Talk:Bioregion

Copyright review - WWF - from the Ecoregion article, but since Bioregion is pulling heavily from WWF sources as well, we may need to examine if these sources can be used.

Hi everyone - this is a copyright review that flagged that WWF has placed strict terms and conditions on using their resources and data.

This review is from the Ecoregions project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions. I'm going to follow up to see if they reached any conclusions or were able to use the information.

See below -- this is not relevant.

Copyright review [edit]

The ecoregion articles depend heavily on information from the World Wildlife Fund. WWF has placed strict terms of conditions (updated March 21, 2021) on the use of their web site, including:

• Linking to the WWF site is prohibited without prior permission. (“If you would like to link another Web site to this Site, you may only do so if you obtain WWF's prior permission.”)
• Use of the terms “World Wildlife Federation” and “WWF” are prohibited, as is the use of these terms in ‘hidden tags’, which would include Wikipedia templates, reference links, and WikiData ID's.
• The whole site is copyrighted with an explicit prohibition of commercial use, which means Wikipedia's CC BY-SA cannot be supported

Obviously the first thing to keep in mind is that direct quotations from the site are out of the question. I have started a review of the 866 ecoregion articles using the Copyvio Detector, with checkmarks in the ecoregion tracking list, column named “CRChk?” for status updates.

I will also seek permission from WWF for permission to link to their site, and to use their name and initials in passing in the articles and links. But because of their non-commercial requirement, we have to be ready for a refusal that will require scrubbing WW* from our ecoregion articles. Or does anyone know of link/name permission that might have been formally granted to Wikipedia in the past?

WW* is listed as an “author” on the Encyclopedia of the Earth site (terms of use), which carries a CC-BY-SA 3.0 notice (“unless otherwise noted”) at the bottom of their pages. But serious Wikipedia editors have questioned that license's documentation for Wikipedia purposes. And in any event the EOE terms of use appears to pass through some of WW* organizational limits. I will check with EOE on the status of WW* content on their site. We may have to make some article adjustments for EOE also.

Sorry to bring this up, but those of us who put a lot of work into ecoregion articles don’t want to find it all lost in a mass deletion. The WW* and EOE do solid work and are important to the study of ecoregions. For us, the moral of the story is to respect their copyright wishes, keep our articles clean, and to diversify our reference links to more sources in the scientific community. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Recently reviewing the WWF Page

Crediting text in print & web publications

For print any reproduction, in full or in part, must credit  WWF as follows:

© [date of material] WWF (panda.org). Some rights reserved.

CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

See below -- this is not relevant for this article. KarlBB (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WWF "Bioregions" - are actually using "Ecoregion" data.

Hi all. Was just doing a source review for the citations provided for the WWF Bioregions - and noticing that all the resources listed are actually for Ecoregions, and that no link or citation has been provided to the WWF resource page.

1. Burgess, N.D.; D'Amico Hales, J.; Dinerstein, E.; et al. (2004). Terrestrial eco-regions of Africa and Madagascar: A conservation assessment. Washington DC.: Island Press [2]
2. ^ Jump up to:^{a b} Wikramanayake, Eric; Eric Dinerstein; Colby J. Loucks; et al. (2002). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: a Conservation Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press
3. ^ Ricketts, Taylor H., Eric Dinerstein, David M. Olson, Colby J. Loucks, et al. (1999). Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: a Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC., [3]
4. ^ Dinerstein, E., Olson, D. Graham, D.J. et al. (1995). A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank, Washington DC., [4]

I'm going to do some further research, and see if I can find some other additional resources for bioregions, that are clearly bioregions, rather than ecoregions.

CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WWF does not, nor have they ever, published a set of "bioregions" per se. Dinerstein, Olson, Burgess and others while at WWF published the first set of global ecoregions (level iii) in 2004 as cited above. An updated version of the ecoregions data set was published in 2017 by the same authors, but independently of WWF. Those can be found here - https://ecoregions.appspot.com/

These are copyrighted by Resolve, not by WWF, but they allow their use for non-commercial purposes. One Earth subsequently developed with the authors web articles describing each of the 844 terrestrial ecoregions. WWF currently forwards their pages to the One Earth website.

All that being said, none of this is relevant as there is a different set of pages on Wikipedia covering ecoregions. WWF is quite strict about utilizing their name, and there is not really a need to include them in this article. KarlBB (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the link for the ecoregion pages. These are organized within 185 bioregional groupings -- https://www.oneearth.org/navigator/ KarlBB (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Section Move Proposal

I propose that section 'Bioregions as a key component of bioregionalism as a general principle' be moved to the page Bioregionalism, given that this section speaks only to bioregionalism the movement, and does not discuss "bioregion" itself, save for the David Haenke definition, which could be left on the Bioregion page as part of the 'History of the term "Bioregion"' section. Twakefield (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think there is a big problem in this article in that it preferences one particular reading of the term "bioregion" in line with the school of thought called "bioregionalism". The term "bioregion" has been used widely by biologists and ecologists going back to the early 1970s to refer specifically to domains (terrestrial or aquatic) necessary for the life cycle of particular species (not humans). I've done an extensive literature review on this here -- https://medium.com/oneearth/a-brief-history-of-bioregions-and-bioregionalism-in-scholarly-literature-ea141f9f480f

The use of the term in the context of "bioregionalism" (aka ecologically oriented land use planning) came in the mid-1970s. Both are valid, but as written currently it implies only the latter meaning. KarlBB (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Significant edit of the lead section is required.

The lead section of the current article -- "A bioregion is an ecologically and geographically defined area that is smaller than a biogeographic realm, but larger than an ecoregion or an ecosystem, and is defined along watershed and hydrological boundaries. People are counted as an integral part of the definition of a bioregion." -- is incorrect or partially incorrect on three counts:

(1) While it is generally understand that bioregions are subordinate in scale to the major biogeographical realms (Nearctic, Neotropical, Palearctic, Afrotropic, Indomalay, Australasia, Oceania, Antarctica), the scale of a bioregion as defined in academic literature isn't necessarily larger than an ecoregion, as an ecoregion could be considered a type of bioregion. Bioregions cover a broad set of biogeographical frameworks of which there are many types (22 based on my literature review).

(2) Bioregions are not necessarily defined by watersheds or hydrological boundaries; this is just one method that has been used.

(3) In the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles containing the term "bioregion" human populations are not considered. The term was originally defined by E. Jarowski as a means to delimit a biological/ecological research domain for a particular plant or animal species or species assemblage (1971). It is true that A. Van Newkirk argued for the inclusion of human population dynamics in the definition of biogeographical domains (1975), but this position was not widely accepted within the academic community. However, the human-inclusive understanding of the term was rapidly adopted at the time by the emerging school of thought called Bioregionalism and within the new field of Biocultural Anthropology, and this understanding is certainly valid in those contexts.

A reading of the five major dictionaries backs up these points and provide a more general (and more accurate) definition of the word Bioregion:

• Merriam-Webster: “a region whose limits are naturally defined by topographic and biological features (such as mountain ranges and ecosystems)”
• Dictionary.com: “An area constituting a natural ecological community with characteristic flora, fauna, and environmental conditions and bounded by natural rather than artificial borders”
• Cambridge: “A region that has a particular type of natural environment and natural features. It is sometimes defined as smaller than an ecozone but larger than an ecoregion”
• Collins: “a natural ecological community in which the biodiversity and ecosystem are distinct”
• Oxford Reference: “a territory defined by ecological systems (such as drainage basins or ecosystems), rather than by political or administrative units... an area of relatively homogeneous ecological characteristics”

I propose for the lead section, that the definition be presented in alignment with this broader understanding of the term, while also acknowledging that the term has been used in the context of Bioregionalism and Biocultural Anthropology. KarlBB (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I developed a new lead section with citations. KarlBB (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

New section needed on the etymology of the term 'Bioregion'

The section entitled "History of the term 'Bioregion'" only focuses on the use of the term in the context of bioregionalism, which is only one field of use. It doesn't even mention the use in academic fields such as Ecology and Biology. A more complete and accurate etymology section is required, as there are many overlapping and even contradictory uses of the term in different disciplines. I did a very extensive literature review that goes into the history. - https://medium.com/oneearth/a-brief-history-of-bioregions-and-bioregionalism-in-scholarly-literature-ea141f9f480f

In particular, the statement that Van Newkirk invented the term is incorrect. Several other scientists used the term earlier than the 1975 citation provided. KarlBB (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This section now explains into the history of 'Bioregions' in the context of Life Sciences w/ citations. KarlBB (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

See my bottom note - but I agree with what you propose - and went ahead and made a : "Earliest Uses of Bioregion" section, starting with the 1971 academic use - then going on to Allen Van Newkirk (clarifying coined the term in the framework of bioregionalism) then back to the IUCN use that you had listed. I also then list the Raymond Dasmann response to that usage (original author of biotic provinces, creator of the Man and Biosphere project)

Lastly, not a big deal, but just will note that Newkirk was publishing zines (not academic) - as early as 1969, and 1970's, which is documented. Peter Berg learned the term Bioregion from him in 1971 when Judy and Peter were staying with him before he left for the UN Global Summit in 1972 (where he also met Raymond DasMann who helped organize the first ever UN conference on human caused climate change..!). Not a big deal - but this was all well before Peter Berg would go on to found Planet Drum (and talking of bioregions in 1973) and Newkirk would publish his paper in 1975.

It's a cool connection - and shows the lineage of how the term was picked up in bioregional thought. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Bioregionalism section is too long and contains inaccuracies

There are two large sections covering various aspects of the use of 'Bioregions' in the context of bioregionalism. I renamed these in accordance with Wikipedia style guide (short titles)! These sections currently violate the Wikipedia style guide with large block quotes in the style of an editorial or essay. This needs to be fixed by the author. A short portion of a cited quote is allowed but not entire paragraphs.

There are also a lot of misleading statements that need to be corrected or contextualized, including:

"A bioregion is defined along watershed and hydrological boundaries" (needs context, e.g. "In bioregionalism, a bioregion is defined along watershed.."

"a bioregion will always maintain the natural continuity and full extent of a watershed" (This again needs context; this is one particular perspective that is used by groups in the Pacific Northwest but there is no edict that says a bioregion must be formed this way. Take for example the "Zuni bioregion" in New Mexico).

This statement is confusing.. "There is also an attempt to use the term in a rank-less generalist sense, similar to the terms "biogeographic area" or "biogeographic unit". How does this relate to watersheds?

General observation: This really reads as a history of bioregionalism as led by a handful of men. Major facets of the bioregionalism movement are left out here, including components of ecofeminism, foodsheds, etc. So it's probably best to move all the history of bioregionalism content to the page on Bioregionalism. Also it needs to be condensed. It rambles and several of the points are made twice. This page is about the use and definition of the word "bioregion" in the bioregionalist context.

KarlBB (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

These would be excellent sources to add in, and I'd be happy to take some time building in elements of ecofeminism, spirituality, foodsheds etc as I'm able to find them in archival materials - and as referenced in magazines/journals.

I agree however this all fits much better in Bioregionalism, rather than the Bioregion article.

"There is also an attempt to use the term in a rank-less generalist sense, similar to the terms "biogeographic area" or "biogeographic unit". - agree! think you posted a much better description in the new intro. I went ahead and removed this sentence - as it also didn't make any sense in the bioregionalism area.

Please do feel free to add these contexts in! as that would really help strengthen the bioregionalism article as well, which was also basically a stub. I just haven't had time yet - and was trying to really focus on doing a review of definitions of bioregions in context, which was tricky and probably not needed. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Highlighted types and examples

Underneath the Science section I added short summaries of the two leading bioregion typologies. Others can add more. Also, I think it's great to have the Cascadia example under the Bioregionalism section. It would be great if there were a couple other examples from other parts of the world for diversity's sake. KarlBB (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot use opinion pieces on a website as a citation

Wikipedia has clear guidelines about the types of citations that can be used. Someone added a citation to a recent web post in the lead section with a particular sociocultural definition of "bioregion" that is not widely held in academic literature. None of the leading encyclopedias or dictionaries include a reference to "human culture" as a means to define a bioregion. In the sentence below it is referenced that the term is used in bioregionalism in a different manner, but that would need an academic citation . 141.158.36.28 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick look at JSTOR shows hundreds of articles, books, journals etc, that include "human culture". There are also many news articles and magazines in popular circulation which do the same. As online dictionaries and encyclopedias scrape the internet and are always evolving their definitions, while acceptable, this isn't a great base line in Wikipedia to use for accepting or rejecting something.

I appreciate the feedback on the articles though - and recommendations. Let me do some research, and I'll provide some clear academic sources to include to highlight this point as part of the introduction (in the sense of it being an and/or).

All the best,

CWM CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I added: "...human culture and ways of living within a place or topographic features such as watersheds." to the end of the first sentence, and adjusted it to read that it could be any one (or combination of) these features. Found several nice sources talking to this using JSTOR. Happy to include other sources, but I think this speaks to the representative nature of bioregions in both life sciences and bioregionalism without trying to make it an either/or debate.

Let me know if that looks OK or if there are still other concerns I should address - or more (higher quality references) needed. I'll be going through using the JSTOR to help upgrade other low quality references as well. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Violation of Neutral Viewpoint and COI

From a cursory glance, it seems like there is a slew of current edits by (user: KarlBB) who seems to not be maintaining a Neutral Viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Light research also indicates that there may be a conflict of interest with the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

It seems valid references are being removed, and that many of the sources being added are low-quality, and conventional research or a consultation with a librarian is likely to identify much better sources on the topic. Here is an OpenAlex report. https://openalex.org/works?page=1&filter=default.search%3Abioregion

user: KarlBB please review Wikipedia stance on Neutral Point of View and editing policies. Please also review the Conflict of Interest policies.

Poor sources like dictionary citations should be removed, and all content being added which lacks a citation. In addition, a review of material being added should be conducted, as well as what content has been removed. Material being removed should be removed for a lack of high quality references, not because you are promoting a different viewpoint or disagree with the content.

Continuing to add low quality sources, removing high quality references, and not maintaining a neutral point of View when editing articles can lead to content being removed.

HappyCowboy101 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

May want to re-order and clean up sections a bit

Looking at the article and the recent changes, it appears that some sections might benefit from reordering or even removal. It appears like the old Wikipedia content was simply pushed down, with new material added at the top. I would suggest merging the two introductory sections, then consider moving the "Bioregion in Life Sciences" section to a position near the "Biogeography" section, as they seem to complement each other. Additionally, some parts of the article seem overly specific and heavily based on primary sources from various academic papers. I'd also recommend removing the "Ecoregions" section since it already has its own page and is quite long, dense, and not directly relevant to the main topic. The "Typology" section could also be removed for similar reasons. Gillyweedcoombane (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything but I did move the three sections down a bit. I'll wait to hear from others about whether the ecoregion section and typology section should be removed. Gillyweedcoombane (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks OK but I would add that I think a better introduction might be in order that could "merge" the different strands so it talks about the same thing. Also maybe a "First uses" that could include both of the bioregionalism use and life sciences. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to begin cleaning up the sections. I am going to move the Ecoregions and Global Typology section to the main Ecoregions Wikipedia page, as both of these specifically focus on Ecoregions and seem like they belong there.

There is also quite a bit of unsourced and unverified material which I'm going to start removing. Feel free to put it back with proper citations, or citations which are actually relevant for the bioregions article. Gillyweedcoombane (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope it's okay, but I undeleted the Ecoregions section, as I think this is an important link with bioregions. I did go through and try to add more citations, and links to how ecoregions are relevant for bioregions.

Happy though to follow what others feel is best. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding an "Earliest Uses of Bioregion"

I think this will be helpful, but I'm going to add an earliest uses of the term Bioregion section that can include content from both the life science and bioregionalism areas. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. Added a section right after the introduction for earliest uses of the term bioregion, which includes both the life sciences and bioregionalism components, hopefully wedding the two a bit more. I also pulled the quote up from Raymond DasMann about how he viewed his work with Biotic Provinces, and that of Miklos Uvardy with Biogeographic Provinces, and their first map as necessarily different than bioregions, which he felt needed to include human cultures. Lastly, I deleted the Bioregions in Applied Human Biogeography section title, and merged it with the bioregionalism section - as they basically seemed to be the same and the title section didn't make a lot of sense on it's own. CascadiaWikimedian (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)