Talk:Ecocide

possibility of Russia veto

In an edit summary, 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)

Wiki Education assignment: Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2025 and 10 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 902379627ND (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 902379627ND (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

chapter about Gaza is based only on retracted articles

WP:CT/PIA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

the chapter about Gaza is fully based only on the following retracted references #84, #85, #86, #87, #88, #89, #96 Akmurb (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

For reference, the citations User:Akmurb is referring to in this version of the article are:

• 84: "No Traces of Life, Israel's Ecocide in Gaza 2023 – 2024". Forensic Architecture. Archived from the original on 29 April 2024. Retrieved 7 April 2024.
• 85: Ahmed, Kaamil; Gayle, Damien; Mousa, Aseel (29 March 2024). "'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 7 April 2024.
• 86: McKernan, Bethan (15 April 2024). "'It's death there': babies and children hit hardest as famine tightens hold on Gaza". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
• 87: Pearce, Fred. "As War Halts, the Environmental Devastation in Gaza Runs Deep". Yale E360. Retrieved 2025-03-09.
• 88: Saber, Indlieb Farazi (19 March 2024). "Is Israel's Gaza bombing also a war on the climate?". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
• 89: Mahmoud, Hani. "Nothing left to sustain human life as Israeli forces turn North Gaza into 'wasteland'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 13 June 2024.
• 96: "Growing calls to recognize 'ecocide' as an international crime in light of Israel-Gaza conflict - EHN". grist.org. 26 February 2024. Archived from the original on 31 August 2025. Retrieved 18 April 2024.

I don't spot signs of the above being retracted. User:Akmurb, on what are you basing your assertion? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell - you're correct, my bad. I misread it. Akmurb (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I am reading the quoted articles and there is practically no verifiable information in them, only biased journalistic assumptions. I am not very familiar with the fact checking rigor acceptable on Wikipedia platform and what concerns me that the platform is used to amplify and multiply misinformation. Akmurb (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:Reliable Sources for guidance. Perhaps you could detail which information you have an issue with? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

wow, i am surprised to see you response. thanks.

Let's start with the biggest one-sided aspect in the paragraph [quote] "... Israel blockade". However, Gaza also has border with Egypt, which has been blocked during the war in Gaza as well. The only way to move goods and people between Egypt and Gaza was through Hamas' tunnels. Why would Egypt is not listed along with Israel when the term "blockade" is used? Akmurb (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell according to Wikipedia's article, Egypt was also participating in Gaza blockade. Am i allowed to introduce that correction to the discussed article? Thank you. Akmurb (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources cited do not mention the closure of the border between Gaza and Egypt, and we must be led by what reliable sources cover. Perhaps Egypt is not mentioned partly because Israel has controlled the Rafah Border Crossing since May 2024, but adding that to the article without a reliable source drawing that conclusion would be heading towards original research. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell how about this BBC article saying [quote] "But Cairo has kept tight restrictions on movement through the Rafah crossing for many years - to such an extent that many Palestinians have essentially accused Egypt of bolstering Israel's blockade of Gaza, which has been in place since Hamas took full power there in 2007." and more of [quote] "But Egypt's apparent reluctance to open the crossing without clear conditions and guarantees may be more about trying to avoid a mass exodus of Palestinians from Gaza."

is this not enough of an evidence that Egypt was reluctant to let Gazans go, participating in a blockade? Akmurb (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Given that article was published eleven days into the Gaza war it is not suitable for describing the impact of the whole war. The issue is not blockades before the war, but the impact of the blockade during the war. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's the fresh off the press article about Egypt's role in Gaza blockade https://rsf.org/en/rsf-investigation-how-egypt-complicit-reporting-blockade-gaza ~2025-40269-29 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks useful, thank you for sharing. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Having now had the time to read the story from RSF it's specifically about journalists' access to Gaza. While that should be useful in other articles - not least on the blockade - using it here to talk about the environmental impact and ecocide would be extrapolating beyond what it says. If other sources do that, we can include it however until that stage I think including it on that basis would go against WP:SYNTH. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell good point. Well, there is an UN's page with the stats of goods that were delivered into Gaza through each crossing. And it is easy to see that no humanitarian aid was delivered into Gaza from Egypt since May 5 2024 https://www.ochaopt.org/data/crossings

is this good enough of the evidence? I mean, if Israel is accused of a blockade but is allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, but for the past 1.5 y Egypt did not allow any at all... Who is actually actively blockading Gaza then? Akmurb (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Interpreting source material to reach a conclusion it does not itself state is an example of origin research which is not permitted. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Let's quote sources quoting others. From https://news.sky.com/story/rafah-crossing-to-open-in-coming-days-to-let-gazans-cross-into-egypt-israel-says-13478611

[quotes]"

... Israel is preparing to open the Rafah crossing "in the coming days" to let Gaza residents cross into Egypt...

.. Egyptian state-affiliated al Qahera News said Egypt had denied it was coordinating with Israel to reopen the crossing in the coming days, reported the Reuters news agency...

Rafah is Gaza's only gateway to the rest of the world which is not directly controlled by Israel.

It is under the control of Egypt as part of an agreement with Israel and the European Union.

Over the years, the crossing has been closed for long periods at a time." Akmurb (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

My reading of that source is that the last three sentences you have quoted refer to the status quo before the war since the source also says The crossing was sealed off in May 2024 when Israel's military invaded the area. It was briefly opened in February this year for the evacuation of sick and wounded Palestinians for treatment, as part of the previous ceasefire deal. Israel has kept the Rafah crossing closed in both directions since the ceasefire in October.

Additionally, the Israeli capture of Rafah in May 2024 does coincide with the drop off in aid through the Rafah crossing that you highlighted. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

except of the last sentence, quoted (i.e. "Israel has kept the Rafah crossing closed in both directions since the ceasefire in October"), are you not [quoting your earlier comment] "Interpreting source material to reach a conclusion it does not itself state is an example of origin research which is not permitted"?

as for the sentence saying that Israel kept the Rafah crossing closed, that refers only to the last 2.5 months in 2025, after 2+ years of active war. ~2025-40269-29 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In line with the policy on verifiability, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If Akmurb wants material added to the article, they need to provide sources which support the information they want to add and do so in a way which does not go against the principle of no original research. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

apologies, for some funny reasons Wikipedia's authN mechanism logged my previous comment with a funny alias.

• providing the numbers from a [supposedly] credible source such as UN was not allowed under the premise of "interpretation of source material"
• quotes from CBS are still supposedly a subject of interpretation while ...
• ... at the same time, using the materials provided by sources from Gaza while there was no and still is no access to journalists to Gaza during the war, and anyone reporting from there must fall in Hamas' narrative or face grave consequences otherwise - are acceptable? I refer to the reference #98 to the article by Al Jazeera - who is the official media outlet of the Qatari gov't and can't be independent by definition.

Why would wikipedia authors trust Hamas' sources but refuse to use UN and CBS, calling those "interpretations"? Akmurb (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Akmurb: The UN is a reliable source, but the proposed use of it went beyond what the source said.

What CBS quote are you referring to? Beyond the initial post, here on the talk page there are links to Sky News, BBC News, and Reporters Without Borders, but I'm not seeing one to CBS.

The article needs to be based on information published by reliable sources, and to not reach beyond what those sources say. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

what i am trying to say is that when the word "blockade" is used, it is important to specify that it has effectively started only since the Rafah crossing with Egypt got under the Israeli control on May 7th, exactly 7 months after the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas. A few days later the Palestinian Authority refused to take control over the RAFAH crossing (SKY News) as well as Egypt was refusing to coordinate the goods deliveries through the Rafah crossing. I suggest this remark is important to add when speaking about the blockade. Akmurb (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources currently cited in the article and which describe the blockade and its environmental impacts predate 7 May 2024 so are not consistent with what you suggest. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)