Talk:Amazon rainforest

Italic text== Headline text ==

it for original research because some of the quotes seem out of context, and I can't verify the reliability of the sources (one of them is a blog, I do know).-Wafulz (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well to verify the reliability of the sources you should understand Portuguese Non-English source, right? I replaced the blog source quoting the same interview for a brazilian newspaper and removed the tag --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)its a fuckin sexy bitch

This "territory contest" section should not exist. There isn't such a thing. Who is contesting it? Al Gore!? So, Al Gore will take Amazon from Brazil!? Until, there is a real entity (or countries) questioning the territory, there is no contest. There is what could be called "Territory contest controversy", what is made by the press (mostly to sell). That controversy is not worth to be in this article. So, we should remove that section. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed "Territory controversy" section because is based on speculative reports. There is no international entity questioning the territory. That's only a media buzz. --ClaudioMB (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Environmental skew

Well I hate to raise this issue, but this article is too heavily skewed toward environmental factors. While that is an important topic, the article does little to address the geological history, climate or geography of the rainforest. For example, how old is it? How have the plants adapted to the rain forest?[1] What about plant growth during the dry season?[2] Why is it so species rich? Any other suggestions?—RJH (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How Many Tribal People live in the rainforest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel1996 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is 2/3 about environment and 1/3 about the forest itself. It will be great to change this. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation can become a separate article titled such as Amazon Rainforest Deforestation or Deforestation of Amazon Rainforest, while keeping a small summary in the main article. Well Deforestation in Brazil already has a lot of information on Amazon, therefore, just summarising the deforestation and providing a link should be sufficient. I agree, Biodiversity section should be expanded as well, I will try to add some info. Docku:“what up?” 19:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No source

The text below doesn't have a reliable source.--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fires related to Amazonian deforestation have made Peru one of the top greenhouse gas producers. Brazil produces about 300 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide a year; 200 million of these come from logging and burning in the Amazon. Despite this, Brazil is listed as one of the lowest per capita (rank 124) in CO2 emissions according to the United States Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) (see List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita).

Deforestation section fork

Is there any objection to the replacement of the Deforestation section with the following summary (per Wikipedia:Summary style)? It might be helpful to rename "Deforestation in Brazil" to "Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest". Alternatively the current content can be copied to "Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest" and then merge tags can be used.—RJH (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation

Main article: Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest

Deforestation is the conversion of forested areas to non-forested areas. The main sources of deforestation in the Amazon are human settlement and development of the land. Prior to the early 1960s, access to the forest's interior was highly restricted, and the forest remained basically intact. Farms established during the 1960s was based on crop cultivation and the slash and burn method. However, the colonists were unable to manage their fields and the crops due to the loss of soil fertility and weed invasion. The soils in the Amazon are productive for just a short period of time, so farmers are constantly moving to new areas and clearing more and more land. These farming practices led to deforestation and caused extensive environmental damage.

Between 1991 and 2000, the total area of forest lost in the Amazon rose from 415,000 to 587,000 km², with most of the lost forest becoming pasture for cattle. 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. In addition, Brazil is currently the second-largest global producer of soybeans after the United States. The needs of soy farmers have been used to validate many of the controversial transportation projects that are currently developing in the Amazon. The first two highways successfully opened up the rain forest and led to increased settlement and deforestation. The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km² per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km² per year). At the current rate, in two decades the Amazon Rainforest will be reduced by 40%.

There was no objection, so I implemented this revision. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

i am awsome

Tribes

How are we going about the editing of tribes and indigenous people of the Amazon. I'm pretty much green to the entire project so I looked at the list of things to do and haven't got a clue as to ho far you guys have researched and pieced together the many different sections. Any further correspondence would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit to semiprotected page (moved from redirect/todo list to this page)

{{Editsemiprotected}}

amazon is a home for thousand of species.Correct the caption under the Amazon Rainforest map. The yellow line does not delineate the Amazon Forest Biome, it delineates the Amazon DRAINAGE BASIN - as delineated by WWF. The Amazon Rainforest Biome includes the 3 Guianas this image and caption and map is incorrect and misleading.

The existing map should read : 'Map of the Amazon drainage basin as delineated by the WWF. Yellow line approximately encloses the Amazon drainage basin.

(I have had a difficult time to get the correct image of the Amazon rainforest biome and text accepted into this article). The correct map as done by WWF with both boundaries of the 'rainforest biome' and the 'drainage basin' has been uploaded by myself and the author (from WWF) sent in his authorization but to no avail.)

Hopefully someone with the required access rights will now make the relevant corrections, to the existing map at least.

Many thanks Muni

(Above was posted in the redirect page here, by Munirih (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 July 2009)  Chzz  ►  19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, hopefully that is OK now? If you need further help with getting the image updated, etc, then let me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done

Merger proposal

I would oppose merging this page into Amazon Basin. While overlapping, the two are not the same. If anything, this article is more developed and I would rather merge Amazon Basin into here. Linkfix2001 (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another view on carbon balance impact

I suppose in the section "Conservation and climate change" should be mentioned that OVERALL positive impact of Amazon Rainforest on carbon balance is not proved. Some researches showed negative or zero impact due to respiration losses from necromass. Source: [3]. This does not help me at all with my progect NOT ENOUGH details people need more things ur not even talking about the Amazon River!! Ya a couple of sentences big woop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.183.27 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Source needed or source needs to be more clearly indicated:

This excerpt:

"The diversity of plant species is the highest on Earth with some experts estimating that one square kilometer may contain over 75,000 types of trees and 150,000 species of higher plants. One square kilometer of Amazon rainforest can contain about 90,790 tonnes of living plants."

needs to be cited because this:

"The region is home to about 2.5 million insect species,[18] tens of thousands of plants, and some 2,000 birds and mammals. To date, at least 40,000 plant species..."

information in the previous paragraph contradicts it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burneatgodfeartv (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

These:

http://www.nature.org/rainforests/explore/facts.html http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/the_area/wildlife_amazon/plants/

may be better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burneatgodfeartv (talk • contribs) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

yOU HAVE TO MUCH INFORMATION THERE IS NO ONE THAT NEEDS TO KNOW IT IN PORTAGUSAE THEY WOULD LOOK UP "THE AMAZON RAINFOREST IN PORTAGUSE" NOT THE AMAZON RAINFOREST!

Hey

You Should Add If It Rains A Lot. Does It. 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 (talk)

Well, that hardly fit anywhere and/or warrent a section of its own.... but, I think a section on the current(or recent few years) climate condition might be nice, as opposed to just "climate change" which tells nothing about the exact stats of the current climate. it would be nice if it is detailed according to season or even month(the latter of course, is a sentence or two comparing that specific month with the general norm, or it would get long, really long) stuff like usual temperature, rainfall, wind speed/direction and even moisture level etc can be nice.

currently, the only real direct climate note is the drought in 2005, which is an exception, the rule itself is missing. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About that air accident

Why is it in this place, a info page on the forest? I mean sure air collisions are fairly rare, but i won't put every derailing of train on the province/state it happens much less, of course, car accident list of each city as they got nothing to do with the place itself geographically, culturely or whatever other -lys.

i mean if the accident itself caused a significant impact on the forest itself(such as started a fire etc) I'm all for it(in which case, more info and citation would be nice) but otherwise, I see no reason to have it here.

I will leave decision to people more certain about rules and guidelines so I won't touch it, please give a response.

this is how I sign, right? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazon self-destruction issue

Even if the humans stopped cutting trees in the Amazon rainforest, it's going to kill itself slowly over the course of five million years and become a savannah anyway. Why can't we accept this fact, stop cutting tress in the Amazon anyway, and move on with our lives? Let's worry about things closer to home like the disappearing bee population or trying to re-educate laid-off factory workers to work on the white-collar and green-collar jobs of tomorrow? GVnayR (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing speculation with facts, and using this to inject your political agenda where it doesn't belong. 67.50.88.54 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, that "five billion years from now" thing was a typo. I meant to say "five million years from now." Second of all, it is not my political agenda - I learned this while watching The Future is Wild. Most importantly of all, The Future is Wild is a careful researched show that goes to all the major scientists and futurists for their facts. GVnayR (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does this information appear THREE times over the course of the article, apparently tacked on to the end of random paragraphs. It's as though someone has an agenda to push. Can someone remove the two references from the section "Conservation and Climate Change" (as it's hardly relevant to that issue) while leaving it in the section "History" (where it is perfectly appropriate)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.36.31.86 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why speculation about the distant future, involving a situation that is not reality (the absence of Homo Sapiens), is perfectly appropriate in the "History" section. Also the wording is quite odd (it will destroy itself?). I don't think this "issue" deserves a place in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.235.111 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

step rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.216.65 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid, non-encyclopedic statement in article

"It is safe to say that the Amazon Rainforest will eventually perish and devolve into a savannah five billion years in the future..." Can someone please unlocked the article or remove that idiotic statement? It's poorly worded and certainly not encyclopedic in nature. It's also factually false, as there is no way to accurately predict the earth's climate or geography even a few hundred thousand years into the future, let alone *5 billion* years. I don't think the earth is supposed to even exist in 5 billion years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.197 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo. I meant to say "five million" years in the future and I fixed it. GVnayR (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed this issue from the page, because The Future is Wild is just a science-fiction TV program. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology spelling

The Portuguese spelling for one of the possible wtymologies of the word Amazon is just as the Spanish one, "amazona", not "amassona" as stated in the article. Please fix that. Joaofelipe1395 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC) the amazon is big