Talk:Softwood

alternate names

I removed the following, as the only google hits for any of these words were mirrors of this page, typos, or completely unrelated. Please re-add if you can cite a reliable source per WP:V.

Softwood is also known as Clarkwood, Madmanwood, or fuchwood.

Speight (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question added to article

A new contributor added this question to the article. I dropped it here instead.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) hi people of the world Can anyone please write here, Doew it grow fast or slow ?

What is softwood?

Determining whether the wood is soft or hard is not as simple as seeing whether the trees has cones or not. Pinus elliotti and Pinus taeda have quite hard wood.

• http://www.nearctica.com/trees/conifer/pinus/Pelliot.htm
• http://www.britannica.com/EBChecked/topic/548102/slash-pine
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Slash+pine
• http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/SoftwoodNA/pdf_files/pinustaedaeng.pdf

For instance, loblolly pine and longleaf pine are denser than some ashes, American elm, Slippery Elm, Black Tupelo, American Sycamore, Black Walnut, and Black Willow. Longleaf pine also has greater impact resistance than many broadleaf, non-coniferous trees.

• http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/woods.htm

"Softwood" might be an industry defintion, but if so, it must be noted as such. Also, it should also be noted that the industry definition is not a good indicator of a wood's hardness. Ufwuct (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Controversy? Must the words "controversy" or "controversial" appear on EVERY wikipedia page? Indeed, there are some subjects that should include controversy, but in some cases identifying a controversy runs against the goal of an encyclopedia to be neutral. Daft Creftsman (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept United States – Canada softwood lumber dispute, dialed down the drama a bit, changing "Controversies" section to a "See also." Is OK? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That does help. It makes it seem a bit more straightforward, and "facts-oriented". Those things for which controversy is part and parcel (such as, say, forestry), such a section may make sense-- but for smaller elements of an overarching subject (at least in my opinion) controversy is not really worth mentioning. Daft Creftsman (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)