Talk:Swallows Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion in progress; it seemed more appropriate to copy it to here to continue the discussion, rather than carrying on on each other's talk pages. --VinceBowdren 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vince - Hi, it is always good to discuss issues rather than enter 'edit wars'.

I make the following points:

"The nature reserve is not a 'small copse'. It is a 60-acre site of mixed habitats. I'm still trying to work out how to make the link work well in the article, but here is a photo of one of the nature reserve's information boards which I used as my primary source for what I have written: [1] "

I know this area well having walked it for almost 25years. It is a copse. If you add the surrounding areas of fields then you could argue a 60 acre site. I noticed last year that plastic banners and litter had been strewn across the site by 'environmentalists!! <a href="http://photobucket.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h22/yellowfrogs/swallowswoodvandal.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a>

I'm not arguing about a 60-acre site; I'm simply quoting from my source (the information board at the nature reserve). And the tactics of the save swallows wood campaign are neither the subject of the article, nor of this discussion. Please keep it relevant. --VinceBowdren 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not unmanaged. When I passed through in December I noticed a fallen tree lying parallel to the path and the wall alongside, which had obviously not fallen in that place and alignment naturally. I'm afraid I don't have a citation (so I haven't made any claims in the article about the management of the nature reserve), but this was definitely a good example of woodland management in practice.

This is FAR from evidence of management. There is no biological plan, diversity in species, felling or integration of the ecotone. I beleive the site should be managed by United Utilities but since privatisation this has reduced somewhat along the whole Longdendale valley - very sad, as Crowden used to be a fantastic area for walking.

In my experience, management can be very hands-off; for example, a natural mixed woodland may well need no felling at all. Again, if you are going to include this 'unmanaged' claim in the article then the onus is on you to provide a citation. --VinceBowdren 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly intentions to perform new planting to mitigate the damage which will be caused by the bypass; upstream there is a field which is filled with newly-planted saplings, and the plans for the bypass itself include environmental measures ([2]) but it is misleading of you to imply that a planting and management schedule would be an easy and effective substitute for the loss of established habitats, let alone an 'improvement'.

The very fact we have a planting and management schedule implies improvement?

No, it doesn't. If you were managing a garden or plantation then a planting schedule would be required of course, but this is a nature reserve. The best management in these cases may well be to let the plants grow naturally, without any manual planting at all. And whether or not a planting and management schedule would be an improvement or not, you are still expressing a one-sided point of view without citations. --VinceBowdren 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no obvious emblem on the campaign to save swallows wood website; and even if they had adopted a swallow as their emblem, it is unfair of you to take this as evidence of their ecological or historical ignorance

The emblem has now been removed under humiliation. it was well covered in the local press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.50.161 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

OK. The origin of the wood's name sounds like an interesting fact worthy of inclusion in the article. Unfortunately what you have written is still an unsourced derogatory comment about the save swallows wood campaign, which is not the subject of the article. --VinceBowdren 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time since the Laissez faire Government of the mid 1980's I have heard that forestry management can only be 'hands off'!!!

revert part edit.

Vince - FYI 'Yellowfrogs' is (Longdendale) Councillor Sean Parker Perry, a frequent purveyor of 'Greenwash' and four square behind the destruction of Swallows Wood via his support for the bypass. He is vigourously re-editing the wikpedia pages on the Longdendale Bypass, his own and Roy Oldham's page in order to boost his fake 'green' credentials and obfuscate the neutrality of these articles. He gets nasty if he gets pissed off (threatens spurious legal action), but fortunately, he's legally illiterate, so don't be put off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.216.206 (talk • contribs)

Yellowfrogs - please do not delete another user's comments on an article's talk page. --VinceBowdren 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments reported to Doc Glasgow for moderation - any further repatition will result in legal action.

Hope you don't mind my editing this page. I've pointed out that the site is 'managed' by United Utilities, as they are the owners. Whether they actively manage it or not, they are responsible for doing so. I think we'd need evidence to support any assertions about their 'management style', so it's wrong to say it's unmanaged without such evidence. Also, I've added a link to research that points out that TMBC's CO2 mitigation (the rationale for tree planting after the bypass) would not work. Both sides of the argument are there. I've requested a citation for the naming of the wood, since it's largely apocryphal locally, and there's no evidence presented to support this fact. Finally, a link to a birder's site which lists the birds spotted over the years at Swallows Wood. --Danhooper 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trees vs CO2 mitigation

I just reverted changes made by an unknown user. I can't find anything in Help to say that wiki pages can't be used as references. The reference provided expands the issue of CO2 mitigation. In the ref that the unknown user provided, it's clear that the leader of TMBC intended the tree planting to mitigate CO2. Regarding the 'vandalism', there's no referecnce given to 'criticism' of what looks like a display at a protest. --Danhooper 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan: Actually, WP:RS says both that citations have to be to third-party sources, and cannot be wikis. Yellowfrogs: Please stop inserting unsourced one-sided criticisms of the campaign to save swallows wood. The article is not about the campaign, it is about the wood. --VinceBowdren 12:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vince - the Tameside website link you deleted does in fact mention the 10000 trees as claimed. Its really hard to find amongst all the waffle - just do a search for "ten thousand". Here is a quote in case you still can't find it...

--trees absorb carbon dioxide seventy-five kilogrammes per year each an average tree so we’ll doing our bit to do that and I intend, if we get permission from United Utilities as the tenant partners to increase that wood to ten thousand--

Note the 75kg error! Co2junkyCO2JUNKY