Jump to content

Talk:Native American use of fire in ecosystems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Friendly fire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

Just announcing that I added information to the California section of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willltheking (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick

[edit]

I highly doubt pre-contact Natives were burning for horses since there weren't any in the Americas at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.193.149.161 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horses were present after the 15th and 16th centuries when released by the Spanish, and for a time did overlap with their fire traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.4.28 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is plagiarism common practice on Wikipedia?

[edit]

Several portions of this article are lifted word-for-word from the articles and papers cited at the bottom. Specifically: REFERENCES ON THE AMERICAN INDIAN USE OF FIRE IN ECOSYSTEMS: http://wings.buffalo.edu/anthropology/Documents/firebib.txt and Fire Management Today - Volume 64 No. 3 - Summer 2004 http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT64-3.pdf Ski mohawk (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Ski_Mohawk 03/28/14 10:57 PDT[reply]

Sometimes a weasel word is just a word

[edit]

If you think "Many people" is a weasel word, figure out how to rephrase it so it is still a fact. There's no need to ask for a citation, it's right there at the end of the paragraph. And "Many people" is not only sourced, it happens to be the exact phrasing of the expert's public domain statement. -- SEWilco (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Native American use of fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Native American use of fire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General problems

[edit]

I haven't looked up/through all the sources here yet, but I'm seeing glaring problems. If a source, even a University-press one, just says the Indians, the Indians, the Indians, without naming specific Nations, specific people in those Nations - by name - specific incidents and dates, AND they continually past-tense, objectify and other "the Indians"... they're not reliable. We can't use inferior stuff like that. It's inaccurate and insulting. This article was full of outdated language that shouldn't be on the 'pedia, and that language, attitude and tone was sourced to books and articles that are still cited. So, I'm considering some of these things, if not most of them, dubious. The only reason I didn't cut more is that I know landscape maintenance and forestry, and the use of controlled burns, was a thing. That's documented. But we need solid sources on this, not misinformed or biased colonial ones that, while debunking the "pristine wilderness" thing, continue to perpetuate other misinformation about Natives (like past-tensing, pan-Indian culture, etc). - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be renamed/moved

[edit]

This article name is completely inappropriate. It confuses a specific use of fire: controlled burns for landscape management, with all uses of fire (like for cooking, ceremony, heat, or your cousin lighting a cigarette). This should be specific to the use described in the article. It should probably also specify the time period - pre-contact, pre-colonization - though that gets very wordy. I've cleaned up the problems with past-tensing. And... if this gets updated to include re-introduction of the practice (and there is one small mention of that), we don't need era.

As there are already Controlled burn and Forest management articles, we might want to relate it to those in some way. I think another issue that is explored here is the romanticisation of the "pristine wilderness" and Noble Savage issues, vs the realities that people were already doing landscape maintenance in the Americas prior to European colonization. Some suggestions:

Or any better suggestions? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal article criticizing the theory

[edit]

This Nature article (summarised in this Science Daily article) critcizes the theory that Native Americans made large-scale impacts on the environment. It probably should be mentioned. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important to recognize variability in fire-use of ecosystems

[edit]

A certain user has been vandalizing some of my edits relevant to American history so I am preemptively starting a talk page topic to discuss whether folx think that we should include scholarly studies that discuss the variance as the extent of Native American ecological impacts varies across regions and time periods (including mentions of North America).

"In parts of the Americas, Indigenous people had major ecological impacts. For example, the Maya deforested much of the Meso-American landscape, supporting a large, settled population with agriculture. In interior areas of eastern North America, some Native groups farmed intensively around large villages for at least the few centuries immediately preceding European arrival. However, [...] painting all regions with one “human brush” ignores “great geographical and temporal variation in the importance of human versus environmental controls on ecosystem patterns and processes. [...] We conducted a more-detailed analysis for the coastal area for the last 2,000 years, employing 21 palaeoecological records and archaeological data from >1,800 sites. During the Middle to Late Woodland, the period of highest Native American populations of the last 14,000 years, there is no pollen or charcoal evidence for regionally extensive human impacts or open-land vegetation. Meanwhile, the archaeological data indicate that horticulture played a minor role in subsistence. Thus, there is no evidence for forest clearance, widespread farming or increased fire associated with larger Native populations."

PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "vandalizing [your] edits". As I explained in my reversion on this page, your additions have many issues:
1. You're quoting Oswald et al.'s study of New England coastal areas in a way that makes it seem like the study represents all of Native America. Their study was based on the East coast. You need to clarify that when you quote them.
2. Discussions of the Maya also have no place on this page, period. This page is about Native Americans. Native American only refers to people Indigenous to what would become the United States.
3. I have no idea why you're quoting the Brunelle et al. piece regarding climatic conditions as a driver of forest fires in the 15th century. The point of that article, per the abstract, is that while climatic conditions may have played a role, Indigenous fire practices certainly did as well. Per the article "Our findings suggest the Indigenous use of frequent, low-severity fire likely reduced fuel loads and the risk for large-scale wildfire activity in mountain environments on the Fish Lake Plateau, even during periods of drought more extreme and prolonged than today."
So, in the case of the two Oswald papers about the East coast of the United States sure, toss 'em in, but be careful about how you're using wiki-voice (i.e., be clear about the regions being discussed). In the case of three, well, that just seems to be a continued pattern of you quoting sources about Native Americans and settler colonialism out of context to push a specific POV in recent days.--GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please read Oswald et al.'s study, the following quotation which states that:
"paleo-climate, paleo-ecology and archaeological records suggest that native peoples were not modifying their immediate environments to a great degree"
is a quote from Binghamton archaeologist Elizabeth Chilton regarding her study where in the literature review and discussion parts of the paper the contemporary scholarship and data is discussed for the generality of North America.
"And they certainly were not doing so with large-scale fire or clear-cutting of trees. The widespread and intensive deforestation and agriculture brought by Europeans in the 17th century was in clear contrast to what had come before. Previous conservation practices had been based on a presumption that Native Americans manipulated their environments using fire, and this research does not support that interpretation."
Please be more careful.
"This page is about Native Americans. Native American only refers to people Indigenous to what would become the United States." — GeraldineSeinfeld
2. The page is not only about populations that identify as indigenous in the United States. It quite literally opens by saying:
"Prior to European colonization of the Americas, indigenous peoples used controlled burns to modify the landscape. The controlled fires were part of the environmental cycles and maintenance of wildlife habitats that sustained the cultures and economies of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas"
"Parts of what was initially perceived by colonists as "untouched, pristine" wilderness in North America was actually the cumulative result of those occasional managed fires"
Start a request or topic to change the article to focus only on populations that identify as indigenous to the contiguous United States.
The Maya are located in North America and the Americas.
3. This edit was made on 29 April 2023‎ when I was studying pre-Columbian land-use in the contiguous United States. Your unrelated vandalism in the addition of peer-reviewed scholarly literature on pages about the population history of the Americans occurred months later. If anyone is pushing a POV, it is you? I still have no idea why you removed the studies I included here, as the first sentence literally refutes your reasoning. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. That quote is nowhere in the Oswald article. Not in either one that you cite. It is from a Binghamton University press release. Further, that answer she gives in the press release is not about "the generality of North America". It is about New England. Here's the question the interviewer asks before the quote, and with a link to the press release you're quoting from: "were humans the major drivers of environmental change in southern New England or were they responding to changes in the climate?"
2. You do understand that the hyperlink that says "Indigenous Peoples" goes to Native Americans in the United States, right? Mayan people are not Indigenous to North America. Mayan people are Indigenous to central America. North America does encompass what is now Canada, but those people are known as First Nations peoples and First Peoples. This article is about Native Americans. People Indigenous to what is now the United States.
3. I'm not arguing about what you were studying in 2023. Stay on topic and respond to number three in my previous point, which I'll re-state for you: I have no idea why you're quoting the Brunelle et al. piece regarding climatic conditions as a driver of forest fires in the 15th century. The point of that article, per the abstract, is that while climatic conditions may have played a role, Indigenous fire practices certainly did as well. Per the article "Our findings suggest the Indigenous use of frequent, low-severity fire likely reduced fuel loads and the risk for large-scale wildfire activity in mountain environments on the Fish Lake Plateau, even during periods of drought more extreme and prolonged than today." Why are you avoiding this question? Is it because you misquoted Brunelle et al. and your quote misrepresents their study?--GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeraldineSeinfeld, Central America is part of North America. You should make the necessary changes to your arguments to reflect this. Also, you recently become extremely active in gatekeeping thr edits on this page. You've reverted all edits other than your own, even those that were made prior to the creation of your account, which I assume is an alt of Hobomok (the old gatekeeper of this page) since they've been banned.
I'm trying to edit the words "by the colonists" out of the "Altered fire regimes" section, because none of the included sources make any mention of late 1900's "colonists," likely because no colonist existed in the Americas by that point. If you'd like to provide a new source that describes inhabitants of North America in the late 20th / early 21st centuries as "colonists," please add the source. Otherwise, the inaccurate, and unsourced language should be removed. Sudopudge (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, Central America is not part of North America, and no, Mayan people are not known as Native Americans.
2. I don’t see that user anywhere on this talk page or the page’s revision history, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re going to cast aspersions and go against AGF, do it somewhere else.
3. According to the cited sources, fire suppression is settler colonialism, and settler colonialism is continuing now. For example, see vinyeta: “For Karuk people, fire management is highly illustrative of ongoing settler colonial processes that restrict tribal culture, impact the ecology of places, and affect the health of the Karuk people and their nonhuman kin.” Also, “The USFS [US Forest Service] is an institution resulting from—and in the service of—Euro-American settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is happening now, and those who would suppress native fire are colonists.—10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reinstated some sourced information, and I removed the problematic sentence in question, as it seemed irrelevant to the general meaning of the passage. Crescent77 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very relevant to the meaning of the passage. Vinyeta’s main point, and many points from academics working on cultural burning, is that fire suppression is a colonial act. That language is important.
The sourced information you reinstated, per my third point on august 20th, was misquoted by the editor who added it originally.
I don’t have any issue with your other copy edits, so I have no problem with you re-adding those, but the wording around Vinyeta’s (and others’) citations needs to stay because that’s what the source says, and the Brunelle article especially is misquoted, so it should not be added in its current state. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't blanket remove all edits because you disagree in part. I undid your edit because many of the changes, as you agree, were viable. Please change the parts you disagree with, and if need be we can continue the discussion here. Crescent77 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all edits you made because you added material that was being discussed here that is improperly sourced. Then you copy-edited on-top of it. That said, your recent edit summary, "As the talk page indicates, this material is sourced. Please take it up on the talk page" is incorrect. Again, I will copy and paste previous points I've made that haven't been responded to:
1. The Oswald article you've re-added discusses burning practices in New England. If the Oswald article is going to be added, it needs to explain that context. The Wikipedia:ONUS for that is on the editor who wants to include it. As it stands, the source is out of context in wiki-voice.
2. The quote and introduction from the Brunelle et al. article is out of context as well. The way it is quoted in Wiki-voice makes it seem that climatic conditions were the main drivers of forest fires in the 15th century. However, The point of that article, per the abstract, is that while climatic conditions may have played a role, Indigenous fire practices played a significant role as well. Per the body of the article "Our findings suggest the Indigenous use of frequent, low-severity fire likely reduced fuel loads and the risk for large-scale wildfire activity in mountain environments on the Fish Lake Plateau, even during periods of drought more extreme and prolonged than today."
3. Finally, regarding the use of "colonists" in 20th and 21st century fire suppression, according to all of the cited sources, colonists is the appropriate term. Per Vinyeta specifically, fire suppression is settler colonialism, and settler colonialism is continuing now: “For Karuk people, fire management is highly illustrative of ongoing settler colonial processes that restrict tribal culture, impact the ecology of places, and affect the health of the Karuk people and their nonhuman kin.” Also, “The USFS [US Forest Service] is an institution resulting from—and in the service of—Euro-American settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is happening now, and those who would suppress native fire are colonists.
I've made points one and two clear to the original editor who added the first two misquotes. I made point three clear to the second editor who removed the term "colonists" because of their interpretation of Miriam-Webster, which isn't the cited source. To date, no one has responded to why Oswald et al.'s study is quoted as representing all of North America and is continually re-added, no one has responded to why Brunelle et al. is misquoted and continually re-added, and no one has responded to why the language in Vinyeta and other sources is continually removed. These changes keep being made, but no one who keeps making them has responded to any discussion about content for over a week. Now you have gone in and re-added them despite these points, and you have not responded to any of them in any way that would excuse these edits. Please, if anyone is going to add any of this back onto the page, discuss the issues with quotations, paraphrasing, and content I've presented here. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Oswald article is specifically quoted a s referring to "interior areas of North America."
  2. The Burnell article does indicate it as the main driver. If you feel it is misrepresented here, modify the summation, don't completely remove sourced material.
Crescent77 (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vinyeta refers to "ongoing settler colonial processes". It does not indicate that there are still "colonists". Crescent77 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued removal of material that you insist is "improperly sourced" is problematic. It is fully sourced. I do understand you disagree with the summation of the material, and have issues with "quoting, paraphrasing and content", so modify it, don't completely remove the sourced material. Crescent77 (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, the Oswald article does discuss the interior of America, when they are discussing Native agriculture, not burning, in their literature review ("In interior areas of eastern North America, some Native groups farmed intensively around large villages for at least the few centuries immediately preceding European arrival."). They discuss burning in relation to New England. It needs to be added correctly.
2. Carter/Brunelle et al. article's main point is that "Indigenous populations shaped high-elevation mixed-conifer fire regimes on the Fish Lake Plateau through land-use practices" while people were farming in the region. While it does state that when people were not farming there climate was the main driver of fire, but this is hardly a significant point. Of course something other than people was the main cause of fire if people were not there. If the article is going to be used, it needs to be used to represent its main findings and interventions. There is no reason to introduce the article simply to say that when people dispersed climate took over. It is very strange to me that the article was introduced, but its main points were not introduced. Instead, a different part of the study was paraphrased.
2B. I didn't introduce the Carter/Brunelle et al. article. If someone wanted to introduce it, they should paraphrase its main findings correctly. That's how paraphrasing works. It's not my job to go into the article and paraphrase it correctly for someone else.
3. If there are ongoing settler colonial processes, there are still colonists. Those carrying out the processes are colonists. How is that not clear?
Of course these sections and quotations are sourced. The issue is that they are misrepresented. If you want to correctly represent the sources, then correctly represent them. Instead, there's one editor arguing in favor of at best sloppy paraphrasing and at worst willfully misrepresenting sources, one editor continually misrepresenting Vinyeta in favor of Merriam-Webster, and now you telling me to clean up after the original editor who has disappeared after they couldn't support their inaccurate paraphrasing. If you want to add the sources, paraphrase them correctly. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. Systems exist long after their original implementators are gone. For example, we talk about Newtonian physics, but no one would suppose that Newton is still currently involved in their implementation.
The author of your source is well aware of that, it identifies systems, but it avoids identifying modern "colonists". Crescent77 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. There’s ongoing discussion here regarding your most recent revert. Per BRD, please don’t go changing things to suit your preferred reading. When this was originally changed, the changing editor said to check out “Merriam-Webster.” Now you’re arguing that the sources are incorrect. Do you see the leaps in logic that are being made here to excuse changing language that doesn’t match sources?
2. Do you understand how settler colonialism works? Vinyeta does. It is an ongoing societal structure, not an event. Fire suppression is a part of that. Colonists carry out fire suppression as part of an ongoing structure.
To summarize: Your changes keep going against what the sources say. I’m happy that the points about Oswald and Carter/Brunelle et al. being misrepresented finally seem to be clear, but this is the same kind of thing. Please stop making changes that don’t line up with the cited sources. I’m going to revert back the long-standing content, per BRD. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What previous editors did doesn't matter. I'm not changing it "suit my preferred reading". I'm removing wording that is not in the source.
  2. You're justification indicating you know what the author understands is either WP:OR or WP:COI. Neither is an acceptable reason to include material. If the author published it, it can be included. Your analysis can not.
Crescent77 (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not OR or COI. This is not my analysis. This is a paraphrase of the cited sources. It is not a direct quote. Do you understand how paraphrasing works? Have you checked the other sources? The video presentation from Norgaard, Reed, and Scott? Reed clearly states that fire suppression is "settler colonialism in action."
This whole argument is ridiculous. While I understand that a good part of your time on Wiki is spent arguing about Native histories and settler colonialism, if you want to keep it going here then please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, because you're not going to get me to back down by accusing me of having a COI for simply understanding settler colonialism/the cited sources.
We've gone from editors outright misrepresenting sources w/ Oswald and Carter/Brunelle et al., which has been dropped with no mention of why those sources were exceptionally and downright dishonestly misrepresented, to you accusing me of having a COI/performing OR for arguing in favor of long-standing text I didn't even write that correctly represents the cited sources. This would be absurd if it weren't a thorough example of how settler colonialism works. You don't even understand it and you're enacting it right now. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity's sake, where does your source refer to "colonists"? Crescent77 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vinyeta as early as page two describes Indigenous/settler colonist conflict in relation to fire suppression.
If you're not going to read the sources, or even watch a Youtube video, but you're going to argue against the sources, that's a major issue. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I still don't see where Vinyeta refer to "colonists". Could you please reference that so we can come to an agreement as to whether or not that source supports the inclusion of the wording in question in the article?
2) Are you now suggesting that the YouTube video supports the statement "now with fewer restrictions placed on them by the colonists..."? That discussion needs further context, per concerns you elaborated on above : "As it stands, the source is out of context in wiki-voice." Crescent77 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure how much clearer I can be:
It’s in vinyeta on page two. And yes, the video presentation from experts does support the language.
Again, we’re getting nowhere here and this is quickly becoming exhausting, especially following the original disagreement in this section where the original poster was trying to completely misrepresent the cited source’s findings. If you want to change it let’s initiate dispute resolution. GeraldineSeinfeld (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to community : Under suspicion of sockpuppetry (concerning Hobomok / Renamed User iusdhf) and possible involvement in coordinated NPOV pushing, GeraldineSeinfeld "retired".
Per the discussion above, most importantly the lack of direct sourcing, with the now added concern that the questionable adherence to NPOV may have been intentional, I'm removing the phrase in question; once again I don't think it's removal detracts from the broader meaning, and lends the passage a more encyclopedic tone.
I'm refraining from adding back the two removed sources at this time, as I do believe the concerns that the sources are misrepresented are legitimate, and the issue requires further review, regardless of the retirement. Crescent77 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ESPE Capstone Seminar

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2024 and 12 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wormlowly, PaulRabil99 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PaulRabil99.

— Assignment last updated by PaulRabil99 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using David et al. as a source for "salmon migration control"

[edit]

Wildfire Smoke Cools Summer River and Stream Water Temperatures article use as a source is problematic. First of all, it's not a historical research, so it can't be used to claim something was done on purpose in the past. The temperature drop shown for the lowest Klamath point available is ~4 times smaller than the August-September average temperature change (see Figures 3, 4), meaning it's not a significant factor - and this change was received with the largest wildfire on record (2008) at that time. No actual change in salmon migration was measured or even observed, it was only theorized.

If anything, the article rather confirms "salmon attraction" being a fairy tale by demonstrating how small is the smoke effect on the lower river flow temperature even with multiple months of fire over thousands of square kilometres - and it's the lower flow the salmon will feel in the ocean, not tributaries. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon "calling" with smoke

[edit]

After reviewing the sources connected to the salmon "calling" claim initially I've found that they either never mention the claim at all (e.g. Chapeskie), or put it rather into religious practices (Williams, 2003), or even directly contradict it by an experiment (David et al.). Only two sources remain, both hard to access without having the books in question, and the second one doesn't even point to a specific place in the book.

Sources to support the claim also tend to all reference each other - e.g. Karuk Climate Adaptation Plan boldly states "August fires...triggering upstream salmonid migration" at page 67 as a fact without any evidence for it but you can find David et al. in references, and it wasn't even remotely a confirmed effect in that study. And then Long et al. reference both of those documents on page 10 like independent sources - which they are not.

We should move the whole "salmon calling" thing into religious practices and drop the assumption of a scientific basis - there's very little here beyond setting a signal fire for fish on the shore. Soaring Crocodile (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History Fall 2024

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Willltheking (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Willltheking (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_use_of_fire_in_ecosystems&oldid=1252626912"