Jump to content

Talk:Bear: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Imaginate (talk | contribs)
Line 108: Line 108:
The radical fundamentalist Bears are a major threat! They're trying to recliam the fields that they think we stole from them. Beware the Bear!
The radical fundamentalist Bears are a major threat! They're trying to recliam the fields that they think we stole from them. Beware the Bear!


:Some people laugh off this threat as some liberal myth like global warming. But oh, how wrong they are. For advice on How to Talk to Bears (If You Must) read Anne Coulter's book, with a forward by Stephen Colbert.
:You mean [[Stephen Colbert]]? [[User:Argias|Argias]] 09:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


== What to do when threatened or attacked by a bear ==
== What to do when threatened or attacked by a bear ==

Revision as of 02:54, 6 August 2006

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Russia

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

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

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

Attribution

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

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

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

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


Unicycling bear?

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

The unicycling bear is a stock cartoon image, derived from circus acts in which bears sat on bicycles (and were made to appear to ride them?) --Wetman 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your help. I will incoroporate that information into the article. RupertMillard 08:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entertaining bears

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

Caps

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

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

Picture

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

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

More detailed classification

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

Red Panda

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

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

Apparent copyvio

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

Photo title?

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

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

female bear?

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

Trying like a bear

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

The blurb under the bear photo

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

Classification

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

Confusing, isn't it? Nonetheless, the bear family Ursidae is within the order Carnivora. If you read the Carnivora entry, it addresses the issue (though I think Giant Pandas should be called omnivores, as they have been known to eat insects, fish, and eggs).
"While the Giant Panda is an herbivore, nearly all others eat meat as their primary diet item: some (like the cat family) almost exclusively, others (like the bears and foxes) are more omnivorous. Members of Carnivora have a characteristic skull shape, and their dentition includes prominent canines and carnassials."
The Carnivore entry also addresses your point.
"Some animals are considered carnivores even if their diets contain a very small amount of meat. Those animals that subsist on a diet consisting only of meat are refered to as obligate carnivores.
"The word also refers to the mammals of the Order Carnivora, many (but not all) of which fit the first definition. Bears are an example of members of Carnivora that are not true carnivores. Carnivores that eat primarily (or only) insects are called insectivores."
There is also a list of carnivores there, of which only the Polar Bear is a part.
Also, you may be interested to know that the koala is not a bear at all, and the attachment of bear to its name is erroneous - a misconception based on its appearance and aided by popular culture. The Koala's family (Phascolarctidae) and genus (Phascolarctos) names translate to 'pouch bear.' Koalas are marsupials. Their closest living relatives are wombats. As marsupials, they are even closer to macropods than the bears of this article. - Slow Graffiti 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bears in context

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

Naughty bear

        _     _
       ( \---/ )
        ) . . (
__,--._(___Y___)_,--._____
  `--'           `--'

--Sweetie Petie 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat to national security

especially grizzly bears...

The radical fundamentalist Bears are a major threat! They're trying to recliam the fields that they think we stole from them. Beware the Bear!

Some people laugh off this threat as some liberal myth like global warming. But oh, how wrong they are. For advice on How to Talk to Bears (If You Must) read Anne Coulter's book, with a forward by Stephen Colbert.

What to do when threatened or attacked by a bear

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

Similar Skeletal Structure as human beings

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

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

Breaking New Info

Did you know that the population of bears has tripled in the last year!!! We are all doomed, the number one threat is now triple the size ahh! -- Tawker 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (disclaimer: this comment was humourous (and yes I spell it with the "u" - that's proper English))[reply]

Now those godless killing machines can kill the elephants. I heard somewhere the elphant population tripled, maybe it was Fox News. Maybe they should also go after some Lutherans, since they aren't all that important anyway. (Note: I don't actually mean this)The Ungovernable Force 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]