From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page One

I really have to disagree that Piney isn't derogatory. It's normally used the same way as "hick", "redneck", or "hillbilly" is, and they're clearly considered derogatory. Just because some people turn it around and use it differently doesn't change its main usage (q.v. nigger) -- Xanzzibar 8 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)

As a Piney, the use is not considered derogatory at all. Most old-time Pineys are proud to be associated with the term, so I doubt it was ever derogatory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.16.69.233 ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC). reply

This would require a major change to the article, so I'm going to throw it out for discussion first. The phrase "Pine Barrens" should lead to a disambiguation page, since there is an area of Long Island called the "Pine Barrens" as well. I also believe there is an area of Texas also known as the "Pine Barrens."

Perhaps the current article would be better named "New Jersey Pine Barrens"?

Given Wikipedia naming conventions, New Jersey Pine Barrens with four caps implies that NJPB is a proper name, which I do not believe. The normal naming for this sort of thing would be

I much prefer the first of these; it will make links to Pine Barrens come here, as most of them ought to. I'm sorry to have missed the move notice - if there is consensus on a move back, I'll do the link repairs myself. Septentrionalis 18:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used four caps-- I was focused on creating a generic Pine barrens article, and tagging this one as specific to NJ. It seems to me that the generic article ought to be named as it is now, with a disambiguation section at the top pointing to specific pine barren articles as they are written.
I propose to move them down, or to a disambiguation page. But that's that article. Septentrionalis 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply


Although the NJPB article is the only specific one at present, there are at least two barrens in NY state, one in NH and several in the mid-West, so I'm not sure why you feel that the NJ article is where the dab belongs. Seems to me that all that needs to be done now (besides writing half a dozen more specific articles) is to rename the NJ article New Jersey pine barrens.

I think there are pine barrens in Georgia too. I do not feel, and did not say, that the dab belongs on this NJ page; it does need a header linking to pine barrens and the dab page (if these are not the same). To simplify the question, I have struck out a choice above, the one which neither of us prefers.
I strongly oppose a move to New Jersey pine barrens. "Pine Barrens" is a proper name in NJ, and is so spelt and capitalized. I find "Pinelands" eccentric, although it may be more common as an act of political correctness than I am aware. I think "Pine Barrens" should be the name of this article as the dominant use of the name. Septentrionalis 20:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
BTW, the link repair may be messier than it appears. For some reason, doing What Links Here on the Pine barrens article still brings up all of the New Jersey town articles that link through the NJ template, while What Links Here on the NJ article only lists those towns that directly mention the barrens (though they all use the form [[New Jersey Pine Barrens|Pinelands]]. Maybe this will fix itself at some point? In any case, I'd be wary of renaming the NJPB article before it gets straightened out.
I will check it out. For linking purposes "Pine barrens" and "pine barrens" are the same string; "Pine Barrens" is a completely different string. Septentrionalis 20:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
One more thing-- I think the name Pine Barrens (New Jersey), should definitely not be the name of the NJ article, because it tends to force one to use piped alt text links, whereas New Jersey pine barrens fits pretty naturally into linking articles as is. In fact, in doing the link fixes, I found many cases where the text had "[[New Jersey]] [[Pine Barrens]]". -- Mwanner 19:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Then that one can be discarded. Striking out. Septentrionalis 20:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Actually, I'm not so sure that the four caps title is wrong. Do a google search on "new jersey pine barrens" and see what you get. The first 35 hits are all "New Jersey Pine Barrens", and the 36th stands all but alone as "New Jersey pine barrens". There are even a few "Pine Barrens of New Jersey". So personally, I'd leave it alone. - Mwanner 19:53, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I hear that as an adjective modifying a proper name, like "New Jersey Cretaceous". Septentrionalis 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't disagree with you. In fact, it's possible that what I'm seeing in the Google results is just the tendency to upcase the words of a title. WP is pretty much by itself in upcasing only the first word except for proper nouns. So if you want to change it to New Jersey pine barrens, I don't have any trouble with that. -- Mwanner 20:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you; but I want to move this article to Pine Barrens, as the proper name; and have so suggested on WP:RM; pine barrens should stay where it is. Septentrionalis 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Requested move

New Jersey Pine Barrens → Pine Barrens. "Pine Barrens" is a proper name, and local usage. The subject of this article is the primary sense of the proper name; although pine barrens, as a common noun, exist elsewhere. It may or may not be the only sense of the proper name; that is not needed to justify the move. Septentrionalis 20:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support as above. The primacy of the NJ usage is in part attested by the creation of this article, at Pine Barrens, more than a year ago. None of the other pine barrens now have articles at all. Septentrionalis 20:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Support. We should use the actual proper names of things. Robert A West 17:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for the reasons below. -- Mwanner 23:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I have real trouble seeing the sense of this. There is a general article about Pine barrens and there is an article on the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Pmanderson wants to leave Pine barrens as is, but have the New Jersey Pine Barrens article named Pine Barrens (which, in fact, he has effectively done at present by changing the redirect on Pine Barrens from "Pine barrens" to "New Jersey Pine Barrens". Apparently, he believes that the only pine barrens in the world that deserve to be considered a proper noun are those in his native New Jersey. A Google search on "pine barrens" will turn up many pages (such as those on the "Long Island Pine Barrens") in which Pine Barrens appears as a proper noun for barrens outside of New Jersey. QED. Some examples:

-- Mwanner 21:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
"Pine Barrens" is a proper noun, being the most common proper noun referring to the pinelands of New Jersey. The name "New Jersey Pine Barrens" is not a commonly-used proper noun, and I know of no other area that is nationally known simply as "The Pine Barrens". The Federal Government agrees with this: the "Pinelands National Reserve" is not called the "New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve." We should not be misleading readers by creating false proper nouns. I would support the following:
  1. The NJ article be moved back to Pine Barrens, leaving the redirect.
  2. A note be added to the top of the article, "This describes the area in New Jersey known as the Pine Barrens. For a discussion of the ecology and a listing of other areas, see Pine barrens (ecology).
  3. The Pine barrens article be moved to Pine barrens (ecology), leaving the redirect. This will get people where they want to be quickest.
  4. A note be placed at the top that reads: "This article describes the ecology of pinelands in general. For the area in New Jersey more or less equivalent to the Pinelands National Reserve, see Pine Barrens."
  5. If there is another area known as just the "Pine Barrens" without qualification, then we can deal with that when someone actually writes the article.
Robert A West 17:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The fact that the Federal Government refers to the area as the "Pinelands National Reserve" povides dubious support for your contention that the proper name for the NJ barrens is The Pine Barrens.
The important feature is that no qualification was used. Had there been any objection from New Hampsire, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and so on, it would surely have shown up in Congress, where legislators from those states could trivially have gotten the qualifying term name "New Jersey" prepended. The legislators' silence speaks volumes. (I agree with Mr. Anderson's view that "Pinelands" is eco-PC usage.) 208.20.251.27 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC) This and all succeeding comments from the same IP are mine. Robert A West 02:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Bogus argument-- had they used the name "Pine Barrens National Reserve", you would have a good case. But since the other areas of the country with barrens use the term Pine Barrens, not Pinelands, why would they object? -- Mwanner 17:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
And the fact that you know of no other area that is nationally known simply as "The Pine Barrens" is unconvincing-- writing about the Long Island Pine Barrens, Newsday wrote: "But few realize that, in a way, the Pine Barrens extends its reach as far as Italy, where it has formed a partnership with a large regional park. [1]
Certainly, any pine barrens will sometimes be referred to as just "The Pine Barrens", just as the "Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania" can properly be referred to as "The Grand Canyon" in a local paper where the context is clear. And in the context of this article, Newsday was doing local reportage. The question is whether what you have seen fit to dub "The New Jersey Pine Barrens" is known more frequently by that name, or simply as "The Pine Barrens." Google (a flawed but useful tool) gives 122,000 hits for "Pine Barrens", broken down roughly as follows:
  • 12,700 hits for "New Jersey Pine Barrens", about half of which seem to be attributive, rather than treating it as a four-word proper noun.
  • 57,200 hits for "Pine Barrens" and "New Jersey", or "NJ" or "Ocean County" or "South Jersey" but without "New Jersey Pine Barrens". This is over half the total.
  • 8,700 hits for golf courses and apartment buildings in various locations.
  • 4,700 hits for the pine barrens tree frog.
  • Leaving 38,700 other hits. Surveying the first hundred-odd hits manually, I found that about 5% seemed to be about New Jersey but escaped my filters above, 5% seemed to be common nouns, 30% used the term as a proper noun without qualification, and 60% used the name qualified in some way, as "Long Island Pine Barrens. Let's assume about half of these qualified uses were attributive as well. (What's fair for the goose...)
The result is fairly overwhelming. Unqualified usage is 80% likely to be about NJ. 208.20.251.27 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
See below. -- Mwanner 17:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
John McPhee's book The Pine Barrens is probably behind the somewhat greater fame of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. But that book no more confers ownership of the name Pine Barrens on NJ's barrens than does his book The Headmaster confer ownership of that appellation upon its subject, Frank Boyden.
McPhee's book is really beside the point. The area was known as the "Pine Barrens" long before he was a gleam in his father's eye. 208.20.251.27 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As, presumably, were other Pine Barrens around continent. -- Mwanner 17:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Finally, you claim that nationally, the name Pine Barrens means New Jersey's Pine Barrens. I would suggest to you that to many people living in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, some parts of New York, Virginia, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Texas and Ontario (there are probably more), that may not be an accurate assumption. -- Mwanner 23:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Please have the courtesy to respond to what I actually said. I asserted that,
  1. The proper noun for the area has always been "Pine Barrens", with "Pinelands" a relatively recent term deliberately introduced to emphasize the fact that the area is not ecologically barren. "New Jersey Pine Barrens" is as wrong as calling the opera house in Philadelphia the "Philadelphia Academy of Music", and for the same reason: that is not its name. Both of you have rejected my solution: Academy of Music (Philadelphia).
  2. Pretending that the area has no proper noun (as you propose) is equally misleading.
  3. While there may be other areas that are known simply as the "Pine Barrens", an unqualified use is overwhelmingly likely to refer to the area in New Jersey.
  4. At the moment, there is only one article written about a specific Pine Barrens. When others are written, if their authors feel that they have a good claim to the unqualified usage, that problem can be solved at that time.
I believe all my points to be valid and well-supported. 208.20.251.27 02:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I would have thought that finding 12,000 Google hits for “New Jersey Pine Barrens” might have given you pause, especially combined with your finding that 20% of unqualified uses of “Pine Barrens” did not refer to New Jersey’s barrens. It seems to you a good idea to proceed with Pine Barrens as the name of the NJ article until someone (other than me, I suppose) objects?

This is how other Wikipedia authors have chosen to link to the Pine Barrens article:

Regarding your analogy to the Grand Canyon, take a look at What Links Here for that article-- there are virtually none that qualify "Grand Canyon" as "Grand Canyon of the Colorado" or "Arizona's Grand Canyon", unlike the Pine Barrens links above.

Anyway, I hope we can all agree that we have spent more than enough time on this issue. User:Pmanderson was the first to propose "to have this page at Pine Barrens (New Jersey) and the dab at Pine Barrens." (see above)

My only objection to this form is that it all but forces piped links. I assume, however, that I have convinced neither of you that New Jersey Pine Barrens is the best title, and it's probably futile to suggest Pine Barrens of New Jersey.

I, therefore, to resolve this issue, hereby accept the proposal made by each of you to rename the article Pine Barrens (New Jersey) and to have the dab at Pine Barrens."

Signed, this 10th day of August, 2005, -- Mwanner 17:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pine Barrens (New Jersey) remains acceptable to me, although unpreferred; if Mwanner's chief concern is to avoid piped links, then it would seem logical to have Pine Barrens continue to redirect to this article under the new title, and establish Pine Barrens (disambiguation) for the dab. Septentrionalis 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Sorry, no, I never said that was my chief concern, which is that "Pine Barrens" does not uniquely identify the Pine Barrens in NJ, which is precisely why Pine Barrens should be a dab page. Since neither one of us prefers Pine Barrens (New Jersey), that would seem to make it a perfect compromise. -- Mwanner 18:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm....I prefer Pine Barrens (New Jersey), since it is unambiguous and sets a clear precedent for other articles about pine barrens, but avoids misinforming the reader about actual usage. Does that fact change your vote?  ;-) Robert A West 19:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(Also, it probably says something significant about our personalities that I look at an 80/20 split in usage, and say, "the 80 is standard, we should use it", while you say, "The 20 justifies my usage." No value-judgment intended: just an observation that intrigues me.) Robert A West 19:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No, I'm OK with Pine Barrens (New Jersey) as precedent. I'd prefer Pine Barrens of x as the precedent, but I can live with (x)-- it is quite common in WP. I just get real tired of typing piped links. But I'll cope.
And yes, I'd want to be looking at something more like 95/5 before I'd be ready to say, OK, the 5 percent don't count.
Thanks, both of you, for the lively debate. I think this can be done without involving Requested Moves. I don't mind doing it, unless one of you would rather. -- Mwanner 19:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect you can't, since Pine Barrens (New Jersey) has been edited. Thanks as well. A nice change of pace --- I now return to me previous argument, already in progress: trying to convince people that titles should not contain letters that are known not to display with default Internet Explorer factory settings. Robert A West 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes-- I was thinking that Pine Barrens (New Jersey) would be a new title. Good luck with Thorn-- your last point looks convincing to me. Let me know if you need support on it. -- Mwanner 20:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice at top

I think the disambiguation notice at the top is redundant, considering that the title and text of the article clearly indicate that these are the New Jersey Pine Barrens — this isn't ambiguous at all. A link to the list of pine barrens belongs in a "See also" section. I made these edits already, but had them reverted by Pmanderson. æle ✆ 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It is part of the compromise discussed on the rest of this talk page; and a reader service. Pine Barrens redirects here, as the primary meaning; however, this page is not at Pine Barrens as a recognition that there are other, less well-known, pine barrens in the world.
It is intended, and I think succeeds, in getting every reader to his desired page with as little trouble and as few clicks, on average, as possible. Paging down to find the right cross-link is obnoxious. Septentrionalis 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Pine Barrens should redirect to Pine barrens — articles shouldn't differ solely by case. æle ✆ 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
The English language differentiates by case: Pine Barrens is a proper name, pine barrens a common noun. It is not Wikipedia's business to change this. Septentrionalis 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Article titles that differ solely by case confuse searches and users. This has nothing to do with proper nouns. æle ✆ 01:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply
If our search engine is inadequate, it is better to fix it than to attempt to amend the English language for its convenience. Septentrionalis 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply
It's not Wikipedia's search engine; it's the users that use it. Many users think every noun is proper, or that encyclopedias always use title case, or have another first language (such as German) where all nouns are capitalized, etc. To have two different articles for what is essentially the same title is very confusing to readers. æle ✆ 21:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Based on my research above that led to this compromise, the largest number of users who type in "Pine Barrens" will want this article. A substantial minority will want an article on the ecotype and a not inconsiderable number will want an article on the pine barrens nearest them. Therefore, it would seem to make sense to have "Pine barrens" vel non be a disambiguation page, pointing to three articles: Pine Barrens (New Jersey), Pine barrens (ecosystem) and List of pine barrens. That would mean an extra click for the majority, and fewer clicks for no one. That would, IMO, constitute a foolish consistancy. Robert A.West ( Talk) 22:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Image

I have just uploaded an image I took this year, how might I go about putting it to use?

pine barrens

the Pine Barrens are more desolate looking than these pictures suggest. The trees are denser and there is less beauty and a more disturbing feeling to the Pine barrens. Also, why are all the pictures have water in them? and why are half of them on Atsion Lake? 138.89.126.211 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think I agree with the "desolate" and "disturbing" adjectives (the pines are OVERFLOWING with life, some of it completely unique to the area). But I am curious why the pics are so focused on two places. Atsion Lake is very nice (I'm going camping there in a couple weeks actually!), and the Mullica is an awesome spot to go canoing/boating, but it's kind of lame that 8 out of the 9 pics on this article are of those two locations...
I'll have to make it a point to take some more pics myself next time I get a chance, but what do other people think would be good additions/replacements? The article mentions the "pygmy Pitch Pines" (though I've always heard them called "dwarf pines"), a pic of them would seem to be appropriate. What else do people think would be good to include? Maybe some wild blueberry bushes? Some chunks of bog iron? There's a spot I know where chunks of slag can be found from a colonial glassworks... How about some of the Ocean Spray cranberry bogs?
Actually, this article could really use some more info about colonial glass making/iron smelting... And maybe something about why all the surface water is red (the iron content)? -- MyrddinEmrys 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Tannins leached from cedar trees create the 'tea' coloring to the water. Of course suspended iron containing sediment can also add to the effect, as iron gives the Pineland's sandy substrate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C Erichsen ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC). reply
Tannic acid is indeed a _part_ of the color (though not all of the tannins come from cedar trees), but so is iron. Anyway, I think it'd be great if someone with a more detailed understanding of the issue could add a paragraph to the article... -- MyrddinEmrys 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Highlands

Where are they in relation to the Pine Barrens? John wesley 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

For the municipality, see Highlands, New Jersey, which is nowhere near the Pine Barrens (it's off the map). If not, what do you mean? Septentrionalis 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
See New York Highlands GIS User's Group. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC) [2] John wesley 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Talk pages--- Pine barrens and List of pine barrens

It really makes no sense to me whatsoever that the talk pages for two articles which discuss the general topic of pine barrens should both redirect to a talk page for a very specific example (albeit, perhaps the most well-known example) of a pine barren. Should, by way of comparison, the talk page for the organized crime article be redirected to the talk page for the article on the Mafia, given that the Sicilian Mafia is the most well-known example of organized crime? I would really appreciate if someone could explain this decision to me, because I am baffled. Thanks in advance. --- Charles 04:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There was a lengthy discussion on where the three articles should be placed, which was on all three talk pages, IIRC, also Talk:Pine Barrens, and appears to have been merged. There were also some moves. If you have reason to take out the redirect, fine. Septentrionalis 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I've separated the talk pages, because the articles are now separate, and the importance of the two to Wikiproject Plants is quite different (in fact, perhaps only Pine barrens should be in Wikiproject Plants at all). Kingdon 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The Jersey Devil

Nothing is mentioned about the Jersey Devil? I would think that's an important thing to mention, not in depth since there is an article about it, but atleast mention it?

I agree. Why don't you stick something in?  :-) -- MyrddinEmrys 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Kallikaks

This article says "The Pine Barrens were home to the Kallikaks" but the The_Kallikak_Family article clearly states "the name Kallikak is a pseudonym derived from the Greek καλός (kalos) and κακός (kakos), meaning "good" and "bad," respectively". Since there never was a Kallikak family in the NJ Pine Barrens, I think the article should be corrected. I wanted to see what others thought before I went ahead and did it myself. - ZippySLC 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the family actually existed, even if the Kallikak name was a pseudonym. I don't see a problem referring to them by the pseudonym, since their real names are unknown. --Xanzzibar 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove 2007 Fire section

Unless there are plans to include sections about all the major fires which have occurred in the Pine Barrens, I would suggest that the 2007 fire section should be removed as it is not important enough to include (when at the same time, this article excludes other larger fires which have ravaged the barrens) Famartin ( talk) 06:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm inclined to agree -- there's nothing that defines why this fire was so notable... though instead of removing it entirely, I'd prefer that it be generalised just to briefly mention the major forest fires that have occurred over time. However, I did a quick search for some info and came up empty-handed. -- Bossi ( talk • gallery • contrib) 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's a good excerpt... http://www.weymouthnj.org/fire_safty_in_the_pine_barrens.htm " The potential for wildfire disaster in New Jersey has been dramatically illustrated numerous times. Large conflagrations occurred several times from 1930 to 1992, and most recently in 1995. The most notable of the fires was on the weekend of April 20-21,1963 , when wildfires destroyed 183,000 acres of land, consumed 186 homes and 197 buildings, and were responsible for seven deaths. In 1995, one wildfire burned 19,225 acres in Ocean County , and during the summer drought of 1997, an 800-acre fire damaged 52 homes and threatened over 300 homes in Berkeley Township . " Famartin ( talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree as well. I never really cared for the section as it is, and Bossi's suggestion sounds like a good alternative. -- Xanzzibar ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Map please

Where can I find a map of their extent? 99.191.75.22 ( talk) 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This website has a picture of the Pine Barrens ecoregion showing the extent of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey, while this one has pictures showing the area occupied by the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve. -- Apollo1758 ( talk) 01:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you so much! 99.191.75.22 ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Any way that a map could be incorporated into this article? I'm not clear about the regulations on image copyright on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Please add a map to this article. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Fire regime???

"The fire regime before European settlement is poorly understood, although it is known that Native American fires had maintained the eastern savannas of the United States. Fire has played a major ecological role in the Pinelands, and the ecotypes "suggest that short fire intervals may have been typical in the Pine Plains for many centuries, or millennia."

What on Earth is this talking about? There are no hyperlinks, so anyone not knowing what a "fire regime" or "short fire intervals" is has no clue what any of this means and cannot find out quickly. And "Native American fires had maintained the eastern savannas of the United States". Um, huh? a) this make littles sense on its face; b) it has no citations even if it has some kind of sense behind it. I'd prefer for this paragraph to be removed, as it doesn't add anything, is not sourced (beyond a single link to an offline source), and makes little sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salazar888 ( talk • contribs) 07:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I added links to fire regime and Native American use of fire, but I agree that the statement is too technical. At the end of that statement, there is a reference for the book Savannas, Barrens, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America, which is accepted under good faith (Read Wikipedia:Offline sources). How about incorporating the statement into the section on "Forest fires," which needs more referenced material anyway? -- Apollo1758 ( talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

2007 and 2008 fire sections

I'm removing these two sub-sections from the forest fire section because they lack relevance, in accordance with Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:Notability (events), and the policy that " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material". Since the Pine Barrens experiences multiple fires in a year, I think that it's difficult for an individual fire to warrant its own section unless it causes lasting effects or has a large geographical scope. I'm keeping a copy of the sub-sections here for historical reference.

2007

On May 15, 2007, a flare dropped from an F-16 during a training session over the bombing range at Warren Grove in Ocean County, about 25 miles (40 km) north of Atlantic City resulted in an extensive forest fire. On the 18th, the fire was declared contained after burning over 17,000 acres (69 km²) and forcing the evacuation of more than 6,000 residents. [1]

2008

On October 21, 2008, a small brush fire ignited near Atsion Lake, close to where the borders of Camden, Atlantic and Burlington counties converge, and quickly turned into an inferno. It was brought under control about six days later after consuming about 1,950 acres (7.9 km2). [2] Officials blame extremely dry conditions and high winds for the start of the fire.

  1. ^ Pinelands Fire Nearly Contained, WPVI, May 18, 2007. Accessed May 25, 2007.
  2. ^ Source of forest fire unknown Burlington County Times, November 8, 2008

-- Apollo1758 ( talk) 14:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Merge with New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve?

I was editing the aforementioned article, and I noticed that there is some overlap. The main difference is that the National Reserve is the legislative district that contains much of the open Pine Barrens in New Jersey. If it was a National Park, wouldn't all of the information be in that national park? Just a thought. I don't usually edit forest articles. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Probably best to keep the articles separate as the Nat'l Reserve is a somewhat smaller area within the entire Pine Barrens. They are effectively different entities, one inside the other. For example, Wikipedia still has separate articles for Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park; also, Death Valley and Death Valley National Park. Separating such things does defeat the ideal of having all closely-related info in one place though, which would limit redundancy and keep discrepancies to a minimum. Brian W. Schaller ( talk) 02:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Very good points {{ping|Brian W. Schaller]], but the Grand Canyon and Death Valley are a bit more distinct than the Pine Barrens. Both have geographic boundaries and delineations. The Pine Barrens are just part of the broader Atlantic coastal pine barrens. Most of the info in this article comes from the Pinelands Commission (flora, fauna, and protection efforts), so anything New Jersey-related could just go in a Pinelands National Reserve article. At some point I will be building up the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve, so we'll see when that article is a bit more done. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I also disagree. The Pinelands Reserve is essentially a park - the article should consist of description of what is included (lands, waterways, facilities, etc), the authority of the commission, history of its creation, etc. It should also include a brief section of the ecology but link to the main Pine Barrens article. The Pine Barrens is an ecosystem, and its article should consist mostly of the ecology (plants/animals/climate/soils), its coverage area. It can have a brief section on the reserve but link to the main reserve article as the primary article. Famartin ( talk) 18:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

To add to article

To add to article: a list of the counties that comprise the New Jersey Pine Barrens. 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 03:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply

" the rare eastern timber rattlesnakes "

Timber rattlesnakes are not rare or endangered. They are classified as "least concern". Just see /info/en/?search=Timber_rattlesnake Jyg ( talk) 03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

As a whole, they might not be a species of concern, but per the cited source( [3]), they're considered endangered in New Jersey. -- Xanzzibar ( talk) 04:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing this out. This, by the way, must be a relatively recent development. Forty years ago the Pine Barrens were rife with these rat snakes. Any piece of tin laid down was likely to have a pine snake under it. Jyg ( talk) 21:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Timber rattlers are not rat snakes, and they are also not pine snakes. They are also endangered or extirpated in various other states as well as New Jersey, per Timber rattlesnake#Conservation status. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 00:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Requested move 26 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "New Jersey Pine Barrens". ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Vaulter 15:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply


Pine Barrens (New Jersey) → New Jersey Pine Barrens – or New Jersey Pinelands. The opening sentence already uses the proposed term, and a similar term ("New Jersey Pinelands") is used as the label in the map shown at the top of the article. Similar constructions are used for the articles on the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, Plymouth Pinelands, and Atlantic coastal pine barrens. Similar constructions are also found in the titles of many of the cited sources. Official names related to this topic include the New Jersey Pinelands Commission and the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve. The use of a state name in parentheses is not generally practiced for article titles about WP:U.S. places. WP:NATURALDIS is preferred. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 00:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Support move to New Jersey Pine Barrens - thanks for starting the conversation! Tom Radulovich ( talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Support the move to New Jersey Pine Barrens, per nom. -- Xanzzibar ( talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment isn't this Pine Barrens the one most people know of, owing in some part to the episode of The Sopranos? This particular naming setup seems to fit with commonname, no? - wolf 03:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • If you're suggesting moving this to Pine Barrens and relying on WP:DIFFCAPS for disambiguation, I don't think I support that. The common name presumably doesn't contain a parenthetical phrase. If you're already in New Jersey when you refer to a place, a certain amount of context can be assumed for a lot of things, but I think people ought to understand that a globally relevant identifier needs a bit more. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 14:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:New_Jersey_Pine_Barrens&oldid=1204262107"