Talk:Environmental racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Environmental racism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 what is the term? 2 NPOV 3 Neutrality 4 Put NPOV tag on article 5 Citations 6 To the IP user who keeps deleting the stuff about redlining 7 NPOV Jan. 23, 2008

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)