Talk:Yucca brevifolia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WriteMeMcGee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How cold hardy?

How cold hardy are Joshua trees? If they area planted in a raised bed (to keep the roots dry) can they be grown in areas such as USDA zone 5 or 6 that are cold but not a whole lot colder than their natural habitat? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.208 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan of a Joshua Tree

Should there be something here about the lifespan of a Joshua Tree? How old can a Joshua Tree get?

Hard for anybody to know, because as the article says, it "lacks annual growth rings, making it difficult to determine the tree's age". I vaguely remember reading about someone experimenting with C14 dating, dunno where I saw it. Stan 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, one of the subspecies forms clonal clumps, so the clump wil be older than any of its above-ground ramets.--Curtis Clark 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I live near the national park. The rangers say the average lifespan is about 150 years, between 145 to 155. Anyone know how I cite a pamphlet from a national park? Shinku Hisaki (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How would, or could, a park ranger possibly know how old Joshua Trees are? Missaeagle (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The best article I have found is

Gilliland, K. D., Huntly, N. J., & Anderson, J. E. (2006). Age and population structure of Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) in the northwestern Mojave. Western North American Naturalist, 66(2), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.3398/1527-0904(2006)66[202:AAPSOJ]2.0.CO;2

branch of a joshua tree

We have had some abnormal amounts of snow fall, and the weight of the snow has broken one of the branches on the Joshua tree. Can I plant that and have it grow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.188.223 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunatly not. If you have any more questions concerning Joshua Trees, you may contact The Joshua Tree Nursery located in Joshua Tree, Ca. jtnursery.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.8.184 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a Joshua tree?

I'm not convinced that Image:Joshuatreesydney.jpg is a Joshua tree; it looks more like a Dracaena or some such. The branching pattern and lack of old leaf bases are both uncharacteristic for Joshua trees.--Curtis Clark 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is not a Joshua tree. At first I thought that it wmight be a cabbage palm, but after comparing, it does look like more like a type of Dracaena to me as well. --Bejnar (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

definitely not a joshua tree Doneloquente (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is it called a Joshua tree?

I told my kids that's cause the trees are way old, dating back to, like, the time of Joshua, but no confirmation or disconfirmation here. --Mikedelsol (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the article explains the name, under "Ethnobotany".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the explanation of the name there either. It doesn't really make sense to have it in that section, I'll move it to the top. Druff (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensible proscription of original research I have not amended the entry, but the name origin story would seem to be unverifiable but commonly repeated folklore. I've written about this here. - Chris Clarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.140.223 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not enough consensus for a move, especially considering that WP:Naming conventions (flora) is heavily disputed and in flux right now, so it doesn't really qualify as a reliable rule to rely on in these debates. Given that, a move is not advisable at this time. Once NC(flora) is accepted as a convention, this requested move may be revisited.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Yucca brevifolia → Joshua tree — According to WP:NC(flora), articles about trees/plants should be titled based on their "common name". The scientific name should only be used if it is the most common one, however "Yucca brevifolia" (which is not even mentioned in the lead section) is definitely not as common as "Joshua tree". Although there are several titles listed in the lead section, I believe "Joshua tree" is most common and most appropriate, especially since there is a national park named after the tree. — –Dream out loud (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[This rationale is in error on several points. Hesperian 00:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. This name is unique (among English names), unambiguous, and well known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yucca brevifolia is also unique, unambiguous and well known; so you haven't given a reason for favouring a move. Hesperian 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support the name "Joshua tree", but note that contrary to the note at Wikipedia:Requested moves#11 December 2008, Yucca brevifolia is mentioned in the lead, right after the common name, in italics just as it should be. --Bejnar (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title "Joshua tree" is ambiguous; Yucca brevifolia is unambiguous. Joshua tree (disambiguation) should be moved (back?) to Joshua tree. --Una Smith (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't ambiguous. The proper name Joshua Tree, so capitalized, is ambiguous, but may have a WP:PRIMARYUSAGE - it redirects here. But that is not what is proposed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Joshua tree" vs "Joshua Tree" is splitting hairs, and irrelevant in the context of search users. --Una Smith (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It might irrelevant in the context of search by users, but it is not irrelevant to the issue of whether there is a primary usage for each of the two spellings (without and without the T capitalized), the answer to which is yes. The title about each primary topic should be reflected accordingly. And using a name that is virtually unknown outside of a specialized area is not solution to a search problem, if that's what you're trying to address. Note that Joshua tree currently redirects to this article, which has a hat note to the dab page. I see no problem, and actually an advantage, to sending any user searching for the park or town by entering "joshua tree" to this article about the namesake first. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support unique name that is primary topic. Other uses listed at Joshua tree (disambiguation) are derivative. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Derivation does not establish a primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By itself no, but it is one element and in this case none of the other ambiguous names are remotely close. The Joshua Tree album is the only entry likely to be more widely known, and as a title has a distinctive name. older ≠ wiser 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.,Mainly because it seems this change is motivated to corrupt a functioning naming policy, and no good reason has been presented why this HAS to be under Joshua tree. Hardyplants (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Fascinating assumption of motive; it would be a personal attack on those of us who supported rephrasing the guideline, but Dream Out Loud has not even joined that discussion, nor edited any WT page since September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, merely because this could be used as support for widespread use of common names at the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Considered on its own merits, this is a clear case where use of the common name does not damage the encyclopedia. I have no objection to either article name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per "use common name." Arguments about it affecting other policy slightly irrelevant IMHO. SteveRwanda (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you participated in that discussion?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose; WP:NC, a policy, states "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Those who participated in the discussion at WT:NC (flora) will be aware that I have already checked what verifiable reliable sources in English call this particular plant. For those who didn't participate over there, here it is again:

  "The ideal source from which to obtain a physical description of Y. brevifolia is a monograph on the genus or family. Surprisingly there seems to be nothing of significance published since the brief and very general treatment of Verhoek (1998) "Agavaceae" in Kubitzki, K. (ed.), The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants III. This uses scientific names throughout. If you wanted to get into morphological variability, you might dig up Valentovich and Sandquist (2007) Morphological variation of Yucca brevifolia (Agavaceae) among seven population in the Mojave Desert, which also refers to this plant by its scientific name.

  The ideal source(s) for the species' systematics?: Presumably Pellmyr et al. (2007) The phylogeny of yuccas, which uses scientific names throughout. Possibly also Clary & Simpson (1994) Taxonomy of the genus Yucca: taxonomy and molecular biology and Clary & Simpson (1995) Systematics and character evolution of the genus Yucca L. (Agavaceae): evidence from morphology and molecular analyses. I haven't seen these last two papers but I bet you London to a brick that they use scientific names throughout.

  For distribution and habitat? Biogeography is an understudied and underpublished area. For most taxa there is no atlas available but in this case there is a three-volume set by Hochstätter (2002) entitled Yucca, Yucca II and Yucca III. Y. brevifolia would be in Yucca II. I haven't seen these books, but they give me the impression of a self-published work that may not be completely reliable. It might be necessary to go to local floras, like CalFlora, in which the relevant page is entitled "Yucca brevifolia". This information might be supplemented by papers on historical and future distribution such as Dole et al. (2002) The relative importance of climate change and the physiological effects of CO2 on freezing tolerance for the future distribution of Yucca brevifolia.

  For horticulture? I recommend Irish (2000) Agaves, Yuccas, and Related Plants: A Gardener's Guide. Our species is treated on page 239 under the title Yucca brevifolia.

  There are of course some articles that use the common name. There seems to be a cluster of them focussing on mutualism between Yucca and the Yucca moth. But in general, the preponderance of reliable sources that I would anticipate citing in a high quality article on Y. brevifolia uses the scientific name, not the common name."

Septentrionalis, I asked you over there whether you endorsed WP:NC, and you seem to have avoided answering me. I'll ask again: do you endorse WP:NC? Hesperian 00:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I have never heard of Yucca whatever, but have often heard of Joshua tree. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is not a scientific reference. Yucca brevifolia might be an appropriate title in a scientific reference on flora, but the idea that this obscure name (little known among the general public) be used instead of the widely known Joshua tree as the title of the Wikipedia article about this topic, which clearly has primary usage for the name, and for which "Joshua tree" is unquestionably the most common name, is not supported at all by any (undisputed) naming policy, guidelines or conventions, so far as I know. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! Wikipedia is a reference about popular culture, pseudoscience, and political POV. Anyone who thinks they can learn any science from Wikipedia should smoke some salvia or weed and chill out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NC(flora). The wording there seems rather clear. Out in the US West, I have never heard it called anything but a Joshua tree. Maybe the scientific name is also included on the nursery tags, but it is still the Joshua tree. While not a reason in and of itself, Yucca brevifolia gets 31,000 hits and Joshua tree (in all its uses) gets 3,000,000. So since the tree itself is the primary usage it would appear that the is a case for this also being the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you're fond of google, try plugging in ["joshua tree" OR "Yucca brevifolia"], sifting out the false hits on national parks, albums, movies, cities, etc, and check what the title and predominant use is for the pages that are actually about the plant. I did this for the first 100, and the result came out about even. Google doesn't support your position at all. Hesperian 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, WP:NC(flora) is a proposal right now, not agreed upon, and this very article is one of the debating points. One of the things that we want to be careful about is that this article doesn't become used as justification for multi-month debates on the thousands of other plant articles. Stan (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If general Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions were adhered to in naming these articles, there wouldn't be any debate. That's why they are established, to prevent exactly the kind of problems that occur when "specialists" try to wiki-lawyerize category-specific rules that contradict, rather than complement, the general rules. I'm all for category-specific rules that spell out what to do in a given category when the general rules fall short, but the specific rules should only be there to complement, not contradict, the general rules. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This coming from someone who doesn't want our specialised guideline to conform to the general WP:NC policy that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." [1] How do you rationalise such a self-contradictory position? Hesperian 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but specialist sources don't count. The important thing is that Wikipedia not challenge a user's existing knowledge by suggesting there is more to a discipline than they already know.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What shits me isn't so much the disregard for specialists as the sheer hypocrisy of the position. A mob came to WP:NC (flora) to ram WP:NC down our throats. The latter was policy, and we were told in no uncertain terms that we had no right to a mere convention that wasn't precisely in accordance with it. After neutering our convention in the name of the WP:NC policy, they are now willfully ignoring WP:NC policy in this new debate, since they have discovered that it doesn't actually say what they want it to say. Hesperian 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, amen to that. Be careful what you wish for! Stan (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian, I apologize for failing to clearly explain the basis for those reverts, though that does not justify your jumping to conclusions about what it was, and stating that I was being hypocritical with respect to following WP:NC (which, BTW, is arguably pushing WP:CIVIL). As you know, the wording I objected to was, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the taxon". I have no objection to the current wording, "this is assessed by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call it". The problem with using taxon in that context is that taxon implies use of the scientific name for that taxon, because of the dual meaning of the term (one meaning of taxon is a taxonomic group, the other meaning is the scientific name of such a group). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now while the bigger picture is being sorted out at WP:NC (flora). Melburnian (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UCN. This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a work of taxonomy. — AjaxSmack 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: It may not be wise to rely on the current version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), as it is in flux right now. Check the edit history and the talk page. Longstanding consensus there was to always use scientific names; no new consensus has yet been reached. In light of that, a move here seems premature. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I know the naming conventiosn for floara are currently under discussion, but in general, all articles should typically be titled by their common name, not necessarily their "official" or "scientific name". Compared to other flora related articles, Oak is not titled Quercus, Sunflower is not titled Helianthus annuus, Poison ivy is not titled Toxicodendron radicans, and so on and so forth. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunflower is mis titled, it should be Helianthus annuus or Common sunflower, sunflower covers a lot of different plants. Oak for the most part is limited to Quercus - so not much confusion there. Poison Ivy is a commonly used name for two different related plants and their different forms. Hardyplants (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The naming of other plants may be more difficult; indeed, the present text of WP:Flora says so. But cases like this should not be confused by that; however rare they may be, they should be treated in the way clearest to the lay reader. (One of the comments on WT:Flora was that such cases were always understood to be exceptions; the current discussion is in large part whether and how to say so explicitly.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

More people would know what a Yucca is than what what a Joshua tree is, lots of people can relate to yucca and this species is a treelike form of Yucca. I do concede that this is as close to a universally recognizable vernacular name for one single species as one is likely to find; even if the name does not represent the entire species, some forms and subspecies have other names. Hardyplants (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hardyplants. Also, inspection of the interwiki links to other language Wikipedia favors Yucca brevifolia. --Una Smith (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the usage of other languages (or may be); this, however, is - or should be - the English Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardyplants, more people might know what a Yucca is, but I know lots of people who know both Yuccas and Joshua Trees, and I've never heard any of them ever call a Josua Tree a Yucca. That is, the plants that are commonly referred to by lay people as yucca does not include the Joshua tree. By the way, that's why the park is called Joshua Tree National Park, and not Yucca National Park (nor Yucca Brevifolia National Park). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conservation status

After reading the Wikipedia page of the Yucca Brevifolia, a.k.a. the Joshua tree, I found the page to be unorganized, but easy to navigate and well informed. The subleaders placement from top to bottom is organized in an educational format. Following the summary, the page discussed the growth and development of the tree, then immediately followed with the habitat. After the summary the next subtitle should be the habitat to understand the trees environment before learning the trees development and growth. Overall the page was well written, but could be better organized. Page Rating: 8/10 The Wikipedia page discusses information about Joshua tree and what you may learn about a Joshua tree. Providing information where this tree is located and other common names. It includes the growth and development and provides how fast Joshua trees grow. This page should include more specific details about this tree in the growth and development section. This page should also add more background information about the name of the Joshua tree. The text in this section seems to be quite biased and inappropriate for an Encyclopaedia project.

As I am not used to the wiki I do not want to remove anyone else's work and would like some advice or opinions. [Comment added by 216.246.247.46]

I've made a start, though the editor in question seems quite tenacious. One piece of advice that I can offer is that you sign comments on talk pages using four tildes (this symbol ~) so that people can track who is talking. Euchrid (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now added a more "solid" reference from a scientific journal to support the main claim, namely that climate change may reduce and alter the species' range. The "giant sloth" theory does seem to me to require more a more reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that wikipedia is allowing an essay on global warming theory to be used as a reliable source. What are the credentials of the authors, and in what capacity have they performed their research? Global warming has been pretty much discounted. They ignore all the underwater valcanoes that have emerged in the arctic sea over the last 50 years, which would easily explain the shrinking ice cap there. They point to Greenland and note ice formation along the coast has melted, but ignore the fact that the ice mantal overall has increased by 100s of feet on that continent. Same with the antartic. Scientists have long established that the sea level has gone up and down many times over the last 500,000 years, long before the industrial revoluion and the automobile. Over the last few years there have been record cold temperatures everywhere. A few years ago it snowed in Israel for the first time in many years. They have been raving about global warming for 20 years now but the sea level hasn't risen one inch. I was shocked to learn that the biggest recipients of 'green credits' are the big oil companies who have big intereets in mass media, the main mouth organ that tries to promote global warming. When a major volcanic eruption occurs it spews out more CO2 and other green house gases in a few hours than all of New York produces in ten years and in little time it is scrubed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. So why are not auto emmisions also scrubbed out? If CO2 is heavier than air, how does it get way up into the atmosphere to produce the so called greenhose effect? Hello? If global warming scientists discover or acknowledge that there is no global warming they lose their grants, so they are not about to do that. Follow the money. What a circus. -- Robinlarson (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please only use talkpages to make specific suggestions for improving articles. Thank you.Euchrid (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Got carried away. What makes the essay a reliable source? Global warming and sea level rise is by no means an established fact. Robinlarson (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nor does the article suggest that they are. It states that reliable sources (ie essays published in scientific journals) have predicted that the distribution will be reduced, not that it definintely will be. If there are reliable sources with an alternate point of view then they can of course be included, in addition to the ones alreadyy present. Euchrid (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for your last deletion are without basis. Re:Your edit summary: 1."Statement uses of POV language ("alarmists")". It is common knowledge that global warming advocates have been warning everyone of sea level rise, displaced indigenous peoples, melting ice caps, extinction of various plants and animals etc, etc, so it's no stretch of the imagination to refer to them as alarmists, as does the source used, and Coleman, founder of the weather channel is by no means in the fringe. If you think so you need to supply proof. Who says he is in the fringe? Global warming advocates? Does not the other source used in the 'Conservation status' section present its own POV, that because of global warming and the absence of the giant ground sloth, the Joshua tree faces extinction? This is not only an unproven POV but is indeed an alarming statement. In any case I have restored the statement but ommitted the term 'alarmist'. 2. "Fringe theory". Are you saying all the scientists and others who don't subscribe to the global warming theory are in the "fringe"? That is yet another unproven POV. Last. The reference used, Coleman's article, doesn't have to be about the Joshua tree in particular to address the theory of global warming used in the article. Please do not make up rules to support your own POV. Unless you can cite and link to an actual Wikipedia policy violation and 'show the actual violation in detail', or present any other legitimate reasons to delete sourced content, please abstain from trying to suppress other valid views. You are only trying to advance your own POV and giving it undue weight by doing so. This is a fair assesment of your behavior since you didn't edit a few words you were in disagreement with, you wiped out the entire statement. -- Robinlarson (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The source which you are using, the op ed "Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?" has nothing to do with Yucca brevifolia, or anything related to this article. It never mentioned 'yucca brevifolia', 'joshua tree', or any other name for this article's topic. It has no place here. This article is about the yucca brevifolia, not global warming, and the sources chosen need to reflect that. Euchrid (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are trying to assert something that is not a wilipedia policy. To repeat, the Coleman article doesn't 'have to' be about the Joshua tree to address the point of global warming. I am not the one who introduced that topic to this page in the first place. If the article is not about global warming, then why don't we get any theories about this idea off the page entirely? Also, you can't bar a source simply because you don't happen to like the wording of the title. It looks like you're just reaching for ways to suppress other views. In any case, thanks for not deleting the last edit and provoking an edit war. It's important that this controversial idea be represented from both points of view and that the article remains fair and balanced. -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I added the information about proposed legislation to protect the western Joshua tree. It seemed to fit here. Zeldaslink (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Page name

Why isn't the common term Joshua Tree used for the title of the page? When I did a google search for Joshua Tree the search result for Wikipedia was for The Joshua Tree, a name of some album, the likes of which is obscure or has never been heard of by most people. That was it! The Wikipedia article Joshua Tree National Park uses the common term, why isn't this page consistent with that article? Becuase of some album? Isn't that giving undue weight to the album? The common usage should be used for the title, with the scientific name noted in the lead section. Other pages for plants, fruits, vegetables and animals do this, including Douglas fir, Birch, Apple tree, Maple tree, Tomato, Grizzly bear, Lion, Gray wolf, etc, etc. Is the ablum more important that the Joshua tree in terms of undue weight and who gets the name? -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point. When I do the search, this article comes above the album. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All the results for Joshua tree were clearly spelled out Joshua Tree in bold and big lettering on the 'top line' of the search result. In my haste I skipped right over a search result because it read Yuuca brevifolia, which btw was not in bold, so we can only wonder what other readers will do, never having seen that ambiguous term in the first place. The more important point I was making however is that most wikipedia articles about plants and animals use their common name, out of concern for the common reader, and that the scientific name follows. This is the way it's done in most encyclopedias and texts. The other more important point was that we are reserving the title of Joshua tree for some U2 album. That article should be named The Joshua Tree (U2 album) and 'THE' Joshua Tree should rightly receive its well known and famous name here at wikipedia. I'll ask it again, how is it that the U2 album get's the name over the Joshua tree itself? The record is only known to a small group of U2 followers most of whom don't even read wikipedia, while the Joshua Tree itself is famous the world over. (Btw, the Joshua tree also grows in Israel and this article fails to mention it. I'll see if I can come up with a source for that, but this is common knowledge here in Joshua Tree land.) -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect; most plant articles are titled at the scientific name. Common names are usually ambiguous or are shared among a few species. Scientific names are precise and consistent. See WP:FLORA. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Rkitko is correct that a great many plant articles reside at titles based on their scientific names. This is in accord with the Wikipedia guideline on the naming conventions for plants, which is located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Exceptions to the general rule of scientific name titles, are enumerated there. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Plant article naming conventions. --Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If one places Joshua Tree in the main Wikipedia page search box the article entitled Yucca brevifolia comes up. Readers can readily see that this article is about the plant. If one is on the Wikipedia search page, and places Joshua Tree in the search box, the first line below the "Content pages" box is There is a page named "Joshua Tree" on Wikipedia. There is no need to rename the album, there is a clear dab hatnote at the top of that page. The only problem that I see is the need, present throughout the Wikipedia, for the user to read the pages that are presented instead of assuming that they are "false drops". I suspect that Robinlarson is talking about the Google search results page, since that is what is linked above. On the current Google search results page for Joshua Tree, The Joshua Tree album is the fourth entry, the second entry, Yucca brevifolia, is clearly about the tree. While the order of Google's results changes over time as their algorithms are refined, and while Wikipedia is not responsible for Google's output, it is valuable to look at those results especially when they create a problem. In this case they do not. --Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Joshua tree redirects here, I, for one, would support moving this article to that title per WP:COMMONNAME, and at least as a WP:IAR exception to WP:FLORA. --B2C 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikipedia history of the decision to adopt the naming convention to give plant articles their scientific names, and then see if you still feel that an "Ignore all rules" exception would be beneficial in this case. By the way, unless they are ambiguous, common names should always redirect to the appropriate flora article. --Bejnar (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Google search results, as noted, are out of our control and not a part of Wikipedia's concern. When searching for 'joshua tree', one finds this article. If the U2 album was the intended article, then there's a simple hatnote to follow. There is no good reason to go against the agreed norms of the relevant WikiProject; it makes sense to priviledges the scientific term, which will be universal, over the common name, which may vary from one place to another. Euchrid (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Google search results "out of control"? "Not...Wikipedia's concern"? Those are opinions. If the topic being searched for is listed in Wikipedia then the Wikipedia search result is most often listed first or near the top of the numerous Google search results and as such it would appear that Wikipeida and Google have an arrangement. Or is this quite common event just some ongoing coincidence? Since much of the traffic that comes to Wikipedia is indeed via Google, it should be of concern to those Wikipedia editors whose concern extends beyond their own singular opinion. In any case, the naming convention for flora says:

Scientific versus common names
Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon. These exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion towards consensus.

(I added the bold for emphasis.) This is a wikipedia guideline, not a policy, and it says at the top of that page that "common sense" should prevail. Given the above realities regarding Google, and since almost all people who know of the tree know it by its common name, 'the' Joshua Tree should be given the page title, not some U2 album, which is not even a tree, it's a title. This is ridiculous. -- Robinlarson (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dropping in from an extended wikibreak to comment, and then disappear again. "Joshua tree" is probably the commonest "common name" for Yucca brevifolia ssp. brevifolia, but the article is about all three subspecies, and the other two have different common names. So to call this article "Joshua tree" would be inaccurate. I suppose it would be possible to make a separate article about Yucca brevifolia ssp. brevifolia, but many would call that a content fork. Now back into my hole. --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions subspecies but overall concerns itself with the common Joshua tree. -- Robinlarson (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose the move to common name - we should be striving for uniformity, so if we scroll down to Yucca#Species we see alot without common names - are we gonna have some at common names and others at scientific names? Looks silly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I have (easily) gathered, there is no 'one size fits all' approach to wikipedia. Many common names are used as titles. One of the many reasosns there is so many debates and edit wars is due to too many individual editors trying to impose their particular idea of "uniformity" on all of wikipedia. Guidelines says to use common sense on a per case basis. Common sense would suggest that 'the' Joshuar tree, itself, should get the title, not some obscure album that is not even a tree, and becuase only a handful of botanists will recognize the title. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida for the general public, it is not a specualized text for botanists and the like. The general public should come first, not a handful of botanists and certainly not some U2 album. -- Robinlarson (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that it is brevifolia growing in Israel as a native. Suggests the name is given to another species and even more reason not to have this at a common name page (as well as the point about the subspecies above). Accuracy trumps common name arguments in this case as we are writing an encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You "doubt"? That's your argument? There are many species of Apple trees. Shall we make an individual article for each species of apple trees? Common sense trumps your doubt. -- Robinlarson (talk)

I use the word "doubt" as I have not exhaustively checked yet. Other species of Malus have qualifiers like crabapple etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I dislike U2, but The Joshua Tree is one of the 50 best selling albums of all time (List of best-selling albums). The album is hardly obscure. The grammatical article "The" in the album title works well to disambiguate it "Joshua tree"/"Joshua Tree" as common names for the plant. I like making common name redirects, but there is no way that redirects including a grammatical article with the common name are necessary or useful. Should there really be redirects for The apple tree, The apple trees, An apple tree, The Apple Tree, etc.? Note that the blue links go to an article about a play. There are many other examples of bands, albums, plays, songs, etc. named after plants where a grammatical article like "the" provides a natural disambiguation from the common name for the plant.Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Controversial ideas used in the text

The controversial theory of 'climate change' posing a danger to Joshua trees was introduced to the section some time ago. Since this is indeed a controversial theory, not a fact, it needs to be balanced with a broarder view, and there are many. The added and balancing view addresses climate change, which was used to make comments about the Joshua tree. Saying that it has noting to do with the Joshus tree is bogus because it is used in the context of climate change that was used to make statements about the Joshusa tree. Is the idea here not to bring any balance to the section, at all, and to heck with NPOV? -- Robinlarson (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects sources - I've seen many articles discussing the effects of changing climate on plants, animals and their communities around the world. There is nothing controversial about this. Also note that the article and first part of the paragraph does not talk about the cause' of climate change, only that it occurs - I do agree that this is only pertinent if ref 15 actually discusses the Joshua tree in it, which I will try and look into. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What is controversial is wheter this is due to "man made" activity. And why does 'climate change' always translate into doom and gloom? What about longer growing seasons, larger growing areas, etc.?

Yep, source 15 does mention Yucca brevifolia being displaced northwards and eastwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'cause' of this displacement, if indeed it is occuring, is still a theory. (Border lines of forests of all kinds are constantly shifting.) The 'Ground sloth' has been extinct for more than 13,000 years. Sea level change has also gone up and done over the ages, long before the industrial age. The arctic ice cap is melting but then gets larger again. Is this because of "man made" global warming, 'natural warming' or underwater volcanic activity in the arctic (activity that has always shifted around the globe)? These ideas are all 'theory' and many of them are in opposition to one another. The section should reflect an open minded approach and remain NPOV. Why some individuals around here are opposed to this is an affront to one wikipedia's pillar ideals: NPOV. -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pause and think for a moment - source 15 is talking about modelling and not causes. It mentions the yucca, which the coleman ref does not. ergo it goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to invent rules. The section claims 'cliamte change' poses a danger to the Joshua tree. Coleman offers another view that challeneges climate chnage theory. It doesn't 'have to' be about the Joshua teee to do that. Robinlarson (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thus if you find a specific ref discussing the Joshua tree you can add it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't mix words and invent rules. Many sources, throughout wikipedia, that are not specificaly authored for a given topic are used to cite material in articles covering those topics. Robinlarson (talk)

The Coleman sources challanges the climate change theory. You need to find a wikipedia policy violation to delete this sourced and in context material. Your deletion is in violation to NPOV policy. Please respect wikipedia NPOV policy, especially regarding controversies. Robinlarson (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't equate NPOV with your opinion. Take it up on an article about climate change if you must. This source is tangential and non-specific to this, 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

RobinLarson, your additions have now been reverted by five sepearte editors, at least one of whom is an admin. That's a very comprehensive consensus against the addition - not just the specific wording, but the entire spirit of it.Euchrid (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Coleman source is a low-quality source pushing a controversial idea. Like any Op-Ed, it's only useful as a source of Coleman's views. Why should be care to report Coleman's opinion in this article? You need to answer that question first, before we get to the meatier issues - that Coleman's a non-expert pushing a non-mainstream viewpoint. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay guys, on advice I will foregoe including any balancing or qualifying view to the section as it looks like, at this point, I'm fighting an uphill battle. What puzzels me the most is why hsasn't anyone made even the slightest attempt to qualify such a controversial theeory.
Comments: Casliber, NPOV is including an oppoisng view if the one lone existing 'opinion' is challeneged, and be clear we are discussiong views, not facts.
Guettarda, Coleman is well known and respected in his field and represents the views of many meteorologists and climateologists, while the Forbes cite is no less reliable than the NPR media cite who has given lip service to one opinion regarding the Joshua tree forest.
Regarding consensus. If a group of editors at any one time decided to use a pictue of an apple tree in place of the Joshua, could they do so if they had 'consensus', or must there be a factual basis to consensus? Can consensus violate wikipedia policy? Robinlarson (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not require us to present industry-funded denial campaigns as if they were actually true...in fact, the opposite is true. Global warming isn't a "controversial theory". You need a solid grasp of the basics before you try to figure out the applications. Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present all prevelant opposing views, especially regarding a well known controversy. You can't weasle around that by calling a view "industry funded". What 'evidence' do you have that Coleman and the scientists he represents, along with all the other opposing scientists, are "industry funded"? Any at all? Or are you just following along with a media induced feel good notion? What about industry promoted gloabal warming advocate campaigns and the legions of politicians, foreign and domestic, who are all set to fashion laws, all wraped in the flag of 'golbal warming'? Lot's of money being made promoting so called "green products", and then we have 'green credits'. There's two sides to your little coin. And if you actually think there is 'no controversy' I'm guessing you don't get out much and are suffering from denial yourself. Why is there wikipedia Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory pages? Becuase there's no controversy?? Denial doesn't make the facts go away. -- Robinlarson (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present all prevelant [sic] opposing views - no, it doesn't. See WP:GEVAL. (For example, we aren't going to include all "opposing views" regarding the potentially controversial issue of whether we should use Asparagaceae sensu stricto or sensu lato, which was a real controversy just a few years ago, or why we aren't placing this species in the Liliaceae, like it was for centuries. Every controversy in the world that's potentially connected to this article doesn't need to be here - in fact, most of them shouldn't be here.) As for the rest - as I said, you need to educate yourself about the topic. And even if I had the time to present you with a primer on the subject, this page wouldn't be the place. Guettarda (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a link to climate change yesterday. Readers can go to that article (which mostly focuses on historical, non-anthropogenic climate change) to learn more about the subject, and can follow links from there to end up eventually at global warming controversy. This article is not the place for in depth discussion about climate change. I don't understand at all why Robinlarson thinks global warming conspiracy theory is a good thing to link to for discussion of the "opposing view". That article doesn't help the opposing case. The difference between the two articles is: "global warming controversy"=many climate scientists are drawing mistaken conclusions about global warming; "global warming conspiracy theory"=many climate scientists are deliberately misrepresenting climate data and are motivated to do so for reasons that the conspiracy theorists haven't quite agreed on, although a desire on the part of climate scientists to usher in a global communist dictatorship is a leading possibility)Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me who introduced a theory about 'climate change' to the article.. All I did at first was attempt to add balance. No attempt was made to introduce conspiracy theory. For the most part all I've gotten in return are paper arguments, attempts to invent rules to suppress other views, an attempt to write off Coleman, founder of the world famous weather channel, as a nobody, while I was handed a conspiracy theory about "industry funded" campaigns. As theory goes, is it a 'theory' that sea-levels have gone up and down, on their own, many times during Earth's history? Is it a 'theory' that CO² is heavier than air and as such doesn't exist in the upper atmosphere causing an abnormal man made "green house effect"? Is it a 'theory' that water vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect? It it a 'theory' that volcanoes in the past have drastically altered climates and that they exist under the arctic ocean today? Is it a 'theory' that the ice mantle in both Greenland and the Antarctic are steadily increasing in thickness? Is it a 'theory' that we have seen record low temperatures all over the world in the last few years? Wake up guys. Turn the TV off and do some thinking for yourselves. Since the theory of 'climate change' has been used to make statements about the fate of the Joshua tree forest, it opens the door to a debate on climate change and its effects, if any, on the Joshua tree. Want to end the climate change discussion here, lose the theory being advanced in the 'Conservation status' section. -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Robin, for the (second? third?) time - the concept of climate change in itself is uncontroversial. The anthropogenicity is contested by some people. This article does not talk about anthropogenicity. Do you accept there have been ice ages in the past (i.e. that climates change) or is that a problem too? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The type of model used to make the prediction here was what's called a "species distribution model". If you do a Google Scholar search for "climate change" or "global warming" together with "species distribution model" you'll get 273 hits for 2012 alone.[2] Looking through the first 100, most of them are peer-reviewed publications in good journals. There's nothing controversial about modelling species distributions under climate change. It's ordinary science - a little overdone, if anything. If climate change was a "controversial theory" they wouldn't be pumping out this flood of science based upon it.

How many publications were there in the peer reviewed science literature in 2012 disputing climate change? I'd be surprised if there were more than half a dozen. Guettarda (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the proper venue for a general climate change discussion. That discussion is elsewhere, see, for example, Talk:Global warming for discussion of current and future climatological effects of human influences, see Talk:paleoclimatology for discussion of past climate changes, and see Talk:Climate change in general. --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Computer models

Sure if you do a search for the items you offered you will get the results you are looking for, but even there you're ignoring not only what your own search reveals but the wide consensus among scientists who reject all the predictions made with computer models, widely used by many junior scientists who largely go along to please and impress their peers. "Peer reviewed"?? Computer models are only as reliable as the data fed into them and the computer program itself. And the fact that you claim there is no controversy only reveals that you have ignored much and that your mind is already set on one particular POV, and as such suggests that you are not fit to engage in an objective debate regarding scientific analysis, which should always be approached with an open and objective mind.

• Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again

• New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

• U.N. Climate Models Flawed - Grossly Exaggerate Warming Effect

• NASA data proves global warming computer models wrong
  A new study reported in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing examines satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which show that, from the years 2000 through 2011, the Earth’s atmosphere released much more heat than previously predicted by computer models.

• Climate computer models programmed to find global warming : Several leading warmists – including Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen of NASA, and the Met Office – now:
  1) admit that mean global temperatures have not risen since 1997 and that the warming trend has stalled
  2) accept that there was only a modest temperature rise in the 20th century,

• Data Disproves Global Warming Computer Models : As the United Nations defends a scheme to rob the industrialized world of $2 trillion a year to fund its redistributionists aims, the latest scientific evidence continues to undermine the fundamental premises on which the edifice of global warming alarmism has been standing.

• Climate computer models 'programmed to find' global warming.
  Much of today’s environmental public policy is based on junk science.

• How reliable are climate models? Models are unreliable. "Models are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data.

• Global Warming Computer Models Are Still Unreliable, New Study Warns, James M. Taylor, J.D.
  Computerized models of the Earth's climate are at the heart of the debate over how policymakers should respond to climate change. Global climate models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models--attempt to predict future climate conditions by starting with a set of assumptions ...

• Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong
  Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work. If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures. The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation. They also assume clouds will trap more radiation. But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.

• Computer Models Are Unreliable Due to Faulty Data and Unsound Assumptions
  

• New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability
  Dec. 12, 2007 — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

'No controversy'?? Included above are only a handful of the accounts that have exposed the 'computer modeling' scam. There are many more. Once again, there has been a natural warming trend since the last ice age but at this late date there is no increase to speak of, and in fact, we have experienced record cold temps in the last few years, ice mantels are increasing in thickness, and the sea level has not risen one inch as far back as records will show. As growing numbers of scientists concur, Global warming theory has not been consistent with the facts.

Last, please do not try to suppress a debate about a topic that was included into the Joshua tree article. Once again, the topic of 'climate change' was used to base claims, theories, predictions, about the fate of the Joshua tree forest. Editors have every right to challenge this claim. Obviously you can't deal with opposing views so all that is left for you to do is try to suppress the debate entirely. Also, you used this talk page to include google results that supported your view. Now look at you, trying to suppress others who have done the same as you. This only demonstrates the weakness of your arguments, such as they are.

Robinlarson (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you to abide by WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. This isn't the place for this. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree for reasons stated. A controversial claim about the fate of the Joshua tree forest was put into the article. That claim is being challenged. Again, you used this talk page to promote your google results, I have also done the same. Please address the topic directly, if you are able, and stop this underhanded harassment in an obvious attempt to suppress views you are unable to refute honestly. -- Robinlarson (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the overwhelming consensus here: reliable sources see this plant as threatened by global warming - no controversy there; any discussion about the broader controversy around global warming needs to be discussed at that article, not this one. First Light (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Only once source, #14, makes the claim that the Joshua is threatened. Source #13 doesn't mention the Joshua tree. Source #14 also mentions that Jim Corbett doesn't agree with Ken Cole's "grim prediction about the trees disappearing from the park." Btw, Ken Cole is a geologist, not a botanist or a climatologist. Why wasn't Corbett's view included in the statement in the article? Both views are from the same source. Again, the tactics used to promote global warming theory, here, and elsewhere, are largely underhanded and deceptive. I am hoping someone will include the entire account taken from this source. I would do so but since I have at least a couple of editors pissed off at me I fear they will delete anything I include into the section at this point, even if supported by the same source. This has gotten ridiculous and is a bad reflection on the quality and integrity of editorship here at Wikipedia. Robinlarson (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Source #13 doesn't mention the Joshua tree. Please don't make things up. Shafer et al. (p. 211) say: "Yucca brevifolia (Joshua tree) is found in the deserts of the southwest US and northwest Mexico (MacMahon 2000). Under each of the future climate scenarios, its simulated potential range is fragmented and displaced northward and eastward (Figure 6)." Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Source #13 is linked to the 'Abstract' and evidently to read the entire text you must purchase the entire text. I wrongly assumed the info' was on the page that was linked to. That is not exactly making things up. Please don't distort a mistake to prop up your empty claims and a debate you have yet to address directly or honestly. Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being so aggressive. You got caught in a falsehood and you're trying to bully your way out of it? No - you were sloppy with the facts, you need to do something to re-assure the rest of us that you'll be more careful in the future, if you expect your fellow volunteers here to spend their time to work with you. Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Source #14 also mentions that Jim Corbett doesn't agree with Ken Cole's "grim prediction about the trees disappearing from the park." Btw, Ken Cole is a geologist, not a botanist or a climatologist. Why wasn't Corbett's [sic] view included in the statement in the article? Again, please don't make things up. You neglect to mention that the source goes on to quote Cornett| There's no question that a warming of the climate would reduce the suitable habitat for Joshua trees in the park — but not eliminate it. And again later notes that he "concedes that climate change may be playing a role" in the decline in the number of trees in the 20 years he's been studying them. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the statement that you claim I have made up. I pointed out an important fact, that Colbert disagreed with a very important point that Cole has maintained. You claim I have made things up and in the same breath do so yourself. -- Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken Cole is a geologist, not a botanist or a climatologist - to begin with, the NPR article says "geologist and biologist". But if you bother to look Cole up you'll see his research is in "Quaternary Geology, Paleoecology, Global Change, Settlement History, Plant Ecology". He's a specialist, speaking about his research. Anyway, I've updated the ref with Cole et al. 2011. Guettarda (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RobinLarson, you've been repeatedly asked to stop derailing this Talk page with unrelated discussion of global warming. It is not a forum, nor an airing ground for your personal beliefs and ideological battles. This page is for discussing the Joshua Tree, not to rehash the entire global warming debate. Please take your walls of text to one of the many forums, blogs and comment boards where the debate is actually happening. This sort of derailing behaviour is completely inappropriate can result in administrator action. Euchrid (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the fact, along with several reminders, that 'climate change theory' has been used to make statements in the article, and that as such, opens the door to a debate about 'climate change theory'. If you feel you actually have some sort of legitimate complaint involving an actual policy violation then you need to take your complaint to a noticeboard and see if they will entertain your version of matters here. There was no discussion going on here for weeks until I initiated one. You and some of the others have done all you can to 'derail' it, including your underhanded attempt to make up rules about sources allowed. -- Robinlarson (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no discussion because no-one else was worried about it. Again, do you accept there have been ice ages in the past (i.e. that climates change) or is that a problem too?Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no one was worried about the statement that the Joshua forest is threatened. Ho hum. I have more than acknowledged the existence of ice caps and changing weather...weather that has always changed all by itself long before you or I began making footprints on this planet. When alternative ideas are brought up in scientific debates is this the way they are treated by all the fair and open minded 'scientists' in the global warming circles? That in itself would be an indictment not only to their objectivity but to their integrity as scientists. In any case, what is your point? Robinlarson (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try this again - read this sentence slowly "Joshua trees are one of the species predicted to have their range reduced and shifted by climate change." - do you see the word "anthropogenic" in it? No? Good, the answer is, in fact, "no". This article does not touch on anthropogenicity - this is my point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To reinforce Casliber's point, the proper venue for a discussion of anthropogenic climate change is elsewhere, see, for example, Talk:Global warming for discussion of current and future climatological effects of human influences, see Talk:paleoclimatology for discussion of past climate changes, and see Talk:Climate change in general. This article does not address, nor would it be appropriate to address, the issue upon which Robinlarson seems to think that it takes a side. --Bejnar (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Try reading this "slowly". To repeat, the article clearly mentions 'climate change' as the basis for the prediction that the Jousha tree forest is threatened. That the word 'anthropogenic' doesn't appear has no bearing on whether or not other editors can challenge 'this' statement, one that was made in 'this' article. Got it 'this' time? Never saw someone so scared to death of having an idea challenged that they have to resort to rules invention and word games to get over in a debate. What are you so affraid of? Again, this is a controversial idea and is even listed as such here at Wikipedia. Trying to suppress other views not only goes against one of Wikipedia's core principles, NPOV, it reveals the ones behind such suppression of views as intelectually dishonest and underhanded. It would seem if you had sound science on your side you would welcome the challenge. Notice you are deathly afraid of even having 'doubt' mentioned in the section. I can only wonder what would happen if liked minded people got their hands on a 'computer model'. No doubt they would feed it only the 'data' they approved of. We have seen a first hand demonstration of this sort of behavior here on this talk page. Robinlarson (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please abide by our policy on civility and our policy forbidding personal attacks on other editors. Your tone here is unacceptable. Beyond that, I have nothing to add - everything you ask has already been answered...I've pointed you to WP:GEVAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Oh, and the debate you claim we're "so affraid [sic] of"...those questions have been asked and answered, many times over the years in our global warming article, which even has a helpful FAQ aimed at people who have questions like yours. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New source

Typically, the new source that was just added relates an account, another prediction, that was arrived at by use of a computer model. As such, the section should not only be balanced with an acount of the mounting doubt behind global warming, but it should also mention that all predictions are done at the hand of the individuals huddled together in the same little academic circles using the same computer cartoon show model. Is there any oversight as to what data is fed into these things? Does any one even know? ' Care? FYI, the Mojave Desert has an average of 105 degrees in the summer. There have been years where this has been even higher, yet Joshua trees are sprouting up everywhere. It's a desert plant that has survived tens of thousands of years in the desert. Do you you think by now it's aclamated to hot weather and droughts? Robinlarson (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• the section should not only be balanced with an acount [sic] of the mounting doubt behind global warming - shrinking, not mounting. And no, per all the previous answers you've chosen to ignore.
• all predictions are done at the hand of the individuals huddled together in the same little academic circles using the same computer - again, no. Per, you know, reality.
• Is there any oversight as to what data is fed into these things? Does any one even know? - yes, there is. Peer review. And yes, people do know...if you bothered to read the article, you'd have seen this link. As for the climate models - they used five different ones (see p. 141): HadGEM1, MPI-ECHAM-5, CSIRO Mk3, NCAR CCSM3 and the CNRM CM3. These models have been widely used, they have been extensively tested, and you can download many of these models, their datasets, source code...have a look, for example, at the NCAR CCSM3: you can download the model and source code. You can also search for it on Google Scholar, and find over 5000 articles that use, evaluate and critique the model.
• Joshua trees are sprouting up everywhere. It's a desert plant that has survived tens of thousands of years in the desert. Do you you think by now it's aclamated [sic] to hot weather and droughts? - Like the previous question, your comment here makes it clear that you have not read the sources. Your assertions to the contrary, the species isn't "sprouting up everywhere" - the fact is that there's very little regeneration except on the cooler edge of its range. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New responses have been added immediatly following the given statements. Robinlarson (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have told you before that it is unacceptable to modify other people's signed comments. If you want to respond to something, you can quote the comments. I have undone your modification of my comment. Guettarda (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now that the idea of 'computer modeling' has been met with scrutiny, from NASA and other orgs, these little scientific toys have becoming less credible in the eyes of objective scientific analysis. btw, almost all accounts of threatened Joshuas are but echos of Cole's speculation and it is but based on a conmputer generated speculation. Robinlarson (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of 'reality' is evidently generated by a computer that has obviously been fed cherry picked data. Robinlarson (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Very 'impressive', if you can sort through all the computer code, the likes of which can only use the (cherry picked) data fed into the program. Now tell us how you test a prediction. Then tell us why virtually all such predctions spells doom and gloom? Why has not one global warming believer/scientist/prediction assereted longer growing seasons, widening growing ranges, etc? The fact that all 'computer generated' predictions are in lock-step with one another more than suggetss that the lot of them are under peer pressure, not peer review. How many people who don't believe in global warming, man made or otherwise, are members of the IPCC? Zero. As we've seen demonstarted by the behavior here, scientists with broader and more objective views are no doubt met with the same stone wall of denial and underhanded attempts to supress their views as has occured here. Robinlarson (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I live in the Mojave desert, and if I have to, I'll upload photos of Joshua sprouts and very young trees everywhere you see older Joshua trees growing. Everywhere. But since this will amount to original resarch I suppose you can deny that reality also. Just the same I'll take a drive and get some photos. The idea that the average tempreture has gone up about one degree (+ -) and that this slight fluctuation amounts to "global warming" and spells doom and gloom, everywhere, is just so much bunk. As I've said, the Joshua has been around for many thousnads of years and has thrived in 'changing weather' all along. If you need a computer model to figure that then you are just following along with the same set of peers who follow along and believe in computer models, not the reality that is present in every day life. -- Robinlarson (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Robinlarson, this ceased being a good faith, productive discussion about the improvement of the article a good while ago. It would appear that you prefer to speak very little on the subject of article, making the most out of a few sentences supported by reliable sources that do not, by any means, require a counterpoint from a fringe view, especially since there are no sources that mention Yucca brevifolia in that context. Similarly, a section in this article on the plant's evolution would never offer a counterpoint from a creationist point of view. Now, I say the following with no disrespect, but it is quite clear from your comments that you do not understand climate change science. Clearly you're skeptical of it, but you lack a fundamental understanding of it to evaluate its merits. I mention this only in context of how unpersuasive your arguments have been and how consensus on this talk page is to exclude change you attempted to introduce. As others have said, articles that tangentially mention climate change because it was relevant with respect to information from their references should not have a disclaimer, counterpoint argument against climate change, or rebuttal paragraph. Wikipedia is descriptive and reflects mainstream consensus. As unfortunate as you may think this is, and as clearly as you think you have the Capital T Truth about climate change, scientific consensus is that global climate change is being exacerbated by anthropogenic sources. Other people have as deeply held beliefs on evolution, but we would similarly revert their promotion of evolution skepticism on every plant and animal article that mentioned it. TL; DR: This discussion is no longer productive, you will find no traction here; it is inappropriate to include this kind of climate change skepticism in any non-topic article (you should discuss with editors at Scientific opinion on climate change, Global warming controversy). I would encourage other editors interested in this continued discussion to perhaps take it elsewhere since it is no longer about Yucca brevifolia. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the idea of 'climate change' was added to the section to make statements about the fate of the Joshua tree forest. Like it or not, and obviously some don't, this allows other editors to challenge that statement. If this involves a debate about climate change, then that is par for the course. Initially, all I wanted to do is add a balancing comment, well sourced, about 'climate change' theory and it was not met with a discussion, but rather transparent attempts to suppress any other views, attempts to invent rules, claims that 'climate change' was not controversial, even though Wikipedia has two articles about the climate change controversy and is listed as such in its list of controversial topics.(hello?) Then, as you are apparently attempting to do, there was the attempt to write off any other views as 'fringe', even though orgs like NASA, and people like Coleman do not buy into these computer generated theories. (btw, various (ex) members of the IPCC themselves have come forward and have blown the whistle on the gloom and doom hoax the IPCC and others are trying to advance as a pretext to UN 'oversight' on national sovereignty, etc. Control of national parks is the foot in the door to this effort.) Yes, let's improve the Joshua tree page and get a balanced view into the section, now that someone has elected to introduce a controversial statement there. What would you suggest be the first step? I tried to add balance and other prominent views but was met with a wave of denial that there is any. Robinlarson (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You are using the term "balance" incorrectly. What you want is to introduce climate change denial when the article correctly reflects scientific consensus regarding the impact of climate change on Yucca brevifolia. The existence of Wikipedia articles on climate change controversy does not support your argument; beyond mostly describing what the public's view of the controversy is, they also frequently point out how little support the climate change denial view receives among scientists, a point supporting comments above that indeed the science of climate change is not controversial but public opinion of it is often much lower. May I ask a simple question? How many people would it take telling you the same thing on a talk page before you accept it as consensus and drop the discussion? Or will this continue as long as someone replies? If the latter, consider my thoughts well known and I will not comment again in this discussion. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The theory regarding fringe theories

Adding other views to the section is not advancing "fringe" ideas or theories, especially since there are just too many scientists, ex IPCC members, and others coming forward. The following info is added to this talk page because of the claim made here that other views about 'climate change', an idea used in the section, are considered "fringe" and to show, demonstrate, that other views have a basis in fact.

• Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admitted last night on Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.

• IPCC member Christopher Monckton: As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.
  Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

• Devastating Criticism of the IPCC ...from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: "I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)...I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes"

• IPCC Climate models flawed: Journal of Geophysical Research paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerates data.

• New paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerate wind speeds -- A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research compares observations ...

• Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and a lead author and reviewer on previous IPCC assessments, said that as a result of criticisms of earlier reports "IPCC statements are becoming so legalistic that their value as a communication tool is diminishing". ... the IPCC process was partly motivated by a desire "to make a big media splash," as a way of getting key messages through to policymakers.

• International Climate Science Coalition: IPCC'S SUPPOSED 'CONSENSUS' A HOAX

• Allegations of a “surge” in “extreme” weather events has been quashed by a surprising source – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is clear that the dissenting views regarding 'climate change', especially man made climate change are not at all fringe and should be allowed to add balance anywhere the idea of climate change is used in Wikipedia, per NPOV, not to mention basic intellectual honesty. Robinlarson (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RobinLarson, I'm afraid that you need to accept that this discussion is over, and you are now well and truly flogging a dead horse. The unfortunate reality of being a WP editor is that sometimes consensus will go against you. I've experienced it dozens of times, and while it always stings, if you want to have a productive, enjoyable time here then it's something that you will need to become accustomed to. I notice that you are now editing this article and talk page to the exception of all else. In most of the situations in which consensus has gone against me, while I still feel that I was correct in my position, I've accepted that continuing to argue is unproductive and exhausting to myself, with no positive outcome. That's the case here for you. You're clearly an intelligent, educated person, and I'm sure that there are hundred of articles, thousands even, which would benefit from your contribution, and which you would benefit from editing. This advice is honest and well meant - please let this go find somewhere more productive to edit. You really will be glad you did. Euchrid (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously speaking with extreme prejudice and an acute POV, hence your constant attempts to suppress legitimate discussion regarding a controversial topic that was introduced to the Joshua tree page and your refusal to even acknowledge that there may be other explanations to matters. Unless you can offer suggestions to bring balance to the section you need to stop using the talk page to harass and hound any editor who tries to legitimately bring balance to the section. You should try to come to terms with the idea that the climate change theory, man made or not, and the resultant gloom and doom predictions is largely the product of media distortions, misguided science practice, largely the result of peer pressure, not peer review and/or ignorance, and that the only thing that supports their theory, 'predictions', is computer generated opinion, cherry picked and distorted data, and a lot of attitude, the likes of which we have seen perpetrated here on this page unfortunately. Regarding consensus, there must be a sound basis to consensus, as was pointed out to you already. Consensus, by itself, does not give you a blank check to make up rules, ignore basic Wikipedia core principles and promote lies or ignorance and it does not give you the right to ignore basic realities when they are presented to you, repeatedly.
It has been pointed out to you that underwater volcanoes (1, 2, 3, etc...) greatly impact events in the arctic and elsewhere, while ice mantles in Greenland and the Antarctic continue to grow in thickness, that over the last 10 years there have been record cold temperatures everywhere and that CO² is heavier than air, readily combines with water (btw, 3/4s of the planet's surface is covered with water, do the math), that CO² exists in minute quantities and as such can not impact the greenhouse effect nearly to the extent we have been told, by some, and that these ideas are founded in basic scientific fact and are not at all "fringe" as you obviously have been led to believe. It has also been pointed out to you that computer models and their unbridled 'usage' have come under wide spread scrutiny and have been found to be inherently flawed, that much of the data fed into these contraptions is cherry picked and/or exaggerated and that much of the criticism comes from sources like NASA, ex IPCC members and other well known sources. Hence the transparent attempts to sweep this under the rug without even a scientific discussion.
If you had a way to squash the discussion with sound scientific facts and principles you would have done so by now. Instead all you have done is parrot a lot of opinion and attitude and have resorted to underhanded attempts to suppress legitimate discussion.
I am still open to ways to bring a balancing comment to the section. Never mind your personal feelings towards me, you should do this out of respect for Wikipedia and the millions of readers who come here for information.Robinlarson (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bowing out

Unless someone wants to challenge any of the scientific information here, I am bowing out, as there is no point in discussing ideas that are only met with a sophomoric attitude, not with scientific analysis. I have presented the other side, and obviously there is much to consider from many reputable sources. I only ask that it be fairly evaluated and that someone will have the integrity to add a balancing comment to the section after the smoke clears here. Cheers. Robinlarson (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaining no headway here, I see you've decided to linkspam all this stuff at Talk:Global warming controversy instead. How wonderful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Range map problems

I know the range map is from an authoritative source, but it is not a good representation of the reality on the ground in southern Nevada, missing for instance most of the populations on the eastern side of the Spring Mountains. Don't know if there is a better free map out there though. Stan (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Uses and Cultivation

This section of the article is too broad and it doesn't really incorporate the uses of Joshua Tree. There is no description of specific cultivation methods either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this page could improve on information such as the general life span of the tree and possibly expressing the uses of this plant in today's society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Tree

I enjoyed the story about how it got the name "Joshua Tree." I pictured a bunch of hallucinating Mormons that haven't had water in 4 days thinking jesus is there to save them. Definitely need to background check that story.

Life Span Questioning

The site is unclear as to how long the tree generally lives for. If there is a way to explain how long or what the estimated life span is would improve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Examples of usage of tree

It stated that the Joshua tree was used for its leaves to make sandals and baskets. It would be better to show examples of the types of sandals and baskets. It would also help to know the culture of the Cahuilla Native Americans by viewing images of the things they created using the leaves of the Joshua tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki response

After reading the Wikipedia article on Yucca Brevifolia, more commonly known as a Joshua tree, I have found the wiki article to be very well organized. It was organized in the way it had all of the information I needed to know about this tree laid out for me. Included in the information were links that I could click on to take me to other related articles to help me understand more about my topic. The article also had a side bar that had a picture of the tree along with several bullet facts about it and a map of where the trees habitat is. In the end I think that Wikipedia can be a very useful and easy source of basic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Nina Kim - Joshua tree

The Wikipedia page discusses information about Joshua tree and what you may learn about a Joshua tree. Providing information where this tree is located and other common names. It includes the growth and development and provides how fast Joshua trees grow. This page should include more specific details about this tree in the growth and development section. This page should also add more background information about the name of the Joshua tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.249 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Improvements

It seems like there is no connection between the tree and other living thins such as: animals that consume the tree or the environmental influences it has to the nature. It would be a much better page with that information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Assignment: Information Has Value & Format as Process Yucca brevifolia - Joshua tree Wikipedia page - Personal view

Wikipedia is an amazing source full of information on any topic you would like to know about brought to you by people from all over the planet. I decided to learn some information on Wikipedia about the Joshua tree. As soon as the page with this information was loaded I was very impressed with simple layout and accessibility to well presented and organized facts about this type of tree. The most helpful part of the page is contents, because it helped me to navigate and surf throughout things I needed to know with great ease. Overall I was happy with my experience on Wikipedia, especially with this page, and I personally really liked it and am satisfied with what I saw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.250 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

give more information about what people do to protect this plant <improvement>

I consider that this article has less information to tell people how we do to protect this plant and avoid it hurt by climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.223 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yucca brevifolia also bears fruit so my question is it edible and of there is any evidence it was used by natives long ago My IQ >> 160 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mexican distribution issues

This article makes the claim that Y. brevifolia is on the Baja California Peninsula (Baja California, Baja California Sur). The source for this claim is the POWO page.

Y. brevifolia is not recorded on the peninsula by two of the authoritative floras of the region:

• The 2016 Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Baja California, Mexico, from the San Diego Society of Natural History, reports Y. capensis, Y. schidigera, and Y. valida (p. 272)

• Wiggins' 1980 Flora of Baja California, (excluding species now in Hesperoyucca), only reports Y. schidigera and Y. valida (p. 835)

I have not been able to find any records on CCH2 (California Consortium of Herbaria) or GBIF indicating a Baja Californian or even Mexican distribution. Until somebody provides evidence to the contrary, I will be removing Baja California from the distribution section in the article lead. Toyonbro (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this. I have never read anything indicating the plant grows in mexico. It looks as though this has not yet been removed. I will try again. Doneloquente (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

However, the reference given, Plants of the World Online, says that it is native to northwest Mexico.

• We must report what reliable sources say, and PoWO is a reliable source
• If PoWO is to be over-ridden, then a source is needed that explicitly says that it is not native to Mexico. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Joshua Trees are originally native to Northwest Mexico, but after the ice caps melted, they migrated north into California and Nevada over the last 11,700 years. The evidence is fossil records. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife Ryan J. McGowan (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)