Talk:Heath

Heath/Heathen

I've added a reference leading to Etymonline. Would this be sufficient? If it isnt, I'd like your assistance please. Thanks! — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wōdenhelm – well, it would, but the ref doesn't really support the derivation – it just says "could be..", which is hardly definitive. Can we find any better refs? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the OED. It discusses the heathen-from-heath theory, but essentially it dismisses it, on "etymological and chronological grounds" (for example, it appears that the word-endings in the various languages are wrong for that derivation). The OED favours the Germanic heathen words being derived from an Armenian word derived ultimately from Greek ethnos, meaning "nation", "heathen". Richard New Forest (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from User talk:Richard New Forest Richard New Forest (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I could reword it accordingly, so that it'll be listed as a strong possibility, rather than a definite. — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this further... I realised that the derivation of "heathen" actually belongs in an article about heathens, not in one about heath (still less in the lead para), so I have deleted this para altogether. In any case, the evidence for the heath-heathen derivation seems very weak, and personally I don't think it belongs anywhere, unless perhaps in folk etymology. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - I too would keep heathen out of this article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moveds per discussion, hatnote added  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Heath (habitat) → Heath — This is clearly the primary topic. Looking at the current "Heath" article it is just a disambiguation page and the only other contenders for an article called "Heath" are a few small towns and villages that have to be disambiguated from one another anyway. Bermicourt (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Heath → Heath (disambiguation)

• Oppose. Between the various plants and the various towns named "Heath", I don't think we can assume that the reader is looking for the habitat. Powers ^T 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the most commonly accessed page after "Heath" itself, which suggests the habitat is the primary topic! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Only if the numbers are overwhelming would that be convincing evidence. Powers ^T 01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support All the places are tiny, and nobody is likely to expect them to appear under the disambiguated name. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that the habitat is the main use of the word. I also notice that a good number of the links to Heath are aiming at Heath (habitat). Richard New Forest (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Nom's vote. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no clear primary topic here. So the articles should stay where they are. Nothing is hurt by having the dab page at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. So where are the contenders called "Heath"??? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, it's the primary meaning for me - the only one anyone would be expecting to find under "Heath". The present disambiguator isn't particularly great either (I think of it as a type of land - Heathland might be a better title if it really needed disambiguating - rather than necessarily a habitat for anything.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think I would have supported if not for the various types of plants, but I (just barely) fall on the side of the disambig being the primary page. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be the primary meaning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment

This article seems too short to be B class. I am sure it could be more comprehensive. It only has 8 citations. Until these criteria are tended to C class is more appropriate. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mt Anne from High Shelf Camp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 19, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Alpine heathland—dwarf-shrub habitat found on mainly low quality acidic soils—at High Shelf Camp near Mount Anne in the Australian island of Tasmania. Heathlands of Australia are home to some 3,700 endemic or typical species in addition to numerous less restricted species.Photo: JJ Harrison

Is it free-draining or not?

In the lead it says: "There are some clear differences between heath and moorland. For example moorland has a very peaty topsoil, and it is also free-draining, whereas a heath is not" Then under characteristics it says "Heathland is favoured where climatic conditions are typically warm and dry, particularly in summer, and soils acidic, of low fertility, and often sandy and very free-draining" These sentences are contradictory so which is correct? Also, a number of the online dictionaries say that moor and moorland are synonyms for heath and Webster Online says a heath is "an extensive area of rather level open uncultivated land usually with poor coarse soil, inferior drainage, and a surface rich in peat or peaty humus" while the first sentence says that the peaty topsoil on moorland is one of the things that distinguishes it from a heath. Richerman (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't rely on school dictionaries for definitions of complex subjects. The Webster definition is flat out wrong when talking about the ecological meaning of heath, as evidenced by the multiple references provided in this article. Frankly I'm not sure what that definition refers to, but it clearly doesn't apply to >90% of the world's heaths. Since the moor distinction has been unreferenced for 18 months, we can safely remove it. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, moorland is not characterised by being free-draining – in fact it rarely is (this text is so much the reverse of true that it may be vandalism). There is some academic argument (which really ought to be reflected somewhere here) about what the difference actually is between heath and moor, and indeed whether there is a real difference at all. I don't think it's accurate to say "there are clear differences" between them. UK ecologists tend to treat heath and moor as different, whereas others often don't, in which case they usually call anything dominated by ericaceous dwarf shrubs "heathland". Generally in the UK moorland occurs in the uplands of the north and west, where rocks are mostly impermeable and rainfall is high. Therefore they tend to have wet soils with lots of peat. Heaths generally occur in lowlands, usually in the south and east, where rainfall is much lower and many substrates (such as sandstone and gravels) are permeable. Therefore they often have little or no peat – but where drainage is obstructed, they can have peat too (and then they grade into mire).

I agree with Mark's point about the Webster definition, which is more like 19th century (and earlier) common usage, where "heath", "waste" and "moor" were used for pretty much any rough uncultivated land regardless of vegetation or soil chemistry. I agree that the whole sentence is better omitted. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The OED says a heath is "an area of open uncultivated ground esp. on acid sandy or peaty soil and covered by heather or related plants". For moor the first definition is very similar: "An open area of uncultivated land esp. an area covered with heather etc.; a heath" but the two alternative definitions are: "A marsh or fen:Dialect and US" and "The soil of which moorland consists: Scottish and dialect" I think the main problem is that the terms heathland and moorland are fairly interchangeable in the UK. For instance Kersal Moor in the north of England has an maximum elevation of 23 metres so it hardly fits in with the 'high-ground heaths' definition. It also has mostly well-drained sandy soil with some areas of peaty soil - like Hampstead Heath (which rises to 134 metres). But as the area is surrounded by moorland on the Pennines it has always been called a moor because it's covered with heather and moorland-type plants. It does, however, also have lots of mosses in the damper areas. Also if you look at the Somerset Levels article the moors there (and there were a lot of them see:[1]) are on low-lying land but ware characterised by having peaty soil. The moorland article does deal with this conflict of definitions a little better, although it's not clear if that bit is supported by references and the article is otherwise generally pretty poor. It would appear that, in the UK, moors are generally places with peaty soil and heaths are places with sandy soil. Richerman (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Natural England is useful. J3Mrs (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting - they also have a page on upland heath here where they say upland heath is commonly referred to as moorland. I'm beginning to wonder why we have separate articles for them. Richerman (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And there's more, [2]. J3Mrs (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20131004094204/http://www.lifeonland.org.uk/heath%20and%20moorland/index.htm to http://www.lifeonland.org.uk/heath%20and%20moorland/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202151307/http://www.countryside.gov.uk/WiderWelcome/NCAF/NCAF4_4.asp to http://www.countryside.gov.uk/WiderWelcome/NCAF/NCAF4_4.asp

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

nectar feeding mammal

i have removed the statement that the honey possum is the world's "only nectar feeding mammal." Just for a start, many bats eat nectar as well.Wikigreenwood (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed

I don't understand the observation "citation needed" next to widely known publications and works referencing heaths. In "The return of the native", the first chapter is dedicated entirely to Egdon heath, an area of Hardy's fictional south west England. What more is needed? The chapter number? Surely the title of the book IS the citation? El penquista (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Chapter title, or better page range, is needed for all book refs in all Wikipedia articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)