Talk:Environmental injustice in Europe

Contested section

The effects of environmental marginalization may have related political implications for both Romani and Indigenous communities across Europe. Environmental justice and access to land-based rights is a significant issue, as both groups are generally minorities within the territories they inhabit, under the sovereignty of various nation states. Romani and Indigenous groups often seek increased agency with regards to autonomy, self-governance and/or sovereignty; thus issues surrounding the negotiation and sharing of

— Visible

The visible part there is a section commented out) is based on this article. The reason I direct this at the metrics page is that this article on Wikipedia actually shows up in the actual statistics as one reference. The others are "sixteen readers on Mandalay" That's nowhere near academic consensus and not a publication you can base that sort of claim on. These are the political musings of a PhD, a glorified blogpost. Kleuske (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Your comments, please. Kleuske (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: ... crickets chirping ... a distant howl from a lone coyote ...Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said: a) the changes you've made to this article thus far make it impossible to discuss your reservations. The content has to be restored before any discussion continues; b) Are you sure you can contain yourself from spontaneously bursting into flames again? You seem to be fond of your crickets, less so of other critters. François Robere (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

François Robere can you please explain why you can't discuss the article without restoring the content first, everything is in the history? ~ GB fan 22:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If all the changes are in the history, why can't we undo them and then discuss them? This works both ways.

Also, I've already explained this in my complaint, as has the original author of the article in a previous discussion. Riddle me this: Which is easier - reading a book in binding, or reading a book in pieces? This article is in pieces, which the other editor is trying to force as a new status quo. If we accept these changes not only are we making more work for ourselves, but we are rewarding them for the way they chose to do it. Let us rebind the book and discuss it as a whole, as one is supposed to do, rather than clip pieces of lost content from the article's history. François Robere (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Once more, you don't have an actual argument. As this section specifically relates to a single section and a single source, i would have expected some argument why you want to keep it in, why my assessment of the source is false or why it is mainstream scientific opinion (other sources). No such argument was presented. Instead I get special pleading to leave the section in. I have outlined my reason to delete this specific section above, so either address that or stop wasting my time. Pretty much the same goes for the other sections. Please address points made, instead of generally whining, moaning and bitching about how mean yours truly is. "Put up or shut up" is the appropriate idiom here, I believe. Kleuske (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan, @Nihlus, @Robert McClenon: This is exactly what I meant. When I say "try not to tear into it too much" and "do not assume ignorance on the part of others" they say "you have not addressed a single point and right now, you only wasting time and energy"; and when I say "this isn't a battle" they say "stop wasting my time". They like their own jokes, but good heavens if someone else makes a light-hearted comment! Kleuske just doesn't seem to get the point. I feel like I'm in a black knight situation. And you can see that I'm not at all averse to discussion or argumentation ([1] [2]), but if my arguments are being ignored (and they have), and my appeal for civility is rejected (indeed, the other editor doesn't even seem to understand what I'm asking), then what's the point? Such "discussion" would not only be unpleasant, but would also lead nowhere. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: The black knight analogy is rather apt, I must admit, since you haven't got a leg to stand on. Kleuske (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:François Robere - Indeed, what's the point? Why are you calling me? I don't have a role in the content dispute about this article. What do you want me to do? You came to WP:DRN and made an untenable request; you asked admins to do something about a user, User:Kleuske. I am not an admin, and you didn't have a proper admin request. You asked to roll back changes made by Kleuske. If you really want to resolve the content dispute, you can publish a Request for Comments asking which of two versions of the article, yours or Kleuske's, should be kept. Otherwise, you haven't presented a plausible argument. You complain about Kleuske's incivility, and I see comments by both editors that are somewhat unpleasant and somewhat sarcastic, but nothing over the line. What's the point? What do you want? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

To quote from my talk page, pursuant to your message:

I've made two very coherent requests at ANI, was directed to DRN, then directed back, then both issues were closed (one of them by you) and now one of the admins (GB fan) is asking me on the talk page what's the problem. And I'm just the one who gave WP:3O! The original author decided to quit (and I don't mean the article, I mean Wikipedia). So here's the problem: Apparently no one cares enough to actually get involved in anything unless I cite one of Wikipedia's 300 or so policies and guidelines, or an edit war breaks out, or the editor I complained about chases a bunch of other editors out like he already did. No, it's impossible to ask admins to help before an edit war erupts, or without sanctioning a rogue editor, or in favor of old-school civil discussion. No, we have to be shitty. I'll know next time to ask for sanctions.

Are we a bloody bureaucracy or a cooperative enterprise? Just so I know. Because as it stands, if you're okay with an editor going "put up or shut up" after erasing 20% of an article against the wishes of two other editors, then Wiki has a serious problem. François Robere (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PS Here's a shortlist of policies you can chow on that the other editor seems, on the face of it, to have encroached upon: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONS, WP:NPA. Dear god, one day we'll have lawyers specializing in Wikipedia, as if we don't have enough of them already. François Robere (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: More verbal foliage. if you have a point to make, please do so. If not, go play elsewhere. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

François Robere let me clear up some statements you have made. On your talk page you say you went to ANI and were directed to DRN and then back to ANI. I have read through a lot associated with this and can not find anywhere you were directed to go to DRN. I did talk about dispute resolution and linked to WP:DR, the dispute resolution policy. I did not direct you to DRN, you decided the noticeboard was the way to go. Above you state that I asked you what's the problem. I never asked what's the problem. In response to your statement that it is impossible to discuss the article until the article is restored, I asked why you can't discuss it. Your response does not appear to say it is impossible to discuss, just that you don't want to discuss it until it is restored. I explained on your talk page page exactly why the ANI report was closed as a content issue and how to frame an ANI report so it is a conduct issue. Your response was to remove the section stating that you were quite clear. Throwing out acronyms without explaining who and where they are violated is not helpful. This is just like when I asked you at ANI for diffs of conduct issues that need to be addressed. You responded to look at the article history and provided one diff that was a content issue, not conduct. You seem to want others to dig through and find what you perceive as the problems rather than providing the evidence of a problem. ~ GB fan 11:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan:I have the impression that François Robere thinks that since he was invited ([3]) for a third opinion, his role here is that of an arbiter, whose adjudications must be obeyed by lowly (even 'rogue') editors such as myself. That explains rather a lot, IMHO. Kleuske (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Not really, but it does help if one listens to other editors, and perhaps stops making changes as per their request while discussion is ongoing. You did neither.

@GB fan: I'm happy we got to clear that one up - it was WP:DR, not WP:DRN. Important point! Mind, Sturgeontransformer tried WP:3O before, so some board was due anyway.

I never asked what's the problem... I asked why you can't discuss it Another important point. Thank you!

Your response was to remove the section stating that you were quite clear Well, yes - I removed it because it was, with all due respect, a useless comment. This isn't a Supreme Court case, and any administrator with a backbone who read through any of the logs or talks would know the entire story in less time than it takes to make a cup of tea. Instead it gets dragged across multiple talk pages because it isn't "framed" properly. What does this contribute to Wikipedia? To this discussion? I thought there was some policy about being bold.

This is what you get from <10 minutes of reading:

- Kleuske came and made some changes and objections

- Sturgeontransformer objected their changes and made some explanations

- Kleuske continued to make changes

- Sturgeontransformer asked for WP:3O

- I came and gave a third opinion, and asked to stop editing for a while so we can discuss

- Kleuske continued to make changes

- Sturgeontransformer left Wikipedia, and I asked for ANI

- Kleuske went "Ha Ha Ha! You got nothin' on me!"

That's that, and it's all in the logs and talk - a simple question of whether it's okay for an editor to make huge changes without achieving consensus or not.

This is just like when I asked you at ANI for diffs of conduct issues that need to be addressed I was obviously naive enough to think that the log, showing a chain of massive edits, reversals and counter-reversals was enough to show that something unhealthy was going on, framed "correctly" or not.

You seem to want others to dig through and find what you perceive as the problems rather than providing the evidence of a problem I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done myself when the 3O was filed. The issues were so evident I didn't even need to post a {{subst:third opinion}} (so both sides can summarize their positions). The affair escalated so quickly you don't even need to scroll past the first 4-5 paragraphs to get the gist of it. Hence my surprise that we've been discussing it for more days than the original content discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@François Robere: Please peruse WP:BURDEN, so named because it's part of WP:V, a core policy, that spells out where the burden of proof lies, it states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".

I've been very careful to start a discussion on each and any change I made, provided sources and invested quite a bit of time figuring out what went on where. I have not edited the article, the past several days because a) I have better things to do and b) I wanted to give you time to respond to any of the points made. You have not responded to any of them, you have not argued a single point relating to the article. None of your contributions have been helpful in any way, shape or form in improving the actual article. All you have done so far, is berate me about my behavior, filed an ANI suit against me, called me "old chap", "darling" and "dear", whilst flatly refusing to discuss things unless you get your way and you think I have an attitude problem? Kleuske (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am seriously considering filing an ANI-case myself for disruptive editing, since all you have accomplished here is to waste everybody's time with drama. I'd rather not, since on the face of it it's a content dispute, but it's not the content that's being disputed. Kleuske (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:François Robere - Read the boomerang essay with regard to Kleuske's caution above that you have been wasting everyone's time with pointless drama. If you continue to persist, and Kleuske finds it necessary to file, other editors will be supportive of her. So either drop it, or request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon I've not the least interest in bureaucracy of any kind, Robert, least of all Wikipedia's. In fact, anything that does not directly serve Wikipedia's main goal of providing accurate, exhaustive, relevant and readable content is not only uninteresting to me, but arguably needless to the whole. That is why I do not file complaints very often (in ANI or anywhere else); that is why I did not ask for sanctions against Kleuske; and that is why "standard written English" is my language in this Wikipedia, and not WP. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

One Editor's Commentary

I have spent much more time than it takes to make a cup of tea, and it took me much longer than that to be able to grasp what the problem is. Part of why it has taken me longer than FR thinks it should is that FR thinks that the issue is obvious, and that anyone should agree with them. It is obvious that there is an issue, and that FR is part of the problem, but it isn't clear what the problem is. FR complains about User:Kleuske's temper. I see FR's temper. It appears that FR may be baiting Kleuske (by using overly familiar nicknames), and that Kleuske is failing to take the bait (good for her). (I would normally think that the insulting attitude taken by FR toward Kleuske was gender-based, except that I also see that FR refers to Kleuske in the masculine gender, so I don't think that there is sexism, even if there is a bad attitude.)

It appears that the original article was contentious, containing a lot of poorly sourced and cherry-picked evidence that purports to be of racism. It appears that Kleuske trimmed out a considerable amount of questionable material, and FR doesn't like it. They can discuss here. This is an article talk page, and its primary purpose is to discuss article content. It appears that FR thinks that Kleuske's edits must be rolled back in order to discuss them. That is neither justified by Wikipedia policies and guidelines or by common sense. But FR doesn't want to discuss the merits of the edits until they are rolled back. It doesn't work like that. FR filed at ANI, but it was dismissed as not a properly filed conduct dispute, and no one could see any real claim that Kleuske or anyone else had done anything wrong. FR filed at DRN, but it was dismissed as not a properly stated content dispute, and FR didn't help because they kept insisting that this was about Kleuske, not about the article.

Okay, if FR still wants to discuss this, I have some advice. First, frame it very clearly as a discussion of article content. That will also require a content forum, rather than a conduct forum like ANI, but there isn’t a conduct issue that I can parse in standard written English. I would suggest that the content dispute can still be addressed either via a Request for Comments choosing between a historical version of the article and the version of the article after Kleuske’s edits, or a request for mediation with an experienced mediator. That is where to go from here. Either RFC or RFM. The alternatives to those are that FR can leave it alone because he doesn’t have the patience or courtesy to continue to pursue this, or that FR can continue to be angry, which will result in being ignored or being blocked. It might at this point be too complicated for a good neutral RFC, so I would suggest RFM be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've kept cool and even-handed, and not even humored myself but for one occasion, until after the whole thing became the farce that it is now.

And while on chronology - I have yet to see even one admin address with any seriousness anything that happened on this page prior to my arrival - a part of the chronicle that I've addressed several times, and have asked addressed several times.

As for gender: I find your comment not only distasteful, but completely devoid of truth. In the first, I do not give a leprechaun's behind whether any editor is male, female, queer, non-binary or anything else or in-between, and had you any sense of character you would've seen that before you spoke. Second, and continuing in the line of "obvious things that seem to have been misplaced", I used "they" rather than "he" throughout this entire discussion, as well as other discussions; take from that what you will.

On the merits of the "stable version": I have been asked numerous times to avoid edits until after discussion proceeded; I have seen the "stable version" hailed on dozens of occasions as the one to refer to; I have been asked to avoid sweeping changes even of ludicrous material until consensus is reached; and now you claim this is all nonsense - everyone should quietly disagree and let the changes pass, even when it's one editor's disregard towards others' comments and requests (as this one has done on multiple occasions). Very well, then - let them destroy the article as they please. A shame for Sturgeontransformer's extensive work (as disputed as it was), a shame for Wikipedia, and a shame on you administrators who cannot even bring yourselves to pronounce the sentence "please avoid inflammatory language". François Robere (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No. You User: François Robere wrote: "So here's the problem: Apparently no one cares enough to actually get involved in anything unless I cite one of Wikipedia's 300 or so policies and guidelines, or an edit war breaks out, or the editor I complained about chases a bunch of other editors out like he already did. No, it's impossible to ask admins to help before an edit war erupts, or without sanctioning a rogue editor, or in favor of old-school civil discussion.

First, you are (as in other places) referring to User:Kleuske in the masculine, which you said you didn’t. Second, I only see Kleuske trying to engage in old-school civil discussion and not you. Third, my assessment of your character takes into account how you addressed Kleuske using disparaging nicknames, and indeed perhaps I shouldn’t have thought gender was an issue, because maybe you always use insulting familiarity with H. sapiens. Enough. If you want civil discussion, file a Request for Mediation. If not, Kleuske has warned that she is ready to file another ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh gosh, wow. I mistook them for male twice! And I only used "they" 18 times in this thread, 7 times on ANI, and probably a bunch more somewhere else, for an overall of upwards of 25 times.... versus 2. I'm honestly intrigued as to why you even posted the question. By the way - am I a male? A female? Genderqueer? Do you still think your deference to sexism had any merit?

As for your other points - here's, again, a short chronicle:

KL: I have rarely seen such a utter and complete mess... I intend to weed out... idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims...

By this point they already removed several sections of the article with little explanation, so ST asks:

ST: Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis... Removing large quantities of cited material without adequate rationale and posting strong language... is not appropriate editing behavior

KL: Yeah... That's your sayso...

ST: Many of your questions have been addressed in previous discussions in the talk archives, which I would advise you to refer to... There are much more constructive ways to address these questions than deleting large sections of text and immediately attacking editors in the talk page

Now KL finally gives a list of their reservations; however by this point they gutted much of the article, and ST refuses to engage:

ST: Dispute resolution will soon be underway. Other editors will be involved.

But KL doesn't seem to care:

KL: No arguments? Not addressing a single point, above? I'm disappointed

So ST reiterates:

ST: Third Opinion dispute resolution submitted. This will allow for an independent party to provide input in a neutral way.

At this point I arrive, after having picked up the WP:3O, and after asking the sides for some order write a 17 points reply:

FR: Let's... 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!

KL replies with a single paragraph along with an unasked-for explanation of policies, not addressing most of what I've written. ST gives a detailed review of their sources, including the "why" and "where" they've used them.

I again reply to both of them, addressing each of the points of the two. Along the way I pose some specific questions to the two, which ST addresses and KL ignores.

KL quotes some policies, attaches an unrelated diagram, and agrees to go point-by-point, following immediately with an unsportsmanlike remark:

KL: Please refrain from cute remarks... I do not find it amusing

Of course, they have no problem amusing themselves a couple of comments earlier:

KL: bad thing(tm)

My next reply address two of their points, their above remark as well as their diagram, in addition asking them "not to tear into it too much too soon" (by this point they cut the article by about 20%, with little reasoning). My intent was to continue the discussion point-by-point, but obviously KL doesn't get any of my points:

KL: You have not addressed a single point and right now, you're only wasting time and energy.

FR: 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.

KL: Oh, wow... Complaining about the tone. You actually went down a notch... stop wasting my time.

What do you think - was I patient enough? Or, do you reckon, was that a good time to pander to someone who obviously doesn't care what I say in a very basic sense?

So I went and asked for ANI without personal sanctions against KL, because I'm that cool, and instead of receiving aid I feel Like I need to see a venereologist.

And this, my dear presumptuous admin (or whatever you are on Wikipedia), is the stupid, short, easy-to-find log that began all of this, that seems to be completely hidden from admins. If Voldemort had any sense in him (!) he would've hidden one of his soul shards here, living happily ever after and ruling over us all. François Robere (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Recent Comment - WP:SYNTH claims

The following comment was recently posted to my user page:

I am still keeping an eye on the massive WP:SYNTH that is now "Environmental inequality in Europe". Kleuske (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sturgeontransformer#Please_note%3A_As_of_December_2017%2C_I_am_taking_an_extended_absence_from_Wikipedia_editing._Thank_you.

RfC about claims that the entire article is a WP:SYNTH

Should the article be deleted based upon claims that it is a WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Requests for comment is not for hosting deletion discussions. If you want to initiate a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, and why, the formal articles for deletion process should be used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, User:Redrose64

Sturgeontransformer (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Does this article have basic issues with WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer 22:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Additionaly, there's problems with sourcing, neutrality, editorializing and WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the sheer walls of text. Kleuske (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing your concerns. Now we need outside editors (who have not commented previously) to provide input. The issue of section-blanking will need to be discussed, with regards to whether or not that complies with Wikipedia policy (I will not add any new content as long as the practice of section-blanking in this article is left unaddressed. I also will not revert any new content removals at this time, either). I am not going to take a position on these issues from this point onwards (at least as far as the Rfc is concerned); rather, I am requesting that more editors take a look at these issues and come to a consensus. If a consensus is not reached, or if not enough editors provide input, it may be appropriate to either nominate the article for deletion or to seek formal dispute resolution.

And, I should add, I will not oppose any nominations for deletion. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See also: a thread has been opened on the No original research noticeboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Does_the_Environmental_inequality_in_Europe_article_have_WP:SYNTH_issues?

Thanks,

Sturgeontransformer (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue of section-blanking will need to be discussed I have carefully documented all deleted sections, you chose not to address a single one. Since section-blanking is usually considered disruptive behavior, I feel obliged to point out WP:ASPERSIONS and how not to throw them. Kleuske (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kleuske,

An AfD debate has been opened for this article. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the AfD discussion page. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Additional information has been posted to the article for deletion nomination summary. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental inequality in Europe concludes (no earlier than 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)), the closing admin will not take into account any comments made other than on that page, such as those in this section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

A bit of background: I've never commented on an article before. Basically, first-time caller, long-time listener, though I care enough about Wikipedia to have donated money a few times.

I came to the article's talk page because sections of it immediately struck me as downright inflammatory. It focuses on particular groups (Romani and Sinti) to the exclusion of others, and makes suppositions not supported by the sources, although there are areas that bear keeping as-is. I was going to raise the idea of removing or revising some of the worst content, but I've had a chance to read the cluster that was the rest of the talk page. I don't in any way want to become involved in a flame war or a revert war. There is no point in wasting my time or effort in such things.

Instead, I will just say that claiming that the Holocaust is an example of "environmental racism" is beyond the pale. For some reason, there is a picture of the "Gorleben exploratory mine for storing uranium waste" that is never tied into the article's text and thus conveys an impression that Romani and Sinti are living in a uranium waste repository. If "environmental racism" is indeed a thing, then surely there are significant examples of it for other disadvantaged groups, such as Middle-Eastern refugees, black Africans, persons from ex-Communist nations, and so forth. For example, a search of the article for the words "Muslim", "Islam", "refugee", "migrant", etc. turned up token references for Italy and Spain - no such stories that deal with the current wave of migration, where such things would be expected if it were happening.

Other areas turn up contradictory claims: "One severe example of environmental inequality in Lukavac, where Romani persons lack adequate access to energy resources, is the practice of coal theft. Young Romani men climb onto moving freight trains departing from the Lukavac coal mine in an attempt to push coal off the tops of the roofless cars by hand. After the coal falls to the ground, the men then collect the coal into 50 kilogram bags which are then sold in town for two Euros apiece." If the idea was that the men were stealing goods to support their direct, immediate domestic needs (the classic example of stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's family), it's easier to believe that this might be part of inequality. But it seems more like detailing a practice from the illicit economy that benefits the thieves in other ways. At best, it leaves an ambiguous impression in the mind of someone who had no prior experience with such matters. Surely other, better examples can be found if this is widespread.

At best, this article needs some serious consolidation and neutrality. Hopefully, it will attract enough voices to become truly independent of one or two views. 24.36.21.142 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No part of the article claims in any way that the Holocaust was environmental racism or inequality, and it is only briefly mentioned for historical context as to why certain groups later ended up living in certain areas. And the article, in its original form, did mention many different groups: low-income ethnic majority (white) people; African and Middle Eastern migrants (see section on Spain, Greece, and Italy); Sami people in Sweden, Norway, and Finland (that section was removed and can be found in the article history); and a bunch of different Native groups in Russia. The introduction (which mentioned all of these diverse groups quite clearly) was removed.

It is always recommended to read the article history. This article has seen major content changes.173.180.129.239 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with 24.36.21.142. In its current state the article (90% of it) deserves title "List of cases of dscrimination against Roma people in Europe" or something like this. —188.243.247.38 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)