Talk:Polar bear/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

USGS is not an advocacy group

The statement that "Global warming has had an impact on polar bear population health and size" should not be qualified as coming from an advocacy group. It is the published conclusion of USGS scientists and others.--Yannick 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then we need a citation from someone other than the Humane Society, which is an advocacy group, to support that paragraph.RFabian 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem throughout the article; as a science article, it relies too much on news stories and websites for citations. Please feel free to fix this one. There are already a few applicable citations in the article that we could reuse.--Yannick 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Status

No editor should be extrapolating anything; that would be original research in this case. Scientific reports based on far more than simple extrapolations have forecast dramatic population declines. Right-wing lobby groups and Inuit hunters have claimed dramatic population increases. These positions are now presented in those terms.--Yannick 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, the PBSG has noted increases in the populations of some groups of bears. The term "right wing lobby group" is POV pushing, and it should be avoided in this context, especially since it's not accurate. The term "advocacy group" would be appropriate since it includes activities other than lobbying.RFabian 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The PBSG has only noted some recovery in 2 subpopulations that were so severely depleted that conservation regulations were significantly enhanced. These are the smallest two subpopulations and the PBSG does not take these to be representative of the entire population. But I do accept that "advocacy group" is a more accurate description of the NCPA than "lobby group." Would you accept calling it a "right-wing advocacy group"?--Yannick 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Captivity

I think it'd be good to have a section on polar bears in captivity, possibly giving some numbers on how many there are believed to be, and a summary of the various debates around polar bears being in zoos (whether they should be bred, etc). Frankie Roberto 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Keerllston 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of quote

"A 1999 study of polar bears on Hudson Bay showed that rising temperatures are thinning the pack ice from which the bears hunt, driving them to shore weeks before they've caught enough food to get them through hibernation[68]."

Does this mean that ice packs melt in the fall and they are melting earlier in the fall now? Or does it mean that they hibernate in the summer after the spring melting of pack ice? I have no idea what they are trying to say.

Also, assuming we know what they meant (that it pack ice now forms later in the fall than it used to and melts earlier in the spring), how does this put pressure on polar bears before hibernation? If it gets cold later, then polar bears will be able to look for food longer before hibernating, need less time to hibernate, and therefore need fewer calories to sustain them through the hibernation period. I don't see the problem.

If nobody can explain this quote, I would propose removing the direct quote and replacing it with a statement about the 1999 studying reducing the population by "X" percent. Ufwuct 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Polar bears don't really hibernate in the common sense of the word. They go into a state of "walking hibernation" in the summer after the spring melt, in which their metabolism slows down. Only pregnant females hibernate in the winter, from November to February, although this is still not a true hibernation. So the statement is correct, but we need to clarify the yearly feeding and hibernation cycle in the Hunting, diet and feeding section.--Yannick 03:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NCPA as an advocacy group

As discussed in the archives and more recently above, the NCPA can accurately be described as a right-wing advocacy group. This is not obvious from its name, but is relevant for the reader to fairly judge their credibility. A new user, User:Hettinga has been deleting the phrase "right wing advocacy group" from this article on the grounds that this phrase is morally offensive. I have tried to engage this user in conversation on User talk:Hettinga but my messages were deleted. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this?--Yannick 04:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"morally offensive" is not a justification for deleting material. Within Wiklpedia ethics, such deletions, especially without discussion, are themselves offensive, and sanctionable. -- 71.102.136.107 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Polar Bear Protection Act

The article says the U.S. Polar Bear Protection Act was defeated on June 27th and has a source to back it up. However, a couple of US government sites seem to say otherwise. [1][2] Can anyone shed light on this discrepancy?--Yannick 03:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was just coming on to this page to comment about that, It was proposed but rejected. Now it has been propsed again in a New bill after the defeat of the old one. The Government website states the bill has been intoroduced, but has not gone to debate yet. So the Wiki page is wrong about the law being changed.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can make the article better, please do. The page is no longer semi-protected, so IPs can edit it directly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution/ purple bears?

Speciation:

"Polar bears can breed with brown and purple to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids,[17],[18],[19] indicating that they have only recently diverged and are not yet truly distinct species."

Purple bears? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.124.110 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is stated as scientific fact in this article. This is not the case. If it can be proved put a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipwiginton (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to be associated with the previous poster, so please read carefully... Is there any source which could be cited to demonstrate that interbreeding is a sign of *recent* evolution? I've seen some pretty weird stuff crossed in zoos. Incognitum Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To unmerge or not to unmerge: Polar Bear hunting

Your comments are requested at

• Talk:Polar Bear hunting#Merge_.2F_Move_to_Polar_Bear.jikjfhjgahfjklagjal

One editor has single-handedly decided to delete the longstanding redirect to this article, a practice that is frowned upon (if done without discussion and getting a consensus to do so) because it recreates a situation that was deemed unsatisfactory. The material had successfully been merged into this article, so now we have a duplication of that material. If the Polar Bear hunting article were developed more, I could see a justification for its existence, but right now it's small, slightly off-topic (hunting and conservation aren't always synonymous), and has been merged successfully into this article. Should it be

1. "unmerged" without development (in which case the material should be deleted from this article and just linked to),
2. restored but renamed so the title fits the topic matter,
3. some third possibility,
4. stick with the currently accepted status quo?

What think ye? -- Fyslee / talk 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All scientists?

I have reverted an edit which states that all scientists refute Mitch Taylor's work, as possible vandalism. The edit gave a reference which says nothing of the sort, and is a proposition impossible to prove. It is a POV edit. Peterlewis (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly more accurate and more relevant to say "all polar bear scientists" than "a majority of arctic scientists," which creates a false impression that there is a scientific debate about this. This is indeed backed up by the citation I gave: for example, when speaking about dissent among Canadian scientists, Derocher says "Five of 16 Polar Bear Specialist Group members are Canadian-based scientists and they voted unanimously in support of this resolution at the time. There are very few other polar bear scientists in Canada so it is unclear who these scientists may be that might be opposing the listing." Also see the minutes of the 14th meeting of the PBSG (here, pp. 11-32) where the entire world community of polar bear scientists ganged up on Taylor and closed the meeting with a unanimous vote against him.--Yannick (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very much like a POV rather than a rational discussion. The language used indicates the tone of the argument ("ganged up" for example). Peterlewis (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true that you and I each have our own biased Point Of View, as all editors do, and Wikipedia accepts that. It's also accepted that we use much more informal and biased language on discussion pages than in the actual articles. I've answered your concern about the neutrality of the article, and I will revert your edit if you have no further comments.--Yannick (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have more comments. Would you also note in the article that every time an animal or plant species slides down another notch towards endangered it increases the grant sizes for specialists of that species, and that this may have an undue influence over those specialists?

Also, please note that bodies like the one you've cited are often self selecting, either because scientists who do not agree with their findings and who don't think being 'ganged up on' is a pleasant way to spend a weekend don't bother to buy plane tickets to show up at those meetings, and sometimes (as in the case of the IPCC) because the member nations pick the delegates, thus making the findings political, not scientific.

And even if these things were not factors in this instance, the best you could say is such-and-such panel disagreed with so-and-so. It is wildly inappropriate to extrapolate to "all scientists". Even in the quote you posted it says there are other Canadian polar bear scientist who do not belong to these bodies "...There are very few other polar bear scientists in Canada...", how can you two sentences later pretend they don't exsist? The only time consensus need be appealed to is when there is insufficient evidence to prove the point. --Incognitum (talk)

Map of forecast habitat changes

I'm not sure about this USGS map of habitat changes in the Conservation section. It's very busy and the legends are unreadable when the image is thumbnailed to typical Wikipedia size. It only shows projected habitat reductions, whereas readers would be looking for population forecasts. It only shows data for the pelagic polar basin and peripheral seas, while the Canadian Arctic archipelago and the seasonal sea ice ecoregions are blank. These blank regions sustain half of the world's polar bears, so that's an important omission in a general article. So although it contains lots of information appropriate to the technical article it was lifted from, I think it is confusing to the general reader.--Yannick 12:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of cannabalistic frequency

I'n not normally a grammar nitpick, but the use of the phrase "very occasionally" is confusing in the following passage in the "Hunting, diet and feeding" subsection:

"but will eat anything it can kill: birds, rodents, shellfish, crabs, beluga whales, young walruses, occasionally muskox or reindeer, and very occasionally other polar bears."

In this sentence, it isn't clear whether "very occasionally" means "more frequently than occasionally" or "less frequently than occasionally". Someone with knowledge of the subject should reword this sentence to be more precise.ErockRPh 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to find anyone who settle this one. With the possible exception of young walruses, I don't think there's any scientific data out there about the frequency of these kills. I would get rid of the qualifiers altogether:

"but will eat anything it can kill: birds, rodents, shellfish, crabs, beluga whales, young walruses, muskox, reindeer, and other polar bears." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrottier (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

better would be simply to replace "occasionally" with "rarely" - following the intended meaning--Kiyarrllston 18:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source that indicates that these kills are rare? Scientific studies show that cannibalism is the primary pathway for trichinella infection, which is very common. So that's an indirect suggestion that these polar bear kills are common, but we can't say that either because that would be original research.--Yannick (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Threatened or not?

"In the USA, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to up-list the legal conservation status of polar bears to threatened species in 2005.[9] This petition is still under review."

"Conservation Status: Theatened (ICUN)"

One of these isn't true (conflicting statements). One needs to be corrected.

TJ 16.12.07 16.54 UTC

No, they're both correct. Polar bears are recognized as a threatened species by the IUCN which is the leading world body in the matter. Many countries have their own systems, though, and the USA does not legally recognize the polar bear as a threatened species at this time. This distinction could be clarified, though.--Yannick (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're Bush. Then you believe all is right in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently saw a report on how the population of Polar Bears has more than doubled since the 1950s. If this is true, there should be some research somplace that would reflect that, and that it might be an arguement or dispute that deserves a mention. Now, I did get the information from Glenn Beck and he is often attacted as a "right-wing crazy", but if the information can be located and verified, it deserves a mention. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to source this. Can anybody without a political agenda check this out? 70.108.56.225 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just passing through, but I thought I'd offer my $0.02. Glenn Beck has poor journalistic integrity. The man is an "opinion journalist" for CNN, which should explain a lot. I've seen a few of his "reports." He doesn't focus on facts, but instead tries to rile people up, emotionally, about a topic. Some of his reports cross the borderline and travel far into absurd. But if his claim about Polar Bears can be verified, then of course it needs to be fairly considered. All I'm saying is that Glenn Beck's claim is likely to be unverifiable, based on his credibility. ChewableOJ (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Beck's claim that the population has more than doubled since the 1950s is, by best available estimates, correct, and is already in the article. Polar bear biologists are well aware of the fact that populations have (by best estimates) increased in recent decades. The difference between the polar bear biologists and Glenn Beck is that the biologists take into account the facts of what the animal needs in order to survive, and look at the warning signs from subpopulations that have already been under stress, instead of just assuming that past population trends will continue into the future. All this is already in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Polar Bear Diet

Resolved

The article does not include that male Polar bears can eat adult walruses, and they can. I know this because I watched an informational movie called Arctic Tale and it had a scene of a male Polar bear eating an adult walrus.

That's not correct: "we do not delete from talk pages." Wikipedians are a bit obsessed with "deleting content," but it's clear content from talk pages is deleted all of the time for valid reasons. This user posted, changed his/her mind about the need for addressing the issue on the talk page, then deleted it, as the issue has been addressed on the talk page, informing others, in a very clear edit summary exactly why the comment was removed. This is ridiculous. See the history of this discussion page. This is no longer an issue, but must remain forever on this talk page, it is declared. Amaltheus (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The population of Polar Bears, the Inuit and the Governor of Alaska

This article sites two different numbers for global population estimates. Near the top it estimates between 50,000 and 100,000 and lower down it estimates between 22,000 and 25,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.185.47 (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I saw on TV that since the 1970s the Polar Bear population in Alaska has increased due to the various conservation measures in that state, the governors working with the Inuit, who claim to depend on Polar Bears as part of their staple diets and for their fur. Is this an accurate fact? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned (both the increase and the effect it will have on the Inuit)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.6.178 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• find a creditable source that you can cite which says this. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Understood, and I was asking if others could verify this, as I know I don't have the resourses and the show I saw it on was a bias program, though the interview was with the Alaskan Governor. Oh, and I saw the Inuit mentioned in the article, but I was reffering to the Endangered Species listing (Just to clarify). 68.55.6.178 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a little perspective on it, which should mostly re-enforce the idea that it is a very complex topic and that attempts to simplify it will fail.

The Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 made hunting of marine mammals, including Polar Bears, illegal in Alaska for all but Alaska Native people. That was done because the population of Polar Bears was indeed dangerously low, and after passage the population has slowly rebounded. I do not know if today's population should be considered "normal", or if absent other new factors such as the receding ice pack, if the bear population would continue to climb.

Regardless of that, prior to and following passage of the Act in 1972 polar bears had been a staple part of the economy for Eskimo people (both for Yupik and Inupiat) in Alaska. But times have changed, and in the past decade or so hunting for Polar Bears in Alaska for subsistence purposes has become almost negligible.

There are still a few bears taken around Barrow, for example, but they are virtually all situations where the bear represents a threat to people and does not appear to be willing to leave when attempts are made to scare it off. Such bears are, for instance, attracted to a camp where a whale is being butchered.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased regarding conservation

I added the following information to the article, which is from a U.S. federal governemnt website. But someone erased it. I guess someone is afraid of people finding out the truth.

A January 30, 2008 report from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee states, "The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s."

Grundle2600 (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You can click the history tab of the article if you'd like to see who removed your edit. As it happens, I User:Enuja removed the paragraph because the source was not reliable and the number (25,000 current bears, with earlier population estimates of 5,000) was already included in that section of the article. - Enuja (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that Grundle linked to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for a quote from that committee. I think epw.senate.gov reliably reports on its own reports :) If the number is already included in the article that is, of course, a separate issue. I agree that it's okay to only mention this estimate once. --JayHenry (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

But does it reliably report on the USFWS? If you read the linked page, the page looks very dodgy, and is written by two people as a polemic. What it is reliable for (these two people's opinions) is not relevant for the article on polar bears. - Enuja (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the U.S. government is the best source to link to. For example, we use NASA satellite data to prove that global warming is real. I think there is evidence that global warming makes the polar bear population get bigger, not smaller. Despite what Al Gore wants us to think, polar bears don't get "trapped" on the ice, and they can swim 50 miles at a time. So the polar bear is not in as much danger as some people would like us to believe. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The paragraph in "Conservation status" right before the "Canada" subsection inserted by User:Grundle2600 and quoted and discussed above is still in the article. Because I have a personal one-revert rule, I will not remove the paragraph until Grundle2600 agrees with the removal, but I submit this paragraph and its unreliable source for consideration of the rest of you, who have not yet edited this paragraph. - Enuja (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The US Senate link is for the minority opinion; it is not an unbiased representation of what the Committee as a whole actually believes and is not bound by any kind of verifiability requirement. Linking to that instead of a more neutral source is injecting unnecessary POV. I don't think anybody would approve if we linked to this statement by the majority of the same committee and called it fact. Torc2 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Inhofe is not a reliable source. Brusegadi (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Torc2 - Your link does not include any numbers or statisitcs about the size of the global polar bear population, so I agree with you that your link is not relevant.

So you're OK with me adding a section saying:

The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stated that global warming has caused loss of hunting area and dwindling food supplies which have forced polar bears to hunt in towns [3] Further, the Senate committee recommends the polar bear be immediately added to the list of endangered species [4], finding no scientific or legal reason not to declare the species endangered. The Bush administration is to blame for its failure to do so.[5]

We could even use this link for the 25,000 number instead of the other one. Why not, it's the same source? It has to be right! Torc2 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brusegadi - The word "Inhofe" does not appear in the text of the source that I used. My source was the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here is that paragraph again. I maintain my claim that this is a legitimate source:

A January 30, 2008 report from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee states, "The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s."

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added this too:

The website for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service states, "The world wide population is estimated to be 22,000-25,000 bears... World wide, polar bear populations remain relatively stable."

How can you say that is not a reliable source?

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just erased my other paragrpah. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the bias in this article. There are plenty of climatologists that dispute the future condition of the polar bears (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070222a.html) for a quick example). How does the polar bear get rated as a "high risk of extinction", when all current trends point to a stable population? Amazing. Maybe try adding the word "Some" in front of your claims (e.g. Some consider the polar bears at high risk of extinction..Some climatologists and zoologists blame global warming...etc.etc.). If you can't find information to the contrary then it's because you didn't want to try, or you live in a bubble, or both. Grandmasterphil (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The IUCN has listed the polar bear as a vulnerable species. Their definition of a "vulnerable species" is one that is at high risk of extinction.--Yannick (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Polar bear (7 votes) was collaboration Feb 15-Mar 14 2008

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

1. . First choice Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
3. First choice. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
4. UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
5. . Bobisbob (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
6. --MONGO 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Anaxial (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pros: Already has lots of sourced content; charismatic megafauna; lots of public interest; polar bears are in the news these days. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Visibility: 150,000 views per month. We could possibly interest User:Yllosubmarine in this one. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Already in good shape. Along with the Giant Panda, probably the best known Flagship species. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Need capitalization. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• All right. Bobisbob (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Probably going to be listed soon as an endangered or at least a threatened species in the U.S. in the near future...[6].--MONGO 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia already has an overwhelming systemic bias towards quality articles on charismatic megafauna. I say we take a break and focus on something else. VanTucky 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If this collaboration goes forward, we should attempt to balance things. If we do Polar Bear now, we shouldn't do Tiger next. Marskell (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed... Primate or Mammal perhaps? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it would depend on how much gusto things have. If there is alot of activity, I'd say mammal, if very little, then a shoo in may be good.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• It's the first month; kicking off with something high profile makes sense to me.Anaxial (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Righty-ho then......a to-do list

OK, I rearranged it as lion makes a good template and I like the idea of uniform professional-looking biology articles..

• Needs an etymology section, and who described it and when, I remember when it was placed in its own genus....

• Cultural depictions section needs de-listifying and referencing.

• USS Connecticut (SSN-22) is a pretty amazing link. Not sure how, if or where to work it in

• Russia/USSR, Denmark and Norway sections need expanding.

Add more here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the original mammal headline template is at Jaguar. (But I would say that ;).

On animal articles, I look at the headlines as discreet units, to be done one-by-one. Perhaps rather than a general list, we should go section-by-section, checking off those that are finished? It doesn't have to be sequential. I just added to reproduction, for instance. So maybe we do it, then hunting, then distribution etc. Marskell (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a stab at the naming & etymology section - probably needs a bit of cleaning up and expansion, though! Anaxial (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(done and dusted) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll also need something about the polar bear as a Flagship species with regard to global warming and the following politicization of its conservation status (witness the section a little bit up). I like to add "in captivity" sections when the sources are there. Also, more about their history with humans. I recall from a tour that the London Tower claims to have had a polar bear in the 13th century or something like that. Agree with Marskell that it would be good to mark off sections as complete here on talk, as they are quite autonomous units. --JayHenry (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(agree. good points. need some zoo stuff. dammit I returned all mine once i did lion....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, section by section

Marskell's idea isn't a bad one. Thus we have:

1 Naming and etymology

Needs referencing. More or less complete otherwise (?)

What does 'arctos' mean in Ancient Greek? The current version doesn't say. Now, I know that in Latin it refers specifically to the constellation Ursa Major, but Greek may well be a different matter. At a guess, it probably just means 'bear' - but I have no dictionary to cite on that one, so it really is just an educated guess. Anaxial (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bother. an anon IP took it out. It means 'bear' but also 'northern' or 'of the north pole' as it alludes to Ursa Major. It says that in my lexicon.Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

2 Taxonomy and evolution

Needs some rearranging. 1st sentence in para 3 would be better in para 2. Also, para 3 could go in biology section below (??)

2.1 Subspecies and subpopulations

Rename section as there are no subspecies (??)

• There are subpopulations and there's an extinct subspecies, so I think the name is okay. --JayHenry (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no subspecies. The polar bear was first categorized by two independent explorers in different parts of the world at about the same time, and this led to some temporary confusion. Later work showed that they had documented the same species.--Yannick (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking of two different issues. I'm talking about the fossil subspecies described in DeMaster and Stirling 1981. Not differing categorizations of the extant bears. I'm not familiar with the full literature on this animal, so could you provide a source that says Ursus maritimus tyrannus is invalid? --JayHenry (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's further and more recent documentation of U.m. tyrannus: Kurtén, On Evolution and Fossil Mammals (1988). --JayHenry (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'd never heard tell of ursus maritimus tyrannus and I missed that addition to the article. I was referring to ursus maritimus maritimus and ursus maritimus marinus.--Yannick (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

3 Physical characteristics

3.1 Fur and skin

3.2 Allen's rule

4 Biology and behavior

4.1 Hunting and diet

4.2 Reproduction

4.3 Health

5 Distribution and habitat

6 Population and conservation status

6.1 Canada

6.2 United States

6.3 Russia/USSR

6.4 Denmark

• Possibly Greenland? Greenland is geographically precise (as opposed to only geopolitically precise) and is self-governing. Technically Denmark is the signatory to the conservation treaties, but this is really a Greenland issue/Greenland more informative in the TOC, etc. --!!!!

6.5 Norway

7 Cultural depictions

8 See also

(Personally I hate these sections and try to incorporate all into the body of the text, though I do agree that sometimes there just isn't anywhere esle something can go.

9 References

10 External links

fill in and bold as you go cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: How do we feel about leaving fact tags everywhere? Helpful or annoying? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is unnecessary unless you actually believe a specific claim to be false and think we should warn the reader. Otherwise we'll add the citations as we go, and check toward the end of the process to see if anything is still missing? --JayHenry (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes out of number order

Footnotes should be in numerical order. Right now, they're like this: 2,3,4,1,5,6. I don't know enough about the footnote coding to fix this. I have to say, as an aside, this has resulted from making the footnote coding on Wikipedia unnecessarily complex. It used to be straightforward and simple, something every user could fathom, even those who only use the site every now and then. That is no longer the case. Siberian Husky (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd - they show up in the correct order on my browser. Anaxial (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Siberian husky didn't notice the use of footnote number 1 in the infobox, next to the Polar Bear's conservation status; #2 is the first footnote in the body text. I think this is okay because most readers view the box first. I can't say I agree about the complexity of footnote coding, as it's hard for me to imagine a simpler system. Type <ref>[Whatever you want your footnote to say]</ref> and the software automatically takes care of the rest. --JayHenry (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

and the software automatically takes care of the rest Except that it doesn't. If you do what you described, you will end up with no footnote. A {{reflist}} command is also needed. As Siberian Husky correctly notes, several different and complex styles of footnotes are used in articles. Consider, for example, this one: <ref>{{cite news |date=aired [[June 9]] [[2004]]|title=Reagan's Casket Arrives in Washington|url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/09/se.03.html|format=Transcript|publisher=CNN|accessdate=2007-11-02}}</ref> Hardly the epitome of simplicity, yet that's one of the simpler of these absurdly complex footnote formats. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to use the citation templates. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you add to JayHenry's description "type <references/> at the bottom of the page under a ==References== heading" then that it is, indeed, all you have to do. Personally, I prefer to use the citation templates, such as cite news, which you are complaining about, but that's just because I don't like to remember or look up what format I should put the information in. But citation templates, are, indeed, an unnecessary complication that any particular editor doesn't need to use. - Enuja (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but comment on the irony of the footnote page you reference -- because different footnote formats are used on that very page, the footnote numbers are duplicated, so they appear in this order: 1,2,3,4,1.Siberian Husky (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Siberian Husky, did you read that final footnote? It explains that the footnotes are numbered that way because it's an example of a mistake. --JayHenry (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs? WTF?

Polar bear (pale blue) compared to larger prehistoric carnivores

Why are polar bears being compared to dinosaurs? 207.47.224.213 (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd too. I removed the picture: There are lots of great polar bear pictures which would be better to include. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Some homage to Lost World...or Lost or ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-org

I'm thinking of shuffling the Conservation section to group issues by type rather than by region? E.g. we could have one section for hunting by humans, one for climate change, and one for pollutants (moved out of "Hunting and diet"). Putting these up front would then give context and background for describing in detail the various debates over legal protection. I'll try re-organizing along these lines and see how it goes. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes yes yes, I was musing on that myself but had been distracted by a few otrher FA thingies. Go for thy life...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK, but I see a couple of problems. First, I think we should somehow preserve the fact that conservation is handled very differently in different jurisdictions. In particular I've seen a tendency for summaries to focus on the American legal issues, which I find inappropriately biased since 60% of polar bears are in Canada. Second, I've found it hard to cleanly separate out conservation issues. For example, the halcarbon and garbage threats are in the Diet section, and climate change promotes cannibalism which leads to trichinella which is in the Health section along with heavy metals. So I guess my preference would be to discuss the threats in context of Diet, Health, and Habitat sections, and reserve the Conservation section for political and legal reactions, which are naturally divided by jurisdiction. But I'm flexible.--Yannick (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at reorganizing. It's not perfect, however I hope to work on the article some more in the next few days to make the sections more coherent and comprehensive. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Churchill dump, currently in the "Hunting and diet" section, was a big conservation issue in its time.--Yannick (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. It should have a mention in both the "Hunting and diet" section and the conservation section. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Endangered Species listing

I've removed this: "The need for species' protection has been disputed by H. Sterling Burnett, and Mitchell K. Taylor. Burnett, a Senior Fellow of the conservative advocacy group National Center for Policy Analysis, has claimed that the total global population of polar bears increased from 5,000 to 25,000 between the 1970s and 2007. " This is sourced to the website of an advocacy group, offers no information about polar bears that is not already in the article, and provides no evidence that Burnett and Taylor are particularly notable among the many people who dispute the need for species protection. It comes across as advertising for the Heartland Institute. We should, of course, include the point-of-view of opponents to ESA listing, but we can do it with better sources. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the uncited "The proposed listing did not include a proposal to designate critical habitat areas for the polar bear, thus the final rule will necessarily forgo critical habitat as well." All sources I can find indicate that the opposite is true: The proposed listing does include a proposal to designate critical habitat areas. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hunting and Diet ref

I'm going to remove this but am copying it here in case it's useful for something else:

Derocher, Andrew E.; Wiig, Øystein; Andersen, Magnus (June 2002), "Diet composition of polar bears in Svalbard and the western Barents Sea" (PDF), Polar Biology, vol. 25, no. 6, Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer, pp. pp. 448-452, doi:10.1007/s00300-002-0364-0, ISSN 0722-4060, retrieved 2007-11-17 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

The phrase that was sourced to it is that seals are "taken when they poke holes in the ice to breathe" which is an oversimplification. I am rewriting this section to describe a more aspects of hunting techniques. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

I put in a request at WP:RFPP yesterday to have this article semi-protected. The request was declined because there hasn't been enough vandalism to justify it (???). Excuse my forum shopping, but is there an admin willing to semi-protect for a bit? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction of bias in declining populations

First, I will be correcting an introduction sentence referring to declining polar bear population to remove POV bias. The parts of the excellent source cited ([7]) actually quoted are quoted correctly, but the source is only selectively quoted. It is true the reference states that 7 of the 19 subpopulations are declining or are already severely reduced, but it is also true that 8 are stable, increasing or not reduced and 7 do not have sufficient data to make a determination. To verify this statement, see pages 34 and 35 of the above reference (included as a citation in the article). The populations that are declining or are already severely reduced are (numbered starting at the first entry in the reference's table) 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 17. The populations that are stable, increasing or not reduced are 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15.

Second, the sentence that calls 1950's ~5000-bear estimates "guesses" is POV. It relies on one statement by one person in a publication from a clearly biased source to contradict statements made in many other publications such as the New York Times, World Wildlife Foundation, and the Young People's Trust for the Environment. I will be changing the sentence to reflect that the "guess" assertion is one person's opinion and not accepted fact.

Please discuss reverts here before executing them. Bjp716 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I added a number of references supporting the low estimates between 1950 and 1980 and moved the reference to the current stable population at the end of the section to the beginning of the section to avoid repeating the statement that the current population is stable. Bjp716 (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you've done makes sense to me. Regarding the estimate of 5,000 bears from the 1950s, the issue is that although this may be the best estimate available, meaningful and well-designed surveys were simply not done in that era. I have another source describing the lack of data so I will add it to the article.

Regarding the Polar Bears International site: This site looks reliable to me and I would like to hear what others think of it. The statement that figures from the 1950s are a "guess" comes from Andrew Derocher who is clearly a foremost expert in polar bears, and his words are part of a long statement so he is not being quoted out of context. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I support all of your edits in this area except that I think the Bruemmer reference should be better cited; I couldn't find that particular quote online (I assume it's in one of his books and not mentioned online) ~ could you add the title of the book when you get a chance?

I agree that the PBI reference is reliable, it's just that before you provided a second source the PBI site was the only visible source disagreeing with many other sources, so I believed it needed a minority disclaimer ("one scientists says...", etc). Now that the opinion/fact is backed up by another source, I think the removal of the minority disclaimer is fine. Thanks for the edits; I think the information is communicated much more effectively now. Bjp716 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad we agree :) Yes, the Bruemmer reference is indeed a book, and it's already listed in the "References" section. I don't think the sources disagree per se on the figure from the 1950s; it's probably more that some sources give the figure with commentary on its accuracy, and some give the figure without any comment on its accuracy. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have paid more attention to your first statement. It looks like you combined the source's column for "observed or predicted trend" with the column for "status", thereby counting some rows twice and yielding a set of numbers that did not add up to 19. The data are in two columns in the source because "trend" and "status" are different things. I've changed the article to more accurately reflect what the source says, which also jives with the secondary source (PBI). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fur greenhouse effect

I've removed: "Their fur creates a greenhouse effect for warmth." I'm not even entirely sure what it means, but it probably refers to one of the myths here: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/myths-and-misconceptions/ Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arctic

The intro saying polar bears are nn Arctic bear is misleading. In fact, on Hudson Bay the bears live below the 60th parallel and are well into the subarctic. 70.51.245.111 (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I added it. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Use caution...

Arctic is also a climate designation, and need not necessarily refer only to areas above the Arctic Circle. Granted that Arctic geography is no doubt what most people think of when "Arctic" is mentioned in relationship to Polar bears, but in fact the Hudson Bay population of Polar bears is there because of, and takes advantage of, Arctic climate conditions.

Hence, in fact the Polar bear is an Arctic bear.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently says that the polar bear is native to the Arctic and Subarctic. While this is literally true, I don't know enough to say whether it is how most sources would describe it. Do be bold if you think the current wording sounds funny. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

200 000 vs 200 thousand

The latter looks a bit odd to me, I'll have a look on numbers MOS. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#200_000_vs_200_thousand....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sentence tweak

• Males are generally 25–45% larger than females.[23] Most adult males weigh 350–650 kg (770–1500+ lb) and measure 2.5–3.0 m (8.2–9.8 ft) in length. Adult females are roughly half the size of males and normally weigh 150–250 kg (330–550 lb), measuring 2–2.5 m (6.6–8.2 ft), but double their weight during pregnancy. - the bolded bit is partly repeated at the beginning of sentence 3 here. Could switch setence 1 to be a subordinate clause of sentence 2, and trim or remove first bit of sentence 3. Was going to try but it is ref heavy....thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Russia

I was asked by Casliber if I could point to information about polar bears in Russia, with emphasis on interactions with human cultures. This page seems as good a place as any to share what I know of...

• Words - In Russian, the polar bear is commonly called "Белый Медведь" - (Bely Medved = White Bear), though an older still familiar word is "Ошкуй - Oshkuy", which comes from the Komi (Arctic people/language related to Finnish) Oski ("Bear"). (from: Этимологический Словарь - Piotr Czerwinski → Oshkuy).

In the Chukchi language, the polar bear is called "Umka".

In Siberian Yupik it is called "Nanuuk" (as in other Inuit languages).

• Rituals - Among the Chukchi and Yupik there was a longstanding shamanistic ritual of "thanksgiving" to the hunted polar bear. After hunting a polar bear, its head and skin were removed and cleaned and traditionally brought into the home, there was a feast in the hunting camp in its honor. In order to appease the spirit of the bear, there were traditional song and drum music and the skull would be ceremonially fed. There would be a taboo on hunting of any animal while the bear was a guest in the home, and the skull would only be buried in an ancestral altar once the spirit was appeased. There is some English language documentation of these, but its not readily available. Here's a citation:

Kochnev A.A., Etylin V.M., Kavry V.I., Siv-Siv E.B., Tanko I.V. , 2002. Ritual Rites and Customs of the Natives of Chukotka connected with the Polar Bear // Preliminary report submitted for the meeting of the Alaska Nanuuq Commission ( Nome, Alaska, USA, December 17-19, 2002), P.1-3.

Many of these traditions have faded somewhat in time, especially in light of the total hunting ban in the Soviet Union since 1956, but most hunters are aware of them. I am sure similar traditions exist in the North American Arctic. There is also a high prevalence of polar bear imagery in traditional arts, tusk and bone carvings, etc. (eg: )

• Current harvest Polar bear hunting, while still illegal, reached very high numbers in the 1990's when there was no economy in Chukotka - an estimate of up to 400 killed in 1997 (called the "Wildest Year" by a Chukchi hunter) [8]. In 2000, a Russian/US bilateral treatment was signed to negotiate hunting limits (see, e.g. [9]), but it has not come into effect (it was only ratified by the U.S. Senate in 2004, and awaits agreements but indigenous group commissions). Since the economy has stabilized somewhat under the governorship of billionaire Roman Abramovich, all subsistence hunters receive regularized compensation for seal, walrus and whale hunts and fuel and equipment supplies have increased. Still, experts estimate that some 40-200 bears are poached annually for the fur and skull trade[10]. The numbers otherwise appear to be relatively healthy since the population increased from about 5-6 thousand to 13 thousand during the Soviet era ban.

I also ordered a classic monograph on the Polar Bear by S.M.Uspensky from the library and will maybe contribute more information later. Best, Eliezg (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fantastic and much appreciated, this will balance any possible Canadocentricism nicely.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cas wanted it to be more Australia-centric but didn't get very far ;) Hehe, I have some books that are quite oblivious to the world beyond Churchill, Manitoba, so the above research is much needed and appreciated. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To-Do List....

OK, where do we think this is at? Do we all reckon it has all material to satisfy comprehensiveness? If not what else and where should we look...(before we hunt some copyeditors..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot still to do in most sections. Here is a partial list:

• locomotion techniques and speeds
• what polar bears do in the summer
• natural causes of death
• ecological role
• home range, migration, and territoriality (or lack thereof)
• co-evolution with other arctic species
• polar bears in zoos and circuses
• attacks on humans
• illegal hunting (see Eliezg's notes above)
• more on the structure and location of maternity dens, other issues affecting habitat requirements
• more on oil and gas exploration

This site: [11] can provide a lot of what we need.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Clayoquot, sorry I have not been more proactive on this list. Is it all still as above or can any others be struck out? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say progress has been made on some items, but this list is mostly still what it is. It's OK though, we're getting there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest bear

• I just looked in this ref.

Guinness World Records 2008. Guinness Media, Inc. 2007. pp. p. 136. ISBN 1904994199. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

which records the oldest polar bear in captivity as 40 in the Assiniboine Park Zoo, Winnipeg. I noted Hemstock so I didn't add it...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stirling's Polar bears book also gives 41 years as the age of the oldest captive. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Name in various languages

I've removed the following:

In Romance languages, the animal is referred to by local cognates of 'polar bear', for example the French Ours Polaire, or the Spanish Oso Polar. By contrast, in many Germanic languages (although not in English), the animal is referred to by a cognate of 'ice bear'; for example, the German Eisbär, or the Swedish Isbjörn..

With the exception of French, these languages are not even from the polar bear's range. Lists like this tend to attract more and more languages - eventually someone comes along and says, "why not Chinese?" or "why not Arabic?". "Nanook" and its variations are definitely notable though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm...aren't they in Sweden at all? (agree that others can be removed I guess) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

Sweden isn't part of the range. It doesn't have a northern coastline. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not in Sweden, although they are found in Svalbard, and the name is almost identical in Danish.Anaxial (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Polar bears and humans

I added some information (here and here) on relationships between humans and polar bears from a really excellent Russian monograph (Uspensky, Savva Mikhailovich (1977). Белый Медведь (tr: Belyi Medved') - (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka.). Related to that, I would suggest that the whole Relationship with Humans section be reorganized. I think it should BEGIN with the cultural significance among indigenous people invoked in the last section, then go into the subsistence hunt, the commercial hunt, and only conclude with Global warming - which - while enormously important - is also the most recent and indirect "relationship" between humans and polar bears, especially coming after thousands of years of cultural and material interaction. Also, I am personally very biased against having such cultural phenomena as Coca-Cola, Glacier Mints and, yes, even panserbjorne in the same section as their many thousand year old worship by an enormous range of circumpolar cultures - which I would hesitate to classify as a "Cultural Depiction" in any case. Just some thoughts. Best, Eliezg (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments in general, and support trying to re-organize the section along those lines. At least to try it out. What would you call the Cultural Depictions section if it excludes traditional aboriginal cultures? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I put up a suggestions for rearranging the article here: User: Eliezg/Sandbox. It's mostly cut and paste, but I couldn't resist throwing one or two more facts, and snipping some of the older text. Eliezg (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into anceint and modern - see Lion..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'd group all together like lion as, no matter how fatuous the modern stuff seems, all material, both ancient and modern, is/are cultural depictions. using ancient or religious vs. modern or commercial or pop. culture allows one to split into separate subsections but both are still a part of a relationship with humans bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject material doesn't lend itself to being broken up into our typical headings. Eliezg's draft addresses a pretty significant problem, which is that in traditional indigenous cultures there are no bright lines between the practice of hunting, material use of the animal, and the cultural and spiritual role of the animal. The sources tend to discuss these together instead of as separate parts because because the connections between the parts are as notable as the parts. I think his re-org would work for the material we currently have. As we expand it though I expect there will be other challenges because there are also no bright lines between ancient and modern culture, or between serious and popular culture. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a question of "ancient" or "modern" (a contemporary Chukchi walrus hunter is steeped in an animistic tradition even as he lets me download MP3's off of his iPod.) Nor is "fatuousness" an issue. "Relationships with Humans" is a rubric which (in my opinion) should include first and foremost interaction with the peoples with which it meaningfully shares the environment, followed by history of commercial exploitation, anthropogenic environmental impacts (global warming, pollution, habitat degradation) and conservation efforts. There is no problem with a "Polar bears in popular culture" section, but as far as context and logical development goes, it belongs last, whereas traditional interactions should be the foundation on which the rest grows. "Cultural depictions" flounders a bit as a heading: It is at once too little to capture a worship/kinship relationship and, I think, almost too much for a breath mint mascot. - Eliezg (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming the "Popular culture" section to "In non-Arctic cultures" or something like that? There will be a bunch of stuff that fits into neither an "Indigenous culture" nor a "Popular culture" heading. Cas, would that work for you? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, have a play with it and I'll see how it reads. I am open to ideas. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't love "non-Arctic cultures" since it implies that people in the Arctic are somehow completely isolated (nothing prevents people in the Arctic from enjoying The Golden Compass while drinking Coca-Cola). But at the risk of sounding like a broken record broken record, the main issue here is structure. I've put a little more thought/work into the proposal here. I renamed "Cultural Depictions" to "Polar bears and human culture" with subheadings "Indigenous folklore", "As symbols and mascots", and "In literature" and moved the conservation stuff after "Exploitation". I kinda like it. If you all think it's OK, perhaps it can be imported wholesale, or with appropriate revisions? Better sooner than later, since subtle little things are always changing in the real article (as they're wont to). Eliezg (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew!... that was major surgery. I think I managed to work in all of the changes that happened in the last few days in the relevant sections. The result will probably need massaging. But I think the patient will live. Eliezg (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, here's a nice colorful happy worker-and-polar bears image from Spitsbergen.

Yup, tricky work. Thanks for taking care of it; it looks great now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref for claim of 2/3 reduction by 2050

I don't agree with removing the cite for "Polar Bears in a Warming Climate" Derocher et al. ( 07:19, 29 March 2008 Clayoquot, "rm ref which doesn't support this particular claim"). The specific claim is:

Some zoologists and climatologists believe that the projected decreases in the polar sea ice due to global warming will reduce their population by two thirds by 2050.

The cited article specifically says:

... it is unlikely that polar bears will survive as a species if the sea ice disappears completely as has been predicted by some.

... it is clear that because of the speed with which the climate continues to warm, particularly in the Arctic, and the correspondingly rapid reduction in the abundance of sea ice, the prognosis for polar bears is uncertain.

... Since 1978, the total amount of ice cover has declined by about 14% (Vinnikov et al., 1999). Comiso (2003) reported that the longer term in situ surface temperature data show that the 20-year trend is 8 times larger than the 100-year trend, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. Further, because of this, he further suggested that by 2050, except for the most northerly parts of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland, the average minimum extent of sea ice will be several hundred km north of the continental coastlines. In many areas, that means the remaining ice will no longer lie over the continental shelf but over the much deeper waters of the polar basin.

All that is missing is a precise "2/3", and instead the suggestion is that it might be approaching total extinction.

As a supporting reference to the first cited reference, that looks strong enough to be an appropriate reference. Floyd Davidson (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You just acknowledged that the source doesn't say that global warming will reduce the population by two thirds by 2050, but you want to use it as a ref for the claim that global warming will reduce the population by two thirds by 2050??? The argument loses no strength from removal of an extra footnote. It loses a great deal of strength if people notice that sources are being used to back up claims that are not in the sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say specifically a 2/3rd reduction, it says they may not exist at all!Floyd Davidson (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition from terrestrial food

I've removed this: "it cannot derive much nutrition from terrestrial food." The term "terrestrial food" is a strange nutritional concept, and the claim is contradicted by the diets of captive polar bears.[12][13] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Both cited references contradict your statement above.

See the second paragraph of the first reference. And note the proportions for a captive diet (averaged year round, for a non-active animal in a warm climate) listed in the last paragraph.

The second reference describes a captive diet with contents not available to wild polar bears except when hunting from ice, not land (note the levels of fat compared to protein). If the significance of the proportions is not a familiar topic, please compare them to any common cat or dog food sold in a typical supermarket. The difference in protein and fat levels is significant.

Granted that "terrestrial food" is a strange concept, but the question is whether it is accurate and is there a better term. It appears to be accurate, according to the two references you cite (!)... so usage depends on finding, or not, a better term.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what exactly you disagree with. I changed "Its biology is specialized for the digestion of fat from marine mammals and it cannot derive much nutrition from terrestrial food." to "Its biology is specialized for the digestion of fat from marine mammals." In the context, the part that I removed appeared to say that the digestive system of polar bears cannot absorb nutrients from terrestrial food. Decades of experience with captive polar bears indicates that they are perfectly able to digest foods that grow on land. Can you be more specific about what you want? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An adult wild polar bear requires a high fat diet. It cannot, and it does not, get that from vegetation and other food found on land (even from animals). There is much documentation for the population around Hudson Bay eating berries etc., which is often quoted without explaining that the bear is not getting essential nutrition from that, but is instead losing significant amounts of weight over any period of time when restricted to that diet. Readers do not realize the lack of significance such food has and are left believing that a polar bear can survive on such a diet.

The cites you provide are indicating diets higher in fat than any terrestrial source normally provides. Note also that there was no indication of the digestability of the protein in those diets. It is necessarily quite high as compared to the dog and cat food that it was compared to. For example, commercial high protein dog food might have only half the percentage of protein than was listed in the first reference, and even that doesn't provide the information that the polar bear diet consisted of protein that was 90% digestable (typical for meat products) while the dog food refered to has protein that is 45% digestable (typical for non-meat protein).

The part you removed is correct, though I would not object to making it more clear: "Its biology is specialized for the digestion of fat from marine mammals and it cannot derive sufficient nutrition from terrestrial food." "Much Nutrition" is not the same as "absorbing nutrients", though perhaps saying instead "sufficient nutrition" is more obvious. In this case we are mostly concerned with caloric intake, not vitamins etc.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand what you're looking for. I'll try to add it soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've reworded several parts of that section for better clarity.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Range

I just noticed how bizzare this range summary is:

1. Canada, home to about 60% of the world's polar bears
2. Greenland
3. Svalbard, Norway
4. Central Siberia and Franz-Josef Land, Russia
5. Alaska, USA

Just to be clear, Siberia is an enormous landmass, the "center" of which is a 1000 miles from the sea and consistently boasts 40 C days in the summer. Also, the polar bear is found throughout the Eurasian arctic, not just Franz-Josef Land. Also, why does Canada stand alone, with a proud bear count next to it? For consistency, the list would then simply read: Canada, USA, Russia, Norway, Denmark, without qualification... but that doesn't seem particularly informative. Why not describe the range not according to political boundaries but geographically? The IUCN organizes the subpopulations going west to east as East Greenland, Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, Chukchi Sea and then a dozen North American subpopulations from the Beaufort Sea via Hudson Bay to Baffin Bay. The range should be presented accordingly. No? Eliezg (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that would clearly be an improvement. Glad to see you might be getting hooked onto this article :)Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Creative solutions

Brilliant: http://www.polarbearconservancy.org/Site/Media_Center.html Much cheaper than rescuing marine mammals from oil spills, actually. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermaphroditic bears

I removed this: Polar bears in Svalbard have the highest concentrations of PCBs, and biologists suggest this may explain the high incidence of hermaphroditic bears in the area. (Wiig, Oystein; Derocher, Andrew E.; Cronin, Matthew M.; Skaare, Janneche U. (October 1998), "Female Pseudohermaphrodite Polar Bears at Svalbard" (PDF), Journal of Wildlife Diseases, vol. 34, no. 4, Lawrence, Kansas: Wildlife Disease Association, pp. pp. 792-796, ISSN 0090-3558, retrieved 2007-11-17 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help).). The 1998 source says pseudohermaphrodism, not hermaphrodism. Furthermore, a more recent (2005) source [14] says, "Pseudo-hermaphrodism was determined not to be the effect; instead it was determined to be clitoral enlargement caused from an inflammatory reaction." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. petitions, 2005-2006

I've removed this:

In February 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the bears as as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The agency did not respond to the petition, despite being required to do so within 90 days. On 14 December 2006 the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a successful lawsuit to compel a decision.

There's nothing wrong with it except that it's stale news in a really long section in a really long article. I'd like to give more space to other countries rather than put this much focus on how U.S. legislation gets written. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hunting Behavior

I came to this article looking to confirm / reject a rumor that polar bears cover their nose or eyes with their paws while hunting to avoid detection. I didn't find this content and began some research which gave ambiguous, unauthoritative answers; lots of unqualified people were saying yes, and just as many unqualified people were saying no. In the end my research found no competent answer to the question.

This appears to be a popular question, and seeing as the left-handed rumor is addressed in the article, I would like to request that someone familiar with this subject provide a sourced answer. Probably best under the 'Biology and behavior' -> 'Hunting and diet' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.35.180 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The answer is that they don't do it. I'll add this to the article later (gotta run now). Thanks for bringing it up. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Added, with more nuance than my hastily written note above. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! -OP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.33.132 (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia?

Not sure if it would be just triva or of any use but it turns out that 3 bears were shot in Deline, Northwest Territories, 480 km south of the Arctic Ocean. What is missing from the online sources is the muscle breakdown and the lack of back fat which were covered in the print edition. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The incident is part of a growing pattern of hungry bears entering human settlements after losing contact with the sea ice. I'll add a fuller description of the pattern, which is covered in other sources, to the article; I'm not sure if this particular incident is worth singling out. Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Male & female sizes

I've removed this: "Males are generally 25–45% larger than females." which is contradictory to the later figures and statement indicating that males are about twice the size of females. Multiple sources such as this [15] indicate that males are about twice the size of females. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the former is referring to height and the latter to mass? ${\sqrt[{3}]{2}}\approx 1.26$. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kodiak Brown or Polar Bear; which is larger?

Both the Polar Bear and Kodiak Brown Bear pages and linked articles describe the same upper limit (10+ ft. 1,500+ lb.).

The Polar Bear page describes the Polar Bear as the largest land carnivore, while the Kodiak Brown Bear page list the Kodiak Brown Bear as the largest land omnivore. This is only a crafty way of not having to say outright which is larger. Incognitum Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kodiak bears are, on average, a little heavier. I'll add a mention to the article. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually after checking some more, there doesn't seem to be a straightforward answer to this one. Do a Google search for "largest bear species" and you'll get a bunch of different answers. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, that's why I gave up the google search and came to check the wikis, only to find no answer here either. Anywho it was worth a shot. Incognitum Poinete, ede ede; tachu tachu! (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.156.10 (talk)

in all the programmes that i've seen about bears, the polar bears are always said to bhe biggers weighing at 1100 lbs and then kodiak bears at 1000 lbs i hope this helps Upol007 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

article is wrong. Polar bears will readily kill men

This page has in the past said the truth, that polar bears will readily kill men. Someone has now edited it to say that bears rarely kill men as "men taste bad". The reason they rarely kill men is they rarely encounter them. But if they do and the man has no rifle, the bear will eat the man.

Here is a standard type reference:

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/pbbehavior.html

Anyone who has spend time in polar bear territory knows they are killers. (And nothing wrong with that. We are meat to them. And they are not trained to be afraid of men.)

I have been on the ice, where we were in a polar bear area and had to kill 7 bears in a row. The bears were fearless. We eventually moved camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article is wrong, although it could perhaps be tweaked. The sentence says "It can kill an adult human, although it rarely attempts to as humans taste bad." I interpret this to mean that polar bears won't actively go hunt people. They are still wild animals, and I think it mostly goes without saying that it is dangerous to enter the native habitat of any wild animal capable of killing a human. --JayHenry (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

TCO is right. The sentence "It can kill an adult human, although it rarely attempts to as humans taste bad." is vandalism that was introduced about a day ago and is complete nonsense. I've reverted it along with some other nonsense. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry that my post above sounds so cranky. I was mostly cross with myself for requesting unprotection and then seeing vandalism explode :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tail length

I've removed the exact length of the polar bear tail: (7–12 cm (2.8–4.8 in) Nothing wrong with it, but it seems pretty trivial and this article is *long*. Describing how the tail is short makes the article long, ha ha. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Endangered Species?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1779634,00.html

Apparently it is now an endangered species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.25.35 (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The polar bear is classified as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and a vulnerable species by the IUCN. For purposes of the infobox at the top of the article and the categories at the bottom of the article, we always use the IUCN classification. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

There's a ton of polar bear news today to catch up on. I would love to sit for a couple of hours and integrate it into the article. However, I'm quite frantically packing for a camping trip at the moment and can't possibly do it. I'm also going to be off the grid for pretty much the next week. So... any volunteers?

Also, FYI I have left a suggestion here: Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. It would be really helpful if someone knowledgeable could keep an eye on it and respond to questions. If you choose to support or object, please mention that you were notified by this Talk page so that it doesn't look like nontransparent canvassing. See you all next week :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Main picture

The picture at the top of the article has changed a couple of times in recent months. Shall we take a vote? Feel free to suggest others as well.

Picture A

Picture B

Support picture B. This one is more colourful to attract the reader's attention, it shows more of the bear's body, it is of technically higher quality, and it's not used much outside of Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So I can't vote for this one? I tested A and B in the Infobox. I agree you can see the polar bear's body better in B, both because of the perspective and because of the contrast between the bear's pelt and the blue water beyond in that picture. I'm inclined to Support B but don't feel that strongly. The open mouth, as if roaring, is a fun image as well. --JayHenry (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

this is so helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.54.23 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer B per Clayoquot. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Long conservation section

This article is big, and this is with minimal coverage of the latest news. I'm planning to summarize and spin out Polar bear conservation eventually, keeping in mind that there should still be a lot of weight given to conservation in the main Polar bear article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this:In 2007, the proposed Polar Bear Protection Act was introduced to reverse the 1994 legislation and ban the importation of dead polar bears; the proposal was defeated. With the status of the species in the U.S. having undergone so many twists and turns, I think this adds another layer of confusion and little significance. It may be good for a future sub-article on polar bear conservation or polar bear hunting. The sourcing could probably be improved too. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag

I added the tag to "Debate over the listing of the polar bear under endangered species legislation has been unusual in that it has put conservation groups and Canada's Inuit at opposing positions". I can't think of a conservation group that Inuit have not been opposed to at some point, with the exception of the pro-hunting Ducks Unlimited, due to their anti-hunting stances. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I've removed the "has been unusual in that it". Cheers! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can they swim or not? And matters of reproduction...

Many times over, I've read and heard people say that Polar bears are drowning because of fading ice caps. In the same breath, I've also read and heard zoologists and others say that Polar bears can swim, and frequently do so whenever hunting offshore. So which is true?

Yes, they can swim. However, they also need significant amounts of solid ice cap for hunting. So both statements are true. This seems to me to be fairly clear in the article already - for example "they only rarely catch seals... in open water", the description of still-hunting, and "most marine animals can outswim it". If you have reliable citations that contradict those already provided in support of the above statements, then, of course, that would be useful to the article. Anaxial (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to believe Biologists and Zoologists over environmentalists and a career Politician. But that's neither here nor there. But if you listen to those that go on hearsay,

If you think the article has insufficient citations, by all means, provide some more. Anaxial (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

somebody that doesn't know any better would think that Polar bears only hunt on land, which is sadly misleading the public in my view.

Also, in the matter of reproduction, while it's been said that females in general tend to be good mothers, perhaps you should also note that inexperienced mothers tend to kill their young by accident, causing issue with the population not growing as immediately as expected.

Citation? Anaxial (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Anaxial. That's not a logical explanation. If they're not growing as expected because of inexperienced mothers killing their young it would mean that the mothers didn't kill their young before, but have started to now. I've never heard anyone claim that. As it is, the amount of bad-mothering death would already be accounted for in the historical trend lines and future expectations. --JayHenry (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They only give birth to 1 or 2 at a time to begin with. As with most wild life, the males tend to fight amongst themselves for the right to reproduce with the females, which also tends to cause a lapse in population, with the rare fatal death. It should be noted that while females are ready to reproduce as early as 4 years, the males aren't usually ready until their 6th year. And even after that period of time, it usually takes another 4 years for them to be successful at reproducing. And it should be kept in mind that females normally give birth every 3 to 4 years depending on thier population. And then of course, you have young cubs being preyed upon. As expected, while the population maybe slow to increase, but increase it does nontheless.

The article already says "population estimates have increased over the past 50 years and are relatively stable today". Anaxial (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

With "Man Made Global Warming" speculations rearing it's ugly head, it wouldn't be wise to mislead the public by making them think that only man is to blame for the death of Polar bears or their slow rise in population growth. In order to do so, all things concern polar bears should be documented and protected as needed. Sessou (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Anaxial in that most of the things you're concerned about seem to already be accounted for in the article. You may be addressing real misconceptions about polar bears, but you're not actually addressing the article at Wikipedia, which already covers these points. It's not clear to me in what ways this article is misleading to someone who reads it. --JayHenry (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that would be useful to know is, just how far does a polar bear routinely travel? About the closest I've found to that information is mention under Biology and behavior where it states:

Polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been seen in open Arctic waters as far as 60 mi (97 km) from land. Their 12 cm (4.7 in) layer of fat adds buoyancy and insulates them from the cold.

I'm pretty sure I heard a mention on the radio once stating something to the effect that polar bears routinely swim for hundreds of miles, or some other really large distance like that. Could someone with knowledge on that please comment? --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)