Talk:Koala bear

Koala bear name

The reason why the information is on this page, and not on the Koala page is so that people will become aware that they are called Koalas and not Koala bears. This is an encyclopedia page, where the correct name should be learned, at least. If the information on this page is merged with the Koala page, the misnomer of Koala bear will probably continue, with people still not being aware that it is a misnomer. Figaro 10:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language is based on human experience, not on science. Words don't match up with scientific classification, nor should they. I'm well aware, for example, that Australian Magpies are in a separate family only distantly related to Magpies, but that doesn't stop me and everyone else calling them magpies.

Of course we should note that it's considered incorrect by some, and why. But don't just say flat out that it's incorrect. WP:NPOV and all that.

This page should redirect to Koala. --Ptcamn 06:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common usage of 'koala bear' has no basis in science, nor is the fact that the usage is common justification for continuing in a misnormer. The koala is a marsupial, and the name should be based on the animal concerned and zoology, not on a choice of language by some people. After all, this is an encyclopædia, where people should be able to learn the correct name at the 'grass-roots' level.

No, that's emphatically not what Wikipedia is. We should let the facts speak for themselves, not tell people what's correct and what's incorrect.

And no, it is not just a personal opinion of my own, which you seem to think it is - many zoologists feel exactly the same way about the misnormer of 'bear' when used to describe the koala. The early Europeans settlers to Australia did not know any better, because they had not seen koalas before - in today's modern world, people should know.

Yes, they should know that koalas are not of the family Ursidae. Whether that means you should or should not refer to them as "koala bears" is up to the reader.

You obviously have a POV about the name which is based on your language interests - and not on zoology. -Figaro 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a POV about the name which is based on your zoology interested and not on linguistics. It's only a misnomer if you assume that "bear" means "animal of the family Ursidae"—but people have known what bears are since long before scientific classification was invented. Perhaps it means something else? Perhaps, rather than being defined by phylogenetics, the term "bear" is defined purely on an animal's superficial resemblances? Then it would make sense to say "koala bear", and in fact the American Heritage Dictionary gives for the definition of "bear": Any of various other animals, such as the koala, that resemble a true bear. --Ptcamn 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]