Talk:Ecocide

incorrect

The opening sentence of this article seems incorrect: "Ecocide, a neologism for "ecological suicide", ". According to Merriam Webster 'Ecocide' is ': the destruction of large areas of the natural environment especially as a result of deliberate human action'. The root 'cide' comes from the latin for 'killer' or 'killing'. I am going to fix the article to reflect this. 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) R.E.D. Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.108.144 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

further reference

To Ecocide editors: This comment is to support the inclusion of my book on this subject in the further references section. The book is called Ecocide: Humanity's Environmental Demons (author: Adam Cherson, JD-MPA- see Amazon listing for more detail on publication). I am an environmental policy lawyer working full time on this issue and I believe the book will serve those looking for more information well. I will refrain from self-editing the section with this addition in the hope that someone is actively monitoring/editing this entry and will either make the edit or notify me to do so. If no one seems to be overseeing this section I will add the edit myself in a few weeks with a note to see this comment. Thanks for now. Utopian100 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

correction

"According to this interpretation and because humankind wellbeing is directly related to numerous environmental factors such as rainforest, climate warming, chemistry of the air and water our negative impact on these factor can't be viewed as a part of the weaker definition, but really for what it is : a threatening unbalance in the environment and a symptom of fundamental errors in managing how many we are and how much we pollute per capita."

To replace the next affirmation written by someone who think (1) humankind is disconnected from the environment. (2) hides the main point of the weaker ecocide definition that implies that the deconnection must be true, like for an invasive species changing the environment for it's own benefits, for example by taking the place of one or many competing species then getting a new equilibrium  : "According to this interpretation, humankind may be committing ecocide upon various ecological systems around the world, but the 'deaths' of these minor ecosystems do not materially impact our own survival. In this view, ecocide (of rainforests, coral reefs, the polar pack ice, island habitat zones, etc.) may be regrettable aesthetically or morally but not materially and economically."

Let's also state that the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.189.166 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing

The article has several definitions, which look like they were added by editors who did not read anything else present in the article. It is then followed by some discussion of controversy, interweaved with "recent development". The end result is a mix of definitions, followed by trivia. This is a pretty bad article, in need of major rewriting. Hopefully the next expert that stops here will help with that, rather than adding their own work as more well-meant but not very helpful spam further reading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

bias

The section "Anthropogenic ecocide", as well as the "International crime" section use language unsuited for an encyclopedia. (1) Overly informal. (2) Many uncited statements. (3)Inherent bias without actual supporting arguments. 76.106.172.216 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Practical and Moral Questions

This paragraph needs expansion since it begins by stating that there are practical and moral questions and then gives only one example: "At the heart of the ecocide issue are practical and moral questions: is human activity destroying the ecological support system necessary for our own survival?" Here are some more of these questions: 1) Is the survival of the human species essential to the continuation of biodiversity and the survival of natural ecosystems on Earth? 2) Is any form of global governance and enforcement, let alone an international ecocide prevention regime, possible given the current system of international law and the priority given to national security and domestic economics by most national states? 3) Is it possible to accurately define what is a specific act of ecocide since in many cases ecocide consists of a death by a thousand cuts rather than any single, legally cognizable act? 4) How will an ecocide adjudication and enforcement system be funded? There are many more such questions, but these are some of the major ones. Utopian100 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

New Outline for Article

I would like to suggest a structural edit to help improve this article. First, start with a general definition of ecocide (not the one from the war crime). Then have a section describing the general principles and legal theories which underlie and support the definition. This section could include a summary of moral and practical arguments for and against the general definition. Then a discussion of the various applications of ecocide laws in history, including national laws. Then a discussion of proposals for an international law of ecocide and an international ecocide court. Then a discussion of the major challenges and obstacles confronting the adoption and application of an international law and court of ecocide. Utopian100 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I would like to re-start this point on changing the general article outline. I would, however, propose it a bit differently:

1. General Introduction

2. History

3. International Law

3.1. Efforts to expand ecocide into international criminal law

(brief overview of why and how an amendment of the Rome Statute can take place)

3.2 Legal definitions

(I would provide a more detailed description of the Stop Ecocide International definition because it is gaining a lot of attention at the moment)

4. Legal Debate (provide an overview of the discussions on consequences of ecocide's inclusion as well as arguments for and against its inclusion into international criminal law)

5. Domestic Law

6. Examples of ecocide

(e.g. Niger Delta, Tar Sands, Chevron-Texaco in Lago Algrio, Ecuador)

What do you all think? Mantis Nil (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it! Larataguera (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this article! The main note that I would make on your recent edits is that it's best to use independent sources when you can. So, for example when you say The Stop Ecocide International campaign has re-started efforts to include ecocide as the fifth international crime and proposed a definition for the international crime of ecocide in 2021. The campaign has been gaining a lot of political momentum with multiple heads of states and the EU parliament endorsing the inclusion of the crime of ecocide into international criminal law, (this edit), and all the sources go to Stop Ecocide International's website, that is not an independent source. It would be better to get news coverage to support this statement. That helps to ensure that Stop Ecocide International's campaign is notable enough to be discussed in the lead of the article (and discussed in a balanced way). Does that make sense? It's fine to use the SEI website a little, but not too much.

Overall, I am glad you're interested in working on this article! Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Ecocide

I am still dissatisfied with the initial definition of ecocide which reads: "The term ecocide refers to any extensive damage or destruction of the natural landscape and disruption or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory to such an extent that the survival of the inhabitants of that territory is endangered." The problem I find is that this definition does not cover cases of ecocide occurring in the global commons (non-territorial oceans, non-territorial atmosphere, etc.) or places where humans do not inhabit (unless inhabitants is taken to mean any living thing residing in a territory; which should be specified if that is the intended meaning). So, for instance, a person could dump any amount of toxic waste somewhere in the middle of the ocean, or slash and burn a huge chunk of Taiga where no one lives, and not be considered to have committed an ecocide. I think this definition comes from the war crime definition of ecocide which should not be considered the general definition, but rather a specific application of the term for the purposes of that law. Utopian100 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ecocide and the ICC

I took down the part which talked about inclusion of ecocide in the statute of the ICC, because plainly ecocide never made the negotiations. It is neither in the 1994 ILC draft (to be found here). Neither was it mentioned during the conference which established the Statute, nor in the commissions that came before it (minutes of those to be found here). There is only one mention by a Libyan plenopotary who mentions 'in addition to so-called aggression and so-called terrorism, the Court might deal with ... aggression against the environment and other threats' (Vol I, para 82). He, however, does not hint at any discussion that was going on at the conference.

There is, however, a reference to 'wilful and severe damage to the environment' as an proposed international crime in the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (it proposed 12 international crimes) (to be found here. It probably did not survive the second reading of 1994 (ILC Yearbook 1994, Vol II, Part I) and was not included in the 1996 draft of crimes. These ILC draft crimes were the basis on which the Special-Rapporteur would make a report which was copied by the Commission tasked with writing a draft Statute. The Special-Rapporteur deemed it necessary to drop all international crimes in his report whose standing in international law was doubtful "ecocide" was among them (for a short history on the interplay between both ILC drafts see here.)

However as must be clear by now. Ecocide was never considered for inclusion in the 1998 Rome Statute. Neither was it cut in the 'negotiations' of said Statute. It simply did not make those negotiations. It was cut from a different ILC draft, which influenced the draft Statute but was formally not part of its negotiations. Hence, the cited article clearly got its facts wrong.Perudotes (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Crime against peace

On another note, I changed (most) references to ecocide as a crime of peace which has a technical (and legal) meaning of waging a war of aggression. I'm quite sure thats not the meaning we are hinting at (neither the article from where it comes, which I suppose inferred from the ILC draft name that ecocide must be a crime against peace and not security of mankind) which would be simply international crimes.Perudotes (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean removal of the term 'crime against peace', rather than 'crime of peace'. All three references in the opening paragraph include the phrase 'crime against peace'. Two of which seem to be connected to Polly Higgins. I agree it may seem an unusual term to use in connection to ecocide. However, than does not mean its incorrect or that is hasn't been proposed. The section probably needs rewriting with additional/better sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

sources used:

Story of Earth Jurisprudence

Ecocide: The Push to Criminalize Humanity For the Sake of Saving the Planet

Ecocide is the missing 5th Crime Against Peace.pdf

Yes you are correct, I meant crime against peace of course. All connections between 'crime against peace' and 'ecocide' seem to date back to Polly Higgins. The earliest reference I was able to find was 1 februari 2001, and the next one was 1 februari 2002, all connected with mrs. Polly. After 2012 the term seems to pop-up more often, which does not seem to indicate a new 'term of art'. It, however, seems to be based upon extensive lobbying by mrs. Polly. Who also co-wrote the third link you provided (and pops up in the first), and one of her co-authors seems to have included the terms here on wikipedia (there was no mention of ecocide as a crime against peace before 19 december 2012, when LouiseKulbicki (co-author of the article) edited wikipedia). Also for as far as the reference to the 'fifth crime against peace' is concerned, that is clearly a reference to the other four crimes contained in the Rome Statute, which are not crimes against peace, only one is (aggression). Hence, I think inclusion of the term 'crime against peace' in connection with ecocide is plainly wrong. In all likelyhood its used as a rhetorical device to give more credibility to mrs. Higgings, et al, own theory of the 'lost fifth crime' (which is a fallacious statement). I do think the section needs rewriting because there was talk of an international 'crime against the environment' (Bassiouni mentions something like this as an international crime in M.C. Bassiouni: Introduction to International Criminal Law, Leiden: BRILL 2012, p. 148-149). I do, however, think we need to be skeptical of any sources written by mrs. Higgings as she seems to have a NPOV view.Perudotes (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, that makes more sense now. If I get time I'll look at improving the section.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition

The definition, explanation and discussion of Ecocide law in this article all need attention. The legal definition submitted to the UN and currently being used as the basis for developing an amendment to the Rome Statute is the following:

Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished.

In the original version of the Rome Statute, ecocide was listed as a fifth crime against peace. Please see Short et al, 2012 (ed 2013) which references primary UN sources: http://www.sas.ac.uk/node/1033.

The wikipedia entry is in need of a rewrite, similarly referring to primary source documents in preference to unsupported secondary sources (for example interpretative commentaries lacking in due diligence). Law Wisdom (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Law Wisdom: Thanks for the comment. I've moved it to the bottom as new comments go last (unless replying).

It is disputed that there are four 'crimes against peace', therefore referring to a missing fifth one would be misleading (see discussion above). I believe the reference you supply is the same as the third one listed above. You are right about the section's need to be rewritten, and better sources used. It needs to be made explicit who has proposed what, and what has passed into law. References are needed for accuracy and notability, see WP:RS for the current guide lines.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Law Wilson:Also, if you read the article you will notice that nowhere is it said that ecocide was listed as a fifth crime in the Statute. They do hint at its ommission (for example the first paragraph in the The UN’s International Law Commissíon section on p.8; first paragraph in the section Final outcome p.11). It is only in the last sentence that they conclude: "Now is the time to include what has been missing all along: the 5th international crime against peace, ecocide." That sentence is ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Their whole reasoning is also based on their assumption that the "Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (‘the Code’), ... later became the Rome Statute" (p.4; repeated in the paper) no reference is given for this crucial statement. This holds, unfortunatly, equally true for other statements made in the 'ILC' and '5th crime' sections (sometimes the reference covers some 500+ pages for example ref. 53, and also ref. 56 covers the whole volume of the yearbook even though it is supposed to be a reference for "Szekely immediately objected." I take it that his objections do not span the whole volume). Even if we would accept that the Code was the predecessor of the Rome Statute, than still it wasn't an 'earlier draft' or 'original version' (whatever that means) of the Statute. That is a whole other document.

There is another problem. The document they refer to (the draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind) included 12 international crimes (p.95-97). 6 of which did not make it into the Statute, 3 were merged. The crimes that got cut together with ecocide were: 'threat of aggression', 'intervention', 'recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries', 'international terrorism' and 'traffic in illicit narcotics'. Even if we'd accept the reasoning that ecocide/wilful and severe damage to the environment is the fifth crime against peace, than these other five crimes would deserve the title just as much.

All in all the document has some interesting references to primary sources, however, it is clearly a paper written with an underlying agenda and I would caution anyone in using it as a reliable source in and of itself.Perudotes (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

HollyKST edits

I just reverted a lot of HollyKST's edits, which basically was synonymous with the Ecocide is the missing 5th Crime Against Peace.pdf paper. There where, however, some interesting passages to the history of the crime of 'ecocide' in international law. I tried to keep those passages which had 1) references, and 2) actually made sense, 3) werent blatantly trying to push Polly Higgins, her idea's of the 5th crime, hidden advertisment of her feats (i.e. the mock trial). I also tried to restore what I could find from the old version that made sense in the new version. Perudotes (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Perudotes Removal of HollyKST edits

I have reviewed my original edits and taken considerable time to check references and where necessary updated them. I have reinserted some of them to the sections of the History of Ecocide. As you will see this section is now very well referenced and informative. I trust that my additions will not be removed maliciously, but all contributions will be constructive.

HollyKST (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)HollyKSTHollyKST (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I take it that in your review of your sources, you accidentally happened to miss that you misquoted a pretty straight-forward passage in UN Doc A/C.6/50/SR.12 in your first line edits. The original quote from the UN Doc. (p.3 para. 9) reads:

"the Special Rapporteur on the topic had presented his thirteenth report recommending that only 6 of the 12 crimes identified in first reading for inclusion in the Code should be retained, namely, aggression (article 15), genocide (article 19), systematic or mass violations of human rights (article 21), exceptionally serious war crimes (article 22), international terrorism (article 24) and illicit traffic in narcotic drugs (article 25). The six remaining crimes, which the Special Rapporteur had proposed leaving out because they had given rise to opposition or reservations on the part of various Governments, were: the threat of aggression (article 16), intervention (article 17), colonial domination and other forms of alien domination (article 18), apartheid (article 20), the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries (article 23) and wilful and severe damage to the environment (article 26)."

Which you misquoted on the 20th of September, and which seems to have escaped your 'thorough' inspection, as:

"“the Special Rapporteur on the topic had presented his thirteenth report recommending that only 6 of the 12 crimes identified in first reading for inclusion in the Code should be retained, namely… wilful and severe damage to the environment (article 26).”

Unfortunatly that was not the only time where the parts you quoted seemed to favour the narrative. For example the quote of UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1996 Add.1 (Part 2) p.16 para.40-44 where the quote does not extend to the part where the Commission decided that 'wilful and severe damage to the environment' be included as a war-crime. Instead the section you wrote ended with the cliffhanger "‘wilful and severe damage to the environment’ had been removed". In that section you also refer to UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.2448 p.111 para.29, as if the discussion by Mr. Lukashuk was about the seperate crime of 'ecocide', whereas his comments where made in the discussion on 'ecocide' as part of a war crime (see p.108).

In light of the foregoing I seriously question whether those mistakes where made in good faith. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ecocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130831193509/http://unep.org/delc/worldcongress/ to http://www.unep.org/delc/worldcongress/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150301191204/http://www.russian-criminal-code.com:80/ to http://www.russian-criminal-code.com/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How about going back further in history before there were any statutes.

For example Mediterranean areas used to be much more green and nutrient. But farming in ancient Greece and Roman import of lumber from Algeria had over time a huge detrimental effect trees were cut down and soil erosion set in.

Its like the joke.

A man is applying for a job in an logging company, in the interview the boss asks: -"Do you have any prior experience in lumbering?"

-"Yes, I have an impressive work record in the Saharas"

-"There are no trees in the Sahara!"

-"Exactly"

There are probably other pages going in depth about these and many other events. But I feel this article should contextualize it a bit better. 213.184.206.82 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

agent orange

This paragraph was being used as though it said something new. It wasn't. This paragraph was providing an example. And its a good example, but its not in the right place int eh article and its unsourced besides, so I am parking it here for future use in a different section.

The term is also used to refer to the destructive impact of humanity on its own natural environment. One example is the extensive damage caused by the use of defoliants such as Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. This strategy by the US Government was conducted with the deliberate intention of causing environmental destruction in pursuit of military goals.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed definition

Useful reference for new information

• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/22/legal-experts-worldwide-draw-up-historic-definition-of-ecocide

John Cummings (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's very interesting, and useful with inline attribution saying so-and-so think this would be a good law to create. But on its face this article merely says a proposed law has been crafted. Which I find interesting personally, but as a Wikipedia editor the fact is... this source just says some people think this legal definition should be adopted. Interesting, but it ain't more than idea right now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Short description

@LaundryPizza03: What is your alternative proposal for a WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION within the 40 character limit? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

New potential sources

Hi all

Here are some recent sources which may be useful for this article

• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201105-what-is-ecocide
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ecocide-international-crime
• https://www.goethe.de/ins/au/en/kul/sup/kio/22702135.html
• https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10062022/un-stockholm-ecocide-right-of-nature/
• https://www.politico.eu/article/ecocide-environmental-crime/
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18dzv1d?turn_away=true
• https://euobserver.com/green-economy/155324
• https://theconversation.com/why-its-time-to-make-ecocide-a-crime-for-the-sake-of-its-victims-172906
• https://theecologist.org/2021/nov/11/ecocide-law-will-come-faster-expected
• https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/why-ecocide-should-be-international-crime/
• https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/05/31/news/young-canadians-ask-feds-help-make-ecocide-international-crime
• https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/06/07/adopt-ecocide-as-international-crime-environmentalist-urges/
• https://www.openglobalrights.org/it-is-time-to-make-ecocide-an-international-crime/
• https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/the-definition-of-ecocide/5109498.article
• https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/how-long-until-the-planets-destruction-is-an-international-crime

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This would be easier to use formatted like this

• BBC, Ecocide: Should killing nature be a crime?
• et cetera

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Definition Revisited

I just reverted John's definition change in the lead. Ecocide is not the criminalization of...well, ecocide. That concept exists unto itself. This is why people call for that act to be a crime. But even before criminalization, ecocide happens (in many place, all the time). So we can't say it is the criminalization. We must define the concept, and then supplement that info with info about where its a crime and how those jurisdictions define to fall within their criminal law. We could suggest lead changes in this thread until we get consensus, rather than editing back and forth on the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for starting a disucssion. Currently the intro doesn't actually define what ecocide is, only says when it happens. This is why I introduced the definition proposed to the ICC. Do you have any suggestions of how to describe it?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We should start by looking for sources that describe it without saying that is criminal. Acceptable RSs might call for it to be criminal, but even those should describe the act of ecocide whether its criminal or not. By way of illustration consider genocide. We all know that history is replete with examples of genocide, but it was only an international crime after signing of the Genocide Convention in 1948, or if we're splitting hairs the conventions effective date in 1951. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Over the next couple days I'll poke around in the paywalled professional literature to see what I can find. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Super, thanks, I don't have access to those. John Cummings (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

some definitions

• Beyond Restoration: The Case of Ecocide 1994 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Foundations of Human Ecology 1994 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• The Campaign to Make Ecocide an International Crime: Quixotic Quest or Moral Imperative? 2019
• Merriam Webster Dictionary (online) (2022)

References

possibility of Russia veto

In an edit summary,[1] user:Chidgk1 opined and asked "removed 'yet' from 'Ecocide has not yet been accepted as an internationally punishable crime by the United Nations' as surely that is never going to happen as could not Russia veto it?" The notion of a Russian veto applies to the United Nations Security Council. Ecocide could become an international law when enough countries adopt a treaty similar to the Geneva Convention, only for the environment. Russia doesn't have to sign such a treaty if it doesn't want to, but it can't stop other nations from doing so. And anyway, a lot of the enforcement would be done at the International criminal court. Neither Russia nor the USA are signatories to the treaty that created the court and they usually do not subject themselves to the court's jurisdiction, which is voluntary for non-signatories. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks you obviously know better than me so revert my change if you wish Chidgk1 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I support removing the word "yet" as superfluous with possibly encouraging the reader to interpret it with their own prior bias. But it adds nothing important. Good call.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cases?

So have there actually been any court cases in the countries listed? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Chernobyl

Chernobyl was a) not intentional and b) the long term result for nature cannot solely be described as bad. According to some studies - as well as popular press articles like these: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/07/chernobyl-why-the-nuclear-disaster-was-an-environmental-success https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife - Chernobyl's exclusion zone has actually become a sort of "national park" with high biodiversity precisely because of the accident and what humans did afterwards. 2001:A62:1424:B902:145:EC7C:D678:6565 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. More importantly, the sources already listed are not enough to show significant consideration of the disaster as an “example” of ecocide. They mostly mention it in passing, and sometimes as a possible consideration for the label, not a definitive case for it. — HTGS (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: John Cummings (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominator: John Cummings (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominator: John Cummings (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominator: John Cummings (talk · contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: 48JCL 23:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Reviewing this. I am seeing some immediate concerns just looking at the lead.

Feedback: Address the current maintenance tags and also make the lead summary style. Try not to use excerpts. Paragraphs are pretty short, permanent dead links, blogs as sources?? What??? Anyways gonna QF this. 48JCL 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi 48JCL thanks very much for the review, I really appreciate it, could I ask a few things to help me imporve the article?

• I don't see any maintainance tags on the article and can't find any in the version history in the past weeks, can you tell me which ones you are refering to?
• I've just been through the refs but I don't see any that I'd recognise as a blog, can you tell me which ones you mean?
• I'm assuming you have a tool for checking dead links you used? Can you tell me which ones are dead and I'll go and fix them
• Can you tell me what QF means?
• If you have any other suggestions for me to get it up to standard I'd really appreciate it, I can work on the article, would it be ok to come back to you once I've done that to ask you to reassess it?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Should’ve phrased that better, there were a lot of blank-needed tags.

Blogs: [23] [62]. [155] is dead, [175] is SPS. QF means quickfail, [44] is permanently dead, and ecocide is a pretty big topic, so I am unsure why old sources have to be used. Also, for the examples some stuff is too long or too short. I’m also sure that the In Popular Culture section needs no sources, because pretty sure on most FA films like Saving Private Ryan, citations are not needed for the plot of the story. Cheers, 48JCL 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you on whether "In popular culture" sections should be sourced. My experience is that they are a magnet for people to put in examples that are tenuously connected to the topic, or only connected in one viewer's opinion. So it's reasonable to require that films have been mentioned in a source as depicting ecocide, to make sure we don't end up including all war films. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright thanks, still learning here. Appreciate your feedback. 48JCL 12:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref 23 is an opinion piece by "James McBride, Ph.D., J.D., Clinical Professor of Liberal Studies and Chair of Law, Ethics, History, and Religion in Global Liberal Studies at New York University" in a journal with an editorial process, published by Wiley. I wouldn't call this a "blog". As an opinion piece by a recognised expert, its conclusions shouldn't be presented in wikivoice, but the factual background that it sets out can be used to source facts in the Wikipedia article. Ref 62 is also an opinion piece on a site that publishes research reports. Again I would say that these are reliable if used for factual background. These are sources that have to be used carefully, but it's not outrageous to use them, and the case hasn't been made that they are used inappropriately. Apologies if I've misunderstood the numbering. As I've said myself, there are some problems with sourcing of this article, but in my opinion they are limited and fixable. Two dead links out of nearly 200 doesn't seem a deep problem. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL Oops, the above appears as a reply to myself instead of to you. I'm wondering if I've misunderstood something, but also if you might accept that a quickfail was hasty. I've fixed the two broken links: just Googled the titles and they were on the correct domain but with different URLs. Attn @John Cummings. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi John, this was an edit conflict so I'm probably duplicating 48JCL's points, but having glanced at the article:

• I see minor maintenance tags on two paragraphs "In May 2017 the grassroots citizen's movement..." and "In order to enforce implementation and increase citizens' trust in EU rules,..." It seems these can be addressed easily and it would not be normal to quick-fail a review just because of those problems.
• Examples of dubious sources, in the current version, refs 103, 112, but also there are a lot of activist sites used as sources: not that they should be totally excluded, but the article shouldn't rely on them greatly for factual content. Usually the actions of activists should only be mentioned if they are covered in third-party sources. In general, the citations need to make clear who is publishing the source: is it an official body, a recognised publication, a campaigning group, or just someone with a Wordpress installation? For example, ref 132 is credited to OHCHR. It could be made clear to the reader that this is the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. That helps the reader to recognise that it should be taken seriously. Where there's a named author like with ref 58 that should be clear too.
• refs 155 and 44 are marked as permanent dead links.

Please don't be discouraged! MartinPoulter (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi MartinPoulter and 48JCL thanks so much for the help and detailed explanation, I really appreciate it :) John Cummings (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)