Talk:Old-growth forest

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article looks bad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reconsider? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Old-growth forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110409111517/http://www.foe.org.au/resources/chain-reaction/editions/105/tasmanias-old-growth-forests/ to http://www.foe.org.au/resources/chain-reaction/editions/105/tasmanias-old-growth-forests
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ancient woodland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issues with bias / general issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changes made 

message: I think the definition of the old-growth forest should be expanded to include the ecosystems that are enhanced by the native peoples that live there. Many indigenous people that are not connected to the modern world consider themselves (and functionally are) members of the ecosystem themselves. Many of the old-growth forests we have today have only survived so long because of centuries and centuries of maintenance by the people who live in them. It is important to remember that humans come from the Earth just like any other animal does, and that we also have a role in the ecosystem just like any other organism. Houghoug (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, in itself, doesn't expand definitions. It summarizes the definitions provided by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources that cover the definition you think should be included, feel free to add the definition along with the sources.  Crescent77 (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous stewardship 

message: The redirect Native forest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Hildeoc (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Native forest]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: We have created a new website on European virgin / old-growth forests. To our knowledge it is the only website giving general information on European old-growth forests. Please check the site, and if you like it add it to the External links section. Krasanen (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New website on European old-growth forests