Talk:Grizzly–polar bear hybrid

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please use this page to discuss the article, not your views on commerical hunting

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Me too!  Lisapollison 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I added it myself. --JOK3R 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Picture

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

message: Interesting story:
http://www.adn.com/front/story/6415667p-6294323c.html
RPellessier | Talk 06:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grizzlies feeding with Polar Bears 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Commercial hunting 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Addition the Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Certainly! find us a quote or a reference... - Adolphus79 11:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed ==In pop culture== to ==Trivia==, maybe that will help... - Adolphus79 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree.  It's pointless and adds nothing to the article.  violet/riga (t) 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Anyone think Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is a good idea?Fabhcún 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: What do you suggest then it is obvious people are entrenched in their respective corners. Fabhcún 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Colbert Request

message: 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 ?  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Maybe they're quoting us? JayW 00:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: Do not call this a pizzly bear, please. JayW 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A plead to the namers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've done this now - hope it comes across ok.  violet/riga (t) 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article focus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nanulak 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment from article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why "trivia" is good

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, clear case for speedy delete, copyvio. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture not public domain

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You based your inclusion on clear consensus?--MateoP 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to the (apparently) Controversial Colbert Report segment 

message: 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)
replies: text: it seems to have been re-directed already... - Adolphus79 05:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Suggested Merger May 2006

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

text: 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.  --Doradus 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia: keep or remove? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fantacy Scientific  names 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am fine with the changes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the current version of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism of this article

message: I understand that the white X in the black box means that the offspring is purebred, but does the black X mean that particular offspring is a that is confirmed to have occurred? aka  black X = a hybrid between those two species is scientifically proven to be possible.
Also, does anyone know if the p-g hybrid was sterile - like ligers and mules.Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bear Hybrid Chart

message: Is it like a mule or liger which cannot reproduce because the parents have different numbers of chromosomes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So can it reproduce 

message: If we want to be consistent with the "Grizzly Bear" article, which states that the Grizzly is an upland subspecies of brown bear, we should not title this article as it is. It is almost certain that the polar bears are not meeting inland brown bears but coastal brown bears, which are not properly called grizzlies at all. 
In fact, I don't think grizzly bear has any real biological meaning beyond being the kind of bear that results from brown bears moving inland and into the mountains. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We report only what the references say. If you can provide references and support from reputable sources the article can be redrafted. If not it is original research and cannot be included. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 16:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  These are proabably Brown bear - Polar bear hybrids 

message: Could this bear have been more numerous in the 1800's?  Lewis' account of their kill in the latter part of his entry on June 13th, 1805 has some similarities and may be a useful reference in the next update of this article. 76.24.148.137 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention in Journals of Lewis and Clark 

message: How heavy is it? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Im sorry, but I just don't understand why Jim Martell is aloud to hunt or keep that hybrid polar/grizzly bear.
What is wrong with you Jim? And what is wrong with aspa for allowing this man to continue killing for no reason other then a picture or to mount on the wall. Your a sick man Jim and your wife is too. You don't use the bear meat, its all for pleasure.
In my opinion Jim is one step away from a serial killer. 
Why is he or anyone else aloud to hunt for no reason. It makes me sick. And that man Jim announced he is happy and proud. WHY????????????????? As my tears roll down my face.
JOELENE PAUL
joelenempaul@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8100:5793:2995:E570:5BAE:1270 (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  JIM MARTELL 

message: Now, the introduction of the article mention that all 8 confirmed wild hybrids are from the same polar bear MOTHER. Later the article mentions reasons why male grizzlies would mate with FEMALE polar bears. 
--- However the introduction picture shows the bear in Osnabrück which was born from a BROWN BEAR which was living together with a male polar bear. I think the text under the picture should make this clear, that this is not a bear like those confirmed 8 wild bears which the article mentions right next to the image.
- The link from DW under number 30 provides this information and also has a larger image of that female next to her brother. Maybe add that picture, too.
- The later paragraph about those two German bears should also mention that fact that their mother was a BROWN BEAR. 
- I think it should be made apparent in the introduction that those hybrids are of a smiliar kind as ligers and tigons or hinnies and mules, meaning they vary depending on who is the mother. Otherwise people might wonder if the offspring is fertile, if both species are closely related and the species of the mother does not matter. Like wolf-dogs, the offspring is fertile, and the sex of the wolf does not matter, it is just easier to get a male dog to mate with a she-wolf. I didn't know about the status of bear hybrids, and reading the intro made be wonder if bear hybrids are like wolf-dogs and not mules or ligers.
Of course, if they are like lion-tiger or horse/donkey hybrids this would mean that all male hybrids are infertile, while the female might be fertile with both parent species.
---- Last, the article describes the apperance of the hybrids. AGAIN if they are true hybrids, then the sex of the mother should cause different bears. And the female in the picture from Germany of a brown bear mother looks WAY more like a brown bear with brown fur markings, as does her brother. 
Now the stuffed bybrid, which I assume is from one of the more common polar bear mothers, looks way more like a polar bear to me, smaller head, longer neck. 
If that is the common appearance than the text should explain the different looks, which are similar to how mules and hinnies come after their horse or donkey mother. (While ligers and tigons seem to resemble their fathers more)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.53.94 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species of mother is important in hybrids! 

message: @leonielottering 105.185.155.178 (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  can it also drown you 

message: Are these bears really called "zebra bears"? Actually, none of the sources mentioned in the list of names provide such information. 46.47.26.213 (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of scientific names