#Mike the tiger video ambush predator plus#

I just identified the long term vandalism attempt of the above ip editor who has been trying to force his bear superiority theory into multiple articles over the years and I just pointed it out, and many corrections were actually made by other editors not by myself (e.g. Note I am not the one who wrote that section, it was the collective effort of multiple editors over the years and most of the sources have been in the article. He insisted his content based on forum posts and fan sites have been 'peer reviewed' by other forum posters and were more reliable than the scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals and his vandalism attempts were ALL reverted by other editors and admins before. The above identical attack message has been posted in multiple talk pages (relevant or not) by the same person under different ip addresses. Mike.BRZ ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Reply Thanks Mike. I think though that the circus tales should be removed and we should report only their interactions in the wild. Details like 'how big or old the bear was' are irrelevant unless the source mentions it, we just report what the sources says. I'll help with checking the sources, I already corrected the '22 vs 12', the source does state confrontations were observed (not 44 though) and even brakes it down to how many of the confrontations were initiated by a bear or a tiger and the percentage of how many of those confrontations ended up with one or the other dead. Tigers DO prey on brown bears, but ALMOST ALWAYS cubs and subadult females.Įven if we don't change the articles, I think it's fair to at least put a tag that 'the neutrality of this article or section is disputed.' - Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.214.44 ( talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Reply Īgain, bigcat82, the forum CITES THE SAME PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL! So the source is the JOURNAL, NOT THE FORUM! - Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.214.44 ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Reply

And now even COUGARS regularly dominate brown bears according to him? Guys, the neutrality of our bear and tiger articles is SHOT. Clearly just a big cat fanboy cherry picking data. Bigcat82 also complained about 'undue weight' being given to bears in the tiger article, but he has turned around and done the same with the bear article. įorums aren't generally allowed as sources on the article itself, but it IS fair to point out this forum contains the SAME peer reviewed authors he cites stating no male adult bears were killed. Now the source here states up to 40% of a tiger's diet is bears, which contradicts his other sources, and he's cool with it? BIAS, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, VANDALISM, and violation of wiki's NPOV.Īlso, this forum contains the SAME PEER REVIEWED SOURCES Bigcat uses, and clearly it is stated that of the bears killed, NONE were adult males. Brown bears predated on by tigers are generally under 400 pounds and smaller than the tiger. The truth is BOTH animals kill each other, bears have been DOCUMENTED killing fully grown adult male tigers (see past sources), and that they REGULARLY follow tigers without showing fear, NOT rarely. However careful examination of the sources reveals original resource and stacking in a way to make it sound like tigers regularly dominate adult bears which other sources have proven again and again is not the case. In the tiger article like this one, he has removed valid sourced material and cherry picked bits of 'peer reviewed' material.

#Mike the tiger video ambush predator plus#

He has failed again and again to show valid sourced material of 600 pound plus adult bears being killed by tigers. In no section of the source where it claims 22 bears versus 12 tigers were killed in confrontations does it mention the size of either animal, nor distinguish from predation. I'm sorry but once again, BIGCAT82 is cherry picking sources to support his bias for tigers versus bears.