Talk:Polar bear/Archive 2

message: This section needs to be fixed. The first paragraph states that the overall polar bear population has been shrinking, then cites one small population of bears in Canada. The second paragraph states that the global polar bear population has quintupled over the last thirty years. 66.8.139.9 22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No editor should be extrapolating anything; that would be original research in this case. Scientific reports based on far more than simple extrapolations have forecast dramatic population declines. Right-wing lobby groups and Inuit hunters have claimed dramatic population increases. These positions are now presented in those terms.--Yannick 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservation Status" 

message: I tried to edit the section on Phylogeny to change the time of divergence of polar bears from Brown bears from 2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago, but someone has reverted the edit back. The 200 thousand years ago figure is consistent with everything I have seen on this topic. To be specific the Smithsonian website says about 100,000 years (and notes that that makes them the most recently evolved large mammal). The Bear Den website says 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, as does the University of Maryland's department of geology website, and Polar Bears International website says about 200,000 years ago. So "about 200,000 years ago" seems reasonable and the 2 million years ago figure seem completely out of bounds. So if someone is going to revert the section back to the 2 million years ago figure I would at least like to have an explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty Cashman (talk • contribs) .
:Great work tracking down all the citations!  I am not an expert in Polar Bears, nor am I the one who was doing the reverting.  I may however, have the reason for the disagreement: from what I have heard there is a divergence between the traditional paleontological dating of fossils and recent genetic dating.  Beta, Sumich, and Kovacs Marine Mammals, 2006 (full citation below) indicates that fossils give dates of 0.7-0.1 Ma, while molecular methods indicate the divergence occured at 1-1.5 Ma.  I checked their reference for the molecular date (Yu et al 2004), which has a 95% Confidence interval around this estimate of 0.01-3.08.  Given these data, I tend to think your date is the better of the two.  
:The two works cited above are 
:*Berta, Annalisa, James Sumich, and Kit Kovacs. 2004.  Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology 2nd ed. Academic Press.
:*Yu, Li, Qing-wei Li, OA Ryder and Y-ping Zhang. 2004. Phylogeny of bears (Ursidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial genes.  Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 480-494.
:The two methods may be the reason for the different views on the date.  I think we should leave it at 200,000 and track down on of the citations you mention and add it to the article.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divergence From Brown Bears 

message: I deleted the information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view because it seemed as though it clouded the issue.  Even though the air temperatures may be decreasing near certain areas by the poles, the polar ice cap is still melting.  And most scientists believe that it will continue to do so since global temperatures are projected to rise significantly over the next several centures.  If this does indeed occur entire arctic ecosystems will be threatened; the polar bears are clearly a part of this ecosystem.
The information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view, while potentially accurate, act to cloud the issue while it is really fairly straightforward - in my humble opinion.
Thanks!
Jdsmith03 11:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Quick Edit 

message: . Maybe it should be incorporated into the article? JoshuaZ 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info about polar bears and Global Warming 

message: The video from Weather.com claims that bears are starving because they only hunt when there is sea ice around, and will the melting going on, their hunting season has dropped an entire month in the last 15 years. This has led to polar bears starving. Can some one confirm/deny/add? (I'd check up on it, but I don't have time right now). Thanks! Janet13 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure i've seen similar things said on BBC documentries and it seems to make sense. I'd imagine land mammals (e.g. not stuff like whales which have fish-like body shapes and swimming abilities) cannot swim anywhere near well enough to stand a chance at hunting while swimming. Plugwash 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar bears only hunt when there's sea ice? 

message: Sources:
#http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFkNjliNTIxYjJjNmQxNjdhYjdjNTA0ZTU2ZGFjNzQ=
#http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg3NTcwZjhhYzFhNTM2MTk1MDVkNGUxNWNjMjhhMTM=
#http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22170
#http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15957
#www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/686008/posts
#http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/Mar%2018.htm
#http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
#http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/07/05/a_convenient_lie
Artic Ice Melting Cycle:
#www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743085/posts
(please note that some of these sources will include information and opinions not pertinent to the issue at hand, and should be ignored as topics of debate)
I worry when the article includes unlikely hypothetical scenarios as fact.  Rampant speculation on such a sensitive topic only leads to conflict. - MSTCrow 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that these are not peer-reviewed scientific journals and do not satisfy WP:RS. Many seem to be pushing a political point of view and selectively quote scientific papers for that purpose. I agree that the content in the article could be better sourced. However, debate about global warming and its effects on ecosystems may be better pursued on Talk:Global warming and its related pages. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to get into the global warming debate as a whole, only if polar bears are in some way being affected by effect X or not.  The article needs to state both points of view, without coming down on one side or the other. - MSTCrow 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To remove cited information is hardly the way to get the article to state both points of view. Wouldn't it make more sense to add a balancing paragraph of your own, in the form of a neutral presentation of the perspective you favor? With sources with some scientific credibility, please.  Bishonen | talk 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing one side that incorrectly lists itself as accepted fact makes sense.  I'll rework the thing with both points of view, with neither side claiming total acceptance. - MSTCrow 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And an even scarier story about global warming and ice melt: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=100034512007. Based on the ice caps' impending demise in the 2020s, I fear that the polar bears' fates are pretty much sealed. RIP, polar bears. 69.62.248.171 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Bears Not Endangered by Global Warming, Greenland Ice Thickening/Expanding as a Whole 

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

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

message: In the Fur and skin Section, there is a short bit about the guard hairs:
The hair does not have fiber-optic properties, nor does it transmit light or heat to the skin (an urban legend).
This could be improved with a reference to someplace with a fuller explanation of this often told "fact". There seems to be a guy named Daniel Koon who wrote about this.
I think the term "urban legend" is being misapplied.
216.254.12.114 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read a long article about this in the Journal of Optics in the 1970s. This is NOT an urban legend. This is the truth.--Filll 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: "The polar bear could prove an interesting study as to how exactly mammals adapt to the oceans from the land as they are in some intermediate phase between land mammal and marine mammal. If a warming phase on earth was slow enough the population could actually split with a part retreating back to land and the other more water friendly part adapting fully to the oceans and we would see an entirely new class of ocean predator! The current warming is clearly far too rapid and unprecedented for the bears to achieve such a feat naturally so quickly with the small population size they have unless they experienced other more conscious human interference."
Took this out of the evolution section. I actually love the passage, so if someone could put it back in a way that doesn't violate at least three Wikipedia standards I would be eternally grateful. The three problems I see are non-NPOV for the global warming reference, original research because the whole thing is sourceless speculation, and non-encyclopedic tone. But---ocean-going polar bears would totally rock. ^-^ 0702034 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cubs need land or ice to survive, I think. Xiner (talk, email) 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative and non-NPOV passage removed 

message: Yes it was i that added this in addition to much of the actual scientific information thruout this article on the polar bear page...and that little part i put in the evolution section lasted longer than i expected...as to ur three reasons for removal...i see just one that is difficult to address (the second: original research)...for the first and as to warming...i can add plenty of articles supporting that...and indeed i did added one to the beginning of the page yet it was erased...even though one isnt supposed to erase newspaper article links when it doesnt fit with ones perceptions (in this case the eraser happened to believe warming was a fraud and didnt want info included that contradicted this belief)...yet even the strongest anti-global warming faction (of the bushies) has come out in acknowledgement of it and aimed to help the polar bears escape its effects...so i think its beginning to get beyond "speculation" that the arctic is melting away...the scientists were convinced many many years ago...now even the business lobby is accepting it...(i personaly accept it as a scientist..yet i am pro global warming you see as well...i know it will greatly help russia and canada out...their business people, and citizenry in general, will profit...so i am for increased global warming...a unique position for a scientist...yet im a rusky/canada fan...and turning the heat up on everybody else...all that good ice hockey i suppose won me over...im for no curbs on carbon emissions... and blasting methane into the atmosphere if someone shoots up balloons and all to stop the warming...yall have a little war on ur hands and its a little late to change the tides in this one...were warming this little planet...anyways...here in switzerland where i live its high enough elevation to wait most people out on the warming thing too...im working on ideas as to what to do with the polar bear...im for rescueing the bears from the collateral damage of this latest newest "cold war"...i think it can be done...theyll need support for a while...yet even without GE to their genome i think we could eventually see them adapt to their new circumstances if we support them in certain ways...i suppose tho tinkering in the genomes of some and letting them loose in the polulation would speed up the time till theyr independent of us again)...anyways as to ur "non-encylopedic tone"...i perhaps agree i should rephrase the sentence yet keep the basic idea...yet thats easy to address of course...the second is hard to address tho...as far as i know i am the first to suggest this that the polar bear given time could adapt fully to the oceans as the cetacea did so long ago...or the elephant-like sirenians did (manatees and such which are most like the elephant family)...i will look for someone elses suggesting this...yet i actually hope im the first...i would feel it a scientific achievement if i were the first to note this...yet surely someone else has played with this idea of polar bears as an excellent study example of a terrestrial mammal adapting to being a marine/aquatic mammal in full...it would take them millions of years perhaps to make the change successfully on their own with such a small population...plus a little luck...and i think a basic desire, on some the bears part, for living in the oceans full time, (surely some of these bears show a greater enjoyment of the ocean and swimming in it)...we could "enable them" within this century i think...we could create a fully aquatic polar bear thru engineering...we could even make them twice as smart as people...what do yall think of that???......."dr moreau".......and as to the warming thing...as a sidenote...i am not a member of any country...i am actually a stateless scientist belonging to an independent consulting firm...the nearest state i could be claimed as being a part of is the new state recently created on the previously unclaimed section of antarctica...NuuXeniaLand...i think russia and canada have a position currently of curbing global warming...im trying to convince them both otherwise...currently im for "staying the course" and keeping the warming at its present rate...yet i could decide to escalate...and decide in favor of speeding it up...so i suppose i forgot when adding some of the info to the polar bear page that it could sway people into concern over global warming...i will erase all refernces to gloabl warming on the page...and i think im heading to the gloabl warming page itself to remove things and add some anti-global warming stuff....dr yoheaux...Benjiwolf 10:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiwolf, if you can trim down on the commentary, and point me to where you felt the links were unjustifiably removed (WP:DIFF), I could take a look. Global warming is an overwhelming consensus in peer-reviewed science, but it'd be hard to read through this clutter, and please don't threaten to do anything that would harm the encyclopedia. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 15:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  and this leads to... 

message: it appears that my references are in the latest version as references instead of links...so its not an issue...the "sensible" factual additions i made to the global warming page, such as scientists thought we were in a cooling phase, and temps had a downward trend from the 40s to the 70s was promptly removed...my notation of the fact that warming helps some countries out (factual)...was promptly removed...anyways as to the polar bears...as they lose out in this human induced warming phase... i say we then establish two new populations...one land dwelling...one ocean dwelling...as we have speeded climate evolution up...then its fair play that we speed up the evolution of our favorite creatures so they can deal...we can make it so the polar bears are always super nice to humans too i think...its not so hard really to make them sweet and cuddly when around people...we now have all the science to be able to accomplish these things...i think the one main trouble we might have with their ocean adaptation is: we have too few whales after their near extinction in hunts...a fully aquatic well designed polar bear could ravage the few remaining whales...the whale population is likely too small to be able to adjust to the new predator...wed have to "help them out" as well...there are several ways...yet the cetacea would be mad at us...the killer whale is the top ocean predator...perhaps its better to keep the bears as land dwellers after all...the killer whales seem to like us...(well at least they dont eat us)...perhaps theyd change their minds if we added fully aquatic polar bears to their scene...anyways...yall humans need to adjust as well i suppose...yall are now at the "godlike" stage...(in terms of ability...not yet wisdom or responsibility)...yall are massively influencing all sorts of planetary processes...evolution is now in the cards as well...to not tinker at all in genomes is to influence evolution as well...there are so many humans and their industry and its pollutants are so omnipresent that this in itself influences evolution on this planet...from here on out yall are evolutionary engineers as well...better train up some of those used car salesmen...unfortunately yall have far too few ecologists, biologists, and evolution specialists to deal with ur new abilities...yall have little to no clue how to interact with ur ecology...let alone guide its evolution...and even a simple single celled organism can be far more complex than the latest BMW...yall always wanted to be the top species...the dominate ones...the "most intelligent"...and yall love control so much...well be careful what u wish for...the cetaceans, and polar bears and such, and everybody else, get to sit back and enjoy life...while yall are the busy worker bees running & controlling this world...who is the most intelligent???...they play with bubbles & squeaks...and yall play with guns and missiles...who is the most intelligent???...Benjiwolf 16:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiwolf, please be aware of WP:3RR, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Unsourced statements can be deleted. Please provide sources for your interesting commentary. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  and then it leads to this 

message: OK people...there are a bunch of "citations needed" tags in this article...i have referenced "marine mammal medicine" at the bottom of this article, a large book written by expert marine mammal veterinarians and that is referenced itself with thousands of scientific studies...i have not referenced next to every sentence why it is valid...with the multiple studies and books that it is stated as so being...yall have to come to a decision here...is this a technical-scientific encylopedia where every single sentence needs a number next to it to back it up???...i think not...this is a lay encylopedia and it will be too cumbersome with so many references...if someone makes a controversial statement or controversial scientific fact then sure...it should be referenced...the only place i really see the need for the references right next to every sentence is mainly the "threats" section as yall are going to have anti-environmental people challenging everything u write in these types of sections...its sections like this on pollutants and the like that could indeed stand to have several references next to each sentence so they are untouchable and cant so easily be vandalized...i understand that yall want to increase wikipedias validity...and there should be some references right next to the sentences here and there...yet it can go overboard...if yall want i can load this polar bear page with a hundred references and several next to each sentence...yet i just think that is crazy and a waste of my time...if someone else wants to turn the polar bear page into a technical scientific format, that can type faster than i, then go ahead...after looking briefly at all the "citations needed" tags i think u can reference each one to marine mammal medicine if u need to...i think the expert marine veterinarians covered most things this page might have in their book, and they make a good broad reference, without having to detail each scientific study that backs these sentences and information up...there are thousands of studies that back these things up...if a polar bear expert specialist looks over this page perhaps they will see something that stands out as needing a tag, or that sounds funny, and that is still controversial within the polar bear expert community...the way the page stands now i think it is solid...it just needs perhaps some more info and a moderate expansion, a relevant pic next to the threats section (i think one with a hermaphroditic bear might be good, or else a scraggly carcass)...i will however when i have time start adding multiple references next to all the sentences in "threats"...someone else can move them to just numbers...i could have made this section much longer, yet i just wanted a brief scientific summary, if an activist comes along and wants to expand it then so be it...Benjiwolf 10:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: benjiwolf, i apologize for removing the info about HIT - you're right, you did explain that to me, it simply slipped my mind.  i also see now that you have a lengthier explanation for that info, so we're all good there, at least as far as i'm concerned. but much of what you've been adding HAS been original research and (i'm afraid) rampant speculation.  all very interesting of course; but an encyclopedia is just not the place for it.  besides, readers can simply look up evolution, marine mammal, seal etc, etc, to fill in any pertinent gaps in their knowledge as far as possible "intermediates" are concerned.  as far as citations - well, yes, wikipedia is a general refernce source; but a big part of it is also accessibility.  we include hyper/links to sources and other articles to allow for ease of personal research.  adding lengthy passages and then simply sticking the source/reference at the bottom of the article does not allow for this. also, as you yourself said - this is a general refernce work: we simply don't need every last detail! - Metanoid 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed??? 

message: btw, Snalwibma, i am of the opinion that "considered" is a tad less clunky than "grouped".... - Metanoid 12:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, to an extent. i think a large part of the problem is how we qualify "carnivore" - in an ecological-dietary sense, i.e., as a "meat-eater", which is a vast, vast group of animals; or in the evolutionary sense, as a member of the order Carnivora. imho, the latter seems more practical. - Metanoid 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am relatively neutral, having only recently taken an interest in this article... It seems to me that the sentence is unnecessariy complicated, and reliance on an outmoded concept (fissiped) really doesn't help. Isn't the point very simple - that the PB is the largest land (or land-based) carnivore, however you define carnivore? Yes, OK, a PB can be called a marine animal, but it's not marine in the same way as a shark or a whale. It is based on land in terms of evolution and (e.g.) breeding. Like an otter. An otter is a land mammal, even though it spends much of its time swimming. I must admit I rather liked "Considered as a land mammal..." (or whatever it said the last time I edited it). Snalwibma 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The otter article calls it "a carnivorous aquatic or marine mammal". I think it looks better now than it has for a while. I'm pretty new to the article though. Xiner (talk, email) 17:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This article claims that polar bears skin absorbs heat, This is an legend, which is actually impossible because of the bear's thick blubber. Have changed it the the actual use of black skin.  ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede the former is incorrect, but is the latter possible? Why'd the fur need heat, and wouldn't that be a huge waste of energy? Xiner (talk, email) 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: When I was looking through the edits before to see what had been added I noticed this. But the last sentence of the section (it's not visible in the edit) says "Other sources list subspecies" and gives a reference to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System for two sub-species. Anybody know which one is correct? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was confused there because the first part of the section talked about there being no subspecies, and then there were the two listed there. I'm not sure about the debate so I wouldn't mind if you changed that first sentence again. Xiner (talk, email) 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is that I'm not sure which of the references is more likly to be correct. I just didn't want to stick an ungly tag in the middle of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "There are no polar bear subspecies." vs "Other sources list subspecies"

message: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It will also be hard to convince anyone that there are so few reliable references on global warming and the polar bear in English that we have to resort to a foreign-language newspaper whose reliability is unknown to most en.wiki readers. Xiner (talk, email) 19:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rereading the above discussion and I hope I didn't come across as as a you-know-what. I just want to improve this article, as I'm sure you all do. Xiner (talk, email) 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read this version of the introduction and it looks fine. I made some spacing and link fixes but didn't change it otherwise. I also read the above section and just wanted to point out one thing. There are a lot of English speaking Wikipedia readers/editors who have no idea if FOX, the New York Times, any other English language news source or non-English news source is left/right/centre. Most people just don't have the familiarity wiht other countries to be able to judge. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro, a non-political discussion 

message: i removed the reference to the bears "shrinking" (in the first sentence under Physical Description). first off, they may be smaller, on average, today - but the section, i'm sure, is talking historical averages, and not avergages as of the 80s or 90s or whatnot. i noticed that the size decrease is already mentioned further along, anyway, which is how it should be. we can't continue to cram all the details in up front, as it were. plus: benji, man, can you cut down on the book-length commentary? please? school's started for me now, adn when i log on and have to search thru pages and pages to find details relevant to the article, it kinda hurts my feelings.  ;) - Metanoid (talk, email) 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out that it is ok to say that the bears weigh a certain amount on average according to a source, and that the original second-largest carnivores weighed a certain number, but to say that the polar bears are (necessarily) no longer the biggest carnivores because of that would be original research. Xiner (talk, email) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: I'd normally just go ahead and do this, but for fear of an intemperate reaction (and accusations of hiding the truth, or some such!) I'll air it here first. Seems to me that the lead section gets bogged down in too much detail. The first paragraph is fine, but then off it goes into lots of detail about Hudson Bay and percentages of cubs reaching 1 year old, etc. I think the whole of the following section should be deleted from its current location and the information redistributed to more appropriate places - sections on size and weight, and/or breeding success, and/or conservation concerns. The second paragarph of the lead section should be a general statement about conservation concerns, without all the details.
On the west coast of Hudson Bay in Canada, for example, there were an estimated 1200 polar bears in 1987, and 950 in 2007. The females there averaged only 230 kg, down from near 300 kg in 1980.[4] In Alaska, the United States Geological Survey reports that 42 percent of cubs reach 12 months of age, down from 65 percent 15 years ago.[5] In other words, less than two of every three cubs that survived 15 years ago are now making it past their first year.
I'll get to work on this some time soon, if no one objects.
Snalwibma 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted would be a strong word. I've been saying it should be moved, though. The intro doesn't need specifics -- that's why we have sections. Xiner (talk, email) 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: i have always viewed the three editors Xiner, Snalwbima, and Metanoid as mainly always good faith (neutral as possible) editors...and they proved my assumptions correct as i left this page for some time and they put the facts i included into appropriate sections yet left a nice summary in the intro...thanks...i may argue strongly sometimes in our minor squabbles...yet its just the way i defend my positions...if i use the word "pathetic" it has mainly been in calling a specific edit as pathetic...not at all these three editors...(its one of my words these days)...anyways...thanks again u 3...Benjiwolf 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiwolf, I don't want to dwell on this, but people who make a "pathetic" edit can't feel very good about themselves, can they? Thank you for reverting the archiving, though. I support it and do agree that only the old conversations should've been moved. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Different citation methods were used causing the numbering to appear off or to the casual reader wrong because they are not in numerical order. For example, in paragraph one the first citation starts with two, proceeds to three and goes back to one.
This also occurs in the header called Natural range and again in Breeding. Ronbo76 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've raised the issue before, but it turns out all the statements supported by reference #1 are supported by a reference first given in the infobox. Unless we move the infobox down in the article, which I don't think we should, there's no way to fix the apparent error. Xiner (talk, email) 00:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed that one. (Wow, I have got to stop doing lattes and donuts in the afternoon) Err, good observation. Ronbo76 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations off in first and other paragraphs 

message: ...it seemed in good faith, but now the sentence actually is gramaticly incorrect, change to leap etc to alter it to the alternative wording he tried to come up with, but it does work the first way...anyways his other change was actually what i was concerned with, as the sentence was written meaning that they dont eat those parts, not that they eat them but cant digest them!...just revert the whole edit, but it was i think in good faith and wasnt vandalism, just an effort with a couple mistakes...so dont put a "rv-vandalism" label...85.1.223.203 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please revert last edit by ronbo 

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

message: With regard to Polar Bears and climate change, some mention should be made of the species' survival of the Holocene Optimum 
(Hypsithermal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.205 (talk • contribs) 
:I will look into it. Ronbo76 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually bounced this one off a retired professor I know. The Holocene optimum period could perhaps be woven into the evolution section. I request consensus with another editor before a change is made. Ronbo76 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have added a new link to a story published yesterday in The Daily Telegraph, a UK based newspaper. The item provides counter-evidence to the widespread belief that polar bear numbers are declining. The story is based on a survey conducted by Mitch Taylor in the Davis Strait. Perhaps the bears are moving  and so resulting in reported declines elsewhere?
Peterlewis 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, but all these links that've recently been added have come from conservative papers. The liberals won't be satisfied yet. 151.202.74.135 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with every article, the neutral point of view will eventually balance one reference or another. Ronbo76 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you actually have a name? It would be useful to respond to a named editor (if that it what you are). I respect native peoples wherever in the world, and the news stories reflect their views. If you want to denigrate the Inuit, then you will be joining the ranks of many others who see native people as naive, primitive savages. This view is not only racist, but also I think unacceptable in this day and age. Wiki articles must be neutral and not be partisan, a basic creed at the heart of this encyclopedia. 
Peterlewis 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your comments speak for themselves: the reader is the only judge. The basic point is that Wiki articles must be balanced, and not just be the opinion of one side of an ongoing debate. I suggest you attempt to edit the Inuit article, and see what happens! I see you continue to hide behind a number.
Peterlewis 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Using a name makes all the difference, because then you cannot hide you identity. I like to respond to well developed arguments not incoherent rambling for a start, to someone who has a Wiki track record. Specify the "fraud" in my putting an newspaper report on the polar bear article. And you should desist from making racist comments about the Inuit: in England you could be liable for prosecution.
Peterlewis 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: please fix edit by ronbo
...it seemed in good faith, but now the sentence actually is gramaticly incorrect, change to leap etc to alter it to the alternative wording he tried to come up with, but it does work the first way too...anyways his other change was actually what i was concerned with, as the sentence was written meaning that they dont eat those parts, not that they eat them but cant digest them! revert that sentence.. please fix
in terms of his altering in the first sentence, i support his idea of a slight restructure to word it better, perhaps: ...then resuming to finally leap and catch them-85.1.212.140 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you noticed it, but the original sentence I corrected with my copyedit was a run-on sentence with too many "and"s. Run-on sentences "do not work". Either it would need to be editted into individual sentences or broken up with punctuation as per my copyedit. If another editor would like to re-write it, they are welcome. Ronbo76 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  still not corrected 

message: I took a second year university circumpolar history 
class where the water bear was mentioned. I remember
the range to be as far south as Cape Cod. The water
bear was hunted to extinction. The water bear was
most probably the polar bear. Can you confirm this
to be true? 
H. Lorne 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge, please see water bear. 151.202.74.135 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  historic range 

message: WP:EL: External links are not a dumping ground for political speech. I'm going to trim that section in a few days. I'd also like to remind everyone that Polar Bear is not the battleground for global warming. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but if you are who I think you are, then may I remind you to avoid speculating on the motives of other editors, and simply discuss the factual matters at hand. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree on your sentiments totally. But Wiki articles should be NPOV, and since you already have a long discussion about global warming,  I think it only fair to have reports which contradict the view already expressed in the article, especially as they come from a reputable source.
Peterlewis 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

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

message: In the "Size and weight" section, the following sentence appears: "The largest polar bear on record was shot in Kotzebue Sound, Alaska, in 1960. According to Guinness World Records 2006, this bear weighed an estimated 580 kg (1960 lb) and was 3.38 m (11 ft 11 in) tall when mounted."
580 kg = 1276 lbs, not 1960 lbs.  As I do not have the original reference, I do not know which value (580 kg or 1960 lbs) is the correct one, which is why I am not correcting it myself... though I am guessing that the 1960 is the incorrect figure, since the year of the record is 1960, it is probably just a transposed figure.  Could someone with access to the reference please check this and make the appropriate correction?
--Kolumkilli 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units conversion 

message: FTA: Its black skin has evolved to radiate heat out to its layer of thick fur, which helps keep the animal warm in the coldest weather.
This makes no sense for several reasons. First, the reflectivity of a surface in the visible light spectrum has nothing to do with its properties in the infrared where it radiates. Typical organic materials are pretty close to black-body radiators in the thermal wavelength range whatever their color. Second, radiating out heat cannot help to stay warm. It's basic conservation of energy we are talking about. Han-Kwang 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  black skin for heat? 

message: Somehow, the most recent revert best reflects how this article should be addressed - how do commercial ties to polar bears best get added to this article. In terms of direct relevance and notability, those ties should reflect directly back to polar bears and should not just be a casual trivia item. Ronbo76 20:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is slippery ground, in any article that attempts to integrate trivia (which is always popular with users) or pop culture references.  Perhaps it would be best to look at other animal related articles and see how they deal with it?  The Bear article has a Bears in Culture section with several subsections underneath it, for example.  Perhaps we can also integrate information such as the surprise popularity of Knut (polar bear) and all of the attention he's garnered.  Just some ideas.  :) María (habla conmigo) 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment and commerce edits 

message: I removed the following from the first paragraph
: The bones help with the enormous strength of a polar bear as it has about 260-290 bones.
This is the second time mention of the number of bones has been removed (although the range has narrowed since last time).  I'm not clear on why this is relevant to the lead, or what the source is.  The size of the range also seems surprising.  Thoughts or additional information? --TeaDrinker 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bones