Talk:Fortress conservation

Dubious Neutrality of Article - I am unclear on what this article is about

This is a question as (essentially) a passerby who doesn't know a lot about fortress conservation as a term or topic and thus does not have much in the way of pre-existing beliefs: is this an objective article about fortress conservation as a conservation technique (that should discuss the concept, rationale, and pros and cons), or is is it solely an article about the displacement of indigenous peoples due to ecological conservation attempts?

If it is the former, dedicating nearly 100% of the article to listing criticisms of the technique is not the neutral assessment we should expect from an encyclopedia article - there is barely any description of what the term even means much less the rationale for employing it as a technique before the article begins ruthlessly attacking it as a very concept. At the very least the article should do something like establish what "Fortress Conservation" means as a term, the rationale for its implementation, who supports it and why, the efficacy of it (there is an efficacy section that does not discuss the efficacy of it as a model of promoting biodiversity, just continues to bash it), maybe some cases where it has worked and where it has not, and then have a section for criticism of it and the negative effect it can have on indigenous populations, etc. Surely the notion of setting aside wildlife preserves cannot be completely bad all of the time - there are pros and cons and the need to preserve vulnerable animal species needs to be balanced against the need to do justice by indigenous groups on a case-by-case basis.

If it is the latter, that might be fine, but then the name of the article needs to be changed. This may be the most one-sided article I have read on Wikipedia - it reads like an editorial opinion piece. Connor Long (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Connor Long (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Stray notes - The "Efficacy" section seems to discuss displacement of indigenous people not related to fortress conservation at all, mentioning that land rights are being given to powerful companies who want to exploit the natural resources, which seems like the exact opposite of fortress conservation, and out of scope of the article. Similarly, the entire "prevalence" section just lists examples of indigenous displacement - I am unclear what "prevalence" means in the context of an article titled "Fortess conservation" - the prevalence of fortress conservation? The prevalence of indigenous displacement? Why would the reader expect an article on Fortress conservation to devote ~50% of the article to discussing the prevalence of indigenous displacement in contexts that may or may not relate to the article topic? This concern is not about whether the information is good or bad or right or wrong, it just doesn't make sense presented in this context - it reads like a laundry list of atrocities committed against indigenous peoples that are tangentially related to conservation efforts at large (as opposed to "Fortress conservation" specifically). One section discussing displacements in Botswana implies that the displacement of natives was actually to gain access to diamond mines - if that's true then it's not an example of fortress conservation. Another section about Yosemite's displacement of indigenous inhabitants in the US is referring to events from 1890 - are events from >130 years ago even considered "fortress conservation"? (They may be but I do not believe citations linking Yosemite displacements to the article topic have been provided) These tenuously related examples underscore the importance of clearly defining the term "fortress conservation" - is establishment of any park considered fortress conservation? If so, that is not clear from the introduction. The first citation used to establish the term is literally from an article titled "critique of fortress conservation". Connor Long (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Connor Long, I asked exactly the same questions concerning the German language article. IMO the problem starts with the definition itself: "Fortress conservation" is not conservation model as the definition claims, but rather a propaganda term. No person or organisation would say "We follow the concept of fortress conservation." The term is mainly used to discredit environmental conservancy organisations like WWF. The German article has been written (based on the English article) by a verified account of Survival International, an organisation that is at the forefront of propagating this position.

I want to stress the fact that I am not at in the least connected to any of the organizations concerned, and that I am all in favor of supporting indigenous peoples; I myself support conservancy projects that work together with the indigenous peoples and not against them. But this article is playing dirty. I will repeat some of the points of criticism I voiced concerning the German article:

• Starting with the intro: "... based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance. Its implementation has been criticized for human rights abuses against indigenous inhabitants when creating and maintaining protected areas."

These two sentences establish an inadmissible and unfounded correlation. There is nothing wrong with believing "that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance". There is a lot wrong though with infering human rights abuses as the inevitable consequence of this belief.

• The section excoriating ecotourism cites a source saying that luxury safaris are driving Massai herders from their lands. Now what exactly do luxury safaris have to do with ecotourism? This source is used again in the part about Tanzania.
• I don't even understand what the section on "Militarization" is trying to say, except that it is obviously trying to discredit the WWF and similar organisations. So, militarization against poaching is wrong. Poaching is done by criminal gangs that prey on endangered species and kill park rangers (who, ideally, are from the indigenous peoples this article claims to be speaking for). So, what is the point of this section? Militarization is wrong, let the criminal gangs go about their business, let the poachers poach endangered species and kill park rangers from the indigenous peoples? Something is totally screwed up in this reasoning.
• The section on "land rights" is downright misleading. The sources are all about indigenous peoples being evicted from their lands because of commercial interests from global companies, logging, or palm oil plantations. That has nothing whatsoever to do with "fortress conservation", or any other kind of conservation, for that matter.

--2003:C0:8F47:8200:704A:6214:C9C9:F170 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't write a neutral article on "fortress conservation" because it's not a neutral term. It is a label applied by those who oppose it. No one declares themselves in favour of "fortress conversation". The article should be merged, along with some others like conservation refugee, into a new article dealing with conflicts, debates, and tensions between "indigenous peoples" and conversation (you could fairly argue that "non-indigenous" peoples face the same issues, but unfortunately it is a division pretty much all the sources make). The article should draw on sources covering the entire spectrum of opinion.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)