Talk:Environmental injustice in Europe

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Welcome!

Welcome to the Environmental racism in Europe talk page! Please ensure that all edits follow Wikipedia'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:

• Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality
• Talk:Indigenous peoples

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: discovering areas I was barely familiar with (not just literal geographic areas), and having my interest piqued into researching. Wikipedia 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! Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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:

• policies and guidelines
• unconstructive
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality
• Talk:Indigenous peoples

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 [[WP:]] 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)

The main problem I have, and that's a very big problem I have, is that lumping together a large amount of social, cultural and legal issues, problems, concerns and whatever with disputes over mines, dams and hunting rights, etc/ under the very loaded term 'environmental racism' and not citing a single source that actually alleges 'environmental racism' is a problem. It's a problem because it's a coatrack and the only reason we have to assume it's 'environmental racism' is the article's sayso. That contravenes the principle of verifiability and using loaded language without backing that up with sources,

"Let's avoid long words like "tendentious" (I have no idea what that means!) and excessive [[WP:]] links and stay focused on the points, shall we?"

Ok. Lemme explain the big words here:

WP:COATRACK: The article is a huge variety of unrelated disputes, issues, plans, pollution, protests, and what not, laced with problems Romani have all over Europe, collected under the title environmental racism, which is supported by not a single source claiming this, that or the other is an example of environmental racism.

WP:NPOV: The article uses loaded language and fails to back it up with reliable sources.

WP:V: If you cite an issue as an example of environmental racism, policy requires a source stating "this is an example of environmental racism".

WP:RS: It's not the number of sources that matters, it's the quality of those sources and of course, they should actually support the claims made.

WP:OR: The article cites all these different issues as examples of environmental racism without citing an actual source that calls it that, expecting the reader to accept what the article says, because the author(s) thought so. Saying "environmental injustice" is the same as "environmental racism" without providing a source that says it is, is also an example of original research.

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: I haven't yet brought it up, but it may be worth reading, since the article positively reeks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

If you want, we can dissect this thing on a per country basis, one a day. since pretty much none of it, as far as I can ascertain, is adequately sourced. If you think sourcing it isn't a problem, by any means, knock yourself out. Kleuske (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Kleuske that all of these are problems with the current article. There is a massive amount of content currently in the article that should be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi François Robere,

Thank you for the Third Opinion. I appreciate your taking the time to help clarify these questions. In turn, I will attempt to provide a detailed articulation of my perspectives regarding this article.

The article needs a substantial amount of work, and I welcome more editors to help improve it. Kleuske’s edits were not vandalism; this stated, civil editing and communication is extremely important.

As mentioned previously, I am very open to a potential name change for the article. “Environmental issues and race in Europe” could be a more neutral and accurate title, if community consensus supported the change. “Environmental justice / inequality issues in Europe” is another option, which would further widen the scope of the article to include class-based issues that do not necessarily involve race or ethnicity. If it came to a vote, I would probably be in favor of a name change, barring a convincing argument from other editors.

“Environmental racism” and “environmental justice / injustice” are problematic terms. What is just, unjust, or racist will often be contested. The above terms do have an established presence in both academic and popular discourse. The article performs two functions. First, it summarizes theory regarding environmental racism / injustice, with a focus on Europe and issues that are unique to the continent. Second, the article compiles cases where race or ethnicity is identified in the same context as environmental issues and social exclusion together. When possible, the article includes context surrounding the history of each respective documented case. The possibility of establishing a list-type article to house this information is also a consideration.

Nearly all of the sources used in this article (182 in total, if counting the sections removed) specifically reference race or ethnicity, and likewise, the vast majority reference specific environmental issues. Several of the sources do explicitly refer to the term “environmental racism.”

These sources are listed below. Some of these sources (and additional sources listed for other related terminology) may have been lost in the recent content removals. I have listed sources by name and publishing information to ensure that they can be researched as easily as possible without having to search them down in the article. Several of these sources also use the terms “environmental injustice / environmental justice” as well.

• See page 9, 51: Steger, Tamara et al. eds. Making the Case for Environmental Justice in Central & Eastern Europe. Archived October 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Budapest: CEU Center for Environmental Policy and Law, The Central European University; The Health and Environment Alliance; and The Coalition for Environmental Justice, March 2007. pp. 1–57. Web. April 10, 2016.

• See page 253: Harper, Krista; Steger, Tamara; Filčák, Richard (2009). “Environmental Justice and Roma Communities in Central and Eastern Europe”. Environmental Policy and Governance Env. Pol. Gov. Wiley InterScience. 19: 251–268. doi:10.1002/eet.511.

• Vincze, Enikő (2013). “Urban Landfill, Economic Restructuring and Environmental Racism”. Philobiblon: Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities. Cluj, Romania: Babes-Bolyai University. XVIII (2): 389–405.

• See page 74-75: Orta, Lucy; et al., eds. (2010). Mapping the Invisible: EURoma Gypsies. London, UK: Black Dog Publishing.

• See page 238-9: Pellow, David Naguib (2007). Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

• Rodrigues, Peter and Matelski, Maaike. Monitor racism and the extreme right: Roma and Sinti. Archived July 29, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Anne Frank House / Leiden University: Amsterdam, 2004. Print. p. 40

The term “environmental discrimination” is mentioned in one source:

• See page 5: Filčák, Richard. Living Beyond the Pale: Environmental Justice and the Roma Minority. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2012. Project MUSE. p. 5-163. Web. April 8, 2016.

Other sources reference “environmental justice / injustice.” These sources include:

• Babourkova, Rosalina (6 October 2010). “The environmental justice implications of utility privatization: the case of the electricity supply in Bulgaria’s Roma settlements”. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development. Taylor & Francis. 2 (1): 24–44. doi:10.1080/19463138.2010.511029.

• Wiebe, Sarah Marie. Everyday Exposure: Indigenous Mobilization and Environmental Justice in Canada’s Chemical Valley. UBC Press: Vancouver, 2016. Print. ISBN:9780774832649 (https://www.ubc press.ca/everyday-exposure)

• Laurian, Lucie. "Environmental Injustice in France.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Archived June 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. 51:1, 55–79. 2008. Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Web. Retrieved April 10, 2016.

• Filčák, Richard. Living Beyond the Pale: Environmental Justice and the Roma Minority. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2012. Project MUSE. p. 5-163. Web. April 8, 2016.

• Hoover, Plain, Sanchez, et al. "Indigenous Peoples of North America: Environmental Exposures and Environmental Justice.” Environmental Health Perspectives, December 2012, vol. 120, issue 12. Web. n. pag. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1205422 Archived June 29, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved September 3, 2017.

• Spiric, Jovanka (May 5, 2015). “Pollution from the Topilnica smelter, Veles, Macedonia”. Environmental Justice Atlas. Retrieved June 15, 2016. Archived June 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine.

• Donhahoe, Brian. “The Law as a Source of Environmental Injustice in the Russian Federation.” Agyeman, Julian and Ogneva Himmelberger, Yelena et al, eds. Environmental Justice and Sustainability in the Former Soviet Union. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2009. Print. ISBN 9780262260305

The other sources that do not explicitly mention “racism,” “environmental racism,” “environmental justice,” or “environmental injustice” do refer directly to either race or ethnicity. In these articles, the cases referenced are generally described as “X” minority ethnicity is in a context of experiencing “X” environmental issue.

One source does not address specific case studies of environmental inequality. It examines land rights issues involving Indigenous and Romani communities, which is relevant to understanding the legal implications of environmental inequality / racism:

• Klímová-Alexander, Ilona (September 25, 2007). “Transnational Romani and Indigenous Non-territorial Self-determination Claims”. Ethnopolitics. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 6 (3): 395–416. doi:10.1080/17449050701487413.

Another source does not refer to the above terms explicitly, however, the primary focus of the report is to examine the correlation between ethnicity and air pollution in the UK; the report is described as a “Racial Equality Impact Assessment”:

• UK Government. "UK notification to the European Commission to extend the compliance deadline for meeting PM₁₀ limit values in ambient air to 2011—Racial Equality Impact Assessment (England). Archived July 10, 2011, at the Wayback Machine..” The ENDS Report. UK Government, August 2009. p. 1-15. Web. April 10, 2016.

With regards to assessing each scenario on a case-by-case basis, the effort should be aided by detailed referencing and archiving of sources. The vast majority of the sources have been archived using the Wayback Machine. Of the few articles that are not archived due to robots txt. issues, most are located in relatively stable locations (such as government agencies) with detailed source information included in the article.

With regards to the sections removed concerning the Arctic regions of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, the main sources almost exclusively concern the effects of industrial developments on Sami people as a distinct ethnic group, and how certain developments arguably impact them disproportionately. I would therefore disagree that this is not a racial issue, or a primarily civil rights issue.

Several of these sources delve particularly in-depth documenting the history of racism towards Sami, drawing direct links between anti-Sami government policies, current environmental degradation of their historical territories, and how the latter issue affects their collective health and cultural identity. The following sources argue explicit links between anti-Sami discrimination and environmental issues:

• Sametinget (Swedish Sami Parliament) (2014). “Minerals and Mines in Sápmi: The Viewpoint of the Swedish Sami Parliament”. Appendix 2, Preparatory Report from the Sami Parliament in Sweden/Sámediggi/Sámedigge/Saemiedigkie/Sametinget for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, prior to her 2015 August visit to Sápmi and Sweden. Sami Parliament in Sweden/Sámediggi/Sámedigge/Saemiedigkie/Sametinget. pp. 2–14. Retrieved July 10, 2016. Archived October 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.

• Bowers, India Reed (August 2015). “Preparatory Report from the Sami Parliament in Sweden/Sámediggi/Sámedigge/Saemiedigkie/Sametinget for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, prior to her 2015 August visit to Sápmi and Sweden” (Report). Sami Parliament in Sweden/Sámediggi/Sámedigge/Saemiedigkie/Sametinget. pp. 1–36. Retrieved July 10, 2016. Archived October 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.

• Briggs, Chad M. ["Science, local knowledge, and exclusionary practices: Lessons from the Alta Dam case."] Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography, 2006. 60:2, 149–160. Published online February 18, 2007. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Web. April 10, 2016. doi:10.1080/00291950600723146

• Kuokkanen, Rauna & Bulmer, Marja K (2006). “Suttesája: From a Sacred Sami Site and Natural Spring to a Water Bottling Plant? The Effects of Colonization in Northern Europe”. In Washington, Sylvia Hood; Rosier, Paul C. & Goodall, Heather. Echoes from the Poisoned Well: Global Memories of Environmental Injustice. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books.

• Civil Rights Defenders, Sweden (June 13, 2014). “Joint submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review of SWEDEN: 21st Session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council, January/February 2015” (PDF). Civil Rights Defenders. pp. 1–17. Retrieved July 10, 2016. Archived October 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. [133] Madslien, Jorn.

Two paragraphs from the lead section were also removed. These paragraphs helped provide context, especially with regards to introducing, comparing, and contrasting the relation between racism and environmental inequalities in the European Arctic with similar inequalities found in the rest of Europe. Without these paragraphs, the cohesiveness of the rest of the article is weakened, as they helped explain why the issue of environmental racism / injustice / inequality is relevant to a European legal, political, and social context.

Two of the images in the article were sourced from CC-BY 3.0 YouTube content that was removed before Wikipedia verified the licensing. I have added a dead link tag to the source, and deletion is likely. Other images are still awaiting verification.

The rationale for keeping the Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll link is the same for other links such as the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Ontario Minamata disease, and Uranium mining and the Navajo people. The rationale is that since these cases concern subject matter involving racialized groups who are disproportionately affected by environmental issues, they help give additional context to the article subject matter on a global scale.

With regards to overall neutrality, this article would benefit from more input involving editors from diverse aspects of the political spectrum. I have specifically made an effort to highlight the social and economic benefits of certain controversial industrial projects, and to openly address the role of racialized individuals in worsening or perpetuating existing social tensions (for example, garbage, violence, internal corruption, failure to obey laws, and other antisocial behavior). Nonetheless, neutrality requires more voices.

Acknowledging the predominantly liberal views of many of the sources used for this article (and my own personal views, which I try to be self-aware of) I would strongly support inviting Wikipedia editors who self-identify as politically conservative or right-leaning to provide assessment and suggestions regarding neutrality of this article. Their input could potentially be extremely valuable in helping this article achieve greater neutrality. Further, this fits into the broader argument of addressing neutrality issues through adding new perspectives, rather than removing them.

I will not edit the article for an extended period of time. This is to give other editors more space to have a voice if they would like to take on an active role in the improvement of this article. I will also not be posting further on the talk page during this time unless specifically requested to do so from third party editors. I will not reinstate any of the removed content; at this point, having presented my rationale, I think that decision should rest entirely within the consensus of other editors.

Sincerely, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske lumping together a large amount of social, cultural and legal issues The article is meant to do that - it's a list-type article, so one can expect it to be broad and varied, rather than in-depth. And that shouldn't be a problem as long as all of the listings are indeed cases of environmental racism. And that can be checked (and here is a good place as any to recall, as Sturgeontransformer notes, that "environmental justice" and its derivatives are recurring terms in the literature, so the article on its own has merit). Two things here can be corrected fairly easily: First, what do you think about changing the article's name to something along the lines Sturgeontransformer suggest? That would solve several of the terminology issues you raised. Second, Sturgeontransformer what do you think about moving the Roma to their own "cross-European" or "trans-European" section? Their problems insofar as this article is concerned tend to recur across Europe, and it could make both the article as well as the discussion somewhat clearer.

By the way, I should note I don't think it's necessary for a source to use the exact terminology we use in an article (eg. "environmental injustice"), as long as the content justifies it (eg. "members of the... group have been discriminated against in allocation of land since the 1950's").

I don't like coatracks. Silly pieces of furniture, just taking up space. But I don't think this is it. Otherwise thank you elaborating.

I suggest waiting on this just a bit. It may be better to agree on the sources first.

Sturgeontransformer This is a list-type article, given that it dissects the subject along geographic lines (not a "List of..."-kind article, but still a list). I think some sections could be made shorter, with less context, relying on the relevant articles to provide it.

In [articles that do not explicitly reference "environmental injustice" and its derivative], the cases referenced are generally described as “X” minority ethnicity is in a context of experiencing “X” environmental issue. The definition of "discrimination" would be "that other groups aren't or wouldn't have been subjected to the same treatment", so these sources have to show that: a) Majority groups (or parts thereof) are not experiencing “X”; and b) Were they to experience it or a similar phenomenon they would've been treated differently by society/authorities etc. If source establish these two, there shouldn't be any problem including it.

Overall this article seems carefully sourced, but we'll have to see some of the specific examples Kleuske brings.

You may want to have a separate introductory section and concentrate all the background material there, making the lead more concise.

I would elaborate on some of the "see also" links to clarify the connections to this article.

With regards to overall neutrality, this article would benefit from more input involving editors from diverse aspects of the political spectrum... neutrality requires more voices. Kudos.

François Robere (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Grahams hierarchy of Disagreement

@François Robere: First off, I consider the "list-type article" a red herring, since "list-type articles" have a proper definition and delineation, that is, a clear reason to include X but not Y. This is lacking completely. They also carry titles such as "List of This, That and the Other" instead of "Environmental racism in Europe" (note the loaded language) with inclusion criteria that are anybodies guess. Also the MOS does have a section on lists, but not on "list style articles", so your "list style article" boils down to a WP:COATRACK, which is a bad thing(tm). If the sources cited do not specify "environmental racism", they cannot be cited to support examples of "environmental racism" without failing WP:OR, which is a core policy.

Secondly, the article is anything but "carefully sourced", since earlier (below) I poked holes in a source used to support 40 claims (i.e. it's less than a reliable source) and I did not even have to dig that deep to do it. By "poking holes" i mean, provided evidence the claims made are unsupported by reality. The Wuppertal cellphone transmission towers (see below) took the biscuit as being flat-out ludicrous and nevertheless it's uncritically reproduced in the article. Your stating it's "carefully sourced" does not make it so. In Grahams hierarchy of disagreement, your at the "contradiction" level.

Also:

1. I have made this a project, so I will be looking at this article regularly, since it takes quite a bit of time going through sources.
2. To provide some structure to the discussion, I will discuss my actions (and provide reasons) below on a per country basis. If you object, please add to the appropriate section.
3. Please refrain from cute remarks about coatrack being nasty pieces of furniture, since it does not anything to the discussion and I do not find it amusing.

Kleuske (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske You're a very serious person, aren't you? Well, some lightheartedness will do you no harm. Here's some for everyone.

Re: Lists: The intention wasn't to conform to a particular category of articles on Wikipedia (see my note to Sturgeontransformer on that), but it's certainly not a decoy article (what you call a "coatrack") in any way; it tries to stay on topic, from what I can see, even if it's sometimes too and definitely in need of further editing.

What I stated, to be precise, is that overall it seems carefully sourced. Do not aim your ire at that; soon enough we'll get to your specific notes and see.

Try not to tear into it too much too soon. Someone has made a significant effort putting it all together, and I don't believe it was done with any ill intention. François Robere (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Do not assume ignorance on the part of others; Graham's hierarchy is nothing new, and neither are Wiki policies. One can be a better or a worse editor, but the truly ignorant ones are still a minority. François Robere (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Again, contradiction is not an argument and neither is nitpicking semantics. You have not addressed a single point and right now, you're only wasting time and energy. I look forward to an actual point if and when you choose to make one. If you do, do so below and you can address specific points. Kleuske (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a battle, Kleuske, don't be so bellicose. Re-read what I wrote above, you'll see both a question directed at you, as well as myself suggesting on several occasions going through the motions one by one, with time. In the meanwhile try and be patient, and assume good faith. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow... Complaining about the tone. You actually went down a notch in the hierarchy you're so familiar with. State the question (I'm not going to hunt for it) or stop wasting my time. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Ok. Lets start with number one... Making the Case for Environmental Justice in Central & Eastern Europe. The paper does mention the term, does not, however, use it to describe the actual situation. The article is heavily used (40 claims are sourced to this article alone, which is a red flag in and of itself)

• The study limits itself to Central and Eastern Europe, but is used to support statements like "The United Kingdom Department of Health supported a 2004 study that identified Romani and Travellers as being subject to disproportionate health needs compared to other ethnic minority groups in the UK, yet receiving substantially less health services." (references am and an) The only mention of the UK, however, is a (unsourced) claim that "A high percentage of Gypsy and Traveller communities in the United Kingdom (UK) are located in areas that are fully unsuitable for living and raising families."
• Sourced by the same article: "In the Romani settlement of Prilep in Macedonia, there is no working sewage system." (reference ad) which is based on a (unreferenced) blurb in the source. Nevertheless, when checking this out I find a different story in the "Roma Times", which does not include any such graphic detail and instead mentions improvements. It does not mention lack of sewage, nor does it use the (loaded) term "ghetto". Another source ("Romaso Prilep") talks about a number of problems, but strangely does not mention any issues with sewage, which, if the graphic description in the source would be accurate, would have been a major problem. Yet another publication (/08/legalising-roma-homes-prilep-macedonia/ Legalising Roma Homes in Prilep, Macedonia) Also fails to mention any feces dripping from the walls or indeed, any sewage at all. It does mention, though, that the settlement is an illegal one, something the Wikipedia-article, strangely, fails to note.
• Another claim sourced by this document "Another example of environmental discrimination can be found in Wuppertal, where a series of cellphone transmission towers are situated on the roofs of schools where the majority of students are immigrants." The (source) article however, fails to cite any sources to support this claim, and we're left with Dr. Stegers sayso. It is reproduced almost verbatim in the Wikipedia article despite much evidence pointing out that Cell-phone towers doe not actually pose any risk.(cancer.org, etc. A look at the bundesnetzagentur map shows an even distribution of cellphone towers.
• Ostrava. The Wikipedia article states: "In Ostrava, Romani communities have been residing in living accommodations situated on top of an abandoned mine where methane gas exposure and subsidence are serious concerns.[1]:21 Ostrava has one of the largest Romani communities in the Czech Republic." The actual article, however, fails to mention mines or methane gas. The fact that middle class people move to better neighbourhoods is a) hardly surprizing and b) hardly evidence for "environmental racism".

Etc. Since it's Sunday and I have other obligations, I will leave it at this for now. This is only *one* source which has been a) severely overused and b) not shown to be authoritative (hardly ever cited). It also makes claims which are contradicted by other sources. The Wikipedia article makes claims its source does not, which is worse. This is a serious problem if 40 claims are based on that single document. Kleuske (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Countries

After reading the above wall of citations (copied from the article) it seems more appropriate to proceed on a country by country basis. Of course, comments are welcome.

Latvia

The article states: "A large part of [the group of Romani persons interviewed] live in run-down apartments without amenities or running water inside; many of these apartments do not have central heating and are heated with wood, while in some instances the nearest water source is two kilometres away.[8]:32" It fails to mention the following line:

"All interviewees unanimously stressed the poor Roma housing conditions which are mostly due to the fact that Roma are unemployed." (p. 32) Also "A respondent of the Roma NGO Nevo Drom pointed out in the interview: ‘As far as I can see, the housing conditions in Latvia in comparison to other EU countries are the best. In Latvia, Roma people live in their own houses or private apartments, but also together with other ethnic groups. They are not excluded in this sense. There are so-called Roma districts, but they are not segregated, but are created out of their own choice.’" (p 32)

That's called "quotemining", i.e. not accurately summarizing the source, but cherrypicking it to make a point. The document identifies none of the issues adressed as "environmental racism" or "environmental injustice". Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Netherlands

A single source. The publication flat-out states that there are little to no complaints by Roma or Sinti and the "research" is done by interviewing other researchers and advocates (methodology).

"In one case, a Romani camp was identified as being located within the blasting zone of an explosives factory, a situation that Rodrigues and Matelski have explicitly identified as "environmental racism".

The glaring problem here is that there are no explosives factories in the Netherlands. There used to be one, (Muiden Chemie), but that went out of business and was closed down when the report (2004) and its alleged source (2003) were published. The citation in the source is dismal: "Noordhollands Dagblad 20 November 2003" (sic). The claim is impossible to check and without a secondary source, no more than a claim c.q. an opinion. Again: WP:RS? Also, other sources state the blast zone was also inhabited by locals.

Most remarkable is the sources mention of an expulsion in Houten (near Utrecht) in 2002 and the subsequent "revolving door". Some research indicates that the family involved was expelled because they caused lots of problems, such as fraud, public drunkenness, domestic violence, intimidation and were payed compensation of270.000 euro and got housed in a fucking villa.([1], [2],[3]). Again, WP:RS or a bit WP:BIASED? In my estimation it's presenting an opinion as fact.

The simple problem, of course is that a nomadic lifestyle is impossible in a densely populated, small country in which every square inch is spoken for. Do Romani have problems? Yes. Is the conclusion "environmental racism" warrented? Hell, no. Kleuske (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Belgium

The only complaints for which the Belgian equality body (CEOOR) was contacted were related to cases of imminent evictions from illegal halting sites or, in the case of Roma, from insalubrious houses. No complaints led to court cases as they were all resolved through mediation or political debate. Nor were there cases of blatant racism or discrimination towards Roma or Travellers.

— RAXEN, Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers March 2009

".

The article states: "In the Brussels Capital-Region of Belgium, municipal governments have placed disproportionate numbers of encampment sites for nomadic Romani in locations which are isolated, poorly serviced by amenities, and environmentally problematic in nature." (p. 1-69, i.e. the entire document), but, strangely, the source mentions no such thing. It does mention that encampments are not usually in prime locations, but that does not equate to the claims made in the article, let alone "environmental racism". WP:OR, anyone? The esteemed author(s) of the Wikipedia article seem to have drawn their own conclusions, which is unacceptable. Kleuske (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Again... Tiny, densely populated countries are not suitable to a nomadic lifestyle. That's not "racism", that's a fact of life. Other people live there, too. Kleuske (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Germany

The intro for this section is poisoning the well right from the start.

Kalk, Cologne

A refugee camp on the site of a former chemical factory (i.e. not just Roma). The terrain located in the city center (OpenStreetMap) and is inhabited by (mostly) Germans. At least a few sources can confirm some basic facts, the existence of a camp and problems resulting from it. However, the picture that arises is not one of "environmental racism". Needless to say, the term "environmental racism" isn't used in any of the sources.

• Köln setzt bei Flüchtlingen auf Abschreckung "Sozialistische Zeitung, April 2002, Seite 7"
• [4] Zur Lage von Kindern aus Roma-Familien in Deutschland
• Roma-Flüchtlinge besetzten Wohnungsamt
• Köln - ein Zentrum der Roma-Flüchtlinge in Deutschland "Tausende von Angehörigen der Sinti und Roma zieht es Jahr für Jahr nach Köln. Die Aufnahmefähigkeit der Stadt ist aber nur begrenzt. Die Rheinmetropole versucht, mit verschiedenen Massnahmen die Entwicklung zu steuern. In letzter Zeit hat es seitens der Roma dagegen immer wieder Proteste gegeben." (Thousands of Sinti and Roma travel to Cologne every year. The capacity f the city to accomodate them, however, is limited. The city tries to control the influx using several measures, which has recently resulted in various protests). Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)