Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental defender

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Environmental defender

(
)

Expanded 5x by Larataguera (talk). Self-nominated, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Welcome to DYK! I'll be taking on this review. Some notes in advance: I'm also a newbie (this will be my third review), but so long as each of us do our best it should work out alright. Also, this review is happening faster-than-norm, so don't expect this fast of a review for future nominations, please! With all that aside, best of luck, and the initial review will be up shortly. Canadianerk (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - sources are missing for the end of the paragraphs in sections "Legal framework" and "Renewable energy..."
  • Neutral: No - I think the article needs to cover all significant viewpoints under WP:POV. I don't believe that the criticism by "governments, corporations and local elites" (the use of local elites raises concerns as well, WP:VOICE, judgemental/political, questionable whether neutral?) summarized to 3 sentences under "Criticism and response", and dismissing it as financial interest in relevant projects, is acceptable under the Neutrality policy. Obviously, providing too many/niche examples could cause things to spiral wildly out of scope, and the amount of balance needs to be guided by WP:UNDUE - but providing something seems appropriate (and necessary) for neutrality to be established. While relevant to the article, the section is focused only on criticism from fellow activists and academia. To my knowledge, a standalone article could probably be made about the range of views on this aspect alone, so there are plenty of options to draw upon. (if there is one, linking to it and summarizing it briefly within this one could help resolve this neutrality problem as well).

I'm a bit concerned overall about the article, how much is written as fact vs opinion - any reassurance on the overall neutrality of the article would be helpful.

  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in Criticism and Response looks like a potential WP:OR or MOS:TERRORIST, as it isn't explicitly stated by the source cited? I ctrl+f'd the use of the word terror, and I think this is the passage that is being referenced: "The so called “War on Terror” intensified the stigmatization and criminalization of activism both in North America and the EU. For instance, Europol qualifies various forms of protest and action against resource extraction companies as “single issue terrorism”, which has led to increasing surveillance and criminalization" - finding a source which more directly supports the claim might be an easier option to pursue, as "intensified stigmatization and criminalization" doesn't equate "In the Global North, the war on terror has resulted in environmental defenders being cast as terrorists" to me. I can see the implication there, but I'm concerned whether it's enough to support it as is.
  • I'm not familiar with the policy/precedent so this isn't like, a 100% urgent problem, but what's with just calling out the last name of authors of sources? I took a brief look around, but I've only seen something like that where their names were already established. I'd suspect it would be confusing to the average reader if "However, Ghazoul and Kleinschroth" is just in the middle of a paragraph, without any context on who they are. It's done several times throughout - it's open for discussion, so if you know the relevant policy that would help, and of course, any help from any other people on whether this is okay would be helpful.
  • There's not much/any context on how land is defended within the article. This concern in particular I don't think is necessary to address, but just wanted to note this - this alone isn't going to hold back this nomination imo.

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - I think it is interesting, but it would benefit by being a tease, (only providing part of the context), so removing "on the front of the global environmental justice movement" could help boost its "hookiness". Only relevant if the other issues are resolved obviously, so just noting this suggestion here.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Well, going in I thought this would be simple to review - but indeed, just like the subject matter, this is a very complicated subject. So, I want to make sure to get this right. To do as much due-diligence as possible, I did look through your talk page's discussion of this article to understand the background, in addition to the normal review process. I believe your concern about whether this article can stand on its own is relevant - particularly because more commonly used terms "climate activist" and "environmental activist" are redirects into articles about the movement (Individual action on climate change for the former - Environmentalism for the latter) instead of standalone articles... I'm not sure why that is, but if you have that concern, it's concerning to me. An article on mainpage shouldn't have concern on the part of the nominator that the article could be deleted? Or did I miss something in that convo? But ultimately, for the purposes of this review, the state of articles outside of the review isn't within my scope. I've flagged some issues above, some more serious/relevant than others. For now, I am leaving the initial as Maybe, so this can be discussed further, I'm not going to reject the nomination at this stage - and of course, comments from other volunteers at DYK would be helpful too. I hope this makes sense - if you have questions/need clarification don't hesitate to ask - I'm going to try to explain my thinking as the discussion goes on. Thank you for your patience Larataguera, and I hope that regardless of the result of the discussion, we both learn from this process! Canadianerk (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Canadianerk for this prompt and thorough review. I've made a few changes to try and address some of these issues. Does the additional example in the criticism section (for tactics) help balance the POV? Give me a day or so to address some of your other notes. As far as this article's relation to other pages, it is a bit complicated, but there's plenty of sources here to establish that this is a notable topic, and there was consensus on my talk page for me to create this page.
Again, thanks for the review.
Canadianerk I agree with your concern that the article may not meet NPOV, but I am not a specialist in the subject. Would it make sense to start a discussion on NPOV on the article talk page and invite comments from relevant Wikiprojects like environment and climate change?
Larataguera in future, your own talk page is probably not the best place to establish a broad consensus. Also, you need to sign your talk page posts with four tildes for notifications to work. TSventon (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's where I'm at, Larataguera - I want to be very clear, and thank you for your efforts to cover a complicated subject. Your response to my review did significantly improve the article in the other areas of concern, and the time+effort put in is appreciated. But when it comes to NPOV, I'm still not certain whether this article meets the policy. And I simply cannot ignore that uncertainty, no matter how strong or weak it is. I agree with TSventon, this article requires attention from outside the DYK process, from people more familiar with this subject area. So, a NPOV discussion seems like the most appropriate step forward. With all the above in mind, here's the next steps: It's time to establish a NPOV discussion in the talk page. From there, I'm going to leave it to you and other editors to debate and review the neutrality of the article. If the result is that the page is fine/edits resolve any NPOV concerns, I will be request a fresh review from an uninvolved editor here at DYK. A more experienced, non-involved reviewer taking a look (+comments from DYK regulars,) in that scenario is ideal. If the discussion results in a different outcome, I can close this nomination as "No", as appropriate. As with my review, I hope this outcome makes sense. It's unfortunate that it turned out this way, and thank you for your patience Larataguera. Best of luck, and I hope you don't become discouraged by whatever the outcomes are. Please keep trying! -Next, I regret to say that at time of writing, I do not have time to set up the talk page discussion. Apologies! I can do it later if necessary- Finally, thank you TSventon for your comment, it was very helpful. My thanks to you both, Canadianerk (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Canadianerk, thanks for giving it a shot. I wish I better understood the POV concerns so that I could fix them, but it sounds like it's just a general uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the topic. I get it. It occurs to me that articles on environmental justice topics are unlikely to be featured on DYK, because this uncertainty about POV would be common: it's a potentially contentious field of study that many people are unfamiliar with. I'm not saying my article couldn't have POV issues. I'm just observing that Wikipedia as a whole may not be well equipped to deal with those issues through the processes that benefit other articles. If this article were about a baseball player or a new technology, most DYK volunteers would probably feel capable of assessing the POV and guiding the author toward an acceptable article. This gap in Wikipedia's capabilities is a symptom of systemic bias. Of course that's not your fault. It's not even your responsibility to do anything about it. I'm just reflecting on my experience with this process. I think you've done a great job and been very helpful.
Anyway, thanks for your help. I'm fine with a NPOV discussion on the talk page. If that just means putting a section on the talk page and asking about POV, I can do that. I'm not sure what would come of it. I rather doubt too many people are watching the page, but I suppose we could try it. Larataguera (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • What it comes down to is simply my inexperience on Wikipedia. My frame of reference for these types of articles and the subject's neutrality is inherently tied to the news media, which has its own biases - complicating my ability to confidently judge NPOV in this area. You're right - my uncertainty is a reflection of a problem that Wikipedia as a whole is still grappling with. As an intersection of politics, economics and human rights amidst other possible fields and factors, it's a lot to weigh for me -- I've made several attempts to write out the problem to try to resolve this myself, and they are coming off to me as biased when I read them back, towards "left" AND "right" leaning arguments on this subject... it's changed back and forth, depending on which instance. It could be a symptom of my own mental health, lack of confidence, biases, lack of knowledge, or a combination of. And as a new DYK reviewer in particular, I'm trying to be more cautious (or paranoid...) than others. So, I appreciate your thoughts Larataguera - and I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful! With the above clear to me, I'm adjusting next steps a tad. I'm leaving a comment at the DYK talk page, as more experienced reviewers weighing in should be helpful. If it doesn't end up helping, or the same idk is the consensus, we can make requests for support at the NPOV noticeboard; WP:PROCC; WP:CSB; and/or WP:HR. Canadianerk (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • With all the above in mind, I'm opting to close my participation in this as "Again" instead of just leaving this review sitting in limbo. Hopefully that gets this process moving again soon - I've posted a link to this under the "Older nominations" page - this will be addressed, but I have no control over when I'm afraid. Farewell Larataguera, and to repeat myself just a tad - do keep contributing, please! All the best - Canadianerk (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No comment on other issues but I think this topic needs to be merged to environmentalist as as far as I can tell, "environmental defender" is just a (slightly POV?) synonym for environmentalist. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the main problem is that the article pretty much relies on sources that are sympathetic to the subjects' work and argue in favor of their protection. As I've argued in the merge discussion, an issue is that the concept itself seems to be used only by people who argue in favor of more protections and rights for environmentalists who face criminal charges, oppression and harassment from the powers that be. I'm obviously not saying we should create WP:FALSEBALANCE by citing climate change denial literature, but the positioning of the sources will make it difficult to create a NPOV-compliant article at the moment. Perhaps this is only a temporary thing and we will have to wait a few years to achieve true NPOV. Regardless of the foregoing, I've run a limited spotcheck and verification has failed three times ([1][2][3] [perhaps I've missed something? Open to being corrected]), which would indicate that the article does not pass WP:DYKCRIT #4. JBchrch talk 13:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch. What does it mean that it may be "difficult to create a NPOV-compliant article at the moment"? This article describes the existing scholarship on this topic. If the existing scholarship advocates for additional protections and rights for environmental defenders, then an NPOV article would say that. It wouldn't be NPOV if there were another body of existing scholarship left out of the article, but I don't think that's the case here. (If you find something, please let me know). Regarding your spotchecks--I'll concede that there are (or were and possibly remain) some poorly phrased or poorly sourced statements, but I think they are consistent with the literature. For example, this removal is just a textbook definition of environmental injustice. The existing literature broadly concludes that environmental injustice does exist. It isn't a POV problem to point that out (even if the statement could be better phrased or better sourced). I find that talking about environmental injustice on Wikipedia frequently raises POV concerns, but I would encourage everyone to treat it as any other topic, and simply look at what the scholarship says about it, and say that. It is certainly not appropriate, as JBchrch seems to suggest in the above comment, for us to anticipate some nonexistent body of research (presumably suggesting that environmental injustice doesn't exist?) and claim that we can't have NPOV until that body of literature materilises. Larataguera (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Larataguera: It is not outlandish to suggest that a field of inquiry might be too recent to achieve NPOV: that is a problem that can happen in the biomedical topic area, for instance. If I read your sources, the concept started to gain currency in 2017 or so. That is very recent and it's all I'm saying. I don't think simply talking about environmental injustice on Wikipedia leads to POV concerns by itself, but I would note that in this very comment of yours you claim that as powerful multi-national corporations reap the benefits of this extraction while marginalized communities bear the burdens is basically a WP:BLUESKY claim. Do you see how that way of approaching things might lead to some editing conflicts? JBchrch talk 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: This concept became increasingly important beginning with the UN declaration on human rights defenders in 1998. There were important legal cases using the ED framework as early as 2009; Global Witness released reports about deaths of EDs in the early 2000s; so yes, the concept is fairly new. Perhaps the article could better describe the timeframe for which this concept has been adopted. I haven't seen any Wikipedia or DYK guidelines concerning treatment of new topics. I would have thought that NPOV would describe the existing literature and be clear about the timeframe the topic has been established. We're looking at 10-20 years here depending how you measure it.
I'm not saying the above quote is necessarily a WP:BLUESKY claim (although in the context of an article on an environmental justice topic it's very nearly so). I'm acknowledging that it was possibly not adequately sourced, but I'm saying that it doesn't constitute a POV problem. While environmental defenders may be a fairly new concept, Environmental justice is a concept that has been around for over four decades and constitutes a sizeable global movement and body of literature. It is reasonable to simplify the basic premise of that movement and literature to the statement that powerful people and corporations receive benefits from environmental extraction, and marginalized communities bear the burdens of those activities. eg., pg 4 final paragraph To state this well-established observation in the context of an article about an EJ topic is not a POV problem. If it is perceived as a POV problem (and it appears to be) on Wikipedia, I'll suggest that this is because most Wikipedia editors receive the benefits of these activities and do not bear the burdens. This constitutes systemic bias that predisposes Wikipedia editors (as a whole, not necessarily as individuals) to perceive a POV problem when presented with environmental justice issues. So yes, in answer to your question, I do see how talking about EJ issues can lead to editing conflicts. But I think that Wikipedia as a whole desperately needs to learn to work through those conflicts in order to correct systemic bias. Again, thank you for your time and your work on this topic! Larataguera (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Possibly it makes sense to think about it like this: If this were an article related to climate change, and it included the statement, 'global climate is changing because of greenhouse gas emissions', another editor might reasonably mark that statement as needing citation (or just find a citation for it), but the statement probably wouldn't be removed and used to support a claim that the article doesn't meet NPOV. I think the fact that some people reap benefits of environmental extraction while marginalised communities bear the burdens is broadly supported by decades of study in the social sciences. Climate change as a function of GHG emissions is similarly supported by decades of study in climate science. The climate science is well understood by the majority of established Wikipedia editors. Environmental justice not so much. Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • We should not be calling for a new reviewer until the merge discussion has been closed; if the merge happens, there's no need for a review, and if it doesn't, then the review can resume. Review on hold until then. I have also moved the above discussion to after the review so it is outside the DYK checklist template rather than inside. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with moving comments, and flagging this for passersby. Canadianerk (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset How long are we giving for the merge discussion to get somewhere? SL93 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering the same- in fact, i was wondering if we should just start holding/listing merge discussions at AfD... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, pure merge proposals are really their own thing, especially when deletion isn't in the cards (and it isn't here). SL93, as long as the merge discussion is ongoing, we shouldn't proceed. However, there hasn't been any addition to said discussion since January 1, so there's no reason it couldn't be closed now by an uninvolved editor. Once that happens, if the close isn't "Merge" (and given the comments there, I don't see that as at all likely), then we can call for a new reviewer. I agree it would be good if this happens soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's been over a week since the last comment. Maybe someone here who's uninvolved with the merge proposal could close it so that action can be taken on this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge template was removed from the article by Sadads (though the merge section on the talk page has not itself been closed), who judged that there was no consensus to merge, so the article remains separate and this nomination needs to be reviewed in that light. Thank you to anyone who takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • - While not perfect. I believe this meets all the criteria. Approving the hook as is.--evrik (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Environmental_defender&oldid=1079781675"