly fair for you to not agree with some of the things in the article. But, if you want it changed, you need to go through discussion on the talk page and get other to agree. An alternative might have been for you to edit that section to your liking and suggest that as a compromise that everyone could live with. But given the RfC and active discussion, in this case discussing it first might have been better for that also.

I hope that you will participate with us in finding wording that improves the quality of the article, while being comfortable for all of the participants. Atom 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The RFC consensus appears to me that the section belongs in the article. There was some disagreement over terminology, but wholesale blanking was inappropriate. Durova 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about primates

I realize that this was a mighty battle now dying down, and that I should leave well alone, but it seems extremely goofy to have a paragraph about primates at the bottom of the "Reproduction and Sexuality" section.

Good Article Failure

I do not believe that the article is yet a good article candidate as there still seems to be significant disagreement, particularly on the talk page, re the "Same-Sex Relations" portion of the article. Thus, I would not yet define it as "stable", which is one of the requirements for "good articles." Likewise, I'm not entirely sure that all points of view are presented fairly, but the primary reason I did not pass the article was for the reason of stability. I think it may be a better candidate once this issue becomes resolved at some point down the road. Ronnymexico 01:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank God

This article (lion article) is awesome. Great and accurate information, good job by everyone that helped make this article. There are some minor disputes, especially regarding the "lion homosexuality" issue, but it looks like it will be resolved, it's really no big deal. I was just looking at the Tiger article, which has always struggled with edits, strong disputes, etc and it seems like the tiger article is now ravaged by a major edit war, it is now a FULLY protected article that cannot be edited until ALL disputes are resolved. Sadly, the tiger advocates and main editors are not compromising (despite moderators requesting WP:Mediation Cabal, WP:Mediation and then Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee with sanctions), so a resolution doesn't seem likely. I have been following several of these articles and the editors of the tiger article have dragged it into the dirt. First, they exaggerated weights of the tiger, claimed tigers kill large bears and crocs, claimed nonsense about elephants and rhinos being victims to tigers, and than went as far as to edit the lion, croc and bear articles to suit them. I don't understand the need to exalt one animal so much, it's too bad because the article wasn't that bad before. Some bear, lion and especially croc advocates are handing it to them right now.

Copied from lions in Europe

The following was copied from Lions in Europe. (Author was User:Pmaas; Main Edit)

Lions in European zoos

Lions are kept in most European zoos. Most of these captive lions are from Africa, but some zoos also keep Asiatic lions. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) runs European Endangered Species Programmes (EEP) and European StudBooks (ESB) programmes for over 250 species, and this number continues to grow. One of those species is the Asiatic lion which is included in the EAZA Felid Taxon Advisory Group (TAG). There is an EEP for the Asiatic lion, which is coordinated by Stefan Jonsson in Parken Zoo in Eskilstuna, Sweden. [3] (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. 2005. Animal Collections - Taxon Advisory Groups - European breeding programmes. Downloaded on 1st June 2006 from http://www.eaza.net.)

If everybody agrees, I will integrate it slightly modified into the lion-article. as "lions in zoos" User:Altaileopard 12:15, 05 Okt 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine to me as a starting point, though a little heavy on the acronyms. The European Studbooks can probably be removed, as its focus is amphibians and reptiles. I know the Felid Taxon Group conserves big cats, and I'm guessing one of its big conservation programmes is for the Asiatic lion. TransUtopian 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
And fine by me! Peter Maas 10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arduous

"Lions can reach speeds of about 60 km/h (37 mph), but they are not very arduous, so they have to come quite close to their prey before starting the attack. They sneak up to the victim until they reach a distance of about 30 m (98 feet) or less."

Arduous? From context, I assume that means they don't have the endurance to be long-distance runners. Is that correct, and if so, I think a different word/description there'd be good. TransUtopian 00:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. thank you for correction, I changed it. Altai 15:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Altaileopard, for importing and translating the Habitat, Diet and Evolution sections from the German Wikipedia. You're a star. TransUtopian 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC response

The material regarding same-sex relations should be removed from this page. If advocates of the research-in-question wish to promote such research, they can do so within an article on homosexuality or homosexual acts within the animal kingdom, etc. The inclusion of such material detracts from this article.--Black Flag 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit Issue/Vandal

I can't seem to get the vadalism on the top of the page off, that being (MY FAVORITE BIG CAT, BESIDES THE TIGER, WHICH IS ALSO AWSOME). When I go to the edit page, it claims that the vadalism is an old edit, and has since been taken off in the current version. Yet, everytime I return to the article page itself, the vadalism is clearly there. Is there an issue with the code, or Wikipedia itself, or is it my current computer? Any thoughts are appreciated. Thank you. Zidel333 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I request that this page be restricted from unregistered users. I just came across (MITCH IS A STUD I LOVE KELSEY)and it seems that this hasn't been the only case. "Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

Taking a look at the sexuality section, other then the dispute of whether to call it homosexual behaviour or something else (which is a dispute I don't want to get in to) I don't really get why there is any fuss. We are simply reported a documented facet of lion behaviour. It's only 3 sentences in a resonably long article and it's clearly not overwhelming the article Nil Einne 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

I ran across this article while tracking edits made by another vandal, and I've noticed much vandalism here, along with some apparently incomplete removal. I'm commenting here so my reversion to an edit 3 days old doesn't seem suspicious. For instance, on December 5, 86.3.33.75 made the following three edits: [10] [11] [12]. The net result ([13]) was the moving of an entire section (with no changes; I checked with an external tool) and the deletion of an entire section (and the text "hello"). I'm assuming the move/delete was without good reason. The deletion was never restored. It appears that the last version by Amyeis ([14]) is the last good one, so I'm reverting to that for now. There has been no new content added since then. I'm hoping I didn't miss something even further back. A quick scan of the article doesn't reveal any obvious problems. --Fru1tbat 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/o/Talk%7ELion_Archive_1_c340.html"