This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Environmental injustice in Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
|
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. [1]: 395 Romani and Indigenous groups often seek increased agency with regards to autonomy, self-governance and/or sovereignty; [1]: 395 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 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)
I never asked what's the problem... I asked why you can't discuss itAnother important point. Thank you!
Your response was to remove the section stating that you were quite clearWell, 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 just like when I asked you at ANI for diffs of conduct issues that need to be addressedI 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 problemI'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)
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)
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)
I have rarely seen such a utter and complete mess... I intend to weed out... idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims...
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
Yeah... That's your sayso...
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
Dispute resolution will soon be underway. Other editors will be involved.
No arguments? Not addressing a single point, above? I'm disappointed
Third Opinion dispute resolution submitted. This will allow for an independent party to provide input in a neutral way.
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!
Please refrain from cute remarks... I do not find it amusing
bad thing(tm)
You have not addressed a single point and right now, you're only wasting time and energy.
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.
Oh, wow... Complaining about the tone. You actually went down a notch... stop wasting my time.
References
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) /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sturgeontransformer#Please_note%3A_As_of_December_2017%2C_I_am_taking_an_extended_absence_from_Wikipedia_editing._Thank_you.
Should the article be deleted based upon claims that it is a WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 21:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Does this article have basic issues with WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer 22:50, 13 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.
Thanks,
Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue of section-blanking will need to be discussedI 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)
UPDATE: Additional information has been posted to the article for deletion nomination summary. Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Environmental injustice in Europe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
|
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. [1]: 395 Romani and Indigenous groups often seek increased agency with regards to autonomy, self-governance and/or sovereignty; [1]: 395 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 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)
I never asked what's the problem... I asked why you can't discuss itAnother important point. Thank you!
Your response was to remove the section stating that you were quite clearWell, 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 just like when I asked you at ANI for diffs of conduct issues that need to be addressedI 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 problemI'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)
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)
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)
I have rarely seen such a utter and complete mess... I intend to weed out... idiotic assumptions, overused sources and, frankly ludicrous claims...
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
Yeah... That's your sayso...
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
Dispute resolution will soon be underway. Other editors will be involved.
No arguments? Not addressing a single point, above? I'm disappointed
Third Opinion dispute resolution submitted. This will allow for an independent party to provide input in a neutral way.
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!
Please refrain from cute remarks... I do not find it amusing
bad thing(tm)
You have not addressed a single point and right now, you're only wasting time and energy.
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.
Oh, wow... Complaining about the tone. You actually went down a notch... stop wasting my time.
References
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) /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sturgeontransformer#Please_note%3A_As_of_December_2017%2C_I_am_taking_an_extended_absence_from_Wikipedia_editing._Thank_you.
Should the article be deleted based upon claims that it is a WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 21:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Does this article have basic issues with WP:SYNTH? Sturgeontransformer 22:50, 13 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.
Thanks,
Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue of section-blanking will need to be discussedI 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)
UPDATE: Additional information has been posted to the article for deletion nomination summary. Sturgeontransformer ( talk) 06:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)