# Talk:Destruction of ivory

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)

In this sense, elephants are a resource. Using the word "deplete" in this sense is common practice in biology and conservation works, and is often used even when organiss aren't being discussed as reasources. Regardless, "wipe out" is very very clearly a biased term in my eyes. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize when this article dips into hardline conservation NGO rhetoric. Risc64 (talk) 20:14, 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)

My understanding is that in some places (countries, or areas smaller or bigger than a country) elephants, once numerous, are now extinct; and in others, the population is much reduced from whatever previous period one wishes to measure against; and in yet others, elephant numbers are booming, sometimes to the detriment of habitat (let alone the local farmers). I think the wording needs to reflect that, with references. There is probably a correct technical term which I don't know. Threatened? Endangered? Locally fragile? "Wiped out" is to my ears synonymous with "extinct", but much less formal. "Depleted"? I'm not sure of the denotation, but the connotations to me are of a group run down and possibly ill, genetically weakened. A better wording might be more specific. "African elephants, which numbered an estimated xyz in 19xx, have been reduced to XYZ in 20xx, largely due to ivory hunters <source>." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:41, 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)

@Rhododendrites: @Carbon Caryatid: I like the above-proposed sentence. The other reason why I wanted to tone back the wording is that I couldn't find the actual source for this statement. Lacking a source, it seems more conservative to say "depleted" or similar. Risc64 (talk) 22:19, 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)

I removed the sentence from the lede when it first appeared, saying that the lede has to summarise the body, and there was no reference to the subject (the ethics of culling) in the body. Now what seems to be a good source has indeed been found. I don't object to a passing mention in this article, but I agree that the main thrust of that argument needs to be made elsewhere, perhaps at ivory trade. (I've taken the liberty of separating sections of this discussion.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Adding a source is indeed appreciated. Still, what is the connection to the destruction of ivory? It was added to "Justification, objections, and impact" but it's not a justification, objection, or impact of/to destroying ivory. It's an objection to a ban on ivory. The only section of this page that's about the ban on ivory more generally is "background", and that only summarizes the context for the ban. There are a lot of arguments for/against the ban that aren't included there because we have a separate article for that and they just aren't relevant to destroying confiscated ivory (or the positive/negative aspects of destroying it). Why would we add this one based on a source that doesn't even make a connection to the subject? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:35, 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)

@Risc64: it's quite possible the sources of the ivory might not be accurately stated -- and they should be. I don't know why that's cause to add a "this ignores" line about culling/ethical ivory instead of banning ivory, though -- much less adding it to a section about justifications/objections/impact of destroying ivory, when it doesn't seem to be tied to the subject. Are there particular examples where the source of the ivory is stated incorrectly? I guess I've operated under the assumption, which may be oversimplified, that because the stockpiles are of confiscated ivory, rather than a random sample of all ivory that exists, and as legal goods are not typically confiscated and stockpiled as such (or at least shouldn't be), we can presume they're poached/smuggled/otherwise illegal.
I do have to say that, frankly, "strong-arming and absolutism of conservation INGOs" sounds like you're trying to "right great wrongs" here. The sources in the article are not cherry-picked. They're the reliable sources I (and others) found on the subject of destroying ivory. There's a mix of support and criticism of the strategy. If the literature about the subject does not include a particular point of view, including it would be either WP:OR/WP:SYNTH or undue weight. As I said, it seems like the place for this content is ivory trade. If you're proposing adding something to the "background" section, which concerns the ivory trade more generally, it would have to be (a) a big enough part of the discussion (as reflected by its presence in literature on the subject) to justify having that particular argument in the summary, vs. all the other arguments/perspectives that aren't included, and (b) part of the necessary context for this subject. In other words, the context for destroying ivory is the ban on ivory and ivory trade in general. Covering arguments for and against destroying ivory in the article about destroying ivory makes sense, but the ban on ivory is the premise, so we don't need to go into all of the arguments for and against the ban, too (we have a separate article for that).
Not trying to be dense or seem like I'm pushing a POV here. My own gateway to the subject was through the Radiolab episode (highly recommended), which does a very good job, I think, of presenting just the line of argumentation you're going for here. I don't feel like I have a very strong opinion on the matter -- I just don't see it as sufficiently relevant to this particular topic, which is not the ban on ivory or the protection of elephants but the destruction of ivory as a strategy to combat the illegal ivory trade and poaching (the ways in which the ivory trade/hunting are illegal is for their own articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Came across some recent sources which look to provide information not already in the article.
On the subject of efficacy:

ScienceDaily - Measuring impact of Kenya's ivory burning 'urgent' Done
The Guardian - Is burning poached ivory good for elephants? Not done (didn't add anything)
The Guardian - Legal ivory sale drove dramatic increase in elephant poaching, study shows Done
Dissenting opinions in Africa:

Newsweek - Zimbabwe wants to trade elephant ivory, not burn it Done
News Ghana - Ivory Burning Is A Serious Setback To Africa’s Development (not so sure this is a reliable source, though) Not done
Uganda Radio Network - Conservationists Reject Plans To Burn Ivory Not done
Others:

National Geographic - WCS Praises Kenya for Massive Elephant Ivory and Rhino Horn Burn Scheduled for Saturday, April 30
Pachyderm - The complex policy issue of elephant ivory stockpile management
I plan to incorporate these soonish, but posting here in case anyone feels like it :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 31 July 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)

Those are great pictures! Very good initiative! :) Pics like that really adds to the quality of the article and I think you have chosen wisely. Just make sure he changes the copyright tag at Flickr for those photos to "Public domain" or send OTRS tickets to Commons for them, otherwise they will be tagged for deletion since they have already been published on internet. This is because no one can know that he really is the uploader and the person behind that account. Believe me, the folks at Commons are very picky about this. As it stands now the files at Flickr are tagged with a (CC BY-NC 2.0) license, so I guess OTRS tickets are the best option here. w.carter-Talk 07:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow. If I weren't part of the story, it would simply be someone who uploaded some photos to Commons under a compatible license. I don't know why having them published elsewhere would matter, as that would just mean he would, for all practical purposes, lose the ability to enforce the noncommercial part of the license for those photos on Flickr. If he selected the license when uploading them to Commons, they now have that license. Or is the issue just a matter of uploading something already published online causing editors to raise an eyebrow? I don't really want to hold up an create an additional hoop to jump through via OTRS unless mandatory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The legalese at Commons is a whole different ballgame... When you upload anything of your own work there, the default license is the (cc-by-sa-4.0). That is the license the pictures are now tagged with at Commons and that is a different license for the photos than the one on Flickr. Check it out for yourself. The (CC BY-NC 2.0) is simply not "free enough" for Commons. Everything uploaded on Commons must be totally free to use, even the commercial part. This will be done even with an OTRS-ticket. That is why it's so hard to get really good photos for articles. If something has been published on the Internet before it was uploaded on Commons, the pics will be deleted as soon as someone spots them, unless they are in the Public Domain or have an OTRS attached. Pics need to have the same license on all sites on the Internet, the license is for the specific picture regardless of which site it is displayed on. I have been down this road many, many times with photos for articles and it really is a jungle! Getting the pic for this article took me about a month and some twenty email between me, admins at Commons and the Mr Mackenzie himself. We came to know each other quite well during the process.
So unless this photographer is willing to release the pics as free or write those OTRS, the only thing I can think of is to ask him if he has some other versions of the pics, maybe not as brilliant, that he is willing to donate to us. I'm rather active on Commons and I would usually be tagging pics like this for deletion as copyvios, but this time I'll just leave that to some other editor. w.carter-Talk 14:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
To quote our dear Yunshui: "Some things I've noticed that may suggest I spend too much time on Wikipedia: I know more about copyright law than I ever thought I'd need to. More, in fact, than I ever thought a copyright lawyer would need to." w.carter-Talk 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, sure, the noncommercial requirement is why I contacted him in the first place, explaining that I'd like to use them but that part doesn't work for Commons, so would he be willing to release them without NC on Commons. He said he would, and did so himself. What I've not encountered before is this business of requiring OTRS be involved if they were previously published with a different license. What if it were a different compatible license? What if I uploaded it to Commons first with cc-by-sa then a minute later to Flickr with cc-by-nc? All set because it went to Commons first? (these are, in part, rhetorical questions). I guess I'll have to dig up one of the permission email templates and send it over to him... :/ — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry my friend, to get a definitive answer about compatible licenses, you would have to talk to one of the admins at Commons, some of the fine print on licenses are a bit above my pay grade. :-/ I also suggest you read what it says on the OTRS license. They do allow for commercial use since the tag is for "may be used by anyone for any purpose." That is why most pics under that tag are rather small (about 300x400px). That makes it harder for people to use it in too many contexts. I also know that they have become tougher about copyvios at the Commons since this is relay done to protect copyright holders. w.carter-Talk 16:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Destruction of ivory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
I note that the Fortune citation does not say Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon was "in attendance" only that he agreed to the proposed ban. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The press release says that the speech is from Wong Kam-sing but the article credits Paul Shin. Please fix. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The US News & World Report source is being used in-line to verify stuff it doesn't. The WWF source is sufficient, so I'm not sure why the former was included. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The Tom Milliken quote about needing proof that reducing supply leads to a reduction in demand doesn't appear in the source. That's the thrust of what he's saying so I'd recommend you just remove the quotation marks. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 
After now having read every single source, which took a while, I can verify there's no original research although as I comment below, you could make an argument that 6 + 1.7 = 7.7 is OR if the source doesn't say that, especially if you also have doubts the sky is actually blue. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images are properly licensed for CC-BY. We're fortunate to have had pictures donated, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Doing these reviews always forces me to learn way more about a subject then I ever intended to. This is a well-written article and covers all perspectives about the subject. All sources have been verified and I'm glad this sat on the shelf if only because I get more points in the 4th GA Cup for it. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:33, 13 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)

@Rhododendrites: I'll accept your point about attendance at the ceremony. I guess I didn't read the source closely enough. I'll also buy-off on your arithmetic although I don't prefer to use any calculation the source doesn't per se provide. There are a couple small sourcing items I need to see fixed, however. I'm sorry this review has taken so long. I've been very busy with school and it takes dedicated time to sit and read sources although I perform some drive-by countervandalism on wiki daily. This GA Cup is somewhat ill-timed for me and I had to grab primo opportunities like this review as soon as the content started. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Good point about the USN&WR source not actually supporting most of the lines it's on. My guess is that someone (likely me) intended to just copy the WWF source and accidentally grabbed that text, too. Regardless, it's fixed now (removed from all but the UAE line). The Milliken quote did come from one of the sources, but it was indeed absent from where it needed to be. It's there now. No problem re: review time. This was pending since May, so a few extra days is nothing. Happy to address any other issues you notice. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:21, 12 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510154017/http://www.sportsafield.com/notes-from-afield/africas-elephant-explosion to http://www.sportsafield.com/notes-from-afield/africas-elephant-explosion
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) 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)