Talk:Tarkine

Rainforest area
Also, how can an area be both "wilderness" and containing "a high concentration of Aboriginal sites"??Just nigel (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tarkine cannot be called a wilderness area as the area has been extensively logged and has had around 600 mines in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.100.110 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarkine cannot be the second largest temperate rainforest area in the world next to British Columbia. Tarkine contains rainforest 1,800 km² and eucalypt forest 400 km² (Peter Pullinger, Tarkine National Coalition, pers. comm.). There are much larger areas in Alaska Panhandle and southern Chile, as well. I wrote the rainforest area is about 2,000 km², not 1,800 km², because the australian definition of rainforest is more strict than in North America: if Tarkine was there, parts of eucalypt forests would probably be classified as rainforests.Krasanen (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Western Boundary of Tasmania from "Indian Ocean" to "Southern Ocean" There is clearly no objective definition of either of these terms. The Southern Ocean wikipedia page notes that " Australian authorities regard the Southern Ocean as lying immediately south of Australia". The wikipdeia South Australia page makes some note of this debate also. On the mainland of Australia, the area South of South Australia, and West of Tasmania is generically referred to as the Southern Ocean. If other editors feel strongly that "Indian Ocean" is the correct term, I will not quarrel further, but it is not how common people would use the term in Adelaide or Melbourne. I guess it depends on your expected audience.Jhunt29 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

there are much larger areas of gondwanan rainforest in queensland, the largest area in australia being in that state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.12.226 (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

But it is not temperate rainforest in NE Queensland. Krasanen (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

the tarkine is not the largest tract of temperate rainforest in the southern hemisphere, there are larger areas in chile Myx123 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Biased NPOV Editing
There has recently been a lot of editing to this page that does not conform to WP policy regarding objective, unbiased articles (see specifically WP:NPOV. While the subject of the page has recently become highly contentious in some circles, this is not the place for bias regardless of which side of the debates you are on.  In this vein, please do not remove objective referenced material and do not introduce new controversial information without supporting it with valid references.  Disagreements and contested issues should be worked out to consensus here on the talk page before being introduced to the article itself.   ~Autumnal Monk~  talk 08:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

i presume that you are referring to my removal of the reference to wilderness in the first paragraph, as the area has been extensively mined and logged for over 120 years then it cannot be called wilderness or even largely wilderness. it is interesting to note that an area that was dragline logged in the 1980's is now claimed by conservationists to be 'pristine, untouched, virginal wilderness (i worked on the crew that logged the area).i have removed the reference you have cited in regards to the area being largely wilderness as it did nor refer to the area as wilderness at all but rather referred to timber harvest quotas for the area. i also note that the article is now a LOT more factual and significantly less biased than it was as how the article was originally written it seemed like a plug for the tarkine national coalition Myx123 (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Myx, firstly, the term "wilderness" is what is used multiple times in the cited references. Secondly, your personal definition of what can and cannot be called "wilderness" is immaterial. Thirdly, your personal experiences and perspectives, regardless of how truthful they might be, cannot be used in the construction of the article without explicit support in extant, verifiable, objective references (see: WP:OR). Fourthly, the fact that you admit to being a part of crews that have logged the area discloses that you have an inherent conflict of interest in editing this article (see WP:COI) and therefore should really not be editing it at all because you are clearly not objective and unbiased.  As such, please feel free to contribute your thoughts here on the talk page, but desist in your editing of the article itself.
 * Also, your dismissal of the reference cited by the material you are trying to remove as just being about "timber harvest quotas" is farcical. If you follow the link and read the ref, as I have done, you will find that it specifically describes the Tarkine in the same manner and using the same terminology as the article lead statements that are attributed to it.
 * Finally, yes the article does need to be objective and neutrally reported, favoring neither party of the debate, and this has not always been the case. Excluding editing by those who, like yourself, have a conflict of interest regarding the Tarkine is a key towards achieving this. Revising the article with an eye specifically towards neutrality to remove existing bias, as I am doing now, is another key.  Moving forward with only neutral, unconflicted editors citing valid, objective references, is the final key.  ~Autumnal Monk~  talk 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference provided only gives a statement from environmental NGOs that they see the area as wilderness. They also identify areas like the Meredith Range and Donaldson / Savage River areas as 'high-quality wilderness' which is fascinating given their long and thorough history of mining going back to the 1870s. This is not a scholarly publication and carriess no authority other than the opinion of the ENGOs. Please provide an objective, NPOV reference if you wish to make such claims.MFdeS (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Autumnal Monk, you are drawing an argument ad hominem, as the fact that Myx worked in a logging crew in the 1980s has no bearing on the validity of his argument today that areas of the Tarkine being claimed as wilderness have a long history of exploitation by Europeans. The references you cited to support your claims of wilderness are largely opinion from ENGOs (see Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability). The way I see it neither you nor Myx have shown a particularly WP:NPOV. MFdeS (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

please explain to me how any of my edits have been disruptive? i have only written what is actually fact and removed an obvious bias reporting on this page. if you care to look at the article as it was originally written you would notice that large parts of it were copied verbatim from the 'tarkine national coalitions', a lobby groups, website. lobby groups are hardly the place to find unbiased information. a small section of the 'tarkine' may be wilderness however i fail to see how an area that 'has seen decades of logging and mining activity' can be called wilderness....also as you object to my editing of the article please remove the reference to the magnesite and dolomite cave systems being globally unique, they are not, there are similar cave systems in nambia and british columbia. the tarkine is not the largest area of gondwanan land rainforest in australia, there is a national park called the 'gondwanan rainforest' formerly known as the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves that stretch form queensland until nearly the victorian border contain globally unique subtropical, warm temperate and the last significant stands of cold temperate forest in the world (see http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/gondwana/index.html ) i also note that you have removed the reasons that tony burke gave for his decision not to heritage list the tarkine. i would have thought that this was essential to the integrity of this article as it gave probably the least bias view of the area, referring to its industrial as well as environmental history. i would also like to object to your statement that because i worked on a logging crew more than 25 years ago i have obvious bias, i have not worked in the timber, mining or related industries since i was a teenager,i am in my late 40's now and am not really bothered one way or the other, i do however object to propaganda being reported as fact. i would like to reach an agreeable position on this with you, because, as you have stated, unbiased and factual reporting is essential to the integrity of wikipedia 58.6.100.110 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed political history section - highly POV
I've removed the section on Political History as it's unreferenced and subjective, and does not meet NPOV requirements. The fact that a large portion of the tarkine is state forest has no bearing on MRT being able to issue licences for mineral exploration, they can do so for any unreserved and some types of reserved land, including private property. The tarkine has not been mined for decades, but for approximately 140 years, since the 1870s when Mt Bischoff was discovered. This is not the result of the area being categorised as state forest, which is a modern land-use classification.MFdeS (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mining in the Tarkine
The section on 'Mining in the Tarkine' is very poorly written and needs significant revision. It currently appears to be a mish-mash of gramatically-challenged statements of two opposing POVs. I propose removing it altogether unless significantly re-written.MFdeS (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added some references and highlighted with "citation needed" the many unreferenced, POV claims present in this section. In my opinion they have no place in an NPOV article and should probably be removed. MFdeS (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)