Talk:Brown bear

Queued images

• 
  Grizzly
• 
  Blond juvenile NM brown bear among pinyons, detail

brown bears "least concern" status?

Hmmm, well, brown bears are not universally of least concern regarding conservation status. Grizzlies are endangered and they are a type of brown bear. The California brown bear is believed to be extinct.

Orphaned references in Brown bear

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brown bear's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Geptner1972":

• From Pallas's cat: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva (in Russian); English translation: Heptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N.; Hoffmann, R. S. (1992). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. pp. 665–696.
• From Asiatic wildcat: Geptner, V.G., Sludskii, A. A. 1972. Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V.G.; Sludskii, A.A.; Bannikov, A.G.; (1992) Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). pp. 398–497.
• From Amur leopard: Geptner, V.G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N. (1992). Bars (Leopard). Pages 203–273 in: Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC).
• From Jungle cat: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva (in Russian); English translation: Heptner, V.G., Sludskii, A.A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N.; Hoffmann, R.S. (1992). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Vol III: Carnivores (Feloidea). Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC. pp. 356–397.
• From Siberian tiger: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A.; Bannikov, A. G.; (1992). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). Pp. 95–202.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ungava brown bear- valid subspecies or just local ?

I can't seem to find a reliable reference for the Ungava brown bear being named "Ursus arctos ugavaesis" - In literature it's only mentioned as Urus arctos or various common names. The spelling seems off as well, it should be something like ugavensis or ugavaensis, assuming it's valid. But i know nothing about bear taxonomy.--Animalparty-- (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article Disputed

persistent vandalism / personal attack

I'm sorry but once again, BIGCAT82 is cherry picking sources to support his bias for tigers versus bears. In no section of the source where it claims 22 bears versus 12 tigers were killed in confrontations does it mention the size of either animal, nor distinguish from predation. He has failed again and again to show valid sourced material of 600 pound plus adult bears being killed by tigers. In the tiger article like this one, he has removed valid sourced material and cherry picked bits of "peer reviewed" material. However careful examination of the sources reveals original resource and stacking in a way to make it sound like tigers regularly dominate adult bears which other sources have proven again and again is not the case. The truth is BOTH animals kill each other, bears have been DOCUMENTED killing fully grown adult male tigers (see past sources), and that they REGULARLY follow tigers without showing fear, NOT rarely. Brown bears predated on by tigers are generally under 400 pounds and smaller than the tiger. Now the source here states up to 40% of a tiger's diet is bears, which contradicts his other sources, and he's cool with it? BIAS, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, VANDALISM, and violation of wiki's NPOV. Also, this forum contains the SAME PEER REVIEWED SOURCES Bigcat uses, and clearly it is stated that of the bears killed, NONE were adult males. http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9342882/1/ Forums aren't generally allowed as sources on the article itself, but it IS fair to point out this forum contains the SAME peer reviewed authors he cites stating no male adult bears were killed. Bigcat82 also complained about "undue weight" being given to bears in the tiger article, but he has turned around and done the same with the bear article. Clearly just a big cat fanboy cherry picking data. And now even COUGARS regularly dominate brown bears according to him? Guys, the neutrality of our bear and tiger articles is SHOT. Tigers DO prey on brown bears, but ALMOST ALWAYS cubs and subadult females. Even if we don't change the articles, I think it's fair to at least put a tag that "the neutrality of this article or section is disputed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.214.44 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Again, bigcat82, the forum CITES THE SAME PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL! So the source is the JOURNAL, NOT THE FORUM! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.214.44 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll help with checking the sources, I already corrected the "22 vs 12", the source does state confrontations were observed (not 44 though) and even brakes it down to how many of the confrontations were initiated by a bear or a tiger and the percentage of how many of those confrontations ended up with one or the other dead. Details like "how big or old the bear was" are irrelevant unless the source mentions it, we just report what the sources says. I think though that the circus tales should be removed and we should report only their interactions in the wild. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. The above identical attack message has been posted in multiple talk pages (relevant or not) by the same person under different ip addresses. He insisted his content based on forum posts and fan sites have been "peer reviewed" by other forum posters and were more reliable than the scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals and his vandalism attempts were ALL reverted by other editors and admins before. Note I am not the one who wrote that section, it was the collective effort of multiple editors over the years and most of the sources have been in the article. I just identified the long term vandalism attempt of the above ip editor who has been trying to force his bear superiority theory into multiple articles over the years and I just pointed it out, and many corrections were actually made by other editors not by myself (e.g. the 44 encounters; 22 vs 12 death cases. It was written by an experienced editor BhagyaMani). I expect more retaliation from him as I exposed his vandalism but as usual I will ignore him completely as he fails to communicate and work collaboratively, and any sensible editor and admin will eventually revert his deliberate factual errors. Big Cats - talk 18:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! well at least this served as a good excuse to clean the section, I'm really checking the references and I've found several incorrectly formatted references and what appears to be a minor case of synthesis, also some redundant references be it because their contribution is cited to another publication that is already cited and also references being put twice under different reference names. I'm trying to write a better version of the section, what do you think about this.

1. For the diet section to include the content about them scavenging the kills of other predators (be it by appropriating them or after said predator has left) as well as they preying on other predators. Mentions of bears being injured;killed in predation attempts should also belong here.

2. A new section for "natural predators" summarizing brown bear either cubs or adults in the diets of other predators. As it is the "interspecific relationships" section seems somewhat like a mess. Also remove the lion circus thing.

Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I added an undue weight tag. It goes into far too much detail on tigers hunting bears. The information is alreadly in Ussuri brown bear and Siberian tiger. 155.138.228.70 (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem as it is similar to the wolf / cougar and brown bear interaction in terms of details, except that some sentences should be shortened as a summary. Also some sources didn't specify Ussuri brown bears and some sources even mentioned other brown bear subspecies in the tiger brown bear interaction as well, and thus they are best put in this article about brown bears in general. I do agree some sentences can be shortened but since the IP user who started this attack message (and thanks admin for removing the attack title) to complain about the accuracy which led Mike.BRZ to elaborate it further for 100% accuracy, doing so will definitely putting more weight into otherwise short summaries. So we must agree upon what to put into this section - 100% accuracy with great details and weight, or short summaries of each sources that the IP user keeps attacking on lacking details. Tags should be added with consensus first thanks. Big Cats - talk 20:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is larger than both of those. If you think that it could be summarized better than the tag should be left there. 155.138.239.209 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I do think some sentences can be shortened but they do not constitute undue weight here. Please check what undue weight in Wikipedia means:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

Tiger bear interactions are not some minority view being opposite to or different from any mainstream view. It is proven by scientific studies that tigers do predate on brown bears and their interactions are well documented. Keeping the section concise is different from undue weight given to minority views. We can work together to shorten it but the problem of this section is not about undue weight, thanks. Big Cats - talk 13:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with the most recent edits (as of November 9) from an anonymous editor, indeed, one source used to reference that brown bears flee from tigers upon encountering their tracks does report one case of that happening but reports several in which the opposite is true, the other does say that bears flee upon encountering tiger tracks but doesn't specify which species of bear and is only a short sentence statement, different to the other reference that details the cases, it should also be contradicted by the data from another of the studies referenced in the article in which says that brown bears follow tiger tracks in order to get to their kills (albeit displacing the tiger from the kill rarely happens according to their data). I also found something more regarding the 44 encounters thing, the abstract referenced in this article is not clear but the full book chapter Here: chapter 19 does not specify how many of the encounters were observed by them, it actually references 10 more previous publications along with their own data for the number of 44 encounters, as in the abstract it is broken down to how many times was contact initiated by whom but different to the abstract it specifies that this was unknown in the other 22 cases, so indeed as it was originally written, there were 22 bear deaths and 12 tiger deaths but I consider using the percentages as more appropriate. If the anonymous editor wants to change this too, go on. I'm still planning to overhaul the whole section, you can check the progress at the bottom of my sandbox. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Mike. Note however that bears are generally afraid of tigers and will run away upon crossing tigers' tracks is mentioned clearly by Geptner in p175, and two cases of bears not afraid of tigers reported by Yudakov are just exceptional cases. So IP editor 155.138.228.70 changed it to bear staying in a tiger inhabited areas with no fear / change direction at the sight of tiger tracks is misleading and contradicted what both sources said and thus the edit violated the undue weight policy. Also I couldn't find the info saying tigers fleeing from large male bears from the two sources, though I may just overlook i. After my last edit the tiger-bear interaction has 119 words while wolf-bear interaction has 135 words, and I think it's pretty concise now. Big Cats - talk 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I found the info on tigers fleeing from large male bears from the Yudakov source, however he mentioned only 1 case of a single tiger (unknown sex and age) not attempting to hunt a large male brown bear and the same tiger later turned away upon seeing the same bear. So this is again an exceptional case and it shouldn't be mentioned at all as per undue weight policy. Also applying this single exception to tigers in general by saying tigers fleeing from large male bears is obviously misrepresenting the source. I hope this is another editing error, not an intentional made up. I keep wondering why all the edits I corrected in the past years all undermined tigers with no exception? I have never seen a single edit that exaggerated tigers' abilities. Big Cats - talk 22:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Geptner says so clearly but is a vague non descriptive statement that doesn't even specify which species of bear, how is that more reliable than Yudakov et al's descriptions? they can't be exceptional cases because all of them were observed during the duration of a single study, out of 3 observations of bears encountering tiger tracks only one reacted to it. On top of that we have a reference here linking to a chapter of a recent publication by WCS Russia, they report with several citations that brown bears do follow tiger tracks, either for the purpose of easier movement in the snow (as the tiger already left a trail) or to follow the tiger to scavenge its kills, such behavior is simply at odds with claims of bears being generally afraid when encountering tiger tracks. I however agree upon second reading that the correction by the ip editor seems to skew the "bias" the other way a little bit. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yudakov et al states that; Various reactions were observed in such situations in the case of bears. One brown bear, which was staying in an area permanently inhabited by tigers, clearly felt himself to be the complete master in that place. Another brown bear, once abruptly turned away from his former path upon his encounter with tiger tracks. But a large, apparently male, Himalayan (or Asiatic black) bear (which we observed visually), like the brown bear that has already been mentioned, clearly did not fear the presence of tigers. He walked along the tiger's tracks and rested in the same wild boar den as did the tiger. Thus, the tigers' fresh footprints do not produce a strong sense of unease in the tiger's potential prey in the majority of cases, a fact which is very important for ensuring regularly successful hunts by these predators in areas where tigers live on a permanent basis.

So to state that bears are generally afraid of tigers and that cases of them not fleeing from their footprints are "expectations" is misleading. I think that actual surveys and observations should take precedence after a generalized statement. 155.138.232.211 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because Yudakov gives three examples of bears reacting to tiger footprints, doesn't mean those are the only ones he's observed. 155.138.232.211 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Then the word "rare" exceptions can just be removed from the content. But as per wikipedia undue weight policy, 2 cases of brown bears not fearing tigers just cannot be "generalized" to say bears do not fear tigers/tigers' tracks as the statement IP editor 155.138.232.211 put implied so and is thus misleading. Unless a reliable source says bears generally are not afraid of tigers, we cannot say so here, especially it contradicts Geptner's source, and contradicts the fact that tigers are predators of brown bears. I have just given details to the statement without using the word rare exceptions and is thus now 100% accurate, but I don't think it is that neccessary since saying bears are generally afraid of tigers already implied some are not. If you say you usually eat breakfast in the morning, you just don't need to further elaborate to say you also sometimes don't! It's redundant but since the IP editor insists... Finally, the content that some bears emerging from hibernation seek out tigers in order to steal their kills has been in this and multiple articles for years and I agree keeping it and I have never modified it as it is accurate, but further elaboration and interpretation from this statement is again not necessary and violates our OR policy as the source didn't explicitly say these bears did not fear tigers. I have to emphasize again and again, please say what the sources say exactly or summarize the sources true to their original meanings. Please do not bring those stupid animal vs animal debates from other forums here. Big Cats - talk 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note I put this content in the article before but it was removed by the IP editor: Despite the possibility of tiger predation, some large brown bears may actually benefit from the tiger's presence by appropriating tiger kills that the bears may not be able to successfully hunt themselves. I just restored it to complete the picture, as this is the only source explaining why some brown bears show no sign of fear of tigers despite possible predation by tigers. Big Cats - talk 20:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're the one bringing in those animal vs. animal debates. You want to take Geptner's word of bears generally fearing tigers as gospel dispute studies which paint a more complex picture. As I said, just because Yudakov gives three examples of bears reacting to tiger footprints, doesn't mean those are the only ones he's observed. An actual study and survey should that precedent over a generalized vague statement. We also have other source which states that bears may follow tiger tracks for various reasons. 155.138.248.198 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)