This web source is all about farm and ranch. Everything from markets to laws to alerts. Wolves are an important thing to this website and it's users. Its easy to say they could be bias towards anything ranch and against wolves, but this article was very factual and pretty objective considering the forum.

More excellent research most likely carried out from behind a desk somewhere or at least skewed to cover what wolves really are, very curious and quick learning animals. Just because you don't see that wolf anymore doesn't mean its gone.

Heather Smith Thomas. "Western Ranchers Fight The Curse Of Introduced Wolves". September 10, 2010. Web. March 6 2016. <beefmagazine.com>

Using pathos to grab sympathy and support from reader(s) that are pro-wolves.

Using logos and ethos to bring about a solution.

This is a massacre, no matter how anyone puts it. Almost genocide

Appropriate concerns, especially considering Wyoming's methods for dealing with wolves.

Singer is not a scholarly source but a popular reliable source. This is not a scientific article.

Fancy way in saying Wyoming civilians and hunters were treating wolves inappropriately and inhumanely.

Singer is showing what side he is on. He clearly does not agree to the treatment the Gray Wolf has endured in Wyoming. He is using ethos and pathos equally to gain sympathy by the harsh level of treatment.

Introduction shows Singer's argument for how Wyoming wolf plans are not appropriate.

Singer, Reid. "Wyoming Wolves Back on Endangered Species List." Outside Online. Outside Magazine, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

I do believe, to a certain extent, that wolves do not need as much protection as they once had. Wolf conservation programs and organizations have done so much over the past decades to ensure their survival. However, that does not mean I am trustful of states to be able to properly and legally regulate appropriate wolf hunting.

Morell gives the reader(s) many facts and quotes from reliable sources to let them think of their own opinions themselves. Without giving any bias, Morell's credibility skyrockets, in my book, because she doesn't give any "hints" or suggestions to the reader(s) to either side.

A quote directly states how the removal of wolves could be detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole.

Morell is giving logos and ethos. I am still not sure of her claim. Her article doesn't seem to have one. She gives no clues on whether or not she supports wolves or not. She is just stating facts.

Morrell is very nonbiased in this article. Throughout the paper, she gives no hints on whether she is biased or not. From her previous articles however, you see a trend of all her works being about animals.

Author gives first hint to the argument, though the claim is not too clear. Though the title is very open and non-bias.

This shows Morell's argument of the back-and-forth war of wolf conservation.

Recent updates and publications. The credibility and reliability of the site is a scholarly source.

Morell, Virginia. "Judge Returns Great Lakes Wolves to Endangered Species List." Science, AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2016.

I also agree with this quote, which shows a possible compromise: Wyoming's plans be changed to be similar to Idaho and Montana while a regulation of wolf hunting is required.

Wyoming's wolves are constantly in danger with the aforementioned "shoot on sight" policy, whether the animal is just wandering or actually taking livestock. With this policy, any hunter or farmer, or civilian, would all go on an endless wolf hunting spree, rapidly decreasing the wolf population and setting the wolf conservation back to its original position (endangered species to possibly extinction).

This is typically true. Overpopulation of wolves need to be taken care of; there will be no prey species left and environmental problems could occur. Issues such as, forest (plus other nature-based species), prey and predator species' would deteriorate.

I agree with this decision by the FWS because Wyoming does not have a good, ethical, and (population-wise) humane way in dealing with their wolves. Unrestricted killing would place the grey wolves back on the ESL and the whole cycle would start again.

The author is giving another inside perspective of a state's possible solution to sate every side.

Now the author is giving solutions to the reader(s) to show that something is being done and using pathos.

The author is using a quote to use ethos from an inside perspective of the FWS. The author is showing the side where grey wolves do not need to be on the ESL any longer from the FWS and communities' efforts to reestablish wolf populations in the area.

The author gives statistical facts so the reader can piece their own opinions.

Hints back to the claim

The author shows the other side of the argument without giving their own insight yet.

The author is giving background information and increases credibility with it presented. The information is given without the author being biased yet.

The author is showing one side of the argument, that FWS is not allowed to make decisions of that caliber.

This is the article's argument and claim: to discuss FWS's decision on what states were allowed to have grey wolves on and off the ESL.

Important source and increases credibility and reliability because of Molloy's power as a judge for the United States.

"Wildlife Management Institute." Wildlife Management Institute. Wildlife Management Institute. Web. 06 Mar. 2016. http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content.

This gives this article and website credibility for the information and articles they write to the public. It is a popular scholarly source.

This author (the name nor publication date is not posted) is giving a title that is neither supporting wolves on the ESL nor are they against it. They show no bias. However, considering the website (I could not highlight the website title "Wildlife Management Institute", otherwise this part of the post would have been separate), this author must be a pro-wolf supporter.

Then because we can't be responsible as a whole society, we think laws and regulations will help. So we take away human rights and choices from those that may be working hard to make everything work. The point is it doesn't matter it takes away all choice and therefore, responsibility. Then it creates resentment, not towards those who make these flawed laws and regulations, but towards the animal or habitat its supposed to protect. It all boils down to educating people and fixing our humanities lack or responsibility.

This should stir something up in everyone. This is the problem... there are so many of us that we are encroaching massively on animal territory. Poisoning a water hole to keep elephants form damaging crops? There are enough humans to build a fence or chase them off if they come in, poisoning is absolutely ridiculous, lazy and unnecessary. We have enough people to have our own living and work around other animals. If a tiger is eating your sheep you can raise dogs or stay with them to protect them yourself. People just want the easy way like we used to strive for but now that we have it we can work a little harder of spend a bit more time so everything can make it together. When people are lazy and take the easy was the animals are the ones that suffer.

This is the main fact driving Anika's thought. She is not worried about the individual killings but about species wide. The problem is most species can't adapt and evolve as fast as we as humans can destroy it. Humans are destroying habitat for their own or for possessions.

The audience for this article is not one purely of human rights or animal rights but more of a hybrid of the two. It is for people that can see everything is connected and you can't just fix one thing and be fine you have to help the whole system to achieve success.

For me the title struck me because it hit on what I was looking for. I think is is still well done though, it askes a question that ques people up to talk and is not just a yes or no answer.

The claim of the author is that our expansion into the animal kingdom because of our needs is very dangerous for and affecting all animals adversely. I happen to believe this, we used to had plenty of space and that space was shared with animals but now there are so many of us that our sprawl is crowding animals and each other.<br> The world tends to like a balance, so when we get to overpopulated something will happen, plague, war, famine. It might already be too late for some species at that point or it may be the cause.

Anika Mohammed is a Doctors Without Borders member and a keen supported of animal rights. She gets to see first hand a lot of the issues caused by human overpopulation, unclean water, living quality, starvation, etc. As much as she cares for humanity she knows there are other living things in this world too. Some that may need help as much or more then humans.

This website is for the animal enthusiast to put it lightly. They veiw everyone as equals, humans and animals. So this article is going to be a bit bias by making everything equal. With the slogan "Transending Speciesism Since October 2008" you kind of get the hint, but at least they don't try and hide it.

Anika Mohammed. "Human Overpopulation as an Animal Rights Issue". November 26 2013. Web. March 5 2016. <animalblawg.wordpress.com>

This one seals the deal on extremely complicated. It also nails my question square on the head... When is an animals life more important then a humans. These aren't poachers that leave all the meat and take the tusks of a mother with child. No these are humans excercising their primal instincts to survive and provide for their families. Nature does, the Elephants and Rhinos are, the strong have survived and passed on their knowledge. Humans don't need this quality anymore, we are very safe and have an easy life. The only problem with us is us. Now these people have to poach an animal doing its job in this world because they have either been wronged by other humans or were not responsible enough to understand that you have to take care of yourself and the world before you can take care of a family. Our human traits of greed and irresponsibility have led to the near extinction of these animals. Luckly good people remain to try and help but we are being bread out and soon man will start to devolve if we haven't already.

the author may not really know much about this topic but Asgar Pathan does, he lives it everyday. He is a subject expert. You could crunch numbers and look at political issues and black markets and everything else surrounding this topic and make it some boring article passed by by many or let someone who is so in-tune with the topic his life literally depends on it.

This style borderlines on 100% credibility. The only option being if Ranger Pathan was a huge lier, but even though everything in his story is crazy it is told with a calm legitimacy that I personally believe.

This website CRACKED is definitely a popular site resource. It is full of a lot of gossip and forums. Its geared toward people with opinions and people that like to express those opinions.

I am sure the author had a certain view going into his interview with Ranger Pathan, you can tell by his words and his claim that everything is completely insane, more then you can imagine. That is basically all he is doing, shedding light on something that is so complicated and convoluted. Even more then the author could handle i believe. Most of the article is just quotes of Ranger Pathan. This means either the author is terrible at writing and has no thoughts or is so blown away with such a story the only thing that can do it justice is to let the story teller tell it, this is the latter.

Evan V. Symon & Asgar Pathan. "5 Ways Saving Wildlife Has Turned Into All-Out Warfare" June 23 2014. Web. March 5 2016 <www.cracked.com>

This is a very good conclusion for this article. It give science backed facts that support the idea of Rhino horn use in medicine, but explains it is not relevant or practical, even if its true.

The last sentence ends it with the perfect amount of tone and truth. Chewing on you fingernails would be the same dose and affect of being prescribed Rhino horn.

"Rhino Horn Use: Fact vs. Fiction" PBS. August 20 2010. Web. March 5 2016. <www.pbs.org>

WWF or World Wildlife Fund, not to be confused with the one with oiled up wrestlers and bad acting, has been around for 20+ years. They are an international organization the fights for the protection of animal species and habitat. They are deeply invested in the rainforest but now have branches in all parts or the world.

"African Rhinos" WWF. web. March 5 2016. <wwf.panda.org>

This link leads to a page with a bit stronger tone on the topic of poaching.

I cannot verify these facts. They are listed to promote sympathy and action from the audience. I'll i know is the math is correct.

Here the other specific stake holder is addressed. The Asian culture is the main consumer of Rhino horns. The claims of the horn's powers are the main driver. Claims range from sexual prowess to curing cancer to status symbols. All in all bad if you are a Rhino.

If a Rhino horn really did cure cancer would it be fair to harvest then? If you or someone you loved had cancer, wouldn't you try anything to fix it?

This appeals to all, Animal activists, global activists, econimists and humanitarians. Everything has a part to play in life. If the world loses one part it affects the rest of the world, sometimes in ways we never even though possible. Its almost always negative.

European settlers have made a habit out of this. The author includes this not only as a historical reference but knows it should ring a bell with all Americans that have ever heard the story of the American West. We almost drove the American Bison to extinction for their hides. They numbered over 150 million in number and before regulations were put in place declined to only thousands.<br> History will repeat it's self if given the chance.

The claim is simple, we (the organization) are winning but the fight is not over yet and the audience's help is required. The audience appeal is to people concerned with the world's balance and animal lovers... hopefully ones with deep pockets.

The authors claim that Zika virus leads to not only microcephaly, but also Hydrops fetalis which occurs when abnormal amounts of fluid build up in two or more body areas of a fetus or newborn.

The authors are forecasting that Zika virus will bring about large numbers of abortions and stillbirths in infected pregnant women across the Americas and Caribbean. The authors stand neuter about the abortion issue.

The authors acknowledge their research have a problem which is difficult to generalize from a single example. The purpose of the investigation aims at raising public awareness about the risk of Zika virus to fetal.

This sentence indicates that abnormal fetus infected Zika virus can identify after 18 weeks gestation. Abortion at this point in a pregnancy is rare and hard to come by. Therefore, it makes more difficult to have abortion.

That is why Zika virus is dangerous to pregnant women because they are hard to notice whether they are infected or not.

In its final analysis, the authors state a hypothesis that Zika virus could lead to hydrops fetalis and fetal demise by using a research.

This is the major core content in the Scholarly Journal that finds the connection between Zika and microcephaly based on a case study from a Brazil Woman. While reading article, the audience can easily find difference between Popular Articles and Scholarly article. It is written by researchers and scholars from various medical institution, generally uses scholarly language such as ZIKV(zika virus), Hydrops, and Hydranencephaly. Also, it includes full citations on the bottom of article. Therefore, it is more difficult to appeal to the general public than Popular Article, but it includes accurate evidences which are actual ultrasound views and gives an exact definition about Zika virus by developing logos.

The authors attached four abnormal fetal ultrasound views in the article, so it gain credibility from the audience by using the viewable evidences. Also, it can help the audience better understand their main hypothesis.

Zika virus have been reported with the increase in microcephaly more than 4,500 cases. Therefore, it is highly possible with the connection between Zika and microcephaly.

The authors emphasize that Zika virus is not only problem of Brazil, but also entire Americas.

The authors suggest their theory and point out that Zika virus is a devastating disease to fetus because it can lead to fetal demise.

This is background of the scholarly journal that Zika virus and microcephaly would have some connection.

The authors report a case of a 20-year-old woman who was referred to their service after Zika virus outbreak. An induced labor was performed at the 32 weeks due to fetal demise. The authors formulate a hypothesis that Zika virus infection may have relevance to stillbirths. Although it has some persuasive points, their delivery could have been effective by developing more evidences. They commit the logical fallacy called sweeping generalization. It is nonsense to generalize to use just one case of stillbirth. To gain credibility, they need to find more examples about the case.

Most of the audience already acknowledge a correlation between Zika virus and Microcephaly. The authors calculate that Zika virus may result in other possible harmful effects on fetus.

The total population in Brazil was recorded at 204.5 million people in 2015. In my opinion, the whole number of people for the survey is too small to generalize as the most of nations’ views. The survey reflect only one out of hundred-thousandth of the entire population of Brazil.

The research depends on the authority of the Brazilian Social Research Survey (BSRS) to gain credibility from the audience.

The authors state why they write this scholar journal. It has a scholarly significance to perform the first research which explores the association between religion and abortion attitudes among the Brazilian population.

Although Catholic Church’s official dictum is strongly against abortion, the authors suggest that the Catholic laity’s opinion may different from it. It can lead the further research.

The authors present a hypothesis that role of religious factors is related to the abortion attitude in Brazil. There are no published research that reveals the link between religion and public policy in Brazil up to now. Therefore, the authors give the United States’ research result to gain credibility from the audience. However, Brazil has different socioeconomic situation such as the per capita national income, gross domestic product (GDP), or a political posture from the U.S. In my opinion, the authors committee the logical fallacy. It is nonsense to apply the study in Brazil which has different circumstances from the U.S.

Catholic leaders still cling to their position strictly that no abortion or contraception for Zika virus.

This sentence regards Brazil as one of the country which has a great influence of religion. Every policy should consider religious groups’ opinions.

These statistics is shocking that 25% of Brazilian women had received at least one abortion. The unproven process of illegal abortion can potentially make a negative effect on female health outcome. The situation will be exacerbated due to Zika virus. The Brazil government should prepare several measures before it is too late.

It shows that Brazil has hostile condition to get an accurate rate about receiving illegal abortion because the women who report abortions receive the fear of social and legal sanctions.

Historically, the abortion have been prohibited for 76 years in Brazil. The citizens have already recognized that abortion is illegal and they accept the reality and adapt themselves. That is why it is hard to change the abortion law although unsafe illegal abortions in Brazil are widespread and pose a significant health risk for women. However, Zika virus outbreak has prompted quite a commotion in public, so it may affect to revise the abortion law completely.

Dilma Rousseff is the first female elected president in Brazil. Although she was heavily popular with the public, she faced tough competition due to her position on favoring the legalization of abortion. This episode illustrates that the abortion is not only women’s rights problems but also a divisive cultural issue with moral and religious dimensions.

The audience can foresee the situation that a discussion on abortion and its policy in Brazil will be heated by a dramatic rise of Zika virus.

The authors formulate a hypothesis that Pentecostals and Catholics tends to the strongest opposition against the practice of abortion and its legalization.

The medical students who do not have any religion tend to support the abortion for any occasion. The audience can recognize that the religious conviction is related to a controversial issue such as abortion.

The medical students is younger generation than the civil servants. The research reveals that the rising generation has more flexible and acceptable opinion about the abortion than middle-aged people.

The authors amplify who the subject of the survey is and what kind of methods they used, so it can gain the credibility from the audience. However, it is difficult to generalize as all nations’ opinions because the authors choose only two groups to conduct their survey.

This is the purpose of the article. The authors maintain a neutral stance about an abortion issue in the whole article.

The Penal Code about abortion is still under review and it has become a hot issue while Zika virus is spreading quickly in Brazil. Although many people advocate women’s sexual and reproductive right, religion has much influence in changing the law in Brzail. Therefore, it will be difficult to amend the current abortion law.

In my opinion, Brazil government should provide the proper education of contraceptives to public before they strictly ban abortion in law. Effective birth control methods can reduce the illegal abortion rate from unwanted pregnancies.

This is interesting because it breaks a common notion that the country which restricts abortion would have fewer abortions than people who are living in liberal laws. The author claims that abortion rates is related to women’s access to and use of effective contraceptive methods. The audience realizes the importance of education which is the correct use of contraceptives.

A religious belief in one society have a significant impact on the law.

Looking through the sentence shows that a country with very restrictive abortion laws considers abortion as crime. Most of those countries are strict Catholic nations. The Vatican’s teaching on abortion is clear: It is a sin.

The authors raise a problem about the unsafe abortions. Although the total number of abortions declined around the globe, the unsafe abortions subsequently increased. They claims that it virtually escalates the overall abortions rates. The poor women with unwanted pregnancy go unlicensed practitioners and it causes a greater health hazards such as anemia, cervical trauma, and even death.

In fact, the abortion law in Brazil has not been changed.

This article is based on surveys and opinion polls. The majority of respondents are against the current Brazilian law that women who had had an abortion should be punished with prison. In my opinion, the present legislation about abortion in Brazil is very strict and it needs to be revised under the extreme conditions of Zika virus and microcephaly.

Although Latin America has very restrictive abortion law, unsafe abortion was common. Now, Zika virus has emerged as a serious social problem, so the audience can anticipate the current situation of Latin America that dangerous abortions would increase more than before.

At the end of the article, the author makes the audience think themselves what an ethical behavior is in the fiercely urgent situation about Zika virus.

The author concurs with Garland-Thomson’s argument that ability-selective abortion is unethical because it is a kind of set of discriminatory attitudes and practices against disabled people. Also, she claims that it should be a very deliberative process about considering their choices to terminate a pregnancy for anti-abortion movement.

These are a series of tweets written by Nicole Cliffe who is the editor of The Toast and the mother of a special needs child. I can read her feeling of frustration about raising a child with a complex impairment. In my opinion, the government cannot force women to bring children with disabilities without enough financial aid, education, and services.

The author claims that social welfare system for the handicapped should promote to establish a society which treasures life and does not throw it away simply because of fetal abnormalities.

This sentence shows one of the most awkward and uncomfortable truth in our society. No parents are prepared or would want to have a disabled child.

The author criticizes sharply against abortion rights advocates. They have bias against the disabled that their quality of life would be lower than the non-disabled.

The author states with the authority of Rosemarie Garland-Thomson who is a professor of English at Emory University and a pioneer of the discipline of disability studies. Disabilities’ reproductive coercion in historical event arouses the audience’s sympathy by using pathos. Her delivery is effective because she make an emotional appeal to emphasize the right of the disabled.

In the outbreak of Zika virus, the author raises a problem about an upcoming clash between the abortion rights and the disability rights. She claims that rights of disabilities to exist should be respected and should not be violated by the rights of a woman to have abortion.

The author brings up a subject that Zika virus and abortion is not just Latin America issue, but also the United States. This sentences are coded criticisms against the U.S government which has been silent on Zika virus issue.

The author exemplifies one country in Latin America how El Salvador takes emergency steps to deal with Zika virus. The government of El Salvador suggest women to delay their pregnancy until 2018. In my opinion, they show an irresponsible attitude about the current state of affairs. They should provide necessary information, education, and contraceptives for their nation to avoid pregnancy.

The title of the article stimulates audience’s curiosity how Zika virus leads to collision course between abortion right and disability right.

Latin America which has a serious medical problem due to Zika virus and the United States are geographically close. The author predicts that Zika virus will make hundreds or thousands of fetus with microcephaly in the U.S when mosquito seasons arrive. Also, she states that Zika virus will arouse controversy about abortion right because abortion laws vary in each state.

The author gives directly her argument that women should manage not only contraceptives, but also abortion. She claims that abortion is a right.

It shows poor women’s reality in Brazil that they have little opportunity to get a birth defect examination whether their fetus is infected by Zika virus or not in public health clinics. The author urges the government to provide financial support and social medical services for the poor women.

In this sentence, the author premises her main argument that women need to be given the power to have safe and legal abortion.

Although abortion is illegal in Brazil, wealthy woman can have an abortion in protected and safe conditions. It is a striking contrast from women in poverty who does not have enough money to get a secure abortion. The audience reconfirm the true picture of Brazil’s severe social inequality phenomenon.

The author claims that Brazil prohibits abortion in law, but 25% of Brazilian women had received an abortion at least one time in illegal and dangerous conditions. Though she has some persuasive points, her delivery could have been more effective by suggesting accurate evidences. She bases her argument on a national survey, but she does not state what exact name of the survey is or how many participants were enrolled in. Her lack of evidence discredits her claim and it cannot satisfy the needs of her audience who want to an accurate information about Brazil. Therefore, the author should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos.

The author presents a problem that Brazil government’s action against Zika virus. She criticizes their short-range policy which urges women not to fall pregnant without providing any education or information about birth control methods.

Brazil is one of the countries which have worst gap between the rich and the poor in the world. The author claims that Zika virus is a key indicator about social inequality of Brazil. Young, poor, black and brown women who live close to slum area are exposed to great danger of Zika. Also, they have fewer opportunities to access to sexual and reproductive health care. It is heart-breaking to me that the women who live in underprivileged backgrounds are also troubled with the epidemic. Brazil government should prepare measures not only focus on focuses on Zika, but also resolve social inequality in a long-term policy.

It is a very interesting fact that the affluent area in Brazil is perfectly safe from Zika virus, but the author does not give any evidence about it. It lacks of audience appeals and she should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos. She just relies on her ethos at this point. Although the topic is Zika virus and Brazilian women’s right to choose, she has the Brazil Olympics 2016 in mind and indirectly promotes that Brasilia which is the capital of Brazil is not dangerous at all.

What authority the author speaks is her ethos. She can observe current Zika virus problem in the immediate vicinity, Brazil. So, she looks deeper into the problem with a different perspective than other authors. The audience may think her article is more credible than others because of her nationality, Brazilian.

In my opinion, I find this to be a good audience appeal. Although, some might say this information discredits the ethos of the study, I believe it helps in showing that more information is needed to find out clearer results. The authors establish ethos by showing that this subject needs more study to further understand its results. The fact that they want to further their research and keep looking into the subject is great and shows their true interest in the subject.

Interesting perspective. Although people might engage in conversation about climate change the real debate needs to be on policy implementation to help change the problem, not on the problem itself.

Shreck, Brian, and Arnold Vedlitz. "The Public And Its Climate: Exploring The Relationship Between Public Discourse And Opinion On Global Warming." Society & Natural Resources 29.5 (2016): 509-524. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.

Within Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, Shreck and Vedlitz claim that there appears to be a positive association between people engaging in conversation about climate change and the strong belief that climate change actually exists. They go on to further state that this conversation about climate change is occurring on both sides of the debate spectrum, which later will force both sides to address the issue.

Brian Shreck is a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and the National Wind Institute. He focuses his area of study specifically on wind energy and public policy. I see him as being highly qualified as he is at Texas Tech University as a Postdoctoral Research Scholar. He obviously has credibility on the subject of climate change and how it is being addressed throughout society. http://perg-tamu.com/people/brian-shreck

Furthermore, Shreck's co author Arnold Vedlitz is obviously just as qualified as him, as he is "holder of the Bob Bullock Chair in Government and Public Policy and director of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (ISTPP) in the Bush School of Government and Public Service". He has done a lot throughout his career pertaining to the environment which only adds to his credibility. http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/avedlitz/

This point is a good way to increase credibility as the authors are addressing that people should listen to and welcome refutations of the arguments. Therefore, every aspect of the argument is addressed.

I would be interested in seeing the survey. I want to know if the same size was large enough to constitute the results of the survey. Who received the survey? Are the questions potentially biased?

This is an interesting point. Because very little people are engaging in conversation about climate change currently, would increasing talk about climate change only cause more polarization on the subject or bring a new light to the subject?

Here is what "they" are saying. Shreck and Vedlitz are saying that in order for this issue to be truly understood it needs to be looked at two ways. First, is that people need to have an open-mind. One must consider the other sides perspectives and stay impressionable to the argument being made. Second, people need to realize that in order to engage in deliberative democratic theory they must have an active, engaged, and knowledgeable political entity that will consider all ideas equally and will reconsider its existing ideas in the face of new evidence or arguments.Because of this, they will be exposed to new information and ideas which will either help deepen their initial position or help sway them in the opposite direction.

Subtle argument about the mix of privacy and publicness in notetaking: even when the notes themselves are private, the habit of notetaking, the mode of notetaking, the kinds of things that get notated, are part of a deeply social process of education and acculturation.

This source might help me going forward with research because it is showing me how one thing can effect everything. It is a chain of both societal and environmental impacts. I should research the effects on each chain if climate change continues to be a big problem.

This is a global solution. It helps to see how solutions to the problems with effect a global audience rather than just a local one. This helps to show the big picture for Meng' s work.

I would be interested in researching other solutions that could be used to reach a more global audience as well.

This is also an audience appeal as he is showing how Meng's innovations are universally helpful. He is working to better the world, not just a specific nation.

Ruan, Dylan. "The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues." Santa Barbara Independent 1 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web.

Ruan claims that UCSB's Kyle Meng is focusing on creating a future where "climate change is battled with market-based solutions". Moreover, that climate change can be addressed using environmental economics.

By showing a possible solution to the problem, Ruan establishes early on the credibility in Meng's work. His solution is backed by his vast understanding of economics as he explains to the audience how it would benefit society to put a price of pollution. In doing this, reduction of activity would occur, in turn causing carbon emissions to become reduced.

This is what "they" are saying. Ruan is articulating Meng's philosophy to the audience. Meng, who is well versed in economics and the environment, specifically climate change and market-based solutions, is showing how we can use the market to help fix the environment. Meng addresses primarily two ways economics can be used to bring communities together to reduce emissions. He also addresses environmental effects like El Nino that can have dramatic repercussions if not properly analyzed and helped.

Another example to help establish credibility falls within Meng's research of a past climate change event, El Nino. Most of the time to better gain understanding of a particular problem and its solutions, a person should look at the past to address what worked and what didn't. This will save both time and money and help in deciding future actions of climate change.

I would be interested in further researching potential conflicts between tropical nations. How prevalent has this issue been and has it ended up causing big conflicts in the past?

I'd be interested to drill down here. Is there a difference between page bottom comments and those made inline? Is there a difference between making such comments in personal notes/private groups/public?...

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.

Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.

Nice job of getting some refutations out there early on. This helps establish ethos in that Friedersdorf appears to be self-aware, although, as I pointed out in an earlier annotation, he is not entirely self-aware because he ignores his own point that there is usually some grain of truth in criticisms about white reporter privilege.

I agree with this point, and it's something I need to do further research on. After reading the article in full, I don't think Friedersdorf acknowledges what Koneig could learn from her critics. Instead, he focuses on undermining Kang's concerns about Serial. In my opinion, the takeaway for Koenig is to be more mindful of race and culture in her reporting, and to be sure to refer to credible authorities when she may not fully understand.

Friedersdorf tries to establish credibility right away by acknowledging the value in Kang's concerns.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. "Conor Friedersdorf"

The Atlantic is a well-known magazine (a reliable popular source) known as "high quality review with a moderate worldview."

One of the oldest and most respected of American reviews, The Atlantic Monthly was founded in 1857 by Moses Dresser Phillips and Francis H. Underwood. It has long been noted for the quality of its fiction and general articles, contributed by a long line of distinguished editors and authors.

Here Friedersdorf gets to what's at stake in the big picture: according to Friedersdorf, it's important that people's stories are told. The truth needs to be out there, and it's dangerous to make reporters feel scared to tell someone else's story.

Good questions here. I don't know where I stand on the issue and need to do further research. Just because This American Life is doing a better job than some news outlets doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for its failings.

Nice refutation here. Friedersdorf acknowledges that there is a wider problem with white reporter privilege, just not as much in this case.

It's a good idea to accept Kang's speculation even after disproving it because it shows that Friedersdorf is unbiased and truly taking Kang's opinion into account.

This is useful to see how someone calls an author out for a logical fallacy. It undermines Kang's ethos, the "they" to whom Friedersdorf is responding.

Just got to think about our roles, in view of annotation. Using “curation” as a term for collecting URLs sounds like usurping the title of “curator”. But there’s something to be said about the role involved. From the whole “guide on the side” angle to the issue with finding appropriate resources based on a wealth of expertise.

Il faut le rendre disponible en CC non ? La thèse est une démonstration de faisabilité en soi. Pourquoi ne pas lui donner une chance de survivre?

The Welcome Page. The Man behind the scene's has been truly welcoming. Test 1 Test 2

So my consideration here is to go between an annotation structure such as this and a mind-map structure(initially until I regard other infographic materiaux making) such as mindmup.com.

Wish [h] had a similar feature. And that NB supported #OpenAnnotation.

Sounds like something interesting for Dr. Jeremy Dean.

Dang right. Sometimes, it gets crowded, but it is always interesting ...

While technology doesn't solve everything, I firmly believe it has a critical role to play in fixing our politics. Better and easier ways for citizens to hold their government accountable, engage with their elected officials and each other, and way more exist. We're using one right now.

An opportunity to employ online, open co-creation tools. Such as, say, Hypothes.is. Or what the D.C.'s Mayor Bowser and city council are doing with the Madison online policymaking software.

Back when this was still being negotiated in secret, a leaked chapter of TPP was opened on the very first version of Madison. What could've been as far as harnessing open online annotation for transparent, smarter policy outcomes.

This is annotation!

And Medium does this already.

I appreciate the importance of annotation and social annotation as a part of the research process.

Celebrity annotation--is that added value?

Incredible that the "screenshort" hack is now getting integrated into Twitter itself. But it's still not web annotation!

Though it’s described in such a simple way, there might be hidden power in adding these tags, especially when we bring eBooks to the Semantic Web. Though books are the prime example of a “Web of Documents”, they can also contribute to the “Web of Data”, if we enable them. It might take long, but it could happen.

Thumbs up emoji!

I'm interested in hypertext (and annotation) before this point, before fully rupturing the narrative, but somehow co-existing with it...

Precisely: annotation as active reading. But also as discourse with text/author.

I definitely feel the same way, both as a scholar and a teacher (in terms of forcing the same principle on my students). And I'd go farther to expand the definition of ownership here to include comprehension and critical engagement.

I think like we're working with a very limited (even if acknowledged) definition of commentary/annotation. We're really just talking about expert analysis laid over a text, which is nothing new, though as pointed out below this tradition can achieve a new dynamism in the online environment.

What I think is more interesting about annotation and the digital humanities is the potential for readers themselves to become truly active contributors to the knowledge surrounding the texts--not simply served explanation for their relatively passive comprehension.

Hyperlinks need to be divided into genres. Those produced by editors and authors are ultimately not that radical or at least different from those we might find in the pages of a book.

Hyperlinks (and annotations) created by writers, now that's something else entirely. That's like David Foster Wallace's annotated copy of Don DeLillo's Players (house at the HRC), as opposed to a copy easily bought at a bookstore.

Just seeing what happens when I annotate a page that's loaded from a local server.

Like an algorithmic version of Hypothesis? Is McGraw-Hill part of the Coalition? Looks like it isn’t. Is it a “for us or against us” situation?

This is our front page

Oops! Started annotating the Forbes version but this one might be better (no preload). Wish I could transfer my annotations from one version to the other…

Series of webinars on the pedagogy of Web annotation.

A. Death B. People find comfort when they are not alone C. Personification D. Wiesel states that the camp looked empty and dead which is personification. The personification here emphasizes the vacancy of the camp and gives foreshadowing into the fact that many were going to die.

Concentration Camp of Birkenau

A. Slavery B. Slavery is being enforced upon them in subtly unsubtle ways to make them feel absolutely powerless C. Irony D. The irony in the inscription makes Wiesel feel hopeless as it seems to be that concentration camps where death is the norm is a lot better than a death camp. It is true, but having his life reduced down to the options of either death or inevitable pain and then death or miraculously survive is not anything any human should ever face.

The motif of this quote is religion. The purpose is that even in bad situations where people know their future is bleak they should still trust in their beliefs and have faith. The stylistic device used in this quote is restatement, when the man talks about having faith. His restatement reinforces the purpose because he is trying to get the men to trust in their god and keep faith and the restatement helps emphasize what he's saying.

A. Oppression B. The oppressed don't understand why they are being oppressed and for that reason will have little knowledge of what is going on. They will not ask questions as they are the oppressed and are in no position to do so. C. Imagery D. Wiesel uses imagery to depict the state of confusion and despair that they were in.

Kabbalah is the study of how to receive fulfillment in our lives. - See more at: https://www.kabbalah.com/what-kabbalah#sthash.Rxd6xGfz.dpuf

A. Attachment B. People can make different decisions due to their attachment over something C. Repetition D. Wiesel's father repeatedly says "I am too old" which emphasizes how attached his father is to his home making him stay instead of go to a different country

A. The motif is hope B. I think "hope" because they are hoping for a longer time of "silence". Meaning that the soldiers aren't yelling at them or torturing them. C. Hyperbole D. By saying "If only it could have gone on for ten times ten hours" this is slightly unrealistic and an exaggeration but also hopeful that it would go on longer.

A.) Fear B.) The appearance of some people can strike fear into others. c.) He uses Imagery D.) The way he describes him shows the effect his appearance had on him.

"Take care of your son. He is very weak, very dehydrated.Take care of y o u r s e l v e s, you must avoid selection. Eat! Anything,anytime. Eat all you can. The weak don't last very long around here..."And he himself was so thin, so withered, so weak..."The only thing that keeps me alive," he kept saying, "is to know that Reizel and the little ones are still alive. Were it not for them, I would give up."

1. Staying alive
2. Love helps one to stay alive.
3. Repetition of the idea staying alive, and "take care".
4. The repetition of taking care to stay alive emphasizes that fact he wants to stay alive, and connects the the fact he wants to stay alive for his loved ones. So the repetition of him wanting to stay alive shows just how much he loves his family, because he is doing so much just to stay alive for them.

"Remember," he went on. "Remember it always, let it be graven in your memories. You are in Auschwitz. And Auschwitz is not a convalescent home. It is a concentration camp. Here, you must work. If you don't you will go straight to the chimney. To the crematorium. Work or crematorium—the choice is yours."

1. Remembrance
2. They must keep in mind that if they are danger, they aren't at home.
3. Repetition
4. The repetition of "remember" reinforces how the SS officer wants to remind them that Auschwitz is a camp, and if they don't work they will die.

Kapos are prisoners assigned by the SS guards to supervise or do other tasks. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Duerr-054-17,_Lettland,_KZ_Salaspils,_j%C3%BCdischer_Lagerpolizist.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Duerr-054-17,_Lettland,_KZ_Salaspils,_j%C3%BCdischer_Lagerpolizist.jpg)

1. The motif is trauma
2. This quote is saying that everything that he was put through had changed him as a person, and who he was before the traumatic events was no longer there.
3. "My soul had been invaded--and devoured-- by a black flame." this is an example of personification
4. The black flame that devoured his soul represents the terrible Nazis and the traumatic events that they put him through, and because he had to live through those inhumane experiences, he was forever changed as a person because his faith and innocence were completely lost.

A) The motif in this quote is the denial of god/religion. B) The author is trying to tell you how Weisel is starting to deny god and religion because of what is happening to them. He is losing his hope. His belief in god is being changed because of the trauma going on. C) An allusion. He is referring to God and if you do not know that, you will be lost on who he lost absolute justice with. D)This connects to the theme because after the quote, Akiba talks about god testing them; trying to see who believes in this faith more.

Useful list, almost a roadmap or set of scenarios. The last two might be especially intriguing, in view of the Semantic Web.

Ah, yes! It may sound technical to some, but there’s something very useful about deep linking which can help fulfill Berners-Lee’s Semantic Web idea much more appropriately than what is currently available. Despite so many advances in Web publishing (and the growing interest in Linked Open Data), it’s often difficult to link directly to an online item of interest. In a way, Hypothesis almost allows readers to add anchor tags to an element so it can be used in a direct link.

Well-structured annotations can pave the way towards Linked Open Data.