Talk:Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GracieJahn.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 20:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HannahGraceBirmingham, Aer0033. Peer reviewers: OlivierMenard88.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 20:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[citation needed] 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]
  1. 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:OR
.

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

Claim from AfD about OR

[This] concern raised by

WP:OR and ideally how they might be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Goals for standalone article

The instructor,

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:DUE proportion. Thanks again for the hard work of this class. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for doing this,
Coal mining in Appalachia? That idea was floated at AfD and seemed uncontroversial. Neutralitytalk 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep much better. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Neutralitytalk 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply
]
Since you're contesting it, I'll start a RM. Neutralitytalk 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(
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)[reply
]

Requested move 22 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus.The assertion that there is a an abundance of

WP:RS on this particular topic seems to be primarily true.Futhermore there has been proposals to create a sperate article on Environmental issues in Appalachia and merge/fork information between the proposed target-destination duo and this one.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]


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. Neutralitytalk 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Neutralitytalk 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose This was discussed at the
    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)[reply
    ]
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. Neutralitytalk 04:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Neutrality I am also adding more specific content, I have found a lot of sources - both from law journals and academic social sciences publications about this specific movement - this is not a broad page about the theory of environmental justice, but a specific movement of community organizations like SOCM in the region that has a long and well documented history - significant federal legislation was passed, that legislation has a long regional history that is documented in secondary source law journals, there have been several law cases, some in the Supreme Court of the United States. It really needs a stand alone article. Seraphim System (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support more general topic, WP (surprisingly) lacks the article Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that more. This article is a POV Fork off a non-existent article --
Coal mining in Appalachia. If this stuff (once it is well-written and well-sourced) were alongside the broader topic it would make a ton more sense and things would flow. As it is there is big picture stuff in this article (like very big trends in coal production as a piece of the energy mix) that are not really part of any EJ analysis. They would fit naturally in an article on the bigger picture. A discussion of shifts between shaft and strip and MR mining is lacking here - what drove that? Are there measures of how those shifts affected nearby communities? Does that shift somehow fit in the context of other changes in the economy like the development of the Rust Belt? So much of this feels jagged and POV-y because it lacks context. So moving this to the broader topic is good for this content (again, once it is well-written and well-sourced). Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose, per Seraphim System and the fact that is is on a specific legal sub-area of coal mining for which there is plenty of sources. GregJackP Boomer! 06:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is broad enough to cover the broader topic, and it is neutrally worded. I'm not swayed by Seraphim System's argument that a move would exclude the impact on families: it can be covered in the article in a section so long as it is given the correct weight it is due based on reliable sources and consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment That wasn't what I meant but it doesn't matter - the poor title I came up with ("Environmental Impact...) would have excluded that content, but User:Pharos correctly pointed out these pages are usually named "Environmental issues in..." Several other users have expressed concerns about the form of the title (X and Y) - I agree. I want to userify the content I've added, and draft Environmental issues in Appalachia - the remaining content I think should be moved to Coal Mining in Appalachia - I am interested in working on the first page (not about coal mining) The second page involves a lot of statistical and technical sources in areas I can't claim to be proficient in like geology, so I won't be much help there, other then adding some historical background content. Seraphim System (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perhaps after creating the broader article we will see some topics that need to be forked off to more specific articles (e.g. Environmental impact of coal mining...) but a move will help reframe the article so it isn't such a POV mess like the current article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consider that there are probably sufficient sources to build "Justice and XXX" articles for almost any topic XXX. For any topic XXX, some will say it is unjust and some will say it is just. That doesn't mean we need an article for every XXX describing others' views about whether it is just. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think pretty much everyone is in agreement. The page I'm drafting is going to be Environmental Issues in Appalachia - it's not a fork, there's also content about fracking that needs to be added. I'm going to userify my content here and remove it from this page before it's moved. Seraphim System (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ADD I also want to add that comments like "POV mess" are denigrating and not a substitute for actual discussion, no one knows what you mean by "POV mess" unless you raise specific content issues. Also, Environmental Justice is not about "others' views" about whether the environment is just. We just had this discussion yesterday - it is not a perspective, it is not like "Justice and XXX" - it is more like "Corporate Law and Delware" - it is a practice area of U.S. law. Most of the time comments in a discussion like this are based on policy and not persistent factual inaccuracies, which I have heard repeated on this page several times. Environmental Justice in Appalachia would be fine but it needs to be sourced out of an EJ casebook, and I don't have one. There was a long discussion about this just yesterday. Seraphim System (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Environmental aspects will be a major section in the article. Why not let this all be moved, let it be fleshed out, and the community can decide when and if a split is needed? That would be... normal. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are different topics, there is material that is not about coal mining. Honestly, I am removing my content and I don't want it as part of this page and the community should respect that. I work on law articles, and it is very difficult to do that in broad articles where people routinely make errors based on popular usages of words. This is not meant to put any other editors down, so please don't take it that way. Seraphim System (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes this is not about coal mining; and most but not all of this, and a bit of this. However all of this was coal mining, and this too. I see how the purely EJ stuff is not about coal mining. The stuff that is not coal mining is not Appalachia either. Would appear to fit well in Environmental justice. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Environmental Justice is a long article with international scope, adding a region of the United States to the article would have to be discussed there. I have never worked on that article. Seraphim System (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This is more what I had in mind, not limited to EJ or Coal Mining. Of course, the regional scope is Appalachia, which is a region of the United States. I have to see what's available, I'll take a look through the Federal Register at some point. Seraphim System (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hm. I see what you mean about the DuPont case.
Just responding for the first time about your statement that Environmental Justice is a field of law. I agree that Environmental law is an area of law per se; per our article the term EJ "has two distinct uses: the first, and more common usage, describes a social movement that focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, while the other is an interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes theories of the environment and justice, environmental laws and their implementations, environmental policy and planning and governance for development and sustainability, and political ecology". So... there is that. I reckon that this dual use of the term is some of what has made things difficult this past semester. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Environmental Justice is a practice area within Environmental Law - for example, (discriminatory)siting, which we don't have an article about. Going back as far as the 1970s in Appalachia is difficult because major issues like Buffalo Creek took place before "Environmental Justice" was a widely used term - it is also interdisciplinary, but the only sources I have that are explicitly "EJ movement in the context of coal mining in Appalachia" are from ProjectMuse and too many editors have voiced POV concerns about sourcing an entire article from "biased materials". ProjectMuse is a high quality academic database, Shannon Elizabeth Bell is an established scholar in this field - but do we exclude Buffalo Creek from the page? I spent a lot of time trying to source Buffalo Creek as being part of the EJ movement, and found only a peripheral mention in one book. So, yes, there are significant problems with the current title. Seraphim System (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS for this seemingly obscure topic. [1], [2], [3] and much more found in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Coal mining in Appalachia has received a vast amount of attention from scholars, scientists, economists, lawyers and the media. No, it doesn't necessarily mean we would have an article for every region, that would depend on the sources available for that region. Also, Appalachia is huge - from NY to Alabama. Seraphim System (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.[1] 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.[2]Coal surface mining has heavily altered the hydrological cycle and landscape of the Appalachia causing environmental degradation and contributing to ecosystem damages beyond repair.[3] Surface coal mining in the Appalachian has contributed to the destruction of over 500 mountain tops, because of mountaintop removal mining.[4] 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. PMID 20597455
    .
  3. 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 of THIS article with this? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [clarified --David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)][reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
David Tornheim I changed my position above, and agree with your comments that there is no barrier to creating a main page to discuss other issues that won't fit within the scope of this page. Reviewing the available sources, I think this page will most likely require a spin out from the main page anyway. I do think some of the primary sources need to be replaced with secondary sources, because our applying them to Environmental Justice requires editorial inference. I will look into some possible alternatives. I added a secondary source to the lead that supports the primary source citations, and added a new background section on Justice theory, and scholarship that has applied it to this field to help with the definition problem. Seraphim System (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note on lead

We would like the lead paragraph to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" according to Wikipedia's entry on lead paragraphs. We are going to include edits to the lead paragraph as appropriate to reflect this. Thank you! Wiki$ (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

I am considering adding a new first sentence:

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia is the study of
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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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


Discussion about working on content of Coal mining in Appalachia

Discussion about creating a new article is on hold pending the move discussion above Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
::::
Coal mining in Appalachia article? The only reason I waited is that if both articles start from the exact same Wiki-code, we lose the editing history of one or the other by simply copying the Wikicode. Is there a way to make a copy of the edit history too? Any thoughts on that concern? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's reasonable to proceed with the understanding that the Environmental Justice section would have to be spun out of the main article anyway. For the main article, I would suggest a brief summary of the history of the Environmental Justice movement in the region, the success of the (mostly) women local activists at earning recognition for this issue, and a link to this article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: Okay, I'll move forward with that. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
David Tornheim I have something drafted in my sandbox already. Seraphim System (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim System I skimmed it and it looks good. You have my blessing to put it into mainspace. I'll copy stuff over from this article if I see stuff missing that should be incorporated. Thanks for doing that. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, what you all are doing, is basically breaking/circumventing a valid move discussion that is going on above. This is really disrespecting the process. Jytdog (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Tornheim see note above. Please explain how creating a new article at the place where an ongoing discussion is happening about moving this one, respects the process. What should happen to the move discussion if you carry out this proposal? Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog No disrespect intended, User:Neutrality correctly pointed out that currently we have a spinoff without a main page. The environmental justice movement in this region is discussed extensively by numerous secondary sources. Even if we moved it now, that would not preclude a spinout in the future, but I think the expansion of this page is going to be sufficient to justify the stand-alone article. There is also a lot more that could be added to main page that is not within the scope of the environmental justice studies. Seraphim System (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim, I can't believe you're still doing this, over other editors' objections. Please stop. StAnselm (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm What you are suggesting right now does not make sense. I was the first one who proposed moving to Coal Mining in Appalachia - this was because there are significant historical labor disputes and economic studies that are not part of the Environmental Justice movement and because we do not spin out articles unnecessarily. This article was marked keep after a long AfD. The only reason we are discussing moving now is because there was no high-level article. However, given the immense amount of scholarly literature that is relevant to this specific topic, moving this page while it is being expanded and source checked no longer makes any sense. This move discussion is not a second AfD. Seraphim System (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was marked "no consensus", and now we try to solve the POV problem by other means, such as renaming or merging - which the closer specifically mentioned. You might not think the move makes sense (though apparently you did a few days ago), but several other editors do. StAnselm (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Solve the POV problem by other means? The scholarly literature on this topic is vast and extensive. I don't really see the point in moving to Coal Mining in Appalachia because after reviewing the breadth of available sources, it seems non-controversial that merging/moving would overburden the broader page. Seraphim System (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm I removed some of the Trump POV, but there is other content I want to copy from this page to Coal Mining in Appalachia and expand this page with academic scholarly sources that are about this movement, specifically. Seraphim System (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. I have place warnings at both users' pages. [4], [5] --David Tornheim (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, trying to influence a move discussion by creating a rival article at the target is tendentious editing, too. StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog StAnselm I need the article up and running to copy and paste material that doesn't belong in this article. Please go read the comments of other editors again, and let me know if you think I've misunderstood the concerns of most of the editors involved. There wasn't enough here to support a stand alone article after cleanup, but I did not understand the comments to be prejudiced against improving this article. Seraphim System (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a place to "copy and paste material that doesn't belong in this article", you can use user-space. There is almost certainly going to be a
coal mining in Appalachia article some day soon, but it's a live question whether it gets created directly or via a page move. And then the next question will be whether there will still be an environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia article - if the main article gets created directly, this article could still be merged into it. StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
StAnselm I don't think it would be appropriate for me to remove and editor's content and copy it into my userspace. Seraphim System (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you would need to do so with attribution. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • David and Seraphim System, would you please respond to the question I asked? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Seraphim System I will ask a third time: What should happen to the move discussion if you carry out this proposal? This is the fundamental problem here. Please respond. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have already answered this question. Seraphim System (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the process question. Please do so. There is an open move discussion that has not been closed yet. What should happen to it? Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH. This new material is also not about the EJ movement. Most of the EJ-specific material is historical. Seraphim System (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand your position. You are still not answering the question. Here are some possible answers, based on your behavior. "Well I oppose the proposal to move the page and so I do not care what happens to the discussion." or "I don't know, maybe it should be closed since another editor and I have decided on our own what should happen." Based on your actions, I cannot think of a different kind of answer than those. But please do provide your own answer. Here it is again: What should happen to the open move discussion?Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have already answered that question. Seraphim System (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff, because I have carefully read everything you wrote here. If the person who proposed the move acted as you did, they would be continually trying to move the article to the new name. That would be as disruptive as what you have been doing. It would not be a bad thing to start drafting the broader article in a sandbox or in draftspace but creating an article at the intended move target is just disruptive. Think about what should happen if the move proposal succeeded. Should the new article there just be overwritten? Would it turn into a merge? It just creates a local train wreck in a situation that is already a massive train wreck as you have noted elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those situations that does not need a diff. You have been involved in the discussion, as have I. After reading through the comments, and the phrasing of the move discussion (spinout without main page), and the numerous comments that this article needed improvement, but should be moved without prejudice until that time - as the person who first suggested the move for these reasons in AfD, I did not expect opposition to resolving these concerns by improving this article and creating a main page. Since you have found some cause to oppose this, substantive or otherwise, I am waiting for the discussion to close, which should be obvious from the fact that I have not taken any further action to push through a page creation. Seraphim System (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am done here. Thanks for making it clear that you have stopped blowing up the process. It should not have taken this many go rounds, what a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your accusation of bad faith is noted. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously reached out to
WP:ASPERSIONS is fair. Seraphim System (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@EJustice: You really need to be backing away from this. A significant number of editors have cautioned you about POV-pushing. It really is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Can you please take a look at this and help with any resources available to help resolve this conflict? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed): ditto. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the education program doesn't have authority over content; these requests just put them in awkward situations. Their thoughts are of course welcome. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I have an opinion as
"Assume good faith" is an expectation for Wikipedia editing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Ian (Wiki Ed) Would the title Environmental Justice in Appalachia be better? This uses the same language as many of the secondary sources Seraphim System (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The usual style of Wikipedia articles is Environmental issues in X, like Environmental issues in India. It may make sense to have an article title in that pattern, while still emphasizing environmental justice issues in the text.--Pharos (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After working on the article fairly intensively for a couple of days, I'm inclined to agree with WP:Pharos - it is too difficult for me to separate "EJ" content from "Regular" environmental law/impacts content. I am spending a lot of time looking into whether a particular case or a particular incident can be sourced as part of "EJ" This is complicated by a number of things. For example, is the Buffalo Creek Disaster case part of EJ-law or regular law? This isn't an easy question to answer without an EJ casebook. Often I have to rely on how lawyers identify themselves, because the connection is not made explicitly in the secondary sources that I have access to (though someone with an EJ textbook might be able to manage.) I also don't think the term "EJ" came into use until later, though the era of the 60s and 70s are generally regarded as being part of the same movement - post 1980s EJ is combining Civil Rights litigation with environmental issues, but this has not been the case in Appalachia which has a long tradition of labor rights, but is not as strong on race issues. Anyway, the difficulty trying to source content as being part of "EJ" probably means the scope is too narrow and I would prefer Environmental issues in Appalachia as well. Seraphim System (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great title

This article documents conditions at a natural intersection: coal mining (a notable topic especially right now), Appalachia (the oldest center of coal mining in the US, facing rapid technological change in mining methods, huge health risks with the expiration of health insurance for those in the industry as well as a 500% increase in known black lung disease cases due to new data), and environmental justice, namely the political and social dimensions of environmental issues. The criteria for a good title are replicated below here, and this title meets them all.

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

EJustice (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, the title Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia is certainly not consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There are no other articles that use the 'Environmental Justice and' construction, and such a construction would likely run into many of the problems discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Environmental issues in Appalachia, proposed above, would better fit the pattern of existing articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Nelson

Jytdog Chuck Nelson is a well-known activist who has been covered in several books, but Buffalo Creek is not the correct section, and you were right that it was not clear from the context. I think advocacy groups would be a more correct place for this - right now I am trying to find a chapter from a book published by MIT Press through the resource exchange. Seraphim System (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok.... Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unsourced and continuation of POV problem

Moved here per

WP:BURDEN
] please don't restore without finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.

This content also strangely continues the

WP:NPOV
violations of this "article" by somehow putting the views of those opposed to regulation as "criticism" of the POV of this article. This is deeper in the wrong direction.

Criticism
The War on Coal

While activists have sought to internalize some of the negative externalized costs of the coal industry, critics have said that the Obama Administration's EPA and other federal agencies were engaged in a "war on coal." Organizations such as The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), member companies of the National Mining Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, as well as anonymous donor political action committees (PACs) spent millions of dollars to promote this message through print, radio and television advertisements. They argued that the proposed regulatory actions would increase the costs of mining and burning coal. They further argued that the regulations would increase the costs of disposing of mining wastes, destroy tens of thousands of jobs, and threaten the "way of life" of coalfield families.

Critics have identified several categories of federal regulations that present a threat to the coal industry[1]

  1. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), including lowering levels of black-lung causing coal dust and enforceable standards to identify "patterns of violations" by mining companies
  2. EPA Clean Water Act Regulatory Proposals including efforts to identify buffer zones near streams where mountaintop removal strip-mining and disposal of coal mining wastes would be prohibited
  3. EPA Clean Air Act proposals

References

  1. ^ McGinley, Patrick (2012). "Collateral Damage: Turning a Blind Eye to Environmental and Social Injustice in the Coalfields". Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law. 19 (2): 312–316. Retrieved 24 April 2017. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is sourced to the pages of the law review article, I provided in the URL I can send it to you if you can't access Hein, I never add unsourced content - restoring. Seraphim System (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also strongly urging you to stop calling Environmental Justice "POV", it is a practice area of law. I encourage you to check with the American Bar Association, and not just take my word for it. Therefore criticism of the legal and regulatory efforts is exactly what it sounds like. "War on Coal" is also a term that has been used extensively - for one example see the Christian Science Monitor Seraphim System (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that EJ itself is POV. EJ is a perspective. A fine one. The problem is that this page is POV. Wikipedia articles to do not make arguments - they do not participate in RW debates. Saying that coal companies are "critics" of EJ specifically, when they aren't focused on that at all and are just fighting regulation, doesn't make sense. Part of the problem here is that this page is so badly defined right now -- so much of it is not simply describing EJ stances but arguing why EJ is based on facts or something (e.g describing how bad conditions are in appalachia due to what coal mining companies have done). As I said above this perpetuates the "live tiger" ness of this page.
also sticking a citation somewhere in the middle of content but expecting anyone to understand that all the content is summarizing that source is very nonstandard use of citations. I am removing it again. Please follow
WP:BRD and let's try to work toward consensus on this. I will get the ref and review it. It may well be that all of this is sourced from it... the way you placed the citation doesn't lead one to think so. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
EJ is not a "perspective," much like "cardiac surgery" is not a perspective - it is a practice area of law. Before you ask, I did go to law school, but I don't think that makes me more important then you. You can find out more here: William and Mary Law School - and here: coal case. If you have competence to read these materials and present them in plain language then please do that. If you are unhappy with the precision of my citations, I can certainly upgrade to formal pinpoint citation. You could have just asked me to pinpoint cite, instead of reverting three times, I would have done so. Seraphim System (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a "perspective". It's probably most helpful to think of it as something as to feminism. Like feminism, that also makes it a field of study. And I do note there are some "feminism and" articles - like feminism and modern architecture - but not many. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, please don't cite things to dead-end databases like that. The article is freely available online. The full and correct citation is: McGinley, Patrick (Spring 2013). "Collateral Damage: Turning a Blind Eye to Environmental and Social Injustice in the Coalfields". Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law. 19 (2): 304–425. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess a last note. Given its title, do you reckon that this article attempts to present a neutral representation of the position of critics? That is a real question. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you are questioning whether or not law review is a
WP:RS then post it to a noticeboard. Seraphim System (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Both of you. Please address the POV issues here. GregJackP you are also mis-citing BRD and the history. Seraphim added, I reverted, and that is where it stops, per what BRD and the history here actually demonstrate. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Adding sourced material is not the first step in BRD. Removing material that is reliably sourced to a law journal was the bold move, then he reverted you. You should have started to discuss it at that point, not start an edit war to remove it. GregJackP Boomer! 05:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ten years I've been on WP, I've never heard that interpretation of BRD before. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't been in the right places, because I've heard it described that way in the 10 years I've been on WP. GregJackP Boomer! 06:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Jytdogs question about the neutrality of the sources, I have been careful to make sure anything I add is within the scope of this article. This means explicit references to terms like "injustice" and "justice" - Environmental Justice is a practice area of law, that is a fact. Law journals present legal issues - usually in the dense and conservatively neutral tone that is characteristic of legal writing. Fact, law, application, analysis/scholar's opinion repeat. Proposed Rule X, Rule X requires Y, etc. - and these articles are rigorously cited. I'm sure the section could be improved, but there is no legitimate reason for edit warring to push its deletion. Seraphim System (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jytdog is right - as it stands, the section is POV, especially in the title. We can't call this "criticism", since it's not criticising "environmental justice" per se, and it's certainly not criticising coal mining in Appalachia. StAnselm (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's not right. One of his mistakes focuses on the term "Environmental Justice" as being POV—it is not, it is a legal practice area and has its own committee at the American Bar Association. Second, Patrick McGinley is a recognized expert in the field, and is a professor at West Virginia Law. His CV is full of publications in this field. Having read both the section and the law review article, it is clear that Prof. McGinley is presenting the issues neutrally, but in a legal writing style that may be hard for some to understand. GregJackP Boomer! 06:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't see it on the list of committees. Anyway, if the article were Regulation of coal mining in Appalachia, then calling this section "Criticism" would be fine. But it's not, so it's not. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try looking in the right place, under the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, here. GregJackP Boomer! 07:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm Can you please tell us in your own words what you think Environmental Justice is? It is not a "perspective" like feminism. Feminism is not a practice area of law. Maybe one day it will be, but gender and race are not legally equivalent. Feminist legal theory is a critical legal theory that may effect some practitioners who practice in areas of law like family law and criminal law. Environmental Justice is an actual practice area of law like DUI/Traffic law - if you do not understand the difference, please do not edit this article. This is an undisputed fact - your argument has as much validility as someone posting on a math page and arguing that 2*8=28 Seraphim System (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: I'm filing for SPI. Seraphim System (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As compelling as I find that evidence, I have no way of knowing if you are the same person, or just friends who are working in tandem, but I have seen enough consistency in your conduct throughout this whole WikiEdu debacle that I felt it was appropriate to ask others who are in a better position to judge this kind of thing to investigate the possibility Seraphim System (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously need to take a break here. Step back, take a deep breath, and find another article to edit. You have certainly crossed the line here, and if you are not blocked for your behaviour you should take some time out anyway. StAnselm (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad behavior

Editors seeking to delete environmental justice from this articles title do not seem to be discussing this issue on the merits, rather they seem to have a POV about the topic as a whole. Students wrote over a dozen pages with these words in the title and a dozen or more articles with sub-sections. Virtually all were subjected to deletions and moves targeting mentions of race, class, sometimes gender, and content about justice. Here's a sample of an attempt to discuss the biases that such POV may represent, and the kinds of warnings and threats that ensued. (I expect the responses to this note to be strong and to further denigrate the students' work. It would be great if, instead, editors could make constructive edits that improved and preserved the articles in the broader interests of Wikipedia users.) EJustice (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:AE. @Ryan (Wiki Ed): any thoughts? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Edit request

corporate veil stuff

WP:OFFTOPIC? Thanks. In my view it is both undue and offtopic. Your edit note didn't speak to the reason why it was removed. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It is from a widely cited book about Buffalo Creek, so despite sharing your view, you provide no actual justification for it other they gratuitously citing the policies. It was removed based on an unsourced and personal interpretation of a legal procedure, so I have restored it because this is from the book written by the attorney who won the Buffalo Creek settlement, and the corporate veil issue in particular is also discussed in other sources. The edit note is wrong - the view of most secondary sources is that Pittson settled because they were no longer protected by the corporate veil. Seraphim System (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have voiced concerns over whether the Buffalo Creek case is part of the Environmental Justice movement - I think it can be sourced, even though EJ was a nascent movement at the time of this case. There are questions about whether Buffalo Creek would be more correctly part of vanilla Environmentalism law. EJ as an area of law often deals with the 14th amendment. In that case, all the Buffalo Creek content can be moved to my draft of Environmental Issues in Appalachia. Seraphim System (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not answering the questions. Am not contesting that this belongs somewhere in WP - the question is whether it belongs in this article. as has been widely discussed already, the students derailed in many ways, and UNDUE/OFFTOPIC was a key one. There is a lot more work like this that needs to be done. Please do address the issue here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added this, not the students. I really don't want to have to keep repeating myself, if there is consensus to move it to the draft of Environmental Issues in Appalachia, that is easy to do, but I don't want it dissected piecemail for specious reasons. It doesn't need to be removed immediately. Seraphim System (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well hm. Double hm. In any case, you are still not speaking to the UNDUE/OFFTOPIC issue, and only to its sourcing. Please do respond to the issue. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its definitely not undue, it is a major part of any discussion of Buffalo Creek. As for OFFTOPIC, I am interested in hearing other editors opinions of whether the Buffalo Creek discussion should be moved to the other articlr. Seraphim System (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for speaking to the issues, at least in part. I don't agree that every aspect of every legal case needs to be addressed every time a topic is mentioned. Sure let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me when I tell you I did not address every aspect of the legal case. I simplified it as much as possible. The case was settled with Pittson. Had the attorneys been unable to pierce the corporate veil, they would have been no chance of legal proceedings against Pittson. This is the first issue in any legal case - whether a court has jurisdiction over the party that is being sued. It is not something that can be left out when it is a major issue that determined the outcome of the case (or settlement), as it was here. Seraphim System (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second major factor leading to settlement was the fact that Pittson called the disaster an "Act of God" in an attempt to cover their liability. This backfired because most of the people effected were deeply religious and did not care about the legal implications of "Act of God." The backlash was tremendous and most likely this also had an impact on Pittson's decision to settle. I will add this once we decide which article it belongs in.Seraphim System (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate veil information should be moved to Buffalo Creek flood and not included here. I agree with Jytdog's assessment that inclusion is undue here. Dialectric (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the move discussion has closed, so I published Environmental Issues in Appalachia - I had a draft in userspace. I think there needs to be some discussion of organizing the content between the two articles now that the move discussion is over. The corporate veil information is already in the other article so I will take it out of this one. Seraphim System (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the update. so the focus of this article becomes extremely narrow and perhaps more inappropriate that it was before, as the broader topic is definitely foreclosed here. I will look into whether a new deletion discussion is necessary now. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, there are entire books about this movement, just run it through Gbooks.The move discussion just closed, I think you should probably just let this go. Also, the other article doesn't isn't only about coal-mining. There is too much to add to both pages, the scope of the page is fine. Seraphim System (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General stuff about Law and regulation may no longer belong here, for example.. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of that to the other page already - as far as EJ as a social movement, there are books about the EJ movement that aren't strictly about the environmental impacts. Like a boulder falling on a home and killing a 3 year old that led to the creation of an activist network that is now demanding that Swathmore divest from fossil fuels investments - I've included a brief paragraph in the other article with a link to this page, but I'm not sure adding the full content would be appropriate for that page. Seraphim System (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Issues in Appalachia

We now have the new article

Environmental Issues in Appalachia. Environment content that does not have a clear connection to social justice should go there.Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

How do we move sections with attribution? Seraphim System (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&oldid=1207122044"