Talk:Polar bear/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Zoo

A tv program and various internet sources state that zoos that keep polar bears worldwide are too hot for them and are turning them crazy. No note of this on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.87.230.28 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Polar Bears in Iceland

The map shows that there are some polar bears in northern Iceland. If this is true, this fact should be mentioned in the text.82.154.80.140 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Polar bears were indigenous to Iceland when polar ice more regularly extended south and still swim ashore to the north either from Greenland or from drifting ice floes. 2 were found (and, sadly, shot) there this summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.162.29 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this also should be mentioned in the text. There aren't currently any proposals for their reintroduction in Iceland ? Of course, this also needs the proper sources.85.242.236.177 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There must be some kind of mistake having been made in the map. The last time a polar bear visited Iceland, it was immediately shot - because it is no longer considered indigenous to the island. On the other hand - Spitzbergen is not marked as polar bear territory - which is wrong. Polar bears are found on Spitzbergen.

Female penises?

I read that 50% of female polar bears also have a penis. Anyone else read this? Personally I think this would be a neat factoid to add. Actually its the #1 fact on useless knowledge.com, whose facts seem to check out, as I have seen some confirmed by Wikipedia. Link is http://www.unkno.com/toplist. LarsendeSLO (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would bet that is untrue. They might be confused with hyenas. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that useless knowledge.com may have misunderstood what they were reading. Female pseudohermaphrodite polar bears at Svalbard, Enlarged clitoris in wild polar bears (Ursus maritimus) can be misdiagnosed as pseudohermaphroditism, Bear Trouble (page 4 has the bit about the Svalbard bears) and Diseases and Parasites of Marine Mammals of The Eastern Arctic (complete with pictures!). Also it appears form the small amount of information available at jstor that females are being mis-sexed as males which may lead to the confusion. And to finish off read the third paragraph. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Native to the Arctic Circle and Finland? Is this someone's attempt at a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.176.79 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was. I've changed it back to "Arctic Ocean and its surrounding seas". Thanks for catching that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Long swims in Aug 2008

Here's a recent addition to the article. I'm copying it here because it might be useful in a future sub-article on polar bears and global warming, for example: In the North Pole, Daily Mail reported the "heartbreaking picture of the polar bears with 400 miles to swim to the nearest sea ice."[1] The Alaska polar bears, on August, 2008, were swimming in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, and because of global warming, the polar ice packs or ice cap melted so much it is 400 miles away - too far for the bears to reach. The 9 polar bears were lost in the Arctic Sea and faced an impossible 640 kilometers swim back to shore because of global warming. The bears plunged into the sea after the ice floe where they lived melted. [2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

American Hunters / Dollars per Bear Kill

CBC is quoted/referenced as: Polar bears shot in such hunts, usually by free-spending American hunters, can bring in between $20,000 and $35,000 apiece in terms of economic spinoffs. I don't believe this fact was cited directly from Olayuk Akesuk but instead came from the author's research. While it could have been correct at time of publishing, my talks directly from the quota keepers is that the majority of Polar Bear Non-Native Hunters in Canada were European Hunters, and the community money brought in was closer to $50,000 per tag. I do not have a reference for this data so I cannot edit the article but would appreciate anyone with knowledge in this area getting a source to prove this point ( or bring it more up to date as $20,000 sounds abnormally low ). Until a decision is reached we should probably update the money in terms of year calculated due to inflation and other currency changes. What is the proper standard for doing this on Wikipedia? Also good job to the editors on walking the very thin line of maintaining neutral point of view on this one.BaShildy (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The nationality of the hunter may differ from one place to another. Prices may also differ depending on where the bear is taken from. Adventure Northwest offers hunts out of Holman (Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories) but give no price for the 2008 hunts. Ultimate Expiditions was quoting $22,500 for NWT bears but $19,500 for Nunavut bears, due to US import regulations, but that may be 2004 prices. Cabin Creek Wilderness Journeys also quotes $22,500 but with no date given. Smething else I noticed in the last link that I had forgot about is that by law all sports hunts must be done by dog team and not by snowmobile, but is CCWJ a reliable source? If a source could be found it could also be mentioned that the law has helped prolong the use of dog teams in the Arctic. Also a source for; "Approximately 50% of sport hunters with permits actually kill a polar bear, whereas for subsistence hunters the success rate is 100%." if it could be found explaining how the tags are handled that gives the 100% success rate. I don't know about other places but in Ulukhaktok a list was kept and a local hunter got a tag for 3-4 days, if they didn't get a bear the tag was returned and their name went to the bottom of the list. This went on until all the tags were used. However the sports hunters tags were never returned to the pool as they had purchased the tags and were required to return them to Fish and Wildlife. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the part about the 100% success rate: [3]. In communities like Ulukhaktok, an individual hunter might not succeed in getting a bear, but the community as a whole has a 100% success rate because the tags are transferable within the community. I can see that it wasn't really clear before. Regarding the dollars per bear kill, I'll re-check the numbers, however I think the higher figures probably include spin-off effects in the community in addition to the amount directly paid to the hunting outfitter. E.g. if you go on a trip you probably buy meals, souvenirs, taxi fares, etc. that aren't included in whatever tour package you sign up for. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Polar Bear Numbers

I realised that the status of the 19 recognised Polar Bears is mentioned twice in this article. Is this neccesary? Asteroixiii (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific research

Don't know if it's useful or not but Tagak Curley wan't the GNU to stop using science to count bears and use traditional knowledge instead, Nunavut MLA Curley calls for moratorium on polar bear research. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Physical characteristics

Just wanted to say that there are two references to blubber thickness in the same section: Polar bears are superbly insulated by their 10 cm (3.9 in) of blubber... Their 12 cm (4.7 in) layer of fat adds buoyancy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.230.2 (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second one. Cheers and thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only animals to hunt humans for food

I've removed this: "They are the only animal known to hunt humans for food." It's incorrect - see Man-eater. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot about that addition. Here's two links to recent stories re: tigers in India - one ought to work for you. Both are basically the same story: Displaced tigers stalk villagers in Indian jungle, Tigers, humans forced to cohabit India forest. Shenme (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Endangerment

I keep on hearing people say that Polar Bears will die out when the ice caps are gone... but I remember hearing a lecture where the lecturer said that Polar Bears are probably at not much risk as they have survived the icecaps melting at least twice before in the past. Can anyone verify this? By this I mean survived the icecaps at least melting twice. DarkLordofSith (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for a reliable source making this claim, and couldn't find one. Polar bears have existed for only 200,000 years, so if the Arctic ice cap has melted twice in the past 200,000 years then the claim would be true. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Polar_bear#U.S._endangered_species_legislation The fifth paragraph in this section currently says,

"An editorial in The New York Times said that "the two moves are almost certainly, and cynically, related."[22]

That is a misquote. The article says,

"These two moves are almost certainly, and cynically, related."

The attribution should be corrected, pointed to the primary (not secondary) source, and footnoted.

Regulatory Games and the Polar Bear, Editorial, New York Times, January 15, 2008

Thanks,

Theoglobal (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the quote and added the primary source as a footnote. I've left the secondary-source footnote in place as it demonstrates that the quote's notability. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Green polar bears!?!

Polar bears sometimes turn green in captivity. Polar bears turn this color when algae gets collected in their hollow guard hairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.103.97 (talk • contribs)

Thanks! This is already mentioned in the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC).

Challenging Arctic environment & immunological weakness

I've removed this: "In the challenging Arctic environment, even minor immunological weaknesses can lead to serious problems and rapid mortality." as it has had a citation needed tag since June and I can't find a source for it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"largest" again

About "the largest predator found in land", it turns that out that Kodiak bears are about the same size. I suppose that the sentence should read "The largest predator found in land, with the exception of Kodiak bears, which equals polar bears in size."

"Polar bear, (Ursus maritimus)" (PDF). U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. Retrieved 2008-03-22. Appearance. The polar bear is the largest member of the bear family, with the exception of Alaska's Kodiak brown bears, which equal polar bears in size. (Overview page)

This has been discussed previously several times:

• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_1#Exceptional_size.2Ffootnotes
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_1#Biggest_bear
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_2#polar_bear_shrinkage
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_2#that_sentence
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_2#Clarify_sentence
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_2#.22The_largest_extant_land_carnivore....22
• Talk:Polar_bear/Archive_3#Kodiak_Brown_or_Polar_Bear.3B_which_is_larger.3F

It seems that Kodiak has gone from having half a section to not being mentioned at all :P --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In a few days, if there are no other sources, I'll change the article to "[Polar bear] is the largest land carnivore, with the largest land predator title being shared with the Kodiak Bear[4][5]" --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm. The Kodiak is an Omnivore - not a Carnivore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim that Polar Bears are the world's largest carnivore found on land is quite incorrect. This title is held undisputed by the Southern Elephant Seal, with the Northern Elephant Seal, Walrus, and Steller Sea Lion all clearly larger than Polar Bears. The Weddell Seal is slightly smaller than male Polar Bears, but much larger than females, so is on average also larger. Can someone please revise the article to correct this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.224.225 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Presence on Most Vandalized Pages

Hello. I help to maintain the 'most vandalized' page and, having looked at the revision log of Polar bear, believe that it no longer merits inclusion on the page, and so will be removing it. Please do not hesitate to re-add it if IP vandalism becomes a problem again. Thanks. Hadrian89 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hello cool imformation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.143.52 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pollution section

I've removed this as it's been challenged since Oct 2008 and I can't find a source for it: "The overall significance to population health is uncertain because of unique features of polar bear biology such as summertime fasting." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous tense regarding food concern

"...primarily because the melting of its sea ice habitat reduces its ability to find sufficient food" should be changed to "...primarily because the melting of its sea ice habitat may reduce its ability to find sufficient food." The current IUCN report is purely speculative, especially in light of the current increase in the polar bear population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.54.159 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Polar Bears being killed by Global Warming:

Put your thoughts to this subject here142.162.120.225 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See: WP:FORUM. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim that polar bears are drowning due to having to swim further, due to less ice, is not actually asserted in the referenced article [6] but merely that four were found drowned; presumably for readers to draw their own conclusion. This is also brought to attention at WorldClimateReport [7] Therefore the sentence "Reduction in sea-ice cover also forces bears to swim longer distances, which further depletes their energy stores and occasionally leads to drowning" and it's reference should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcmackay (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article actually says this:

The effects of global warming are most profound in the southern part of the polar bear's range, and this is indeed where significant degradation of local populations has been observed. The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation, in a southern part of the range, also happens to be one of the best-studied polar bear subpopulations. This subpopulation feeds heavily on ringed seals in late spring, when newly weaned and easily hunted seal pups are abundant. The late spring hunting season ends for polar bears when the ice begins to melt and break up, and they fast or eat little during the summer until the sea freezes again.

Due to warming air temperatures, ice-floe breakup in western Hudson Bay is currently occurring three weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, reducing the duration of the polar bear feeding season. The body condition of polar bears has declined during this period; the average weight of lone (and likely pregnant) female polar bears was approximately 290 kg (640 lb) in 1980 and 230 kg (510 lb) in 2004. Between 1987 and 2004, the Western Hudson Bay population declined by 22%.

In Alaska, the effects of sea ice shrinkage have contributed to higher mortality rates in polar bear cubs, and have led to changes in the denning locations of pregnant females. Recently, polar bears in the Arctic have undertaken longer than usual swims to find prey, resulting in four recorded drownings in the unusually large ice pack regression of 2005.

What particular sentence are you objecting to? The one you quote seems to be well sourced. --TS 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Spinning out subarticles

Hi everyone,

After a long semi-hiatius from this article, I'd like to finish bringing it up to FA status. Having active collaborators would be fun, so if you have ideas about how to improve it, please let us know, or just be bold.

This is one of the longest mammal articles on Wikipedia, and although the FA Lion is longer, I think Polar bear would benefit from being shorter, with more of a focus on stable information and less of a focus on political "news". In particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Canada_and_the_United_States could be summarized with a link to a more detailed article, and we could do the same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#U.S._endangered_species_legislation . Does this make sense? Are there any other ideas for restructuring? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Range map

The range map shows no polar bears in Alaska. This is in error. --Weetoddid (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! That range map was added in February 2009. I've replaced it with the previous version, which is much more accurate (see http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/distribution_of_polar_bear_populations_in_the_arctic). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nature Colour of the Polar Bear

What is the actual colour of the Polar bear? White colour as all we know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.66.141.170 (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_Polar_Bear%27s_skin_color

Should be mentioned within the article, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism?

Somewhere on this page, the claim is made that "the polar bear is among the most sexually dimorphic of mammals, surpassed only by the eared seals." A source is then cited. However, the source does not appear to mention eared seals in any way, and if eared seals are more sexually dimorphic than polar bears, they are not the only ones: some true seals, like the elephant seals, are more dimorphic as well, at least in terms of size difference. Perhaps this should be changed. 76.201.159.136 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it and added a new ref. Cheers and thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

how much do polar bears weight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.208.92 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lede misleading concerning population status?

From the lede, "The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species, with 5 of the 19 polar bear subpopulations in decline." This indicates to the reader that the polar bear population is in decline; while this is a matter of debate and the "5 of 9" is cherry picked from the full quote to emphacize the decline theme. Suggest looking at ref 103, (US fish and wildlife) for a quote as to why the specis is listed as vulnerable, because of the potential threat posed by futute climate change...this would be more accurate.Mirboj (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

According to their most recent report (not yet published on the internet[8]), 8 of the 19 populations are now in decline, three more than they reported in 2005, while only one population is increasing (in the Canadian High Arctic). This would now change the figure to 8 of 9 studied populations. It's not entirely cherry-picking since they also highlight the problems that exist for the other polar bear populations despite lacking enough statistics to make a straight-forward claim, such as poaching, decreasing ice, increasing human activity within polar bear territories, decreasing food supplies, etc. - Io Katai (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the polar bears in recent years how long has the polar bears been located in the pittsburgh zoo.

when was the 1 st entered documented date of polar bears in the zoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.165.103 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Current Global population.

In one place, the article says that 5 populations are declining. In another place, it says 8. Which one is it? DannyJohansson (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The information that 5 subpopulations are declining was from 2005. The PBSG revised its estimate in 2009 to say that 8 subpopulations are declining. I've fixed the article to bring it up to date. Good catch, thanks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In an early section of the article, it states that biologists estimate a global population of 50,000 to 100,000 polar bears. In a later section, it states that the current numbers are between 20,000 and 25,000. Needless to say, this is a huge difference. Obviously, an accurate number needs to be agreed upon and placed consistently throughout the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.237.91 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that this issue was addressed some time ago. Sorry it's taken so long to respond directly to your comment on this Talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also confused about the numbers. The article states that there is not an effective way to estimate the actual Polar bear population, then it states two differing estimates of global population, and finally it states emphatically that the Polar Bear population is decreasing at a expanding rate, and makes dire predictions of extinction. Can you say POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.188.242 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to sort it out. I've removed this sentence from the lead, as a fair amount of explanation is needed in order to make sense of it: "However, as of yet, no population study has categorically assessed their total population size to determine a definitive count." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As of an hour ago, the only two differing estimates that I could find were "20,000 to 25,000" vs. "22,000 to 25,000". These figures are not much different from each other, so I took the wider and more recently-reported range and put it in both places. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Taylor

According to this article from the Nunatsiaq News, a reliable source, Mitchell Taylor, a prominent Polear Bear researcher has taken a contrary position to some other scientists on the subject of the threat of global warming to the bears. I added a single paragraph to the article on it, but it was deleted without discussion. I don't believe that a single paragraph from a notable scientist on his view on the subject is undue weight. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a recently added section that seemed to have been placed into the article solely because of the scientist's minority view on global warming. We don't normally include such views of single scientists unless they are very prominent or represent a significant minority within their field. This looked like undue weight so I removed it. --TS 08:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's views already have a full paragraph in the Predictions section and another quote elsewhere. The fact that many polar bear subpopulations are increasing is already discussed in the article as well. So you're both right - one paragraph on Taylor's views is worth including, but Cla68 I think you forgot to check whether it was already there. As for Taylor being excluded from the PBSG, the lone source cited for this event is very unbalanced. Andrew Derocher's rebuttal is here[9], and also referred to here: [10]. I'll rewrite the footnote after work today to incorporate the points of view in these sources. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This answers my concerns for now. Cla68, what do you think? --TS 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Clayoquot's remedy. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've made some edits to the footnote which I think give it more balance. BTW Taylor did not work for the Canadian government. He worked for the government of Nunavut, a Canadian territory. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Source for Population Decline

I understand that the fact of whether the majority of polar bear populations are declining or increasing in numbers is a bit controversial these days, but surely a more neutral source can be cited for this article's claim that most populations are declining. Using "Polar Bears International" and its "Bear Facts" seems a bit prejudiced for this topic. I would prefer if someone could find an unbiased scientific study to better serve those who want to accurately understand this issue. This is like using PETA as a citation for a topic stating PETA is always right. Aglassonion (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when has PETA been unbiased?--67.86.120.246 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Polar Bears International is a reliable source for factual information on polar bears because their scientific advisory council includes top polar bear scientists: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/board-and-advisory-council-members/ . However if the organization's work is perceived as being biased then we should consider having a preference for other sources. What do others think of PBI as a soure? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that several of the PBI Scientific Advisory Council members are among the top polar bear experts - Amstrup, Derocher and Stirling spring to mind - and the group itself is committed primarily to disseminating data on bears rather than advocacy per se. Furthermore, the PBI page in question (Polar Bears in Depth) is excellent and extremely detailed. However, it is also true that the webpage is also ordinarily not a citable scientific source. That said, all of the statements in the wikipedia article that refer to the PBI article are cited in the PBI text, so if there is a need for independent peer-reviewed references, I would suggest going through the reference list of the article itself. Best, Eliezg (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, we can do that. The PBSG's own website seems to have improved a lot in the past couple of years. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolution Favoritism

I noticed a number of sections in the polar bear article where it states evolution as fact, not the thoery that it is. Wikipedia is supposed to give the facts, and let the reader decide what to do with the information, am I right? I suggest that the wording be changed to a more objective oppinion: not favoring either creation or evolution, allowing the reader to make his or her own decision.--Watchout4snakes! (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, the reason that evolution is treated that way, is because its the scientific opinion on the subject, while the opposite view is a fringe one. And No. NPOV does not mean equal time, it means that things are presented in the way so that it is clear what the majority opinion is... only if there is a significant minority position is this mentioned. The position that evolution may be incorrect, is not such a view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If every article had to detail out non-majority scientific views, the subject matter would become diluted. While your edits are in good faith, they were of your opinion and not the Wikipedia tone which Kim pointed out above. The creationism article and any political/religious articles where this topic is relevant is where this subject belongs. BaShildy (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give you that. But I say that if creationism must be confined to it's specific page on Wikipedia, then evolution should be too.--Watchout4snakes! (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is the "scientific opinion on the subject", doesn't mean that the theory is correct. In many cases, science has proven to be false, as you well know. I do not think that it is right to state information which has not been proven to be true as true. Especially in an encyclopedia. Do you not agree? And in case you were not aware, creationism is not a "minority position". Science is never certain. There is proof of this all of the time. For instance, look at "Global Warming". Science had "proven" this to be an actual problem, but now, there are over 3,000 scientists saying that it is not true. My question is this: Why must science be the end all?--Watchout4snakes! (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your thinking succumbs a fatal fallacy. first I want to make absolutely clear that evolution is proven - it's not a theory. Nevertheless you're right that nothing ever is certain and that science more than not had it the wrong way. The reason why science is still the straightedge is simple: science is the way to prove things. There are no other ways. Something that MIGHT be wrong is not the same thing as something that IN ALL LIKELYHOOD is wrong. I think that to be rather obvious. 84.72.61.221 (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to admit, for discussion, that natural selection is a theory, but so is gravity. Science can never prove a hypothesis, it can only disprove it, and after 150 years of geology, hydrology, animal science, and just about every other science failing to generate a better hypothesis to explain how animals change form over time is strong evidence that it's correct, even if minor details are unknown. I'll admit that I don't believe in creationism, but I disagreee with Watchout4snakes's requeset to have the creatism/evolutioin debate on every page. Creationism isn't based on observable and measurable events, so it can't be scientifically tested. It may still be true, but that makes it faith-based, not science. By the way, I don't believe in evolution either, I follow Darwin's original view of natural selection (evolution is one way, toward more complexity - originally ending with Humans while natural selectioin allows "devolution" if that favors offspring survival). Paddling bear (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ecological role

I am sure there will be someone out there to slap me down for this.. but restrain.. it is an honest question from a non-scientist :) Has anyone ever thought of experimenting with taking a small colony of polar bears to Antartica, and see how they do there without as much encroachment from humans, and with a new diet of different types of seals? Is that a mortal ecological sin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.188.242 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SeeHigh Arctic relocation on why it was a bad idea with humans and why it would be most likely fail with animals. If it were successful, it would still have major ecological ramifications that could throw the Antarctic out of balance. While the experiment could give us interesting data, it would most likely be unsuccessful and assuredly unethical. BaShildy (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hello,

In this article it refers to Inuit people as "Eskimos." That is no longer the appropriate term, and is considered highly offensive. The word "Eskimo" actually means something along the lines of "cannibal."

I would really appreciate it if you could change this immidiately.

Thischild (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The term Eskimo is not generally considered offensive; this is a common misconception. "Eskimo" is merely a broad term encompassing the native peoples of subarctic North America and, less commonly, those of northern Asia. It is important to realize that not all "Eskimos" are Inuit – the Inuit are but one of many tribes which exist in that area. It would be incorrect to refer to all of them as Inuit, just as it would be incorrect to refer to all Asians as "Chinese". Intelligentsium 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Eskimo does not mean cannibal. It was formerly thought to mean "eater of raw meat" (which some Eskimo tribes do). Even so, this is rendered moot by newer etymologies, which translate the term to "netters of snowshoes" or "speakers of a foreign language". In the future, please refrain from using the {{editsemiprotected}} template as your header; this makes responding difficult. Instead, consider using a template link (like so: {{tl|editsemiprotected}}), and placing the template underneath that header. Intelligentsium 19:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The wording wasn't great, and the whole paragraph was redundant with the "In culture" section and doesn't belong in the Conservation section, so i removed it.[11] Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Reply

Thank you for clearing that up. And thank you for informing me! I really didn't know that. Where I'm from it's considered rude, and I close-mindedly thought that it was that way around the world. I'll do more research next time. And that was my first Wikipedia Edit request, so I really don't have any idea how to make Headings.

Thanks!

Thischild (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Where I live it's considered either rude or unenlightened as well, so I understand where you're coming from. You're doing just fine. Be bold and trust your judgement, because we find here that nearly all efforts to improve Wikipedia really do help. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Inuit speaking Yupik

"The Inuit refer to the animal as nanook...and nanuuk in Siberian Yupik." Why would Inuit be speaking Yupik? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence should be reworded as it does incorrectly group Inuit with Yupik/Eskimo. I don't know enough about the Yupik language family to update this sentence, but I agree on your point. I made a modification to seperate the two groups on the main page. BaShildy (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Eukarya

Can you please remove Eukarya from the taxobox? 92.25.194.105 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why?--Kevmin (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See Domain (biology). According to the three-domain system of Carl Woese, introduced in 1990, the Tree of Life consists of three domains: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. Eukarya's kingdom shows Animalia to which polar bears belong. Morenooso (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eukarya isn't required. Read the taxobox rules. Adding Eukarya to the taxobox is like one saying "London, England, UK, Europe". 89.241.57.106 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What if someone wanted to know what continent London belonged to?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Other taxo boxes go with Kingdom and either Animal or Animalia. Personally, I think Kingdom is better as Eukarya is hard to understand if you don't follow the hyperlinks. Morenooso (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it looks odd. I've removed Eukarya. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Polar bears in Halifax?

From the Global Warming section: "Hungry polar bears have been spotted in Halifax and Ontario, Canada, foraging for food in people's garbage cans." While there may be polar bears in the extreme north of Ontario, if there were any near Halifax, they would have escaped from a zoo. Halifax, Nova Scotia, is approximately the same latitude as Portland, Oregon, or Portland, Maine for that matter. But, if the is material to be cited to show this is true.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbuddhafreak (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this: "Hungry polar bears have been spotted in Halifax and Ontario, Canada, foraging for food in people's garbage cans." I did a Google News search for "polar bear Halifax" without quotes and couldn't find anything relevant.[12] As for Ontario, this is a normal part of the polar bear's range and the article already says that polar bears forage for human garbage. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Purported Population Recovery

Intro paragraphs contain the following; "For decades, unrestricted hunting raised international concern for the future of the species; populations have rebounded after controls and quotas began to take effect."

There was an Economist article about how populations are crashing, about how regulation has totally failed (Greenland half-counting its kills by doubling counting a quota) and how the locals may well be imagining there are more bears because they're seeing more of them; but it's actually because they're starving, where their normal food chain is falling apart from overfishing (they are apex hunters; overfishing decimates the species they feed on, which in turn live on fish). Toby Douglass (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I did wonder when I read that sentence. There are, AFAIK, *no* examples of regulation and quotas protecting or conserving ANY farmed/fished/hunted population. It would be a miracle if polar bears happened to be first. Toby Douglass (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with that sentence as well. When and where was the "unrestricted hunting" that "raised international concern"? I've been here since 1974 (NWT/Nunavut) and hunting has always been restricted so I tagged that. I had also seen the reports of people seeing more bears. There's a write up of that here but I can't find the other one that said that not only were there more bears being seen but that they were not starving and appeared quite healthy. However, the Elders always said that if you saw a bear on land be very cautious as it would be hungry. That is, bears would only be on land hunting if food was not available on the ice. As to the hunting being a problem, that does not appear to be the case, the problem is "habitat loss and the effect of climate change." That is why I tagged the overfishing as original research and needing a source.

By the way the Muskox was brought back from near extinction after being over hunted by the use of regulations and now a quota system. There's an article at Petersen's Hunting and it's backed up by the IUCN Red List. something lame from CBW 09:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As with any article and any subject, you can find articles that are pro and con. To tag this article with Original Research is heavy handed. I will remove the tag in one week if not done sooner and will cite articles to support the con position. Morenooso (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is no support for the overfishing claim in a week not only can the tag, which is not for the entire article but just for the claim that overfishing is the cause of the decline in bear numbers, be removed but so can the claim. I see all kinds of reports that say the bears numbers are declining due to climate change but I have yet to see one that says it is being caused by overfishing. Why are there no reports of seal stocks declining if overfishing is a problem? The Ringed Seal and the Bearded Seal are both listed as being of least concern which is odd given that the article now says that Polar Bear "populations anyway may be continuing to shrink due to collapse of the populations of their prey". If overfishing is the cause of the decrease in bears why has it not been mentioned in the article before. That's because it's climate change and not a supposed drop in the number of seals due to their prey be overfished. something lame from CBW 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please change the article; I wrote from memory, which isn't a reliable (or quoteable) source. Toby Douglass (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I will let one of the regular editors take care of this. At the same time or actually prior, the editor should create a new section on this talkpage which tells why tags are being removed. Morenooso (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what some of the other "regular" editors say. In a day or so, I'd recommend that someone post a new "Tag Removal" discussion that reflects this subsection. Morenooso (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this: "hunting is now regulated, although with conflicts between the various hunting nations about quotas which may mean that the quota level is higher than the special reproduction rate and populations anyway may be continuing to shrink due to collapse of the populations of their prey due to overfishing.". I don't know what "special reproduction rate" means. The primary prey species of polar bears are ringed and bearded seals, both of which are considered species of least concern, and the IUCN does not cite overfishing as a major threat to either type of seal.[13][14] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that was the problem I had with the section. something lame from CBW 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is shaping up nicely now that we have concurence. Morenooso (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

special reproduction rate - special is the odd but correct spelling of the word species with the -ial suffix. So it means the reproduction rate of the species. Toby Douglass (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New study on the evolution of polar bears

Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear

Should be implemented into the article by someone who's familiar with the topic. --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No one? Okay, so I'll do it. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

oil and gas section seems speculative and political

Basically cobbled together a speculation that oil spills could impact the polar bears. But there is no real sense of how much habitat the bears have (they are wide ranging) and how much immediate area would be taken away by oil development. For that matter no sense of the frequency and expected extent of spills and how much damage that does. And for that matter there is a history of oil development on the north shore of Alaska, in bear range. But nothing in the article about what that has been observed to d to polar bears. Common sense would indicate that rigs, especially off shore would have limited impact from just being there. Spills are an issue, but still are limited in size and duration. Perhaps the biggest issue is just the prescence of people and the need for some defensive hunting. However, it's unclear if bear reproduction will make that up and still rewach carrying capacity based on prey availability (and/or if bears learn to avoid humans with sufficient contact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hearing study by the San Diego Zoo

This zoo has been publishing notes on its various animal pages contrasting the hearing of polar bears verus panda bears. It can be read here: Su Lin hitting the High Notes. Maybe someone could incorporate it into this article. --Morenooso (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Eyes

Polar bear's eyes fall out occasianaly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyj714 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. But, you find verifiable sources which can be cited, and it might be considered for addition. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hunting by indigenous peoples

Hello, I have a question. It says polar bears were hunting by indigenous peoples using spears and bows. But I have heard that you cannot even stop a normal brown bear with a 9mm handgun. So how could you possibly use a spear or a bow to hunt a polar bear, the mightiest of bears? 72.71.216.146 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the role that the dogs are playing. Once the hunter has got close enough to the bear the dogs pulling him on the sled were let lose. They would attack the bear while the hunter shot arrows or jabbed with the spear from close range, probably just out of the bears reach. For the most part the bear is too distracted by the dogs to pay much attention to the hunter. Of course it was still very dangerous and hard work to hunt a bear, which is why they were not a major part of the Inuit diet. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But a Polar bear can kill a Walrus easy so how can a few dogs bring down a Polar Bear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Railwayhop (talk • contribs) 10:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

really?

"Most terrestrial animals in the Arctic can outrun the polar bear on land as polar bears overheat quickly"

How does that happen? Other bears do not do that and they run very fast, and polar bear don't appear very different from other bears. And why do I seem to find something weird about overheating in temperatures far below zero? Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true. Polar bears overheat because are very well-insulated by their fur and fat. Some animals are better than others at regulating their body temperature than others when running, and polar bears just aren't very good at it. Interestingly, humans excel at it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tallest and Largest Polar bears measured 11 to12 feet tall

Perhaps the article should briefly touch on the largest specimens recorded by hunters.

Mr. Art Dubs (Hunter/Film producer) of Medford, Oregon shot and killed a massive polar bear in March 1961, north of the Diomede Islands. He is featured in LIFE magazine for May 19, 1961 pg. 133, and multiple editions of the Guinness Book of World Records, in addition to other prominent hunting publications and news wires of the time. The mounted specimen was 11 feet 1-1/2 inches in stature, and the bear weighed 2210 lbs when alive. It was featured at the Seattle World's Fair in 1962.

Other bears reported at over 11 feet and 1900 lbs have been reported by Eskimo hunters, e.g. The Miami News - Jan 30, 1938 pg. 9

And as early as the year 1596, the voyager Willem Barentz claimed to have killed 2 giants whose skins measured 12, and 13 feet respectively. --75.175.70.139 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Debby

The article still lists Debby of the Assiniboine Park Zoo as the oldest living polar bear, but she died in 2008. Kvikvendi (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for GA review

I noticed that this was nominated for GA review. I was considering doing the review, but noticed that the person who nominated has not had involvement with the article. Does this article have any main editors who are advocates for it's GA status and would be able to carry on any needed conversations? Sincerely, North8000 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can do it but the article looks like it doesn't need much more improvement. LittleJerry (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If LittleJerry isn't around, then I can also make some improvements. Jess_talk|_edits 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd be happy to do it. North8000 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review page

The GA review page is at [[15]] Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polar bear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments

I consider this to be on hold pending the one remaining image use issue. I have to learn how to tag it as such. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

12/31/10 Comments after first read

This is an excellent article. I did a first read, and my comments from it and my comments are just on the three tages that are already in there and the reason for them.

The first two tags are in the lead on:

For decades, unrestricted hunting raised international concern for the future of the species; populations have rebounded after controls and quotas began to take effect.

I think that saying simply "unrestricted" raised some concerns. One is that it is a far reaching statement (I.E. that there were absolutely NO restrictions) and it sounds like it might be more of a a brief assessment by the author rather than content. One suggestion would be to expand it a bit with more specific wording.

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The process of handling the second "citation needed" tag might lead to resolving the first. Also, "have rebounded" is a current tense statement, immediately following a sentence about 8 of the 19 groups being in decline. Has the appearance of somewhat conflicting with itself. One suggestion: Possibly just change the "have rebounded" to "rebounded"

Resolved North8000 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The third tag is in the Naming and etymology section on:

The Yupik also refer to the bear as nanuuk in Siberian Yupik.

That should get resolved one way or the other.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirming, resolved. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer comments after review of image permissions

I reviewed all of the image permissions. There was only one where I don't think there is a valid basis listed which is the $2 Canadian stamp. Apparently an individual took a picture of the stamp, and as a use basis they said that they created it by themselves. I don't think that taking a picture of a printed work constitutes "creating" it for permission purposes. Two ideas that come to mind.....presumably there is something under Canadian which provides a use permission, another would be to remove the image. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To add, based on the request for input at WP:CWNB, I believe the image will either be under Crown Copyright or the copyright of the artist. I don't believe this derivative work is free use, so it will require a valid FUR (seems unlikely to meet WP:NFCC in this article) or it should be removed. Resolute 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I plan to remove the image, see if the change is stable. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved I removed it 1-2 days ago. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer comments after main read 1/2/11

What an excellent article! IMHO The few things I found don't all need to be changed to obtain GA status, but here they are:

• I think that the red link under "Population and Distribution" goes to the same article that is blue linked later in this article. Maybe just something like spelling or capitalization.

Fixed this link. Had slightly different wording than the article title. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• 5th Paragraph in "Hunting and diet" has some repetition

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• If talk page poster is correct (that she died), update part on Debby which says that she is still alive

Done LittleJerry (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Clarify.. Article describes the Polar Bear as a straight carnivore. But then talks about the mother bear eating vegetation when emerging from den. I assume that this instance is too brief / one-time to affect carnivore classification.

• End of "US endangered species legislation" section. Clarify. Refers to a decision, but doesn't say what the decision was.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• from what I've seen, the "Notes" section is usually before the "References" section, as that how it flows for a cite (article to "notes" to "references" What do you think of swapping them?

Swapped these sections. Feel free to undo if you feel otherwise. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, what an excellent article! I'd be happy to help on these but thought I should get at least my part done in limited time this AM. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am passing the article to Good Article status

I am passing the article for Good Article status. I will handle the details today and leave an additional note here on those. It was a privilege to review such an excellent article, congratulations to all on having created it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

End of reviewer comments section

x

- - - - End of GA review page - - - -

Polar Bear Stamp Image

This article has been submitted for Good Article status. I'm the reviewer. What an excellent article! The only remaining issue that I see is the use/permission status of the Canadian Polar Bear postage stamp image. Nobody resolved it and so I tried working on it myself. I asked elsewhere in WP and it appears that it has a real problem under WP standards. I plan to remove and see if the change is stable. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am passing the article to Good Article status

I am passing the article for Good Article status. I will handle the details today and leave an additional note here on those. It was a privilege to review such an excellent article, congratulations to all on having created it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence

I am surprised that the entire page does not once mention the intelligence of polar bears. They are very curious about anything different/new in their environment which suggests a high level of intelligence. Their prey is also tricky to catch and their environment can change drastically in a short space of time which requires quick changes in hunting/thinking.

Perhaps there should be a section going into detail on this, maybe with a comparison of other predators? Pondermotive (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If we were to include such a section, it could not be built on subjective comparisons. Do you know if any studies exist on this? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Submarine Connecticut link

I see there's a "See also" reference to the sub USS Connecticut. Seemed curious since it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. I assume, aster reading the Connecticut article, it relates to the Connecticut polar bear attack? Perhaps edited out of this article at some time?

I'll leave it in your able hands whether too add a more explicit reference or remove the Connecticut reference altogether.TjoeC (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Nomination?

I noticed a first attempt to nominate this for FA, but the details didn't work out. As the GA reviewer, I had a couple thoughts. I think that the article quality, content and subject are all great. But I think that to get through FA will require this having one or two really committed editors to respond to / handle whatever comes up. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Source of population survey data

{{Edit semi-protected}} WWF is not the primary source of the population status data referenced in the Controversies section. Text should be changed from "According to WWF data, only 1 out of the 19 polar bear" to read: "According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Polar Bear Specialist Group, only 1 out of the 19 polar bear" and the reference should be changed to http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

VEBott (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the whole thing. Almost exactly the same sentence is repeated earilier, and is attributed to IUCN. -Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)