Jump to content

Talk:Environmental racism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

what is the term?

What is the term for the over abundance of environmental waste and pollution in predominantly poor rather than just minority areas?

If it is due to governmental policy, it is still environmental racism. Bonus Onus 21:49, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

That would be environmental classism; which is essentially the same as environmental racism as the issue deals more with classism than racial issues. -MH --69.221.64.140 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The article has some major NPOV issues that need to be worked out. It appears that only one POV is represented, and is not attributed in any way. It appears that the article represents the opinion of the author more than any cited sources. —Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a classicism issue as even more middle-class to upper colored communities are statistically proven to be more likely located next to or near an environmental hazard or risk than those of whites.


I believe it is important to point out that, statistically, being minority and being poor are correlated. Call it classism if you like, but classism, at least right now, and in this country, is one and the same with racism. 24.215.253.143 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think about the fact that two bad things in the world, pollution and racism,one to do with the environment and one to do with civil rights, have combined together?

Neutrality

I removed a lot of this article as being fundamentally non-neutral. I'm going to go ahead and leave the npov warning though, as there is still no discussion of alternate views on this topic. - cohesion 07:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What other views do you have in mind? I think removing much of it made sense, but I put the part back about the organizations involved and the change in the government that resulted from their actions. That's just historical fact. futurebird 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any particular views, but I also don't know much about the subject. It could be possible that no substantial alternate views exist. - cohesion 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Put NPOV tag on article

"In the United States the single most important factor in predicting the location of hazardous-waste sites is the ethnic composition of a neighborhood." It seems very doubtful to me that a majority of hazadous waste sites are in populated areas. Secondly, it seems that since blacks and mexicans tend to be poorer than whites in the US, it makes sense that they would buy houses on cheaper (polluted) land. Without some sort of reference to back it up the quoted sentence is propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.104.38.131 (talk • contribs) .

The landmark 1987 report by the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race, extended the GAO study. Here is a source and here is the statement from that government report: "people of color were twice as likely as White people to live in a community with a commercial hazardous waste management facility and three times as likely to live in a community with multiple facilities.

African Americans and Hispanics are not the only poor people in the United States; in fact look at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and you will find Whites are the number one welfare candidates. I think the problem here is some people refuse to look for information in places besides the Internet...like the library. Most of the statistical research articles available are found in journals, which are rarely printed online for everyone to see from their home account. (Although you can get access to JSTOR at your local university or public library). The next problem is the presumption that academics are left wing, and therefore everything they say is biased. Nothing one can save or give as evidence for validity of an idea will ever be accepted by these people. Has there been a large governmental study since 1987.... not really. Why might you ask.... our government, whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power, operates in an incredibly slow and sluggish fashion. Could things have changed by then…I hope so, but is there evidence to suggest they have not, yes.

The reality is, even on the EPA website, you can find data that shows that race is still a factor: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractdetail/abstract/385 Although in fairness this study they also suggest poverty is an issue. Here is the problem I have with this crazy debate. We should be outraged that toxics are not properly disposed according to federal rules. There are plenty of concentrations of poor whites like Northern Michigan, Minnesota, Southern Indian, East Tennessee, East Kentucky, and you do not have large toxic dump sites in those locations in the same numbers as you do in minority neighborhoods. This of course might change but regardless we should be outraged. I think people have to understand, racism is prejudice based on race. People are prejudicial everyday so why is it so hard that people judge people based on where they live, the color of their skin, the language they speak. This may be a common occurrence but it does not make it intelligent or just behavior. Racism by accident stops being racism by accident when years pass and nothing is done to stop it even when the proper authorities are aware of it.

Ultimately, I am equally outraged by environmental classism as I am by environmental racism. However, if it were environmental classism, there would have to be more whites involved since whites still are around 73% of the current U.S. population. I find it interesting when someone doubts a fact they are not responsible for providing support for that doubt other than “I don’t believe it because that is how my gut feels about the subject so it must be true”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.127.74 (talk • contribs) .

It is often very difficult to prove a negative. Actual statements in Wikipedia need to be verifiable, for more information on that see our verifiability policy. The sources you state however, are very valid, and should probably be included in the article. Don't hesitate to edit the actual article when there is a neutrality dispute if you have sources that back up contentious statements. There may be a debate about particulars later, but that is generally how Wikipedia works. Be Bold! :) - cohesion 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This is an important subject that deserves to be developed. I hope someone who knows this subject well will insert some citations. After all, if we can show these are facts (and I'm sure we can), it's hard to imagine any NPOV comments of counter-arguments. Envirocorrector 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the unreferenced tag. I have added some information from a new study, as well as information that I easily found on the US EPA's website. I have also removed the uncited sentences and replaced them with verifiable facts. Athene cunicularia 15:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! Envirocorrector 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To the IP user who keeps deleting the stuff about redlining

This information is of core importance to this subject. Don't delete it. JJJamal 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Jan. 23, 2008

User:Dylansmrjones marked this article as "POV due to onesidedness in references - most editors here are racist Far Left extremists believing in environmental 'racism', like the user 'Envirocorrector'", but he didn't put anything in the Talk page or indicate where, how, or why the article is NPOV, other than the fact that he believes "most editors here are racist Far Left extremists." It doesn't sound to me like his judgment is coming from an NPOV, and without any contribution to the article or discussion within the next 10 days, I'm going to propose removing the tag.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll look over the edits. If it's as you say, then I'll just remove the tag, because it sounds like the anonymous user is merely making a WP:POINT. Anybody who has specific issues is free to post the tag, but they need to raise the issues on the talk page so people can figure out how to address them. Without that, there's no way to begin to address the issues, and the tag is just useless. (Not to mention, it sounds like a violation of WP:NPA.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh - not anonymous user. I'll post on their talk page. If they don't respond with some actual comment here, then it should come off. --Lquilter (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of undue weight to specific conference papers and so on, and a general supportive tone in summarizing them. For example, the sentence Critical race theory is used to examine race as an implicit assumption that merits investigation as demographic changes in the U.S. challenge these class-based definitions sounds like it's advocating rather than summarizing that position, and the whole paragraph is based on a single 2007 conference paper that has never been cited outside Wikipedia. --Delirium (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage of "White" in Term Definition

I believe that this article is too limited in focus, i.e. the usage of "Whites" to displace minorities might not be a given trend for all situations of this form of racism. Perhaps the definition should be generalized to define the "beneficiaries" as, for example, affluent portions of society etc. Perhaps description of locating Dalits to regions of high environmental contamination in India would be a prime example of where this definition fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.79.65 (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion

Deleted from article:

  • In the south where 54% of African Americans in the United States live, it seems an unfair standard to create an evacuation plan that requires a car. This is environmental racism because the evacuation plan assumes everyone has a car when this is clearly not the case.

Who created such a plan? The city fathers of New Orleans, whose Democratic mayor is black? The Democratic governor of Louisiana?

And who decided not to mobilize buses? There's a famous photo of dozens (hundreds?) of flooded buses, apparently never even intended to be used.

And who's blaming Bush? (Not that it's wrong to do so, I just want a source. Something like, "The Democratic governor of Louisiana blamed President Bush for delaying XYZ." That can be balanced with something like, "Republican Senator Phil Abuster blamed the governor of Louisiano for insisting on 48 hours to 'study' Bush's offer of PDQ."

Remember, this should be an article on what environmental racism is ... not a propaganda piece desigined to make one party look bad. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Republican bias

I dispute the neutrality of this article. The section on Hurricane Katrina toes the anti-Republican line which has been the consensus of Democratic and liberal journalists.

A balanced treatment would examine all failures and not only highlight supposed failures of the Republican-led federal government. In particular, the journalistic consensus has been to downplay or even conceal the decision of Democratic governor and Democratic mayor to delay the evacuation order until the remaining poor blacks were unable to ride buses or cars out of the city. The numbers of blacks who died has been taken as evidence of "not caring" by federal officials, even though they offered help a full two days before hurricane landfall. These deaths were not taken as evidence of state and local official "not caring", even though they refused help and delayed evacuation.

A neutral treatment must indicate what help was actually offered (and when), and who refused it (and for how long). --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed, with respect, your edits are problematic at best. Adding anti-Democrat bias does not solve the NPOV issue. It just adds another layer of bias. Why not work to remove bias, rather than add more? Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is the actual result of my edits, then you can simply revert me. I don't mind, and I certainly don't contemplate starting an edit war. But what I was trying to do was add properly sourced viewpoints. If I haven't finished doing this, or if I haven't done this well enough then instead of dismissing these edits as adding bias, why not add some contrasting sourced viewpoints?

There's no way we contributors can decide which side is right or wrong. It's a mudslinging contest, and it's not up to us to declare anyone the winner, let alone to say that the mud isn't clinging to one side or another.

All we can do is say that A blamed B for C, and that B also blamed A for C, if you know what I mean. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the root of the problem. Rather than sling more mud, we should try to remove material that isn't relevant to the article. I'm sure there's an entire article that rehashes the blame game for Katrina. Maybe we don't need to re-rehash it here. I'll get started. Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, no contributer should be slinging mud. If it seems that I am doing so, maybe I should bow out. My intention was rather to report on others who are slinging mud.
The entire point of the article is the assertion that environmental racism exists, and the government's respones to Katrina is used by various parties as evidence in their argument that certain levels of the government were culpable. It is these parties who are slinging mud, and I hope to photograph their mud-slinging in slow motion.
Democrats and Republicans (or perhaps Liberals and Conservatives) disagree about who is to blame. The idea that some places get better access to evacuation resources than other places would seem to be the main premise in arguments about environmental racism. Here "racism" may defined loosely as discrimination based on race as well as discrimination based on degree of wealth. ("Wealthism" being included in "racism", if that makes senses.)
So the dispute would center around issues of who was able to leave easily (because he could pile his whole family into a nice, big car); who could afford to stay in a hotel in another state; who had insurance against theft and vandalism, so he didn't have to stay around to protect his property; and so on. This entails arguments about whether the entire economic system is to blame, whether politicians favor or harm certain groups, and so on.
I don't have a side, but I'm very curious about what each side says, and what evidence they provide to bolster their arguments. I hope we can work together. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I would much rather see the article touch briefly on examples and then point readers toward those articles ("Main article: Hurricane Katrina"). As it stands, the Katrina section was erratic, biased, and, well, bad. I agree that it was Bush-bashing, but I disagree that the only way to balance it out is to bash liberals. I'd rather see the mudslinging removed entirely. The article is about environmental racism, not about who is responsible for the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.
In fact, the entire article could use a lot of work, so focusing on this contentious and unnecessary political element in a section of the article that goes on very long tangents seems like the wrong approach. Let's improve the article as a whole instead of just continuing to drag it down by the Katrina section. There are also a lot of good suggestions on this talk page that haven't yet been taken into account.
That said, environmental racism is a real concept, with a real official definition, so if you have a problem with the concept, I am not sure that much can be done about that. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The NPOV issue of this article is just one of many of its problems. Not only is the issue not resolved, but the article also needs a very serious cleanup. I'm working on it now.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Athene has followed through on his stated plan (see above) and has performed a remarkable cleanup and rewrite of the article. I am thankful for his significant effort.

However, his last change was to remove the NPOV tag. I have undone that change to restore the tag. I believe the article still has POV issues which detract from its credibility:

  • the conflating of racism and classism, previously discussed.
  • the broad definition of environmental racism to include any environmental action which "negatively affects" a community identified with a race or class (without regard to intent, awareness, or avoidability).
  • citations which are rendered as fact rather than assertions.
  • broad discussions of environmental policy and social justice which are not related to racism per se.

Thus, I'd like to keep the tag and continue the work begun by Athene. Frappyjohn (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'm looking forward to your contributions. Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence at all this is not Environmental Classism?

It strikes me that there are no, or almost no, neighborhoods composed of exclusively one race or one ethnicity in the United States with significant populations, particularly in polluted urban centers, although with certainty there are variations in racial demographics.

Since pollution is one of those things that effects everyone in a community, calling policies that harm the low income residents "environmental racism" instead of "environmental classism" has multiple negative effects. First, this increases feelings of racial conflicts, particularly if racial qualifications later are used in any way to distribute aid. Second, it continues to oppress the development of any sort of class identity in the American underclass; when people are not encouraged to work together, but instead to see each other as enemies, the wealthy find that it is is easier to oppress them.

Lastly, I can't help but notice there is a huge include in this article that ought to be forked over to something like environmental nationalism. The process by which American corporations export pollution - or manufacture using unsafe techniques in other countries - knows no racial bounds. When this happens, typically corporations simply do not care what kind of people they hurt, as long as those people are far enough away that the corporation can get away with it.

Playing the race card is just another divisive diversion that will enable the wealthy to continue to get away with it that much longer. Zaphraud (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_racism/Archive_1&oldid=1107972075"