Lion vs Tiger: Consenses Request 

Hello Keith, I was wondering if you could help fix the lion vs tiger topic, it seems the topic has a certain someone with abusuing wikipedias ethics and using it to pump out some type of bias supremacy, cherry picking and being subjective, even contradicting his own guidelines he uses, makes false accusations and is hypocritical to his own suggestions.

I'd like to start it off with suggesting to review the revision of its current and compare it to a previous one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff;=prev&oldid;=591817160

Changes were made simply because some of the data was unreliable as stated in the talk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiger_versus_lion

I have learned that I must only make comments on the edits, and not the editors, so I will try and keep it as so to better adress it. My main delima is, this topic has been unchecked for years, and has no true consensus that is confirmed reliable and un-bias, so I would like to request if you could share the info with a few others to develop a basic un-bias assesment, I'd like to start it off with pointing out a guide line:

Under its:

History

The qualifications: Should be of historical signifcance, so only people with back grounds of Ph.d and Masters degrees should be accepted for reliability and credability via Historians.

Physical comparison

The qualifications: Should be adressed on a species scale, the historical significance is graded on its history, so it must refraim from cherry picking sub-speices via bengal and siberian, but then leave out the malay, sumatran, bali ect and include all of them to reach an average.

Accidental fights in captivity

The qualifications: All historical/modern accounts should be fully brought to the awareness of the world/public, the details should be mentioned for both sides regardless if its a un-fair fight of gender, age, and quanity/odds, all documentation should be accepted according to reliablility, as of now there is only pro-tiger data that is in effect as pure insinuation, via cherry picked while other reliable sources that supports the lion is being constantly erased with no viable reasons other than false accusations and making things up.

Expert opinions

The qualifications: Should be upon people with observation upon seeing them fight, an opinion from someone with experince working with these animals is not enough and holds no merits since the topic is specifically on fighting, if they haven't seen them fight (has no cites mentioning a observed fight) it shoulden't be used, only people who have been eye witnesses to conflicts between the two should be used for credability.

I am suggesting a more fair assesment since what is in place now is subjective, bias and pro-data, both sides of the coin should be mentioned, all the substance should be mentioned both ways, and a fair assesment on what is avaliable to add in should be implimented both ways of its reliability and credability.

Thank you for your time