Talk:Plantation

message: If anyone is really upset, then revert my changes.  But I have not removed any material that was there.  --Red King 16:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that I look at it more closely, I see another hand (as History confirms).  I've made TREES a specific to try to make it more generic.  It still needs work! --Red King 16:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey! it looks better already. --Wetman 18:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert changes

message: I took out tree farm , F_CK this latter term more typically refers to specialist tree nurseries which produce the seedling trees used to create plantations.  A" tree farm" trees grown for harvest, they could be natural. 
An "American tree farm" is a progam from the 1940 to improve forest parctices on farmsKAM 22:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tree farm

message: Red King added:
"Where non-native varieties or species are grown, few of the native fauna are adapted to exploit these and further biodiversity loss occurs. In some cases, the imported species can bring predators for which there is no local control and the crop can adversely be affected.
Red King's wording strikes me as a little bit too absolute - the harmful effects of exotic plantations is by no means universal.  I'm also a bit uncertain as to what is meant by imported species can bring predators - I'm guessing "predators" should really be "pests and pathogens", but more importantly I can't think of examples - can you provide some citations?  Thanks.  Guettarda 14:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples I had in mind were: mass planting of conifers in place of broadleaf woodland producing an environment in which very few other flora and fauna can survive.  The other example is the cane toad in Australia - it was introduced (I believe) to control native insects that attacked the cane.  But the Cane-toad article doesn't mention this, so it may be apocryphal.  In any case, my addition confuses two issues (a) introduced Ps and Ps that attack other things and (b) local Ps and Ps that attack the introduced crop.  So I'll revert it and leave for someone more expert to write. --Red King 00:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impacts of non-native species 

message: A plantation is a place where people plant things, sometimes the people called themselves planters. The Dictionary definition of plantation is 1. a settlement and 2. a colony.  Colony and plantation are sometimes used interchangeably but it seems to me that a plantation refers more to the area and a colony to the people or government. For example Plymouth colony ended when it became part of Bay State Colony and Plymouth plantation ended when it became the town of Plymouth. This is the case in Maine. When a plantation got enough population it became a town.KAM 14:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There was something like this in the original text, but it just got lost in the undergrowth <grin>. The solution, disambiguation, was ideal.  At present, there is a very brief disambiguation statement at the beginning.  It looks like you have written most of a new article above, so I suggest you merge the existing preface with yours and then change the preface to point to it. --Red King 17:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may support my own suggestion(!), the multiply revised preface has become a bit of mess - so tightly edited to keep it terse that the meaning is getting lost.
I am not sure if this is the direction you were thinking. Also it is hacked up a little. Needs some work  The things I left out (plantation economy) can be worked back in.KAM 23:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text:  I see your point, I think this looks good.KAM 11:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plantation, settlement and Colony

message: This article is about various plantations: tree tobacco, sugarcane, pineapple, etc.  All these  plantations are grown as monoculture for the production of a crop “as opposed to a natural forest” there all are often nonnative,  have no decaying wood etc etc.  and  “are not a fitting substitute for old-growth forests” (what is?).   It is probably safe to say most crop  plantations were formerly forest.  A tree plantation, even of non-native species, is probably preferably, ecologically speaking,  to any other crop such as tea or sugar. Why then is this information in the forestry secion and is this not being said about, say, sugar plantations?
The answer is, I think, that nobody is asserting that sugar plantations make a good substitute for a natural forest.   From reading this article one could surmise that someone is asserting that tree plantations can be substituted for natural forest and that this article is the rebuttal or augment against. 
Of course a natural forest and a tree plantation both can produce wood and a plantation can produce more wood on less land (an argument made by the  "three island word problem"). Is the argument here that it is better to harvest wood from a natual forest? KAM 17:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut back on comparison to natural forest. The article at agriculture for example has material about environmental impacts but does not compare monoculture non-native crops to a natural forest. Plantations are not established as wildlife preserves, why hold them to that standard? A discussion of land use or forestry belongs elsewhere. KAM 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural forest vs tree plantation

message: Going by the photo captions it seems that forestry plantations can't win. In the photo of the Douglas fir the caption says note the "lack of diversity in the ground flora" The second photo the Eucalyptus which shows diversity in the ground flora the caption points out the danger of brush fires. Contrast those captions to the non-forest plantations. What was the forest like on Cuba before being cleared for sugar plantations in the 19th century? KAM 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw your comment here, agreed so I've taken the liberty of removing the comment on the DF photo. I could quite rightly be accused of acting too hastily but sure anyone can put it back. The Boy that time forgot 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, both photos show very poor ground flora diversity; the Eucalyptus pic shows a planted (straight!) hedge in the foreground, and a ground flora consisting of two species (Pteridium aquilinum, and another fern probably Dryopteris sp.), plus a few self-sown Eucalyptus saplings. Also perhaps even more important is the lack of diversity in the trees; no significant variation in age, no dead wood, etc. I think the bushfire comment is less relevant; if that needs illustrating, use a pic of a burning or burnt forest (e.g. :Image:Burnt pine forest.jpg) - MPF 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo captions POV 

message: Half of the 'Criticism of industrial plantations' section doesn't actually present any criticism - for example, the first dot point says 'Plantations are generally monocultures...' and explains what that means, but it doesn't say what's so bad monocultures.
58.106.9.220 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Industrial Plantations 

message: Do you know if anyone has ever compared plantations to corporations?  Karl Marx, Mother Jones, Eugene Debs, or anyone else??  Because they all look to be the same, & I think we should add links to connect them to each other.  What would it take?  Stars4change (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporations

message: The article's section on forestry plantations (of trees grown for wood production) has gotten large and detailed enough that it really should have its own article, with this article devoted to the concept of plantations in general and just a small section on forestry plantations which then links to the new separate article.
This would greatly help with giving the readers a better and more accessible understanding of each, and also avoid some confusion.  For example, the "Criticism" subsection under forestry shows a picture of a tea plantation - not so relevant.  Or, in the "Natural forest loss" subsection, it says "According to the FAO, about 7% of the natural closed forest being lost in the tropics is land being converted to plantations."  Is this referring specifically to land being converted to *forestry* plantations, or does it also include land converted to tea plantations, sugar plantations, palm oil plantations, etc.  I suspect the former, but given the context of the article that's not so clear.
A separate article specifically on forestry plantations would bring more clarity, and there's already more than sufficient depth for one.  And it would also allow readers wanting more information about plantations in general - with the history of slavery, etc. - to read about that without first having to scroll through a bunch of stuff about forestry. -79.234.53.76 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split forestry plantation into separate article 

message: Dear Editors, new here, so some grace as I share. After having an editor revert my addition to the "See Also" section, I am taking their suggestion, thank you for that, and posting my edit here for consensus: Add Labor camp to the "See Also" section.
Here's why:  
* Plantations in the antebellum South of the United States were "forced labor camps". A wikilink to labor camp in the "See Also" section would add to the definition of this page's subject with an unredacted history, that tells a fuller history about the experience of the enslaved Black and Indigenous peoples at the plantations. The editor asked me to cited sources. I asked the editor that if I cite a source, if they would not revert the edit. I did not receive a response - instead they told me to start a Talk on this page and gain consensus. The sources: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/plantation-system/ and https://mountainx.com/opinion/letter-language-shift-will-change-perceptions/ 
* It's great that Wikipedia Foundation has programs such as Wiki Unseen. From the program's website: "A promise to show the world the people who have shaped the world, but were systematically erased from knowledge spaces. People whose images were taken out of the picture.   With Wiki Unseen, our goal is to redraw those within the global majority — including Black people, people of color, and Indigenous peoples — back into history, one image at a time."
It is not enough to "show the world the people who have shaped the world" - it is important to allow their whole history to be told, even, and especially the uncomfortable parts. Plantations were forced labor camps and Wikipedia should be responsible as a global resource in stating this description of them in its pages.
* However, at present, the Wikipedia pages tell a redacted history through the use of the passive voice, omitting White people in pages about slavery and plantations or using euphemisms for them, continuing to state "slaves" instead of returning humanity to the people who worked on the forced labor camps as "enslaved Black and Indigenous people", and not aptly describing "plantations" as forced labor camps". This redacted history does not abide by "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" from Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Wikipedia pages that tell a fuller, unredacted history would make the unseen, seen in our history even more.
Sincerely, Unredacthefacts (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "labor camp" does not apply to all types of plantation anywhere in the world, which is one reason why it's not appropriate to add it as a "See also" in this article - but, if reliable sources use the term (as some do) it could be linked if there are appropriate words in the "American South" section.  I've just added a link in the article on Plantation complexes in the Southern United States.  That does not mean that words such as "i.e. a labor camp" need to be added to every article in which the word "plantation" (in the US sense) is mentioned.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to 'See Also":  [[Labor camp]]