Talk:Environmental justice/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


--Alex 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Criticism section[edit]

Finally, environmental justice activism, like other modes of advocacy, appears incapable of defining a realistic menu of priorities; every fear or grievance demands attention and remedy.

This anon edit is appears to be a personal POV. Alan Liefting 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ref to Budapest Workshop[edit]

Need a link to the 2003 workshop in Budapest - haven't found anything with Google.

Separate Article for Movement[edit]

Hey all, just got here. I think it would be good to separate this article so that there was one for the idea of Environmental Justice and another for the Environmental Justice Movement. A guide might be found in the distinction between Global Justice and the Global Justice Movement. --Ill seletorre 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Environmental Justice as an idea is great, but the movement has a lot of flaws and diversified opinions- the two shouldn't be mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Robert Bullard incorrect?[edit]

It links to a US General who died well before the EJ movement started. I believe this is an error.

Sure looked that way to me. I just removed the brackets. Envirocorrector 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I inserted his middle initial in order to get it to direct to the correct Robert Bullard, and replaced the brackets accordingly. I don't know enough about setting up a disambiguation page, but perhaps one is needed to help keep the legacies of these two gentlemen distinct. Bill.jesdale (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


affected groups[edit]

Changed US Civil Rights Commission to the proper United States Commission on Civil Rights, and provided a hyper link to it's wiki page. Greenopedia (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Greenopedia Feb 1, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenopedia (talkcontribs) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to tell anyone how to edit, but I like this article very much and think it should expanded. Maybe someone could go to the EJ timeline referenced here, or other sources, and include some of the most important dates for the history section. Maybe I will myself, but I don't know as much about this as whoever wrote the page. Envirocorrector 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental justice outside the USA[edit]

There is an absence of information about EJ outside the USA on this page and the 'Environmental justice movement' page. I think it would be useful to create a section on EJ in other parts of the world. However given the current format of this page it would only make sense to add this section in addition to having a blurb about EJ in the USA, for which there is already an article (i.e. Environmental justice movement). Are there any suggestions on how to incorporate this new information? Widdenham (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar concer to Widdenham[edit]

I have a similar concern to Widdenham. Environmental justice is not just about the U.S. and it is not just about racism. Socio-economic class has been ignored in this article. The poor whites in Appalachia suffer from the same problem but it has not been attributed to racial discrimination in published sources. Also note that there is a separate article on Environmental racism and this article should focus on environmental justice. Drawn Some (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


I am concerned that the quote in by Edward Lao Rhodes is too long. Do we have his publisher's permission to use it? Drawn Some (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the template, I wanted to add that Wikisource may be able to publish this content, as they have a special allowance for "manifestos." It may be worth exploring that avenue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on a Deleted External Link[edit]

An external link I added to this article was deleted for -- I believe -- conflict of interest (COI) issues. I would like to re-add it and explain why I think there is no conflict of interest.

The link I added ( is for a website which houses a collection of research on Environmental Justice. The website belongs to a nonprofit organization called IssueLab whose purpose is to collect and archive research produced by nonprofits and university-based research centers. The link does not go to IssueLab's home page or any sort of promotional or donations page. It goes directly to the collection on Environmental Justice -- an actual list of research documents. The research was not written or sponsored by IssueLab and we do not benefit financially from an increase in the number of people who view the research. We are a non-profit-seeking organization by definition. Like Wikipedia, IssueLab is a neutral resource; we do not espouse any political views and we include in our archive research produced by a large variety of organizations. The link was added in the spirit of expanding knowledge, what Wikipedia is all about. One of IssueLab's guiding principles is to encourage sharing of and free access to information. Along with the link I included the description "Nonprofit Research Collection on Environmental Justice" so as to make it clear what the link led to. I assure you I was not trying to mislead anyone or promote any sort of commercial website. I was simply trying to offer an additional resource for those who might be interested. I apologize if I appeared to be breaking the rules, but after carefully reading Wikipedia's guidelines on External Links and Conflicts of Interest, I truly believe that I am not.

From Wikipedia's section on External Links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

IssueLab's EJ collection contains "further research that is accurate and on-topic" and "could not be added to the article for reasons such as...amount of detail."

External Links also includes guidelines on "Links Normally to be Avoided": "Links mainly to promote a website. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."

The link was added to promote the research, not to promote the website or to sell anything. The site does not require payment or registration.

From the section on Conflicts of Interest:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

The aim of IssueLab is to offer another "neutral, reliably sourced" resource. "[A]dvancing outside interests" is not more important to us than "advancing the aims of Wikipedia," which are strongly in line with those of IssueLab.

Finally, the first external link on the Environmental Justice article is to (Environmental Justice & Environmental Racism), another page of additional resources, just like IssueLab. Another external link goes to the site of the Environmental Justice Foundation, a nonprofit just like IssueLab. My added link fits right in with these accepted links.

I hope I've explained the situation clearly and I hope you won't object to my re-inserting the external link. My apologies for the length of this entry.

IssuesRUs (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

Environmental justice movement is entirely redundant and should be merged into this one, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. LegalSkeptic 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


where the article talks about causes of environmental injustices, it leaves out personal preferneces of certain groups and or lack of transportation. often times socioeconomic groups are forced to live near for example, highly polluted areas because they work at the place that is causeing the pollution and do not have adequate transportation so are forced to reside near there. also, some groups of people choose to live in more degraded areas due to consumer preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenne264 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of any citations to the effect that some individuals would choose, all other things being equal, to live in an area with more rather than less environmental hazards? Bill.jesdale (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Despayre, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 29, 2012. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Hello there editors! As per the tag on your article, I am going to attempt a copyedit. I will go section by section generally, and leave lots of notes here about the things I fix, if you see anything you disagree with, or don't think improves the article, feel free to revert me, I won't be offended, honest! :) Please note, I did not check your article for verifiability, only for copyediting purposes (unless quickly checkable) --Despayre (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


- Removed unrelated links as per WP:Overlink, I think it's reasonable to assume people reading this article already have an idea about what "race" and "income" mean
- moved period outside quote, so sentence containing quote ends with a period, as per MOS
- Question for the editors here, if "Environmental justice is abbreviated as EJ, shouldn't it be "Environmental Justice" all the time, with a capital J too? Your article doesn't use it that way, so I've left it, but seems like it should be a capital J, if not, I would suggest removing the "(EJ)" from the lead
- Minor prose fixes
- what is co-modification of land, etc, mean? (maybe this is covered more in the article later...), it might want a little more description, if not in the lead, then certainly in the article (if it's not there already)
- added [sic] to "Nation", it shouldn't be capitalized
- updated accessdate in cite, since I read it, it's still there
- removed "'s from blockquote section, not needed, as per WP:MOS
- 2nd Blockquote section altered, changed to numbered list
- edited second blockquote for readability, no prose changes, just formatting
- removed central and eastern wikilinks as per wp:overlink
- removed bot-added link for budapest conference, linked to an "unauthorized" page
- added {{fact}} tag, since bot-added link is wrong, and moved it to where it should go, after the info
- tagged South African EJ link, no page there...
- ARTICLE EDITOR NEEDED HERE!: I thought the dead link was the ref for the quote, but there's a ref note afterwards, so does this quote come from the book cited, or the missing web link??
- caps fix for "environmental justice"
- changed U.S. to US, as per MOS
- Caps fix for the Associate Chair
- unabbreviated NC to North Carolina for non-American readers, added wikilink to directly relevant article
- moved her sentence into the preceding paragraph, her sentence isn't really a paragraph on its own

next section! --Despayre (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

well that sucks... power failure... :( lost all my notes here on the next section, but most importantly, the section that deals with Manuel Pastor's report, the report doesn't quite say what are article says it says, it may want to be looked at


- removed "Lamaire Johnson" from end of first paragraph, is that the cite? please add
- changed "69" to "Sixty-nine" as it starts a sentence and it's hard to capitalize a "6", :)
- {{fact}} tag added
- "Bullard's dumping in Dixie" sentence, I don't believe you can just "dump" Bullard in and expect the reader to know who that is, elucidate pls
- Summit moved from Oct, to Sept, as per source
- minor prose edits
- called the mother and father of the EJ movement... by whom?


- linked chromium 6, seems relevant
- "Ms. Brockovich continues to fight for Environmental Justice nationally and internationally to this day", "to this day", will eventually be wrong, also would need a cite, consider using something like "As of 2012, Ms. B. was still strongly involved in... blah blah blah...", flagged, not changed by me


- trimmed some unneccesary text, tightened up the prose a little
- corrected wikilinks
- removed links as per wp:overlink
- added environmental racism wikilink up above too

Initial barriers:

- removed " – privileged whites with the means to enjoy outdoor recreation" from the end of the first sentence, sounds a touch racist, and is uncited. (pleas put it back in if there's a good cite for it though!)
- {{deadlink}} for current cite there
- style/format fixes
- wikilink added for PIMBY

Cost barriers:

- broke run-on sentence into two
- minor prose fixes
- removed last sentence, almost exactly the same as the first sentence... A because of B, therefore A

Contributions of the Civil Rights Movement:

- grammatical error, "neighborhood demonstrations" not "neighborhood, demonstrations"

Existing organizations:

- Talks about the fight being largely based in "the south", for non-Americans, that will likely mean from lower california, all the way across to lower Florida, this might be worded a little more accurately, unless that's what it really means
- black churches? I'm sure there's a better way of saying that, isn't there? (for one thing, I don't think the church is black)
- wikilinked shovel-ready
- dead link, without a source the "ideal" in that sentence seems like bias


- minor prose fixes
- your sentence says "there has not been a case in which a citizen has sued under section 602, which calls into question whether this right of action exists", I don't see why not having happened makes me wonder if it's possible... one day the sun will go nova, because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean I don't believe it will anymore... maybe it's just a wording tweak that's needed, or a better explanation of why that is so. No change made here

Affected groups:

- many prose fixes, for tone
- removed unnecessary formatting, caps
- wikilinked cancer alley
- U.S. to US, as per MOS
- {{ambiguous}} tag applied, who's political power? the toxic industry, or the poor neighbourhood's? (I know what you're saying, but it could be expressed more clearly) NO change made by me.

Who is responsible?:

- title added
- This section substantially re-worked, I think it conveys what you were trying to say...
- having said that, it's speculation, and tagged as original, and sin, err, syn ;)

Around the world:

- overlinks removed
- prose trimmed, a little verbose and repetitive
- this first paragraph is sounding a lot like a "defense of gypsies" instead of an EJ paragraph...NO change by me
- that's a lot of assertions for just one reference...
- " a large multinational project supported through the FP7 Science in Society budget line from the European Commission." huh? what does this mean??
- South africa sentence, ends with "total waste stream." Should that have "In South Africa." attached to the end of it? or some other modifier? Of the planet? I don't think so, {{vague}} tag added
- ** CONTROVERSIAL ** Removed Canada paragraph, first sentence made no sense, first page of cite argues against what our article says, and our conclusion is speculation about the future, removed, with edit summary "Canada, REMOVED" for easy reversion of you think this needs to stay
- ** CONTROVERSIAL ** removed India and Uzbekestan section, because it's almost a verbatim repeat of the paragraph in the "Affected People" section, removed on its own with an edit summary of "India, REMOVED"
- Prose trimming of Chevron-Texaco incident section
- this sentence "After the company left in 1992, they left aproximately one thousand toxic waste pits open and dumped billions of gallons of toxic water into the rivers" needs work, if they had already left, how did they dump that toxic water? Also repetition of the word "left" with different meanings isn't great sentence structure, I would suggest something like "Before leaving in 1992, they had dumped billions of gallons of toxic water into the local rivers, and after they were gone, it was discovered that almost a thousand toxic waste pits remained unsealed." Assuming that correlates to the source. NO change made by me.
- minor prose touch-ups

Northern to southern:

- repetitive prose trimmed
- Haiti story, prose changes for readability
- formatting for ship name
- minor prose tweaks for tone and readability

That's it! Generally a well written article, not a whole lot of major errors, just a few little things, and a couple of issues that should be looked at. Good job by the editors on this article! --Despayre (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)