Talk:Timeline of environmental history

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

 --Alex 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americentric

As it currently stands this timeline has a huge bias toward events that occurred in the USA. Alan Liefting 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Probably, yup,..., freedom of speech gets US there. — I am implying anything and everything with that comment. Hard Raspy Sci

(1a) This in no way is intended to overshadow healthy extra-Americentric environmentalism, but aid those (not like you or I) that do not have the local resource of information. Hard Raspy Sci

(2) Its good to see that you have worked heavily on Timeline of environmental history of New Zealand and others. Hard Raspy Sci

(3) I was absolutely surprised to find that this article did not exist yet, and really expected someone to come forth and say that it is a duplicate. But really this is a short list, and it was what I could round up from Wikipedia and US Gov sites. I really didn't have time to do a thorough background in all avenues as it was just created recently. Hard Raspy Sci

(4) By all means add to it, make it a more world scope article, edit, or whatever... As you can see not all of the Environmental legislation is linked or not found on Wikipedia yet, and I do not believe this article is anywhere near completion Hard Raspy Sci 20:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The selection of some events makes sense, but others do not. What is the criteria for selection? Could this degenerate into POV? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental vs Environment.

This article contains geological, meterological and weather related events. These affect the environment. The word environmental is generally a reference to the effects of human activity on the environment. Alan Liefting 11:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first definition of "environmental" here is "the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded" and WP:NC says article names "should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." I think the article name is reasonable. Are you proposing a change? —RandallJones 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove all the geological, meterological and evolutionary events and then rename the article as Timeline of human induced environmental events, Timeline of antropogenic environmental events or suchlike. This prevents a double-up of events that are already on other timelines and reduces clutter and size of the timeline. It will also give it a clearer focus. Alan Liefting 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article?

I suggest renaming the article to Timeline of anthropogenic environmental events. This will give it a clearer focus, reduce double ups with events on other environmental timelines and will be a manageable size. Alan Liefting 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a draft version at User:Alan Liefting/Timeline of anthropogenic environmental events. It is based on the content of this page. Alan Liefting 02:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, i'm ok for the new title but we haven't to lose the informations about the natural environmental events, we can split in two articles, if we aren' sure it's already specifically described somewhere else --Ayanoa 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural environmental events are (should be) covered in the geological and meterological timelines. Alan Liefting 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 1 The new name does not reach to people who do not understand the subject.

The timeline's title has to be simple, by definition.

The expression or meaning of the subject matter is expressed and contained in the primary defining paragraph.

Changing the name of timeline is an old issue, besides the subject matter fits, its general.

Problem 2 90% of the world's population does not know what anthropogenic means.

Its contextual usage may even mislead some, becoming less clear.

It would only guarantee further debate about what event is anthropogenic or not...endless issue.

Problem 3 Other, timelines, I am reducing, modifying, and erasing because of that overlap.

Several persons are working on several of those other timelines in various wiki-projects along with myself to correct those uneccessary overlaps and go through various cleanup projects, etc.

Problem 4 The prescribed changes will cause information mismanagement and loss.

The answer is to leave the title alone, edit the content as always. This timeline has grown and improved greatly over the past year. Which may mean, that on occasion a new author or editor may inappropriately put an item here which may belong elsewhere. The last part about overlap isn't that great, since an occasional overlap among timelines really only fosters learning....which is really the point. Do not change, its already being worked on, in many ways... -- Hard Raspy Sci 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with a number of your points:

The timeline will reach anyone who clicks on the link or does a search.
A timeline title must be specific to ensure the timeline does not end up with irrelevant entries.
The word anthropogenic can be used in the title regardless of assumptions on how may people know what it means. People come here to find out what stuff means.
There will be no loss of information but there will be a reduction in unnecessary overlap.

The word environmantal is too broad. It needs an additional word as a qualification. My main desire is to remove the geological events.Alan Liefting 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, otherwise you are talking about an ecological timeline...making an ecological timeline is ok. Hard Raspy Sci 03:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather moving geology out of environment...take a minute to think what you are saying, though. But it really sounds like you want to make an Ecology timeline for Earth. Or something of that nature, and I don't think there is any reason not to. But stripping down environmental to make a more specific topic just brings it to one of its base studies: biology, hydrology, geology, anthropology, zoology, ecology, climatology, ... and so on. Hard Raspy Sci 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not mean developing an ecology timeline. I want a timeline the documents environmental issues. Ecology is a scientific study of ecosystems but I want a timeline of anthropogenic effects on ecosystems and the biosphere in general. The word environmental is increasingly used in the context of "human effects on the natural environment" so it makes sense to dedicate a timeline to it. There can be (or is?) timelines for biology, hydrology, geology, anthropology, zoology, ecology, climatology, ... and so on. -- Alan Liefting talk 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's introduction, it sounds like a timeline of environmentalism. In saying "increasingly used", you admit that is not the actual definition of the word "environmental". Maybe "timeline of environmentalist issues" would work. The WP:POV is obvious. The broad range of inclusion criteria also oddly biases toward biblical theories. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional entries

Many entries at List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament to 1601 can also be listed here. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please source this part and possible edit it

"3900 BC: Intense aridification triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, which might have caused changes in human behaviour, such as patriarchy, institutionalised warfare, social stratification, abuse of children, the development of thehuman ego, separation from the body (afterlife and reincarnation worship), the rise of anthropomorphic gods and the concept of linear historic time. A possible inspiration for the myth/legend of the fall of man."

Those are a lot of far-reaching claims. Some of these claims seem like they could have some decent reasoning behind them, but they definitely need a source to back them up. But there are also claims that seem extremely random and impossible to determine via enviromental causes. Intense aridification caused abuse of children??? How the hell are you going to prove that or even provide a reasonable chain of logic for??? Omegastar (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950

1950 should replace post-1945 that is piped to Postwar period, as — due to events given in the table — 1950 is the origin year for the time scale Before Present. Alternatively, add to the table words to the effect of, "resulting in the year 1950 being" etc. —Pawyilee (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Sandy Overstated?

The line about Hurricane Sandy is overstated: "Hurricane Sandy devastates the eastern third of North America, from Florida to Quebec, and from Michigan to Nova Scotia, as the largest Atlantic basin hurricane in history." The entire area described was certainly not "devastated". Further, the majority of the damage in the northeast occurred once Sandy was extra-tropical. Bgovern (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man in the Mountain? Really?

This timeline has included the event "Old Man in the Mountain formed in New Hampshire by retreating glaciers" since 2011. That really doesn't strike me as a pivotal, game-changing, earth-shattering, timeline-worthy event. Especially considering he fell in 2003 and can't get up. And life goes on as usual, without anyone even seeming to notice that his tweets have dried up and he is no longer posting what he ate for breakfast on FaceBook every day or trying to convince us that restoring him to his former prominence is what will Make America Great Again (tm).

I was just going to delete the event until I realized its possibly noteworthy point of the glacial retreat. The incidental creation of the OMitM artifact isn't even worth a mention, it's just a secondary effect being misleadingly billed as the main event.

So, if that event is worthy of maintaining in the timeline, I suggest it be changed to the more-to-the-point and less distracting and marginally less provincial "Glaciers retreat from the northeastern United States".

But it would be even better to remove it entirely or replace it with something more general about glacial retreat in North America. 06:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomota (talk • contribs)

Evaluation of Page Bias

While the information presented on this page seems to be unbiased in writing, there is a lack of certain environmental events talked about. This inclusion of certain events like Sputnik and not environmental events like the transformation of grasslands due to human farming and other environmental shifts shows bias. These environmental transformations are crucial in a timeline of environmental history and are currently underrepresented. Additionally environmental information could be added to the 2013, and on part. This is slightly out of date because there have been many cases of human caused environmental damage in the past three. Years, this just needs to be updated slightly. Additionally, there could be more information about rising temperatures in the atmosphere and with the oceans. There is some non neutral wording in describing events of the past. Also the Tehenu link does not work. Other then that there is a relatively comprehensive list of environmental events. More could be added about the industrial revolution and ozone layer depletion because those are both notable occurrences. Theamhanson (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant entries?

As of this revision, I find a lot of political events listed (e.g., the founding of Rome) which have little or no significant environmental impact. On the other hand, some human events which do have some environmental impacts (e.g. the Periclean plague) are omitted. Is there a clear criteria for inclusion & exclusion of events? If there isn't, I might just be bold & delete the events I believe lack significant environmental relevance. -- llywrch (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]