Talk:Grizzly–polar bear hybrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian Territories
This article is part of the Canadian Territories WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grizzly–polar bear hybrid article.
Article policies
Comment This is a talk page for discussion of the article about the Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. It is not for discussion about the animal itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article.
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

Contents

[edit] Please use this page to discuss the article, not your views on commerical hunting

Please be reminded that a talk page is for the discussion of the article and not a messageboard to debate the morality of hunting, eating meat, politics, etc. Thank you. Lisapollison 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

While the MSNBC story footnoted in the article has a dateline of Iqaluit, Nunavut, the bear was not located there. It was rather on Banks Island, in the Northwest Territories of Canada, a completely different territory, and quite far away from Iqaluit. I'll be changing the article to reflect this. --Canuckguy 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever makes the article more accurate! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacFarlane's Bear?

Has anyone considered the possibility that this may be a specimen of MacFarlane's bear? Pygmypony 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Polar-Grizzly-Hybrids are unusual but undoubtly only hybrids between Polar- and Grizzly bears, no cryptids.

MacFarlane's Bear is no cryptid as there is solid evidence. The skin and the skull which Roderick MacFarlane brought to United States were examined by Dr. C. Hart Merriam which described Vetularctos inopinatus (February 9, 1918, Survey of North American Fauna, No. 41). As far as you can find on various books the remains today - if not destroyed through time - still at Smithsonian.

But the question what kind of bear Merriam described is still in question. And yes there are speculations if MacFarlane's bear was an hybrid between Polar- and Grizzly bear.

[edit] Picture

Couldn't we find a picture of it? This article is nearly pointless without one. I'll look around myself, but... -Torgo 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too! Lisapollison 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
there is a photo on the web, unfortunately wikipedia's copyright policy will make it very dificult to put up. just google image grizzly polar hybrid. Joeyramoney 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The external link and the MSNBC reference each have a photo. dq 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a picture (probably all the same one). It apparently was released by the Canadian Wildlife Services, which might make it fair use or public domain, but I don't know, and am having a hard time finding out. Does anyone know about that? -Torgo 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It was released by the Canadian Wildlife Services for distribution in the news media (AP). It will qualify under fair use. --JOK3R 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I added it myself. --JOK3R 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The Colbert Report had a mock picture fusing a grizzly and polar bear photo and then merged the resulting hybrid with Robocop. I doubt we could use it but I figured I'd toss it out for those interested. --Bobak 19:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it counts as fair use -- far too new to be competing with other services. We don't use recent AP photos on Wikipedia, and none of the credits have made it clear what the license to the AP was (i.e. whether others could redistribute it) and so we cannot assume that. --Fastfission 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what JOK3R said, the photo was released by AP / Canadian Wildlife Service, released to the public, therefore it is public domain. Otherwise all the other websites wouldn't be able to pass them around. - Adolphus79 05:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Added my own photos of the polar/brown bear adult hybrid at Tring. Since the Grizzly is considered a form of brown bear, this specimen is representative of the Polar/Grizzly hybrid phenotype. The photo used by AP/CWS is property of the hunter, not public domain. Messybeast 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

This isn't Lost related, is it? :) Applejuicefool 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

-My god, thats freaky! 0_0 6:27, 11 May 2006

-Wait it is? And here I am thinking it's another type of dog species... i meant bear. IThink4u 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC). wait does this have to go in the article? IThink4u 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC). And why am I asking myself these questions? IThink4u 02:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC). Ok I'm done. =P

[edit] Vandals

I thought that pages that are linked to from the main page are supposed to be locked to prevent vandalization. But "summarily destroyed by dumb hunters" sounds pretty POV to me. "unfortunately killed before it could be studied" seems more neutral to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.142 (talk • contribs)

More neutral, but inaccurate since it suggests that the animal could not be studied. But it has been studied, if only after its unfortunate demise. Try to be pro-encyclopedic, instead of just anti-POV.
—Herbee 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually only images on the front page are protected, basically to prevent the unwanted appearance of genitalia. The articles themselves are explicitly not protected from editing, because that would violate the spirit of Wikipedia, that anyone can edit. See User:Raul654/protection and Wikipedia:Protection policy. In the case of repeated vandalism, Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy may apply. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"As the photograph shows, Martell hails from that quality group of poorly endowed men whose primary source of esteem stems from the slaughter of defenseless animals."....shouldn't this be removed??? Sidmohata 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say: "fortunately killed so that it could be studied."

"The United States recently instituted a policy stating that any non citizens caught mating with the bears will be prosecuted to the full extent." -- this sentence at the end of the "overview" section doesn't make any sense in this context, and looks like it might be vandalism.

[edit] Species concepts

The author assumes that a viable and sexually reproducing hybrid indicates that both parent species are one species. Actually, this is applicable only under one of many species concepts. These concepts vary in their tenets of what constitutes a species. Under most of these concepts, polar and brown bears will still retain their own taxa; as is intuitive to anybody who knows anything about the differences (range, behavior, appearance, etc.) about these creatures. Turkeylips 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, not always. For example, red wolves and coyotes are given different species names, but in the wild they hydridize with no evidence of hybrid breakdown and there's much complaining about this from "conservationists." [1]. Actually, if there was always nice easy and clear dividing lines between all species, we'd have a good argument that Darwinian evolution was NOT the mechanism of production of new species. Are we to believe that every time a new species appears in nature, it cannot breed with even its own parents and is immediately and completely reproductively isolated? If Darwin is right, you're going to EXPECT that sometimes in time and in space, species boundaries are fuzzy, and aren't obvious (and actually, aren't really meaningful because they don't really exist, except in your mind). Are chihuahuas and St. Bernards different species? That's mostly a matter of taste.Sbharris 23:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
But of course you must mention that both the case you cited and the case in question between polar bears and grizzly bears are between dwindling populations. The fact that a polar bear can't find another polar to mate with is a huge factor in hybridization. The case you cite must also be brought into question since many scientists believe that due to the prevalence of hybridization of American red wolves with both grey wolves and coyotes that it itself is somewhat of an ancestral hybrid.
What the devil is an "ancestral hybrid"? There are coyotes and wolves and all manner of crosses between them in any degree you like and any fraction of genetic pool you like. It's pretty much like labradors and German shepherds. The only difference is that it has been heavily politicized with the "red wolf". People think that naming something something different makes it different. It doesn't. It remains what it is and was. The language only changes the way you think about it.
We are talking biology here and not semantics. Most new species are formed when a group is separated by at least one of many ways to a parent population. Many speculate that red wolves are the product of breeding interaction between two different populations so the red wolf's mechanism of speciation is likely much different from that of the polar bear/grizzly bear which is important in discussion of hybridization.
There is an error three paragraphs above this one describing "dwindling populations." Although the future of North American Polar Bears is uncertain, their populations have been increasing since the 1960s.[2] RPellessier | Talk 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to agree. The fact that two species can mate to form "fertile" offspring does mean they are in fact the same species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is actually quite an outdated definition of what a species is and the offspring still typically display hybrid breakdown. The statement about polar bears and grizzly bears being the same species should be removed.

has been changed already to reflect strickt versus normal interpretation of the biological species concept. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Three references are labeled "1"...eh? NorseOdin 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grizzlies feeding with Polar Bears

Interesting story:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/6415667p-6294323c.html

RPellessier | Talk 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial hunting

I have no expertise on this, but could someone add a line about commercial hunting of bears? It may come as a surprise to some that the Canadian government sells permits to shoot big game. Perhaps I imagined Arctic hunting was restricted to the Inuit for cultural or nutritional requirements. (Importance to article: context, how this animal came to be found and killed, etc.) Thanks to anyone who can help. BrainyBabe 07:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it...dead? Backward Americans... Sjjb 08:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian government does not sell permits to hunt polar bears. There are quotas given out, usually based on the amount of bears in the vicinity of a community. The community elected Hunters and Trappers Association then decides how many will be hunted by local people and how many will be resevered for sports hunters. They sell the tags and then pay the local guides and assistants. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bias

is there some way we could cleanup all the biased gibberish on this page, so those of us trying to keep the article clean can communicate again? Or at least the unsigned gibberish... - Adolphus79 22:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition the Article

I think there should be a section on cross hybrizidation of animals in general, or at least a link to some pages that describe the process. It's not an elemntary or intuitive concept, from a genetic standpoint or ecological one. For example, what specific enviornmental conditions could give rise to cross hybridization. - User:Darksymph0ny

Ursus arctos horribilis is the trinomial name of grizzly bears, not of this hybrid. Jimpartame 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In the overview, hybrid is linked; the article is part of the category Mammal Hybrids. There is a link to Ursid hybrid in the second sentence of the article. There's also an external link at the bottom that has a lot of information on mammal hybrids. As for "what environmental conditions could give rise to cross hybridization," that is the biggest mystery of this finding - the why and how of a polar bear and grizzly bear getting along long enough to mate. - Slow Graffiti 06:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Request

Please put the Colbert Report reference back in. I spit all over myself, laughing so hard. - User:Cdwyer

Looks like your request has been honored. - Slow Graffiti 06:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Colbert information is encyclopedic, as the show did feature this specific animal. - Adolphus79 00:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No its not Some US TV show referencing this bear does not count, should we put in something everytime it is talked about in the news. NO. I am taking this out. and i did Fabhcún 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If some comedian from the Mongolian TV makes a joke about a grizzly-polar bear hybrid will you also put information about it into Wikipedia? Mieciu K 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly! find us a quote or a reference... - Adolphus79 11:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed ==In pop culture== to ==Trivia==, maybe that will help... - Adolphus79 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is triva encyclopedic, I don't think so, ok maybe i can explain this this way: Only about 1 million max people saw that episode there is 6 billion on the earth, A year from now no one will remember this episode, Twenty Years from now no one will remember the show let alone the segment, No one Outside the USA has heard of this show, Wikipedia is not a US encyclopedia but a World Encyclopedia. IF this is left in I am adding that I wrote about it in my blog does that count as encyclopedic as well? Fabhcún 12:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see trivia on a lot of articles... as a matter of fact, trivia is even part of several infoboxes and templates... as far as your blog goes, you'd have to ask someone else who's been here longer, but I don't see any reason it can't be added IF it's NPOV, and adds content to the article... but if it's just a rant of yours regarding the topic, and is not a valueable resource for additional information, then no... - Adolphus79 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"valueable resource for additional information"? How? Listen Trivia belongs on certain pages but this is a scientific artical about a animal. I think that the Cobert report is too unknown to be important on this level, Its simply a matter of we can't fit in every television refence to animals in wikipedia, understand? I am not on a rant here but I live in Europe and feel that this piece adds nothing to the knowledge about the bear in question. Maybe a seperate page on Colbert gags is more apt. (ps i never wrote about this in my blog just trying to make a point) Fabhcún 13:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Colbert quote should remain in here as it was probably the first place that many people heard of this hybrid, including myself. VanillaX 18:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia can be either unimportant information, or basic, elementary knowledge. that's from the trivia articial sorry but it if its unimportant then it does not belong here, and it is most definatly not elementrary Knowledge Fabhcún 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry fabhcun, I and the rest of the editors reverting you disagree. Stop being the single-handed instigator of a revert war. We should be talking it out, not responding to your continuous and non-collaborative reverts. --Bobak 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC) [For humor's sake, I should say "You're on notice"]
I disagree. It's pointless and adds nothing to the article. violet/riga (t) 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
But there's the rub, I'm hardly the only person who things it is worth having --after all, the article on Bears features the constant reference by Colbert. Basically we have the classic battle of "encyclopedic", which seems to depend on how drearily serious articles "should" be and/or whether or not a person has heard of or "likes" a particular show. If we're going to start axing these Colbert references, then go on the warpath on all the other pages. --Bobak 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I Just don't see the point, but i wont break the 3RR but some of you (Bobak maybe) may want to have a look at the page history because i am not the only person reverting this alot of of people have a problem with this. But I do take offence to "not responding to your continuous and non-collaborative reverts." Fabhcún 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is a good idea?Fabhcún 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
On it just being you, I was clearly mistaken by what now appears to be the fact they we're both online at the same time. As for your reverts, I think they were still jumping the gun with all-caps pronouncements when there's hardly consensus. I fail to see the harm in a trivia section to the value of the article. If a person doesn't care about trivia they don't have to read it. As opposed to some of the edit/arguments I've seen on what makes a person a member of a particulary ethnic group, I'd hate to think that this needs to go to mediation. I mean... we're talking a triva section here. -- Bobak 19:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you suggest then it is obvious people are entrenched in their respective corners. Fabhcún 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a A Request for Mediation in because I think we have reached a stale mate don't know if it was the right thing to do I had to do some thing Fabhcún 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I still believe that the Colbert information should be included. I also believe we can do this without mediation. Fabhcún, please stop deleting the information until we can reach an agreement. I think you will find that trivia is included in a lot of the articles here, due to the fact that that trivial information is still a piece of information regarding that subject. If you were to remove the trivia (or pop culture) link from this page, I recommend that you get started on the rest of Wikipedia, as most of the other articles have trivia sections, just for the added information they provide. - Adolphus79 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I promise you that I have stoped i only did it twice it is other people doing the reverting now, that is why i am seeking extra help becaus ethis could go on forever unless some one neutral stops this Fabhcún 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, the tired "America vs. the Rest of the World" thing. For God's sake why is this such a drama? Just leave the stupid Trivia reference in. Thousands of other articles have it. I found the reference amusing. There's plenty of work to be done all over Wikipedia without bitching about every point of minutia. Oh yes, I'm not an American. --Jquarry 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, what could be a negative result stemming from putting a small cultural reference, that if the reader didn't know about could just skip be? Ace ofspade 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

couldnt somebody put a link to the video of colbert talking about the god awful abomination refered to as the pizzly wouldnt that make everybody happy except for people attacked by bears--Zetsuie 14:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

It appears to me that a load of content from this page has been quoted/paraphrased (from the Bears section about 1/8 of the way down the page), but not cited at all - it simply appears in the external links. This should be remedied as soon as possible, preferably by the person who used the article so extensively. If no one else does, I will do so when I get to it tomorrow.

Including the site in 'External links' is not enough, as that list is intended to be "links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article" (emphasis mine). Should the article be tagged with {{unreferenced}}? At the bottom of the source website linked above, it does state "Textual content is licensed under the GFDL." The page should still be cited, correct? I'm not all that familiar with the GFDL. - Slow Graffiti 06:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should. The GFDL mandates that you cite sources (all the contributors) and show your changes to the text. Twinxor t 18:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they're quoting us? JayW 00:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I considered that, but I believe it's the other way around. It's usually not direct quoting...seems that the contributor to this article just changed words here and there, and omitted a few details. The website is more detailed on the specific instances that this article shares with it. - Slow Graffiti 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have licensed Messybeast content under GFDL and given Wikipedians permission to use/edit the text. I also add details to the Wikipedia page when my research comes up with new information - how can I be plagiarising myself? If anyone wants to upload the taxidermy pics of the polar/brown bear from my hybrid-mammals webpage, please do so - I took the pics specially yesterday, but am not experienced enough to know how to upload them for use in the grizzly-polar or ursid hybrid pages. Please don't assume links to the hybrid-mammals.htm page are dead - my server suffers hiccups sometimes and has outages, which is why I'm offering the photos if someone wants to upload them. Messybeast 06:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Added photos.Messybeast 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grizzly polar bear

wouldn't it make sense to just call it "grizzly polar bear"? --Revolución hablar ver 16:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... It's a cross breed so the cross is shown as Grizzly-polar. Grizzly polar (without hyphen) could just mean two independent animals in the animal kingdom. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally looking forward to future edit-war over whether it should be "Polar-Grizzly" or "Grizzly-Polar"...Wocka-Wocka-Wocka! --Bobak 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A plead to the namers

Do not call this a pizzly bear, please. JayW 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Grizzlar bear! sounds the coolest IMO

Is it a (p-olar) (gr-izzly) aka pizzly bear or a (pol-ar) (grizz-ly) aka poly bear ? :-)86.214.207.49 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus

If this article is to exist separate from Ursid hybrid it really should be rewritten to focus on the species (including ones bred in captivity), not just the one recently found in the wild. violet/riga (t) 13:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In that line of thought, does anyone know about specific things like the fur? Is this white fur the same kind of awesome hollow waterproofing that polar bears have? Or is it just missing pigment? Eco751 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I've done this now - hope it comes across ok. violet/riga (t) 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanulak

this is a much better name, in my opinion. Unique and interesting, unlike the rather lame sounding "pizzly" and "grolar". --Revolución hablar ver 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from article

Moved this comment by User:131.137.245.198 from article to here: Your main article says the bear was shot April 11,2006, but your related artcile says April 26 2006. Please clarify. --mtz206 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 'trivia' is bad

I removed the 'trivia' section earlier, and it was rapidly restored. 2 reasons why trivia sections are really a very bad idea:

  1. If what's in there really is trivial, it is by definition irrelevant and unencyclopaedic and should be removed
  2. If it's actually relevant and significant, it should not be stuck in a section called 'trivia'.

Of what's in there right now, the first point really is utterly trivial. A single mention on a show that most people won't have heard of and won't ever watch just isn't relevant. The other points look relevant and worth mentioning, as long as they are backed up by sources.

Quite apart from whether the section should exist, it definitely shouldn't be a bullet point list. Lists should be avoided where there's no reason not to use prose. Worldtraveller 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps actually putting it into the article, in the form of prose; and not a list? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It was originally added as a section called "Pop Culture" and various other incarnations but has been repeatedly removed/restored (see the Colbert section above on this talk page). Trivia has been one way of attempting to appease those who think Wikipedia isn't serious enough, that we have finite space for each article text, and that the world should be dreary (okay, that last sentence is my own POV, but the rest is true). -- Bobak 17:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this piece of news since before it was included on the main page or a Wikipedia article was written. I think one of the reasons this topic has become interesting to people is because of its exposure by Colbert. In fact, in very early incarnations of this article the Colbert section was included, so therefore, it becomes part of history and should be included in the article. dq 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of this Colbert, and nor do millions of readers. I do not believe for a second that his show has had any significant impact on global interest in the hybrid. It would be no more relevant to give a list of all the news programs that have reported this story. Worldtraveller 19:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
...and thus you must be right. I may not know jack about some subject out of my field of interest, but I respect the trivia-relation that may arise between some such subject and another subject which I do know about. Quit hating, seriously. The bear's dead, can't we let it live on? --Bobak 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Being sarcastic always works against productive discussion. Ignore for the moment the argument about whether Colbert is trivial or relevant. The wider point I'm making is that information which is trivial should be omitted, and information which is relevant should not go in a 'trivia' section. Seriously, in an encyclopaedia article, a 'trivia' section looks incredibly unprofessional. Far better to incorporate the relevant stuff into the main text. Worldtraveller 23:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, removing items when there hasn't been consensus works against productive discussion (I'm not saying you did the most recent revert). I'm sorry, but "unprofessional"? What is "professional"? This is such a relative assumption that I don't want to know everything I can garner on this new animal. I am not a biologist, 99.9(ad nausem)% are not biologists. They are people who want to know about a grizzly-bear hybrid. They may have found out about it, like so many of us who have already said so, through the memorable, notable use of the animal in the Colbert Report piece. Somehow, we can coexist, but those who believe they are being "serious" would rather toss that info out and determine for the rest of us what is useful knowledge. In my mind, the ability to have a wide breadth of knowledge is what makes Wikipedia so great and that's why I will stand in the way of any such overassuming edits. Besides, this was initially added as a separate, traditional section but has we tried trivia to keep it in the mix without having a header on references in pop culture. It's arguments like this that illustrate why people criticize Wikipedia. Are we Britannica, or are we something different? -- Bobak 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we want to be seen as authoritative? I think so. A very easy stick to beat Wikipedia with is that, with articles on pokemon and star trek and so on, we are not authoritative on serious subjects. Personally I think that someone arriving at our article on this and seeing a trivia section with something so obscure as a mention on a TV program highlighed would probably think they'd find more authoritative information elsewhere. I see no substantive argument as to why this one TV show needs highlighting in an article about a bear. So people heard about it on there? Well, I read about it in the Guardian newspaper. Like the Colbert show, that's totally irrelevant to the bear itself. Worldtraveller 21:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally have no problem with "trivia" sections. But it seems to me that the appropriate response of anyone who objects to such a section should not be to delete it, but to find a way to work the information into the article proper. --P3d0 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no information. It said that Colbert mentioned the animal on his show and then said that Colbert has a phobia of bears. That sounds like stuff that belongs in the Colbert article, not here. --MateoP 01:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How about "Colbert broadened public awareness of the hybrid by mentioning it on his show" etc. --P3d0 19:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If this had been mentioned on a comedy show in, say, Germany, or Japan, would anyone seriously be arguing in favour of mentioning that? Worldtraveller 21:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if it broadened awareness. The history of a topic, including its impact on popular culture, features prominently in many Wikipedia articles. --P3d0 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, for the same reasons mentioned before. You can say the same thing about anyone who reported the story. "'Insert CNN anchor here' broadened awareness....", it just isn't the least bit relevant to what the Grizzly-polar is. But put that on the The Colbert Report article and I'm fine with that.

[edit] Why "trivia" is good

A huge number of Wikipedia articles have a trivia section, and properly; "trivia" is not always trivial, it often instead connotes connections to other, otherwise unrelated subjects that are nevertheless significant to the subject at hand. In the example of Colbert, his commentary on this bear constituted a large part of the public exposure of the subject, and was the source by which many people learned about the subject at all. - Reaverdrop 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the Wikipedians that have been trying to keep the Colbert comment on the page this whole time, I'm sure everyone has read my reasoning... if not, scroll up... I give up... I'm tired of fighting for the 'trivia' or 'popular culture' section... but could we at least get an external link? - Adolphus79 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally removed it. It was lame and said nothing. It was nothing more than an attempt to put him into the article because people like him. There is no other reason.

There was NO SUBSTANCE to the reference. All it said was that Colbert mentioned the animal on his show. So what? It was mentioned on C-Span too. Are we to list everyone who talks about current events in the respective articles? The reference to him in this article was 99% about him, not about the Grizzly-polar hybrid. The fact that a TV character has a phobia of bears has 0 relevancy to this article. --MateoP 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The part that is relavent, is that the hybrid is now on his Top 5 list... if it had just been a standard 'oh look, a bear was found' (like c-span) news report, that would be one thing... the trivia is that according to Colbert's list, this hybrid is one of the top 5 threats to America... humorous, yes, but still a notable piece of information... maybe we don't list the news artcle, but get an external link to that list? - Adolphus79 01:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Its not relevant to this article. The joke is not even about the Grizzly-polar bear. The joke is about Colbert himself, and his phobia of bears. Put this in The Colbert Report for all I care. It's not relevant here in any way. --MateoP 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The position that there's "no substance" is just pushing the boundaries of taking a step back and asking "are we editors seriously arguing about this?" Is Wikipedia Britanica? No. Is Wikipedia a website specificially aimed at biologists? No. Sociologists? No. Media studies majors? No. Wikipedia has the noble cause of being for everyone. Thankfully that gives us an impressive amount of text-space to work with. There is a substantial number of people who are familiar with this bear because it was prominently featured on a major cable show. Will adding such info to the article take valuable space? No. Will it appeal to a biologist? Depends how serious they are. Will it appeal to people who like to know all angles on how a subject has worked its way into culture (even if that means *GASP* American culture)? Quite possibly yes. Now we have those who would aim every article at some mythical, cantankerous, apparently drearily serious individual who absolutely can't stand the fact that an article about a wacky grizzly-polar bearzilla would have a reference to how many of us non-biologist lunkheads came across it. Frankly, let that person fester. There's enough space for all of us, there's no harm (misinformation or otherwise) happening to this article. Wikipedia is to appeal as a source of information to all, not what some editors deem "serious" when others of us disagree. -- Bobak 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have space because there were probably thousands of media outlets that reported on the bear throughout the world and according to NPOV we can not arbitrarily say that Colbert Report references are OK but references to some other news venue is not. --MateoP 18:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Bobak, you keep complaining that people are 'drearily serious'. I'm sure the people you're aiming these comments at object to that. If you want a fun encyclopaedia there's always Uncyclopedia or h2g2. We're not supposed to be writing for comedy value here. Worldtraveller 21:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture not public domain

I emailed the Canadian Wildlife Services, to whom the picture was credited in the news media, and they deny that they took the picture, or have rights to it. Following is their reply.

Hello, John,
Thank you for your inquiry.
Please note that certain media outlets have incorrectly attributed ownership of the photograph of the polar bear hybrid and hunter to the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) , Environment Canada. The photograph was taken by an American hunter, Jim Martell, and all authorizations to use, reproduce and distribute the photograph must be obtained from Mr. Martell.
The photograph has not been authorized by CWS for publication anywhere and the department is currently in the process of correcting the error.
Thank you
Information Staff / Personnel de renseignements
Canadian Wildlife Service / Service canadien de la faune
Environment Canada / Environnement Canada
cws-scf@ec.gc.ca
Tel:(819) 997-1095
Fax:(819) 997-2756


I removed the picture. - Torgo 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, you may wish to list it for deletion, or I will do it tomorrow (not enough time today!). Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a fair use claim be valid? It is, after all, a non-reproduceable photo of a historic event. Sarah crane 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, clear case for speedy delete, copyvio. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Tagged it in the mean while with copyvio for speedy deletion. Kim van der Linde at venus

[edit] Link to the (apparently) Controversial Colbert Report segment

So I was able to dig this segment up. It aired on the evening of May 8th, the particular mention during the threatdown begins at the 4:48 mark: from Comedy Central's website (it is a pop-up window that will use some sort of media player). It may amaze some of you that a lot of us find out about interesting new things from shows like this. I guess we all live different lives... or so they say? -- Bobak 02:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How does that make it relevant to this article? I'm sure a lot of people found out about from CNN, Nature magazine and a lot of other places. We don't need a list of media outlets that reported on every new article. --MateoP 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you based you repeated removed on the "clear consensus" in this talk page? Please chill out. -- Bobak 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You based your inclusion on clear consensus?--MateoP 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Merger May 2006

It is suggested that Pizzly Bear be merged with this article

  • Support - it seems a no-brainer as both are articles are about the same thing.--WilliamThweatt 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - pizzly bear is redundant... this is at least the semi-scientific name, pizzly is simply a pop culture nickname... - Adolphus79 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
it seems to have been re-directed already... - Adolphus79 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Merge not redirect and lose information. --MateoP 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the Pizzly Bear entry as part of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. The Term Pizzly Bear has been in use to describe a legendary or proposed animal and is not merely a "Pop Culture nickname." I don't mind the merging but it should be noted that the Pizzly Bear as aCryptid predates the discovery of Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. Anyone who wants to merge that in and keep an entry for Pizzly Bear on the Cryptid list, by all means, do so. Since there is no evidence that there are sustainable populations of Pizzly Bears in the wild, it is appropriate to keep Pizzly listed as a cryptid with links to this article. Thanks very much. Incidentally, I am a Folklorist and in my collection, I have two stories from Canadian Raconteurs in which the Pizzly features prominently. Lisapollison 00:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No merge Per the above information, the Pizzly Bear was a proposed cryptid prior to the discovery of the Grizzly-polar hybrid. --MateoP 13:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that a hybrid has been found, it's pointless to have that article since it basically serves as a redirect now. There is hardly any length to it and can be pretty much summed up as "It was suspected before and yep, we found one... the page for it is over here..." It has become sort of a non-issue. Dismas|(talk) 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, by definition, this species is not a Cryptid anymore, and should be stricken from that list. Information changes, and so does the encyclopedia. I suggest to use strikethrough in the list with a ref to the new information, so that it is clear what happened. Kim van der Linde at venus 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No but it was a suspected cryptid at one time. That historical information should not be lost. If merged this should get its own section. --MateoP 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we agree on this. I have added the Prizzly bear back in the list of criptics, with source why it is not a cryptic anymore. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Lisa's information about pizzly bears in fokelore could go in a section on this article. Incidentally, somebody else removed pizzly bear from the list of cryptids. RupertMillard (Talk) 14:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the infor from prizzly bear into this one after it is clear that most want to merge it. The unique infor at the pizzly bear page was rather minimal, primarily the crptic information, which I have now merged in the introduction. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: keep or remove?

Let's take this to a vote. --P3d0 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Abstain. Lots of articles have trivia sections. People enjoy them. "Trivia" by defintion is not terribly important. Can't we have all the advantages of an encyclopedia without the stuffiness? Furthermore, I think those that want to delete information from an article, against the objections of others, ought to site an official Wikipedia policy. --P3d0 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:NPOV is official policy. How are you going to decide which news mentions deserve inclusion and which don't? --MateoP 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The question is more how many mentiones, which and where , and of those, which are encyclopedic. That is the question, and as far as I can see, none of them. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    Nicely done. This is the first actual policy reference that seems relevant to me. I've changed my vote accordingly. --P3d0 16:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    You are welcome. I would like to add WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus as many of the trivia items are so limited to the USA.Kim van der Linde at venus 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - at least keep a link to is animal being featured on the threat countdown... - Adolphus79 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote A vote on this topic isn't appropriate; we can't vote to break Wikipedia policy. I won't honor the results of this vote. --MateoP 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a vote is appropriate here - discussion is more helpful. Many articles might have trivia sections but that's not because they've been endorsed as a necessary part of articles, it's just because people have added them before the question of whether they are worth having has been addressed. For the two reasons I mentioned above, I think it's really bad to have a separate trivia section. You say people 'enjoy them' - I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. Personally I cringe whenever I see one because it makes us look amateurish and gives ammuntion to critics who believe we will never have the gravitas of Britannica. Any 'trivia' which is actually relevant should be in the text proper, not in a section whose title implicitly says it is irrelevant.

As for this particular case, a minor mention on one episode of a show that most readers won't even have heard of, let alone seen, is way too trivial to be included. It tells the reader nothing at all about the bear which is the subject of the article. It just gives the impression that Wikipedia is written from a US-centric point of view, and with little emphasis on scholarly writing or an authoritative tone. Worldtraveller 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the joke of the reference is about the comedian, not about the Grizzly-polar hybrid. This sounds like something that belongs on The Colbert Report maybe, but absolutely not here. --MateoP 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To supporters of the inclusion, I would point out the minister Pat Robertson who disbelieves in evolution and says so on his television and radio shows regularly. He talks about the issue a lot. However there is no mention of the fact on the evolution article. It's not relevant there. I'm sure it is mentioned somewhere on wikipedia, but not on the article on evolution. The same is true here. The fact that the fictional Stephen Colbert character has a phobia of bears couldn't possibly be more irrelevant to an article about a Grizzly-polar hybrid. --MateoP 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But if someone added Pat Robertson's views to a Trivia section in the Evolution article, I'm not sure I'd remove that either. --P3d0 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be removed pretty much immediatly as non-encyclopedic, and maybe would have a change to survive at the evolution-creationism ciongtrovery page when incorperated in the main text. Of the articles that I have substantially edited, only one trivia line has survived, because when it is relevant, it can be included in the main text, and when not, it probably does not need to be there. The only one that survived was a quote from darwin on natural selection that he in hindsight would have called it natural preservation. It highight an important aspect, is general, but has no place in the main text. Kim van der Linde at venus 17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, and Wikipedia falls down another notch... --Bobak 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue the contrary. Kim van der Linde at venus 18:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Res ipsa loquitur. --Bobak 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


What is your goal? Colbert talks about a half dozen news stories every night. So does Leno and Letterman and thousands of others. What are you suggesting, that we document every joke these guys say; on articles that aren't even about them no less? You can do that on Wikiquote if you want. To me this seems like nothing more than fandom. I've still heard no pro-inclusion arguments why THIS example deserves inclusion whereas the others don't. Explain that and i'll change my mind. --MateoP 21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantacy Scientific names

I have removed the fantacy scientific names because they are not even semi-scientific, just pure fantacy. I can laugh about them but I think itis wiser for an encyclopedia not to use them, because theya re going to live thier own live for many many years to come, and I think that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Kim van der Linde at venus 03:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mediation

I see the "war" is over, perhaps we should remove the cat:afm. what do you say? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, because the request was filed incorretly and was invalided by the mediation commitee. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of the current version of the article

The current version of this article has a lot of room for improvement:

  • In the first sentence, the word "usually" is misleading because it could be read as suggesting that it is a usual practice for zoos to breed grizzlies and polars together. Also the word "created" is problematic for a few reasons. Also the rest of the article needs more discussion of the instances of the hybrid that have occurred in captivity.
  • As a replacement for the first sentence, I would suggest something like:
A grizzly-polar bear hybrid is a rare ursid hybrid that has occurred both in captivity and in the wild.
  • The discussion of Cryptids in the opening paragraph is peculiar. Is a Cryptid some kind of mythological creature, or what exactly? The grizzly-polar hybrid was produced in zoos over a hundred years ago, so it's weird to say that before 2006 it was considered folklore. (By the way, why is the C capitalized in Cryptid?) I would suggest moving the discussion of Cryptids out of the introductory paragraph, and maybe include it in the section "Possible early sightings".
  • The last sentence of the opening paragraph seems to me like either POV or OR, or both. I understand the argument that the hybrid should be called Pizzly (if the father is polar) or Grolar (if the mother is polar), following the analogy of liger and tigon, but that's just an argument, right? It hasn't been generally accepted by zoologists referring to this particular hybrid, has it? There is a reference to the messybeast.com site as "semi-scientific"; not sure what that means. Anyway I would take this issue out of the introductory paragraph and leave it in the section on "Naming".
  • The article needs more detail on grizzly-polar hybrids that have been born in captivity.
  • Under "Possible early sightings" it would be good to have a reference for the second sentence. Who, exactly, considered the 1864 animal as a hybrid? Merriam himself?
  • Under "2006 discovery" the sentence beginning "Officials took interest..." is confusing. More detail is needed on how, exactly, the bear was brought to the attention of these officials. There is a CBC podcast (MP3) which discusses this a little bit. As written, the article suggests that the "officials" were interested in it because it could have been a hybrid, but as I understand it the officials were actually interested in it because it could have been a grizzly.
  • The article Tigon might serve as a useful comparison.


--Mathew5000 22:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


In the absence of any response, I made some changes to the introductory part of this article. I took out the sentence on naming because as written it suggested that the matter is already settled (in favour of "grolar bear" and "pizzly bear"), when later on in the article it says that there are still a number of proposals. Just because something might be "scientific convention", in other cases such as wild cats, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should report as fact that the convention has been applied to this particular hybrid.
As for the concept of "cryptids", I left it in the introduction but changed the language a little to explain it better. I still tend to think that this article doesn't need to mention cryptids at all, at least not without a reference to an authoritative source. --Mathew5000 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with the changes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of this article

I removed this statement just now:

In conclusion, grolar bears are 28% more awesome than grizzly bears!

Those of you watching this article, please keep your eyes open for similar vandalism. Much obliged.Lisapollison 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)