Talk:Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia#Goals for standalone article

: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)

----

:Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia → {{no redirect|Coal mining in Appalachia}} – The article should be at a broader title, discussing all aspects of coal mining in the region: economic, social, environmental (including EJ-related concerns), historical, health-related, etc. The current page title is essentially a spinoff page without a main page. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• Support as nominator. This really shouldn't be controversial. Neutrality^talk 04:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I was, in fact, about to start the RM myself. It's the best way to (a) retain useful content, and (b) avoid the POV inherent in the current title. StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This was discussed at the WP:AfD page (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) 04:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

:::I had briefly seen an argument for this based on what is in the article at present, but when I looked more carefully I saw important material specifically related to Environmental Justice was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776612249&oldid=776610224 removed]. With that restored, the standalone article is still viable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

::: {{u|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)

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

::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)

• {{Strikethrough|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)}}

• 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)

• Comment Regardless of the status of the current article under a particular title, we definitely could use articles on both Coal mining in Appalachia and Environmental issues in Appalachia as well.--Pharos (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::::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)

::::: 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)

:::::::I see. Yes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776758240&oldid=776757707 this] is not about coal mining; and most but not all of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776828976&oldid=776761887 this], and a bit of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776947574&oldid=776884991 this]. However all of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=776760140&oldid=776759607 this was] coal mining, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia&type=revision&diff=777088693&oldid=777015011 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)

{{od|7}} 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)

:[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/dupont-jury-reaches-verdict-in-ohio-toxic-water-lawsuit 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)

::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)

::: Yup, Environmental Justice is a practice area within Environmental Law - for example, [http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol30_2003/fall2003/irr_hr_fall03_fourtheenthamendment.html (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)

• Support "Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia", a title that reflects the current content of the article and is far more concise. Laurdecl ^talk 08:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - agree with Pharos that we could use articles on both Coal mining in Appalachia and Environmental issues in Appalachia, both using some content or sourcing from this article. While a case can be made for a more focused article along the lines of 'Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia', the title is unconventional and unless carefully defined, would likely be a coatrack for information better covered in one of these other articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed. "Coal mining in Appalachia" is a different/separate subject that needs a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Imho, there should be either an article on Environmental justice and coal mining in the US, or the article could be merged with Coal mining in the United States. The article then could have a section on Environmental justice. Otherwise we end up with several articles, if we have for each coal mining region a different article, no? prokaryotes (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|Prokaryotes}} There is a bunch of WP:RS for this seemingly obscure topic. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yvonne_Braun3/publication/254093122_Coal_Identity_and_the_Gendering_of_Environmental_Justice_Activism_in_Central_Appalachia/links/56c6a7df08ae8cf828ff3f1e.pdf], [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.7474&rep=rep1&type=pdf], [http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=jhdrp&sei-redir=1&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Denvironmental%2Bjustice%2Bin%2Bappalchia%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22environmental%20justice%20appalchia%22] and much more found in the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

::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)

----

: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.