Talk:Pleistocene rewilding

Merge?

I'm not sure, but maybe this article should be merged with Rewilding Institute‎?
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

hello Mats, I believe that will be a good idea to merge these two texts, also I believe that the text of rewilding Institute will be an interjection of pleistocene rewilding text. greetings Sergiodlarosa 06:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

there's been no more discussion on this, so i'm guessing no movement has been made to merge. i would be against it - the rewilding institute, while in favor of returning large native fauna, are not advocating a specifically pleistocene rewild, at least not as far as i know. the ideas are part of the same general zeitgeist, but not otherwise connected. - Metanoid (talk, email) 06:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No title

i hope any and all editors can agree that this article is in bad shape. i have done little to help (one of these days i'll get right on that). Sergiodlarosa, though i appreciate your vision as far as your photoshop creations are concerned, i don't think it's appropriate to "push" those here; and i mean no insult, but your english does not lend itself to the encyclopedic tone that is necessary. maybe ask a spanish speaking admin to help out? or maybe, check out the spanish wikipedia project. you may be more comfortable! just a suggestion.... - Metanoid (talk, email) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest link

Under European Rewilding there is a mention of the straight-tusked elephant but no internal link. Suggest linking with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-tusked_elephant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.220.86 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewilding images

I am a "nascent" photographer and I am not a "professional" ecologist, but I consider the rewilding project like a desperate effort towards the animal conservation. But I believe that we need desperate efforts in favor of that objective. For that reason I make images that seem "exaggerated" or "ambitious" but I believe that we would have to be ambitious to show interesting and impressive images to the greater amount of people and later to ask great things to the governors and the territory owners to obtain good things, although they are only one fraction of our initial objectives. If we requested place for lions, cheetahs and wolves, perhaps we could obtain space for the wolves. And that would be a good start.

But if I make damage to the principles of wikipedia or even worse to the rewilding projects, I will stop my work. Because I do not understand in what moment my images became inappropriate? implausible? bewildering? vandalism?... They are only images that I make to illustrate the rewilding projects. An image is worth by thousand words. in english or in spanish. In any case I would want to be advised to fulfill all the wikipedia requirements. Thank you. and sorry the poor "encyclopedic tone". Sergiodlarosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.96.77 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sergio – your images are excellent and interesting, and personally I think rewilding is a great idea. However, this is an encyclopaedia, and so has to present factual material. It can report what has been published about rewilding, but cannot be a place to encourage the idea, nor to persuade people about it.

Images should illustrate the article, and so should be also encyclopaedic. I don't think your images are encyclopaedic – they are more like an advertisment for the idea, and so belong elsewhere. The sort of image I think would be more useful would be a direct comparison of an extinct species and a modern species which could replicate it – for example, a picture of a mammoth, and one of an elephant showing it feeding on trees (but see below about sources).

The species listed need to be from published sources, not made up for this article. As an ecologist, I might have excellent ideas about what modern species could replicate a giant sloth or a mastodon – but I can't just write that in, because it would be original research. Instead I must find a published source which makes the suggestion, and use that as a reference.

The list I removed from the article included many mis-spellings ("Equss", caps for species names) and ecological mistakes (tiger for Smilodon), so I am doubtful that it is from a published source.

By the way, don't forget to use the four tildes (~~~~) to sign your comments. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

that's goes for me too, sergio. i really like your work, but was concerned over the original research issue and whatnot. i do appreciate your effort ! (i'm a fan of the project, myself.) - Metanoid (talk, email) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will make another more encyclopaedic image.

I did not write the list (the mis-spellings list), some one else did it from my images. On the other hand in a general way I believe with respect to "ecological equivalences", smilodon behaved more like lions because I believe that they hunted in group and the P.Leo atrox was more solitary, almost like a tiger. Anyway it is impressive to know that tigers in beringia, lions, smilodons, homotheriums, jaguars, cougars, bears, wolves,cuons... shared the space in North America; like until recently time did it in India: tigers, lions, bears, wolves, leopards, cuons, hyenas, ... Sergiodlarosa (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Sergiodlarosa

We don't know exactly what Smilodon did, but it is likely that it hunted larger animals such as mastodons and mammoths by slashing with its "sabres". This is very different from either lions or tigers, which hunt prey with necks small enough to choke them. Neither lion nor tiger could replace Smilodon, which was in fact not closely related to any surviving cats. You may be right that North American lions hunted more like tigers than African lions do. However, I suspect that lions varied quite a bit in hunting style throughout their original range – in fact I believe there are still African lions in scrub and mountain landscapes which hunt in smaller groups. I think the best animal to replace American lion is certainly the African or Asian lion – I fear it's too late to replicate Smilodon. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

American and Commonwealth English

richard (if i may call you that): i looked it up to be sure (see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language/FAQs#Practice_vs._practise), then changed the spelling back. i'm pretty sensitive to the differences between the various "englishes", but it's good to know someone else is watching for it too! (fyi, if you happen to edit with firefox, there are spellcheck dictionaries available for u.s., u.k., south african, and australian english.) :) - Metanoid (talk, email) 10:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edits

Apologies, but I have reverted recent edits made by User:Jimmcb. I've done this reluctantly, as much of the material is good and the article did need a lot of work. However, the new version can't stand, because it removed wholesale a great deal (I think all) of the existing material, including much wikification (links, refs etc). If existing material is poor, it should be criticised first, not just junked.

There are other problems, such as the absence of a lead para summarising the article, the absence of a definition of the concept, the absence of WP links – all irritating, but soluble. More serious (and also a fault of the previous version), much of it reads more like an advocational website than an encyclopaedia (for example, "the revolutionary concept of...").

I'd like to see a lot of this material included, but really it must be done incrementally, with discussion. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Major fixes to the article

I personally believe this article is going downhill. For many reasons. --71.0.115.175 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just passing by, and hav no particular knowledge about the subject of this article, but I can offer this advice: Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and make what you see as needed improvements to the article. However, as Zhang He suggests, it would be a good idea to state your intentions and reasons for your changes here and reference the talk page in your edit summary ("see talk page"). This gives recent changes patrolers a better idea of what you are up to and should minimize misunderstandings.

The warning from Cluebot was issued solely based on the change in the size of the article. It will not repeat that warning. If someone else disagrees with your changes, they might revert and start a discussion here on the talk page, but that is a normal part of the WP:PRD process. (Also, note that the comment preceding yours was over a year old. I have added a new section header to separate this discussion.) Thank you for your contributions. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleistocene rewilding in Russia

Why rewilding in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus is absent? Pleistocene park in Siberia, Chernobyl Zone of Alienation, park "Orlovskaia steppe" and other? Its real pleistocene rewilding projekt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.172.164 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ligers

I think the hybrid Liger would be the best proxy for the American Lion. American lions had shorter manes than modern African lions. They also may have had stripes or spots. American lions are also bigger than all living cats, including the Siberian Tiger. Some scientists believe that the American Lion might also have been closely related to the tiger. Ligers are larger than both of their parents. They are about the same size as the American Lion was. They have shorter manes than the lion, and they have faint stripes or spots. Shouldn't the liger be the proxy for the American Lion? Troodon58 09:25 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, mainly because male ligers tend to be sterile.--68.255.111.43 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Komodo Dragon

Tim Flannery-who at least seems to be a pretty large advocate for rewilding-said that the Komodo dragon would be a good replacement for Megalania. Shouldn't we put that in the list? Especially since the goanna already lives in Australia, so it wouldn't be real introduction, I would think so.--68.255.111.43 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Concept feasability?

As I copyedit this article, I can't help wondering if this whole movement was inspired by Jurassic Park. Does it have any traction, or is it one person's vision?--Miniapolis (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

rewilding vs. pleistocene rewilding

Rewilding is a common part of nature conservation. Animals are getting introduced in parts, which they occupied in the last several hundred years. The list on the end of the article includes many of those animals, which have nothing to do with pleistocene rewilding. So I will remove a couple of them now.... --Altaileopard (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

Reading the "criticism" section of the main article made diet Mountain Dew come out of my nose, and I wasn't even drinking any at the time. The criticism of this concept goes far, far, far beyond "but what if ecological balances have changed in the past ten thousand years," to "they will eat my cattle" and "wolves were exterminated for a reason, and we're going to have to learn why all over again, aren't we?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.156.96 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreference proxies

A lot of proxies have been added without references, which is likely original research. I'll give it a while so that authors can add references when they exist, and then I plan to delete all the unreferenced proxies.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lots more of such strange additions later, from anon editors! -- Vmenkov (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here they go....--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a statement that an animal still exists, is expanding its range, or is not extinct in other parts of its range, can be sourced, often simply by clicking on its article. But an ecological proxy is an opinion, and I think it needs a reliable source from the get-go.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Title doesn't match scope

This article doesn't seem to be only about "Pleistocene" rewilding, but also about replacing very recently extinct animals. The title should therefore be changed, or some text be moved elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yaks have been introduced into Pleistocene Park

Pleistocene Park has recently acquired a herd of ten Yaks which are now roaming in the park. I think the part talking about reintroductions in Northern Siberia needs to updated a little.

108.248.162.150 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Potential New Rewilding: Elephants in Australia

There has been an update. There has been demand to bring large herbivores such as elephants to Australia to act as a proxy for extinct megafauna and to control wildfires. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/02/3420810.htm 108.249.89.121 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The article is interesting and perhaps relevant, but you haven't said where you want the link (e.g., in External links section) or what, if any, accompanying text you'd like to see. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yak have been introduced into Pleistocene Park

This just happened this year, Pleistocene Park has just acquired a small herd of Yak which is now freely grazing in the park. 108.246.12.15 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. More specifically, though the park's Facebook page is a primary source, it still needs to be backed up with a reliable source from news outlets. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Monkeys in North America?

Can any find a source to this? If not, we should edit that out. Monsieur X (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ostrich in Ukraine

I think it'd be good to mention under the European section of animals that are already introduced, that a nature reserve in Ukraine called Askaniya-Nova introduced a species of African/Common Ostrich to its steppe, which as a result should mean that the introduced Ostrich should act as a proxy for the country's extinct European subspecies from the pleistocene. If possible, I think it would be worth listing it there. 2601:204:C603:DFA0:0:0:0:E5FB (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Political practicality

Hello @AnonMoos: Apokryltaros should have said WP:NOTFORUM. On this subject if you can find sources agreeing to the impracticality of this idea then I agree with adding this to the article. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 September 2022 (UTC)