Talk:Brown bear/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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.[1] 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)
Also, as Mike noted, Geptner doesn't specify the bear species. 155.138.248.198 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Geptner source didn't specify the species so I didn't specify it. That section was talking about brown bears and Asiatic bears so bears in the paragraph refer to both in tigers' range. Now your intention is getting obvious as you keep violated wikipedia rules trying to force your own analysis into the article, while deleting properly sourced content. Read this:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
Wikipedia only deals with facts, not personal analysis or original research. You can ONLY say what the source say. 2 cases are 2 cases. You can't guess or make further conclusion beyond what is said in the source. Unless you can find a reliable source as reliable as Geptner and Yudakov sources that clearly stating what you want to force into the article, you can't write in that way. To illustrate, there are several reliable reports on tigers killing adult elephants, and certainly there are more cases happened and happening in the wild that have been unrecorded, but we can't say tigers hunt adult elephants in wikipedia. Instead we can only write this: tigers generally do not attack adult elephants (because there are sources saying so), but some incidents have been reported (because there are isolated cases reported). This is a simple Wikipedia policy and has been explained to you multiple times and I can't be clearer. Interestingly you have been using a similar argument in different article edit histories to change other content to your favor, but now you keep violating the rule that you obviously know. You have been violating many Wikipedia rules in the past few days and I gave you the benefit of doubt of being inexperienced. Further violations will be reported and may result in your IP range blocked. Please respect Wikipedia rule and do not bring your animal vs animal debates into this article. You are welcome to contribute according to sources, but not your own analysis. Big Cats - talk 18:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes Geptner's claim about bears being "generally afraid" more reliable and Yudakov's "expectations". Yudakov felt he could state that ''Various reactions were observed in such situations in the case of bears and conclude that 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. If these cases of the bears not being fearful were anomalies then he probably would not have made those claims. What does Geptner based his conclusions on? His own observations? If so, what puts them above Yudakov's? As to your elephant comparison, if we concluded that tiger prey on adult elephants based on cherry-picked cases them that would be wrong, but if someone did a study and observed tiger predation on elephants and observed one case after another and made a positive conclusion similar to Yudakov then that would be fair.
Basically what your doing is concluding that because Geptner states that bears are generally afraid of tigers, Yudako's cases must be "exceptional". That is original research, Yudakov does not state that. In fact he states close to the opposite. In addition, I have added another source (far more recent then Geptner) which states that bears do follow tigers tracks but you removed it. 155.138.236.222 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I already agreed avoiding using words "exceptional cases" for Yudakov's findings some time ago and none of my recent reverts and edits brought this info back. For constructive discussions we don't need to discuss what have been agreed upon further. Note that the statement by Yudakov that "the tigers' fresh footprints do not produce a strong sense of unease in the tiger's potential prey in the majority of cases" does not imply bears do not fear tigers, as fearing tigers and fearing tiger tracks are different, and strong sense of fear and some fear is also a matter of degree. And a
Although Yudakov said "Various reactions were observed in such situations in the case of bears", he only had THREE examples here, one is a brown bear that didn't fear the tiger, another one is a brown bear that FEARED tiger tracks, and the last one is an Asiatic bear that didn't fear tigers tracks. You cannot assume he has observed more cases of brown bears not fearing tigers' tracks, and thus we can only reproduce the two cases (or 3 if the Asiatic bear is also included) he reported. Geptner source is definitely reliable as it was quoted by scholars and used in Wikipedia a lot more times than Yudakov's, and as Mike.BRZ pointed out Yudakov's observations were made on a single day, its scale and scope are not in the same league as Geptner review that was based on multiple studies spanning across years. So even if Yudakov and Geptner came to different conclusions, Geptner source is still far more reliable in this regard. I am not going to debate which source is more reliable as a whole, I would just say both are reliable (otherwise I would have removed Yudakov source since day one) as I do not find any misinformation in other areas of both sources. If you still do not agree that Geptner source is more reliable, that's fine - if we find different conclusions are drawn by different reliable sources, we as editors can discuss which is more reliable and use the information from the more reliable source. If we cannot come to a conclusion, we can state both conclusions in the article but give a bit more details to let the reader judge themselves. I have fixed grammar and put more accurate information on your last edits.
Also I removed the redundant info you put in the article "Other researchers have observed bears following tiger tracks for various reasons" as it is similar to the content I put in the article based on the same source "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." But since you are obsessed with the tiger track thing, I modified the original sentence to include info on bears following tiger tracks. You didn't provide any new source on it. If you did, you are welcome to put it back but a new sentence on it is too redundant - please just put the source at the end of the above content.
Note your last message is the discussion I expect from a good contributor, and you are welcome to contribute constructively in wikipedia. Big Cats - talk 09:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say Yudakov's observations were done in a single day, I said the data came from a single study, yes, there's only 3 observed cases there but that's more than what Geptner provided which is only this "Bears are generally afraid of tigers and, coming across their tracks, run away perpendicular to the trail." what follows is how black bears react when encountering tigers, no examples, no references, nothing, not even a sign that the author has observed the behavior, is only an empty claim and one that is unequivocally refuted by the data from Serekedin et al. (2005) (Chapter 19 of WCS Russia tiger monograph). I did my best with the help of google translate to translate some of the content.
During our tracking of a tigress in March 29, 2001 in the river basin […] two different brown bears were observed approaching her tracks. One of the bears did not respond to the trace of the tigress while the other began to relentlessly follow her. Bears can also follow tigers in the snowless period. In August 1994 in the Sikhote Alin Reserve a radio-collared large adult male brown bear was found twice in the vicinity of a tigress with two cubs (one of them equipped with a radio-transmitter, M18). The interval between the two successive locations was 6 days and the distance 19km.
Brown bears, upon encountering tracks of tigers react to it differently. The reaction apparently depends on the age of the track; sex, age and physical condition of the bear and the tiger leaving the trace, the season, abundance and availability of food for the bear, individual inclinations and experience of the bear. Brown bears can travel over tiger tracks for a variety of reasons: to facilitate movement through deep snow, in order to find remains of abandoned carcasses from tiger kills, to displace it from its kill or to prey (?) on the tiger.
To facilitate movement on the snow bears use the tiger’s tracks if it coincides with the direction of their movement and abandoned it if it deviates from its course. It doesn’t matter whether the bear is going in the same direction as the tiger or the opposite direction. Bears often follow tiger tracks in search of remains of their kills (Kaplanov, 1948; Rakow, 1970; Kostoglod, 1976; Hramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981; Dunishenko, 1991; our unpublished data). [....]
There's more but I think that this is enough to get the point across that such behavior is inconsistent with the claim of Geptner, in fact Serekedin et al. (2005) when discussing black bears and tiger tracks does reference a publication saying most black bears avoid fresh tiger tracks (Kucherenko, 1974) and share a recent example (from 1995). Gaptner claim is either about black bears (in which case it should be removed from this article) or is baseless and refuted by publications that were far more rigorous in documenting such interaction. As it stands the text is giving undue weight to Geptner's empty and unreferenced claim over actual observed instances of the interaction. In the changes I'm planning I'll remove Geptner's claim and when it comes to brown bear's reaction and use of tiger tracks I'll avoid using charged words like "fear" or "do not fear". Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Mike, Yudakov's study was carried out within a 24 hour period according to the introduction. Note Geptner's review is published in a book with a different format from a journal. A possible source he quoted is Baikov 1925, but other sources he quoted earlier may contain that information. The only way to verify whether he is baseless or was only talking about black bears is to check the few sources he quoted in the relevant content. You cannot make assumptions that it is baseless or he was talking ONLY about black bears. And for your info, the reason why this sentence appeared in different articles was that the original IP editor who started this talk section (NOT to be confused with IP editor 155.XXX though, he is obviously not the same person who started this talk section) quoted Geptner source in the false statement that tigers are afraid of bears and changed path upon crossing bear tracks! I just corrected it to reflect what exactly Geptner said. Now I receive criticisms on making a correction on an obviously false statement while no one criticizes the IP editor who started all the obvious vandalism? Come on! I have to remind you that ALL edits made by that IP editor were reverted by admins and other contributors.
Actually things can get more complicated than we think if we drill down through the details. Wild Siberian tigers are on the verge of extinction and the average size for adult and subadult males has dropped significantly as a result, from the historical 215.3kg to the contemporary 176.4kg. Past observations may indeed be different from the more recent findings as a reduction of 40kg is a night and day difference. In the past brown bears probably fear tigers in general, and now mixed findings may be observed as wild siberian tigers are significantly smaller and unhealthy in general.
Note that when writing wikipedia articles we usually follow the general positions of the reliable sources. That tigers are predators of brown bears is a proven fact, while brown bears don't generally prey on tigers (even if a brown bear kills a tiger in a direct confrontation, it generally does not consume it at all). It is this reason why I would consider Geptner source is reliable, as it follows the general positions of other sources. The tiger is the only predator of the brown bear and that a prey fearing its predator or its predator tracks just makes sense. But this issue seems to be more complicated then we think, it will probably take us a lot more time to find out the truth, if we can find out at all. Big Cats - talk 19:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say here or here that the study took place during a single day? It is true that Geptner et al's book has a different format but the style of directly citing a work you are referencing is used extensively and there's no immediate quote after that statement and the following statement describes behavior that is known to be that of black bears as stated by several of the other sources mentioned in the article, it is true that the actual source of that information might be Baikov (1925) though. I never claimed Geptner et al is not a reliable source I just stated that that particular claim, if applied to brown bears is clearly contradicted by actual observations of the interaction by several other publications. Either way Geptner et al doesn't even specify which bear species they mean, this article is about brown bears, if there's no way to know which bear are they talking about we should not include such vague statements clearly contradicted by other sources. I wasn't here when the IP editor made those changes if I was I would have obviously criticized him in the edit summary. I'm not criticizing you for correcting it to what the source says I'm just pointing out that as it is written now it reads as if Geptner et al claims had more weight than actual observations. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Found Baikov (1925), there's nothing supporting Geptner et al's claim of bears being generally afraid of tigers, there is, however, of the subsequent claim of how "bears" escape from tigers by climbing trees. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort Mike. I generally agree with everything you said, except that we shouldn't drill down through the refs used in reliable sources to check if the source is 100.000% correct. No source is perfect. Even research publications in leading science journals like Science and Nature magazines have inaccuracies and cherry picked statements from the sources they quoted time to time. We are not the editors of a journal or a book. Wikipedia is just a summary of what reliable sources say, not an in depth analysis of the accuracy of every single sentence of a reliable source. We as the wikipedia editors can just try our best to remove obviously unreliable sources such as self-published books, blogs, etc. Verifying the accuracy of every single sentence of a source is the duty of the source publishers not ourselves. Besides, the tiger section in Geptner's book spans 108 pages and quoted tons of refs and it is impractical to check all of them to see if that statement comes from a source. And most importantly, it is possible that the observation was just the 1st hand experience of one of the 3 authors of the book. If it was, who we are to say Yudakov et al observations are more reliable than those of Geptner et al?
Last but not least, one of the main reasons of quoting a source in every publication is that readers can check the source and judge the accuracy themselves. We have done our part nice and sound. Further discussion and analysis of the reliable sources are beyond the scope of Wikipedia editing and I recommend we spend our time and effort to contribute on other substandard articles. Do you agree? Big Cats - talk 20:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
It's simple, Geptner et al. offers no proof of their claim while Yudakov et al and Serekedin et al. do and the later cites several more publications showing bears follow tiger tracks, in complete contradiction to Geptner's claim, It is of course not our job to check if Geptner et al's claim is accurate but when we have several publications stating with evidence the complete opposite why should we include in the article that little claim of Geptner et al.? Once all the references we have are included it'll end up something like this: "Geptner et al states bears are afraid of tigers and change paths when encountering tiger tracks but according to these other 7 publications bears actually use tiger trails for several reasons including ease of movement in the snow or to scavenge tiger kills" doesn't this make Geptner et al claim redundant? I'm just discussing this particular claim because it is of the ones that caused more "controversy" and seems to have been included originally for some "vs" agenda so I feel it is important to settle if there's any reason for it to be here. I personally don't see why, specially when it is refuted so strongly by other publications we have at our disposal. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
First, let me emphasize that with the exception of the IP editor that started this talk section, I have never doubted your intention to be a good editor here, and IP editor 155.XXX later also became a constructive editor.
I will agree more with you if we are writing a paper. But if we are writing a review or simply a wikipedia article, we are just not in a position to refute anything. If 2 generally reliable sources saying contradictory facts, we will just put both sources here to let the readers know there are opposite views and let them judge which one to be trusted. To illustrate, Jack Horner's T. rex pure scavenger theories are not published in any peer reviewed journal and all data published in peer reviewed journals show T. rex was a predator or at least both a predator and scavenger. But our featured T. rex article that has passed the most rigorous GA and FA standards still contain the T. rex scavenger theories simply because there are some sources saying so. This is how wikipedia works. Certainly if I am writing a paper on T. rex I won't mention the pure scavenger thing. But wikipedia isn't a paper.
You said "Geptner et al. offers no proof of their claim while Yudakov et al and Serekedin et al. do". What "proof" were you referring to? Did Yudakov et al and Serekedin et al show videos that bears follow tiger tracks? All are just their claims. They claimed they saw them. So whether their observations are reliable depends merely on their credibility, and Geptner et al is definitely considered reliable. Besides, any referenced claim still has to be come from an original source. So do you mean if I quoted someone's witness on Loch Ness Monster, I was more reliable, while you claimed you witnessed Loch Ness Monster you were less reliable because you lacked a source??? As I said earlier, outside wikipedia, one's statement doesn't become more reliable because he is quoting from someone.
So we can't judge if that statement made by Geptner et al is less reliable as Geptner et al is generally considered a very reliable source. Besides, to be exact, only Serekedin et al's statement is obviously opposite to Geptner et al's while Yudakov et al's findings are not. And also note however that unless the 5 sources quoted by Serekedin et al also said similar statement that bears often/generally/usually follow tiger tracks, they are not considered opposite views to Geptner et al as Serekedin et al just quoted them to support his novel, original statement. If you write a paper you can also pick Yudakov et al single brown bear not fearing tiger case, and some other researchers' isolated brown bear not fearing tiger cases to come to the conclusion that you have many cases of bears having no fear of tigers. Confusing? Just remember Wikipedia accepts no original research, but peer reviewed journals are mostly original research. If you have publications in these journals you will have no problem understanding everything I said here. But please kindly understand Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our personal analysis is not allowed here. Thanks. Big Cats - talk 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
A vague undetailed statement is a nothing but an empty claim if neither references or observations are provided to back it up, you are doing a disservice to Yukadov et al and Serekedin et al by putting their detailed observations in the same league. Yukadov et al is contradictory to Geptner et al, throughout the whole duration of their study (a whole winter or several, not a day) out of random chance they observed 3 bears encountering tiger tracks (remember Geptner et al claims "bears" not brown bears), only one reacted to it. Serekedin et al too is contradictory to Geptner et al claim as they observed bears either not caring or actually following the tracks, then we have the 5 publications that Serekedin et al references.
I get what you mean but then why are doing this? you give more weight to Geptner et al's claim than what was found by those 7 other publications, even ignoring the quality of the statements the encyclopedic thing to do will be to let readers be aware that Geptner et al's claim is the minority view. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, as per wikipedia rule we can only say what the source explicitly say. You cannot interpret from the results of Yukadov et al to come up with a conclusion here - it is up to the readers to interpret the results. In fact, wikipedia rules aside, I don't see why you can make such a definitely conclusion just based on such a small sample size (n=3) from the results of Yukadov et al. Only Serekedin et al made a conclusion that contradicts with Geptner's. Both sources are considered highly reliable and again you can't make your own conclusion that Geptner's is a minority view while Serekedin's is the majority view. Geptner's statement that "Bears are generally afraid of tigers" is definitely clear not vague, as per wikipedia definition and per my judgement as it follows the flow and logic of the whole section which talks about brown and black bears in Amur tigers' range. Serekedin's statement that "Bears often follow tiger tracks in search of remains of their kills" is equally clear to me (or equally vague according to your points, as this statement didn't specify brown or black bears either and Serekedin's study dealt with both brown and black bears as well). Unless you have multiple reliable sources explicitly saying "bears are generally not afraid of tigers and follow their tracks", we only have two sources that are contradictory to each other here and you can't put the rest of the sources into either sides unless they also explicitly say so.
Trust me I want to use the same reasoning of yours to remove many edits in wikipedia, such as removing the unpublished T. rex scavenger theory nonsense (as even Jack Horner, the one and only one who started and backed this theory, recently changed and said he doesn't think a T. rex is a scavenger but he has been spreading this nonsense so as to alert the general public that one must be careful dealing with sources coming from the popular media like TV and internet) but I can't as I know they don't violate wikipedia rules. I just edit according to what the sources say as per wikipedia rules. If there are new sources supporting one side I am happy to include them and more weight will be given to that side. I don't and won't interpret results from sources, nor putting my personal analysis here. Like you and everyone else I have my own judgement and interpretation on everything but we just can't put them in wikipedia. Big Cats - talk 10:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You're seriously comparing citing other scientific reports with citing a layman who claims he saw the Loch Ness Monster? 75.121.230.186 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We do have multiple sources, Serekedin et al cites several other scientific papers which state that bears commonly follow tiger tracks. This isn't one on one. Geptner's statement is clearly against a consensus. 155.138.247.101 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you the same 155.138.XXX IP editor we have been working with? I don't have the access to those old sources Serekedin quoted. Note these old sources must explicitly say something similar to "bears often follow tiger tracks" or "bears generally do not fear tigers" to be considered directly contradictory to Geptner's statement. If these sources just provide some cases of bears following tiger tracks, we cannot draw any conclusion from the data. To help you understand further, this bears following/fearing tiger track thingy is unlikely the main focus of the studies. Unless the authors explicitly draw conclusions that bears don't fear tiger/tiger tracks from these data, they may not actually reflect the truth - for example if they just wanted to illustrate the reasons for bears to follow tiger tracks, they would only include cases that bears followed tiger tracks and would ignore all those cases that bears ran away from tiger tracks. That's why we should never make interpretations and drawing conclusions that the authors didn't explicitly say to avoid source misrepresentation. Big Cats - talk 23:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You say that we should simply represent what the sources say and not give our opinions, but you are clearly doing that. If Serekedin is confident enough to conclude that bears often follow tiger tracks from those studies, why can't you? Don't you trust how scientists represent other scientists? Don't you think that Serekedin et al. know not to make general statements based on anomalies? 155.138.250.209 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
edit conflict pls sign your post

Again Bigcat, you claim the posts on the forums were peer reviewed by other forum members and fan sites? That is NOT the claim I made at all. The claim I made was that the FORUM points to studies that are peer reviewed by OTHER SCIENTISTS IN JOURNALS, many of them the SAME ones you source. The forum is not the source, nor are the people on it. THE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL IT POINTS TO IS. I have never disputed that siberian tigers have been documented preying on brown bears. What I have disputed is that adult bears are commonly taken, especially males and especially bears over 400 - 500 pounds. Just about all examples in the sourced materials show sub - adult or small females smaller than the tiger or around the same size of the tiger taken by AMBUSH, not face to face encounters.

Also, in your source bigcat, there are five mentioned cases where adult male tigers are killed. Note also in the source that the claim is made none of the bears killed were adult males.

First, whoever you are, sign your post to avoid edit conflict as your above message merged with the message of other editors, making readers impossible to follow what happened. Basically you are just repeating what I and other contributors put into the article. This is wikipedia and no one here has ever specified tigers FREQUENTLY prey on adult MALE bears (but adult females are still adults, and predation on them are not uncommon), and all the articles do differentiate between ambush or face to face encounters. We also give details on how bears larger than tigers are taken by an ambush technique. I don't know what you are complaining about except that you are bringing debates from forums to here. I am just an editor of wikipedia and I have never posted anything in all those forums, and whoever impersonated me there posting deliberate errors on tigers and bears are their problems! I am a scientist graduated from top 10 universities of the world and I am not interested in those internet debates, thank you. Big Cats - talk 10:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow it´s amazing that these big cat fans are also around here putting their noses and spreading their lies. They have spread an immense amount of jokes on the siberian tiger wikipedia page (like tigers hunting 450 kgs bears, which never ever was documented, not even about tigers hunting/killing adult male brown bears, let alone 450 kgs bears, which only exceptionally reach that weight in Amur), that it will have to be reported to the wikipedia moderation. Sorry to say that bears at 500 kgs, for example, don´t give a f*ck about tigers and above that they would use it as a toy. The guy who edited the siberian tiger wikipedia page (which is completely destroyed now by these fanatic guys) even use «Tigers in the snow» story book as source for some of their informations, so there you go. And they mention things and state which source has it, and when you go there, there´s nothing like they said. Bullshit! They want to make the tiger a supernatural being, but tigers on the contrary are very cautious. They seemingly don´t know nothing about tigers. And don´t care about its conservation. Ecology subject is barely improved on that page. And absurd percentages like bears being 40% of tiger menu (which also never were reported in modern studies) and that tigers can jump this and that (but the raw fact is that it never was scientifically documented)are also there. WCS published a resume in chapter 19, where they clearly said that no adult male brown bear was known to be taken during all the years of study. And yes, there´s at least one confirmed case of a adult male siberian tiger being killed by a bear. I´ll post here more evidences, but this is already food for thought. Please don´t let these guys destroy this brown bear wikipedia page, they have already done it on siberian tiger page. Bone dealers would love to use those hoaxes as argument for their sales, but we don´t need to do the same also with bears. If you want I can talk about possible changes and state why. The references are all online, but I can put short summaries and its respective references here, once on a while. And the best proof that I´m right, is that brown bears are very sucessful in areas with tigers, wolves on the other hand, aren´t.

In the very same articles he has cited, bigcats ignores the statement where it talked about five cases of adult male siberian tigers killed by bears of unknown sexes and sizes. I am with you, these big cat fans are cherry picking data and act like bears are these helpless teddy bears, when almost all cases of bears killed by tigers are bears under 400 pounds. It's like they don't know what a bear is. A 600 pound brown bear can crush the spine of a tiger with a paw swipe, let alone a 1000 pound male brown bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.5.154 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The very name Bigcats implies what animal he favors. All I hear are crickets chirping on the 5 adult male tigers killed by bears of unknown sexes, sizes, of species, and of the ridiculous assertion that bears are 40% of a tiger's diet. Old sources, also from peer reviewed studies in scientific journals, claim brown bears constitute 1 to 1.5% of a tigers diet, and that almost all predation is on bears the same size or smaller than the tiger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.5.154 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bigcats, why can't you also address the forums where forum posters POINTED to peer reviewed studies of real scientists? And why did you claim I said that "other forum members" did the study and peer reviewed it, when it was citing an actual scientific journal, NOT forum members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.5.154 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"In Japan, a large brown bear nicknamed "Kesagake" (袈裟懸け, "kesa-style slasher") made history for causing the worst bear attack in Japanese history at Tomamae, Hokkaidō during numerous encounters during December, 1915. It killed seven people (including one pregnant woman)"

....are you fucking kidding me? Who gives a shit if it included one pregnant woman? Don't you dipshits claim that a fetus is merely a clump of cells? So much for "gender equality", lol.

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)

There were once hundreds of brown bear subspecies in North America. Here is a link LINK The Ugavaesis brown bear was one of these names that were all grouped together (I think by Hall 1984) except for the Kodiak bear.

Raggz (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Lead

The lead (or opening section) needs a complete revision to become a summary. Raggz (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation needed for the term "grizzly"

The first few occurrences of the word "grizzly" in this article seemed to presuppose that grizzly is synonymous with brown bear, and that the reader knows this. Actually,

  • I gather that grizzly refers specifically to North American brown bears.
  • Readers from outside of North America might be unaware that the grizzly belongs to the brown bear. (I was, and I'm normally pretty well informed on these things.)

--Chriswaterguy talk 04:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed. All brown bears in North America are also grizzly bears. If a grizzly bear were to cross to Siberia then it would no longer be a grizzly bear. Historically the large coastal bears were considered distinct and were called brown bears and the inland bears were then grizzly bears. Raggz (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

North American brown bear distribution

"The brown bear is usually called the grizzly bear in North America. It once ranged throughout much of the entire continent."[2] is inadequate. The polar bear is nearly exclusively in the northern part of NA. The range in Mexico was very restricted, next to California in Baja and a bit in Durango and another state. In Mexico I estimate that they ranged in 1-3% of Mexico. There are records from NY but I do not recall any in the SE US. Only a few made it to Texas and Kansas. The citation states: "In North America, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) once ranged from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River and from Central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean." There are records east of Mississippi. GUILDAY, J. E.1968. Grizzly bears from eastern North America. Amer. Midland Naturalist 79 (1): 247-250. Raggz (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Regional extinctions

Extinct in Vatican? is it a joke?Corentinoger (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That list does seem rather overkill, probably should be removed. In the meantime, moving this comment to the end of talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The range of the brown bear did include the Vatican. It is a nation. This fact however does not seem notable. Raggz (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional discussion

A discussion relevant to this article is taking place here. Montanabw(talk) 07:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Brown bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Range

Spotted hyenas do not occur in the same range as the brown brown bear, zoology 101, hence it is futile to compare their jaw strengths. I deleted that paragraph. Osterluzei (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Source?

"It is thought to be the ancestor of the polar bear and the Kodiak bear.[16] and the Peninsular brown bears of Alaska."

Something appears to be wrong with this sentence, but I am not quite sure what. To start out with, the period before "and" doesn't make much sense. But then, what is the reference supposed to support? Only the polar bear and Kodiak bear part, or also the Peninsular bear part? The problem being that I cannot find that it supports either.

Maybe someone else can check if I just overlooked it or if there really is something wrong with this source and the claim it's supposed to support. --93.212.250.204 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Please change "This race tends to be an whitish blond color" to "This race tends to be a whitish blond color" Sources: http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/a-before-consonants-and-an-before-vowels-is-not-the-rule OHHELLOTHERE-SHREK2017 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

{{subst:trim| 

67.79.195.94 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Subspecies

The text says there are 16 living subspecies (references 28 and 29, which agree on the 16). The tables listing the subspecies indicate that two of these are extinct (Atlas, California grizzly). Which is correct? Also two of the subspecies recognised in the given sources (gyas, stikeenensis) are listed in the former subspecies table. Seems they should be moved. Conversely the extinct Mexican grizzly should be in the former subspecies table (if going by Wilson-Reeder, ref 28, which includes it under horriblis). Anyone familiar with this subject? Jts1882 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have made the changes. The use of MSW3 as the main authority on mammals is general Wikipedia policy and it is the source for the 16 subspecies given in the text. I have also reorganised the subspecies tables under the headings Palearctic and Nearctic realms, which better reflects the biogeographic division. The Atlas bear is related to the European bears and not a separate African lineage of bears. Jts1882 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

The species as a whole is of "least concern", so that is the appropriate listing for this article. Particular subspecies are a different matter and can be mentioned in appropriate sections here and have their particular statuses highlighted on their own pages. --Khajidha (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N., Goodrich, J.M. (2005). "1". Tigers of Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: ecology and conservation. Vladivostok, Russia: PSP.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/mtn/ours-bears/generaux-basics/grizzli-grizzly.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brown_bear/Archive_3&oldid=1136301884"