Talk:Environmental issues in Australia
|This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.|
|WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Merge/or speedy Delete
This material is already at Conservation in Australia - is not referenced and is an offshoot of out of australian experience - an embarrasment for the australian project that such weird uninformed orphans still exist SatuSuro 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have tried to delete and/or hard merge it in the past. If I recall correctly, the creator insisted that this was a useful article since it is a section in the CIA world fact book or LC country studies.... I agree, it is appalling. --Peta 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is no reason to keep an article under any sense- the article is replicating material in three other articles - usefulness is rubbish - redirect to something else at least. The australian project does not need this sort of rubbish SatuSuro 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree. The article is needed. Not all environmental issues are regarding conservation. There are significant issues which are related to the economy and also landcare which aren't covered anywhere else. I have made an effort to expand and clean up the article. --Biatch (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Erroneously constructed sentence?
A passage in the Native Fauna section currently reads:
- "The arrival of humans is attributed to the extinction of Australian megafauna and . . . ."
I suspect that this should read:
- "The extinction of Australian megafauna is attributed to the arrival of humans and . . . ."
Turn "Controversial land use projects" section into prose?
The Environmental issues in Australia#Controversial land use projects might be better off as prose rather than a table? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The line: "is attributed to the arrival of humans and since European settlement" is vague. Arrival of "humans"?? Does that mean Australian Aborigines or that these aborigines are not classed as humans since "human", within the article, seems to be only meaning europeans? Maybe the article should be more specific in actually mentioning native humans (aborigines being the first traditional peoples of Australia) and maybe the commonly accepted time period (approx 40,000 years of settlement), however, knowing what species has gone extinct within that time may be difficult to accurately measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)