Talk:History of bison conservation in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mammals (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Environmental history of bison conservation in Canada[edit]

Proposed Outline[edit]

  • Historical decline of the North American bison population
    • Plains bison – importance and symbolism
    • Wood bison – importance and symbolism
    • Social ecology - importance to indigenous people
    • Evolution of hunting practices
    • Implications for preservation efforts
  • Origins of wildlife preservation in Canada
    • Ideological development of the wildlife conservation movement
    • Contradictions
  • The evolution of federal government wildlife policy in Canada
    • Trajectory: preservation → utilitarian conservation → rational, scientific, bureaucratic management that promoted domestication of wildlife and Native people
    • Goals: preservation of wilderness and wildlife; recreational, commercialization, assertion of state authority and control over wildlife and Native people
    • Contradictions in policies
    • Social, cultural, and political forces
      • Internal colonialism – disdain for Native hunting cultures, assertion of state authority, influence of scientific knowledge, modernization agenda for Canada’s north
    • Significance and legacies over the long term – historical and cultural implications
  • National Parks
    • Buffalo National Park in Wainwright, Alberta
    • Wood Bison National Park in northeastern Alberta and southern Northwest Territories
    • 1925-28: Transfer of plains bison from the overpopulated range in Buffalo National Park to the supposedly understocked range in Wood Buffalo National Park resulted in hybridization between the species and the infection of the northern herds with tuberculosis and brucellosis (Sandlos, 2002, 95).
  • Interactions between Aboriginal peoples, preservationists, and government officials
    • Cultural and ecological interactions between Native Americans and Euroamericans in the Great Plains
    • Historical conflict between Native hunters and conservationists over bison
    • Assertion of state authority over the traditional hunting cultures of the Cree, Dene, and Inuit peoples
    • Social, cultural, political, and economic implications for Aboriginals
    • Ecological implications for bison populations
  • Contemporary bison conservation
    • Significance and legacies
    • Current conservation efforts – plans to reintroduce bison to Banff National Park

--Sara Binns (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC) moved by The Interior (Talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about this 'user-space'[edit]

This 'talk page' is for discussing the edits or formatting of the main page, and the 'user page' is for actual edits, right? Should we only be using our sandboxes for the moment then, and leave this page until 'going live' on Tuesday? Also, just a reminder: everyone sign all their edits so we know who's saying/asking what! -- Maura D. (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, let's use this talk page for comments & edits, keeping the user/article page presentable. I've transfered the section below from the user page. --Sara Binns (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I posted my draft about Buffalo National Park on the talk page. The section on Wood Buffalo National Park will be up soon. Was I correct in posting it to the talk page, here or just my sandbox?--Toquinho905 (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little confused about this too -- I haven't been using my sandbox at all, since we have this draftspace rather than an actual indexed article. You would post it to the 'user page' section of this draftspace though, not the 'talk page' (which is this thing I'm typing into right now). -- Maura D. (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't bee using my sandobx either. Is Tina marking our participation or anything based on the talk page? I have no idea...--Chaereankim (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments and Edits[edit]

Let's try to keep our article organized and presentable, making comments and suggestions under this section instead.

  • Should we be using this page, or the corresponding Talk page to discuss edits? I feel like using the Talk page makes more sense in terms of how Wikipedia generally functions, but I don't suppose it matters very much at the moment since this is just a draft page anyway.
Let's move it to the talk page. --Sara Binns (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found out you guys were having a conversation on here. So the sandbox is only for individual use, right?--Chaereankim (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we figured that because we have this draftpage and therefore aren't disrupting an existing article by using this talk page, it's easier to just do the drafting here rather than flipping between each other's sandboxes. -- Maura D. (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology: Aboriginal, indigenous, First Nations, etc[edit]

  • I think we need to come to a consensus on terminology -- 'Indians' vs. 'natives' vs. 'aboriginals' vs. 'indigenous groups', etc. Does anyone know if Wikipedia has conventions for this type of thing that should be followed? Some of these labels are definitely less politically correct than others.
I vote for "Aboriginals" as that is what I will be using in my section. I think it is appropriate to use "First Nations" or "native/indigenous hunters" as well, depending on the context. --Sara Binns (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I vote for either First Nations or Aboriginals as well.--Chaereankim (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Sara, could you clarify why you chose 'aboriginals' over the other labels? I'd say First Nations is the one most commonly used in relation to groups in Canada specifically. -- Maura D. (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking an Aboriginal Health class & it was explained to us that First Nations only refers to registered status Indians in Canada, which would exclude American natives & Inuit peoples from our discussion. So it seems that Aboriginal is the most encompassing definition. I think your use of indigenous is equally appropriate though. --Sara Binns (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahhh, okay, that makes sense. So let's stick with 'Aboriginal' then, or 'indigenous' as an adjective. -- Maura D. (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources?[edit]

  • Am I right in thinking that all our sources need to be scholarly, peer-reviewed, etc? Chad, I'm worried that your first reference might not hold up to criticism. I went to the site and they don't seem to source anything that I could find, although I couldn't even get to a parent page from your link so maybe it's there and I just couldn't find it. -- Maura D. (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You are right, I will find a different source that is scholarly, peer-reviewed--Toquinho905 (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 1 Edits[edit]

  • Chad - Consider including the following in your section:

Isenberg argues that cultural and ecological interactions between Native Americans and Euroamericans in the Great Plains were responsible for the near-extinction of the bison. Cultural and ecological interactions created new forms of bison hunters: mounted Indian nomads and Euroamerican industrial hideman. These hunters, combined with environmental pressures, nearly extinguished the bison. Isenberg also explains that the introduction of horses facilitated bison hunting and competed with bison for scarce water and forage. Industrialization also played a role, with the expansion railroads, commerical hunting, and the fur trade market.

Thanks! I will redo my section of shifts in hunting practices and will include this information! Did you paraphrase this or is it a direct quote? Also do you have the reference? --Toquinho905 (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Plains bison/evolution of hunting (Maura & Chad) - consider including the following:

Isenberg argues that cultural and ecological interactions between Native Americans and Euroamericans in the Great Plains were responsible for the near-extinction of the bison. Cultural and ecological interactions created new forms of bison hunters: mounted Indian nomads and Euroamerican industrial hideman. These hunters, combined with environmental pressures, nearly extinguished the bison. The destruction of the bison was ultimately due to the domestication of the plains environment for human convenience and the unsustainable exploitation of a natural resource for commercial profit. However, the grasslands ecology, horses, smallpox, the fur trade, and gender roles in Indian and Euroamerican societies also played a role. Basically, we need to communicate that the decline of the bison was due to a complex web of intercultural & eco-social relations: grasses, drought, wolves, horses, smallpox, steamboats, railroads, the European conquest of North America, the expansion of the market, industrialization, cultural constructions of gender, habitat degradation, competition from domestic livestock, bovine disease, commercial hunting!

  • Does including all of that not go against the neutrality of our article? I thought we could say that that's what Isenberg is arguing, but can't treat his thesis as fact. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting here. I'll try to rework it to include some more causes without going over the word limit. -- Maura D. (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Chaerean - Please see Tina's handout with comments - we need to write about the importance and symbolism of the bison. I thought it was logical to write about the decline of the bison, and then importance of the animal, which motivated preservation efforts, in Section 1. Also, you double-check your information in Sandlos' work, as he focuses on the wood bison.
I got tripped up by the word 'symbolism' here; I think 'significance' might perhaps be more apt. Chaerean, it looks like your piece is talking more about the changes in bison population during the 20th century -- I've been understanding 'decline' here as the bottoming out of the population that led to the first conservation efforts. Is there more information on that that specifically relates to wood bison? -- Maura D. (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
We can discuss this tomorrow in class, by Tina's comments ask "What did the bison stand for?" which I paraphrased as symbolism. There is more information on the wood bison in Sandlos' work. --Sara Binns (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm just wondering then, what is the difference of "symbolism" between the Plains bison and the Wood bison? Do they each stand for different things? I am a bit confused, do you mean "decline" in a literal sense? I think we should try to keep information as clear as possible, I don't know.. the meaning of "symbolism" and "decline" can be very subjective if you don't mean it in a literal sense. I have read Tina's comments, it's just that I don't get the link between the two subtitles. Can someone explain this to me? --Chaereankim (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I get the sense that the plains and wood bison both symbolized the same thing at the time. Seems like info about the role bison played in the ideology of the time would actually fit better under "social ecology" than under the subspecies sections. Although TBH I don't really know what social ecology means to begin with. -- Maura D. (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should emphasize that the bison was the "iconic species of the North American conservation movement, an animal that symbolized [frontier wilderness and] the disappearing wild" (Loo, 2006, 122). This will be expanded on in section 2, but should be mentioned in the introductory section too.'Italic text --Sara Binns (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
To Maura: the bison population decline I've talked about is specifically about the Wood bison in Wood Buffalo Park --Chaereankim (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Do we want to include that here then, or would it work better in the National Parks section? I feel like this section is more about the pre-preservation period. -- Maura D. (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC) --> I agree --Sara Binns (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The hybridization that took place in the Wood Buffalo Park is a key event in historical decline of the Wood Bison, that is why I included it in this section. Is it the pre-preservation period though? as the hybridization was a result of the attempted conservation of the bison species with the transfer of wood bison to the park..... --Chaereankim (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel that Maura's section and my section are quite different, although under the same heading. --Chaereankim (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm just adding an opinion here, but do you think that the Wikipedia audience will understand terms like "Euroamerican industrial hideman"?  :S--Chaereankim (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Implications for preservation efforts (Susan) - consider including information from more sources to get the Alberta context, too. Also, Isenburg suggests that nostalgia about the cultural interactions between Aboriginals and Euroamericans in the Great Plains, that first threatened the bison, catalyzed preservation efforts in the early 20th century. --Sara Binns (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I have some general concern about the Historical decline of the North American bison population section, specifically Plains/ Wood Bison. After talking with Tina last week after class, we do not need to distinguish the symbolism of each types of bison, but just the population decline in factual terms. From what I see right now, describing the importance and symbolism of the Plains bison doesn't relate to the sub heading "Historical decline of the North American bison population" and my section about the Wood Bison. To write about the symbolism of the bison makes sense if we did not distinguish the two species into different sections--it just doesn't make sense to have two separate sections for "symbolism" for two different species. What do you guys think? If we need to do a symbolism section, we should have it under a new heading or a subheading i.e. "Symbolism of the Bison" under the Historical Decline section, instead of describing it under "Wood Bison" or "Plains Bison". This is what Tina recommended as well- we should keep the information under Wood/Plains bison scientific and statistics-based as we are distinguishing them by species. Let me know what you think.--Chaereankim (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, another thing we could do is what Maura suggested before--to keep the information about bison's symbolism just under the Social Ecology section. Can we then take out the information about symbolism in the Plains Bison section and move it to the Social Ecology section?--Chaereankim (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 2 Edits: Origins of Wildlife Preservation in Canada[edit]

Hi Chaerean - I would recommend elaborating on the following information in your section on the ideological development of wildlife conservation. (This is from my summary of Foster's book.)

According to Foster, wildlife preservation was a not a priority for the federal government during the 19th century due to belief in the superabundance of natural resources, the presence of a wilderness frontier, and a political climate the emphasized development and exploitation (4). However, the 20th century saw a dramatic change in national attitudes. Canadian society and government experienced a greater awareness and sense of responsibility that led to the development of a wilderness consciousness and preservation ethic. Wildlife began to be protected as an intrinsically valuable international resource. Foster demonstrates how a small faction of dedicated civil servants transformed their own goals of preserving endangered species into active government policy.

You could begin the section by explaining that the bison was the "iconic species of the North American conservation movement, an animal that symbolized [frontier wilderness and] the disappearing wild" (Loo, 2006, 122).

Also, please change your citations so that they are consistent with the other sections.

--Sara Binns (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info-it gives a great summary of the Foster's book. I will do that by tomorrow night along with the rest of the information. --Chaereankim (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've added my section and incorporated Sara's summary into it. If you can please read over it, that'll be great. Also, the original outline called for "Contradictions" under this section, however I decided to go with "Other contributions". Most of the information I have on this section are from Foster's book, however I find Foster's book a bit biased & giving all the credits to the civil servants of Canada without mentioning other factors that led to the ideological development of wildlife conservation in Canada.--Chaereankim (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I know that the previous outline called for "Contradictions" under this section, however I find this might lead to similar information being repeated in the "Contradictions in Policies" section. I replaced this section with "Other Contributions", if that makes any sense. Contradictions in "Origins of wildlife conservation in Canada" (for recreational purposes vs. American-influenced wildlife conservation vs. personal encounters) have been already outlined in the previous section, and some of this information might be repeated. --Chaereankim (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, Sara outlined in the introductory section: Federal wildlife policy often had contradictory goals, such as preserving wildlife, promoting recreation, commercializing bison, and asserting state control over Aboriginal people. Bison conservation efforts were shaped by the federal government’s colonialist and modernist agenda for Canada’s north, the management of national parks and reserves, and the influence of scientific knowledge.

Let me know if I'm mistaking anything here!--Chaereankim (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chaerean! Your section is looking good. Here are a few suggestions:
  • I still think you should explain that the bison was the "iconic species of the North American conservation movement, an animal that symbolized [frontier wilderness and] the disappearing wild" (Loo, 2006, 122). This idea motivated conservation efforts!
  • Only include information relevant to bison conservation. For example, I don't see a clear connection between the lumber industry & the bison in AB & NWT.
  • Perhaps revise your section so that there is a more logical, chronological flow. It's unclear what influenced what.
  • Incorporate the 2 sentence paragraphs into the longer paragraphs.
  • In your first paragraph, perhaps change "environment movement" to "wildlife conservation movement"

--Sara Binns (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sara, Thanks for the suggestions, I will include the part about bison as iconic species.

I am wondering though, should I take out the part about the lumber industry, since this section is about origins of wildlife preservation in Canada in general? I took it out for now. I made the paragraphs in a more chronological flow, thanks for pointing that out. --Chaereankim (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Section 3 Edits: Evolution of federal government in wildlife policy in Canada[edit]

I created this section and have quite a bit down. I'm not sure if you guys feel like i'm missing anything, but please take a look and give me some feedback. Also Sara, for the last section I added what you sent me and I wasn't quite sure what I was supposed to write for that section. I was hoping you could help me clarify that section and then I can add more. --Susan Gill (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susan, it looks good! Should we make the subheadings shorter though? --Chaereankim (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Susan - I agree, your section looks great! Here are some suggestions:

  • Make a distinction between plains & wood bison
  • Change "Native" to "Aboriginal" so it's consistent with the rest of the article
  • Goals - include a discussion of recreation & commercialization (see Binnema, Theodore & Niemi, Melanie, 2006)
  • Contradictions in policies – incorporate the following contradictions:
    • the preservation of wilderness excluded Aboriginal hunters (no role for human use of nature)
    • the conservation & commodification of bison are not compatible
    • the central tension within the scientific community over bison management was between wildlife ecologists, who advocated for an ecosystem approach, and managerial interventionists, including agricultural scientists who emphasized a productionist model that served economic interests, and veterinarians who supported intrusive disease management programs (Sandlos)

--Sara Binns (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Section 4 Edits: National Parks[edit]

Hi Chad, your sections look pretty good so far. Here are some suggestions:

  • Buffalo National Park - I would recommend cutting back on some of the quantitative data in order to incorporate the following information:

The placement of the park area on poor agricultural land coupled with an overpopulation problem led to the degradation of the range and the spread of disease. Experiments such as crossbreeding with bison and domestic cattle and commercializing the herd were unsuccessful. The Canadian Parks Branch lacked sufficient funding to run the park or to remedy the crises the bison faced. Eventually, the Department of National Defence repurposed the park for military training and the bison disappeared once again.

--Sara Binns (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 5 Edits: "Interactions between Aboriginals, preservationists, and government officials"[edit]

I've added material to this section & would appreciate your feedback. Since I'm basically summarizing Sandlos' argument, I'm not sure how neutral & balanced this section is. Any suggestions? I was hoping Maura could contribute to the "Cultural and ecological interactions between Native Americans and Euroamericans in the Great Plains" subsection & perhaps "Ecological implications for bison populations" to integrate Isenberg's perspective. Also, let me know if you think any of the content is repetitive or belongs under another section. I'm sure the organization of the article will evolve as we work on it! --Sara Binns (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it might work better if you started, for example, the section on state control over Aboriginal hunters, with a general discussion of how the state asserted control over Aboriginal hunters, and then mention Sandlos' argument towards the end? That way, the reader gets the basic information right away and won't get bogged down in trying to dissect his thesis. I'd like to go through that section and do a bit of copy-editing too, just to make the language a bit more accessible. Also, I can definitely add to those sections, I'll try to get something up in the next couple of days. And I agree, I think the whole structure of the article will become clearer as we add information. :) -- Maura D. (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean putting the section on state control before the section on historical conflict? Yes, feel free to do some copy-editing. Depending on the length of the other sections, we may need to condense this section so that we stay within the word limit for the article. --Sara Binns (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant you could switch the order of your paragraphs within the state control section, so that "The 1894 Unorganized Territories Game Preservation Act introduced regulations..." comes before "According to historian John Sandlos, the introduction of...". I feel like introducing a section with the facts and then introducing various viewpoints/theses on the subject later on makes it easier for a reader to grasp the subject. -- Maura D. (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I've changed it. --Sara Binns (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Section 6 Edits: Contemporary bison conservation efforts[edit]

I've added some basic material to this section. Feel free to contribute any specific dates, details, or themes you picked up from the relevant sources. --Sara Binns (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sara, this looks good. I'm going to be adding relevant "success stories" and also have added a section underneath called: Commercial Bison Industry and Contemporary Bison Conservation.--Chaereankim (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the current focus of bison conservation is enough & also more important to outline.Also I've found a lot of the success stories have contradicting views whether they were "successful" or not..--Chaereankim (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Commercial Bison Industry and Contemporary Bison Conservation[edit]

Hi guys, I added this section since I thought it was important to mention the roles of the commercial bison industry in conservation efforts today. If you have any problems with it, please let me know and we can change it. --Chaereankim (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I simplified the title to just "Commercial bison industry." --Sara Binns (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Lead Section[edit]

I've created a lead section that introduces & summarizes the article. --Sara Binns (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving article to mainspace[edit]

Hey folks, looks like you've written the lead section I asked for, much obliged. I think the article has progressed to the point where it can be moved. Is everyone comfortable with this? The Interior (Talk) 04:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Interior, I think we are still waiting for some of our members to submit their parts but since we can add changes the article once it is on the main space, it should be fine to move the article there. Thanks for your help.--Chaereankim (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Works for me! :) -- Maura D. (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do. Let us know how to locate/access the new article. Thanks!--Sara Binns (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When writing down "According to...(author's name)"[edit]

Hi team, I've noticed that a lot of our sections begin with the sentence "according to Foster, Sandlos...etc". Should we be talking in this way, since most of the wikipedia audience probably don't know who Foster/ Sandlos/ other authors are? If we do choose to begin our sentence with the authors' names, should we explain who they are?--Chaereankim (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we should lead every section with a basic, fact-based description of whatever event or situation we're trying to explain, and then include any arguments made by historians later on. That way the reader has some information on the topic and can interpret those arguments in a more balanced way. I for one get bogged down in theories and theses when reading Wikipedia articles, and find it much easier to grasp a concept when I get the facts first and the conjecture later. -- Maura D. (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Maura - that seems like a good approach to ensure the article is neutral & balanced. I'll rework my section. Also, when an author is first introduced, we should indicate who they are (ex: historian John Sandlos).--Sara Binns (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos to include?[edit]

Should we add any photographs or maps from the sources we are using? --Sara Binns (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I'll ponder on what images might be most effective in the article. -- Maura D. (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
For the free images, do we have to cite them?--Chaereankim (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The images all have proper attribution data on the Commons page where they are hosted (which is hyperlinked to the image), so it isn't necessary to cite them. Just a descriptive caption is how we do. The Interior (Talk) 05:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I see, thank you!--Chaereankim (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to check our word count on Wikipedia?--Sara Binns (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos == Yes! Here is our Category:Bison at the Commons: [1]. These images are all free to use. Check out the subcategories too. As for word count, not that I know of. You could just copy paste into Word and use that wordcounter. The Interior (Talk) 23:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference style[edit]

I'm wondering if there is a better way to display our references -- I looked at the Wiki page for citing sources and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations, which seems cleaner and simpler than to have a full entry for each separate page. What do you guys think? -- Maura D. (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that looks good. We should stick to Chicago Style for the Reference list though. --Sara Binns (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
So if it's alright with everyone I think we should switch our reference style over to a list of short citations (author-date-page number style) followed by a list of references, which will be in Chicago style. I can take that on -- it'll probably be easiest of one of us changes over everything so that it's all consistent. Agreed? -- Maura D. (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Whole article edits[edit]

Here are a few things we can all contribute to:

  • Read to whole article to eliminate unnecessary repetition.
  • When a topic is first introduced, create links to other existing Wikipedia articles
  • Add photos from Wikipedia database & existing articles (ex: plains bison, wood bison, national parks)

--Sara Binns (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

About pictures[edit]

Did anybody find pictures of Wood/ Plains bison on the commons? I've uploaded a random picture of a bison but couldn't find specific examples of wood/ plains bison--Chaereankim (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many! Here are pictures of wood bison, and here are plains bison. Please let me know if you have any trouble embedding them. InverseHypercube (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Word Count[edit]

Hi, I did a word count on our article and the length is currently 4,270 words! On our syllabus it is outlined the final article should be 2500~3000 words long, excluding the references. Should we work on cutting down some information, or ask Tina if we can leave it as iis?--Chaereankim (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
I contacted your professor (User_talk:Greentina#Regarding_article_length) regarding this. Please don't remove any content for now.
Thanks. InverseHypercube (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Chaereankim, Please don't remove any content! Leave it as is - the word count was a guideline and more of a minimum than anything else. --Greentina (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)