Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 23 April 2017

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

student comments

yoooo Just saying Hi! My name is Anthony, look forward to addressing the world of EJ with you.

I plan on adding a few things to this article. First, I will comment on presidents actions on coal mining as it relates to the environment. Second I will comment on judicial cases and lastly I will comment on how the EPA has handled coal mining and environmental justice in Appalachia. Here is my bibliography: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSM-2010-0018-10631 https://muse.jhu.edu/book/12495 https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/wm_policy_review/archives/volume-4/Smith.pdf Wiki$ (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Matthew and Team, it's a peer reviewer from your ESPM class. First off, I'm excited to see where your article takes you. This seems like a very pertinent issue and it does not seem to have easily available consolidated information. So, I read through your outline and here are some suggestions for your article: 1. Title: Perhaps instead of "Environmental Justice", instead use "Socioeconomic Impact of Coal Mining in Appalachia". This will avoid any unintended biases. 2. SubSections: I love the depth of your article, however make sure that you don't spread yourself too thin. I'd prefer fewer subsections with more detail than a lot.

KPrasad (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the suggestions. I really like your suggestion of changing the title and will talk further with the rest of the team re: it. I believe it will help take out biases. As for the depth of it, I do think it may be tough, might consider bringing it down Argucb6 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your advice. I'm implementing it in my part and my teammates are doing the same. We really appreciate it! Wiki$ (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey y'all, peer reviewer here. This is a really solid outline. I think the subtopics are well thought out. I would suggest weaving "politics" into the article a bit better. It seems just a bit misplaced. Maybe renaming it could help illustrate its relevance to the overall article. Also, I would say that contrary to the suggestion above mine, having many subtopics that aren't that long could be ok. Lots of wikipedia articles have that, and it's not necessarily bad, though sometimes it makes more sense to lump some together. I'm more concerned about having the time and bandwidth to write all that information. It seems like each topic can be explored a lot and has room for a lot of depth, but there are so many! So maybe choosing the most relevant ones could save you some time. Overall I think it's a cool topic. Good luck! Bashthefash26 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the advice! As I am writing the article, I am finding the politics being weaved into it and think it is valid to consider changing the section. Probably do just case studies and then have the politics weaved into the conflicts. Anyhow, thanks for the suggestions! Argucb6 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Theo here, your third peer reviewer. You have a very pertinent topic and lots of pertinent subtopics as well. If you get solid sources for this it should be a really good wiki page. It seems like you're trying to do a lot here though, as Karthik said make sure you're not spreading yourself too thin, but if you can pull it off props to you. Also it seems a little odd to me to make a separate subtopic for each legal case you're working with, perhaps just make a larger "legal complications" subtopic or something along those lines would be better. --Wagglyarms (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Wagglyarms

Hey Theo, thanks for commenting! We definitely have a lot ahead of us and think pairing down wiki be necessary. Thanks for the suggestions! Argucb6 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI

Nice outline. Few suggestions:

- Begin to fill in your sections! You will need to go live soon!

- I would merge your demographics into one section.

-I would put judicial cases as a section on its own, and keep the individual cases as sub-sections.

Good organization. You will need to have a larger lead section, since your article covers so much. Make sure every section has at least some content before you go live. Make sure your article has proper citations format, and the editorial notes are gone before going live. GAA8423 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Garshaw, think we will need to discuss the politics section further... after reading the peer reviews, it kind of seems to make sense that politics should be weaved throughout and case studies be in a separate section. Argucb6 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this feed back. I especially appreciate your suggestion to consolidate some of the sections. I'm personally in charge of the lead section and will make sure to make it suitably lengthy. -M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewglong (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI

This article is coming along nicely. I like the visuals and how you've developed your lead. Some more suggestions:

- If you are going to weave politics into your article, do so soon so you can receive feedback from your fellow wikipedians!

-You have a tag on your article you should address. I guess a fellow wikipedian thought your article was a POV fork (a redundant article intended to avoid a neutral viewpoint). While I don't think that it is a POV fork, you might think about linking the mountaintop removal portion to the wiki page on mountaintop removal. Either way, you should address the tag before April 13th, or else your article may be deleted.

Nicely done!GAA8423 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! We are discussing as a group and will edit the content as appropriate. Wiki$ (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback

Work on being more specific and making less broad and general statements. Using exact quotes from your references may be helpful in making the statement that this is an environmental justice issue more objective. For example, when you say, "Several studies have shown disparities between mining communities and non-mining communities in terms of public health, environmental degradation, pollution, and overall quality of life in Appalachia.” elaborating on what the demographics are of these communities might shed some light on how it is really an Environmental Justice issue. Instead of this sentence, you could say, "Adult and child poverty rates are higher in areas that practice mountain-top mining compared to other mining and non-mining areas. Rate of mortality is also higher in mountain-top mining areas." Adding these types of sentences will help readers understand how the overall quality of life in Appalachia is diminished by mountain top mining.

•You could also create a new subsection solely about the environmental justice aspect. It could make this article more neutral. •Use other authors’ statements on coal mining in Appalachia as an environmental justice issue rather than stating it yourself to maintain a neutral POV.  •Focus more on how mountain top removal mining relates to environmental justice into more detail. Maybe quote directly in your article information from this article: "Poverty and Mortality Disparities in Central Appalachia: Mountain Top Mining and Environmental Justice.” •Effects on health, name the actual studies in your article rather than citing them in references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayrock (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Issues with Original Research

Below are issues with original research that need to be addressed:

paragraph 2

says:

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency on November 8, 2016 has caused environmental justice to remain relevant to coal mining in Appalachia. Throughout his campaign, Trump expressed his preference of coal over renewable energy sources like wind or solar, and promised to undo many of the previous administration's regulations that dampened Appalachia's ability to mine at historical rates.

1. Davenport, Coral (2016-09-22). "Donald Trump, in Pittsburgh, Pledges to Boost Both Coal and Gas". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-03-19.

Let's break it down:

A: The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency on November 8, 2016

B: Trump expressed his preference of coal over renewable energy sources like wind or solar,promised to undo many of the previous administration's regulations that dampened Appalachia's ability to mine at historical rates.

Therefore:

C: environmental justice to remain relevant to coal mining in Appalachia.

Analysis:

A is easy to document.

B is probably equally easy to document. I have not looked at the specific source to see if it says that, but even if it doesn't I have utmost confidence one can be found.

Where does C come from? This is a classic case of WP:SYN (synthesis) to make a claim that is not in the sources. Even tough it is clearly obvious that C comes from A and B, we are not permitted to do original research here. Without a source that makes this connection, the entire thing probably must go. Everything must be shown to be directly relevant to the subject of the article. The secondary sources on the subject are the place to find material instead of this WP:OR.

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Claim from AfD about OR

concern raised by Jytdog. Jytdog please feel free to fix this subsection and its title so that it addresses any specific claims to WP:OR and ideally how they might be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add more

Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. Review for appropriateness other comments on the deletion discussion page that suggest putting the topic under other pages. EJustice (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for the feedback! As a group we will discuss all the feedback and make a decision soon whether to leave the page as a stand alone, move under an existing page or move back to the sandbox. We will update and edit the content as well. Thank you! Wiki$ (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Goals for standalone article

The instructor, EJustice wrote at the WP:AfD:

The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone. The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work.

My comment there and here is: These claims will have be made in the WP:RS, not something that can be proven from logic, deductive reasoning or inferences, or it becomes synthesis and WP:OR. Although, WP:OR is wonderful stuff, and I think might be welcome at other projects of Wikimedia, our policies and guidelines don't allow it in the articles. When you say the link is already "proven", can you and/or your students give us some WP:RS that says exactly that? I will assume in good faith, that that's your goal, to find the material you are already know exists in the WP:RS and make sure it is presented WP:NPOV and WP:DUE proportion. Thanks again for the hard work of this class. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't know this before reading the page and the RS attached to it. The material is already cited. The page needs to be rewritten a bit to more cleanly deliver the information.EJustice (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for pulling that out and highlighting it, David. That is a terse phrase that i have wondered about. I don't know if "the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security" means "There are examples in Appalachia where more regulation of coal mining led to more economic and environmental security there" or if it means "Based on projections by X, if there would be more regulation of coal mining in Appalachia there would be more economic and environmental security there" or something else. EJustice would you please unpack that? Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog luckily that terse phrase is not for the wikipedia page. It's a comment, but it does mean what it says. 1) There are NO examples in Appalachia where less regulation led to more economic and environmental security. Only where the opposite happened. 2) None of the literature is based on conjecture. It is peer-reviewed and based on the material history of the region. Plus it's conceptually very simple. When you move from employing real people to mine coal to blowing up mountains and picking up what's left on the ground, people make less money and the environment gets worse. This is a big deal. EJustice (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hear you on 1), but what you write in 2) does not add up to the terse phrase. There is no need to belabor this further. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of the legal cases section

your work on the case history seems to highlight the well-known point that civil rights law often doesn't help in EJ cases. Make that point explicitly and cite it pls.EJustice (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

quality of writing linked to article flow/logic

As we discussed in class today, the article needs work on flow that relates to the underlying research. See comments on the deletion page for some of the places points are inter-twined that need to unwound. You have the research well in hand...work further on scaffolding the article appropriatelyEJustice (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Making into a WP article

started working this over, now that it is staying. so much work left to do... Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Jytdog - needed major, major cleanup. What do you think about moving the page to the more broad Coal mining in Appalachia? That idea was floated at AfD and seemed uncontroversial. Neutrality 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep much better. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Neutrality 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted back. This was discussed at the WP:AfD page but there was no consensus to make the move. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you're contesting it, I'll start a RM. Neutrality 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Revisions I had written of my comment above: I reverted back. This was discussed at the WP:AfD page (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia)) but there was opposition and no consensus to make the move. The scope of Coal mining in Appalachia is far wider than this current article handles and significant work would be required expand the scope to include the material not related to Environmental Justice. Commentators, including me have noted that the scope of this article is sufficiently notable to have its own article. I have created the article Coal mining in Appalachia that can include this wider scope of material. Editors can discuss whether the material of this article should be merged into that article. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC):::::(edit conflict)

Requested move 22 April 2017

It has been proposed in this section that Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia be renamed and moved to Coal mining in Appalachia. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia → Coal mining in Appalachia – The article should be at a broader title, discussing all aspects of coal mining in the region: economic, social, environmental (including EJ-related concerns), historical, health-related, etc. The current page title is essentially a spinoff page without a main page. Neutrality 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm notifying editors who participated in the prior AfD, except single-purpose accounts, but have not already commented: Seraphim System, Srich32977, Jytdog, Cs california, Bearian, and closer Sandstein. Please feel free to tag anyone I missed.

• Support as nominator. This really shouldn't be controversial. Neutrality 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I was, in fact, about to start the RM myself. It's the best way to (a) retain useful content, and (b) avoid the POV inherent in the current title. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This was discussed at the WP:AfD page (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia)) but there was opposition and no consensus to make the move. The scope of Coal mining in Appalachia is far wider than this current article handles and significant work would be required expand the scope to include the material not related to Environmental Justice. Commentators, including me have noted that the scope of this article is sufficiently notable to have its own article. I have created the article Coal mining in Appalachia that can include this wider scope of material. Editors can discuss whether the material of this article should be merged into that article. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The best thing to do is make the article broad for now, and if in the future there is enough good content to make a spin-off article, then we can do that. There is not enough EJ-exclusive content here to justify two different overlapping articles at this point. Moreover, environmental justice is essentially the intersection of environmental impacts, social impacts, and political impact, so it makes sense to discuss these in the full context. Neutrality 04:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I had briefly seen an argument for this based on what is in the article at present, but when I looked more carefully I saw important material specifically related to Environmental Justice was removed. With that restored, the standalone article is still viable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• support more general topic, WP (surprisingly) lacks the article Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Work on new Lede

First Draft

When I tried writing a new article on only Coal mining in Appalachia by copying and pasting the relevant material from this article and summarizing what was there, this is a draft of the lede that I was working with:

The Appalachian region of the Southeastern United States is a leading producer of coal in the United States. Coal mining in Appalachia began in the 1880s, peaked in the 1920s and virtually ended during the Great Depression with the availability of alternative energy sources. Several studies have shown disparities between mining communities and non-mining communities in terms of public health, environmental degradation, pollution, and overall quality of life in Appalachia.Coal surface mining has heavily altered the hydrological cycle and landscape of the Appalachia causing environmental degradation and contributing to ecosystem damages beyond repair. Surface coal mining in the Appalachian has contributed to the destruction of over 500 mountain tops, because of mountaintop removal mining. Coal mining is regulated by federal law: 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act. The Stream Protection Rule designed to reduce impacts of coal mines on local streams, forests and wildlife, which went into effect on January 19, 2017, was struck down less than a month later by Congress and President Donald Trump.

1. Hendryx, Michael (Spring 2011). "Poverty and Mortality Disparities in Central Appalachia: Mountaintop Mining and Environmental Justice". Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice. 4 (4): 44–53.
2. Zullig, KJ; Hendryx, M (2010). "A comparative analysis of health-related quality of life for residents of U.S. counties with and without coal mining". Public health reports (Washington, D.C.). 125 (4): 548–55. doi:10.1177/003335491012500410. PMC 2882606. PMID 20597455.
3. Lindberg, TT; Bernhardt, ES; Bier, R; Helton, AM; Merola, RB; Vengosh, A; Di Giulio, RT (27 December 2011). "Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (52): 20929–34. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112381108. PMC 3248525. PMID 22160676.
4. Holzman, David (November 2011). "Mountaintop Removal Mining: Digging into Community Health Concerns" (PDF). Environmental Health Perspectives. 119: A477 – A509.

Any opposition to replacing the current lede with this? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A few things: (a) It wasn't coal mining that "virtually ended during the Great Depression" (obviously) but the construction of coal towns. (b) It seems needlessly negative for a lead: what about including the contribution it has made to the country? At least mention what fraction of US coal mining is in Appalachia. Overall, it still seems to have this EJ slant. (c) I don't see why the Stream Protection Rule should be in the lead - it didn't end up having much of an effect, did it? StAnselm (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the reason it has an Environmental Justice "slant" is because that is the topic. If the article were exclusively about coal mining, then would agree it would need to be more balanced. Okay, on coal towns. I was scratching my head at how it could be possible that coal production was "virtually ended". I must have misread a sentence somewhere. I might resume my original plan to create the coal mining article that is balanced and have this article be more focused on the intersection of EJ and coal mining in Appalachia, relying on the secondary sources that mention both together. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were saying this was the draft lead of the new Coal mining in Appalachia article. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

I am considering adding a new first sentence:

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia is the study of Environmental Justice--the interdisciplinary body of social science literature studying theories of the environment and justice; environmental laws, policies, and their implementations and enforcement; development and sustainability; and political ecology--in relation to Coal mining in Appalachia.

I admit the defn. of Environmental Justice is a bit bulky. I copied and slightly reworded the defn. Environmental Justice. It should be further simplified. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. We are going to work on making the links to EJ flow easier and make the links clearer. We like the idea of adding a definition of EJ in the first paragraph. Thanks! Wiki$ (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is probably going to moved to a broader topic, but we will see. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete masquerading as Move

Those advocating a move here had previously advocated deletion and their arguments barely touch on the title, relying instead on their disdain for the content. EJustice (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Requested moves