Jump to content

Talk:Bear attack/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge

Yes, agreed should be merged with Bears--Astral Highway (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article sort of seems like something a high schooler wrote for a 10th grade science paper. I don't know enough about bears to really say I'd be a good candidate for it, but if worse comes to worst I'll at least give it a once over. Ftc08 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

am browsing a few articles in the category animal attacks in the vain hopes that anything relevant would be said over say recent figures and the relation with climate change, or anything else interesting like about the adaption of several species into a more developed environment (or caged in zoo's...) etc. most of the animalX-attack articles, are actually rather obvious pro-hunting pieces. for an example in this one 'inuits in the 1900s, 2000s diminished stocks by subsistence hunting', rotfl. no mention of any culling program whatsover and there have been 1000s.62.163.248.127 (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference No 27 (WOLVES, BEARS AND HUMAN ANTI-PREDATOR ADAPTATIONS) pdf seems to be a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.36.185 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Americacentric?

I am somewhat bothered by the fact that with the exception of the species section, the majority of the article deals with the topic from a largely American perspective. What about India, or Japan? They have lots of literature on the topic regarding their own bears.

Basically, I don't know how to type the Americocentrism icon, so I'm writing here.Mariomassone (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors from India and Japan are not discouraged from contributing to the article. Batvette (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, what would be nice for this kind of thing would be a template that adds something to the bottom (yes, I'd prefer it down there) of the article that invites contributions from editors familiar with other perspectives on the topic. I fear that marking something as "NPOV" or "not global enough" or "Americocentric" has the unfortunate effect of chastising people for writing about what they know, where it should instead be encouraging the expansion of the article.
Basically, editors from India or Japan are never discouraged from contributing, but sometimes it does seem like North Americans are.
J.M. Archer (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the...

...silly template because there was nothing here to make it clear what, exactly, whoever added it was complaining about. Furthermore, it bugs me that the thing appears between a semicolon and the clause it introduces, which is a just-plain-evil way of interrupting the flow of the prose (which doesn't need any help in that regard).

If you're going to add it back (again), A) clarify what exactly it is you have a problem with (and if you don't, but are adding it back "procedurally," just don't) and B) be nice and put it after the period at the end.

I'm not certain who would argue that people and bears are NOT cautious around one another, as a general rule. There are some sorts of bears that aren't shy around people, but these are considered aberrations and, more often than not, are killed or relocated for their boldness.

J.M. Archer (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite enjoyed the article. And it's useful given the rise in fatalities in recent years because of bear attacks. The only point I take exception to is when the author states that "Most people are incapable of reaching speeds even remotely close to this number; thus, it is impossible for a human to outrun a bear." It is possible for a person to outrun a bear. I should know, since I've done it, had a verified eyewitness, a police report and a written account by a reputable news reporting agency. In that respect, my experience may be unique. While others might have outrun a bear, no one else has had an eyewitness account that this is possible. The one disclaimer I'll add, is that I don't recommend that anyone every try to provoke a Wild Bear thinking they can outrun it. Because they may not live to tell their tale. Even if they live, they'll probably be maimed for life since there are many accounts of people who tried to outrun one and failed.

64.180.45.219 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Bear Runner

Do you have a citation or link to this "written account by a reputable news reporting agency"? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I could not find a link on the Internet, as this incident occurred during the mid-1980s, which was prior to the appearance of the modern World Wide Web and the average computer in existence at that time did not either use nor have access to the old Internet. Since most articles were not published online in those days, but only in paper form, they would not have made their appearance in an electronic text or graphic format during that period. However, there are at least 3 newspapers which published the incident for which copies can be obtained from the microfiche archive at my the Main Public library branch where I live. If you have an email address where a PDF scan could be sent, I could do so. Otherwise, the PDF could be uploaded online with a link indicated. 64.180.45.219 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Bear Runner
Actually, if you provide the name of the publication, author and date I should be able to find it. There are some paid databases I already have access to. As long as it is a major newspaper, I should be able to find it. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Encounters between humans and black bears be merged into Bear attack. There is no need for a separate article. While Encounters between humans and black bears seems like a term paper, there's some decent references and content that can be used in the main bear attack article CutOffTies (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did the redirect.
I didn't actually do the merge, but the content is here: User:Mjones10

polar bears missing

The polar bear is missing in the list by bears and nature. I do believe polar bears do hunt stalk humans as prey and hence why people carry guns in those territories --41.177.4.235 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sympatry

I replaced the word sympatric in the brown bears section with respect to Native Americans living in the same geographic region as grizzlies. Although this word has one definition that means "geographically overlapping", it is confusing in a nature article to use it thus. In biology, sympatry generally refers to species that may interbreed but do not. It is used in this sense earlier in the article (more appropriately) to refer to brown and black bears, and there I left it though it is a bit jargon-y. Richigi (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not "....on humans"?

Wolf attacks on humans and others have "on humans" in their titles, but this article doesn't follow that pattern. Which is better, to have "...s on humans" in the titles of these articles, or without? FYI, I notice that Dingo attack also covers ones on domesticated animals. Chrisrus (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

RABID BEAR!!!!!

There seems to be nothing here, unlike on other such articles, about rabid bear attacks. Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How to avoid attack

It seems to be somewhat counterintuitive that this article contains no guidance on the behavior to be followed when a bear attack happens/is imminent. That information can be found however at the Bear danger article, but again, I would rather expect that information under the Bear attack article. Not sure, whether this has to be changed, but wanted to draw the editors attention to it anyway. 84.236.14.122 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see throughout the article, the methods used to survive any bear attack vary widely, are highly dependent on the situation/motives of the bear, and are even poorly understood. Thus, as an encyclopedia, and not a guidebook for how to behave in the wilderness, it seems irresponsible and unnecessary for WP to include this information without a relative glut of broadly applicable and well verified sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5A00:2E:64A2:3C:7FC9:EDBB (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

thus, it is impossible for a human to outrun a bear.

But truly, the question is not whether you can outrun the bear, but whether you can outrun your friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5A00:2E:64A2:3C:7FC9:EDBB (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bear attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bear attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted sentence regarding rarity of bear attacks

I removed the following sentence from the second paragraph of the article:

"Taylor Y. Cardall and Peter Rosen, in their article "Grizzly Bear Attack" published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine documented 162 bear-inflicted injuries in the United States between 1900 and 1985."

Although I cannot access the the study by Cardall and Rosen (2003), I find it unlikely that 162 cases are documented in an article that is three pages long (pp. 331-333). Rather, the authors perhaps cite research regarding this claim. If so, that source should be provided instead.

But the main reason for removing the sentence is as follows: the suggestion here is that there's *only* been 162 bear-related injuries in the US between 1900 and 1985. This can't be right. A few paragraphs below (in the Wiki article), the claim is made that 107 injuries were reported between 1964 and 1976 in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. If bears injured 107 people in 12 years in one park, they must've injured more than 162 people in 85 years in the entire country. Having both claims here risks losing credibility. I recognize that a reported injury differs from one that is documented in scientific literature, but the motivation of the second paragraph is to suggest that bear attacks are relatively rare, and I think better evidence can be found to support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbopash (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other issues, that ref definitely is not suitable for the claim - it documents a single attack. Here's the abstract.. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: American Studies 101

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikicalico, IpomoeaConvolvulacea (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CSU ENG PROF (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bear_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1218686807"