Talk:Bear

Godless Killing Machines

Ain't the nicknames 4 bear "Godless killing Machines"??? Ain't it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.36.77 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Links

This can use some article links, like for polar bears, and cubs for instance, wanted to do it myself, but it's locked I guess...

Larryandjai (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The short tail

Why is it short, whats its function? Tail important to locomotion? -mbrw 80.164.151.218 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How do they hunt?

I'm curious about their tactics for hunting prey since they're so big. Theyre very fascinating and so resembling to humans, I just dont understand how they catch prey, considering theyre solohunters, LARGE and inagile compared to humans. Also what kind of food do they bring to their stash for hibernating? How do they deal with meat going bad? -mbrw 80.164.151.218 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Inagile? You clearly know litle about bears! They don't stash... They wake up in the middle of sleep to forage occasionally. They hunt small mammals by digging them out of their burrows, salmon by ambushing near waterfalls and deer by whacking them on the back, breaking the vertebrae. Dora Nichov 12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Darcy Bear spends much of his time sleeping and brooding. He swanks around in his cave in his posh coat until nightfall when he leaves to drink. At this time all he need do is give his prey a smouldering look and it is his. It is said that Darcy Bears are the sworn enemy of Giraffes, but this may be an urban myth as the Darcy Bear can use his smouldering glances to devastating effect even on these lofty herbivores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia

I removed "bears are a national emblem of Russia". That is a tourist cliche, the bear does not appear on any national emblem.

Do bears even live in Russia? 137.240.136.81 07:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, bears do live in Russia. The bear as a symbol of Russia: was it invented by American cartoonist Thomas Nast? It is more than a tourist cliché and might not be so lightly dismissed.--Wetman 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

fuck you man, i am russian and i remember a bear was the symbol for the olympics held in russia in 76 or whatever year it was (i cant be bothered to chekc it out, i am ntoo drunk)--86.135.239.64 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)--86.135.239.64 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think that the bear was ever an official emblem of Russia, that nation's affinity with the animal has a history going back for decades, if not hundreds of years. For example, the NATO reporting name for the Tu95 bomber (the Soviet Union's counterpart to the B-52) is "Bear" and, unusually, the Soviets liked it and informally adopted the name themselves. It is certainly fair to say that bears to Russia are like bald eagles to the US. -- Hux 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If an American cartoonist invented it, then you should realize that it's terrible American bias that this suddenly makes the bear "the symbol of Russia". —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 06:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bears are giant marauding godless killing machines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.174.188 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nostrodomus used bears to signify predictions that involved Russia way, way back in the whatever century he was alive. The cartoonist was probably just popularizing a pre-existing symbol. --Mr. Anonymous. 26 November, 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.119.210 (talk • contribs) 16:28, November 26, 2006 (UTC)

Or Nostradamus made predictions that involved bears which people later interpreted as being about Russia because people now associate Russia with bears. It's commonly thought that he just made a point of being so vague that, after the fact, people could find ways that given 'prophecies' referred to given events. Don't forget that Nostradamus wrote countless quatrains, only a small fraction of which have ever been claimed to have applied to an actual event. See Postdiction.

And he lived in the 1500's, for the record. -- Vary | Talk 16:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Attribution

I removed the following from the end of the first paragraph of the article:

• [This entry has been prepared by a fifth grade class in Reno, Nevada]

Excellent, but that information belongs on the talk page, not in the article. A good first paragraph in my opinion. The first paragraph of any article, if possible, ought to be understandable by advanced elementary school or middle school students. Fred Bauder 19:19 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

(Since this was posted, a Simple English Wikipedia has filled this perceived need. Wetman 17:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

Unicycling bear?

I don't believe that a bear could ride a unicycle. I notice that this assertion was first added on 28 January 2003 by the fifth grade class mentioned above. I think it's important to keep content to things which are verifiable, so can we get photographic proof or a reference? If not, does anyone else also think it should be removed? RupertMillard 12:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The unicycling bear is a stock cartoon image, derived from circus acts in which bears sat on bicycles (and were made to appear to ride them?) --Wetman 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. I will incoroporate that information into the article. RupertMillard 08:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Entertaining bears

i think entertaining bears are not polit. correct. There are organisations which try to give such bears a chance to live as they should. please mention that and don't write in one of the first sentence about the abuse of bears -- a german wikipedian

I thought the goal of an encyclopedia was to be accurate, not politically correct. --M.Neko 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to train a bear to ride?

If the bears do entertain people, then it should be OK to write this way. Our judgement of right or worng is not required here. IceDragon64 15:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Caps

Guys, we had a big discussion on the mailing list regarding capitalization of names of animals. Don't remember how it came out (maybe capitalization of all words in name), but please look up whatever is the right way and follow it. Fred Bauder 10:32 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I missed that discussion, but convention holds that animal names should not be capitalized unless they contain a proper name within them (e.g. Thomson's gazelle, Canada goose). Names like "black bear," "polar bear," etc. should not be capitalized. -- Funnyhat 19:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what has been said elsewhere on wikipedia, but Funnyhat's coment certainly reflects normal english convention. Obviously, they would be capitalised in titles, which may sometimes be where the confusion arises. Also, some other languages capitalise all nouns.IceDragon64 15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Are we sure that the picture is a brown bear and not a brown colored black bear? Rmhermen 18:56, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I see that the picture page describes it as black bears so I changed it. Rmhermen 18:59, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

More detailed classification

A more detailed classification of the Bear family can be found on the "Nederlands" page. It includes subspecies. GerardM 07:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Red Panda

Currently, the Red Panda is listed as being a member both of Ursidae and Procyonidae on the respective family pages. It is listed as Ursidae on its own page. Should it thus be deleted from Procyonidae? john 03:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the red panda pages agree. Don't change here with out changing at least mammal Procyonidae and Red panda.

It should be in the raccoon family... According to Lioncrusher's Domain (a website about carnivorous mammals), there's no evidence for red pandas to be grouped in either their own family or the bear family. Dora Nichov 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparent copyvio

The section of types of bear looks like a copyright violation from [1] and related pages. I have removed it. In general it would be better to describe types of bears on their species pages, not here. — Zeimusu | Talk 03:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photo title?

Why does it read "Chrisoph Stelzer" above the bear photo?!

I took out some joke about bears being able to smell menstruation and putting new stations across America at jeopardy.

female bear?

Is there a special term used for a female bear?--Sonjaaa 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• "She-bear" is the traditional term, but rarely used anymore than "she-wolf." There's no counterpart like "vixen" (fox) or "doe" (deer). --Tysto 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of that. I've heard the terms "boar" and "sow" used to describe male and female bears respectively. --M.Neko 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No I believe you are thinking of a pig. - anon.

It's true that "boar" and "sow" are terms used to describe pigs, but I have heard these terms used in connection with bears as well. Need reference... - Davigoli

Yeah, it's true. Dora Nichov 12:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying like a bear

I see no reason to link "Try Like A Bear, Mans Eternal Quest tips and exploits on trying to get a lady" website in the external links. The site offers no information about bears or even bear myths. -Sam

The blurb under the bear photo

I doubt that's a kodiak brown bear. Kodiaks have a large hump on their back, above the forelegs, while this bear has the hump near the back, similar to the black bear. Also the bear looks small, while Kodiaks are the largest bear in the world. Can someone verify if that's Kodiak?

Classification

In the omnivore article here on Wikipedia it lists bear as omnivorious, and not carnivorious. I think it is omnivore, mainly. some bears are carnivore, but thats just a few bears that don't eat plants and such. the main source of food for the koala is the eucaluptus(plant), and for the panda it's bamboo(a tree) so shouldn't anyone with more scientific weight than my "almost cualified guessing" correct that. (sorry for any typos) - Tae-erom

Confusing, isn't it? Nonetheless, the bear family Ursidae is within the order Carnivora. If you read the Carnivora entry, it addresses the issue (though I think Giant Pandas should be called omnivores, as they have been known to eat insects, fish, and eggs).

"While the Giant Panda is an herbivore, nearly all others eat meat as their primary diet item: some (like the cat family) almost exclusively, others (like the bears and foxes) are more omnivorous. Members of Carnivora have a characteristic skull shape, and their dentition includes prominent canines and carnassials."

The Carnivore entry also addresses your point.

"Some animals are considered carnivores even if their diets contain a very small amount of meat. Those animals that subsist on a diet consisting only of meat are refered to as obligate carnivores.

"The word also refers to the mammals of the Order Carnivora, many (but not all) of which fit the first definition. Bears are an example of members of Carnivora that are not true carnivores. Carnivores that eat primarily (or only) insects are called insectivores."

There is also a list of carnivores there, of which only the Polar Bear is a part.

Also, you may be interested to know that the koala is not a bear at all, and the attachment of bear to its name is erroneous - a misconception based on its appearance and aided by popular culture. The Koala's family (Phascolarctidae) and genus (Phascolarctos) names translate to 'pouch bear.' Koalas are marsupials. Their closest living relatives are wombats. As marsupials, they are even closer to macropods than the bears of this article. - Slow Graffiti 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction commonly used in paleontology now is that of a hypercarnivore (strictly meat-eating specialist) vs. a hypocarnivore, which is basically an ominivore (non-strictly-meat-eating). Valich 04:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Bears in context

I have restored removed sections pertaining to useful information about the context bears are placed in in human society, religion, culture, and so forth. These are all useful sources of information and are not adequately summarized solely by the articles listed in the 'see also' section. Ziggurat 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do when threatened or attacked by a bear

I'm not the expert here but somebody needs to look at this section. From what I've gathered what to do depends on the species of bear and the occasion. What I've seen is that it usually is a good idea to try to play dead after being charged by a grizzly but that may not be a good idea if you're dealing with a black bear. It's also worth knowing that climbing a tree (if you have time) may save you from a Grizzly but black bears are perfect climbers in which case you're sunk. There's a hell of a lot to be said about what to do when confronted by a bear (or confronting one if you're stupid enough) but I'm going to leave that to someone preferably who has working experience with the animal. 84.160.249.14 04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing dead should not be for any bear. They readily eat carrion. Dora Nichov 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar Skeletal Structure as human beings

I think it might be appriopriate to mention that the skeletal structure of a bear is very similar to a human being.

This is just a fact that I picked up one day when I was reading National Geographics.

Some info I have found on the subject: "The skeletal features, together wit the muscles attached to them, give the bears dexterity in using their limbs-more or less in the manner of human beings (fig. II)."

From California Grizzly, by Storer and Lloyd Trevis.

However, this only deals with Brown Bears (Ursus arctos), so things may very between the other Bear species, as, Brown Bears for example display a greater dexterity in their paws then Black Bears, for example, as demonstrated by:

"Mills (1919 : 253), writing of the animal in the Rockies, said: "The grizzly is exceptionally expert and agile with his paws. With either the fore paw he can strike like a sledge-hammer or lift a heavy weight. He boxes or strikes with lightning-like rapidity. Most grizzlies are right-handed . . . If a small object is to be touched or moved, he will daintily use but one claw. The black bear would use the entire paw.""

[Source for this is once again California Grizzly; however, their source, as written, for this is Mills (1919 : 253)].

And it should also be tooken into notice that Bears do, however, possess more massive, and heavier, bones then Humans.

And, on a final note, something that is actually largely unrelated to the skeletal structure of Bears, I found a source for something that needs citation that was written in the main page/article of "Bears": "Bears are far stronger than other carnivores, and their limbs are more flexible and agile." - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572258/Bear.html

However, I being a new member, do not have permission to edit the page due to the fact it was frequently vandalized.

Ursus arctos 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Ursus arctos

S-Protect?

I think it's time to roll it out. The Ungovernable Force 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested. Cheers --Pak21 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to lift the semi-protection? I don't know what kind of delay is acceptable. Ziggurat 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we need to keep an eye on it. This may be an article that will end up needing constant s-protect, or at least until Colbert goes off the air (which hopefully will be a long time from now). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been clearing Colbertisms out of this article for months now - I'm happy to continue doing so :) Ziggurat 05:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested, although I personally agree with Ungovernable Force's suspicion that we'll need to put it back again. Cheers --Pak21 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to Kill

Bears are notoriously hard to kill physically, this should be noted somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs) .

It should be added to the article only if reliable sources can be cited in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. As this fact is "notorious", I'm sure you can provide these. Cheers --Pak21 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Humans are effectively incapable of killing bears. Even a whole bunch of athletic humans would most likely be unable to take down a single bear. We have to cheat and use weapons just to be able to hurt them at all. 199.79.168.160 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that, but please do read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." --Pak21 18:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Humans can effectively fight bears. This proves it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay slang?!?

"In gay slang, the term "bear" refers to male individuals who possess physical attributes much like a bear, such as a heavy build, abundant body hair, and commonly facial hair."

How is it gay slang? It's not gay...

It is gay slang. Just deal with it. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear community. It's gay. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While is it also gay slang, its use to describe men of the same body type existed long before the 1980s, the date the Bear community article gives as the origin of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.3.112 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a source for this? -- SCZenz 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIV

Please read the above guideline. Trivia should be integrated into paragraphs, not listed. I'll do what I can when I have a chance, but I just wanted to inform everyone of this part of the manual of style. Mr Spunky Toffee 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed:

• Bears have been portrayed in children's cartoons, usually in a humanoid fashion, from well known publications such as Yogi Bear to not so well known publications such as Cubby Bear.

This is already covered in the List of fictional bears which has a link in this article, so it's redundant. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

• Many cultures regard bears as possessing healing powers. The peoples of China, Japan, and Korea use bears' body parts and secretions (notably their gallbladders and bile) as part of traditional Chinese medicine. This has had a major impact on populations of bears around the world. Thousands of bears are farmed for their bile in China, Vietnam, and Korea. They are kept in appalling conditions and usually have bile drained from their gallbladders using catheters inserted into their abdomen or with hypodermic needles. There is no evidence to suggest that farming bears has reduced pressures on wild bear populations. Indeed the farming of bears in China has led to a huge increase in consumption of bear bile since the 1980s with many people prepared to pay very high prices for the 'superior' bile of a wild bear.

I shortened this and created a section on the use of bears as food and medicine. This info is covered in more depth in the article Bile bear, and there's no reason to be redundant and say so much about bile bears here when a link to the bile bear article is more appropriate.

• It is suspected that cave bears were worshipped by some prehistoric Europeans, and shrines and altars have been found with cave bear skulls and cave bear-like carvings.

"It is suspected" sounds dodgy. Also, this isn't sourced. I'd like to see this sourced before it goes back, and if it goes back, it should go into the bear mythology section, not the trivia list. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Other bears have been made into celebrities by means of films and sports entertainment.

This says nothing. I took it out. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Humorist Stephen Colbert frequently attacks bears as "godless killing machines mobilized against humanity" and "merciless assassins" on his satirical television program The Colbert Report. Bears frequently come in at number one on the "Threatdown" as the single greatest threat to the security of the United States of America.

This belongs in Stephen Colbert, not this article. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix this article...it is ridiculously compromised.

VANDALS! MUST KILL!

Someone horribly vandalized this page... :( Totema1 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's already been fixed. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG! what did they write to vandalise this? REALLY annoyin cos i needid the information! lol I HATE VANDALS!!!

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Standard of English on the page

The English on the main page is atrocious, please open up the page for editing so that it can be fixed.

Examples: "Exception have been regularly observed" "will spend a quite significant amount of time" "The bear will rarely become aggressive and bear towards you." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.120.81.130 (talk • contribs).

If you create an account you will be able to edit semi-protected pages (such as this one) in four days time and be able to fix problems like this. In the meantime, I'll tweak the ones you suggested. Cheers --Pak21 10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That last one sounds like some sort of pun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.146.52 (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Picture

Is the picture of the "Roma boy in bear costume" really necessary, I'm sure there is something better to be found, as nothing in the article references to bears in an entertainment form (and when I say entertainment, the first thing I think of is a preteen chain smoker in Hungary) something to better exemplify any sort of bear stereotypes would be bears in a Russian circus, even though its borderline animal cruelty (since Wikipedia is all morals and whatnot) at least it would be a REAL bear - 203.205.122.196 19:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

well bears are one of the easiest animals to dress as realistically, since they're roughly humanoid (see also Gorilla Costume). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk)

roughly humanoid? does that mean every article with a "humanoid" animal should have some costumed version of it? Im getting off point, all I am saying is it does not add anything to the article, to me it sticks out like a sore thumb as its an article about the bear, the article for mice doesnt have a picture of a guy in the Mickey Mouse costume working at Disneyworld, and that is a famous mouse, this is just some chain smoking preteen in a bear suit at some European festival, case in point, the photo is EXTREMELY unnecessary and shouldnt be prominently featured in this article as it bears no relevance (no pun intended) - 203.205.122.186 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I have removed the picture. For the sake of reference, the picture in question is Image:Roma boy in bear costume sm.jpg, which was added to this article by User:Haiduc on the 2nd December 2006. RupertMillard (Talk) 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There still seems to be a lack of consensus (at least from recent edits) as to whether this picture should be included. I don't think it particularly adds anything to the article - is there any valid reason for it to be included? SparrowsWing 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is so much antagonism to documenting this particular aspect of human/bear relations. There is a long tradition of Roma people training bears, and by extension, mimicking bears as this boy is doing. See this and this has been documented for a couple of hundred years: "Pushkin talked to Gypsy bear trainers in Akkerman and Izmail in the early 1820's; a bear is mentioned in his poem "The Gypsies" (1823-6): "In tattered tents they make their home..../A family for supper gathered,/...a tame bear lies behind their tent; nearby, untethered, / The horses graze...The steppe all round / Is full of life..." Perhaps it would be more appropriate to first write up a paragraph on this in the article, but that aside I do not see any good excuse to delete what is a culturally significant image. Haiduc 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Honey?

I read that the reason bears attack hives is more to eat the wee baby bees, rather than the honey placed therein to feed said juvenile apis. Is that so? I mean, I doubt you can get one without the other, so it's gotta be tough to know which one the bear's going for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk)

If you can find where you read it, you can put it in the article and source it. RupertMillard (Talk) 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Bears-News.com link

Earlier today, I added a link to www.bears-news.com to the "External links" section on the bears page. Bears-News.com is, as far as I have been able to determine, the only site in the world which provides daily updated news about bears.

Someone identified as "Vary" promptly removed the link, with the following explanation: "rv external link - site appears to have just been set up today, plenty of better resources already included"

I would challenge both of those assertions.

The site was set up in November 2006, and has been running very reliably since then. I have tested the site thoroughly and given it adequate time to prove its reliability and usefulness, before announcing it to other sites such as Wikipedia.

As for "plenty of better resources already included", as far as I can determine, all of the other information included in the Bears page on Wikipedia is static information, or links to other sites which only include static information; or information which is updated only infrequently at best. If there is another site in the world which provides links to worldwide news about bears which is always up-to-date and continuously updated, please point me to the site!

I would respectifully request that the link to www.bears-news.com be reinstated. Thank you.

The Original Wildbear 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your enthusiasm, but the site just seems to be a very, very short list of links to bear related articles from the last few weeks. There seems to be no other content - am I missing something? I would have to agree with the editor who removed the link; the link is self-promotional and does not really help the article as a comprehensive resource. Kuru ^talk 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask: where do you go to read news about bears? I you try using the search engines, you will likely get far more articles about sports teams, stock traders, and burly homosexual men than you will about real bears. It takes a lot of sifting through a lot of different sources to find news stories about bears. The purpose of this site is to spare anyone who is looking for news on bears from having to make that effort.

If the number of articles seems few, it is in part due to the fact that there aren't all that many stories about bears in the news. I have also put considerable effort into filtering out most of the duplicates. (The same story is often posted on multiple news sites.)

I have changed the display interval on the site so that it now shows articles going back to December. (It previously was set to only go back two weeks.) Does it look better now?

The Original Wildbear 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

There's a contradiction with American Black Bear regarding what to do in the event of a bear attack. This article suggests playing dead or peek-a-boo with the bear. That one suggests fighting it. I don't think it's useful to have a section on the subject in this article, because the best response is dependent on the species.--Nonpareility 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section.--Nonpareility 17:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

image of a bear cub

Could we have a photo of a bear cub? I'd like to see one...i never seen a live bear cub before. I only have a teddy bear. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

Meaning of the Russian name for bear

I doubt that "medved'" means "one who leads to honey", as it seems to me that the second root (ved) is misinterpreted; it's more likely it means "vedat'" (to know) as opposed to "vesti" (to lead), thus the meaning being "one who knows (of) honey". However, this is just my guess; I'll try to find a source. With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio from Encarta?

The sections from Physical Attributes to Reproductive Behavior, and possibly more, are obviously direct copies of the information in the corresponding Encarta article at [2]. I don't know what to do about it at the moment because it's so prominent and appears to have been added a while ago. I wanted to work on this article anyway, but it looks like I might be starting from scratch unless there's a legit revision we can revert to. Enok^talk 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The edits appear to have come from an anonymous user back in December 2005. I have removed the corresponding paragraphs, some of which were slightly changed but still mostly copyvios. Unfortunately the article is now looking a little bit stubbier :/ Enok^talk 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Extinct panda species

In the article an extinct panda species is listed called Dwarf Panda, Ailuropoda minor. Is this the right name. According to this article there's a fossil panda species called Ailuropoda microta. Is this the same species as A. minor?

Tolkien's Beorn

Beorn wasn't "bear-like," he was a shapeshifter, a lycanthrope, like a were-wolf, but a bear... a "were-bear," if you will. OK, maybe he was "bear-like" while he was in human form, but when he was in bear form he was... well... a bear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.22.61 (talk) 18:40, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Bear cubs

There is an awesome picture of bear cubs in wikimedia commons. See image "Inspecting Newborn Black Bear Cubs.jpg". I thought it would be a good idea to add those pics here in the page.

Ursari

Add a link to Ursari. --84.20.17.84 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear - national symbol of Russia?

Can someone give a reliable Russian source, which says that bear is the national symbol of Russia and USSR? Otherwise this sentence should be removed "The bear is a common national symbol for Russia (as well as the Soviet Union)" DVoit 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Third sentence under "Reproductive Habits" requires a "they" to make it correct in grammar. Schoolkids see this stuff -- refer to and study it. Please correct it. Personally, I think that articles which registered users cannot correct via normal editing ought to be thoroughly checked and assured that correct usage is employed before being blocked or locked or whatever it is you've done here. Otherwise, you're shooting yourself in the foot blocking responsible editing. Other syntax in your article is clumsy, but this is outright incorrect. Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedonite (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Panda is not a bear.

Phillogenethically, it appears on the Procionidae branch of the Caniformia suborder, and diverges early after the split from Ursidae. They are not bears, and the 2 species of panda are not closely related. Eriorguez 02:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's the largest?

Witch bear is the largest one? (In weight and hight)

Is it the Polar, Grizzly or the Kodiak bear? Jørgen88 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Polar bear is the largest weighing between 900-1,500 pounds and 7-10 feet in length, with the Brown bear (specifically the Kodiak) coming in at a close second, with an average weight between 500-900 pounds and height of 8-8.5 feet. At this site the largest on record says; The largest Kodiak bear on record was a male taken in 1894 that weighed 1,656lbs/745kgs! ←Gee♥Alice 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

According to the article, there are 8 species of bear extant. According to the Ursus article, there are that many of Ursus. According to this article, there are six genera of bear. What gives? Iamvered (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 

Ursidae	Ursinae Brown Bear Polar Bear American Black Bear Asiatic Black Bear Sun Bear Sloth Bear   Tremarctinae   Spectacled Bear   Ailuropodinae   Giant Panda

Appears to have originally been added in June by Enok Walker (talk · contribs). It does seem to agree with the little diagram to the right (from the article). I guess you should ask him. Probably a mixup in terms. It also matches with this site and this site. Even this teaching site lists eight choices in the little exercise at the bottom. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article seems more correct than the Ursus artcle. As there are 8 species of bear under the Family Ursidae, with the Sloth and the Sun bear being a sub-Family. There are 4, not six under the Ursus (genus); Brown bear, Asiatic Black bear, American Black bear, and the Polar bear. There are always arguments between experts, though. Sigh. I don't know enough to help. I would say that diagram is off though, as the Polar and Brown bear are on another branch? But the Sloth and Sun bear are on the same as the American and Asiatic Black bears? Ack, I have a head-ache. ←Gee♥Alice 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found this site that has an explaination and a tree diagram, but my headache prevents me from reading it. lol. I don't know how accurate it is, though. ←Gee♥Alice 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

from the papers i've read, Tremarctos (spectacled bear) and Ailuropoda (giant panda) are likely the only species unique enough to warrant subfamilies outside the Ursinae (er, "typical" bears). the polar bear and brown bear are each others closest relatives (having diverged only within the past 200,000 years or even less), though they share their genus name with the asiatic black bear and american black bear. the sloth bear (Melursus) and sun bear (Helarctos), though distinct from the Ursus species, are typically included within the same subfamily. i'm going to go ahead and change the article to reflect this, might also post some new refs. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

i would pay little heed to the Ursus (biology) entry, btw; it's poorly done and definitely not the consensus view of bear taxonomy. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree about the Ursus (biology) ariticle, that one is is mess. I've gotten a few books out (taxonomy), but have yet to go through them. Thank you, Mentanoid for taking care of this. ←Gee♥Alice 04:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, no, I don't agree with only the sun bear and panda bear being the only subfamilies. It's more complicated than that. But, I'll have to do more research for this. As you know, there are differing opinions with experts, but since DNA technology is more advanced, it is easier to determine relation. Again, I have a bunch of BIG books to look through, but am not able to get to yet. It will all work out eventually, I'm sure. At least there are a few of us here to help collaborate. Again, thanks. ←Gee♥Alice 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

well, i'm a lazy-ass, so i haven't gotten to that source till now ;). i have a pdf, but can't find where on the web i found it (sooner or later, i promise, i will insert it into the citation section). an abstract is here. (when i can find where i got the pdf, i'll post that, too.) not specifically on ursids, it was more a review and meta-analysis of the molecular data as of 1999. it confirms, of course, the obvious uniqueness of the giant panda and its extinct relatives, and also the spectacled bear's status as the lone survivor of an otherwise extinct lineage. polar bears and brown bears (and the latter includes "grizzlies", kodiaks, and several eurasian subspecies) are practically kissing cousins, and obviously recently diverged. black bears (asiatic and american) have obvious differences, but are still quite close relatives of both each other and the brown/polar bear clade. sun and sloth bears are both individually very distinct from those more typical ursids, but, again, much closer to them than to panda or spectacled; as to whether this means [the sun and sloth bears] should each be assigned their own respective genera to reflect these facts is up to the "experts", but most do. then again, there is likely a sizeable minority who do not. it is best, in such circumstances (imho), to follow the most reasonable consensus view, always bearing in mind (no pun intended) that to create a proper "taxonomy" (as opposed to, say, a "phylogenetic tree") requires one to present an accurate yet still more-or-less understandable account of evolutinary relations without overwhelming the interested layperson with minutae. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a link to a snapshot of the consensus phylogeny from the above paper - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Life Expectancy

I came to this article because my son was curious how old bears can get. No such info here. I finally dug up some information about at least two types of bear at the national park service site here: http://www.nps.gov/archive/glac/resources/bears.htm indicating they can get to be as old as 30 years. If someone feels like adding that somewhere, it might make it easier to find for the next guy with a little boy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Condor (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bears in coat of arms

File:Eidsberg komm.png
Please use this as well in your "Heraldry and other symbolic use" section. It is from the municipality of Eidsberg in Norway.

Dermeister83 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)