![]() | Destruction of ivory has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 13, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Destruction of ivory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Destruction of ivory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 March 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Destruction of ivory was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2016. | ![]() |
Risc64 made
a number of edits, making several claims to POV. Some of the changes seem perfectly reasonable. Some were undone (by me and by
Carbon Caryatid). The one that looks to be a continued issue is one I'm not sure about: "wiping out" vs. "depleting" in the sentence "Ivory hunters are responsible for [wiping out/depleting] elephant populations in several parts of Africa."
. The meaning of deplete is to use up. So it makes sense from an e.g. hunting point of view, talking about elephants as resources to be used (or not used), but doesn't make sense in the context it's being used in, which is about the extinction of an animal population for its own sake, not as a resource. That said, while "wiping out" is the preferable choice here, I don't know that it's ideal. It doesn't seem too problematic, but I could see where some might object. What do others think? Does it work? Do you have a better idea? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please be more specific. I absolutely don't agree that the context is appropriate for "deplete", but do you have other suggestions for wording? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this: "Hunting for ivory is responsible for significant reductions in elephant populations in several parts of Africa." Changed "hunters" to "hunting" and "wiping out" to "significant reductions". Wording might be slightly awkward as is, but it seems like it might be a decent compromise? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Moving on to another issue, this is not relevant to the article. The source doesn't even mention the destruction of ivory. You're wedging in a "however this ignores..." POV line into the wrong article. Your issue is with the ban of the international ivory trade vs. culling populations and "ethical ivory", not with destroying confiscated illegal ivory. Would recommend adding it to ivory trade, though, if it's not there already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: I think mentioning culling or something like it is relevant. This entire article currently carries the implication that all ivory is poached and smuggled. In fact, ivory can be collected legally in some cases and there are trade exceptions. I don't think it's worthwhile to spend a long time discussing this fact, but it's worth mentioning in order to clarify the circumstances that surround the ivory trade (i.e. addressing the strong-arming and absolutism of conservation INGOs). Risc64 ( talk) 21:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Came across some recent sources which look to provide information not already in the article.
On the subject of efficacy:
Dissenting opinions in Africa:
Others:
I plan to incorporate these soonish, but posting here in case anyone feels like it :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just heard back from Mwangi Kirubi, who I contacted via Flickr early last month (see his great photostream here), agreeing to upload his photos of the recent record-setting ivory burn to Commons. That always gives me warm and fuzzies :) (a phrase, by the way, that does not look to be covered on Wikipedia, it seems, and one which has history/context to perhaps sustain and article).
Anyway, they're over at commons:Category:2016 Kenyan ivory burn. I added a couple to the article, including replacing the top image. Mentioning it here in case people want to use others here or elsewhere (probably the most significant of these events to date, after the original one in 1989). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chris troutman ( talk · contribs) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pleased to be working with you, Rhododendrites. This looks fine on my first cursory glance. I intend to have this review done by the end of the week with comments for you to make corrections, if needed. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Chris troutman: Thanks for the feedback and edits (and review -- I was surprised how long this one sat on the GAN shelf). I have one follow up to one of your edits: regarding 7.7 tons vs. 6 tons in this source, the "7.7 tons 'lost' or stolen" in the article is the sum of the 6 in "But a subsequent audit revealed that customs had "lost" almost six tons of this ivory" and 1.7 from "Customs turned its 2009 seizure over to PAWB, which soon discovered that it too had mice in its larder. Someone broke into its storeroom and stole more than 1.7 tons." It doesn't sum them in the article, but it didn't seem like OR to me to do so. Regarding the Fortune citation, the statement that he was "in attendance" is based on the line where it quotes something he "said at the ceremony". Similarly, it didn't seem like OR was necessary to come to that conclusion, but maybe it's more controversial than I thought? It's certainly not a crucial line, if it ends up needing to be removed. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Destruction of ivory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Destruction of ivory has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 13, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Destruction of ivory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Destruction of ivory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 March 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Destruction of ivory was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2016. | ![]() |
Risc64 made
a number of edits, making several claims to POV. Some of the changes seem perfectly reasonable. Some were undone (by me and by
Carbon Caryatid). The one that looks to be a continued issue is one I'm not sure about: "wiping out" vs. "depleting" in the sentence "Ivory hunters are responsible for [wiping out/depleting] elephant populations in several parts of Africa."
. The meaning of deplete is to use up. So it makes sense from an e.g. hunting point of view, talking about elephants as resources to be used (or not used), but doesn't make sense in the context it's being used in, which is about the extinction of an animal population for its own sake, not as a resource. That said, while "wiping out" is the preferable choice here, I don't know that it's ideal. It doesn't seem too problematic, but I could see where some might object. What do others think? Does it work? Do you have a better idea? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Please be more specific. I absolutely don't agree that the context is appropriate for "deplete", but do you have other suggestions for wording? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this: "Hunting for ivory is responsible for significant reductions in elephant populations in several parts of Africa." Changed "hunters" to "hunting" and "wiping out" to "significant reductions". Wording might be slightly awkward as is, but it seems like it might be a decent compromise? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Moving on to another issue, this is not relevant to the article. The source doesn't even mention the destruction of ivory. You're wedging in a "however this ignores..." POV line into the wrong article. Your issue is with the ban of the international ivory trade vs. culling populations and "ethical ivory", not with destroying confiscated illegal ivory. Would recommend adding it to ivory trade, though, if it's not there already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Rhododendrites: I think mentioning culling or something like it is relevant. This entire article currently carries the implication that all ivory is poached and smuggled. In fact, ivory can be collected legally in some cases and there are trade exceptions. I don't think it's worthwhile to spend a long time discussing this fact, but it's worth mentioning in order to clarify the circumstances that surround the ivory trade (i.e. addressing the strong-arming and absolutism of conservation INGOs). Risc64 ( talk) 21:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Came across some recent sources which look to provide information not already in the article.
On the subject of efficacy:
Dissenting opinions in Africa:
Others:
I plan to incorporate these soonish, but posting here in case anyone feels like it :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just heard back from Mwangi Kirubi, who I contacted via Flickr early last month (see his great photostream here), agreeing to upload his photos of the recent record-setting ivory burn to Commons. That always gives me warm and fuzzies :) (a phrase, by the way, that does not look to be covered on Wikipedia, it seems, and one which has history/context to perhaps sustain and article).
Anyway, they're over at commons:Category:2016 Kenyan ivory burn. I added a couple to the article, including replacing the top image. Mentioning it here in case people want to use others here or elsewhere (probably the most significant of these events to date, after the original one in 1989). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chris troutman ( talk · contribs) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pleased to be working with you, Rhododendrites. This looks fine on my first cursory glance. I intend to have this review done by the end of the week with comments for you to make corrections, if needed. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Chris troutman: Thanks for the feedback and edits (and review -- I was surprised how long this one sat on the GAN shelf). I have one follow up to one of your edits: regarding 7.7 tons vs. 6 tons in this source, the "7.7 tons 'lost' or stolen" in the article is the sum of the 6 in "But a subsequent audit revealed that customs had "lost" almost six tons of this ivory" and 1.7 from "Customs turned its 2009 seizure over to PAWB, which soon discovered that it too had mice in its larder. Someone broke into its storeroom and stole more than 1.7 tons." It doesn't sum them in the article, but it didn't seem like OR to me to do so. Regarding the Fortune citation, the statement that he was "in attendance" is based on the line where it quotes something he "said at the ceremony". Similarly, it didn't seem like OR was necessary to come to that conclusion, but maybe it's more controversial than I thought? It's certainly not a crucial line, if it ends up needing to be removed. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Destruction of ivory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)