Misplaced Pages

Talk:Environmental injustice in Europe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:08, 16 December 2017 editFrançois Robere (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,759 edits →Complaint.: WP:3O← Previous edit Revision as of 18:54, 16 December 2017 edit undoKleuske (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,460 editsm →Complaint.: break inserted to keep numbering in sync.Next edit →
Line 113: Line 113:
:::::# - :::::# -
:::::# - :::::# -
:::::<small>second batch, break inserted to keep numbering in sync. ] (]) 18:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)</small>
:::::# ] What's the relevance of the Bikini Atoll tests to this? :::::# ] What's the relevance of the Bikini Atoll tests to this?
:::::# I believe this was mentioned to discern them from the migratory and immigrant communities mentioned earlier in the sentence. :::::# I believe this was mentioned to discern them from the migratory and immigrant communities mentioned earlier in the sentence.

Revision as of 18:54, 16 December 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEnvironment
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEurope
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRomani people
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Romani peopleWikipedia:WikiProject Romani peopleTemplate:WikiProject Romani peopleRomani people
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Welcome!

Welcome to the Environmental racism in Europe talk page! Please ensure that all edits follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

Prior to making edits, please ensure that you have read the article and are of sound understanding regarding its content. Edits that appear unconstructive will be questioned, so please take the time to familiarize oneself with the focus of the article, and to read the following resource:

Edits that do not appear to follow guidelines will be referred to this post, and may be reverted. Please do not hesitate to contact other editors for a second opinion, or to present questions or comments prior to making changes. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative space; neutral and constructive communication is always appreciated.

Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Issue with the UK section

The UK section references 'Gander' in West London - but there's no such place. The pdf link in the reference appears to use 'Gander and Painham' Borough as a code for an unspecified location (?) Whatever the actual facts here, this section needs to be revised - we cant refer to non-existent places.

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that only one very specific study has been provided, it's a hefty section. When adding to it that it's a part of West London obviously colloquially identified by some portion of the population (Irish travellers; West Londoners?), more sources are needed to identify where/what it is, as well as any other opinions on the situation. For the moment, I'm going to tag the section for further references. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up this issue! I appreciate your efforts to help improve this article, and I fully support your decision to add a banner requesting additional references. This is good - I fully agree with all of your concerns. At this point in time, I have not yet found additional sources, but I will keep looking. I welcome other editors' efforts, especially those who live in the UK who may have better access to local research resources. This is one of many sites mentioned throughout the article that I plan to do more in-depth research on in the foreseeable future. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am in the process of contacting the Irish Traveller Movement to inquire about the specific location of this site, and one of the organizations that funded the report. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! I've found that to be one of the great pleasures of Misplaced Pages: discovering areas I was barely familiar with (not just literal geographic areas), and having my interest piqued into researching. Misplaced Pages is like the gift of intellectual and emotional stimulation that just keeps on giving, so long as one can learn to put up with POV pushers and battleground mentality users. In the end, the highs outweigh the lows. We're not going to stop incivility, but we can enjoy the sojourns and making this a resource meaningful to anyone who reads it. It's always a pleasure to discover other editors who are here to make it a great project. If I can be of any assistance on this, or any article, please let me know. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
So true! Misplaced Pages really is "the gift that keeps on giving". In addition to all the new subjects I've learned about, writing here has taught me skills in writing neutrality and critical thinking that I likely never would have learned anywhere else. With regards to the UK section, I will send you an email very shortly with the specifics of my latest findings. For issues related to research ethics, I would prefer to first discuss the matter off the main talk page first. Talk soon! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The names used in the report are obviously made up, in order to maintain the anonymity of the people who live there. I don't think we should be using them on Misplaced Pages, but rather refer to them more generically. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Complaint.

@Sturgeontransformer:, @Me, Myself, and I are Here: I have rarely seen such a utter and complete mess of tendentious statements and WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK as this particular article. It is sourced by a few publications, none of which are mainstream, most of which are activist and all of which are severely overused. The arbitrary designation of some populations as " Indigenous groups" (Saami, for one) is idiotic, since actually Europeans are indigenous to Europe.

Case in point, the section "The Netherlands" in which (non-citizen) Roma getting less than the best spots for their camps is now called "racism", since, presumably, the Dutch have an obligation to offer prime real estate to any citizen of another country coming in and demanding land. This may be news to the authors, but The Netherlands is a very densely populated country. I just removed a link to the Bikini Atoll atomic test programs as a) the U.S. is not in Europe and b) it's got fuck-all to do with any minority in Europe.

I intend to go over this article with a fine toothed comb and weed out the idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I just removed a section from the lede about perceived "environmental injustice" in "Arctic and Subarctic regions of Europe" based on studies on Canada and Indigenous Peoples of North America. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Since when Are North America and Canada in Europe? Agin Sturgeontransformer, please explain. Kleuske (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sturgeontransformer: Please read Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars and remember that a template does not equal an actual argument. So far my criticism includes WP:COATRACK, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:SYNTH, sources that are completely inadequate (unless you think North America and Canada are in Europe), poor sources (a single quote cover entire paragraphs, repeatedly) and If I go through it once more, I'm sure I will see a few more. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing large quantities of cited material without adequate rationale and posting strong language (including personal attacks) on edit histories and talk pages is not appropriate editing behavior, regardless of one's history as an editor. Disruptive editing does not require additional discussion, and continued disruptive editing may be reported.Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sturgeontransformer: Please peruse WP:ASPERSIONS and clarify which "personal attacks" and what "possible vandalism" you perceive. Also vapid accusations are not appropriate substitutes for actual arguments. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sturgeontransformer: Let me make myself exceedingly clear. Any source that does not explicitly call some behavior "environmental racism" gives rise to WP:OR if it's used in an article on "environmental racism". So far, I have yet to encounter that source. The best I found was "environmental injustice", which is not the same as "environmental racism". Kleuske (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Many of your questions have been addressed in previous discussions in the talk archives, which I would advise you to refer to. Secondly, there are possible alternative titles for the article such as "Race and environmental issues in Europe" or "Environmental justice / injustice in Europe"; this issue was partially brought up in a discussion in Archive 2, and is something I would have been happy to discuss if asked. There are much more constructive ways to address these questions than deleting large sections of text and immediately attacking editors in the talk page right off the bat. It is reasonable for an editor to be reluctant to go into detailed talk page discussions when the first comment posted implies that the editors are "idiotic"--that does not indicate a willingness to partake in constructive dialogue. Further, removing significant portions of text does not address neutrality concerns.

Simply because an article addresses a topic that is arguably associated with a perceived political viewpoint does not automatically render the article non-neutral, as you appear to have suggested in your first post on the talk page. For example, if a liberal claimed that an article on Jordan Peterson was right-wing bias simply by its existence and inclusion of opinions of those in favor of his positions, that would not be a valid argument. Likewise, if a relevant published source that denied the existence of environmental racism in Europe was found, it could be included as a legitimate perspective in context. It's perfectly within Misplaced Pages's mandate to include articles on controversial subjects, as long as the neutrality is adhered to (and again, removing entire sub-sections of articles does not necessarily address neutrality concerns). If you continue to disagree, I will to refer this matter to the dispute resolution system for a third-party opinion.

See also:

Sturgeontransformer (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok....
I called it tendentious and that's a point you haven't addressed.
  1. None of the sources i've inspected use the term "environmental racism". The worst I found was "environmental injustice". If you call something "environmental racism", w/o any source claling it that, it's unsourced and, since the term 'racism' is a quite loaded one, it can justifiably be called 'tendentious'.
  2. Adding a series of projects (mining, hydro-electric power and more) under that banner without anyone or any source cited calling it 'environmental racism' or even an accusation being levelled is a prime example of WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. This problem pervades the article and it's the main problem I have.
  3. The article is extremely poorly sourced, one reference covering multiple paragraphs. This point has been raised by others and has not been addressed in any way, shape or form.
  4. Image captions contained claims that weren't sourced to anythi, but were clearly intended to convey a message. Case in point the "deforestation" images, the image of a (illegal) encampment near St. Denis with the caption "Proximity to highway infrastructure is a frequently cited form of environmental burden that affects many Romani settlements in France." If it's "frequently cited", please cite the sources that cite it. The source of the image which you uploaded) does not say anything of the sort. Moreover, you have no permission to upload that file, which makes it a copyright violation. This will be addressed on Commons shortly (no fair use on Commons).
  5. The article uses excessive quotes from sources who have not been established to be authorative on the subject.
  6. The article only represents a single POV, disregarding others (case in point, the Calais Jungle and various illegal (not 'informal', illegal) Roma settlements.
  7. The attitude you are displaying here seems to be one of ownership of the article. You have not adressed a single concern I have raised, but have tried to intimidate me (templating, casting aspersions, etc). This is a serious issue.
  8. Talk-pages of other pages are not sources, though the 'indigenous'-bit is only a minute part of the problems I have with this article.
  9. Tone policing and referring to other discussions are not substitutes for actual arguments. In the above I find no arguments, no sources, and no rationale whatsoever. You are, of course, free to call in whatever 'second opinion' you want, but make sure that 'second opinion' addresses WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:OWN.
Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution will soon be underway. Other editors will be involved. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No arguments? Not addressing a single point, above? I'm disappointed. Kleuske (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Third Opinion dispute resolution submitted. This will allow for an independent party to provide input in a neutral way. The following is a copy of the notification on Third Opinion, which can be found under "Active disagreements":
Kleuske and Sturgeontransformer disagree on whether the Arctic and Subarctic Europe (Sápmi) section of Environmental racism in Europe should be removed, and they disagree on claims of inherent bias regarding the entire article. 15:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
There's a list of points above, which is much wider than the constrained representation offered by User:Sturgeontransformer, here. Specifically I contend the article is a WP:COATRACK, contains WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, is written tendentiously (i.e. far from having a WP:NPOV), that none of the sources mentioned say anything about environmental racism (WP:V/WP:RS), that excessive and selective quotes are used and that image captions made claims which are not supported by the sources of those images, i.e. that it is mainly the opinion of the author(s) of those captions. So far, no actual response has been forthcoming. For some reason Jordan Peterson was brought up, though. Kleuske (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, I will go through my edits and explain
  1. removing 'see also' Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll. The Bimini Atoll isn't in Europe, tests were conducted by the USA, so it's completely unrelated to the subject at hand
  2. Pointing out Pointing out that (despite UN definitions) Frisians, Bavarians and Catalans are indigenous to Europe. (this is actually a very minor point)
  3. removed a section from the lede which is sourced to studies on "Indigenous Peoples of North America" and "Indigenous Mobilization and Environmental Justice in Canada’s Chemical Valley". This is actually quite serious, since neither of the articles even mention Europe.
  4. The Calais Jungle was illegal and occupants had offers for alternative housing, which were refused. Mentioning that in an article on environmental racism is ludicrous at best and dishonest at worst. Even if it was built on a "former toxic waste dump" as was alleged.
  5. Image captions making claims
  6. removing an image because the caption is flatly contradicted by the image description on Commons.
  7. Calais jungle, once more.
  8. Romani camp near St. Denis, which was erected illegally. Giving this as an example of environmental racism is, again, ludicrous at best and flat-out dishonest at worst.
  9. Ditto
  10. Editorializing, claims of racism made, but not substantiated.
  11. Coatrack removed, since after a lengthy introduction on the Saami many conflicts and disagreements were mentioned but no actual environmental racism was claimed anywhere. Hence WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK.
Kleuske (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me add that my problems with this article by no means end there. This is just the batch I addressed first. Kleuske (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there,
Let's avoid long words like "tendentious" (I have no idea what that means!) and excessive ] links and stay focused on the points, shall we? Also, just to keep it orderly, let's stop editing the article for a day or two until we sort all of this out. Can we do that? Thanks!
I'll continue with the enumeration Kleuske used above, but first a somewhat obvious note: The issues of legality and justice are separate, and the a lack in the first should not preclude us from writing about the second.
  1. I don't think it's improper to use "environmental racism" if the sources use "environmental injustice", but it can be inaccurate if the sources don't mention race or ethnicity at all; however it doesn't necessarily preclude it from being used here. I think this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
  2. I'm not sure what mentions of mining etc. are being referred to here. Please use {{tq}}.
  3. 157 sources for an article of this length isn't bad, and their spread (from just a few glances) seems about average. Nevertheless, sourcing is easy to improve - just add qualified sources.
  4. Captions don't have to be sourced if they recur in the article body and are sourced there, which seems the case here. As for the photo - photos can be illustrative and their caption needn't match the original as long as it is correct.
  5. Again, please be specific, and better yet: Open a new thread.
  6. You're free to modify the article as you see fit, pending sources.
  7. -
  8. I agree that discussions shouldn't be repeated. It's tedious for experienced editors to repeat the same argument over and over, so they tend to avoid it when they can. If you're directed to an archived page where consensus has already been reached, please read the discussion first; if you have something to add on top of that argument, or if you feel the situation changed enough that it merits a renewed discussion, then reopen it. Otherwise try to keep it DRY.
  9. -
  10. -
second batch, break inserted to keep numbering in sync. Kleuske (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. Sturgeontransformer What's the relevance of the Bikini Atoll tests to this?
  2. I believe this was mentioned to discern them from the migratory and immigrant communities mentioned earlier in the sentence.
  3. The sources' names aren't a problem. What do the sources' texts say?
  4. I don't see any problem there. You can add mentions of alternative housing and legality where proper, keeping in mind this is a review article, so they must be concise.
  5. See above on image captions.
  6. Commons only mention a location. Where's the contradiction?
  7. -
  8. See above on legality.
  9. "Informal" can be dropped altogether, hence making any POV concerns redundant.
  10. Some of these can be made shorter and more concise.
  11. Glancing over the removed material, it indeed does not seem to constitute racism. Inequality, class warfare, civil rights abuse - yes; but not overt racism. If this is to be included in this article, the article must be renamed and its focus clarified here, as well as in the body. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories: