Talk:Polar Bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Polar Bear/Archive 1

Contents 1 "The largest extant land carnivore..." 2 Global warming induced arctic extinctions 3 Polar Bear Walrus Syllogism 4 Divergence From Brown Bears 5 A Quick Edit 6 New info about polar bears and Global Warming 7 Polar bears only hunt when there's sea ice? 8 Polar Bears Not Endangered by Global Warming, Greenland Ice Thickening/Expanding as a Whole 9 Hybrid and T.K. 10 YouTube 11 Exceptional weight 12 resting 13 Fur Legend 14 Left hand 15 Speculative and non-NPOV passage removed 16 and this leads to... 17 and then it leads to this 18 Citations needed??? 19 Clarify sentence 20 that sentence 21 Global warming in intro 22 Black skin. 23 the polar bear and warming 24 "There are no polar bear subspecies." vs "Other sources list subspecies" 25 the bears and their status & FOX news 26 The intro, a non-political discussion 27 polar bear shrinkage 28 Lead section 29 thanks 30 Citations off in first and other paragraphs 31 please revert last edit by ronbo 32 national post addition 33 Request 34 New Survey of Polar Bears 35 still not corrected 36 historic range 37 External links 38 Let this be known... 39 Units conversion

[edit] "The largest extant land carnivore..."

I would recommed removing phrase "The largest extant land carnivore..." as many sources state that Kodiak Bears are larger than Polar Bears (Kodiaks are subspecies of brown bears). I have also read that the largest bear ever recorded was a Kodiak bear. (Even the wikipedia Brown Bear article says so) (Puna)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Please cite one of the sources that you mention, if you would, please. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ursus arctos middendorfi (the Kodiak Bear), is the largest bear according to "Missä maa ja meri kohtaavat" (English original work "Where Land and Sea Meet" by Michael Bright). It also says so in http://animalplanet.co.uk/grizzly/feature2.shtml (section 2).(Puna)

I corrected this in the article a couple of days ago and someone reverted, to clarify the point, this article says that kodiaks often weigh over 1,500 lbs and peak at 2500 lbs (and even more in the zoo). This article says that polar bears weigh from 900 to 1300 lb and occasionally over 1750 lbs. This clearly means that kodiaks are larger (note that if you compare height kodiaks are also taller). Vicarious 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But it's a sub-species. Taken in toto Brown Bears are not on average larger than Polar Bears. There is great differentiation amongst the former. Marskell 12:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have made the point that Brown Bears are omnivores whereas Polar Bears, along with Lions are carnivores. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Altought Brown Bears omnivorous, they are still carnivores. Polar bears are omnivorous too. Also, it is silly to say that something is "the biggest thing" if there really is someting bigger. Kodak Bear are larger than Polars on the average, so it sounds odd to say that "they are sometimes bigger". Sub-species or not, Kodac Bears are larger than Polar Bears, so i think it is utterly misleading to say that Polar Bears are largest bears. I would suggest that we would not use superlatives in matters like these, they don't add much to the informative value of the article and are prone to controversy.(Puna)

The phrasing of the statement is "the largest extant land carnivore", not the largest species. In order to be in the running you do not have to be your own species you simply have to be extant (which means still alive), live on the land, and eat meat. If you wish to rephrase this claim to the largest extant land carnivore species, I'd find it a bit wordy but you'd be able to call polar bears the biggest. (although this article also says that polar bears might be a subspecies of brown bear, but we can ignore that for now). When saying that the Great albatross has the largest wingspan of any bird you don't average it out with all the other Albatross.
As for the comment you did put in that the kodiak is occasionally larger, what part of the numbers say it's on occasion? aside from how drastically the peak numbers of the kodiak are higher (which suggests a higher average weight) the brownbear atricle says kodiaks are commonly over 1500 lb; while this article says polar bears are 900-1300 lb. Vicarious 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK look, Kodiak doesn't have its own page because its not its own species. We're discussing Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos, right? And we're redirecting in that sentence to the latter as larger than the former which doesn't make sense. There's this (looks corny, but actually Library of Congress): [[1]]. Marskell 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of crap to wade through in searching for definitive sizes, but this from the Alaska gov seems relatively authoritative :[2]. It lists 800-1400 pounds for male Kodiak Brown Bears which is equal to our range for Polars (900-1300).

The original wording was correct. The Kodiak Brown Bear is an omnivore, and not a carnivore, as well, as the anon above asserts. The current wording is misleading because it implies that the Brown Bear is a carnivore. I'm deleting the parenthetical remark. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Polar bears don't have many plants in their habitat to eat. To be an omnivore though you don't have to eat plants, you just have to be able to, with a digestive track that can handle cellulose. Are polar bears and brown bears so different that one of them can and the other can't? Vicarious 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Polar Bear is an obligate carnivore. "It is the most completely carnivorous member of the bear family." Brown Bears could be argued to be carnivores since they are the order Carnivora, but "are not particularly carnivorous; they derive up to three-quarters of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter". It "has teeth adapted to an omnivorous diet." (The quotations are from their respective articles.) The BBC's treatment is similar to what I'm advocating. [3][4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have become a very difficult sentence. I'm willing to conceed that the kodiak is an omnivore and polar bear is a carnivore, however I think the kodiak deserves a mention. We still haven't established which is bigger anyway so I'll phrase it as to not specify which is larger. Vicarious 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm returning the parenthetical remarks about the kodiak bear. first, polar bears are not widely considered "land mammals". tho, if by their affinity with the Ursidae we were to hypothetically (hence the "quotes") consider them so, both polar bears AND brown bears are carnivores; that is, they are members of the order carnivora, as they are directly descended from ancestors specialized for eating the flesh of animals. red pandas and giant pandas are ALSO carnivores in this sense, tho in the strict dietary sense they are herbivores; raccoons as well, tho they are omnivorous by nature. southern elephant seals would then be the largest of all carnivores, period. (tho the whales are larger, and many whales eat flesh, these are Cetaceans and not, technically speaking, carnivores). second, kodiak bears are an isolated and distinct population of brown bears, and are therefore a natural group. as, on average, they are larger than polar bears, i'm re-adding this tidbit of info, as i believe it's relevant to the article. - Metanoid 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no zoologist, but I do study the English language a bit. Points that have been brought up in this discussion include:

1 - Are polar bears or kodiak bears on average larger?

2 - Which of the two are capable of attaining the greatest size?

3 - Do kodiak bears constitute a species or are the a subspecies of brown bear?

4 - Are polar bears land mammals or not?

A compilation of what I've read is that kodiaks average larger and have the potential for the larger size. If kodiaks are a subspecies of brown bear, then brown bear as a species no longer averages larger than polar bears, but they still have the potential for the largest size, and therefore brown bears must be considered the largest land mammal, whether you consider polar bears land mammals or not. Applejuicefool 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and a whole debate might've been unnecessary. Xiner (talk, email) 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added two references to the Size and weight section, but they and the text don't agree with each other in the number. The FWS comments on the Kodiak bear and says it's large than polar. Xiner (talk, email) 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming induced arctic extinctions

I removed the following statements because they do not contain a citation, and appear unreliable. Also contains the use of weasel words such as "have been recorded" and "now been observed" without citing sources.

"Population reductions of up to 20% have been recorded in recent years, the average weight of the bears has been declining significantly, and cub survival rates have plunged. However in an area where human seal hunting was banned (the bear's main food source), it appears the bears may have thrived. The US FWS, however, states there is insuffiencient evidence to make a call on this area currently."

"Polar bears have now been observed resorting to cannabalism and starving to death or drowning, trying to hunt yet impaired by lack of sea ice."

User talk:NeuronExMachina has added weasel words to the assertion of likely global warming induced Arctic extinctions and added a contrary opinion from National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative industry funded think tank. [5] Since this source does not satisfy WP:RS for a science article, i.e., a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable scientific journal, I am reverting this change. The impact of global warming on the Arctic ecosystem is better discussed at Effects_of_global_warming#Ecosystems. In my opinion, this article has too narrow a focus for that debate. However, this article should reflect the consensus of Effects of global warming. My reading of that article is that it does not accept the view promulgated by the National Center for Policy Analysis. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the peer-reviewed article supporting the statement that polar bears are being threatened by global warming? I'm sure a number of other species would be threatened, but what about polar bears specifically? On a side note, I wonder if there's any evidence of mass polar-bear extinctions during periods when the temperature was substantially warmer than it is now. --NeuronExMachina 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added some material from a 2004 National Geographic study. Jkelly 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems a near consensus that ice thinning caused by global warming is leading to a reduction in polar bear numbers. A simple google search for 'global warming polar bears' describes evidence accumulated by the Canadian Wildlife Service, the US Minerals Management Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife service. Scientific consensus attributes global warming to human-produced CO2 emissions. Any article on a form of wildlife, especially one whose numbers are shrinking, should address the issue of their conservation. It therefore makes sense to make the edit (which I've done) from 'may', which suggests much uncertainty, to 'has been attributed to', which suggests the topic is still under investigation but is nonetheless well on the way to becoming scientific fact. LeoTrottier 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --NeuronExMachina 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact no "consensus" regardless of what a Google search will tell you. In fact a scientific analysis done by biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut completely refutes these claims. In it he states that, "Of the 13 major populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419

Er, have you read the references? Your link doesn't work, btw. Xiner (talk, email) 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So how about this one:Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! "A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist, examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study finds that polar bear populations are in good shape. "

Or this one:[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/16/polar-bear.html Rising polar bear numbers in Davis Strait get warm reception ] The population of Davis Strait polar bears is estimated to be at 2,100, says an interim report of a three-year study. Ten years ago, Inuit hunters, using traditional knowledge, estimated there were 1,400 Davis Strait polar bears and 1,650 by 2004. The population in the recently released report includes polar bears in south Baffin, Labrador, Nunavik and southern Greenland.

Or this one:Polar bears defy extinction threat THE world’s polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming, which scientists had believed was pushing the animal towards extinction. According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

or this one:POLAR BEAR NUMBERS More recent studies have found a 20 to 25 per cent increase in polar bear numbers across Canada. In some areas the numbers have increased to the point where the indigenous Inuit have increased the number of polar bears available for hunting. In a number of Arctic villages polar bears are so abundant there is a serious public safety issue. Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which monitors the relationship between shifting sea ice and global warming, has concluded that: The overall possible impact of global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to the Arctic sea ice. --Zeeboid 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bear Walrus Syllogism

Does anyone recall an entry about the predator-prey relationship of polar bears and walruses? There was a statement that said something along the lines of, All walruses are afraid of polar bears, even though no one polar bear can [take] a walrus" Anyway, while not particularly useful in this page, I thought it was a very interesting syllogism, and it made me laugh. Does anyone know where this statement went? - I couldn't find it in the edits history. Just curious, thanks.

[edit] Divergence From Brown Bears

I tried to edit the section on Phylogeny to change the time of divergence of polar bears from Brown bears from 2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago, but someone has reverted the edit back. The 200 thousand years ago figure is consistent with everything I have seen on this topic. To be specific the Smithsonian website says about 100,000 years (and notes that that makes them the most recently evolved large mammal). The Bear Den website says 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, as does the University of Maryland's department of geology website, and Polar Bears International website says about 200,000 years ago. So "about 200,000 years ago" seems reasonable and the 2 million years ago figure seem completely out of bounds. So if someone is going to revert the section back to the 2 million years ago figure I would at least like to have an explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty Cashman (talk • contribs) .

Great work tracking down all the citations! I am not an expert in Polar Bears, nor am I the one who was doing the reverting. I may however, have the reason for the disagreement: from what I have heard there is a divergence between the traditional paleontological dating of fossils and recent genetic dating. Beta, Sumich, and Kovacs Marine Mammals, 2006 (full citation below) indicates that fossils give dates of 0.7-0.1 Ma, while molecular methods indicate the divergence occured at 1-1.5 Ma. I checked their reference for the molecular date (Yu et al 2004), which has a 95% Confidence interval around this estimate of 0.01-3.08. Given these data, I tend to think your date is the better of the two.

The two works cited above are

• Berta, Annalisa, James Sumich, and Kit Kovacs. 2004. Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology 2nd ed. Academic Press.
• Yu, Li, Qing-wei Li, OA Ryder and Y-ping Zhang. 2004. Phylogeny of bears (Ursidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 480-494.

The two methods may be the reason for the different views on the date. I think we should leave it at 200,000 and track down on of the citations you mention and add it to the article. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a significant revision of this section. I changed the name of the section from "Phylogeny" to "Evolutionary Relationships" because I consider that to be clearer and it is consitent with the terminology being used in other articles (such as bears). I added a mention of the Sheilds/Talbot paper that showed that some brown bears on certain Alaska Islands had a more recent common ancestor with polar bears than with other brown bears, and I added a link to the grizzly/polar bear hybrid article. Hopefully, this section of the article is now more upto date and more consistent with other articles. Rusty Cashman 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Quick Edit

I deleted the information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view because it seemed as though it clouded the issue. Even though the air temperatures may be decreasing near certain areas by the poles, the polar ice cap is still melting. And most scientists believe that it will continue to do so since global temperatures are projected to rise significantly over the next several centures. If this does indeed occur entire arctic ecosystems will be threatened; the polar bears are clearly a part of this ecosystem.

The information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view, while potentially accurate, act to cloud the issue while it is really fairly straightforward - in my humble opinion.

Thanks!

Jdsmith03 11:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)jdsmith03

[edit] New info about polar bears and Global Warming

[6]. Maybe it should be incorporated into the article? JoshuaZ 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar bears only hunt when there's sea ice?

[7]

The video from Weather.com claims that bears are starving because they only hunt when there is sea ice around, and will the melting going on, their hunting season has dropped an entire month in the last 15 years. This has led to polar bears starving. Can some one confirm/deny/add? (I'd check up on it, but I don't have time right now). Thanks! Janet13 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure i've seen similar things said on BBC documentries and it seems to make sense. I'd imagine land mammals (e.g. not stuff like whales which have fish-like body shapes and swimming abilities) cannot swim anywhere near well enough to stand a chance at hunting while swimming. Plugwash 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bears Not Endangered by Global Warming, Greenland Ice Thickening/Expanding as a Whole

Sources:

1. http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFkNjliNTIxYjJjNmQxNjdhYjdjNTA0ZTU2ZGFjNzQ=
2. http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg3NTcwZjhhYzFhNTM2MTk1MDVkNGUxNWNjMjhhMTM=
3. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22170
4. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15957
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/686008/posts
6. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/Mar%2018.htm
7. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
8. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/07/05/a_convenient_lie

Artic Ice Melting Cycle:

1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743085/posts

(please note that some of these sources will include information and opinions not pertinent to the issue at hand, and should be ignored as topics of debate)

I worry when the article includes unlikely hypothetical scenarios as fact. Rampant speculation on such a sensitive topic only leads to conflict. - MSTCrow 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My view is that these are not peer-reviewed scientific journals and do not satisfy WP:RS. Many seem to be pushing a political point of view and selectively quote scientific papers for that purpose. I agree that the content in the article could be better sourced. However, debate about global warming and its effects on ecosystems may be better pursued on Talk:Global warming and its related pages. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get into the global warming debate as a whole, only if polar bears are in some way being affected by effect X or not. The article needs to state both points of view, without coming down on one side or the other. - MSTCrow 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To remove cited information is hardly the way to get the article to state both points of view. Wouldn't it make more sense to add a balancing paragraph of your own, in the form of a neutral presentation of the perspective you favor? With sources with some scientific credibility, please. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC).

Removing one side that incorrectly lists itself as accepted fact makes sense. I'll rework the thing with both points of view, with neither side claiming total acceptance. - MSTCrow 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

News story about global warming and Arctic ice melt. [8]

[edit] Hybrid and T.K.

I added the geneolgy of the Hybrid Polar-griz This report was given to us by Economic and Natural Resourses Canada. I thought it added a little to the that bit of trivia. Since it has less relation with the polar bear mabye the whole thing should be taken out?? Anyway I was wandering if you would accept Traditional Knowledge in this site. I think I would add to the overall knowledge base this site holds.

Polar Bears are one of the Inuit's most highly regarded animals on the planet. We as a people would never put them in a position to endanger their well-being.

I thought above statement should go on the page as well. To remind others that this was our responiblity long before climate change started or myths of over hunting.

[edit] YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional weight

An anonomous editor disputes the record weight number.[9] I'd like to see it corrected, as needed, and the citation replaced by one of higher quality. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resting

the bear isnt resting, its clearlying having a good doss, it needs to be changed. immediately.

[edit] Fur Legend

In the Fur and skin Section, there is a short bit about the guard hairs:

The hair does not have fiber-optic properties, nor does it transmit light or heat to the skin (an urban legend).

This could be improved with a reference to someplace with a fuller explanation of this often told "fact". There seems to be a guy named Daniel Koon who wrote about this.

I think the term "urban legend" is being misapplied.

216.254.12.114 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I read a long article about this in the Journal of Optics in the 1970s. This is NOT an urban legend. This is the truth.--Filll 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I read a few discussions of this in the literature. It appears that this theory was disproved. I included a reference and made a note to this effect. If you make a statement such as this, back it up with some research and a reference so people do not have to go through the hoops that I did.--Filll 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see a source for this item. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to the UV optics of fur theory. There are probably several earlier, that I have not been able to find. There were several groups of researchers who hypothesized this in the 60´s and early 70´s based on measurements of the solar heating of pelts and the visibility of bears in the UV spectrum--TAOdesign 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A recent (Feb 2003) article on a study of polar bear fur: http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/engnews/fall02/3S/polarbear.html. "She discovered that polar bear hair has the same radiative properties as snow". The article goes on to state another interesting fact: apparently polar bears are easily seen using UV imagers. Unfortunately this isn't a scientific article and it itself provides zero citations, but it should be semi-respectable since it's a Berkeley Engineering news piece. Vectra14 17:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this several times. I think that it is different from the fibre optic fur legend which I am sorry to say is now discredited.--Filll 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left hand

I read that ALL Polar bears are left handed (left pawed?). Is this true?--Filll 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative and non-NPOV passage removed

"The polar bear could prove an interesting study as to how exactly mammals adapt to the oceans from the land as they are in some intermediate phase between land mammal and marine mammal. If a warming phase on earth was slow enough the population could actually split with a part retreating back to land and the other more water friendly part adapting fully to the oceans and we would see an entirely new class of ocean predator! The current warming is clearly far too rapid and unprecedented for the bears to achieve such a feat naturally so quickly with the small population size they have unless they experienced other more conscious human interference."

Took this out of the evolution section. I actually love the passage, so if someone could put it back in a way that doesn't violate at least three Wikipedia standards I would be eternally grateful. The three problems I see are non-NPOV for the global warming reference, original research because the whole thing is sourceless speculation, and non-encyclopedic tone. But---ocean-going polar bears would totally rock. ^-^ 0702034 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The cubs need land or ice to survive, I think. Xiner (talk, email) 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and this leads to...

Yes it was i that added this in addition to much of the actual scientific information thruout this article on the polar bear page...and that little part i put in the evolution section lasted longer than i expected...as to ur three reasons for removal...i see just one that is difficult to address (the second: original research)...for the first and as to warming...i can add plenty of articles supporting that...and indeed i did added one to the beginning of the page yet it was erased...even though one isnt supposed to erase newspaper article links when it doesnt fit with ones perceptions (in this case the eraser happened to believe warming was a fraud and didnt want info included that contradicted this belief)...yet even the strongest anti-global warming faction (of the bushies) has come out in acknowledgement of it and aimed to help the polar bears escape its effects...so i think its beginning to get beyond "speculation" that the arctic is melting away...the scientists were convinced many many years ago...now even the business lobby is accepting it...(i personaly accept it as a scientist..yet i am pro global warming you see as well...i know it will greatly help russia and canada out...their business people, and citizenry in general, will profit...so i am for increased global warming...a unique position for a scientist...yet im a rusky/canada fan...and turning the heat up on everybody else...all that good ice hockey i suppose won me over...im for no curbs on carbon emissions... and blasting methane into the atmosphere if someone shoots up balloons and all to stop the warming...yall have a little war on ur hands and its a little late to change the tides in this one...were warming this little planet...anyways...here in switzerland where i live its high enough elevation to wait most people out on the warming thing too...im working on ideas as to what to do with the polar bear...im for rescueing the bears from the collateral damage of this latest newest "cold war"...i think it can be done...theyll need support for a while...yet even without GE to their genome i think we could eventually see them adapt to their new circumstances if we support them in certain ways...i suppose tho tinkering in the genomes of some and letting them loose in the polulation would speed up the time till theyr independent of us again)...anyways as to ur "non-encylopedic tone"...i perhaps agree i should rephrase the sentence yet keep the basic idea...yet thats easy to address of course...the second is hard to address tho...as far as i know i am the first to suggest this that the polar bear given time could adapt fully to the oceans as the cetacea did so long ago...or the elephant-like sirenians did (manatees and such which are most like the elephant family)...i will look for someone elses suggesting this...yet i actually hope im the first...i would feel it a scientific achievement if i were the first to note this...yet surely someone else has played with this idea of polar bears as an excellent study example of a terrestrial mammal adapting to being a marine/aquatic mammal in full...it would take them millions of years perhaps to make the change successfully on their own with such a small population...plus a little luck...and i think a basic desire, on some the bears part, for living in the oceans full time, (surely some of these bears show a greater enjoyment of the ocean and swimming in it)...we could "enable them" within this century i think...we could create a fully aquatic polar bear thru engineering...we could even make them twice as smart as people...what do yall think of that???......."dr moreau".......and as to the warming thing...as a sidenote...i am not a member of any country...i am actually a stateless scientist belonging to an independent consulting firm...the nearest state i could be claimed as being a part of is the new state recently created on the previously unclaimed section of antarctica...NuuXeniaLand...i think russia and canada have a position currently of curbing global warming...im trying to convince them both otherwise...currently im for "staying the course" and keeping the warming at its present rate...yet i could decide to escalate...and decide in favor of speeding it up...so i suppose i forgot when adding some of the info to the polar bear page that it could sway people into concern over global warming...i will erase all refernces to gloabl warming on the page...and i think im heading to the gloabl warming page itself to remove things and add some anti-global warming stuff....dr yoheaux...Benjiwolf 10:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, if you can trim down on the commentary, and point me to where you felt the links were unjustifiably removed (WP:DIFF), I could take a look. Global warming is an overwhelming consensus in peer-reviewed science, but it'd be hard to read through this clutter, and please don't threaten to do anything that would harm the encyclopedia. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 15:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and then it leads to this

it appears that my references are in the latest version as references instead of links...so its not an issue...the "sensible" factual additions i made to the global warming page, such as scientists thought we were in a cooling phase, and temps had a downward trend from the 40s to the 70s was promptly removed...my notation of the fact that warming helps some countries out (factual)...was promptly removed...anyways as to the polar bears...as they lose out in this human induced warming phase... i say we then establish two new populations...one land dwelling...one ocean dwelling...as we have speeded climate evolution up...then its fair play that we speed up the evolution of our favorite creatures so they can deal...we can make it so the polar bears are always super nice to humans too i think...its not so hard really to make them sweet and cuddly when around people...we now have all the science to be able to accomplish these things...i think the one main trouble we might have with their ocean adaptation is: we have too few whales after their near extinction in hunts...a fully aquatic well designed polar bear could ravage the few remaining whales...the whale population is likely too small to be able to adjust to the new predator...wed have to "help them out" as well...there are several ways...yet the cetacea would be mad at us...the killer whale is the top ocean predator...perhaps its better to keep the bears as land dwellers after all...the killer whales seem to like us...(well at least they dont eat us)...perhaps theyd change their minds if we added fully aquatic polar bears to their scene...anyways...yall humans need to adjust as well i suppose...yall are now at the "godlike" stage...(in terms of ability...not yet wisdom or responsibility)...yall are massively influencing all sorts of planetary processes...evolution is now in the cards as well...to not tinker at all in genomes is to influence evolution as well...there are so many humans and their industry and its pollutants are so omnipresent that this in itself influences evolution on this planet...from here on out yall are evolutionary engineers as well...better train up some of those used car salesmen...unfortunately yall have far too few ecologists, biologists, and evolution specialists to deal with ur new abilities...yall have little to no clue how to interact with ur ecology...let alone guide its evolution...and even a simple single celled organism can be far more complex than the latest BMW...yall always wanted to be the top species...the dominate ones...the "most intelligent"...and yall love control so much...well be careful what u wish for...the cetaceans, and polar bears and such, and everybody else, get to sit back and enjoy life...while yall are the busy worker bees running & controlling this world...who is the most intelligent???...they play with bubbles & squeaks...and yall play with guns and missiles...who is the most intelligent???...Benjiwolf 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, please be aware of WP:3RR, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Unsourced statements can be deleted. Please provide sources for your interesting commentary. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed???

OK people...there are a bunch of "citations needed" tags in this article...i have referenced "marine mammal medicine" at the bottom of this article, a large book written by expert marine mammal veterinarians and that is referenced itself with thousands of scientific studies...i have not referenced next to every sentence why it is valid...with the multiple studies and books that it is stated as so being...yall have to come to a decision here...is this a technical-scientific encylopedia where every single sentence needs a number next to it to back it up???...i think not...this is a lay encylopedia and it will be too cumbersome with so many references...if someone makes a controversial statement or controversial scientific fact then sure...it should be referenced...the only place i really see the need for the references right next to every sentence is mainly the "threats" section as yall are going to have anti-environmental people challenging everything u write in these types of sections...its sections like this on pollutants and the like that could indeed stand to have several references next to each sentence so they are untouchable and cant so easily be vandalized...i understand that yall want to increase wikipedias validity...and there should be some references right next to the sentences here and there...yet it can go overboard...if yall want i can load this polar bear page with a hundred references and several next to each sentence...yet i just think that is crazy and a waste of my time...if someone else wants to turn the polar bear page into a technical scientific format, that can type faster than i, then go ahead...after looking briefly at all the "citations needed" tags i think u can reference each one to marine mammal medicine if u need to...i think the expert marine veterinarians covered most things this page might have in their book, and they make a good broad reference, without having to detail each scientific study that backs these sentences and information up...there are thousands of studies that back these things up...if a polar bear expert specialist looks over this page perhaps they will see something that stands out as needing a tag, or that sounds funny, and that is still controversial within the polar bear expert community...the way the page stands now i think it is solid...it just needs perhaps some more info and a moderate expansion, a relevant pic next to the threats section (i think one with a hermaphroditic bear might be good, or else a scraggly carcass)...i will however when i have time start adding multiple references next to all the sentences in "threats"...someone else can move them to just numbers...i could have made this section much longer, yet i just wanted a brief scientific summary, if an activist comes along and wants to expand it then so be it...Benjiwolf 10:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just deleted a long paragraph ("The polar bear is an interesting study as to how mammals adapt to the oceans ...") from the Speciation section. Hardly relevant there, and full of original research. Could maybe form a one-sentence remark for the lead section, but this sort of speculation does not belong where it was! Snalwibma 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

benjiwolf, i apologize for removing the info about HIT - you're right, you did explain that to me, it simply slipped my mind. i also see now that you have a lengthier explanation for that info, so we're all good there, at least as far as i'm concerned. but much of what you've been adding HAS been original research and (i'm afraid) rampant speculation. all very interesting of course; but an encyclopedia is just not the place for it. besides, readers can simply look up evolution, marine mammal, seal etc, etc, to fill in any pertinent gaps in their knowledge as far as possible "intermediates" are concerned. as far as citations - well, yes, wikipedia is a general refernce source; but a big part of it is also accessibility. we include hyper/links to sources and other articles to allow for ease of personal research. adding lengthy passages and then simply sticking the source/reference at the bottom of the article does not allow for this. also, as you yourself said - this is a general refernce work: we simply don't need every last detail! - Metanoid 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify sentence

The largest extant "land" carnivore (along with the Kodiak bear), a male polar bear can weigh twice as much as a tiger.

I didn't like the quotes because "land" is not very descriptive, and it could also modify the Kodiak bear, which is not intended. I'll need to think about how to improve it, though. Xiner (talk, email) 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Xiner, what you have now is a good try... but i can't help but feel that it still comes off as somewhat stilted. i was just working on something myself; if you (or anyone else here) can comment usefully on it, please do:

"Known, with the Kodiak bear, as the largest living fissiped carnivore..."

i am concerned that "fissiped" is an obsolete term, biologically speaking - but it is useful descriptively, as it brings that certain j'nais c'est quois that i think we're looking for. hmmm.... - Metanoid 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

well well...after looking back i was correct...it was i that added to this page that the polar bear was a marine mammal...in my series of scientific edits on Jan 14 at 14:20 i added it to the introduction...on the 18th of January 12:46 i added it in another section that wrongly refered to an EPA page and described the bear as land mammal...and the fact that u two...Metanoid and Xiner...dont allow the user that made these changes to categorize them as marine mammal...me...to explain a little in the evolution section as to why this change and why many besides me sometimes alternatively think of the bears as land mammals and not marine mammals, (like everyone else besides me that had edited this page and thought of them as "land mammals" or "the largest land carnivore")...is totally pathetic...(and this what everyone accepted till i came to this page, and after added tons of scientific info icluding that the bears are marine mammals)... and yall even got me blocked wrongly for 1 RR to try and reinsert my explanation...in fact yall blocked the entire university here in zurich switzerland...great...Benjiwolf 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

uh, Benjiwolf - first of all, i had nothing to do with "yall" being blocked (and for which, i believe, Xiner has already apologized). second, i have nothing against the polar bear's classification as a marine mammal, and never have. and yes, i recognize that polar bears are more "terrestrial" (for lack of a better word) than other marine mammals... but after all, fur seals, for instance, are more terrestrial than certain other marine mammals as well, when the objects of comparison are, say, cetaceans. "we" (and i'm putting quotes here, because Xiner and i merely happen to agree, and are not somehow secretly conspiring behind your back) are attempting to find a valid way to compare polar bears and kodiaks which respects the PB's status as a marine mammal but allows for their comparison to the kodiak as a four-legged carnivore. as for the rest of your commentary here, well - i'm really not clear on what, exactly, that you're trying to say. but i would advise you to try and keep it civil, as i have done since i began editing this entry - Metanoid 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ive never said anything of some "secret conspiracy"...i said i cant beleive that u two... would not allow the person that changed the page to reflect the bears as marine mammals, myself, to explain a little in the evolution section that they in fact by some standards fit in between marine and terrestrial...and as to being civil???...i try to be...im not sure where i have not been...please tell me where if i havnt been...blocking the entire zurich universities IP was perhaps uncivil...(for a single RR reinstating a sentence backed my a scientific reference??)...yet there are no hard feelings...i understand u want what is best for the polar bear page as you see it...and it was perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding by some reckonings...yet ...booo...you scared me off...im not trying to state the polar bear as perhaps exhibitting some aspects of a terrestrial mammal despite the fact i have categorized them as marine myself on the page...its someone elses job now...Benjiwolf 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, do not apologize for reporting you for 3RR, since I have tried and failed to engage you in discussing your edits. The result has been long essays that seem to verge on WP:POINT. Where I erred was the venue for my report -- though you were not breaking 3RR in letter, you did in spirit. I still believe you have good intentions, but am not sure you understand how collaboration is supposed to take place on Wikipedia. Please read WP:INTRO and come back when you'd like to discuss how to refit your passages for this article. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] that sentence

btw, Snalwibma, i am of the opinion that "considered" is a tad less clunky than "grouped".... - Metanoid 12:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• so am I, which I why I made that change! Snalwibma 13:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As it stands now, is it clear that the polar bear is the largest predator amongst land carnivores (sharks are larger in weight and length at least)? Please feel free to edit the sentence. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

killer whales are arguably the largest marine predator...they get way bigger than great whites...yet by most reckonings one can class other of the even larger whales as predators...they just prey on things smaller than the killer whales...(some of which eat only fish yet other killer whales actually eat other marine mammals)...whats at issue here is whether we can call the polar bear a "land carnivore"...im not really sure thats been settled...and of course my personal opinion is the polar bears get the advantage of being able to fit in either category technically...they are intermediate somehow...yet for many practicalities we class them as marine mammal...while i think it appropriate to talk of the bears as terrestrial in the evolution section as i tried...i think it inappropriate to call the polar bear a "land carnivore"...specifically as it mainly eats from the marine food chain...it does sometimes eat terrestrial animals tho...so i think u might get ur sentence in there...yet you must qualify it...Benjiwolf 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree, to an extent. i think a large part of the problem is how we qualify "carnivore" - in an ecological-dietary sense, i.e., as a "meat-eater", which is a vast, vast group of animals; or in the evolutionary sense, as a member of the order Carnivora. imho, the latter seems more practical. - Metanoid 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

what does everyone else think of that sentence as it stands? i must admit that i'm partial to it - it conveys what we're trying to get across, i think - but then again, i'm hardly a neutral party, hehe. - Metanoid 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am relatively neutral, having only recently taken an interest in this article... It seems to me that the sentence is unnecessariy complicated, and reliance on an outmoded concept (fissiped) really doesn't help. Isn't the point very simple - that the PB is the largest land (or land-based) carnivore, however you define carnivore? Yes, OK, a PB can be called a marine animal, but it's not marine in the same way as a shark or a whale. It is based on land in terms of evolution and (e.g.) breeding. Like an otter. An otter is a land mammal, even though it spends much of its time swimming. I must admit I rather liked "Considered as a land mammal..." (or whatever it said the last time I edited it). Snalwibma 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The otter article calls it "a carnivorous aquatic or marine mammal". I think it looks better now than it has for a while. I'm pretty new to the article though. Xiner (talk, email) 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

well, just for the record, i've only been editing this article for a short time myself. i just don't consider myself neutral on this point cuz, well, i like the term. but Snalwimba, you do indeed have a point. you're right, i think, as far as "land" or river otters go, but not concerning sea otters, which are much more aquatic than even polar bears. true seals and fur seals court and breed on land. anyway, not to "fact" you to death - my original point was that, tho it's not used in a formal sense, "pinniped" is still used to refer to the seals, sea lions, and walruses as a collective shorthand, despite it's lack of taxonomic validity. i think that "fissiped" is useful in the same way, to refer to the families that are not "fin-footed". but is that original research? hmmm. i dunno. - Metanoid 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

well i think someone should remove "fissiped" promptly...its not a valid term anymore...we dont need to present people with a term that isnt used...really this whole sentence isnt especially important...that the polar bear is perhaps the largest carnivore that happens to live a large part of its life on land...its the scientific information thruout the article on specific aspects of the polar bear that i feel more important...its sort of a "catchy semi-fact" is all...and it seems were having difficulty with this sentence...is the bear a "land carnivore" in the truest sense of that...is it even larger or not than the brown bear (depends on how u reckon)...i think a semi reinstatement of the sentence i added in the intro..."it is, along with its close cousin the brown bear, one of the two largest bear species in the bear family Ursidae...and is fiercely carnivorous...feeding mainly on marine mammals for its sustenance and an apex predator in the marine food chain of the arctic...its hunts on land, ice, and sea and has well adapted to this combination...its classed by the EPA, and for many treaties as a marine mammal...yet does spend much of its time on land or solid ice...it is typically larger than the big cats"...the fact is walruses get heavier than polar bears...and theyr even in the mammalian order Carnivora...i think yall should scratch that sentence pretty much as it stands now...you are creating several false notions...and its confusing things...if you want to allude to the fact of its large size and carnivorous nature you need to keeep things straight...if you cant say 100% that its the "largest land carnivore"...then you cant put that in the encylopedia and need to qualify it...u cant fish for an outdated term to try and keep it...i do think the large size of this carnivorous animal is notable...and perhaps u should compare some various mammals in the order carnivora and their average sizes if u want to stress this...the page is a strong one...we need to keep it solid...it needs an expansion of some more detailed scientific facts...and a picture relevant to "threats" in that section...as to the warming sentence in the intro...i think its weak myself "some scientists"...try "all the polar bear specialists"...its even this specific mammal, the polar bear, that was able to pressure the bush administration to giving in on the warming issue...(bushie likes big tough carnivores!...at least its something)...its the fringe scientists that dont accept the polar bear is seriously threatened by warming and may disappear soon...& usually those with a paycheck coming from a lobbiest or industry...its threat status is even perhaps being increased...and really mainly for just the global warming factor...the pollution maybe it could get thru (with some nasty cancers and defects & mutations on the way...it doesnt have modern medicine to interfere in its successful adaption to modern pollutants like humans do...we dont adapt much at all...just those weeded out that die before 15 or so and breeding age)...Benjiwolf 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

benji, i have to admit, i think you have a point about the term i used. as much as i like it - and as useful as it is in an informal sense - it is outdated. but the concept itself is still useful. "pinniped" is still in vogue... maybe: "Aside from the pinnipeds, the polar bear and kodiak bear..." blah, blah, blah? remember, you said it - evolution (and biology, i must add) - is not black and white. we are trying to illustrate the physical reality in a conceptual reality, and so in some places the fit is going to be a bit looser than we might prefer. - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming in intro

I think the latest edit changed the sentence from one that is supported by the reference to a stronger statement that would be helped by a better reference. As it stood, it was good, but now, not so much. What do y'all think? Xiner (talk, email) 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference used for the sentence.

First sentence reads "These charismatic animals are threatened by global warming." which I changed to "These animals may be threatened by global warming due to the melting of the sea ice."

Third sentence "These animals are suffering from the effects of global warming as the sea ice melts." which I changed to "Some scientists believe that the bear will become extinct as global warming causes the sea ice to melt."

The first sentence is not supported by the reference, the first line of which says "The polar bear could be driven to extinction by global warming...". After the whole article is read you see that they are only using the words of three people, who think the bear can't adapt. We don't know from the reference that this is a majority view. So it's possible that there are a lot of others who may believe the bear can adapt, unlikly though that may be.

The third sentence again is not supported by the reference which in the second paragraph says "...in areas such as Hudson Bay in Canada." without saying in what other areas, if any, the bear is suffering. For example is the bear suffering in the Melville Island, Canada area?

In fact just after re-reading the whole of the first section I find that the sentence does not really make much sense. The last sentence of the first paragraph says "...and hunts well on land, on the sea ice, and in the water." so in that case the reader will wonder why would the lack of sea ice be a problem at all? I think that the sentence should moved down into the "Conservation status" where it could be expanded upon. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could easily change the reference, such as to the one that talks about polar bears nowadays weighing 15% less than before, or to one that talks about increased drownings due to the sea ice melting. Xiner (talk, email) 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i'm going to read the article over again, look at the refs, think about it - but i have to say, the line "Some scientists believe..." troubles me, as it could theoretically be used to qualify any and all of the factual data included herein. science isn't about erasing all doubt, it's about presenting the hypotheses best supported by the available data. are climate scientists largely in agreement that the polar ice caps are retreating? yes. do wildlife biologists, including natural resource agencies, concur that the polar bear is in trouble, partly because of this retreat? again, from what i've read, yes. plus, i've been eyeing that line you mention anyway, Cambridge: "..hunts well on land, the sea ice, and water." from my knowledge of polar bears, that doesn't ring true. i can dig up citations to verify my doubts, of course.... but polar bears can, at best, catch fish while swimming, but fish don't contain the fat necessary to carry the bear thru arctic winters; and they are pretty much scavengers on land, rather than efficient hunters. the consilience of the data supports the statement in contention; i think we should keep it, and tag it with other sources, if necessary (even if it means more than one). - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

that bbc link & reference is a good one...it is a major international mainstream news outlet...and its not just a few scientists represented by it...u will notice in the article it says "scientists believe"...they wouldnt have printed some fringe view in the BBC...Benjiwolf 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I think with more references we can get that claim to stick. Xiner (talk, email) 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Xiner, which claim are you talking about?

I agree that I was wrong about using the "Some scientists believe..." line. However, the original sentence was no better as it applies to any animals, including humans that live near a shorline and gave no explanation as to why. Also the scientists quoted qualifiy their statments about the extinction of the bear by admitting that it could adapt and survive but that it's very unlikly.

Look at what the reference says. The author of the BBC report writes that the polar bear is "...starting to suffer the effects of climate changes in areas such as Hudson Bay in Canada." which is different to what the scientists quoted say.

The reference does indeed say "Scientists believe..." but that is about evolution not about extinction.

The story is too important to be left to one line in the introduction. Especially when the line only says that "These animals are suffering from the effects of global warming as the sea ice melts." What effects are those? It needs fleshing out and I will see if I can find the necessary references. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think a statement on the plight (and conservation status) of the animals, is necessary in the intro. The sentence was never perfect, however, and if you do better, please do. I know my version wasn't very good. Xiner (talk, email) 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

looks good. i'm certainly looking to add more on warming as to why this is the current consensus, but this def seems less, er - 'weasely' (i guess that's the word i'm looking for) than the last vers. (no offense intended, Cambridge.) i also have plans on mentioning why they are not great land/pursuit predators (too heat efficient for theiir own good); but all that'll have to wait till tomorrow. 'night all. - Metanoid (talk, email) 04:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the first section looks better and no longer conflicts with later sections about hunting on the land. I added another sentence to the first section showing that at least one US govt agency says sea ice loss is to blame and not just in Hudsons Bay. I also found some references for the Conservation status section but I couldn't find one that said anything about the court mandating a decision.

Some original reasearch that may jog somebody into thinking where the backup may be found. I was always told that if you saw a bear inland (not along the coastal arears) or near to the community that you should stay well away. The only time they would be found in those areas is when the seals were in short supply and the bears were starving. Also, Metanoid, don't forget that they are slower than caribou and a single bear would probably be no match for a heard of muskox besides the overheating. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black skin.

This article claims that polar bears skin absorbs heat, This is an legend, which is actually impossible because of the bear's thick blubber. Have changed it the the actual use of black skin. ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I concede the former is incorrect, but is the latter possible? Why'd the fur need heat, and wouldn't that be a huge waste of energy? Xiner (talk, email) 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Black colored objects are good absorbers of heat, but also good emitters of heat. That is why they call it black body radiation. White colored objects are good reflectors. The fur presumably keeps the warm air trapped next to the bear's body to reduce radiation, and heat loss from conduction and convection as well. Any body heat that finds its way out through the insulating layers of fat will be trapped in air pockets formed by the fur, I would conjecture. I have read that when looking at polar bears in IR light, they do not emit very much IR radiation at all, so their system of fur, fat and dark skin is quite efficient, obviously, from an empirical point of view. We should see if we can get a reference to that effect. Also, I have handled some polar bear fur here at the National Wildlife Center (part of the National Wildlife Service just outside Washington DC, and the skin is actually light brown, not black. Does anyone know more about the skin color? I have read all the time that it is black, but in the museum, the piece is light brown. It was conjectured that the light brown color was due to the skin curing/tanning process and it is not its natural color but I do not know.--Filll 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

i haven't managed to find a primary source yet, but that does ring true. - Metanoid (talk, email) 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the sentence to mean that the skin keeps pumping heat to the fur. Don't ask. My bad. Good edit. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the polar bear and warming

in my last addition to this talk page last night i said..."its the fringe scientists that dont accept the polar bear is seriously threatened by warming and may disappear soon...& usually those with a paycheck coming from a lobbiest or industry."...and look-ee what the news is today from another major british paper...[10]...so on this discussion about the warming thing...i think we do need to thoroughly reference that intro sentence...and back it up with many references...the bbc link is good yet we need even more...not as its somehow a revolutionary statement or somehow controversial...it doesnt even need any references...its as there is a lobby that is going to attack these types of sentences with fringe scientists to back them up, or even just people that arnt even scientists that claim to be or are just paid off, or people who are brainwashed by the lobby and defy anything even smacking at all of environmentalism no matter what it is or how accepted it is...anyways im not a conspiracy theorist when i state such sentences as last night...i just read a bunch, and tons of science, listen to a wide variety of news, and study how this planet works...and so i can even predict the news...(PS: i hardly watch any television, and only FOX news when i want to laugh or see what the radical fringe is saying)...its obvious things like that are happening...Benjiwolf 10:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The perceived threat to the polar bear is being used to garner public support for the global warrming theory. So readers will come to this article for reference material.

I'm cutting this passage, due to indymedia's link disappearing:

• The bears are in a difficult situation. The most immediate and topically recognized is the drastic changes taking place in their natural habitat, which is literally melting away due to global warming.^[1]

Countering the mainstream of environmentalism are skeptics who say that the polar population is increasing. They argue that this means that warming either has no bad effect on the polar bear, or that there isn't enough warming to worry about.

I'll see if I can google up a source more scientific than Fox. --Uncle Ed 13:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, are you sure those sources are not funded by the oil industry? It's well established that the sea ice is melting in the polar regions. I'd think it's not hard to find another reference for that. I'd agree that the original text was not beautifully worded, but that could be remedied too. Xiner (talk, email) 15:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

can't we do better than arrange a list under "threats natural and unnatural"? and do we really need to come out and say it was the "Harvard University Gazette" who said so-and-so? it seems very...awkward, i guess is the word. besides, we don't want to nickel-and-dime readers to death with restatement of basically the same facts, over and over again. additionally, maybe we should combine "conservation" and "threats...", as they are essentially about the same topics. - Metanoid (talk, email) 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "There are no polar bear subspecies." vs "Other sources list subspecies"

When I was looking through the edits before to see what had been added I noticed this. But the last sentence of the section (it's not visible in the edit) says "Other sources list subspecies" and gives a reference to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System for two sub-species. Anybody know which one is correct? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused there because the first part of the section talked about there being no subspecies, and then there were the two listed there. I'm not sure about the debate so I wouldn't mind if you changed that first sentence again. Xiner (talk, email) 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that I'm not sure which of the references is more likly to be correct. I just didn't want to stick an ungly tag in the middle of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the bears and their status & FOX news

added in the intro some info from swiss papers so we see a more accurate depiction and statistics to back up some of these threat and global warming statements, also added link to a canadian news source...the independent media in america is stating that they are being branded as "spam" by the current regime..(their links are disappearing faster than the arctic ice apparently)..anyways...were seeing from media sources outside the US, that arent as easily censored and that arent in a wartime legal status of "a global war against terrorism", that more drastic estimates are that the arctic ice could totally disappear in even less than 30 years, this is one side of the spectrum of estimates and from highly responsible scientific sources, other responsible scientific estimates push it back further, yet if wikipedia only cites the mainstream corporate american news for its articles it will find itself to be an unreliable source and lopsided..(that may change in time if the US news media is able to break to more independence and once wartime legal status is dropped)..several positions should be presented...if someone wants to throw in FOX news estimates that polar bears are increasing in population, then i think that is OK as long as we clearly write its a FOX news estimate into the text..FOX isnt always wrong, on some issues they may be right, my feeling is that on anything relating to ecology they are totally unreliable..anyways what destroyed FOX news credibility, and showed them to be merely a Cheney/Bush government propaganda outlet and not an independent news channel, to most people was the iraq war and their total lack of scepticism or critical news reporting,(both globally and even in the states their credibility was destroyed)...even though its in this arena of geopolitics and such that they are at their most reliable representing hard right positions in opposition to the hard left..(sometimes the extreme right can be correct so its nice to have the extremes of left and right still represented, and its nice to see what the "anti-environmental extremists" have to say)..Benjiwolf 14:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

People should also have the right to wonder about the reliability of a FOX News article, and demand the source for their info. Xiner (talk, email) 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Two problems I have with the newest edits are the dead link that's been removed before, and an intro paragraph that's too detailed and too long. Xiner (talk, email) 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ya...i saw the link was dead afterwards...someone "disappeared" that link on the web...(there were a bunch of eskimos talking in that one i think)...yet go ahead and take it out as it doesnt work anymore...ill look over the intro sentence i added...maybe ill move some of it lower in the article...as to FOX...well i think what works best is to put in the FOX news statement and then show why it is wrong if its wrong...if they say the polar bear population is going up...then throw in the stats that show it isnt or how they have handled the data to corrupt the actual picture...something like "sceptics of the polar bears threatened status have used data such as from FOX news to show such and such..."...and that has serious relevance to the polar bear page...if a major mainstream news source is corrupting data or deliberately altering the accurate picture of the polar bears situation then that type of story belongs on the page and belongs to be documented...Benjiwolf 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do others think? I'd like to see at least one more source talking about it before I'd reconsider my position. Also, WP:NPOV dictates that we shouldn't give undue weight to fringe theories. Xiner (talk, email) 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I fear global warming as much the next person, but now the second paragraph is as long as the first. The old version already stated that the species may disappear within this century; how much worse can it get? Sometimes being succinct packs more punch. Xiner (talk, email) 15:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i like ur argument that being succint packs more punch...yet i know many people out there question when someone says something like "the polar bear may go extinct"...so i added these facts (new to the article i think and at least i think important somewhere in it)...i added these few facts to give a little direct weight and substance to that sentence as it stood before...that would be read unquestioningly by perhaps an ecologist...yet by some readers would be met with instant skepticism...i wanted some hard statistical facts beyond a reference number many will never check...and as well the polar bear was just a lead article in a major swiss paper so i cited it with some relevant facts...i personally myself dont fear global warming...i can move to russia or head higher up in the mountains...yet i have a rational concern and fear for some others, and for the polar bear, and wonder what exactly we are going to do with the bears...anyways both those paragraphs are very very brief...yet i am still listening to ur argument for shifting to another section of the article...Benjiwolf 16:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to have non-English sources in the intro, and it should suffice to have multiple references for a brief statement, while leaving the details to the appropriate sections within the article. I'm not saying put everything into the references. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

well we can site the us geological survey and those that did the actual research instead of the swiss newspaper that took these facts from them...even though the swiss news is consistently ranked by international bodies as far more objective than say american news sources...(and that would even use the US geological surveys info, whereas FOX and others would hide it)...and the NZZ allows for translation of their stories by pushing a button...ill pull up the article in english translation perhaps...yet its ur argument that it should be a single sentence that is the best..."scientists believe the bear may go extinct"...i just feel it needs a sentence with some hard facts and stats next to it...yet i do reiterate that for wikipedia to be credible it needs to cite news articles beyond just american ones...or even british ones which has a higher objectivity and media freedom rating...yet its best if they can translate the articlesBenjiwolf 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

here is that swiss news article tranlated[11]...not the best tranlation...chamferred should read as fast..."polar bears must fast" was the articles correct translation (as i read it from the german)...(chamferred??? i suppose u widdle down & reduce the wood trim edges and give them a chamfer) anyways the part that talks of these stats though is roughly readable...yet its what we that can contribute to wikipedia with more than one language that can vouch for what the article states...(i partially can and after reading the article in the german from the actual paper decided to bring these facts from the US geological survey and such to light when i finally see them in a paper (it just happened to be in a non-american paper that i first saw them)...Benjiwolf 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

USA has Alaska. What does Switzerland have? Xiner (talk, email) 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

it has high alps and (melting) glaciers, that maybe could support the polar bears for a few years while they ate up all the cows and sheep...yet the herders & ski resorts would never allow it...and they have a more reliable media by several international standards...so they use sources like the US geological survey whereas FOX news wouldnt...anyways im still an american citizen by some standards...my mother tongue is english...ive lived 30 years in the states...and so im not at all afraid to point out americas weaknesses like its media freedom...where the swiss and most american friendly countries never would...yet i think i just read on a norwegian paper that a comedian there just burned the US flag despite possible jail terms from the norwegian government for doing so...so maybe people otherwise friendly to america are beginning to question just exactly what it has been doing since the 2000 presidential election...Benjiwolf 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that what the average Wikipedia reader is going to think about when they see this article? Xiner (talk, email) 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Fox is any less reliable than, say, the New York Times. A while back a front page Times article about open water at the North Pole made it seem like (1) this was an unprecedented observation and (2) this was evidence of extraordinary large recent warming. A few days later they had to retract the claims when it turned out that similar open water observations had been made in the 1930s. (Although this correction was hidden in an inner page.) --Uncle Ed 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• James J. McCarthy, a Harvard oceanographer, recently took a summer tourist cruise to the North Pole. When his ship, a Russian icebreaker, followed open water ever northward (as icebreakers do), it eventually wound up in a few-square-mile patch of water at 90 degrees North. McCarthy didn't publish this in the peer-reviewed literature. It would not have been accepted, because it is not at all unusual. Instead, he called The New York Times, which dutifully ran a front-page story on Aug. 19 by John Noble Wilford, whose first words were, "The North Pole is Melting." The Times went on to note that "the last time scientists can be certain that the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago." [12]

• Ten days later, the Times printed this correction: “A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming.” [13]

Sometimes, newspapers can themselves take sides on the same political controversy they are covering. It would be good to cite both liberal and conservative sources when this happens. --Uncle Ed 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I say anything about the New York Times? Although one example doesn't a trend make. In any case, Fox News makes lots of other weird claims, and really, can't we find sources from research organizations? Xiner (talk, email) 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, one example doesn't make a trend. I have lots more where that came from. I'm just saying that the liberal bias here at Wikipedia against Fox News is not justified. --Uncle Ed 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So there's a conservative side to the global warming issue? Notice I was talking about reliability, and then people start discussing the NY Times, which actually has a more conservative bent on the news pages than say Wall Street Journal, and liberal vs. conservative, when there's been NO peer-reviewed study in the past decade that doesn't blame humans for global warming. Xiner (talk, email) 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

well as to FOX news...when i think of it now being out of the states for three years or so and not really so emotionally attached to it anymore...and i dont really care whether FOX is leftwing or rightwing or better than the new york times...i can say this after reading papers from all over the world...the new york times is a centrist american paper and many from outside the states would view it as slightly right of center and heavily biased to an american viewpoint...yet it maintains a reasonable standard of accuracy even after its home city was attacked...FOX news is a rightwing news source started by an Australian and a tabloid sensationalist: mr rupert murdoch...hes an entertainer and FOX news is more entertainment and sensationalism than news so it gets good ratings and has changed what people think news is...but that doesnt mean its always wrong...as to left wing papers or major news sources in the states...they dont exist or are repressed...as to a liberal bias at wikipedia...well not on the english site thats run mainly by americans...i know of editors that cruise through to remove anything at all centrist or leftist...even when its referenced...one editor removed something just as it was referenced to noam chomsky the american professor at MIT...that view was removed instantly just as it was perceived as being from the left...which it is...yet it was instantly silenced...you dont see people like noam chomsky on the nightly news...you only see centrists or right wingers...the other side on the left isnt necessarily correct, yet they are silenced and never heard...your opinions as americans from inside america are somewhat irrelevant as to whether the new york times or Fox is right or left or biased...you are inside the system and cant make that judgement...only outsiders can...129.132.239.8 19:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to remind everyone that global warming and Arctic ice melting are unchallenged by scientists, and is in the end a scientific issue? As such, I don't care if Fox News is conservative, or New York Times as liberal -- which it definitely is not, only its editorials are -- I only care for reliable sources and scientific sources. And that one Fox New article does not a debate make. Xiner (talk, email) 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care for the American press too inside the Beltway argument. en.wikipedia is run mostly on English the last time I checked. Xiner (talk, email) 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The intro, a non-political discussion

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It will also be hard to convince anyone that there are so few reliable references on global warming and the polar bear in English that we have to resort to a foreign-language newspaper whose reliability is unknown to most en.wiki readers. Xiner (talk, email) 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm rereading the above discussion and I hope I didn't come across as as a you-know-what. I just want to improve this article, as I'm sure you all do. Xiner (talk, email) 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read this version of the introduction and it looks fine. I made some spacing and link fixes but didn't change it otherwise. I also read the above section and just wanted to point out one thing. There are a lot of English speaking Wikipedia readers/editors who have no idea if FOX, the New York Times, any other English language news source or non-English news source is left/right/centre. Most people just don't have the familiarity wiht other countries to be able to judge. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

well the new york times is a centrist paper...remember that this is americas main international paper as well...the new york times must maintain a centrist reasonable position to maintain its many american readers abroad and various other english speakers that may read it internationally...Ed Poor mentions a retraction by the new york times...well im glad to see and not surprised...if they didnt maintain accuracy they could not survive as an international paper...when FOX news makes statements that are readily false it does no such thing...yet, when it comes down to it, americas new major news source FOX news is controlled by an australian married to a full chinese since 1999...it has been this power couple of a chinese (Wendi Deng) married to an australian (rupert murdoch)that has been dominating american media, that pushed george bushes election victory in 2000, and which pushed the iraq war...and that is an exceptional fact!!!...(without this chinese-australian power couple and their media empire GW could not have won those elections & he owes his victory to them more than any other! and we may never have seen the iraq war either if not for this chinese-australian power couple's media empire)...and incidently this chinese-australian media empire is built mainly with sensationist-tabloid news platforms such as FOX news...that is the factual reality that most americans who watch FOX news never hear...and its one of the great media coups of modern times...its we outside that recognize this...yet it has proved an excellent study...to meticulously observe the propaganda techniques exhibitted by FOX news makes for many a journalism thesis...for example one famous FOX program Hannity & Colmes that employs a "left" and a "right" commentator...the "rightist" Hannity is a handsome charismatic very white caucasian looking...the leftist is rather nerdy, unnattractive and looks somewhat strange and perhaps not exactly caucasian...there are hundreds of subtle FOX techniques that make for a very interesting study...and countries around the world and all political stripes from left to right will duplicate these techniques now...Benjiwolf 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] polar bear shrinkage

i removed the reference to the bears "shrinking" (in the first sentence under Physical Description). first off, they may be smaller, on average, today - but the section, i'm sure, is talking historical averages, and not avergages as of the 80s or 90s or whatnot. i noticed that the size decrease is already mentioned further along, anyway, which is how it should be. we can't continue to cram all the details in up front, as it were. plus: benji, man, can you cut down on the book-length commentary? please? school's started for me now, adn when i log on and have to search thru pages and pages to find details relevant to the article, it kinda hurts my feelings.  ;) - Metanoid (talk, email) 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

hey metanoid..."it kind of hurts ur feelings"???...im writing for wikipedia...not you...im not tailoring my writing for a single editor on wikipedia...if u dont have time to read a paragraph and only a brief sentence thats fine...dont edit so much then...its just minor edits & rearrangements on this page u do right?...dont waste ur time so much...these pages could use more actual raw data and new information to expand them...not mere rewrites...yet good luck with school!!!...and dont get too caught up in wikipedia...i have been this last month (its addictive)...it all gets rewritten anyways...its the raw hard data thats most important...Benjiwolf 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that it is ok to say that the bears weigh a certain amount on average according to a source, and that the original second-largest carnivores weighed a certain number, but to say that the polar bears are (necessarily) no longer the biggest carnivores because of that would be original research. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed the speculative comment about shrinkage. (a) If it is true, this is not the place in the article to say it. (b) There is no justification to stray into WP:OR and say that the alleged "dramatic" shrinkage is due to global warming. (c) The statement it was attached to does not in any case need qualification - all it says is that PBs are "among the largest" carnivores. Please don't let the article succumb to fact-stuffing. Snalwibma 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

go ahead snalwbima...hide the fact that the statement about the siberian tiger has become untrue...even the qualifier as to comparing the male polar bears is becoming untrue...the female polar bears have been drastically losing weight...now they weigh the same as a male siberian tiger...the males have been losing weight too...this comparison with the siberian tiger was always foolish and the sentence has been subject to constant alteration as its always misleading things and blatantly false half the time...when even had "fissipeds" in there...yet its oh so proper & fitting i think...as the hard data from the geo survey shows that they now weigh pretty much exactly the same as a siberian tiger...i can add in that sentence...the polar bears now weigh after 20 years exactly the same as a male siberian tiger and it would be true...a drastic shrinkage in weights for a species after 20 years must be recognized in a section on "size"...that is extremely remarkable...ur figures and avergaes no longer are true...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjiwolf (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your tone of voice - and I wish you would sign your comments, and I do object to your addition of "this user is flagged and makes false edits" to my talk page! What's that all about? I am not "hiding" anything, I am simply trying to help with an article about polar bears, and my main aim is to maintain readability and ease of understanding. I am not a polar bear expert, and I have no axe to grind here. But to the point: As far as I can see, there is nothing untrue in the statement "Polar bears rank with the Kodiak bear as among the largest living carnivores, and male polar bears may weigh twice as much as a Siberian tiger." It is a general statement. It is a reasonably accurate summary (note the word "may"), and it has the great merit of being clear and easy to understand. If it's not accurate, edit it. But keep it simple, and please do not edit it in such a way that a statement is made and then immediately contradicted - which was the effect of your recent change. That is simply confusing. If there is evidence that PBs are shrinking, fine, let's have it - but I suggest that it would be better to do this by adding more information to the third paragarph of this section (the one which starts with the National Geographic). Open the section with a simple statement (PBs are large), then add the qualifiactions in subsequent paragraphs. As I said, I am no expert in the subject, so I do not feel qualified to add the data. But please go ahead! Snalwibma 18:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We need citations for the statements we put into the article, or this article will never get better. Xiner (talk, email) 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i dont know snawlbima...if u had read the intro u would see that it is clearly stated the bears have been shrinking over the last 20 years...i just cant understand why u insist on removing this from the size section...and it even turns out thats its a handy fact that the canadian female bears have now shrunk to the size of a male siberian tiger...and i always sign my comments except the few occasions where i forget...i insist on allowing in the size section some commentary:... that the polar bears, once the largest carnivore that walks on land, are having a hard time maintaining this statistic...and the general consensus is now, and will be in the future, thats its the shrinking ice that is causing this shift (shrinking) in their average weights...if u cant handle another editor complaining on ur page...then fine...my comments were light hearted...yet im not going to try and reinsert my complaint...ive never taken anything off my page even when i feel its riduculous...or its damaging to my look somehow...or from an editor that is not happy with me..."full disclosure" i say... unless its vulgar or something...and these are after all anonymous names we use...wikipedia is an anonymous system...yet if the wikipedia character "snalwibma" cant handle my comment from his page i respect that...hes a somewhat reasonable editor...i was going to slightly alter it anyways...(just slightly tho)...ive said worse to others on occasion...in fact im late on removing a stop sign i once put on someones page and i must tend to that...bye bye...(and thanks for coming back to sign ur name to my talk page when u had forgotten)...Benjiwolf 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, please go ahead and add the information on PBs getting smaller. But there are good ways to do it and bad ways to do it. And please don't react like this to others' constructive comments. It may indeed be light-hearted, but it comes across as a rant. Snalwibma 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I'd normally just go ahead and do this, but for fear of an intemperate reaction (and accusations of hiding the truth, or some such!) I'll air it here first. Seems to me that the lead section gets bogged down in too much detail. The first paragraph is fine, but then off it goes into lots of detail about Hudson Bay and percentages of cubs reaching 1 year old, etc. I think the whole of the following section should be deleted from its current location and the information redistributed to more appropriate places - sections on size and weight, and/or breeding success, and/or conservation concerns. The second paragarph of the lead section should be a general statement about conservation concerns, without all the details.
On the west coast of Hudson Bay in Canada, for example, there were an estimated 1200 polar bears in 1987, and 950 in 2007. The females there averaged only 230 kg, down from near 300 kg in 1980.[4] In Alaska, the United States Geological Survey reports that 42 percent of cubs reach 12 months of age, down from 65 percent 15 years ago.[5] In other words, less than two of every three cubs that survived 15 years ago are now making it past their first year.
I'll get to work on this some time soon, if no one objects. Snalwibma 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted would be a strong word. I've been saying it should be moved, though. The intro doesn't need specifics -- that's why we have sections. Xiner (talk, email) 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree! let's not blind them with science (so to speak) in the intro. that section is supposed to be the just the hook, anyway. the body of the article should be where the facts are mentioned. and even there, we don't need to qualify and re-qualify every single statement: "fact-stuffing" only serves to make the article less readable, which i'm sure is not our goal (btw, Snalwimba, did you make up that word? i like it.). remember, we're all playing for the same team here, benji. - Metanoid (talk, email) 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i've always been sympathetic to Xiners? argument that those detailed facts i added supporting the "the polar bear is threatened and may go extinct" line, perhaps should be placed in other sections they were specifically appropriate to...my main concern was always that we needed some fact to back that sentence up right next to it...i think his is a good argument, yet to maintain next to that line that "the populations have been recorded reducing by 20% or more, the bears have been drastically losing weight, and the cub survival rates have plunged to just 2 out of 3 that used to survive"...that summarization is fully appropriate to the intro of a species that has a serious issue in this arena with a threat status even being considered upgraded to an even more threatened status...the more detailed stats can be placed in the resp. sections...any species on wikipedia with such radical info coming in from the scientific community about its survival deserves more than a few word sentence in its intro about such events...average losses of 150 pounds, a third+ loss of cub survival, and population depletions of 20% or more is radical information coming in from the sci community..a species of only 20,000-25,000 makes this esp. radical...if that type of info came in and the human pop. was 20,000 people, "1/3 of children now dieing after just 20 years time of these conditions, people losing 20%+ their weight, population just lost 20% their numbers"...we would even say the words "holocaust" and would wonder whether they had been placed in concentration camps...i apologize to snalwbima if he feels i came on too strong on his talk page, yet i am very concerned you three editors, that have been great in maintaining the page and rewriting or minor editting it & protecting from vandalism, yet that have not really added many facts, are making too light of the very serious situation facing this species...and if you do so in a highly read forum such as this...at some point this page wont exist anymore except as like a dinosaur page, and u can rewrite all u want...yet no one will be able to add new facts, just those from bones on shriveled corpses...Benjiwolf 09:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The most I'll accept in the intro is the decrease in numbers in that Canadian place (two sentences). Anything more than that and we'll be trying to justify the statement to no-one cares. Xiner (talk, email) 14:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i think its totally pathetic that you wont acknowledge that 2 out of 3 cubs are now dieing...thats in alaska wasnt it???...totally pathetic...yet im not getting into an editting war with the three of you...i just think its disgusting...and make no mistake...im for global warming...russia gets their ice free shipping lane...their land values head way up...they wont have so many russian children starving on the streets...& canada makes out good...yet i acknowledge that the bears are finished as they starve instead...there is no way to stop them losing all their ice...even a miracle of nature and everyone stopping all their CO2 likely cant accomplish it at this point...and its because of attitudes like this...that wait till after the fact...that dont even acknowledge the facts when they occur...the only question is what are we going to do with the polar bears...thats the only question...can we somehow keep them alive without their ice???...until someday maybe it comes back...Benjiwolf 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

gimme a break, benji! we don't disagree on the facts, but where to put them. it's a formatting issue, and nothing more. seriously, man, get down off the soapbox. - Metanoid (talk, email) 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Benji, please read Assume Good Faith. Your arguments are starting to disrupt the editing of this page. Please stop. Xiner (talk, email) 17:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i have always assumed good faith from u three...except once for snalwbima when i wasnt really sure...i have never put a warning on any of ur pages and only comments...and in my opinion...every wikipedia editor almost without fail is on a soap box...that has been my ever present observation on everyone...some use an untouchable method: that of deletions...and i personally...have no respect whatsoever for the deleters of talk pages except when its vulgar material or a few words of gibberish or something...i have been told i am "choking on CO2" and my "family doesnt use the swiss trains"...by a user even that doesnt even know me...i did not delete it..why delete from talk pages???...it keeps them interesting and with some energy...anyways...i leave these pages to u two...Benjiwolf 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: all "citations needed" on the article are referenced from "marine mammal medicine" please put in the appropriate notes...except for the ones about polar bears getting eaten by walrus and people dieing from eating polar bear liver...Benjiwolf 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't use words like "pathetic", I wouldn't be putting warnings on your page. Xiner (talk, email) 18:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

i have always viewed the three editors Xiner, Snalwbima, and Metanoid as mainly always good faith (neutral as possible) editors...and they proved my assumptions correct as i left this page for some time and they put the facts i included into appropriate sections yet left a nice summary in the intro...thanks...i may argue strongly sometimes in our minor squabbles...yet its just the way i defend my positions...if i use the word "pathetic" it has mainly been in calling a specific edit as pathetic...not at all these three editors...(its one of my words these days)...anyways...thanks again u 3...Benjiwolf 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Benjiwolf, I don't want to dwell on this, but people who make a "pathetic" edit can't feel very good about themselves, can they? Thank you for reverting the archiving, though. I support it and do agree that only the old conversations should've been moved. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i try to avoid the word except in extreme cases...and i may have erred with it in your case which wasnt extreme, yet do try and disconnect yourself/ from your editting on wikipedia... if i used the word pathetic i do hope it gets you to think on whether you should feel good about that edit, not on whether you should feel good about urself...yet anyways it seems all is good with how that editing issue turned out...im satisfied with the compromise...and i did say "i think its totally pathetic that u wont acknowledge that 2 out of 3 cubs are dying"...i called the lack of acknowledgement to allow that in the intro as pathetic...yet again i apologize if feelings were hurt, i was upset about the cubs, and i do feel i came on too strong too quickly and should have allowed a little further talk page editing exchange before resorting to the word "pathetic" in this instance, your editing wasnt extreme and i dont regard you as a lobbiest editor, your edits are all in good faith, and im appreciative of your work on the polar bear page...Benjiwolf 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The word should never be used. And each time you use it, no matter how patient you have been beforehand, you will be warned. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please take this conversation to my talk page if you want to continue it. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations off in first and other paragraphs

Different citation methods were used causing the numbering to appear off or to the casual reader wrong because they are not in numerical order. For example, in paragraph one the first citation starts with two, proceeds to three and goes back to one.

This also occurs in the header called Natural range and again in Breeding. Ronbo76 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've raised the issue before, but it turns out all the statements supported by reference #1 are supported by a reference first given in the infobox. Unless we move the infobox down in the article, which I don't think we should, there's no way to fix the apparent error. Xiner (talk, email) 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Missed that one. (Wow, I have got to stop doing lattes and donuts in the afternoon) Err, good observation. Ronbo76 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please revert last edit by ronbo

...it seemed in good faith, but now the sentence actually is gramaticly incorrect, change to leap etc to alter it to the alternative wording he tried to come up with, but it does work the first way...anyways his other change was actually what i was concerned with, as the sentence was written meaning that they dont eat those parts, not that they eat them but cant digest them!...just revert the whole edit, but it was i think in good faith and wasnt vandalism, just an effort with a couple mistakes...so dont put a "rv-vandalism" label...85.1.223.203 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) in terms of his altering in the first sentence, i support his idea of a slight restructure to word it better, perhaps: ...then resuming to finally leap and catch them...85.1.223.203 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] national post addition

well i really wish they would tell me where they got their survey numbers for that area of canada around baffin island!...i just cant at all go back to the scientific data, or whatever it was...of course it is possible that a certain area will actually have a temporary increase because the warming temps are actually of benefit to enable better hunting in that particular area, yet the most basic common sense about the polar bear and how it hunts and the disappearing ice situation would tell us they are going to decrease overall, and at some point they could decrease extremely rapidly to the point of extinction...yet we see right away that this editor put in "global warming alarmists"...and the article even has a nice nifty picture of a stephen harper political advertisement in it from the canadian right!...I'm not for or against him, but how silly!!!...just why exactly do they have a pic of steven harper in that article? it has nothing to do with him...anyways what i do get a sense of from the article is that people dont have the first clue about the number of polar bears in that specific area of canada, and they never really did, with widely varying estimates (not that we can even see who made those estimates)...in fact that article even states the US FWS even says there is insuffiecient data on that area to make estimates!...and they consistently say its the inuit that think they are increasing in number, and that makes perfect sense of course, we know the inuit arent making detailed surveys, but they likely would see more and more bears closer to their human settlements, likely as the bears are looking for food there because they are having trouble hunting and acquiring it themselves...I'm definitely supportive of including data about polar bear increases in certain areas if it is in fact quite certain, it can help us to understand more about the nuances of the varied habitats they occupy, yet i really want to see it coming from a more reliable referenced source, i suppose follow the lead the paper gave that claimed two areas saw increases, and give some stats on the increases, as well as the 3 areas with decreases...85.1.223.203 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

With regard to Polar Bears and climate change, some mention should be made of the species' survival of the Holocene Optimum (Hypsithermal). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.21.205 (talk • contribs).

I will look into it. Ronbo76 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually bounced this one off a retired professor I know. The Holocene optimum period could perhaps be woven into the evolution section. I request consensus with another editor before a change is made. Ronbo76 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

you could weave it in, yet you need to refer to an article talking about the polar bears and the Holocene optimum, the problem of course is no one really can accurately determine what happened to polar bear numbers back then or during other cycles of changing temps, its mainly just speculation, and you must also note that the estimate of temps 1.6 (+or- .8) higher means the temps may have only been .8 C warmer than recently (and perhaps this last winter in Europe for instance may have been warmer than any during the Holocene optimum, and certainly getting near, here in CH the days are usually 10 C warmer than last year!!!, so we may have well surpassed the Holocene optimum this last winter!)...yet you certainly could mention that they at least survived somehow the Holocene optimum with its very similar temps to today, even if we dont know exactly if they lost numbers or not, and does anyone know if the polar ice all disappeared during the Holocene optimum?-83.79.178.42 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There in your post lies the main problem. Weaving it in will be difficult because citations will need to accompany any change. Ronbo76 05:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Survey of Polar Bears

I have added a new link to a story published yesterday in The Daily Telegraph, a UK based newspaper. The item provides counter-evidence to the widespread belief that polar bear numbers are declining. The story is based on a survey conducted by Mitch Taylor in the Davis Strait. Perhaps the bears are moving and so resulting in reported declines elsewhere?

Peterlewis 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, but all these links that've recently been added have come from conservative papers. The liberals won't be satisfied yet. 151.202.74.135 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As with every article, the neutral point of view will eventually balance one reference or another. Ronbo76 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now added links from neutral sources, such as the local newspaper, the Nunatqiac News and also Scienceline which support the previous link from The Daily Telegraph. Isn't it time to celebrate the survival and growth of this magnificent beast? And also celebrate the dignity of the Inuit people? We must try to keep Wiki neutral and unbiased so that readers can make up their own minds on conservation and other issues. Peterlewis 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if I can even take you seriosly Peterlewis, and you have totally misrepresented the Daily Telegraph article actually, your addition to the intro is quite a poor edit, I do support your mention of this mitch taylor study in the article down under its appropriate section, yet you really need to clarify some things and you are misrepresenting, the telegraph article makes clear that the Inuit are highly interested in not having a change in status to the polar bear as it is a lucrative business for them to hunt it, also they make clear that this study was commissioned by the Inuit as well. Your choice of adjectives is also clearly POV. And this little diatribe about "celebrating the dignity of the Inuit people" sounds like pandering to me and I'm not even clear if you are serious, and at least to me, after reading the context of this, the way you are wording things, and your remarks such as "Isn't it time to celebrate the survival and growth of this magnificent beast?", you have made me no friend of the Inuit who now seem like base greedy slime balls..in fact a bulk of the telegraph article (which another editor even says is a conservative paper) says this:

"Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists. The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply. At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears. "I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears." Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said. "They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. "To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

you have clearly misrepresented things Peterlewis, not put them in context at all, and on top of this in the other article about this it states the US fish and wildlife service declared that there is insufficient evidence to make estimates about this area, in fact the estimates of the 1980s may be totally inaccurate, so comparisons of the Inuit sponsored study they paid mitch taylor to do isn't clearly a good comparison to see if there indeed was an increase, which is possible it sounds like as they banned the seal hunting, yet even if there was its not really clear exactly what size of an increase there was, plus another survey said 1400 in contradiction of Taylors results, all in all I think its a pretty poor addition to the intro, yet it is mentionable, like in the context the telegraph article puts it in! sorry to be so gloomy, and if you are Inuit or something and were trying to make friends for the Inuit, well you just lost one- 83.78.134.170 09:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually have a name? It would be useful to respond to a named editor (if that it what you are). I respect native peoples wherever in the world, and the news stories reflect their views. If you want to denigrate the Inuit, then you will be joining the ranks of many others who see native people as naive, primitive savages. This view is not only racist, but also I think unacceptable in this day and age. Wiki articles must be neutral and not be partisan, a basic creed at the heart of this encyclopedia.

Peterlewis 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peterlewis, it is your deceitful misrepresentation of the telegraph article, and your coniving tone and clear pandering, that have changed me from being rather on the Inuits side, to being rather sceptical of the Inuit, if it was your wish to prevent racism toward the Inuit, then you had the opposite effect creating someone that was not at all racist towards them, to now have an unfavorable opinion of them and to think of them with prejudice...and I advise you to read your own words "Wiki articles must be neutral and not be partisan, a basic creed at the heart of this encyclopedia"...you have violated that with your misrepresentations and pandering, so Ive added the next little section of "In celebration of the dignity of the Inuit" -just for you! the Inuit are by no means some magical perfect race of humans Peterlewis! nor is anyone else! they are subject to the common failings of human beings just like all others, including greed! and so your misrepresentation of the telegraph article, not mentioning the Inuit desire to keep the bear in unprotected status for several reasons having to do with a profitable hunting of them and alaskan oil well profits, as well your failure to mention the study was commissioned by them, that the US FWS states there are no reliable statistics on that area to gauge increases or decreases by, the seal hunting being banned so that the bears food source would be far greater thereby enabling them to better thrive, the opinion of polar bear experts that this is irrelvant even if there was an increase in this particular area where the seal hunting was banned, and also your general POV tone in the article intro, is not of encyclopedic quality...the telegraph article and other articles mentioned all these things peterlewis, you however did not, and other editors have mentioned that this is even a very conservative paper...

I can see from your history that you defended the C4 documentary, which one of the scientists came out immediately to say: he was misled about it by the film makers, misquoted, taken out of context, and totally misrepresented, and even is thinking of pursueing action about that, so its no suprise to me that you are now doing the same as that film maker, anyways another editor has removed your POV "gloomy" statement from the intro it looks like, I myself am rather neutral with regards the global warming debate, while I accept the evidence the scientific community has presented, I have written and asked for a slower rate of CO2 reduction mainly as Russia and Canada clearly benefit overall from some warming, (the polar bear on the other hand most clearly does not!) yet it seems Europe has calculated that this benefit to russia and canada is offset by the fact that the harm to enough other lands may be too damaging, and that a speedy reduction in CO2 emissions worldwide is prudent to at least bring the situation better in control, anyways, this study belongs in its subsection and also in the context the telegraph article put it in-83.79.178.42 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your comments speak for themselves: the reader is the only judge. The basic point is that Wiki articles must be balanced, and not just be the opinion of one side of an ongoing debate. I suggest you attempt to edit the Inuit article, and see what happens! I see you continue to hide behind a number.

Peterlewis 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What difference does it make if i use a number or some fancy user name I have made up? I see you have not removed your misrepresentations. I agree if there is debate both sides must be included. Unfortunately you have fraudulently misrepresented a newspaper article and not given the whole facts from it-83.78.184.191 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Using a name makes all the difference, because then you cannot hide you identity. I like to respond to well developed arguments not incoherent rambling for a start, to someone who has a Wiki track record. Specify the "fraud" in my putting an newspaper report on the polar bear article. And you should desist from making racist comments about the Inuit: in England you could be liable for prosecution.

Peterlewis 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

give it a rest peterlewis...in fact it sounds like you have been trying to solicit my true name from the internet, and from how you have talked it could very well be that you are nothing more than a common criminal. In any case, you clearly don't know how to read a newspaper article, or otherwise you have intentionally misrepresented, its one of the two, you have displayed either ignorance or deceitfulness. If you think you could prosecute me for saying the Inuit are no better than anyone else and are subject to the same common failings as everyone else, and pasting something other people wrote from the Inuit article to this talk page...then go ahead and try! I would file a countersuit for reverse-racism and a waste of the courts time! In fact it doesnt even sound like you are Inuit, you have just been pandering to them, yet actually it sounds like it was all an act anyways, just so you could try and advance a global warming sceptic pseudoscience position. How much money have you donated to the Inuit Peterlewis? Are you going to hand them your next paycheck so they don't have to hunt so many polar bears Peterlewis? I don't buy for a second you care at all about the Inuit, and you have likely never done anything for them ever!-83.78.184.191 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus! On top of this! A girlfriend of mine for 5 years was of partial native american blood! And also my daughter and her mother are of partial native american blood! Your claims of my racism are preposterous! In fact I resent your using the name of the native americans to try and push a global warming sceptic position, and as I said, I pasted this little section someone else wrote about the Inuit in wikipedia just for you! And now as it seems you have read it I will remove it from the polar bear page back to where it belongs! Native americans are no better or worse than any other peoples, and if someone has a valid criticism concerning them, or a paticular tribe, they should feel well entitled to express it!-83.78.184.191 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say only this, I don't believe in legal threats, but countering them with incivility won't help matters, either. Let's be better than our opponents, please. Xiner (talk, email) 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys you two should go and and take a chill pill. You are not helping this situation we are all in. I am Inuit and use to sit on a management board that delt with these issues on a more serious level. To think that we native people that depend on the health of our most of our animals to get us through the expensive life we live up here. Even though i hunt this animal for profit now and then. I have the greatest respect for them and would in no way jepordize their position here on our planet. If it came down to the health of our economy or the health of our animals the animals would allways win. Which is the feeling of most of my fellow Inuit. Take the Perry Caribou for example we were the ones that put the ban on hunting on them. We have been adapting with the life of Western civilization since only the late 1800' and it is there you get those "gressy slime balls" you so elequently put it that gives every culture a bad name.

[edit] still not corrected

please fix edit by ronbo ...it seemed in good faith, but now the sentence actually is gramaticly incorrect, change to leap etc to alter it to the alternative wording he tried to come up with, but it does work the first way too...anyways his other change was actually what i was concerned with, as the sentence was written meaning that they dont eat those parts, not that they eat them but cant digest them! revert that sentence.. please fix in terms of his altering in the first sentence, i support his idea of a slight restructure to word it better, perhaps: ...then resuming to finally leap and catch them-85.1.212.140 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed it, but the original sentence I corrected with my copyedit was a run-on sentence with too many "and"s. Run-on sentences "do not work". Either it would need to be editted into individual sentences or broken up with punctuation as per my copyedit. If another editor would like to re-write it, they are welcome. Ronbo76 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was Ok with your restructure of the first sentence ronbo as it needed a copyedit, you just need to change the words leaping to leap etc to have it make sense, my problem was with the other sentence which you changed from the bears "leaving" the organs etc. to "not digesting" which is totally different and was not what the sentence meant...you have changed that sentence to mean they eat the organs and cant digest them or something, what they do is leave the other parts and just eat the blubber, you could maybe say not "ingesting", but "leaving" is more clear I think-83.78.134.170 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] historic range

I took a second year university circumpolar history class where the water bear was mentioned. I remember the range to be as far south as Cape Cod. The water bear was hunted to extinction. The water bear was most probably the polar bear. Can you confirm this to be true? H. Lorne 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, please see water bear. 151.202.74.135 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

WP:EL: External links are not a dumping ground for political speech. I'm going to trim that section in a few days. I'd also like to remind everyone that Polar Bear is not the battleground for global warming. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

cheers to that Xiner, yet unfortunately the battle has come to the polar bear page & others, and so you have people like Peterlewis heading to the polar bear page and the Inuit page to drop off his global-warming sceptic messages, neatly packaged in a misrepresented daily telegraph article, totally failing to mention the article citing the ban on the seal hunting in that area likely leading to better conditions for the bears, not citing the articles mention of the study commissioners, the Inuit, and also their prejudices in having the bears unprotected so they can continue to hunt them and thereby profit, in fact leaving everything inconvenient to his stance that the article mentions out, yet someone with more honesty will surely come and even just paste in what the article actually said so it isnt misrepresented anymore-83.78.184.191 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but if you are who I think you are, then may I remind you to avoid speculating on the motives of other editors, and simply discuss the factual matters at hand. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on your sentiments totally. But Wiki articles should be NPOV, and since you already have a long discussion about global warming, I think it only fair to have reports which contradict the view already expressed in the article, especially as they come from a reputable source.

Peterlewis 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for your external links peterlewis, if you just read thru them it totally confirms the article and the global warming theory, your last "scienceline" article starts off talking about incidents of now even cannabalism and starving and drowning bears, the other articles all state clearly the Inuit need the money from the bear hunting and don't want to see a protected status, it states the taylor study was inuit funded and conducted by an inuit biologist, it states the experts and scientists contradict the inuit studies, they also state that the seal hunting was banned in that area, the last article you included even now said there are up to 5 of the major areas with declined populations!...keep on adding peterlewis as it just gets better and better in contradicting your own global warming scepticism, but Xiner is correct this is not the place for a global warming argument and statements in the article like "hype" and "gloomy predictions" makes it sound like you feel it is the place for a GW edit war -83.78.184.191 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So take it to the GW page, and don't forget to add this key line from the Telegraph article that you keep hiding:

"Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply. At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears. "I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."-83.78.184.191 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let this be known...

This article was semi-protected for about two months in January 2007. After it was unprotected, it saw about a dozen non-edit war reverts in two days. If it continues tomorrow, I'm sprotecting it again. Xiner (talk, email) 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Units conversion

In the "Size and weight" section, the following sentence appears: "The largest polar bear on record was shot in Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, in 1960. According to Guinness World Records 2006, this bear weighed an estimated 580 kg (1960 lb) and was 3.38 m (11 ft 11 in) tall when mounted."

580 kg = 1276 lbs, not 1960 lbs. As I do not have the original reference, I do not know which value (580 kg or 1960 lbs) is the correct one, which is why I am not correcting it myself... though I am guessing that the 1960 is the incorrect figure, since the year of the record is 1960, it is probably just a transposed figure. Could someone with access to the reference please check this and make the appropriate correction?

--Kolumkilli 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)