Talk:Clearcutting

message: From the article: "Clearcutting contrasts with selective cutting, such as high grading, in which only commercially valuable trees are harvested, leaving all others. This practice can reduce the genetic viability of the forest over time, resulting in poorer or less vigorous offspring in the stand."
If clear-cutting is going to be compared with selection cutting, perhaps we shouldn't cherry-pick the most destructive and now rarely-used form of selective cutting. It makes for a very biased Wikipedia article. --Calibas (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective and selection cutting aren't synonymous- see here. Minnecologiest,c 01:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the difference now, which only continues to raise the question as to why clear-cutting is being "contrasted" with one of the other most destructive forestry practices. As it is now, the article implies that clear-cutting isn't so bad because high grading is even worse. It should be contrasted with single-tree selection cutting instead. --Calibas (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I see your point now, I think as it was written it was meant to bring light to the fact that clearcutting is erroneously associated with selective cutting/high grading. I agree that it needs to be rewritten, it should more simply explain the difference between it and high grading, STS, etc. Minnecologiest,c 16:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection cutting 

message: From my understanding, clearcutting itself simply means to remove most or all of the trees, with or without any regard for sustainability or regrowth. The silvicultural practice of clearcutting is clearcutting, but with a plan in place to restore the forest afterward. We might want to make a distinction, as both types are still practiced on the Planet today. It should be mentioned that clear cutting without any regard for restoration goes against everything forestry is about (though not the lumber industry). --Calibas (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In many places clearcutting is followed by abandonment of the land - for lack of money to spend on replanting. This certainly happens here in Japan. --Kleinzach 01:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Calibas gets it- clearcutting without regards to restoration or replanting is deforestation (means and ends). The article needs to make the distinction. Minnecologiest,c 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Greenpeace, for example, and many other people simply call the destructive practice 'clearcutting'. This article should include that general definition as well as ones that may be more technical. --Kleinzach 14:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the inclusion of clearcutting's more general definition, but I think the distinction between it and the technical definition should be very pronounced. Speaking of Greenpeace- googling "Greenpeace clearcutting" (one word or two) is coming up with basically nothing as far as an actual definition or report. Are you aware of the existence of anything of the sort? Minnecologiest,c 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the encyclopedia's approach it's essential we do include general definitions. We are not writing a 'Forester's handbook'. Re Greenpeace, try this about the 'Golden chain saw' award. That's a fairly typical usage. --Kleinzach 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From here: "Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work". Read: Not, suppress legitimate information that can be presented in a user-friendly manner because it's to the personal distaste of a particular editor. Minnecologiest,c 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I do not think information should be suppressed. This works both ways. Pro-clearcutting information should not be suppressed. Ant-clearcutting information should not be suppressed. Given the nature of the controversy both sides will define 'clearcutting' differently. That's implicit and should be recognized in the article. --Kleinzach 02:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Definition 

message: I understand that the recent additions to the article and especially the section on Environment are emanating from a college project so I am loath to intervene at present. However, there are many sweeping statement that have yet to be substantiated by reliable references and the use of Greeniacs articles as source references is not going to stand up to scrutiny. Wikipedia needs something more robust and authoritative than that. There is lots of published material around not only about the environmental impacts but also about mitigating strategies and working methods. It may be worth recording also that removal of mono-culture conifer plantations may allow re-development of broad=leaf woodland which in turn may reduce the impact of acidification of local watercourses.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Environment 

message: Hello, I have chosen your article for the ANTH 2501 peer review! While reading your article, I noticed that there are a few areas in which you could improve. For instance, you mention  deforestation in the Amazon and how much land has  been cleared, but what are the effects on biodiversity or the Indigenous Peoples, or even the state of the planet? There's a lot of information and interesting topics which you could explore, and even create new sections on. Also, keep in mind of the projects requirements: 2 new sections, at least 5 quality sources, external links, making sure that it links to other articles and vice versa...looking back on your wiki history I saw that only one section has been added...You may also want to consider using more academic sources like journals or books, they are FULL of great information, and would contain relevant topics relating to your article! One last thing to mention, there are a few grammatical errors, and some sentences are missing citations where they should be...
I hope this helps! Best of luck with the rest of your project! Kinloch21 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: User:Duende8 added a neutrality warning to this article for reasons that are not clear. There does not appear to be any recent discussion about this issue on the talk page. Does anyone know why this cleanup tag was added? Jarble (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Duende8 made only the one edit (as above) and didn't start a discussion. Neutrality and similar templates should be accompanied by an explanation on the article talk page. Consequently, I removed it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: {{visible anchor|Unexplained neutrality cleanup template|Neutrality template}}

message: What is the opposite of this where instead of cutting all trees they only pick out certain trees and just cut them but leave the ones around it?
I tried to find it here but didn't see it mentioned. Ranze (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it should be mentioned. Have a look at Selection cutting or Continuous cover forestry and consider adding a sentence here to balance the article. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Antonym

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Clearcutting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816141425/http://forestpolicyresearch.org/2009/03/04/california-citizens-to-stop-sierra-pacifics-plan-to-clearcut-one-million-acres-of-sierra-forest/ to http://forestpolicyresearch.org/2009/03/04/california-citizens-to-stop-sierra-pacifics-plan-to-clearcut-one-million-acres-of-sierra-forest/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827224824/http://www.publicland.ca/issues/clearcutting.html to http://www.publicland.ca/issues/clearcutting.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freegrassy.org/learn-more/the-boreal-forest/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Clearcutting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101095911/http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0801-amazon.html to http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0801-amazon.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029212926/http://dovetailinc.org/files/DovetailSilvics0509.pdf to http://dovetailinc.org/files/DovetailSilvics0509.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103144233/http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/timber_production/fortp19.htm to http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/timber_production/fortp19.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This section does not seem to fit with the rest of the article - it reads more like a personal essay than an academic encyclopedia entry. Not being an expert on the subject, Black Feminist Theory and the social identities that loggers hold might indeed be important information in understanding lumber industry practices, however even so, it could benefit from being rewritten in a more academic manner. Relayer2112 (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Injustice Section