} @BhagyaMani and LittleJerry: Believe it or not, a number of tigers have found it hard to penetrate the manes of male lions, and I have other cases as well! Tigers are supposed to have stronger bites than lions, so it doesn't make sense that if the mane offers no protection, then those tigers would find it hard to kill male lions by biting their throats! What I am basically saying is that the issue of whether or not the mane offers protection to the male lion is like the issue of whether a lion would beat a tiger in a fight, or vice-versa! If we are not going to have Tiger versus lion in Wikipedia, then I request that we ignore the controversial issue of whether or not the mane offers protection, and state what has been agreed, like that lionesses prefer male lions with large, dark manes! Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. We are going with what experts say not some users personal bias. Two users have reverted you so stop with the edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which experts you're talking about. I agree with what BhagyaMani said. Leo1pard (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC); edited 15:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are poor sources compared to want we have. Packer goes into detail and provides evidence as to why the manes are not for protection. A 20+ year old statement that they "could" be used have been used for protection doesn't compare. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just leave it at that, experts disagree as to whether or not the mane can protect the male lion's throat or neck in confrontations, for different reasons! Putting all the evidence together, the mane offers a degree of protection, but it's not perfect. Leo1pard (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that you are the one with personal bias, not me! Where it suits you, you will use experts to say that the mane doesn't offer protection, but ignore the evidence which states otherwise! What scientists or experts say must be backed up with evidence, otherwise, it is irrelevant! What I said above is factually correct, that a number of tigers have found it hard to penetrate the lion's mane, and not all experts, who have studied lions or big cats, agree with Packer, whose study doesn't take into account what happened elsewhere! Leo1pard (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not pay attention to what I said. "Packer goes into detail and provides evidence as to why the manes are not for protection." This is discussed in the article itself! You think a videos of a captive fight between a lion and tiger narrated by an anonymous person is on that level then you shouldn't be editing a FA. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was nice. Tigers and other felids often aim for the throats or napes, but for lions, it's different! If the lion's mane offered no protection at all, then the fighting style of lions should be like that of tigers and other felids, in which they aim for the throats and napes! Basically, there is evidence for and against the idea of the mane protecting the throat or neck. Leo1pard (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC); edited 13:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR. Thats on tigers not lions. Unmaned lions generally don't target the neck. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what I was saying! Tigers and other felids aim for the necks, whereas lions generally don't, so lions have a style of fighting which is different to tigers and other felids! If the mane offered no protection, then lions should be doing what tigers and other felids do, that is to target the neck! Leo1pard (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument you are going to win, so please stop being disruptive. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all experts agree with Packer, so WP:Boomerang! Leo1pard (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you literally just not pay attention to what the other person is saying? "Unmaned lions generally don't target the neck" "During fights, including those involving maneless females and adolescents, the neck is not targeted as much as the face, back and hindquarters." LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, lions are social animals, unlike most other felids. Cubs get taught how to hunt and fight from their parents, who have a different lifestyle to most other felids. Does that help to explain why maneless lions fight in a different way to tigers? Leo1pard (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit. Leo1pard (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying WP:BLUDGEON into getting your way. Drop it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12 I said that I agree with this edit of LittleJerry, so stop your needless arguments! You get into arguments or conflicts for no reason! Leo1pard (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As per the above, the notion that the mane protects in fights seems to be not supported by a the recent sources mentioned, and we should not even mention this at all - particularly not with the unattributed phrasing "some say..." which is contrary to WP:WEASEL. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, we should revert to the FA situation of not mentioning this at all, and I have removed it again.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Amongst others, Dereck Joubert and Kailash Sankhala said that the mane does protect the lion's neck, so like I said above, this is a disputed topic. After attempting to hide the controversy from the article, I actually requested that we ignore the controversial issue of whether or not the mane offers protection, and state what has been agreed, like that lionesses prefer male lions with large, dark manes! Leo1pard (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC); edited 15:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry Let me ask you something. Normally, you are happy to trim stuff, and get into conflict with other users, like myself and BhagyaMani, by doing so. So this time, why are you insistent on keeping a WP:one-sided argument? If this isn't personal bias, then what is it? Leo1pard (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC); edited 08:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, stop being creepy and trying to dig through my edit history in hopes of making a petty point. I can trim things that I think are unimportant and add things that I think are important. Now, stop beating a dead horse and move on. LittleJerry (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you're happy to trim the work of others, like myself and E.poul, but not that the same should be done to you. If that's how you feel, then I advise you to join a forum, where you can argue whatever you want, without that fear. Leo1pard (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're bordering on Wikipedia:HOUND. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]