Talk:Rewilding

Meaning

I am losing track here since the previous discussion on rewilding seems to have disappeared, but the meaning of rewilding must not be sidetracked down a road that only leads to a project on releasing tigers. It has much, much wider implications than that, as is reflected in this version of the article - or wikipedia just becomes propaganda for one view. 11:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More reliable references

It seems that there is a misunderstand from a particular user regarding Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is trying to become a more reliable site, with its articles having more support from reliable references.

It seems that the previous edit of the Rewilding page based on Rewilding of Endangered Carnivores and Tigers seem to be the most updated rewilding issue everyone is talking about. Furthermore, if one were to really look through the references, we can see that the previous article seems much more supported.

It may seem more one-sided to some, however at least it has good support for its statements and more relevant to today's "rewilding" process.

LeoGard (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for Dr Caroline Fraser

Dr Fraser is the author of the book entitled Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution, published late last year. It would seem that Dr Fraser is sufficiently informed on the current trends in rewidling for her entry to Wikipedia about this subject to have considerable merit. I urge people to think carefully (and do their research) before making any changes. Dr Mark Fisher, Wildlands Research institute, University of Leeds Self willed (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rewilding_(Carnivores)

Wikipedians researching this article's topic may be interested in the above AfD. Note also that an account which edited this article and related articles, User:LeoGard, was indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet in February of 2011 in a related investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/China's Tiger/Archive. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewilding in Europe

It it fascinating how the current text of this article (Rewilding (conservation biology)) makes it a sort of American invention. The truth is that these ideas were alive in Europe much earlier. Actually in 1990 such ideas were the basis of the Dutch governmental policy nl:Ecologische hoofdstructuur. This means that years before that people started thinking about the issue and lobbying for their proposals. As far as I am aware of the first ideas can be found in the nl:Stichting Kritisch Bosbeheer which was founded in 1977 (under a a slightly different name). The most influential rewilding project from the early days is probably the Oostvaardersplassen. Another example from the Netherlands is nl:Plan Ooievaar from 1986.

So while in the USA the term wasn't even coined, in the Netherlands concrete plans were implemented by the government. Taka (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid rewilding did originate as a concept in America. The Oostvaardersplassen has never been about rewilding, it is about Nature Development - see De Vires, M. F. (1995). Large herbivores and the design of large‐scale nature reserves in western Europe. Conservation biology, 9(1), 25-33 - as is also the case of Plan Ooievaar where you will find the word "natuurontwikkeling" in the text. Unfortunately, this misinterpretation of nature development as rewilding has caused a significant drift in the meaning of rewilding across Europe, and which works only to the benefit of the agenda of a small minority. The recently formed IUCN Task Force on Rewilding aims to rectify this, and rehabilitate the meaning of rewilding. Self willed (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv Writing for Environmental Professions 12176

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neon.Frogs (article contribs).

Proposed Changes

I mainly want to reorganize this article so that it follows easier and makes more sense. There are several non commensurate categories I want to get rid of. There are also some categories like "Bison Introduction" that don't seem to belong in this article, as it doesn't answer any questions are rewilding in general and seems out of place. It could make sense to add a category that's something like "rewilding different species" or "case studies on rewilding" and include it there, but it doesn't seem to belong in the article as is. I also want to add a section about the relationships between climate change and rewilding, and how rewilding can help remedy climate change.

Neon.Frogs (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Which article are you evaluating?

Rewilding (conservation biology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because it directly relates to the biology course I am currently taking, Biology 201, which is a course that focuses on the foundations of biology, mainly biodiversity and the conservation of species. Furthermore, I believe that conservation biology is an important topic that is sometimes overlooked or not generally thought of when the subject of biology is brought up, and thus I wanted to look more into this topic and make myself more knowledgable on it so that I can inform others on it. The world is currently going through a sixth mass extinction, largely caused by humans, and many ecosystems are being destroyed, species are losing their habitats, and becoming extinct. Thus, I wanted to see if this article included foundational information on this important topic as well as addressed many of the issues that have occurred in the past as well as those that are still going on today. Just at first glance, the article seemed to include a fair amount of information and was separated into various categories that all seemed prevalent to the topic of conservation biology. There are also a good number of references listed at the bottom of the article, which I thought was a good sign.

Article evaluation

Lead Section:

defines essential vocabulary, effectively lays out what the article is about, maybe goes into too much detail in last paragraph (about United Nations)

Content:

content is in good chronological order, includes a variety of subsets (such as different locations, different species, etc.), includes both sides of the argument (the criticism to conservations and the pros), provides strong and clear definitions for scientific terminology

Tone and Balance:

article is mostly neutral, stating mostly facts instead of simply promoting conservation, however, it can be a little one-sided (towards conservation) at some points, includes the points of view from those who oppose it, provides many strong examples to back up the facts

Sources and References:

lots of sources/good range, the links to the sources work, many of the sources are from published scientific papers/articles that have been reviewed

Organization and Writing Quality:

writing is broken down into logical and chronological sections, pretty easy to read (anything that gets "very scientific" is either defined clearly or dumbed down), use of language, spelling, and grammar is proper

Images and Media:

the article does include some images that are properly captioned, however, the images are sort of random, I feel as if there could be more images or more logical images could have been chosen

Talk Page Discussion:

the article is part of four WikiProjects all having to do with ecology and the environment, many of the talk page comments are commenting on the fact that the article seems on-sided (towards conservation), talk page is not that large/developed in general

Overall Impressions:

Overall, this is a good/strong article that has reliable information on its topic. It has many good definitions and term, and although may be a little one-sided at points, does offer the viewpoint of both sides of the argument. It has many reliable sources, but could use more images. It is easy to read and comprehend and its categories are well split up.

Ird003 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)IDiaz

I disagree with removing mention of UN support for rewilding from the lede as that's good globally applicable information.Otherwise, thanks for taking the time to give us this good and coherent review. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Expert revision

Hi everyone, just to note that I plan to work on this article over the next few months in collaboration with rewilding expert Dr Virginia Thomas. Will continue to post here about larger edits. TatjanaBaleta (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is great news! I'm not sure many active editors are still watching this page, I'd not say you'd need to flag larger edits on talk beforehand unless you want to. It probably goes without saying, but for NPOV the article needs to reflect all significant perspectives about rewilding, so at least some of the criticism needs to remain. But generally I'd not exspect opposition to any changes the good Dr wants to make, even if they are major rewrites. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message @FeydHuxtable! Based on our discussion so far, we're planning to add to the sections on Rewilding elements and Criticism and add more information about the different types of rewilding. Happy to discuss further as we go if needed. TatjanaBaleta (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing improvements in this wikipedia page. Take a look at the edits I made today (April 3) in the "History" tab. Know that I am one of the early advocates for "rewilding." I added the "Rewilding Plants" section in this wikipedia page awhile ago. And there you will see I reference my own 1999 essay in Wild Earth magazine. It is titled "Rewilding for Evolution." I don't need it referenced anywhere else, but please do put the late Dave Foreman in there more prominently. I have his "Rewilding North America" book sitting right alongside me now. I looked through the Table of Contents again. It covers so much — and unlike Soule and Noss 1998, Dave and I and the late Paul Schultz Martin all hugely emphasize the role of rewilding for ensuring the FUTURE evolution of plants and animals carrying forward — whether our species survives much longer or not. Cbarlow (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)