Talk:Reforestation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Section sizes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaori752.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled
This linked map shows significant reforestation in the US between 1920 and 1992 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html#fig11 (See figure 11). Please note that earlier maps are for virgin forest only and the 1992 map is not. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
One reason for pre-1900 deforestation was for shipbuilding. Large wooden ships could take over 1M board feet of timber each. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
External Links
I've had a look at the external links provided here and I think every single one of them is spam, of varying descriptions. The German ones I'm not so sure about but even if they're not they should be on the German Wiki. So I've removed them. The Boy that time forgot 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The links are to websites to "BUY" green trees and other "trendy" green items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.120.191 (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-neutral?
This short article (stub?) hardly looks neutral at present. Between the lines, it reads "the re-foresters are the good guys - the tree farmers are the bad ones." Any views? If there is support I may be motivated to look up some citations. Dendrotek 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the tone does not seem neutral, also "Some environmentalists are fond of calling forest plantations “tree farms” as a term of derision." KAM 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. Could you please check your external link - I can't make it work right through, although I can see you are related to Davis College - but I cannot get the pdf.
Cheers, Dendrotek 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It certainly has the marks of a propaganda piece for one point of view.Rvannatta 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ways to extend this natural resource
One way we can do to extend the use of reforestation, is that we can save paper, after using the front of the page, and if the back is not used you can use the back. Instead writing a draft on good paper, you can write on newspaper print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.98.234 (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality
Hi! This almost seems to take the side that reforestation is a good idea. Why don't we make this NPOV and simply describe what it is and who the proponents and opponents are? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- And pleeease! Take out this Carbondioxide-Garbage. It drives me mad to read everywhere about it!--Rimailleur (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
In history
Noticable reforestation efforts in history should be described. This includes South Korea, and more recently, Turkey and China. See http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch8_ss2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
