|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rewilding article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Re Pleistocene Rewilding I think, given the amount of press and debate it is generating since the article in NATURE, that Pleistocene Rewilding should have a seperate entry. The two different definitions of "rewilding" here have little in common.
green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism,
- English Nature a Government agency
- Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Department of Knowledge, Holland.
- John Muir Trust a scotish charity
This enry is really two separate articles. The pleistocene rewilding definition could be much more detailed. It looks like a split has been proposed before, are there any objections?--Margareta 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, these two topics should definitely be split, but I don't know how to do that. Can someone else take up this project? Martha p 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm gonna remove the paragraph about Pleistocene Rewilding, and add a "see also" link to it. Murderbike 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings tenders of this entry. We would like to see the Rewilding definition be credited to its first published source, and linked to the contents of the original essay using that name. Can someone help make this seamless and agreeable? The term “rewilding” has been used by diverse writers and even adopted by a wildlife conservation organization, but was coined by Animá Center’s Jesse Wolf Hardin in 1976, and first saw print in 1986 in an early issue of the short lived Earth First! Green Anarcho periodical Live Wild or Die! Because of attribution to Hardin, he was assigned to write the Rewilding entry on page 1383, Vol. 2 of The Encyclopedia of Religion & Nature (Thoemmes Continuum, 2005). We will try to add this information and a link to the essay, if we don't hear from anyone. We can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Note in terms of how this term is categorized on Wiki, that Hardin was and is not an anarchist (reference articles on deep ecology and anarchism he wrote for Anarchy magazine), although relating to many green anarchy precepts. He is more akin to a deep ecologist and neoprimitivist, having founded a unique system of personal responsibility and connection to nature. See: www.animacenter.org, and the history of his project as well as the serialized Rewilding essay are found under the history section at www.animacenter.org/blog Thank you, Kiva Rose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
there will probably never be real (secondary) sources for this.
From what i am reading at this talk page, i believe most users agree that this particular page should be splitted. The pleistocene rewilding section could be much more detailed, and thus i will create a new page entirely for pleistocene rewilding alone. This page will then be converted into Rewilding(biological), and i have enough information and references on my hands to create a detailed page on Rewilding(biological) alone including information of who coined the word, which project was being described by the word etc etc.
If anyone disagree with what i am proposing, please say so. I am going to begin doing what i am proposing here in a few days time.
- Hi – two points:
- Please explain exactly what you are proposing: what would the two articles be called, and what would each contain?
- How does this split relate to the existing article Pleistocene Rewilding?
- Richard New Forest (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, as i've mentioned earlier, a new article would be created and called "Pleistocene Rewilding" and information here regarding pleistocene rewilding would be moved there. And the next article would be just plain "Rewilding" but actually stands for Rewilding in terms of Conservation biology and i will add more info regarding the steps and process of Rewilding(conservation biology) and even the person who coined it, and which conservation project has been described by this process etc etc.
The split is related to this article because this article is currently called "Rewilding" and when u search "rewilding", it redirects here. But this current "rewilding" article can be more detailed and specific and can be splitted into "pleistocene rewilding" and "Rewilding(conservation biology)". is this clear enough?
- Sorry, not really. There is already an existing article called Pleistocene Rewilding – why not just move relevant material there? Secondly, what would the article Rewilding (conservation biology) contain, and how would it be different from Pleistocene rewilding? Thirdly, where would the material about green anarchy etc go? Richard New Forest (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for not being clear. I noticed that i made some errors in my previous comment, so please ignore my above comments and below is my elaboration.
Relevant materials will be moved to the Pleistocene Rewilding, and i will create a new page on Rewilding(green-anarchy) and will move the relevant information from this page there. The difference between Rewilding(conservation biology) and Pleistocene Rewilding is that Pleistocene Rewilding is only focused on the reintroduction of Megafauna back into South, Central, North America and Europe, and Pleistocene Rewilding is actually not rewilding but a relocation project. However Rewilding(conservation biology) is a broader topic, which consist of many rewilding project such as the Save China's Tigers project, Pilanesberg Lion rewilding project, Cheetah reintroduction project, Bily Arjan Sigh's tigress rewilding etc. And Gus Van Dyk is the person who first coined the word "Rewilding" to describe the process of rehabilitation of captive animals back into the wild. And even in Rewilding(conservation biology), there are differences between rewilding herbivores and carnivores which can be elaborated, while Pleistocene Rewilding focus only on Megafaunas. The Rewilding(conservation biology) process also contain some main steps that can be elaborated.
So in other words, let me summarise what i am going to do, i am actually going to split Rewilding(conservation biology) and Rewilding(green-anarchy), and elaborate the page on Rewilding(conservation biology).
- Thank you – that's much clearer, and all looks fine to me. One minor thing: the new names each need a space before the brackets: Rewilding (conservation biology) etc. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your approval, Richard New Forest. Don't worry, i know what to do with the names of the new article, thanks again. I will start the editing as soon as tommorow, thank you once again for your approval.
Rewilding Conservation Biology
I have removed materials about Rewilding(Green Anarchism) to a whole new article "Rewilding Green anarchism". As for this page, it will be Rewilding( Conservation Biology ) page, and i will start editing and adding information tommorow, so please for now do not undo anything I just did because i will be sure to add in new information.
Anyway, i might need help in creating a disambiguation page, is there anyone who can offer some help? Please give me a reply here, thanks.
- "Rewilding Green anarchism" does not exist. At the least, it should be Rewilding (Green anarchism). Murderbike (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i do know that, and i do not really know how to change the title of an article, but i have added "Page Redirect" at the Rewilding ( Green anarchism ) article and redirect readers to the wrongly titled Rewilding Green anarchism article.
Sorry for the inconvenience caused.
Lost its way
The changes that have been brought about here are unsatisfactory since they arbitrarily restrict the meaning of rewilding to one example that few people would necessarily consider to be of prime importance – the rehabilitation of captive animals. In many rewildings, it is a reintroduction of animals taken from the wild and translocated – such as the imminent beaver reintroduction in Scotland. Rewilding can also be a process of regenerating native vegetation, often initiated by removal of herbivore pressure, such as from livestock, and regenerating woodland would be a good example. Too much emphasis is given to Pleistocene rewilding both here and on its own page when the intention of the originators of the American concept was to shake up a moribund conservation ideology rather than have it seen as a panacea, and Zimov's Siberian project is more about landscape regeneration. The separation of Rewilding Anarchism is also arbitrary when it takes with it external links, like my own website and others, that are not necessarily related to personal human rewilding, but about rewilding landscapes with both animals and vegetation eg Self-willed land, Wildland Network and The Rewilding Institute. I don’t think Dave Foreman of the TRI would necessarily appreciate this, and as the author of Self-willed land and a member of the co-ordinating group of the Wildland Network, I would say that I am pretty underwhelmed. I have made this point also on the Rewilding Anarchism page. I would suggest that this arbitrary redefinition of rewilding given here as being only applicable in circumstances where animals bred in captivity are rewilded before release would puzzle many people if they were then to read what Dave Foreman regards as rewilding, or my own website. Moreover, I have actually come recently to appreciate the increasing validity of the rewilding of people (Urban Scout is a good example), and it would seem in keeping with the thoughts of Aldo Leopold that in rewilding, we consider ALL the members of the land community - people, plants and animals. I leave it to others to consider a re-edit here, but these recent changes are a backward step and will only lead to people being misinformed.--Self willed (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Rewilding is an Agenda 21 issue The true believers talk about rewilding most of the American continent after forcing the greatly reduced population into urban areas.....How they plan on reducing the population is extremely unpleasant .... however the present population numbers are ""unsustainable"" and must be ""reduced"" in their Orwellian truefact language... I wonder if the true believers will be willing to be the first to be ""reduced""Lewishb (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)