Talk:Old-growth forest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The article looks bad[edit]

It looks like every new editor of the article tries to stick in his ideas. Many time new editor repeats the ideas that were already written above him/her. This article needs some protection from vandalism by green-worshippers :) Gentlemen, before you put the same "green" idea into the article, please make sure that you idea is not written in the article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativityisme (talkcontribs) 09:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider?[edit]

In view of the changes and additions since February of 2013, does this article still deserve the flag that it is too North-America-centric? rowley (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Old-growth forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ancient woodland[edit]

It is suggested in the lede that the term in use in Great Britain for old-growth forest is 'ancient woodland'. Now whilst both terms (and others mentioned) are in frequent use in different parts of the world, I'm not sure that they are strictly the same. Ancient woodland in Britain can have seen a lot of human intervention - indeed usually has seen it - over the centuries. Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge of the subject could assist? cheers Geopersona (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues with bias / general issues[edit]

Hello! There are a few issues I noticed in the article.

There are a few spots in the article, as wikipedia notes in the warning banner, where the worldwide view may not be exhibited. To me, this sentence from the lead section sounds like it is portraying logging in a negative light (loggers destroy while others protect): "Old-growth forests are economically valuable, and logging of these forests has been a point of contention between the logging industry (which cuts down forests that have been growing for hundreds of years) and environmentalists (who seek to protect and preserve the forests)."

The section entitled climatic impacts also has an issue portraying both sides. The overall tone of this section is that old-growth forests are actually neutral as far as carbon sequestration, or that disturbance is not a factor in determining the effect of a forests ability to sequester carbon. The sources cited are not all scholarly here, including Wired magazine. There is scientific research to contradict these claims and that should be noted. There is also some vague language in this section: "Critics note that at old-growth forests are often perceived to be in equilibrium, but could be releasing as much carbon dioxide as they capture, or are currently in a state of decay." Who are the critics? What are the criticizing exactly?

Lastly, the section on forest dynamics definitions may be overly long in reference to its relative importance to the overall topic.

I will be working to fix some of these things! Input is appreciated.

Rlfay (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Rachel

Changes made[edit]

Hello, I changed a couple of things about the article:

1. Changed last sentence of leading paragraph to sound less negative toward logging industries 2. Added references to scientific journals in the paragraph about climate change to make it seem less one-sided, demonstrated that old-growth forests may have more potential to sequester carbon that originally portrayed in paragraph. 3. Added additional paragraph to show that old-growth forests both influence climate change and are influenced by climate change.

Please review these changes, feel free to add to/deny any of them. I appreciate feedback.

Thanks! Rlfay (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Rachel

I like the changes you made, Rachel. I tweaked the sentence in the lead a little further, primarily to reflect that opinions can differ within the logging industry on cutting down old-growth. Tdslk (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)