Talk:Polar bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Polar bear has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 6, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I.

Contents

[edit] First cub in ZOO

The world's first cub (successfull birth and rearing) of polar bear was in 1942 in Prague's ZOO. She was a female named "Ilun".

for details see: http://www.zoopraha.cz/en/about-zoo/history/from-the-history-of-the-prague-zoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.3 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polar_bear&action=edit&section=new — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.3 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Also, Zoo Sauvage in St-Felicien, QC has a pair of twin cubs, born in 2009. From the wiki for Zoo Sauvage... "Polar Bear Cubs On December 4 2009, the Zoo Sauvage de St-Félicien female Polar Bear, Aisaqvaq gave birth to two polar bear cubs, which is the first time that a Canadian zoo experienced the birth of twin polar bears.[6] The polar bear cubs at first were only viewed from a hidden camera inside the den and eventually at three months old wandered outside with their mom away from public viewing. When the cubs were six months old, they made their first public appearance at the Wild Zoo in June 2010.[7]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LydiaBoroughs (talkcontribs) 06:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This directly contradicts the assertion in the Polar Bear page that the earliest zoo-born bear was born Oct 2011 in Toronto. that is so sweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.69.143 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Add Internal Link and/or Information to Article?

Could we either add a link to the Interspecies fertility or hybridization section from the Evidence of common descent article to the Taxonomy and Evolution section of this article or copy and paste the actual information found there on polar bear evolution to this one? I ask because that small section includes a lot of specific examples of PB evolution that I think would improve this article. Thanks. 4.246.207.237 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy and Evolution section

This section relies heavily on the mtDNA analysis of a few years back. More recent nuclear genome sequencing shows this to be an anomaly, and not an accurate reflection of polar bear origins. [1] This section will need to be rewritten. Agricolae (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I put the main assertion (time of divergence) in cautiously. Left the old one in place as well, with minor word tweak to no longer sound categorical. Others can go farther if they wish. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It really needs more than this - the result changes the whole spin (e.g. the peripatric/paraspecies/paraphyletic paragraph becomes moot if the nuclear results are correct). I will just be bold. Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article locked?

Here is just one small part of the article with mistakes:

"10 of them had a cub swim with them (their mother) and after a year 6 cubs survived. The study don't determine if the others lost their cubs before, during, or at some point after their long swims."

The whole article is like this. There are mistakes and it's awkwardly written. This is what happens when an article is locked. The whole point of wiki is to be open, that's why we have the best articles on the most subjects. Can someone either a)fix that mistake and the others in the article or b)unlock this article.
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.11.158 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected since 16 January 2011, 19:58 (UTC), as indicated by the silver-colored padlock icon at upper right, meaning that you need to create a Wikipedia account and perform a number of constructive edits over a four-day period before you can edit such articles; during the probation time the quality of your edits will be monitored by other Wikipedia editors. Articles that are subjected to repeated acts of vandalism or "edit wars" get this status. It doesn't stop registered users from editing them, but it does eliminate much "drive-by" vandalism by anonymous editors.
That said, I've cleaned the paragraph up for style, grammar and punctuation and replaced the source link with the the original Reuters article from which it was copied. — QuicksilverT @ 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export