Talk:Bear/Archive 3

Figure of speech (bear market)
I'll post this again:

Here's a citation for the figure of speech:

bear at the Online Etymology Dictionary

I've found that site to be reliable and, while he does not give a specific source for this usage, he does give a date, and his Introduction lists some of the more comprehensive sources he's used.

For what it's worth, I find this explanation more plausible than the one given in the current article. Don't most four-legged animals, including bulls, spend much of their time looking downward?

Thanks for your consideration.

Fcy (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally if nearly a year has passed with no objection to your proposed edits, you can assume implied consent and go ahead and make the edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why have it in this article at all? The article is about the animal: the phenomenon described by the figure of speech has nothing to do with animals.  Doesn't this material belong in Market trend?  Richard New Forest (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually a pointer to Bear market would be more appropriate, any tweaks to the definition should be made there. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in Morphology
"which makes then look" should be them. Thanks in advance. 75.202.178.107 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

giant pandas are not bears
giant pandas are not bears, yet there is a picture of one included with the article. pandas are more closely related to racoons than true bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.233.4 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are thinking of the Red Panda. Giant Pandas are in fact scientifically defined as members of the Ursidae family. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that it used to be thought, many years ago, that giant pandas were more closely related to raccoons than true bears. However, we now know that that isn't the case, and that giant pandas are, indeed bears. And they are therefore included in this article. Anaxial (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Please see the merge proposal in Ursinae article --aad_Dira (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC). That is silly that you think that pandas are not bears. They are not racoons. Just because they are black and white does not make them another animal. They are bears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btruck (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bala1608, 2 March 2011
Bear is one of the strongest animal; Even it is proved, when a fight between bear and lion the bear would win.

Bala1608 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, you would need to specify what text to add and where. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Closest living relative
The article says,

"Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives."

Judging by the family tree in the caniforms wikipedia article, the Musteloidea are just as close to the bears as the pinnipeds are (the Musteloidea / Pinnipeds split happening after the Ursida split with that line).

In short I suggest changing that line to "... pinnipeds and musteloidea being their closest living relatives."130.228.251.10 (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit of poking about online seems to indicate that the phylogeny on the Carnivora article is, as you say, more up-to-date than the one on this page (although this was once thought to be correct), so I'll amend as you suggest. Anaxial (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Female bear a Sow, Male Bear a Boar?
I just read an article online where a female bear is called a sow, which I find very hard to believe. I did, however, find a couple of other online-sources that appear to confirm this. Does anyone have information on the topic? Thanks VetLH (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the very late reply, but in case anyone is still waiting, sow is the only identifier I have ever heard for an adult female bear, other than simply "female" or "mother". Found a ref fairly easily by googling "sow bear" . Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"To this day, they play a prominent role in the arts"
As opposed to other animals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.210.232.10 (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

NAMES
The name Bernard is derived from the Germanic element bern "bear" combined with hard "brave, hardy".--88.13.102.5 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2012
The brown bear is not the national animal of Germany. That is the eagle.

Nordlander1 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed, thanks. -- Neil N   talk to me  21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrections
Paragraph 2 - "the remaining six species are omnivorous"; as omnivorous means they eat plants and animals, it is redundant to spell this out later in the sentence! I have removed the repetition.

Section Morphology, Paragraph 2 - As the Procyonidae are also plantigrade (and also the Mephitidae and Ailuridae?), I have added 'most'. Also amended wording for the picture of the bear's foot: removed 'rear' - bears are plantigrade, which means all 4 feet; if only hind feet they would have been defined as partially plantigrade.

Section Diet and interspecific interactions, Paragraph 2 - "Although (besides polar bears) both species of black bear ...": I have removed the bit about polar bears; it is completely unneccessary and somewhat misleading - to me, it implies, albeit weakly, that polar bears are black bears!

Section Relationship with humans, Paragraph 2 - "Bears may also come into conflict with humans where they raid crops or attack livestock.": Poor sentence construction; it is not explicitly clear whether it is humans or bears that are raiding the crops - I have rearranged word order.

PS Why is it that the problem is always with Paragraph 2?Glevum (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012
In the first paragraph, the information should read: Bears are found ON the continents of ... The preposition usage is incorrect. We find things are ON continents but IN counties, towns, cities, regions, etc.

173.2.227.119 (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Minor grammar fix only. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
This line should be removed: "In Germanic culture, the bear was a symbol of the warrior, as is evident from the Old English term beorn, which can take the meaning of both "bear" and "warrior""

The comprehensive Dictionary of Old English, published by the University of Toronto, does not list "bear" or any derivative of "bear" as a possible definition of "beorn." This is the definitive authority in the field. The claim is simply false.

Reinhard12 (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done because I interpret your request to be a good faith challenge to uncited material. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 November 2012
This should be deleted:

"as is evident from the Old English term beorn, which can take the meaning of both "bear" and "warrior"."

This is patently false. The Dictionary of Old English is *the* definitive scholarly source for Old English word use: if it does not attest the usage of the sense of a word in Old English, it does not exist. "Beorn" is never used to mean "bear" in OE, or anything like "bear". Citation of Colman does nothing to change that.

I'd further suggest that Colman herself does not support the thesis. Careful reading of Colman's note shows that the first occurrence of the *name* "Beorn" probably belonged to *Scandinavian* settlers in the later Old English period. But Scandinavian "Bjorn/Biorn" is Old English.

Reinhard12 (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am by no means an expert on this subject matter, but per the policy on verifiability, content must be verifiable, even if you are sure it is true. This was what I came up on in my attempt to verify the sentence in question:
 * Per the Colman source provided by, I accept that the Old English "beorn" and the North Germanic "bjorn" may be derived from and/or closely associated with the Scandinavian "biorn", which means "bear".
 * Nowhere in that source does it explicitly state that "beorn" can take the meaning of "bear". Maybe it is true and I don't know it because I'm not a subject matter expert. But content must be verifiable by anyone, not just subject matter experts.
 * Nowhere in that source does it explicitly state that "in Germanic culture the bear was a symbol of the warrior". In the absence of additional sources, this claim is original research.
 * I am removing the statement again based on the above, but am open to re-adding content referenced to the Colman source in accordance with my first bullet point above. I am also open to re-adding the sentence as it is presently worded if and only if it is properly referenced. I will say to that because the DOE is behind a paywall it will be difficult for other users such as myself who don't have individual or institutional access to verify any claims you make as to its content. If you can find other, non-paywall sources that support your position that would be helpful.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Request, "PIE"
In 'Etymology'. please add the abbreviation "PIE" in brackets after the first use, so that its subsequent use later makes sense. ie, change from;

The Proto-Indo-European word for bear, *h₂ŕ̥tḱos

to;

The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) word for bear, *h₂ŕ̥tḱos

That helps make sense of the later use of the abbreviation, in e.g. Thus some Indo-European language groups do not share the same PIE root..

Thanks. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I changed the very first link, per this edit . Does that work for you? Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. 88.104.4.123 (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Distribution in Southern Hemisphere
Sorry I cannot fix this myself: this section should be corrected: the Spectacled Bear is not the only bear in the Southern Hemisphere (as seems to be implied), but the Sun Bear also extends in such a way in SE Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.240.104 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I attempted to rephrase that section. Njaelkies Lea (d) 13:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 January 2013
In external links: please change Grizzly Bear Outreach Project to Western Wildlife Outreach. (They have changed their name. The link will still forward correctly)

Duiker22 (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I also reworded it a bit to mention the Black Bear Outreach Project, since that seems equally relevant to the topic of this article. Rivertorch (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do Bears Still Live in Africa Nowadays?
I remember on an episode of "Kratt's Creatures," someone did not believe that bears ever lived in Africa and asked why. I found out that bears actually DID live in Africa; that person just never saw or heard of any there or was convinced that they did not live there. Is this still true, or did all the bears that lived in Africa leave or die? Cbsteffen (talk) 6:19PM CST, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no wild bears in Africa. The last ones seemed to have died out about 3-4 million years ago, and were never very numerous. Anaxial (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Atlas Bears were the last bears to live in Africa Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Atlas bears were introduced to Africa. They were not there naturally. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy
At 24th of May the oldest living bear Andreas, estimated age 50 y.o. died in Florina Greece. Link in Greek only unfortunately: http://www.arcturos.gr/el/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=311&Itemid=49 Could we write something you think? Soathana (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that that more appropriately belongs at brown bear, since that what he seems to have been. Anaxial (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

intelligence
shouldnt there be a section on the intelligence of bears? e.g. how they can be trained to do "tricks", or how the bear in china killed her cub and then herself to stop bile extraction, which if true is amazing... they are very smart animals.208.96.87.57 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reorganize intro
Trivial little facts like how they "forage much fermented fruit, which affects their behaviour" should be moved to the "Behavior" section instead of wasting space in the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.15.33 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ursine
Does "ursine" refer to Ursinae or Ursidae? If the former, Ursine should redirect to Ursinae, not here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the context: in technical usage, it refers to Ursinae, but in everyday English, it refers to Ursidae. Anaxial (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ursine" is used in everyday speech? Oh, are you referring to the adjective? That's still rather formal speech, isn't it? Anyway, the technical term is the noun. Hmm, but considering that we cannot disambiguate that, it's probably better to leave the redirect this way. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Bears in South America?
This article says that there are bears in South America. There is an article American black bear that does not mention South America. I can't find any information about bears in South America, neither where they are nor what sort, etc.

There should either be articles like North American bears and South American bears, or perhaps an article American bears that introduces all bears in the Americas, with links to articles with more information? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As stated in the article (under "distribution and habitat"), the spectacled bear is the only bear in South America. Anaxial (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Sorry, I obviously didn't read carefully.  Spectacled bear is a very informative article, thanks.  --Hordaland (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Spectacle Bears are endemic in South America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Spectacled", as the two previous respondents, from over 6 months ago, have already said. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of Brown Bear in Moscow
In the bear sub species section, the picture of the brown bear in moscow is repeated.
 * ✅ Anaxial (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

apex predator
User:BigCat82 as stated, "rm obviously incorrect info in unsourced content - with the exception of polar and kodiak bears the rest are not apex predators and are regular preys of other apex predators." This is a false statement and the edit should be reverted. Grizzly bears are apex predators and the brown bear is in most of its range. 155.138.238.76 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * source? Not only your statement saying ALL bears are apex predators is unsourced and multiple reliable sources suggest otherwise, and thus I removed it. In Asia, most species of bears (brown bears, slot bears, black bears etc) are regular prey items of tigers, as supported by multiple reliable sources I put into the article. Your edits in various articles saying ALL bears or ALL brown bears are apex predators are clearly false and unsourced, and you must refrain from doing so again. BigCat82 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence, and dexterity info?
I know they can operate avehicle doorhandle just as easily as they can slice/peel them open. What has been done to test them? The old camping safety tip about tying your food up a tree was useless,as they can climb. Old circus acts had trained bears. Were the youtube vids of ninja bears, wielding branches real, iirc, Kung Fu Panda was based on a real bear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.176.9 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2015
The fourth paragraph of the etymology section: "Bear" was originally a euphemism for the creature, and was said by superstitious peasants who believed saying the actual term for "bear" would summon it. Because peasants avoided saying the original name, it has been lost to history and "bear" has replaced it. is a verbose explanation of Taboo deformation, which is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph with a link to the relevant Wiki page for anyone who needs an explanation. It is therefore redundant and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.154.201 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Simple typo: Nine is "nin" when discussing when some bears reach sexual maturity. Just cntrl-f (space)nin(space) and you will find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.135.88 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks. — Nizolan  (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Classification
In the "Classification" section is the dagger defined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.158.232 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110901192425/http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpokorny to http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=\data\ie\pokorny

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015
Uhm, I don't know exactly how this works but I noticed the reference number 5 only has dead links, both the University of Pittsburgh link, and the Archived one. So I thought I'd let someone who knows what to do know by posting this.

189.241.19.124 (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I've replaced the archived version. Stickee (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the lead image appropriate?
The current lead image is of great quality and deserves a place in the article. However, I wonder if it is representative given that it shows a bear in a bipedal stance. I thought that lead images were supposed to be representative of a "normal" animal. Given this, should we not be presenting a bear in a quadrupedal stance? DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree; while it's by no means uncommon for bears to stand bipedally, the leading image should display them in their typical stance. Also, I think a picture should be picked that has the bear in a natural habitat rather than in a zoo, although this is of secondary importance. -- turdastalk 07:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Question
In the Old World, it always seems like bears (except for the polar bear) are usually smaller, preyed upon (not all bears are prey), and not as predatory to mammalian megafauna when compared to North America. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.14.169 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ursidae - should be added to article
71.191.3.250 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please change this name Bear to Bear Brand
You write the wrong, I am from the Philippines and change this name Bear to Bear Brand. It's my favorite logo is Bear Brand!!! ɔyʀɥs ɴotoʒɑt bulɑɡɑ (Talk to me) 09:21, 25 October 2016, (UTC)