Talk:Sloth Bear

message: I think this section is probably the primary reason another editor removed the whole lower half of this page, but I have restored it. I have, however, added a POV tag and numerous  tags. I think that it IS important to have information about animal abuse on these pages, but it MUST be documented! Bear (pun intended) WP:NOR in mind at all times! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entertainment and Concerns

message: Dear Mariomassone, lets discuss this here without starting an edit war.
I disagree the recent inclusion of following "fun fact" is encyclopedic worthy. User:Mariomassone has several times added following to the Sloth Bear#Dietary habits and I kept of undoing it. 
"They can drink a gallon of motor oil with no ill effects"
This seems to be a one-off incident, not supported by more than one reference and moreover it is not a Dietary habit of sloth bears worthy of mentioning in this section. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would do then to place it in the tameability section, as it describes the bear in question (bruno) in greater detail?Mariomassone (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What if someone else's bear ate a pound of car-wax and did not even had a loose motion? Would you include that too in the article? I mean, what is the significance of "motor oil"? OK Bruno did that (lets accept it as a fact). Still it has no significance in a general article about sloth bear. It is significant in an article about Bruno, the sloth bear though, but this article is not about Bruno. If you really want this then you should word it like -> "Sloth bear's digestive system is known to be extremely resilient to hazardous substances such as motor oil" (Still the single reference that you have I am afraid is not adequate for such a significant claim about sloth bears in general Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: motor oil consuming sloth bear

message: This article says 8000, but the article cited says 800.
http://www.wildlifesos.org/IBR/Dbears/bdancebody.htm
Further, this article says the last bear was freed in 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8421867.stm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.240.121 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How many "dancing bears"?

message: When was this bear moved into the genus Ursus from Melursus?
Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been.  See , for example.  In addition, the supposed reference for moving into the genus Ursus only used a single marker: mtDNA.  See "Combined analysis of fourteen nuclear genes refines the Ursidae phylogeny" for a more complete and more likely accurate phylogeny. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Am sorry but those studies where performed using mitochondrial genome analysis. The problem with mitochondrial genome analysis is that many organism groups posses Incomplete lineage shortage. Phylogenetic analysis is what confirms ancestry. Not to mention ursus species have normal tongues while Sun Bears have long tongues. Not to mention sun bears are more morphologically and behaviorally similar to sloth bears than any ursidae species. Which means that aside form being more related they might aswell be in the same genus. 56FireLeafs (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  did you take a moment to actually look at the article?  Sloth bears ARE in a separate genus now, Melursus and have been placed there for over half a decade or more. You are replaying to a comment that is OVER a decade old, and one that was asked by a user who is no longer active.--Kevmin § 02:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus i never knew that. But still, my point is Sun Bears should not be placed in Ursus. 56FireLeafs (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are admitting to NOT actually looking at the article before making a comment, and to not looking at the date stamps of the comments you replied to?  As for  your personal opinion is not relevant in any article or talk space at all, given the current situation on your talk page that you are not responding to.--Kevmin § 05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Genus classification change