Talk:Jim Corbett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Doesn't the last part about the Hindi Translation sound too much like a commercial for the book and the writer? Surely this is not Encyclopedic!!

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content Not Up To Wikipedia Standards[edit]

Ths article is deffinitely not up to Wikipedia standards. Almost nothing is cited. In addition, there are subjective claims in it such as "Corbett was a man of integrity and a person with great character." There are also highly dubious claims that sound like folk tale legend rather than actual fact, such as "An excellent hunter with keen senses, Corbett sometimes stalked to within twenty feet of his prey." That seems extordinarily unlikely unless said prey was blind, deaf, and had no sense of smell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.8.148 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jim Corbett[edit]

He is Indian born to Irish parents living in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.28.118 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is Irish, born in Naini Tal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.40.200 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He should be either hunter or Conservationist.One cannot be both at once. Ishanaba (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the text more carefully, and you will learn that he wasn't both at once, but a hunter turned conservationist, like quite a few others were too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he killed bachelor of powalgarh in 1930 , when he was 55 years of age. this tiger was reported to be quite big , so many hunters tried to kill it to bag trophy. it proves basically he was a hunter. so dont led people into believing he only killed maneating tigers and leopards. there is no data how many tigers and leopards (who are normal, not man-eaters) jim had killed for a game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviSBohra (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Corbett rarely ever killed a tiger or a leopard that wasn't a man-eater. The Bachelor was a very rare exception and Corbett later regretted killing him. STCooper1(68.19.146.93 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, the main page says that Jim Corbett never killed a tiger that wasn't man-eater, while reading his book "Jim Corbett's India" by R.E Hawkins, the chapter "Chowgarh Tigers" mentioned that he made a mistake and killed non-confirmed man-eater tiger (male mate) of a man-eating tigress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.146.3 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Champawat Tiger[edit]

There's considerable difference in the year cited for Corbett killing the Champawat Tiger (tigress). They vary from 1907 to 1911 to 1926. I'm told that his memoir, 'Maneaters of Kumaon', only states that he killed the Champawat cat four years after a bounty was established.

This site seems as good as any, stating that he slew nearly a dozen maneaters between 1907 and 1938, the Champawat being the first.

http://www.ofcats.com/2007/06/jim-corbett.html

Anybody have more definite information?

B Tillman 1-24-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btillman (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champawat tigress was killed in 1907, there is a photo of metal plate bearing the year 1907 in the gun awarded to jim by the then governor of united province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviSBohra (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing page title and URL from Jim Corbett (Hunter) to Jim Corbett (Conservationist)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move to primary name space. If someone feels that the disambiguated name is an issue, they can renominate this with a new suggest disambiguation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Corbett (hunter) → Jim Corbett — Added requested move template, see discussion below. jonkerz♠ 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Survey[edit]

  • Move as I believe this Corbett is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; semi-confirmed by WP:GOOGLETEST in #Discussion section. jonkerz♠
  • Oppose The boxer "Gentleman Jim" Corbett is of similar notability. Jim Corbett should remain as a disambiguation page. Tassedethe (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

There is enough discussion that Jim Corbett was a Hunter who turned Conservationist. Moreover his big cat hunting activities were later on limited to man-eaters only. It would be appropriate to change the heading, title and URL of the page from Jim Corbett (Hunter) to Jim Corbett (Conservationist) This is no way to hide his activities as a hunter but to stop creating prejudice in new generation about Jim Corbett being more recognized as a hunter. -- Harshonline (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. But think that the page title Jim Corbett (Conservationist) is as much inadequate as the current title. Everyone who reads the article learns that he was both — hunter and conservationist, so there is no way that a prejudice is created by just a page title. Since the article starts with his full name Edward James "Jim" Corbett I think it much more appropriate to use his full name as a page title, IF at all changing it, and as is anyway custom in wikipedia articles about people. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You maybe right here. I agree with your suggestion to change the page title to Edward James "Jim" Corbett

Harshonline (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we can agree that 'Jim Corbett' is the most well-known name of his; this rules out 'Edward James "Jim" Corbett' according to WP:COMMONNAME. Regarding the disambiguating term I believe that '(hunter)' should be kept, again as he is more well-known as a hunter. The possible negative connotations in the word "hunter" is not a reason to move the page. If you still feel that this page should be moved you may add {{subst:requested move|TheNewPageName}} to the top of this section to make the request listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. jonkerz♠ 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jonkerz' line of arguments. After all, it's the quality of information provided in the article about Corbett's change of mind that matters. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even i agree that Jim Corbett is the most well known name of him. And to some extent its true that Jim is well known as a Hunter. Yet we should never forget that he was among the first few who realised that big cats are on the verge extinction. Had it not been him, awareness for Tiger conservation would have at least taken few more decades. Moreover he was gripping writer in wild life and adventure class. These two activities do overshadow his man-eater hunting activities. Also Man-eater hunting can certainly not clubbed with Hunting for leisure.

Wikipedia articles, world over, carries huge weight in perception making and there is certainly a negative connotations in the word "hunter" right at the beginning. IF we can agree that Jim Corbett is the most recognized figure among all the personalities with the same name, we can go with the following first option else the second one. 1) Lets direct all Jim Corbett queries to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Corbett, and put up a link at the top of the page as following This article is about Jim Corbett, a British hunter, conservationist and naturalist. For other uses, see Jim Corbett (disambiguation) 2) Re-title the existing page by replacing hunter with either Writer or Conversationalist. -- Harshonline (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ BhagyaMani i strongly feel that title of article is also part of quality of article. I am sure this is first step towards taking this article to wikipedia standards. -- Harshonline (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's up to Wikipedia to make someone look "bad" och "good", we are supposed to just make them "look" for what they are and let the reader decide for themselves. That said, your second alternative is a good one, and it would also remove the possible bias you're referring to. I conducted an unscientific WP:GOOGLETEST using the search query "jim corbett" on the top 20 results. Note that '... a search for a specific John Smith may ... miss out all the useful references indexed under "John M. Smith" or "John Michael Smith"'. Searching without the quotes gives almost the same result. The results:
The hunter is without doubt the most referenced Corbett on Google Books and his namesakes on Google Search. This Wikipedia article is the top result. I added a move request to gather more input. jonkerz♠ 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by Harshonline's argument about "title of article is also part of quality". And think this is so far the best idea to change the article title to Jim Corbett. Acc to the Jim Corbett (disambiguation) page, there is no other article with this title anyway. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If books by people called Jim Corbett are excluded from the Google Books results, about 2/3 of the top 20 refer to the hunter/conservationist and 1/3 to the boxer. Peter E. James (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks everyone for turning this discussion as per the wikipedia rules. While i was trying to understand WP:GOOGLETEST i came to know this understanding about Wikipedia "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity" By removing the hunter tag in URLs and Title we can certainly take first step towards the same. -- Harshonline (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are the next steps now towards changing the page title ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh BhagyaMani even i waiting for that. Don't want to do something out of turn. Harshonline (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Which tiger is pictured in the "slain tiger" photo?[edit]

The photo of Jim Corbett and the slain tiger in this article is a slightly different version of the photo used in Champawat_Tiger. In the Jim Corbett article, the tiger is captioned as the "Bachelor of Powalgarh", however in the Champawat Tiger article, it is captioned as the Champawat Tiger. So it appears that at least one of the photos is mislabeled.

This topic was already raised by another user at Talk:Champawat_Tiger#Picture_of_the_tiger; I am cross-posting here to solicit more attention to the matter. --Burpen (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Somewhat in the spirit of WP:IAR, I'm moving the dab to James Corbett instead, which already redirects there. It doesn't look like the hunter was commonly called James Corbett, so this is as good a title as any for the dab. Generally, human name disambiguation pages aren't titled as nicknames unless they only contain people with the nickname. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Jim Corbett was moved (unilaterally) way back in 2005. Corbett the hunter is the primary topic over other Corbetts (most of the names in the dab page are either "James" or "Jimmy". It has been viewed 13693 times in the last 30 days, 3 times more than its nearest (Corbett the boxer at 5073 times, even though "Gentleman Jim" is not his common name which is "James John Corbett"). The present title of the article is problematic because of disambiguation brackets (people may also be searching for the strings Conservationist, naturalist etc. as noted in previous move) Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Solomon7968 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom, per WP:PAGEVIEWS. Solomon7968 02:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My first thought for Jim Corbett, and I'm sure many other people's, would be James J. Corbett, whose common name is "Gentleman Jim Corbett" (who calls him James John Corbett?). There is no clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NecrothespBut we decide the title of articles to aid our readers. This article is viewed 3 times more than the boxer. So definitely it is the primary topic. Solomon7968 16:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree this would be aiding our readers. We don't go on page views alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am concerned is that I suspect the present title is misleading to majority of readers because of the disambiguation brackets (hunter vs. Conservationist, naturalist etc.). The proposed move solves this ambiguity by creating the page "Jim Corbett (disambiguation)", so those who are looking for the boxer can easily get that. The present article titles does not affect the page views of the boxer (rather helps in increasing it) but makes life difficult for the hunter/Conservationist/naturalist. Even then this article is way ahead than other Jim/James/Jimmys in page views. Solomon7968 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@IP, OK that's fine but what about the other move? Solomon7968 10:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the move of the hunter, but I think the disambiguation page is misplaced, so should be moved to "James Corbett" regardless of whether this article is renamed or not. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge in Tigers of Chowgarh[edit]

The page on tigers of chowgarh is mainly about Jim Corbett and how he hunted them, not the tigers themselves. It's basically a summary of the section of his book that deals with those tigers so i think it would be appropriate to merge it into Jim Corbett#Hunting man-eating tigers and leopards. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely agree with the merge proposal. If there are any other tiger hunt summaries of a similar nature, they too should be merged here. Shyamal (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shyamal: There are, but I think it's best to discuss them one at a time. Each article is different and mass discussions tend to get stuck. WikiWisePowder (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how many tigers did he kill?[edit]

Can anyone point to a source that provides a definitive number? 2001:8F8:1623:4EBA:216F:8CE2:6332:9978 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC) R.E.D.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Corbett&oldid=1221898336"