Talk:Amazon rainforest

Amazon self-destruction issue

Even if the humans stopped cutting trees in the Amazon rainforest, it's going to kill itself slowly over the course of five million years and become a savannah anyway. Why can't we accept this fact, stop cutting tress in the Amazon anyway, and move on with our lives? Let's worry about things closer to home like the disappearing bee population or trying to re-educate laid-off factory workers to work on the white-collar and green-collar jobs of tomorrow? GVnayR (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing speculation with facts, and using this to inject your political agenda where it doesn't belong. 67.50.88.54 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that "five billion years from now" thing was a typo. I meant to say "five million years from now." Second of all, it is not my political agenda - I learned this while watching The Future is Wild. Most importantly of all, The Future is Wild is a careful researched show that goes to all the major scientists and futurists for their facts. GVnayR (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does this information appear THREE times over the course of the article, apparently tacked on to the end of random paragraphs. It's as though someone has an agenda to push. Can someone remove the two references from the section "Conservation and Climate Change" (as it's hardly relevant to that issue) while leaving it in the section "History" (where it is perfectly appropriate)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.31.86 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why speculation about the distant future, involving a situation that is not reality (the absence of Homo Sapiens), is perfectly appropriate in the "History" section. Also the wording is quite odd (it will destroy itself?). I don't think this "issue" deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.235.111 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

step rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.216.65 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid, non-encyclopedic statement in article

"It is safe to say that the Amazon Rainforest will eventually perish and devolve into a savannah five billion years in the future..." Can someone please unlocked the article or remove that idiotic statement? It's poorly worded and certainly not encyclopedic in nature. It's also factually false, as there is no way to accurately predict the earth's climate or geography even a few hundred thousand years into the future, let alone *5 billion* years. I don't think the earth is supposed to even exist in 5 billion years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.197 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo. I meant to say "five million" years in the future and I fixed it. GVnayR (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed this issue from the page, because The Future is Wild is just a science-fiction TV program. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology spelling

The Portuguese spelling for one of the possible wtymologies of the word Amazon is just as the Spanish one, "amazona", not "amassona" as stated in the article. Please fix that. Joaofelipe1395 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look into your source, but I cannot find anything about this native word spelled "amazona" respectively "amassona".
The modern spelling of amazona is not decisive. Also Brazilian Portuguese is different from other Portuguese. I am no expert in Portuguese spelling, so I will leave it at that. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did check Brazilian Portuguese. That would be "amazona" for "amazon". But still nothing about historical spelling. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there should be a reference anyway, I added a {{Citation needed... -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

page move

to Amazon rainforest, the Rainforest need not be capitalised as the proper noun is just Amazon.Lihaas (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but I cannot delete the redirect there or override it. Huw Powell (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Change Impact of Amazon drought to Impact of 2005 Amazon drought since there was a 2010 Amazon drought.

There is a section called Impact of early 21st century Amazon droughts. 99.181.155.158 (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you to whomever was involved in that. \\(^o^)// 99.181.137.215 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Science (journal) in that paragraph please. 99.181.155.142 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 04:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazon deforestation falls to new low

Amazon deforestation falls to new low: Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has fallen to its lowest rate for 22 years, the government says. According to a recent article published by the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11888875

Satellite monitoring showed about 6,450 sq km of (2,490 sq miles) of rainforest were cleared between August 2009 and July 2010, a drop of 14% compared with the previous 12 months. Brazilian officials said the reduction was due to better monitoring and police control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlytebbet (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the rate of increased deforestation slowing? 99.119.128.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Typos and grammatical corrections:

1) Under "Remote sensing", the sentence quoted below needs to begin with "Remote sensing for the conservation..." instead of "The use of remote sensing for the conservation..." because 'use' is used again later in the sentence. ("The use of remote sensing for the conservation of the Amazon is also being used by the indigenous tribes of the basin to protect their tribal lands from commercial interests.")

The above was by Special:Contributions/80.230.104.126, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amazon_rainforest&action=history 99.181.132.138 (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in lead

The intro contains a nonsensical passage that begins with, "This region includes territory belonging to nine nations." It then goes on to list as some of these nations: Brazil, Peru, Colombian Amazon, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and France. Sorry, this is nonsense. "Colombian Amazon" is not a nation, and no portion of the Amazon basin is by any stretch of the imagination in France. This must be changed to "Colombia", not "Colombian Amazon". If you mean "French Guiana" then say "French Guiana". Sticking it in parentheses next to "France" only further confuses your meaning. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)