Talk:Ivory trade/Archives/2016

Biased tone

At least in the section Elephant Ivory, it sounds to me as if there is a very biased tone in the article. Language such as, "Although many ivory traders repeatedly claimed that the problem was habitat loss, it became glaringly clear that the threat was primarily the international ivory trade" [emphasis added]. Examples, even in the context of their sentences, are difficult to identify individually, but on the whole, I feel it is obvious that there is somewhat lacking an encyclopedic tone. Woolfy123 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

All Ivory

This article mainly focuses on elephant ivory. There are a few sections on the other animals that have ivory, but they are not that fully developed. Are the other animals not as important in the ivory trade, like Asian and African elephants? Can more background be added on the other animals or is there just not enough information around to write as much as what was written for elephant ivory? AmeliaHayden (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)