Jump to content

Talk:Environmental racism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zxp09 (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 3 April 2019 (Update Culture, Medicine, and Gender assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Spock of Vulcan, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 February 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Template:WAP assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smaurer9844 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Conchaqueen (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ami Bear (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Prisci8 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hoopsf, Spaul57. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Student17781 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaxeni, Zxp09 (article contribs).


The page is too long

The tag "Too Long" has been there awhile, so I was looking over it, and I'm going to suggest that the "Cases" section (Under the United States section) be shortened down into a summary of what's going on in general around the US, instead of listing every single case individually in great detail. Maybe the info should be moved somewhere else, maybe to the location's article, possibly? Maxis45 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Cases" section should be shortened and much of the content be moved elsewhere. I also think a lot of the material in the article generally is redundant with the Environmental Justice article, which sort of erases the distinction between the two. (EJ being broader/all-encompassing, ER being more its radical, race-specific cousin. Racism also being the problem, and EJ being the attempts to solve it.) Dhanyok (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is value in acknowledging the specificity between environmental justice and environmental racism. Environmental justice can be a very expansive subject, and is perhaps best viewed as a general concept from which further sub-issues can be studied and written about in greater detail. I disagree with the characterization of environmental racism as being more "radical" than environmental justice. It is simply an identification of racism within an environmental context, or of environmental injustice within a racialized context. It's a specific form of environmental injustice, but not necessarily any more radical than other forms of environmental injustice (such as, but not limited to) class-based environmental injustice (which is often non-racial), or forms of environmental justice that do not necessarily discriminate between specific groups of people (aka pollutants that affect all persons equally), or to humans at all (aka justice concerning animals or ecology exclusively - for example, recent legislation in New Zealand, India, or Equador granting geographical features specific individual rights).
I do feel that further research and expansion for the Wikipedia article on environmental justice would be beneficial, specifically with regards to expanding the article to include non-discriminatory issues of environmental justice (I may work on this in future). Meanwhile, writing on the subject of the various sub-groups of environmental justice (such as environmental racism) allows for a greater focus on clarity and depth.
One thought I do have, though: terms such as "environmental justice" or "environmental racism" are either positive or negative by default -- the opposite of environmental justice is environmental injustice, and environmental racism is environmental (non) racism? Perhaps more neutral article titles such as "environment and justice" or "environment and race" would be worth considering. This stated, environmental justice and environmental racism are widely used terms, so any breaking up of their structure in the name of neutrality may cause definition related issues. That stated, I wouldn't be opposed to article titles such as "Environment and race in Europe" or "Environment and race" with a disambiguation link from environmental racism or environmental racism in Europe. Fundamentally, the content (which is supposed to be neutral anyways) wouldn't be any different; the title would just be more neutral. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest maybe also cutting the first paragraph of the article into two, to make the reader's experience easier. WegK (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International section needs work

Without sources that refer to these incidents as environmental racism, it ends up looking like original research. I think it's a good section, but it should be shorter, go over general trends rather than specific cases, and most importantly it should cite authorities who talk about these things in terms of environmental racism, rather than just attributing events to environmental racism on its own. Dhanyok (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to have specific cases, although it would be longer, it helps explain the impact that environmental racism has on different communities or cities.

Najmapearl (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Najmapearl[reply]

Definition and Bias

The definition used in this article is clearly just an opinion and not actually based on objective facts. There is real environmental racism such as pushes for "carbon credits" and other "climate change solutions" which all basically prevent poor non-whites from industrializing and creating wealth. You could really just call "carbon credit" schemes environmental slavery (or tribute) since you're pretty much forcing non-whites to give up their countries to white and Asian corporations.


But then again, the bias of the writers of this article is so thick that they will literally call a clear and blatant political plan to cripple non-white development a form of post-racism while at the same time claiming that population control, economic sabotage, and forced foreign domination of African countries by western countries/corporations - all of which having the predictable outcomes of failing like every other "assistance" rendered since 1860s - are in the best interest of non-white population(i.e. "ive got mine and i'll be dammed if you get the scraps")


Blank the article and re-write it. NPOV is being violated by having such a pitiful piece of racist propaganda. Heck, I bet if this was writen with a british point of view, you wouldn't be complaining about bias in the header.63.152.103.93 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of the article, it lists no source for the definition on environmental racism, which could be included earlier on in the article rather than in a different section. WegK (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the "Background" section, in the first sentence it uses the word "futile" to describe a historical event, which could possibly be seen as bias. WegK (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

new editor to the page

I'm new to Wikipedia and in school, I'm really excited about this project we're doing have a couple of ideas about editing the article and would love feedback or thoughts on some of my editing idea.NordicNasty913 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States examples

Thinking of ways to exchange some of the older examples with some more recent ones such as the Flint Michigan Water Crisis or Dakota Access Pipeline , would provide visitors of the page with background knowledge they have heard about before and connect them better to the topic.NordicNasty913 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A recent example of environmental racism is the impact of Hurricane Harvey on neighborhoods of color in Houston, Texas. There are other examples of environmental racism in Houston (air pollution, placement of toxic waste facilities). I hope that more attention can be drawn towards these cases by creating a page for "Environmental justice and racism in Houston, Texas". Prisci8 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in seeing my proposal for editing the Environmental Racism page as a whole, please check out my Sandbox, where I go into great detail as to my proposed edits! Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns! Prisci8 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made most of my edits to the article - please let me know if there are any mistakes/concerns you have! I changed the article to reflect a worldwide view of environmental racism by separating the cases by continent instead of US and International. I have not yet added Houston as a case, but will hopefully get to it soon! Prisci8 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dickson, Tennessee

Plan to delete case from Dickson, Tennessee. It seems to focus more on a particular family instead of an effected area. This would shorten the section on cases from the United States which was brought up earlier.NordicNasty913 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

There is not enough information on lawsuits for it to have it's own section. Seems to fit more in the cases section above instead of having its own section.NordicNasty913 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Michigan

Added a case for Flint's water crisis. Very recent example of environmental racism which many will have at least some background knowledge about.NordicNasty913 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please specify which case is added to the Flint Crisis that would be an example of environmental racism.

Najmapearl (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Najmapearl[reply]

Nigeria, Shell Oil Company

Adding a case from Nigeria on how Shell Oil company has helped cause economic racism in the Niger Delta region.NordicNasty913 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Environmental racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and Lack of Citations

The lack of citations starts in the very first paragraph and shows that the definition is simply an opinion rather than a fact. This is a rather weak way to start an article because it brings the reliability of the information into question and makes the article not seem neutral to the reader. Throughout the rest of the article there is a lack of citations and citations that no longer work, therefore each fact is not followed by an appropriate, reliable reference. This issue leads to the problem of bias in the writing of the article. Without sources the content must be opinions and opinions are inherently biased. Although this is a strong, informational article, it serves more as an opinion essay, rather than an unbiased page of facts. This issue can be solved by adding citations and sources and referencing different opinions to show all sides of the issue. This will lead to an unbiased and very informative article on environmental racism. Ajensen3 (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require citations in the lead paragraph, because the lead paragraph is a summary of the rest of the article and all information found in the lead should be cited in the body of the article. If there are statements in the article's body that are opinionated or non cited, you can point them out by using the tag <nowiki>[citation needed]</ref>.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, the first sentence could use a citation. WegK (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses disregard and minimize the power of the communities effected

Although there is some recognition of moves the effected communities can make in order to battle large corporations for environmental justice, there is also some missing information on the large amounts of help from outside organizations that there communities will need in order to be successful in getting what they want. For example, help from groups like the Bucket Brigade will allow for effected communities to gather the evidence of toxic chemicals that are being released by large industries. https://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Environmental-Louisianas-Industrial-Environments/dp/0262622041 Jade Everage 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeeverage (talk • contribs)

Louisiana's Chemical Corridor

This section could use a re-write due to neutrality issues, grammar, and style of writing. This section could also be significantly expanded, and would benefit from the use of additional sources. I would normally be happy to work on this, but currently have limited time to do so right now. In the meantime, I will insert a link to the Cancer Alley page (which could also be significantly expanded upon).Sturgeontransformer (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Language

In the third paragraph of the Background section, the second sentence could be changed to "This paper provided evidence that suggested that race...", to prevent bias.WegK (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increased Evidence for Flint, Michigan

New evidence of the case for Flint, Michigan has been added regarding Environmental Racism with regards to city falsely telling the city that they've tested the water with false documents when they have not. With the use of this evidence try not to sound bias since this piece of evidence is one that is supportive of a certain side regarding Environmental Racism.

Najmapearl (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Najmapearl[reply]

Legislation/ Cases Section

It seems to be more appropriate for the cases section to be a subset of the cases section because legislation and cases both have to do with the politics area of environmental racism.

Najmapearl (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Najmapearl[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

The headings get a bit confusing after the "International" heading. The ones that follow are "Responses", "Studies", "Legislation", and "Cost-benefit analysis and policy implications." I think that the article flows well in terms of organization up until this point. I think maybe some of these sections could be merged together such as the last two headings. The article also might benefit from more pictures to really show what damage the author(s) are discussing. HannahRothback (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the organization of the Headings are confusing, and that there is not a logical flow of the cases (it seems like they were randomly added overtime). Possible revisions include only mentioning certain cases that can lead the reader to other broader environment and justice topics such as environmental racism in disasters, home (lead paint, water), and schools. Prisci8 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

It's clear that there is some bias in this article. Racism requires intent, and just lumping a bunch of environmental problems together and saying that it's a problem with racism doesn't show that. As an example, look at the e-waste in China case. Tech companies aren't starting recycling operations to make Chinese people suffer, they're doing it because they know that they can pay bottom dollar for labor there and they don't have to clean up after themselves. This isn't a racial issue, it's a political and economic issue. It's the same in the Flint case. In fact, the Flint case goes against this page's definition of environmental racism, as no community in the area was disproportionately affected by the pollution. On top of this problem, the "definition" section suggests that there are several definitions of racism. To say that there is more than one makes the page about something other than what it is designated to be, and the fact that intent is hard to prove does not change this, especially when the intent is as obvious as it is here. StigmaOfTruth (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made my first edit. I'd like to address the issue of the page of having more up to date cases. I cite the Wilmington N.C in the after math after Hurricane Florence as a new case to be debated and studied. Please help me with any revisions, edits, additions or otherwise to make this case a permanent one on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayrayjohn (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayrayjohn: Hi! I am also currently editing this Wikipedia article. I will most definitely help you with any revisions, edits, additions to add more up to date cases of environmental racism. I have noticed that there are some very detailed accounts of certain cases of racism such as the San Antonio one and although I do think that this is an important issue, I am not sure that the Wiki page for Environmental Racism is the appropriate page to go into detail about the case. I hope that we can work together to make this page a more general overview of environmental racism. Prisci8 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow Surface Dwellers

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. I've known of Wiki for a long time, but have never contributed to the community or even knew there was a talk section. I'm intrigued by Environmental Racism and the different claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayrayjohn (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Comments

Hi! I really liked reading the updated article and getting to see what changes and improvements have been made. I think the lead section is much more comprehensive now. I like the structure and organization of the article as well. Some suggestions I have would be to make the naming of the case study sections more consistent (make them all the city names or all the event names but not both), expand the responses section and add more from scholarship about why this topic matters. With some proof-reading, I think there are also some cases of nonoptimal grammar that can be fixed. Overall, the most important piece of advice I have is to round out the article with information that presents why the issue is important. Good work! Hoopsf (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2

I think you did a really great job working on this article, Priscila! There are a lot of great sources, and while I’m sure that was difficult, you made this page neutral, readable, and filled with important content and examples. The page is organized a lot better, and it’s awesome that it includes more of the international focus now. I think it’d be helpful to make the headers in the North America section more consistent with event/place, and the lead could use some more information on the international part or some reformatting so that it is not just the last thought. In addition, I think adding a few more sources in specific places that I mentioned on the rubric as well as more fully explaining the opinions/perspective that go along with the topic could make it more understandable for the reader. I’m excited to see your final project! Sachi Paul (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_racism&oldid=890834932"