Talk:Rainforest/Archive 2

Removal of sourced material
I have again reverted the mass removal of cited information. The sources I checked do support the information. Now, if you dispute a particular source, then make your case here on a source by source basis. The blanket removal without specific comments along with the careless reversion of other unrelated changes amounts to vandalism. Vsmith (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WTF? I though I had made the case here, which is why Asidemes rmoved the claim. have made the case here.


 * But since you think I haven't made my case then perhaps you can quote where either of those articles say that Madagascar has lost 90% of it rainforest? I have read both of them from top to bottom and the closest they come is saying that Madagascar has lost 90% of it forest? Do you understand that rainforest is not a synonym for forest? Do you understand that it possible for nation to lose 90% of it forest and only 1% of it rainforest, or 1% of it forest and 100% of it rainforest?


 * Good grief. It's like there's a secret hidden passage somewhere that might say that Madagascar has lost 90% of its rainforest. But I'm accused of vandalism for revertig something that has already been discussed and decided ot be inaccurate.


 * But I await eagerly some evidence that those references state that Mdagascar has lost 90% of it rainforest, rather than 90% of it forest.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed to 2/3 with better reference. Vsmith (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Since you agree that references didn't say what was claimed, and I was thus justified in removing them, any chance of an apology for your vandalism accusation.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. But, that was only one reference -- and I now see the "eastern rainforest" bit and valid source was on the deforestation article. I've replied further on my talk. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rainforest Leaf Litter is not deep because the bacteria eat it and deteriate it into earth.In leaf litter there are many insects and small animals living inside it for protection from predators —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.0.189 (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that citation note 19 has an incorrect date - that paper is from 2003.


 * I corrected the date. Thanks! Krasanen (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Subtropical rainforests
The position of subtropical rainforests is now unclear: it appears both in Tropical rainforest and in Temperate rainforest. Which one it should be included in? Or should we create an own article for it? Krasanen (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Personally I prefer to include subtropical rainforests in the "Temperate rainforest" article and to rename it "Temperate and subtropical rainforests", as subtropical rainforests are ecologically closer to temperate rainforests with a colder period. The problem is that the subtropical rainforests have been included in the map of the "Tropical rainforest" article (although some areas are missing in the map) and there is already a Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests article. Krasanen (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewels of the Earth
I found some people who call rainforests "jewels of the earth."
 * Rainforest Alliance: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/education/treehouse/jewelsoftheearth/index.html
 * someone called Joan Schroeder: http://www.helium.com/items/272049-how-rainforest-deforestation-affects-food-supplies

Perhaps we could change the article to say: It is commonly alleged that Tropical rainforests have been called ...

--Matty K 12:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

hot temperatures and strong winds
This article states that They need to be able to withstand the hot temperatures and strong winds:
 * Regarding hot temperatures, rainforest development occurs in hot and rainy climates and are suited for them from the ecological point of view. However, hottest temperatures do not occur in rainforest zones since they have also a great humidity. So, highest temperatures in the world are not recorded in the intertropical zone, but along the subtropics.
 * Again, strong winds are not frequent in the intertropical zone. Rainforest reaches something like 7° latitude north and south the equator, were hurricanes do not occur. However, it is good to say, some forests similar to rainforests develop in southeast Asia and Central America and the Caribbean coasts, along paralels of latitude close to the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and even in the temperate zones. These are reasons enough to eliminate this statement. --Fev (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Soil Quality
the flora and fauna section mentions the abnormally high soil quality and then the soil section talks about the low soil quality. Someone find out the right one and fix it please. 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munkee madness (talk • contribs)
 * The "Soil" section is right. I removed the soil stuff from "Flora and Fauna". However, soils of temperate rainforests have usually high levels of organic matter due to much lower decomposition rates (due to cool climate, acidity ecc). Krasanen (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

this is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.1.35 (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Undated threads
Undated threads archived manually. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

re
you need to add information on the topography (physical features)

Reorg?
General comments on organization: First the article jumps right into listing the largest rain forests. Presumably the average reader first would want to know what a rain forest is before going into such details.

Second, it usually is a little clearer to first start with a very brief introduction to the topic which may be all the reader was actually looking for. Typical Wikipedia articles usually have a small paragraph giving a simple definition and/or introduction to the subject and then launch into sub-sections describing various aspects of the topic in more detail.

Third, the closest thing I find for an actual definition of the rain forest is


 * Rainforests are characterized by high rainfall, with definitions setting minimum normal annual rainfall between 2000 mm and 1750mm

Granted some of the rest of the discussion "could" be interpreted as defining although it is not really clear which parts are intended as such. Regardless, even that one statement is pretty unclear. Apart from the fact that it contains very little information it does not contain a precise definition nor does it cite who precisely defines the rainforests in any of the range of ways that are implied. Ideally there should be a formal "Definition" section with statements similar to the following.


 * A rain forest is defined to be a tropical forest with high annual rainfall. Minimum rainfall requirements for classifying a forest as a rain forest range from 1750 mm to 2500 mm depending on the source[citation]. The xxxx defines rain forests as having a minimum of xxxx mm of annual rain and this definition will be used in the remainder of this article.

In principle, without defining what precisely you are talking about (or referencing a definition somewhere) then all the assertions you are making are meaningless (i.e. If I say that "All blarks have 10 legs" but don't define a "blark" then the statement is meaningless.

BTW, I've seen references that define the minimum rainfall as high as 2500 mm (e.g. dictionary.com) rather than the 2000 mm you suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcorazao (talk • contribs)

Other languages
as the article is locked, I like to record here, that Czech version is on http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropick%C3%BD_de%C5%A1tn%C3%BD_les

Variety of photos
Just noticed that out of eight photographs, five are from Australia. They're nice pictures, but it's hardly balanced, considering how widely distributed rain forests are. Would anyone be so kind as to correct this lack of variety? --Scharb

Tropical Rain Forest
The biome I'm working on is the Tropical Rain Forest.This biome has lots of plants,animals,and insects.It's a big and filled with life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.150.142 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

cool  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.105.227 (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow dude thats soo cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.52.50 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you people know about the rain forest teas? I heard this is becoming a bigger business to promote saving the rain forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.251 (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If the rainforest in South America is going to kill itself in five million years and devolve into a savannah, why do we bother to try to save? I watched "The Future is Wild" a long time ago and that's the message that I received. GVnayR (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This statement about what will happen in 5 million years is not scientific and is based on a TV show. I recommend removing it and not including conjecture in any wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobcello (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded, that's exactly what I came here to deal with. Quite aside from being based on a TV show, it's a speculative TV show which admits that it only presents one posible version of the future. It seemed so obvious that I honestly would have gone ahead and done it if the article wasn't locked. 82.26.207.140 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rain forests In strange countires
If According to your map all of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, are covered by Rainforests, What’s the evidence, if not what evidence do you have for the rest of your map?›–.- John 84.203.3.236 (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

rainforests are verry green more than 200 insects can live in 1 tree by the amazon !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.219.48 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming the comment in between ours is a troll (not to take anything in bad faith or anything), the answer to your question is that I assume the map's based on rainfall; or, possibly, rainfall adjusted for average insolation or some other measure of evaporation. Wales, Ireland, and parts of England and Scotland are extremely wet, but they're also almost entirely deforested, and have been for a very long time. I think it's a very real possibility that they would look a great deal more like the west coast of North America if they still had some old growth forest left. Not really defending the un-referenced map or anything, it's not mine, just saying. 82.26.207.140 (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna section
Doesn't this section seem that it was written by a five year old? Or is it just me? The Grammar and spelling are totally botched

Rainforest Water Creatures:

--Rivers run through most of the rainforrests of the world. Thousands of different kinds of fish live in the rivers such as snakes and crocodiles and lizards which make their homes near the banks. Some snakes such as the Anaconda (an - uh - con - dahs) camophlage themslefs and wait by the banks to attack prey when it comes for a drink by the waters edge. Rainforest crocs can be at least twenty feet long! A type of fish that live in rainforest rivers are paranha. they have razor sharp teeth but they usually eat nuts, seeds, berrys and other fish. Sometimes, especially in the Amazon rainforest, rivers flood and cover the whole forrest forrest floor with meters of water. River Dolphins enjoy to swim through the trees and vines. But this only happens once or twice a year.

Undervenued (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC) rainforests have cows in them that is the good thing. cats meow and dogs bark......help me im drounding haha jk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.213.224 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot archive
At present this talk page is over 100kB. Time to let a bot archive the page. I propose inactive threads to be archived after 125 days. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No objections, a bot is now archiving this talk page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've archived a few undated sections manually. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Image Update
The two images showing the overlay of rainforests need to be updated. The article shows the Australian rainforests, but they aren't any tropical rainforests shown on the northeastern parts of the country in the images. Either the maps should be updated, or the image(s) of the Daintree rainforest should be removed. KyprosNighthawk (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aramis242, 28 December 2010
Dendronautics, found under the Canopy layer chapter should reference to the Canopy research article.

Aramis242 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I'm not convinced "Canopy research" (research based on data collected from the canopy) and "dendronautics" (the data collection itself) have quite the same meaning. So I've linked Canopy research from "Exploration of the canopy" (which is not perfect, but at least gets the link in there), and made "dendronautics" a red link per WP:REDLINK, which just might encourage someone to create the article.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen turnover for rainforests
In the introduction to the article it is written that "rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover..." While this does seem like a reasonable estimate, the article cited presents no real evidence of its own and does not come from any reliable source. It does not cite any scientific journal, study, or even scientist. Should a more reliable source be found? I've looked for other resources but the ones that list the 28% either directly copy wikipedia's article or list that statistic without any supporting evidence. 76.226.221.248 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

General
I wanted to know what the smallest and largest rainforest is, why is there no information on this? --86.136.174.253 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Deforestation
Just doing some random reading and I saw in the deforestation section of the article there is a reference to a NYT article that states: "by one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster." Not sure how it works, but the NYT article doesn't cite any sources for this claim so is it really trustworthy information (unless an actual source can be found)? Rike255 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking
Just bringing this to your attention maybe. This is a most important issue poorly covered currently. It should be promoted maybe by the system to have someone knowledgeable working on it. Peace 79.182.141.244 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I will research and return, but I was very concerned to note the first citation (for example) - I would not forward a pro rainforest campaign website to my friends as a source, let alone cite on a Wikipedia article. This article needs serious attention, I am very surprised how poor it is. If there were a "flag" button, i'd use it here (for the first time in thousands of articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.132.162 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

____North American Tropical Rainforest______

I note that the article omits any reference to North America's sole Tropical Rainforest - El Yunque of Puerto Rico. Wikipedia's article on El Yunque clearly notes this fact. Please address. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard333 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Reforestation Section
Urb sprawl is being removed to make way for reforestation using native plants and mammals. Include a section on Reforestation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.140.29 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

published
when was the rainforest page published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.240.84 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the details here which you can access by clicking "Toolbox" then "Cite this page" on the left of the screen. But please read the note atop that page carefully. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012
"in Europe (parts of the British Isles such as the coastal areas of Ireland and Scotland"

Ireland is not a part of the British Isles

Pbuckley55 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you're confusing the term "British Isles" with "British Islands". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen from photosynthesis
By the end of the seconfd paragraph of the introduction, we can read "Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover, sometimes misnamed oxygen production,[3] processing it through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide and consuming it through respiration." I will not discuss the center of the sentence, but the final statement that oxygen in photosynthesis comes from carbon dioxide is incorrect: you can check that in any plant physiology textbook (see for instance Taiz and Zeiger Plant Physiology, any edition, etc). Although photosynthesis as a process captures carbon doxide and produces oxygen, the latter comes from water, not form carbon dioxide. This does not affect the core of the information given nor the rest of the article, but it is erroneous information that should be corrected, so I suggest to modify the sentence to something like: "processing it from water through photosynthetic carbon dioxide capture and consuming it through respiration" Also could be added "resulting in water again" but I do not it it is necessary193.145.236.61 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the middle part of it is at fault as well, as well as the whole latter part of the sentence being unnecessary. "Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover" would do perfectly, and is the only part that is actually from the reference that sentence bears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.19.48 (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Animation showing the deforestation of rainforests over the decades?
I'm hearing all these claims about how the rainforests being wiped out and that they may be gone in a few decades. I don't want sources from hippie environmentalists. I need an animation showing a world map with a colored area representing rainforests decline over the years. Then I'll believe all these environmentalism claims. McBenjamin (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Link broken
There is a broken link under human uses - it links to ≤"Tropical rainforest#Human uses≥" but it should say topical ≤rainforest#Human dimentions≥

≠≈≈≈Jac99ultracool, almighty ruler of the holy lands of the rabbits that eat cheese≈≈≈≠
 * , with slightly altered wording. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Threats to the Amazon Rain forest
Nearly all of this article seems to be NP:OR. What little if any can be scrapped from this should be merged to the main rainforest article. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of above: possibly list this at AfD with a qualification abou possibly redirecting, because I'm not 100 sure that rainforest is the most appropriate target. Also there will be a speedier outcome.TheLongTone (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * having done a copyedit on this to attempt to see what was actually there in the way of content (couldn't see the wood for the trees) I've come to the conclusion there is nothing of value here. Not to depreciate the entirely laudable concern the writer has for the environment.TheLongTone (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've speedily deleted it under CSD A10. Graham 87 09:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014
5.67.226.152 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) The rainforest is disappearing fast and we MUST PROTECT IT! NNNOOOOWWWWW!!!! Well don't just stand there! SAVE THE RAINFOREST!!!

❌ no request

Question
I see in the rainforest page that there are only Tropical and Temperate rainforests. There are subtropical rainforests in Australia. I have an url from the national library of Australia: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/27980986?q&versionId=33800722. Just wondering if the page needs to be expanded to include subtropical rainforests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanen82 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014
Would it be possible to add a section about saving rainforest? General ways to help the cause are by using less resources, recycling, etc. but you can also be more proactive by purchasing square meters of rainforest, or by buying products from companies that make donate a portion of sales to rainforest preservation. There are also websites such as care2 that gives money for clicks on their site, and cuipo.org which partners up with companies that will donate to their rainforest preserve. I would like more people to know about such things as it is not common knowledge for many that they can help save rainforest for free, or at no additional cost to them for items they already purchase. Thank you for looking into this and helping with something important to people like me!

67.1.241.137 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a forum for discussions on topics nor is it an advocacy or propaganda of any product or entity. If you wish to do so, you will have to look elsewhere. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen Production
In the second paragraph, the following is written: "Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover, sometimes misnamed oxygen production,". This seems to contradict the same article later when it states: "Tropical rainforests have been called the "Earth's lungs", although it is now known that rainforests contribute little net oxygen addition to the atmosphere through photosynthesis."

Both statements have citations. The first citation appears to be from a blog which itself does not cite it's 28% number, where as the second statement has two citations, one to an academic paper and another to a geochemist's academic website talking about net oxygen production.

It seems like the article either needs to say rainforests are responsible for 28% of the oxygen turnover, or that they aren't responsible for any net oxygen addition, but not both, and based on the citations I'd argue the latter seems more well cited. 12.47.138.66 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rainforest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109023123/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_42.pdf to http://www.dendronautics.org/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_42.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015
I would like to edit semi protected pages as there are some information that has excluded several important points, affecting many people who use it to look for information.For the southeast asia part, you have excluded countries like vietnam, cambodia and singapore, making people assume that sotheast asia only contains Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Papua new Guinea. Thank you and I hope you look into this request

Mr Lepak (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015
The rain forests are sometimes wet,hot,and cold.♥ --unsigned comment

❌. You need to say "please change X to Y", and all you said way "Y". Krett12 (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016
line and above the line please change x

Helo world (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. /wiae   /tlk  14:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good
This is good Strickdog13 (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rainforest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614070953/http://www.dendronautics.org:80/ to http://www.dendronautics.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016
XxxMineKidxxx (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) The rainforest has tropical states and non-tropical states
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitions
Do the rainfall figures given in the lede "Rainforests are forests characterized by high rainfall, with annual rainfall between 250 and 450 centimetres (98 and 177 in)" refer to tropical rainforests only? Because the article deals with tropical and temperate rainforests. Think we should either find a better source or change the lede to include the word tropical. Piwaiwaka (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * made some changes; the temperate rainforest article gives a figure of over 140cm for North American rainforests, not sure if we need that in here. Piwaiwaka (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rainforest map is wrong.
Tropical rainforest does not extend into eastern China, where it's sub-tropical. Much of the area has cold winters, and gets below freezing. At most tropical rainforest extends as far north as Hong Kong in China, the rest is sub-tropical/temperate rainforest.

Corrected - and see below on tropical forest - I would call the southern Chinese forests 'sub-tropical seasonal forest'. Roy Bateman (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2017
( add:) 2. Subtropical/WarmTemperate Rainforest Is rare, eg in eastern Australia http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/gondwana ...

( please adjust 2 to 3:) 3. Temperate Teretic (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A source direct from the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy just isn't going to cut it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Emergent layer
despacito 2 coming this fall. In the paragraph of layers of the rainforest, the emergent layer is shown to be 70-80 meters high. Yet the canopy, the second layer of the rainforest, is shown to be 30-40 meters high. Where are all the extra 30 meters between the canopy and the emergent layer? It snows on the emergent layer of the rainforest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.124.50 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2017
If we just stop the destruction of the forest then it will heal and consumption will increase by (600 million hectares at 200 tons each) 120 trillion tons of carbon dioxide annually. This will bring down the level quickly since the burning wont be happening (net minus) and the forest can increase consumption up to 260 tons per hectare. Abcinc (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deli nk (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rainforest. 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/20120708045901/http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/rainforests.html to http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/rainforests.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318021749/http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G230/hobgood/ASP230Lecture24.ppt to http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/courses/G230/hobgood/ASP230Lecture24.ppt
 * Added tag to http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0602-png.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160226181045/http://eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/ to http://www.eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151218031752/http://www.davekimble.org.au/rainforest/catalog.htm to http://www.davekimble.org.au/rainforest/catalog.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) 22:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"The Future is Wild" television program as source
There are several statements in the last section of the article that all tend to argue that the rainforests may be disappearing whether or not human deforestation takes place; they are all three (I believe) sourced as coming from "The Future is Wild" TV show. I'd like to REMOVE these statements--that doesn't seem to be a sufficient source, and the statements may be tendentious as opposed to scientific71.183.7.170 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC). Can someone review?
 * I've removed one part as it was really vague (which animals?) and speculative. I'm leaning towards deleting the other bit, too, which is Five million years from now, the Amazon rainforest may long since have dried and transformed itself into savannah, killing itself in the progress (changes such as this may happen even if all human deforestation activity ceases overnight).  I presume the parenthetical bit is saying that climate change etc may destroy the forest even if we stop destroying it directly, but it's not at all clear.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dry rainforest
There is a rare, but significant type of rainforest in Australia called "dry rainforest". It certainly warrants mention in Wikipedia but does not fit the description in the lead of this article ("characterized by high rainfall"). In Australia, rainforests are generally recognised by the plant types they contain (especially epiphytes and lianas).

I would appreciate an opinion as to whether there should be a separate article "Dry rainforest" or a sub-heading in this one. Gderrin (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018
native people are drastically affected by the rainforest. the rainforest provides them with medicines, food, and tools. Each year approx. 18 million acres of rainforest is lost, which, in return effects local economies. both of these reasons show why we need to learn and protect this biome. 208.95.78.76 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (But seams true, shouldn't be hard to find sources ) – BrandonXLF   (t@lk)  02:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019
This is boges 205.121.249.250 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019
can i just check trouht your tekst and add something Clue123 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You can suggest additions here on this talk page on the form of "Please change X to Y" – Þjarkur (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing 2 links at See Also
Huh? Who'd a thought this article is so contentious it needs protection? Anyway I came here to remove the linkspam at "See Also" to the Tapiche Ohara's Reserve, which is just an ecolodge as far as I can tell, and one of undoubtedly many, why give it special treatment?

But while I'm at it, there is quite a lot wrong with this (looks like some-POV-body pasted a bunch of alarmist opinions to the end of each paragraph):
 * Sepilok Orang Utan Sanctuary: idem as above, why the special treatment?
 * The sentence referenced by ref.3. I don't think it is true at all, most medicines in the world have not been developed from tropical rainforest species. Either way the reference does not corroborate the statement and is a pretty childish source aimed at children.
 * Soils: Everything after "Eventually streams and rivers form" is badly written (grammar) and not really true. I would delete/rewrite everything from there except the last sentence. Problem is the source plagiarised from is somewhat simplistic -again looks as if written for children.
 * Effect on global climate -bit POV & propagandistic after "Some climate models operating". Might want to mention that most of the Amazon rainforest is thought to have expanded relatively recently, which makes the speculation that it may shrink in 5 million years somewhat moot.
 * Human uses -remove the single unsourced sentence at the end, or source it and remove the patronising orientalism. The section should be about human uses, there is much more than necessary about human abuses. Native people can be unsustainable too! See ref.40; the deforestation is almost all due to native peoples.
 * Native peoples- Can't this be renamed to just "Inhabitants" or "Peoples"? It reeks of the noble savage stereotype mentality. If it was about Dutch polders or upstate New York no one would find words like "natives" or "tribes" appropriate.
 * Native peoples- "The tribes are in danger because of the deforestation, especially in Brazil." Possibly true, but again un-sourced and an un-encyclopaedic and alarmist tone. Plus the native peoples of Singapore are doing quite well after deforestation for example.
 * Native peoples- "About half of Sarawak's 1.5 million people are Dayaks. Most Dayaks, it is believed thropologists, came originally from the South-East Asian mainland. Their mythologies support this " Grammar, needs period. Spelling! Needs sourcing. Second sentence is patently incorrect (Dayaks are Austronesian).
 * Native peoples- Only 'primitive' peoples get a mention? How about mentioning some of the cities; i.e. Kinshasa, Brazzaville, Kuala Lumpur, Darwin, Manaus
 * Deforestation- ref.34 E. O. Wilson mentioned that estimate in his 1979 book, so by 2019 it is clear this guess regarding extinction rate is thankfully exaggerated.
 * Deforestation- ref.39 Looks untrustworthy
 * Deforestation- ref.41; alarmist nonsense! Source is from 2008, it is now 2019: clearly the source was completely wrong!
 * Deforestation- palm oil. Yeah, if you're gonna do the white people whiny shtick about how palm oil is so bad; maybe it would be fair to also provide some other view points... like how oil palm is the most environmentally friendly oil producing plant in terms of yield and carbon footprint, how important it is for global food security and how it has brought millions of people out of poverty. The reason it is so cheap, and can compete with massively subsidised oil crops from N. America and Europe, is because it is so incredible efficient and low input. Coconut oil needs 6000% more land to produce the same litre of oil, which is why only yuppies can afford it. Rapeseed needs yearly planting, yearly ploughing, combine harvesters and what not, and can only be grown one season a year. Regarding biofuels, the USA subsidize their agricultural industry with billions to blanket the land in corn; food which is then not eaten but inefficiently turned into ethanol, pumping twice as much CO2 in the air as if they'd just poured the gasoline into the power-plants instead of the tractors... Eh, I need a time out.

Respectfully, this article is terribly POV. Regards, Leo Breman (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

misleading content in introduction
The introduction says that 'Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover, sometimes misnamed oxygen production,[4]', however the quoted article says the following "28 percent of the world’s oxygen is supplied by rainforests.". The turnover part is clearly a misrepresentation of the linked article. I would change the wording to "Rainforests also supply 28% of the world's oxygen[4]" I found the current phrasing in this article:. I have no idea whether or not this article is trustworthy. Velosepappe (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Tropcial rainforests" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tropcial rainforests. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Text repetition under "Soils" heading
Exactly the same: someone needs to delete the repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.111.19 (talk) ✅ Gderrin (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)