Talk:Ecocide

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) 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 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) 13:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]