Talk:Desertification

Desertificationwe == Headline text ==i luv u zac efron nd all dem mf gyallls is an interesting process, as well as the process of Rain Shadow. I have added something there and hope it will expand. -Freddy Tsao

Why do we clear out trees when there is abandoned land that we can build on?

I don't understand because we are clearing out plants that make mot of our pitch

because there are more considerations when building than whether the land is already cleared or not. Should probably be moe of a consideration but it isn't 65.75.110.90 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction Required

This is an excellent topic, but unfortunately there are some BAD words used in paragraph 2 line 2 and in line 2 of the Causes heading. Is there any volunteer (with desertification knowledge) who could maintain the esteem technicality and correct the text?

Furthermore, current thinkning is divided about whether anthropogenic or natural forcing are reposible. On the basis of evidence relating to Sahelian drying (see the most recent issue of Science), this article needs a serious reevalutaion towards the role of natral forcings, namely the weakening of the African monsson due to chnages in sea-surface temperatures as a result of ENSO.... I would do it myself, but i've got exams coming up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsaucy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Current and historical examples

Hope I'm doing this left - first edit - anyway, when the Desert of Maine is mentioned, is also mentions that the desert is growing. From what I understand, that area is just allowed to remain that way as a tourist attraction, and is not any form of threat.. Got a source on the growing comment?

Historical record, from the brochures. The edge of the Desert of Maine is spreading. It started out small, and hasn't stopped growing. =Axlq 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Livestock

What do Livestock get out of desertification?

Chemical and physical changes in soil

I think this article would be great if it included some information on the specific processes that take place to transform fertile soil into sand.

your point is a pretty good one to get some soils chemistry. note, however, that sand is not the only outcome. sometimes desertification occurs on prior rainforest soils without any sand involved...just loss of nutrients and erosion Anlace 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

plagiarism?

The first paragraph under "Historical and current desertification" seems to be lifted straight from http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/. And I haven't seen any attribution (other than as a source for the whole article). Is this appropriate? R343L 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

your point is well taken. i have brought some material in from other sources cited and made substantial modifications of style and content to that section. the material itself was rather important, so that some of the substance is retained. hopefully someone else can do a better job than i and improve the lead para further. at least it s not plagiarism now. btw i have no idea who placed that para in the first place. Anlace 05:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its source is cited, even though indirectly, so I don't think it's plagiarism. And USGS material is public domain, so it's not a copyright violation. I don't see any problems with this. Bryan 05:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It came in here and it was an extensive amount of material brought over. Its public domain, wikified, and cited. Plus had an informative edit summary. Looks quite proper. -- Paleorthid 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is moot as it's been fixed (I don't login to wikipedia that often), but when I was looking at it, there was nearly an entire paragraph copied verbatim. Unless it's in quotation marks (or clearly set apart as a quote), I consider that plagiarism (the copyright status of the source is irrelevant to whether it's plagiarism or not). So maybe you were referring to the revamped version when you say it's proper? :) R343L 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I was referring to the original contribution here. While I appreciate the importance of this issue and the need for sensitivity, I respectfully disagree with your position. As the plagiarism article lays the groundwork for, the distinction you support amounts to a community standard. It applies to the community you operate in, it doesn't apply within Wikipedia. Here, since we are being relied upon not to contribute original work, it goes without saying that everything must originate somewhere else that is both reliable and verifiable. In that context, large (attributed) sections have come over intact from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition without segregating quotes and without plagiarism being raised as an issue. For stylistic reasons, imported text must be altered. It is necessary to wikify, and retool for NPOV, to convert to unambiguous terminology and to use spelling consistent within WP, to restructure for readibility. When it involves works in the public domain, none of these stylistic improvements are driven by a need to avoid plagiarism. -- Paleorthid 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added {{USGovernment|sourceURL=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/deserts/desertification/}} to the article per this discussion. -- Paleorthid 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

The citation added does not address the sentence about soil loss in deserts due to off-road vehicle use, and its control by banning off-road vehicles. "There are a number of locations where off-road travel has destroyed microbiotic soil crust, destroyed desert vegetations, crushed animal burrows ... impacts that may last for years." Microbiotic soil crusts must be tied into soil loss, and future impacts on the ecosystem, and this says nothing about banning off-road vehicles in desert areas. KP Botany 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why a disambig line for Decertification?

Why does there have to be a disambig with Union Decertification? Could we assume that Wikipedia readers can spell? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in causes?

In the discussion of droughts, there are the following two sentences, "While drought is a contributing factor, the root causes are all related to man's overexploitation of the environment.[citation needed] There is no geological evidence that deserts expanded significantly before the advent of civilization." Then, further down, under Prehistoric Patterns, there are the following sentences, "Desertification is a historic phenomenon; the world's great deserts were formed by natural processes interacting over long intervals of time. During most of these times, deserts have grown and shrunk independent of human activities." They seem to contradict themselves. I don't have the time to address it myself, but could someone more knowledgable try to clarify the statements so they don't clash?Petronivs (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)