Talk:Mendenhall Glacier: Difference between revisions
m WikiProject tagging using AWB (9958) |
trees |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:Given that climate change is scientifically linked to the rapid change in the glacier's rate of retreat and to other ecological changes in the vicinity... I hardly think it's inappropriate for this article to discuss climate change. Is there something specifically you're opposed to? [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
:Given that climate change is scientifically linked to the rapid change in the glacier's rate of retreat and to other ecological changes in the vicinity... I hardly think it's inappropriate for this article to discuss climate change. Is there something specifically you're opposed to? [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
::You want specifics? I do support the Education Program, but as with a lot of what they touch, this article has been gussied up more than substantially improved. Adding content about the glacier's retreat is fine, but currently it's overtaking the article. Compare the weight afforded retreat and climate change in the article with the comparative short shrift given to such things as physical characteristics and geography, geology, history and etymology. The section on the visitor center could be better suited as a more generalized section on tourism. Note that the infobox says "Juneau Borough". Is that supposed to be as opposed to "Juneau City"? Of course, they've been one and the same since 1970, but that hasn't stopped the Wikipedia invention of "Juneau" standing for "the part of town the tourists see" and forking the rest of the municipality onto obscure corners of the encyclopedia. For example, it appears that there's a concerted effort to avoiding acknowledging that the greatest concentration of Juneau's population lives within a five mile radius of the glacier. Blanking the section on human impact just because it was empty content doesn't help when it is a subtopic of great importance to the article's topic.[[User:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> RadioKAOS </span>]]/[[User talk:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Talk to me, Billy </span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Transmissions </span>]] 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
::You want specifics? I do support the Education Program, but as with a lot of what they touch, this article has been gussied up more than substantially improved. Adding content about the glacier's retreat is fine, but currently it's overtaking the article. Compare the weight afforded retreat and climate change in the article with the comparative short shrift given to such things as physical characteristics and geography, geology, history and etymology. The section on the visitor center could be better suited as a more generalized section on tourism. Note that the infobox says "Juneau Borough". Is that supposed to be as opposed to "Juneau City"? Of course, they've been one and the same since 1970, but that hasn't stopped the Wikipedia invention of "Juneau" standing for "the part of town the tourists see" and forking the rest of the municipality onto obscure corners of the encyclopedia. For example, it appears that there's a concerted effort to avoiding acknowledging that the greatest concentration of Juneau's population lives within a five mile radius of the glacier. Blanking the section on human impact just because it was empty content doesn't help when it is a subtopic of great importance to the article's topic.[[User:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> RadioKAOS </span>]]/[[User talk:RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Talk to me, Billy </span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/RadioKAOS|<span style="color:green;"> Transmissions </span>]] 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
No mention of the 1000 year old trees that have been exposed by the receding glacier? |
|||
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/mendenhall-glacier_n_3975699.html [[Special:Contributions/178.250.210.5|178.250.210.5]] ([[User talk:178.250.210.5|talk]]) 08:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:21, 7 September 2014
Alaska C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Glaciers C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Disturbance Ecology Information
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Louisiana State University/HNRS 1035:Natural Disturbances and Society" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
I'm a student at LSU in a natural disturbance and society class where our focus is on the effects of natural disturbances. It is a Wikipedia Education Program course and I would like to add to this page. I plan on talking about the retreat of the Mendenhall Glacier, the positive and negative effects of this retreat, the impact that climate change has, and the impact that humans have. If anyone wants to contact me please feel free. Sklupp1 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Propaganda?
Is this an article about the glacier itself, or a diatribe about climate change/global warming/mankind is evil?Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Given that climate change is scientifically linked to the rapid change in the glacier's rate of retreat and to other ecological changes in the vicinity... I hardly think it's inappropriate for this article to discuss climate change. Is there something specifically you're opposed to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- You want specifics? I do support the Education Program, but as with a lot of what they touch, this article has been gussied up more than substantially improved. Adding content about the glacier's retreat is fine, but currently it's overtaking the article. Compare the weight afforded retreat and climate change in the article with the comparative short shrift given to such things as physical characteristics and geography, geology, history and etymology. The section on the visitor center could be better suited as a more generalized section on tourism. Note that the infobox says "Juneau Borough". Is that supposed to be as opposed to "Juneau City"? Of course, they've been one and the same since 1970, but that hasn't stopped the Wikipedia invention of "Juneau" standing for "the part of town the tourists see" and forking the rest of the municipality onto obscure corners of the encyclopedia. For example, it appears that there's a concerted effort to avoiding acknowledging that the greatest concentration of Juneau's population lives within a five mile radius of the glacier. Blanking the section on human impact just because it was empty content doesn't help when it is a subtopic of great importance to the article's topic. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No mention of the 1000 year old trees that have been exposed by the receding glacier? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/mendenhall-glacier_n_3975699.html 178.250.210.5 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)