Talk:Cancer Alley

message: Definitely not a neutral point of view in this section. If such a conspiracy is really alive and active, it would certainly merit its own entry. 70.117.148.39 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues - Environmental Justice section

message: This is ridiculous.  The one citation for this article is a study conducted by the company which owns the chemical plants in the area.  192.68.112.136 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: I added the POV check template to the article since it doesn't appear to adhere to the NPOV policy. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: The following statement was removed from the article due to lack of NPOV.  It should be added back into the article and expanded to conform to policy: Although there have been numerous studies documenting unusually high rates of brain tumors among children, the local and state governments have been slow to act. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I moved the below anon addition to talk due to concerns about lack of encyclopedic tone or reference. -- Infrogmation 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 Dec 2006 addition moved to talk

message: As a chemical engineer (retired) and one who has followed and studied the culture of the oil and gas business I am disappointed that this subject must be discussed in sterile tones. This situation is real, and it is disastrous to the health and safety of humans. The attitude of industry is very similar to that of the tobacco industry when it was discovered that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. Talking about this topic in encyclopedic tones serves the purposes of industry. It is time to show appropriate concern about the sociopathic attitudes of corporations and force them to clean up their operations. A sterile tone helps to create public doubt about the importance of this knowledge.  
This is my considered personal opinion based on the known facts. I cannot express this opinion in sterile terms. If this post is deemed by WikiOfficials to be inappropriate for this Talk page I would appreciate feedback as to why it is so considered.
Texas Star Thrower 12:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic tone 

message: The entire "history" section of this article is directly plagiarized from pollutionissues.com. In addition, the statistics listed by this particular source are poorly, if it all, cited. 
It appears that some of the information present in the "history" section would also be better suited for the "cancer studies" section; however a lack of material may be preventing this. I have added a potentially useful source for collecting further information. I also think it may be helpful to add an image of the actual geographical region that is known as Cancer Alley, like a map.
If someone is familiar with the text, the last study listed in the "cancer studies" section would benefit from an elaboration on the the findings of the book. --Mliou (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism issues and expansion possibilities  

message: This article would benefit from the addition of information about how, when, and why petrochemical industries became disproportionately clustered in this one region of the United States. I think it is worth characterizing the communities that are most directly impacted by the industries and noting how they are being impacted as well as how they have responded to the industries. One source that should be looked at is an article titled "An Analysis of Pollution and Community Advocacy in ‘Cancer Alley’: Setting an Example for the Environmental Justice Movement in St James Parish, Louisiana" from the International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. Lastly, I think that there could be mention of how Cancer Alley can be seen as environmental racism, with a link to the environmental racism Wikipedia page. RiceStudent (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on history and implications of Cancer Alley 

message: When I was growing up, Cancer Alley referred to New Jersey, because being between NYC and Philadelphia, when the wind blew one way, NJ got toxins from one, and when the wind blew the other way, it got pollution from the other, and so had the highest cancer and asthma rates in the nation. It would be useful for this article to mention that, and to mention when NJ stopped having the highest cancer rate and Louisiana started. When I first heard a news item about Cancer Alley and LA, I was confused. Perhaps it should be referred to as 'the new Cancer Alley' since that term meant somewhere else for many years? WordwizardW (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Alley used to refer to New Jersey 

message: The edit made by 68.11.233.114 adds "However, facts have consistently shown that there is no cancer alley and that this designation is a falsehood" and then links to an opinion piece by the president of the Louisiana Chemical Association. That is not an unbiased source. There are other examples of extraneous details that have been added to attempt to make the chemical industry look better. I am new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to fix that but come on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwaring (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is clearly being edited by someone on behalf of the chemical industry 

message: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana
Population
4,657,757
46 People Per Million At Risk Of Developing Cancer In Cancer Alley; We Are Looking At What, 200 People Or So? What Does That Even Mean?
This Is An Absurdity; Most Residents There Probably Personally Know 20 People Who Have, Had, Or Died From Cancer.
The Actual Cancer Rate Statistics Are Likely Much Higher. VerifyTruth927 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louisiana Population 

message: https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#!/state/Louisiana VerifyTruth927 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Statistics 

message: The map of the parishes in Cancer Alley lists parish "7" as Lafayette parish.  It should list Saint Charles parish instead.  FYI, the list of parishes in the article correctly lists Saint Charles parish.  The map was apparently supplied by @WWWHHHHYYYYYY. JohnofPlano (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Attention: @WWWHHHHYYYYYY JohnofPlano (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Parishes Misidentifies St. Charles Parish 

message: @Bon courage has clearly been suppressing certain types of content on this article, repeatedly and for some time now. If the literature is published, including by peer reviewed and government sources, would it not be appropriate to mention it in the article, and then give counterpoints? BC is using reverts to editorialize. MiseDominic (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave the pathetic personal attacks alone and get a clue. We are constrained by Wikipedia's WP:PAGs which we need to follow. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't explained yourself well in your edits (see above, and your talk page), so it is you who needs to get a clue about communicating with others when you remove their work. Merely citing a rule doesn't make you right, nor does merely being on Wikipedia a long time. I agree that we need to follow WP:PAGs, but that is not necessarily the same as what you are doing. MiseDominic (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Right so what are you proposing that "follows the WP:PAGS" ? Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be obtuse. The articles that people want to include showing higher incidence of cancer are not "medical" articles, and there is not going to be a large-scale clinical trial to prove the cancer. Point me to the rules about public health information, or ecological information, not medical information. Otherwise, let people include this valuable information in the article. Readers don't have to believe further than what the sentence says, "A 2022 study found...." With your standard, there will probably never be quantitative information in this article. MiseDominic (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is fine if there is no accepted knowledge to relay. WP:BMI needs WP:MEDRS sourcing: that's the WP:PAGs you want to follow. If you have some " ecological" sources for WP:NOTBMI, please add it. Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. WP:MEDRS states "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge." Emphasis added by me. We don't have secondary sources or lit reviews to go to, which would be preferred. But not also that the guidelines allow for text that does rely on primary sources, with proper framing. Let us use this guideline. What is a framing of these two articles that would appease you and not get reverted? MiseDominic (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no case for primary sources here, see the discussion in sourcing at WP:MEDFAQ for the 'rare cases' where consensus can usually be found to use 'em. There is sufficient secondary sourcing to cover the topic without using unreliable sources (especially if they are misrepresented, as in your edit to shift correlation into causationrichly ironic consider the POV-pushing accusations you're spitting everywhere). Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame on you, is all I have to say. MiseDominic (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are supposed to cover multiple sides of a topic