Talk:Sponge theory

message: So much for a neutral point of view! This is by far the most one sided Wiki article I have ever come across. If Sponge Theory is something that many people beleive is indeed fact (as is stated in the article) then both sides of the argument should be presented. I am no expert in this matter, so I cannot help to improve this article. But somebody certainly needs to improve it. Amazonis 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. In fact, I had never heard of the "sponge theory" until I read the cited report, and I'm a hydrologist. A Web of Science search came up with no hits for "sponge theory" (in this context). I know what it means, but the article makes a huge leap from the report, which itself is a policy, not science, document. The document simply meant to build a conceptual picture of forest soil hydrology, and called it this. Nevertheless, the meme set down by the FAO report has taken off, and I was takan aback when I saw someone had created this article. There are other "sponge" theories, which are probably more notable than this. What content this offers is best suited to flood. Daniel Collins 23:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great to put the other side of the story. A while back I added a direct quote from the FAO report some elements of the "Sponge Theory" hold to try to add some ballance. I know very little on the subject, just being one of those who caught the pro sponge theory meme. I'd love to see more on this very important topic. --Salix alba (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it's more about "completeness" than "balance". The "sponge theory", either way, tells only part of the story about how forests affect flooding, and of consequences of land use change. I am inclined to create a fuller page on deforestation and flooding. How does that fly? Daniel Collins 14:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. We than make Sponge theory redirect to that page. --Salix alba (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I like Daniel Collins' suggestion to create a fuller page on deforestation and flooding, but in the meantime, I suggest we redirect this page to Deforestation, which already includes some brief comments on deforestation and hydrology.  I think this article is fundamentally untenable as an article.  Its title is apparently used only by those who argue against the theory, which even these detractors seem to acknowledge is the consensus view among experts.  Its content is an unabashedly POV summary of one source's viewpoint.  --Allen 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool with me. The basics of this article can be added there and, in due course, the theme can be expanded more fully. Alas, I shouldn't do that for a while, because it will be a bit involved. Daniel Collins 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I went ahead and made the redirect.  --Allen 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're exactly right that it should be clear where the information is coming from.  That's the basis of WP:NPOV, I think, and in my opinion, that was the primary problem with the text that was here before I redirected.  But since there seems to be only one easily verifiable source for this viewpoint, I think the sponge theory information should go on the Deforestation page, rather than on its own page.  --Allen 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said the "sponge theory information" just then, what I should have said is "the arguments against the prevailing hydrological perspective, which opponents refer to as 'Sponge Theory'."  One of my concerns was that the title "Sponge Theory" was inherently POV, because it seems only opponents use that term (I'm not sure what term proponents use, or if there even is one).  --Allen 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposing redirect to [[Deforestation]]