User talk:MontanaJohn

Welcome
Hello, MontanaJohn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BC talk to me  19:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

American bison
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to American bison. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Also, please do not remove maintenance tags placed by another editor without fixing the underlying problem or explaining your rationale for removal. Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am in a learning phase regarding the editing function at Wikipedia.

The Yellowstone bison issue is controversial because various world views are in conflict. The controversy is because the issue is defined by considerable mis-information, especially as it relates to the matter of brucellosis in wildlife. The biology of the disease is complex and mis-understood by many, especially by those who advocate for "free-ranging" bison. I referenced the most accessible, fact-based information that clarifies the nature of the disease (the white paper and the EIS for the Interagency Bison Management Plan) and yet you discredited that information as either not verifiable or a novel interpretation.

The existing article contains two often repeated rhetoric statements - without citation - that are incorrect and/or misleading.

The first is the reference to the "small percentage of bison that carry brucellosis". That statement is incorrect. Over a period of more than 20 years, consistently 50 +/- % of the animals that have been blood tested have antibodies to brucella abortus, the causative agent for brucellosis - most of that data is unpublished but in agency files - National Park Service, APHIS Veterinary Services and Montana Department of Livestock. One reference that summarizes it may be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/cattle/downloads/cattle-bison.pdf.

Animals develop antibodies because they had a prior infection. Once infected, animals typically harbor the disease for life. However, the disease goes through cycles of active infection and dormancy. While the disease is dormant, assuming a prior active infection, the animal will test positive for the disease by it is difficult/impossible to isolate the organism from the animals tissues. Thus, the discrepancy between the results of blood tests and tissue tests. And, also note that tissue tests are only performed when the animal has first been slaughtered.

To the extent that the reference to the "small percentage" is factual, it is a reference to animals with active infection at the time of sampling. It ignores the reality that animals with the disease in the dormant phase likely will develop active infection at some point in the future. That is how the disease works.

The article also references the fact that there has never been a documented case of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle. That statement is factually correct. However, it is misleading because the implication is that there is no risk of transmission. Transmission requires the co-mingling of infectious animals and susceptible animals. Prior to 1967, bison were confined by active management within the park. Since then, the distribution of bison has been restricted by a series of boundary control policies, of which the Interagency Bison Management Plan is the current iteration. Boundary control has effectively prevented co-mingling of bison cattle and, therefore, effectively prevented the potential for bison to cattle transmission.


 * Hi, MontanaJohn. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this. All new editors make mistakes, so not to worry. The reason I cautioned you here about your edits rather than simply reverting them was because you removed "citation needed" tags that a third editor had inserted into the text you added to the article. Removing such tags, without thoroughly resolving the lack of citations and without explanation, is one of the quickest ways to erode other editors' trust in your good intentions. Also, you might keep in mind that controversial topics (as you correctly identified this one) need special care, including extra careful attention to sourcing and neutral language. Now, about the substance of your argument—I'd suggest that you copy your comments in the preceding six paragraphs and pastie them in a new section at Talk:American bison. That's the standard procedure because it allows other editors who are watching the article to know of and join in the discussion. My attention is a little scattered right now, but I'll check in from time to time and see if we can find a solution that satisfies your objections and follows policy. Rivertorch (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)