Talk:Himalayan brown bear

Population
The citation for the population of Himalayan brown bears refers only to the population within the Deosai region. If there are only 35 of these animals left in the world, they would be considered extremely endangered and the article should make that clear. -- 67.183.24.72 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The Himalayan Red Bear and the Himalayan Brown Bear are the same taxon. It is not allowed for a species and a subspecies in the same genus to have the same epithet. Basically, the HRB article can be 90% scrapped, it is full of errors and has little worthwhile to add. The describer's name is not part of the scientific name, and it does not get italicized anyway, and the genus Spelaeus is not valid anymore, etc. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead with the merge since nobody has made any objections over the last 18 months or so. The article, however, could still still do with a big clean-up, including sorting out and pruning some of the references and external links. Maias (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes#Hominid_samples The samples were subsequently re-analysed by Ceiridwen Edwards and Ross Barnett. They concluded that the mutation that had led to the match with a polar bear was in fact a damage artefact, and suggested that the two hair samples were in fact from Himalayan brown bears (U. arctos isabellinus). These bears are known in Nepal as Dzu-the (a Nepalese term meaning cattle-bear), and have been associated with the myth of the yeti.[12][13] Sykes and Melton acknowledged that their GenBank search was in error and but suggested that the hairs were instead a match to a modern polar bear specimen "from the Diomede Islands in the Bering Sea reported in the same paper”. They maintained that they did not see any sign of damage in their sequences and commented that they had “no reason to doubt the accuracy of these two sequences any more than the other 28 presented in the paper”.[14] Kortoso (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

moved from article
There is no real reason to associate Stobbart's information with the term "Dzu-Teh," however, and the use of the term by him, a non-native, can only have been presumptive.

unsourced, speculation.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Himalayan brown bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215051532/http://dinets.travel.ru/russianbears.htm to http://dinets.travel.ru/russianbears.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Himalayan brown bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929163122/http://www.wildlifesos.com/bearreport/Bear%20species%20found%20in%20India.htm to http://www.wildlifesos.com/bearreport/Bear%20species%20found%20in%20India.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121010704/http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/yeti.php to http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/yeti.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

IUCN Classification
The IUCN Classification in the infobox is listed as Critically Endangered, but the cited IUCN document lists all Brown Bears as Least Concern, which is noted in the article itself.


 * I've removed the now-two IUCN statuses from the subspeciesbox. In the referenced document, there are at least six Central Asia brown bear subpopulations of varying conservation status, from LC in Western China to CR in the Hindu Kush. This level of detail and variation seems unsuitable for a Taxobox. It could be discussed elsewhere in the article.
 * (Note: the PDF URL, given here in the form it was added to the article, seems to require it to be downloaded) Declangi (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Himalayan Brown Bear on rock.jpg

Taxobox
Usually, we do NOT list the status of taxa in each + every country of occurrence in the taxobox. If national assessments of either species or subspecies exist that differ in the various IUCN Red List categories, then we reference these in the section #Threats or #Conservation. This at least is standard in all the articles on my watchlist. That is why I moved the status of the Himalayan brown bear in range countries into the section #Status and conservation, see. However, the new editor MattPC3O keeps on insisting to place status in different countries and regions into the taxobox + reverted my edits several times. How should we handle this issue, both in this case + in regards to other taxa ? : please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we have a separate article for a subspecies, and there is also a separate IUCN assessment for same, doesn't it make sense to put that status into the box? Or is the issue that of these assessments, multiple (with different statuses) fall under the heading of "Himalayan" bear? If so, yes it would be awkward to shoehorn them into the box, and they should be dealt with in the text. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is the second, i.e. the attachment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify : when a separate IUCN RL assessment for a subspecies exists that is newer than the one for the species + by different authors + with a different doi address, then we DO indeed reference this newer one in the box. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The taxobox is for full assessments at the highest levels. Country-level assessments go in the body of the article. If the country-level assessment happens to cover the entire range of the taxa in question, it still only goes in the body of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)