Talk:Dust Bowl

man made???

men do not make droughts. I'm changing that part until you can prove to me that the drought had nothing to do with it and that indeed the entire dust bowl period was caused by man.

1

• Was it merely co-incidence that the Dust Bowl occurred during the great depression or were there some human factors that altered the geography to make this kind of disaster more common?

---

there is a lot more to it than 'there was a drought'.

there was a massive immigration to the area in the decades before the 1930s. especially in oklahoma which was supposedly reserved for indians before the late 1880s, and only became a state in 1907.

add in the invention and availability of the gasoline tractor, along with the destruction of the bison, and the number of small farms who had to leave their fields when they went bankrupt without planting crops... the entire ecosystem of the great plains had been transformed in about 20-30 years.

just take the example of the native drought-resistant perennial grasses. they had survived there for hundreds of thousands of years, drought and fire. they had deep roots going down sometimes more than 10 feet. they could survive drought. but they could not survive the massive mechanized plowing. so they are gone, by the millions of acres. so the dirt had nothing to hold it. so when the next big drought comes along, what happens? .... that alone is just one example of something that could have happened during the ecosystem transformation that influenced the situation. lots of people have different theories.

Besides the horrible Destruction of the bison, the even bigger problem was the overgrazing of the cattle and sheep. Another big factor was the disc plow. Advocates of dry farming told farmers to disc whenever possible, especially after rain. This created a layer of very fine top soil that was not held down by anything.

• Some of the math here looks wrong to me: "High-end estimates for the number of displaced Americans are as high as 2.5 million, but the lower value of 300,000 to 400,000 is more probable based upon the 2.3 million population of Oklahoma at the time." This number only accounts for people from Oklahoma (15% of 2.3 million is 340,000 or so) - it assumes nobody from any other state was displaced, which seems incredibly unlikely.

Death toll

How may people died as a result of this? DirkvdM 07:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the population growth rate dropped by 8,9 % during the 30's according to Demographics_of_the_United_States, haven't seen an estimate of hunger-related deaths during the time, possibly not well documented and a matter of opinion. Dreg743 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some retard vandalized this page. I intend to remove the offending text 206.124.94.94 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oop, it's already gone, nifty. 206.124.94.94 11:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) It doesn't look gone to me, I think your retard has returned. This article evidently needs to be locked to keep sociopathic 12 year olds out. What the hell does the term "White people now a dayz" have to do with this article?

Our retard's back; probably unsupervised at middle school.

Additional Vandalism

I cleared up some text from the article:

Line removed from main page: "HI IM REILLY I LIKE TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA" Line removed from "Government Response": "Daven is so hot!!!!!!!!"

Regards, Chaoxangel 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but please try to check the edit history. That is because vandals often add nonsense and remove good text. If you only remove the non-sense then you end up with a net removal of text as it happened to you. I corrected this [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dust_Bowl&diff=158859845&oldid=158807896] but I thought I give you heads up on it. Thanks Brusegadi 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

The picture, "Farmer and two sons during a dust storm" appears to be a copyrighted image owned by Bettman/CORBIS and should actually be dated 1937. Source of info is "American Passages: A History of the United States ISBN 0-495-05067-9. I don't think we can use copyrighted images on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britonkolber (talk • contribs)

According to this link, Image:Dust_storm_CimarronCounty_OK.jpg the image is a public domain work created by Arthur Rothstein for the Farm Security Administration, part of the United States government from [1]. If you have evidence to refute the uploader's claim, please do so at the Image page. However, being in the public domain, one would expect the image to crop up in all sorts of media, given that it can be used for free, without attribution or permission, altered or unaltered, etc. Note that, even if it were copyrighted, there are still instances in which it can be legally used here under the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. MrZaius^talk 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article could use a map

I remember seeing a map of the approximate area that constituted the Dust Bowl in a set of encyclopedias my parents had purchased in 1969. Obviously, that cannot be used, since it is not yet in public domain---indeed, even something published in the 1930s would not yet be in public domain, but seriously, couldn't somebody post a map without having it be a copyright infringement or "original research"? I'd do it if I wasn't such a computer newbie and slowpoke. Maps are good for those of us who are more graphically orientated. Shanoman 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the event, it's not unreasonable to expect that there'd be something available from US government sources. MrZaius^talk 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

if you use Google images for "dust bowl map" you get many useful maps, I just don't know if any of them can be used, or asked to be used, as I don't know how to check such things. Maybe someone who has some experience with acquiring images can help out. or make a map we can use that won't violate copyrights. Tonerman 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The US government is the ideal source, so if you limit your search to site:.gov, that often helps. However, in this case, the NEH is pushing teachers to a copyrighted PBS image, containing a very weak map. [2] - There may not be any easily obtained government maps, although if someone wants to go nuts and issue a FOIA request or contact the FDR/Taft libraries, we might be able to find something. MrZaius^talk 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) PS: This might still be of some use: [3]

I agree with the idea of a map. The statement that the area of the dust bowl "principally lies west of the high plains" does not make any sense to me. West of the high plains is the Rocky Mountains. The High Plains includes eastern New Mexico and Colorado, as well as much of West Texas. I don't know if someone got confused on directions or what. Some of the worst dust bowl areas in Kansas and Oklahoma are EAST of the high plains. It seems to me that the principal area of the dust bowl is the same as the high plains. But I am not an expert in this field. I don't know what the writer is trying to communicate in talking about "west of the high plains". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddwin (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Broader scope?

Shouldn't there be more information on the effects of the drought in Canada/Saskatchawan or are there already seperate articles for this? 74.74.219.178 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) December 12th 2007

(I've changed the section title since what you're describing is not about neutrality in point of view.)

To answer your question, you're probably quite right. The treatment of the Dust Bowl's effects in Canada could and likely should be expanded. I'd say that, if that's your itch, be bold and scratch it! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dustbowls in the Aral Sea

Althoght the term dustbowl originated in North America, is the name for a "natural" phenomen and should then also cover dustbowls around the wolrd such those in the Aral Sea. Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are citations available for calling other dust storms "dust bowls," I would suggest writing Dust bowl - Dust Bowl, with a capital B, is a proper noun which refers to a single (albeit prolonged) series of events. MrZaius^talk 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be to rename/move the article, to "Dust Bowl (1930s North America)", or something like that. It is enough to try to cover these events, not add in other dustbowls around the world.--Parkwells (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

De-ethnocentrize

"During early exploration of the Great Plains, the region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for agriculture..." Obviously enough, the Great Plains were first explored and settled before 10,000 BC or so, though agriculture was limited until the Europeans arrived. Do we want to rephrase this? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although it's instructive, you don't have to ask questions like that. Go ahead and make the change. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TF2 Map

There is a map in the game Team Fortress 2 by the name of Dustbowl, I think a disambiguation page should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.65.148 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The need for a LEAD

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dust_Bowl&oldid=200057215

This article used to have a lead section, not just two orphaned sentences floating about the TOC. We should consider merging positive changes back into the former LEAD, in my humble opinion. "Overview" sections are generally frowned upon, serving precisely the same role as the article's lead. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit that added the overview section to make things easier to track. Graham87 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've turned the overview section back into a proper lead section. Graham87 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to it. I've broken it up a little more - Now we might want to move three or four sentences back into the article at large, as we seem to have swung to the other end of the LEAD-size pendulum. Next thing to check: were any useful sources lost in the edits between the former then and now? MrZaius^talk 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nope, nothing was lost; all I did was remove the overview section and merge some paragraphs. Graham87 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Associated with the Great Depression

The Dust Bowl is closely associated with the Great Depression - to the point where one conjures up images of the other. This needs to be established in the lead, however I'm tired of adding material only to have it removed because I didn't cite chapter and verse (even though this falls under the "no-brainer" category). If someone else wants to do the work and add the info, please feel free, but I do believe it needs to have this link made in the opening. For example I've seen several TV news stories on the current financial crisis and the question of whether it's the start of a new Great Depression, and in almost every case two images have been used -- the line-ups for food, etc. in urban areas, and the Dust Bowl. 23skidoo (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the two events are commonly associated, but I've also read peer-reviewed arguments that their relationship is far weaker than many believe; they just happened to occur in the same time period. I'll try to recall my sources. As far as other people removing properly cited content without a decent justification, well that's just silly. -Verdatum (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states nothing of Hoover's response or non-response.--scuro (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

Looking at this article, it feels like two mediocre articles have been squished into one. I'm trying to sort this out, but I'm doing it in small edits. Here's the basic plan for the article organization as I see it:

• causes
  • settlement
    • Economic viability of farming the great plains
    • Short term climate change allowing low-tech farming
  • Prarie grass (including advancements in plow technology allowing it's removal)
  • agricultural techniques (letting fields go fallow, poor irrigation,etc)
  • Environmental contributions (draught, dustclouds preventing rain)
  • The issue of fields being abandoned as a result of the exodus should also be worked in somewhere.
• Timeline and ecological impact of dust storms
  • When the major duststorms occured, what geographic area was affected when, how much soil moved where
• Damages (some better name for this heading, I'm just brainstorming right now)
  • Information related to property damage, loss of crops, etc.
  • Casualties
• Government reaction
• Legacy
  • new innovations and practices invoked as a result of the Dust Bowl
  • Art, fiction, culture, etc.

Input would be appreciated. -Verdatum (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. The article could really use work. I will give it a shot when I find some time.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, forget it. What a mess. Who here can rise to the challenge? Who here has four hours to spare?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Status?

When was the last case of vandalism on here? Maybe it's time to unlock it so I can put a map on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtpck32 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article because of daily floods of vandalism from people using IP addresses; there has been no vandalism since I protected it on the 4th of February. Which map do you want to add to the article? It would be better to add it to Wikipedia directly if possible, but that also requires an account. Graham87 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to NOT MERGE the articles. The original article, American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940 was renamed History of agriculture in the United States.-- Jminthorne (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I have proposed a merger into this article from American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940. There is significant overlap, and the American Ag article has extremely low visibility. A possible alternative would be simple deletion of the American Ag article and creation of a redirect to Dust Bowl if we didn't think the American Ag article had anything to add here. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't have a single link leading to it, so I see little benefit to the redirect. Given the 4 year lack of interest in adding sources to the orphaned piece, deletion might make more sense. High quality sources would make it a better merge candidate. MrZaius^talk 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a prod tag. Jminthorne (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not have consensus on a pure deletion of the article, and it has two references now. I think we should append the references and see also sections into this article and change to a redirect. Jminthorne (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The two topics seem quite distinct. The dust bowl matter is quite narrow while the other article has a much wider scope concerning the trends in tractor use, the effect of tariffs, productivity and profitability and so on. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The dust bowl article as written includes causes and effects extending well into the effects you mention. The American Ag article doesn't add anything that isn't said here. Jminthorne (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The initial discussion of a merger actually doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the essay ties together both this concept and two others. Please note that I advocated deletion of that other piece primarily on the grounds that it was little more than an unencyclopedic and redundant essay on the three topics, not due solely to its overlap with this piece. There's a strong case to be made for the other piece disappearing through AfD, but it makes very little sense to merge the then-linkless orphan with this piece and redirect it here as, again, nothing at all linked to it a week ago. Haven't checked more recently, but any link added since (if indeed any have been added), could surely be done without. MrZaius^talk 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we're clear that a merge with the article isn't the best option. I have removed the merge tag from this article. Jminthorne (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HI! My name is Spencer Lennon and a Im Homosexual!