Talk:Carboniferous rainforest collapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Carboniferous rainforest collapse is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was accepted on 23 December 2010 by reviewer Chzz (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Extinction (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 


Thanks![edit]

Thank you Gents (whomever you are) for creating this article! It really helps putting the evolutionary story of Palaeozoic tetrapods into an ecological context! Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Step Changes?[edit]

"Collapse occurred through a series of step changes. First there was a gradual rise in..." The author can't have it both ways. Was the first stage a step change or a gradual rise ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.105.218 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Current Relevance[edit]

Full disclosure, I absolutely see and agree with what the original author is trying to say, and would support the content in the article in principle, but the way that it is worded currently doesn't conform to policy. I've added tags ({{who}}, {{vague}}, {{citation needed}}, etc) to the places that I think need to be reworded or referenced.

I'm not sure the second paragraph can be salvaged at all; it's the part that most seems most directly speculative. Remember too that (unfortunately) anthropogenic climate change remains controversial among a vocal group of people. This doesn't mean we should shy away from making the comparison, but rather that we must be absolutely sure that we can defend the verbiage from nay-sayers. They will say that's OR (right now it reads like it), the will say it's speculative (right now it reads like it), they will point to weasel words (some environmental groups say ...), they will hammer the crap out of the section with WP policy and they'll be right.

If we want this content here we need to rewrite it so that it's better sourced, less vaguely worded, and when it speculates that it attributes the speculation to someone notable that it makes sense to quote in this context. Eniagrom (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the sea[edit]

This section is terribly inaccurate, and I'm not even sure why it needs including on this page at all. It gives the impression that radiolarians and diatoms died out during this event, they didn't. The White Cliffs of Dover are Cretaceous chalk. and the rest seems utterly confused. second thoughts. rather than tag it, I think it would be better to just remove it.Lacunae (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact section needs updated[edit]

The serial impact hypothesis is no longer considered valid. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030113.shtml https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_112026.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.P31A1384E All come to the same conclusion that it was not a serial impact. It was a possibile explanation in the guidebook referenced for the alignment but there was little data backing it up. I would advise that this section be removed, more sources added to back up the serial impact hypothesis (peer reviewed journals), or an update be done to reflect current data. I would highly recommend removing it as data no longer supports serial impact. --Userkv8031 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates Needed[edit]

It feels like this entire article could use some updating with more current information. The overall feel of the article makes this event sound like an extinction event on par with the end of the Permian. I think most paleontologists would not consider it anything close to an event of that magnitude. And perhaps part of that is the confusion between the CRC and the larger Carboniferous-Permian transition. Any other thoughts. --Stocksdale (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Intoductory Section[edit]

I have a problem with this sentence: "The CRC has been identified as one of the two most devastating extinction events to have affected plant life.[2]" The paper that is linked (Source number 2 in references) talks about the "Carboniferous-Permian transition" which is different that the "Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse". The CRC is a brief event occurring around 305 mya. The "Carboniferous-Permian transition" is a larger transition period centered around the 298 mya. I wondered if it would be better if the sentence went "The CRC can also be viewed as part of a broader transition of plant species called the "Carboniferous-Permian transition" that continued into the early Permian. This larger transition over a period of 10 million years has been referred as one of the two biggest extinction events for plant life."--Stocksdale (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Overly Technical[edit]

The Article is extremely technical. Unless you have atleast a college education you will not be able to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVentureWasRight (talkcontribs) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance section[edit]

There were some problems with the Relevance section. First, the relationship of this event to present day fossil fuels was stated in such a way that made it seem that the reason we have coal deposits is because this event killed off the plants. There's no evidence of such a direct-cause effect relationship. While plant life of that brief portion of the Carboniferous did contribute to coal deposits, this didn't "cause" peat deposition, more likely it caused it to stop (but that would also need to be sourced before it went in the article).

In the deforestation subsection (in Relevance), the connection between this to present day rainforest collapse is unsourced and very tenuous. We don't know why this event happened. We do know why modern rainforests are disappearing--they're being cut down by humans. That was also unsourced, and contained editorializing. It's also covered by WP:CRYSTAL. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)