Talk:Ecological resilience

Ecology B‑class

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

NPOV ?

The sentence Emphasis on engineering resilience reinforces the dangerous myth that the variability of natural systems can be effectively controlled, that the consequences are predictable and that sustained production is an attainable and sustainable goal expresses a legitimate point of view, but it is not really neutral. Maybe it could be reworded.

131.114.9.221 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Domenici

Rewrote Content

I am not an ecologist. This article was a mess. I removed a sentence which contained a verb with no subject. The whole article spoke of two conflicting definitions being in use, and contained a section titled "First Definition". Yet nowhere in the entire article was a second definition provided! I hope my rewrite inspires some articulate ecologist to take a hand and improve this article. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your effort is commendable - thanks!!. I agree that the article was a mess. If you look at the first revisions, by User:Alan Liefting, there ARE two definitions - I believe that this first revision is more logically coherent than the present revision. An IP address deletes some references down the road, then suddenly Walker 2004 (?) enters and claims priority, it's not even referenced (?). I have not read Holling, only read secondary sources, and I'm not a subject matter expert. But I could be tempted to roll the article back to the first revision, and then add some of the better later contributions. This is an example of article degeneration over time. Stupid, I even made some small edits myself, without going back looking into article revision history, and to trying to establish an overview. Too bad. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are two definitions. One (mentioning 'rate') is in the very first sentence. The second (mentioning 'capacity' not 'rate') is given in the first paragraph under the heading 'Definition'. Neither definition is referenced. The first definition is unfamiliar to me, and I hope someone else can come up with a reference for it. I'm sure I can find a reference for the second.Óghog (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought previously that this article needed merely some editorial work. However, have discovered Holling's original concept of resilience is virtually absent. Have added reference to the original paper, and will make changes to article accordingly if someone else doesn't get to it first. There also needs to be some discussion of the significance of the concept of resilience in current thought about sustainability and/or sustainable development.Óghog (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosystem resilience is the speed with which an ecosystem returns to a stable state after perturbance (can also apply when trying to rehabilitate an ecosystem but it returns to its degraded state). The main definition in this article is actually refering to ecosystem resistance, which is the amount of disturbance or pertubation that can be tolerated by an ecosystem before it changes state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.203.19 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote and expanded content

The content of this wikipedia page was poorly organised and the key terms and concepts were not discussed in a logical order, and therefore a gang of four rewrote the article, overhauled its contents, added illustrative examples of ecosystems with reduced resilience due to human impacts, and added a section on the inclusion of the concept of resilience in environmental decisions and management. Some other wiki users have since 'wikified' parts of the page so the layout is now not quite as readable due to removal of some whitespace (graphics have shifted).Vaca gse843 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly has improved. However I disagee with your use of & nbsp;, , , <li></li> and <ul></ul>(and anything else I might have missed) instead of Wikitext. First, using HTML is a bit more complicated, leaving room for mistakes by editors. Why not use the simpler methods that seem to be standard in (nearly) every other WP article. Second, attempting to manipulate the layout to such an (apparently) exacting standard for your browser/display size combination may result in different results for the many people reading the article with different browsers/displays. And please excuse any weasel words or original research. ClamDip (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a lot of those line breaks. Now at least the breaks are even through the whole article. A lot of the html is still in there. If anyone else (I use Safari) gets quirky displays I reckon they should just delete the interfering html. Emble64 (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry editing was not up to scratch - it was a very first ever attempt at an article. It was done as part of a university assignment and rough draft was prepared using an editor provided as part of our very own private wiki world, hence the probably overly complicated HTML generated. So feel free to fix any formatting - however the stability landscape now floats over the top of the Human Impacts section, which is kind of distracting.Vaca gse843 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]