Talk:Cancer Alley

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 13 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blr119, Missyfaith92.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julienpleb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aburk398.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV issues - Environmental Justice section

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)

NPOV issues

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)

POV check

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)

NPOV

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)

13 Dec 2006 addition moved to talk

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)

A few notes on Cancer Alley: - Cancer Alley: Lots of toxic waste and chemical factories. (85 miles of factories) - 1/3 of taxes in LA is paid by petrochemical taxes, 165,000 people are employed - 1/3 of toxic waste, 25% of all chemicals made in the US come from this area - The industrial waste corporation Rollins created the 4th largest waste site in the US, but the community in which it was placed didn’t know it was coming. There was no disclosure about Rollins, only rumors of new jobs. - From 1980-1985: 100 federal/state violations were given, but company hasn’t paid a dime! - In 1981, lawsuit filed, settled on Christmas eve in 1987 ($3000 given to each plaintiff). Stipulation in settlement that Rollins cannot be sued again.

Encyclopedic tone

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambaman (talk • contribs)

Plagiarism issues and expansion possibilities

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)

Expanding on history and implications of Cancer Alley

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)

Cancer Alley used to refer to New Jersey

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)

This article is clearly being edited by someone on behalf of the chemical industry

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)

Louisiana Population

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)

Cancer Statistics

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

Lack of statistics about actual cancer rates

The article contains a lot on activism but little on cancer rates. Most Google Scholar results are indeed on activism but that doesn't mean that this article wouldn't benefit from a summary of reliable facts on actual cancer rates.

In September 2023, @Bon courage: removed precisely such content as off-topic. It would be good to review the deletion and see what can be salvaged. Maybe BC can explain why they thought this was off-topic. Diff AncientWalrus (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Some was off-topic (i.e. not about 'Cancer Alley'), and some was just not WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you're right! I see that the major source was "lungcancercentre.com". There must be better sources. I'll have a look. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if there were. The EPA were going to do that but they got shut down it seems due to politics (God Bless America, eh!). So far as I'm aware there is simply no authoritative information on the cancer rates, so everything remains a ideological/political shouting match. Bon courage (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Please have a look at these articles. There are researchers besides the EPA.

• https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4360
• https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph9124365

MiseDominic (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, chiming in here. I recently did some expansions to the History and Pollution and cancer rates sections, most of which were reverted by @Bon courage. I left a message on their talk page, and they simply responded by saying it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS requirement. I think the current one sentence is woefully inadequate, and simply saying "there is a debate" might go against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view false balance guidelines. It seems most scientific papers point to elevated cancer rates. In lieu of literature reviews, which seem to be in short supply, I think it would be helpful to add more research from authoritative sources.

I propose adding information from the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment, and its successor, the Air Toxics Screening Assessment. The 2005 and 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment found significantly elevated cancer risks from point sources of pollution in 2005 and 2014.[1][2] And similarly, so have numerous yearly analyses by the Air Toxics Screening Assessment.[3] I think adding these give a much more comprehensive picture than simply saying "there is a debate", which references just one paper that itself found that Cancer Alley is "a region of excessively high cancer risk". Thanks, ~~ Amtoastintolerant (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is for biomedical knowledge we need WP:MEDRS sources. And a letter/primary data is not that. It's true there is a debate and Wikipedia cannot decide which is the 'winning' side. Is 'Cancer Alley' a myth or not? (Add I see this[4] is in press, but unfortunately it doesn't say anything particularly meaty). Bon courage (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I understand your concern about WP:MEDRS. I have therefore removed the remaining one sentence blurb from the Pollution and cancer rates, as it itself does not meet the secondary research bar you alluded to. I'm not sure how much of a debate there is, but until we can reference a substantive metanalysis, I think it's best we abandon this. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying 'there is a debate' is not WP:BMI, so removing that leaves the article without even the accepted knowledge on this. Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Map of Parishes Misidentifies St. Charles Parish

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)

Attention: @WWWHHHHYYYYYY JohnofPlano (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to cover multiple sides of a topic

@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)

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)

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)

Right so what are you proposing that "follows the WP:PAGS" ? Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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[5] to shift correlation into causation – richly ironic consider the POV-pushing accusations you're spitting everywhere). Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Shame on you, is all I have to say. MiseDominic (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding the racial/ethnic profile of the counties in Cancer Alley

I added a table showing the racial / ethnic profile of the parishes in Cancer Alley under the environmental racism section. The assertion under this section is that minorities are disproportionately impacted and the data confirms that the counties are disproportionately minority. The census data is not making a statement: the data is the data. Similar data is used on 1000s of wikipedia pages to show the same. Patapsco913 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Information added: Following is a table of parishes in Cancer Alley by racial and ethnic group. Data for the United States (with and without Puerto Rico) and the state of Louisiana have been included for comparison purposes. The majority racial/ethnic group is coded per the key below.

Racial / Ethnic Profile of Parishes in Cancer Alley

Majority minority with no dominant group Majority White Majority Black Majority Hispanic Majority Asian Racial and ethnic composition of parishes in "Cancer Alley", Louisiana (2020 Census) (NH = Non-Hispanic) Note: the US Census treats Hispanic/Latino as an ethnic category. This table excludes Latinos from the racial categories and assigns them to a separate category. Hispanics/Latinos may be of any race. Place Total Population White alone (NH) % Black or African American alone (NH) % Native American or Alaska Native alone (NH) % Asian alone (NH) % Pacific Islander alone (NH) % Other race alone (NH) % Mixed race or Multiracial (NH) % Hispanic or Latino (any race) % United States of America (50 states and D.C.) 331,449,281 191,697,647 57.84% 39,940,338 12.05% 2,251,699 0.68% 19,618,719 5.92% 622,018 0.19% 1,689,833 0.51% 13,548,983 4.09% 62,080,044 18.73% United States of America (50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) 334,735,155 191,722,195 57.28% 39,944,624 11.93% 2,252,011 0.67% 19,621,465 5.86% 622,109 0.19% 1,692,341 0.51% 13,551,323 4.05% 65,329,087 19.52% Louisiana 4,657,757 2,596,702 55.75% 1,452,420 31.18% 25,994 0.56% 85,336 1.83% 1,706 0.04% 16,954 0.36% 156,096 3.35% 322,549 6.92% Ascension Parish 126,500 79,645 62.96% 30,296 23.95% 266 0.21% 1,681 1.33% 32 0.03% 355 0.28% 3,842 3.04% 10,383 8.21% East Baton Rouge Parish 456,781 191,355 41.89% 205,552 45.00% 773 0.17% 14,388 3.15% 106 0.02% 1,564 0.34% 12,492 2.73% 30,551 6.69% Iberville Parish 30,241 14,632 48.38% 13,313 44.02% 58 0.19% 123 0.41% 13 0.04% 75 0.25% 609 2.01% 1,418 4.69% Jefferson Parish 440,781 208,385 47.28% 115,900 26.29% 1,317 0.30% 19,528 4.43% 105 0.02% 2,379 0.54% 14,110 3.20% 79,057 17.94% Orleans Parish 373,977 121,385 31.61% 205,876 53.61% 761 0.20% 10,573 2.75% 125 0.03% 2,075 0.54% 12,185 3.17% 31,017 8.08% St. Bernard Parish 43,764 23,165 52.93% 11,370 25.98% 215 0.49% 972 2.22% 6 0.01% 285 0.65% 1,741 3.98% 6,010 13.73% St. Charles Parish 52,549 32,708 62.24% 13,024 24.78% 215 0.41% 555 1.06% 20 0.04% 172 0.33% 1,714 3.26% 4,141 7.88% St. James Parish 20,192 9,917 49.11% 9,486 46.98% 28 0.14% 28 0.14% 0 0.00% 28 0.14% 362 1.79% 343 1.70% St. John the Baptist Parish 42,477 13,348 31.42% 24,076 56.68% 105 0.25% 314 0.74% 7 0.02% 140 0.33% 1,196 2.82% 3,291 7.75% Plaquemines Parish 23,515 13,764 58.53% 4,863 20.68% 255 1.08% 1,042 4.43% 40 0.17% 191 0.81% 1,124 4.78% 2,236 9.51% West Baton Rouge Parish 200,733 14,114 51.89% 10,714 39.39% 59 0.22% 219 0.81% 8 0.03% 70 0.26% 771 2.83% 1,244 4.57%

References

Sound like interesting research. But an encyclopedia is entirely the wrong place for it. This is a tertiary source based on secondary sources, not a secondary source based on primary data (as selected by Wikipedia editors). Bon courage (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

We use census data on 1000s of websites for exactly the same reason: to demonstrate facts. There is no opinion in the data: the data is the data. The concept of environmental racism pervades the article and is even mentioned in the header. How do you introduce the concept of environmental racism without demonstrating that there is a disproportionate amount of minorities in the alley. Patapsco913 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If you are trying to "demonstrate" something that cannot be sourced to a source that does that "demonstration" itself, you are engaging in OR/SYNTH which is prohibited by policy. Quite what relevance you think this random collection of data has to anything boggles the mind! Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually you make no sense. Some citations in the article assert environmental racism is happening in Cancer Alley but do not demonstrate the fact of the racial/ethic population. The census bureau provides such data and is accepted as the highest reliability. In fact, census data is used by nearly every single geographic locale in the US for exactly the same purpose. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, a summary of accepted knowledge. Not an inexpertly-gathered data dump of likely irrelevant statistics. Your edit-warring over this is deplorable. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Ouch that hurt me so much. Why not just discuss it amicably. No one is right about everything.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Amicable discussion is the way; edit-warring is not. Bon courage (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

You never let the discussion start. Anyhow. Similar data is used on 1000s of wikipages. See Miami-Dade County, Florida#Demographics where the entire section on demographics is sourced to the US Census. The article includes allegations of environmental racism that the chemical plants are in parishes that are disproportionalely minority. I merely included the census bureau information showing the racial and ethnic makeup of the parishes in Cancer Alley. There was no value judgment on my part...just the inclusion of data that I deem helpful to the reader (and the census bureau is the gold standard for population data). Data that we include on nearly every wikipidedia page related to population geographies in the US. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If other pages have problems it's no reason to make this one bad too. If there is a WP:SECONDARY source discussing how demographics over the years are important, we can cite that. These stats are not appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a long established consensus that using Census data for population information on pages related to US geographies is the standard. I would bet that almost every page related to a state, county, city or census designated place uses such information. Here we have an assertion that there is environmental racism in the 11 parishes deemed to comprise Cancer Alley with US census data that shows the racial and ethnic profile. (Wow...the geography of Cancer Alley was sourced with a secondary source although now you removed the edit with the secondary source and subsituted it with a primary source that does not even mention Cancer Alley? and you removed the mention of the counties that make up Cancer Alley?) I thought you did not like primary sources?Patapsco913 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not 11 parishes; any effect in question is over decades, not in 2020; it is not even known if there is any adverse health effect. Your addition of raw data to "demonstrate" something is improper. As before, if in doubt ask at WP:NORN or WT:MED. We are meant to be summarizing knowledge, not dumping irrelevant data into articles. Bon courage (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources say 11 parishes "Notes: The Cancer Alley consists of 11 parishes: East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Ascension, Iberville, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines".Patapsco913 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

A dodgy journal. The first citation in this article says ONE parish. Bon courage (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Pubmed is run by the federal government. And the wikilink to Pubmed states: "PubMed is an openly accessible, free database which includes primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics. The United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health maintains the database as part of the Entrez system of information retrieval." So now that is unreliable as well? Look at all the articles linking to Pubmed.21:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find the citation you refer. Please be more specific (perhaps provide the quote). The journal article has 50 citations.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. The first citation is linked by "[1]" in the text. Bon courage (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well I don't see any source that says that Cancer Alley consists of only one parish. Perhaps a study only analyzed one parish. Plenty of citations in the news and in journal articles state otherwise. The genesis of the term in Louisiana started in St. Bernard parish as reference in the article. Anyhow, these articles are not being used to argue medical or health issues, they are just defining the general consensus of the area known as "Cancer Alley".Patapsco913 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It is "the area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA" according to PMID:36828212, a recent WP:MEDRS that could usefully be used to expand this article. Bon courage (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this source unreliable as well. It specifically mentions the 11 parishes that make up Cancer Alley on page 3. It seems odd to not define the geography of Cancer Alley when so many sources specifically list what it parishes are included.

And why do I have to use a fully certified medical article to define what parishes are in Cancer Alley? Why cannot I use the general consensus of newspaper articles, environmental resources, anti discrimination groups as well as medical studies. I am not asserting any medical or health truths. All I am doing is defining the area.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health looks like a pretty good journal according to the metrics,[6] but they have published the occasional regrettable paper. (Of course, most journals of any age can claim that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That does indeed seem to be the case.[7] so I withdraw my objection to the source on those grounds. Bon courage (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring of unreliable source

Patapsco913 had reverted (among other things) this[8] source into the article. What even is this? It does not seem to be WP:RS let along WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I notice you state "seem"? Tulane University "seems" to be a reliable source written by a Phd at Tulane. You seem to be hellbent on removing everything rather than improving the article.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources should be removed, yes. It improves articles. This is an unreliable source right ... Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

She is a peer-reviewed author. You did not even search her name.

This is a letter. It's not even peer-reviewed; this is very far from what is required by WP:MEDRS (or WP:RS generally for this topic). Bon courage (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Whether it is peer-reviewed or not, she is an author who is an expert on the matter given the two sources I mentioned above. She is also cited in numerous newspaper articles.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The relevant sourcing guideline is WP:MEDRS. Being published elsewhere is not a criterion for reliability of these sources. You are doubling down by adding citations to more unreliable material, this time in a dodgy WP:MDPI journal. Bon courage (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

We are looking to define the geography of an area; not make some medical assertion. You may as well just delete the entire article if we cannot use anything.21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well don't use disreputable/scam journals, particularly to override legitimate ones. Bon courage (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So a "Tulane Law peer-reviewed study published today in Environmental Research Letters" is a scam journal now? I am sure happy I did not attended that school.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

No, that journal is fine; the WP:MDPI one is not. Bon courage (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Bon courage (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Environmental Research Letters is a highly ranked[9] peer-reviewed journal.

I suspect that with primary sources such as https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4360 they label ordinary research papers "letters". It's an old-fashioned (some people might say "pretentious") tradition that some journal follow. But whatever their reasoning for the label is, they have a little section on the page that says "Article information", and when you click on it, it says that this particular "letter" underwent "Double-anonymous" peer review and required two revisions over the course of several months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources

I'd love to see this article written from the best sources. I'm making a few suggestions here. Note that I'm evaluating them on "structural" grounds (e.g., age and publisher) rather than POV grounds, and I haven't checked to see whether any of them are in the article already. Please comment if you think any of these are unreliable.

1. Allen, Barbara L. (2003). Uneasy alchemy: citizens and experts in Louisiana's chemical corridor disputes. Urban and industrial environments. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01203-4. Older book, but well reviewed [10]
2. Mandelman, Adam (2020-04-08). The Place with No Edge: An Intimate History of People, Technology, and the Mississippi River Delta. LSU Press. ISBN 978-0-8071-7319-0. 2020 book, good review [11]
3. Paradise, Polluter’s (2019-10-30). "Welcome to "Cancer Alley," Where Toxic Air Is About to Get Worse". ProPublica. Retrieved 2025-05-14. News article, useful for political information
4. "USA: Environmental racism in "Cancer Alley" must end – experts". OHCHR. Retrieved 2025-05-14. UN press release condemning further pollution in Cancer Alley (found because it was cited in multiple sources)
5. Subra, Wilma (2023), Brinkmann, Robert (ed.), "Air Pollution and Sustainability", The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 829–851, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01949-4_57, ISBN 978-3-031-01948-7, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL [12] and has COVID-19 information
6. Kuhn, Brittanie (2024), Steele, David; Mercier, Alison K. (eds.), "Airborne Inequity: Hurricane's Transportation of Pollutants in Cancer Alley", Justice-Oriented Science Teaching and Learning, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 49–67, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76297-0_4, ISBN 978-3-031-76296-3, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL. Nice bit of background explanation (e.g., why so many low income and non-white people live there)
7. Davies, Thom (2018-11-02). "Toxic Space and Time: Slow Violence, Necropolitics, and Petrochemical Pollution". Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 108 (6): 1537–1553. doi:10.1080/24694452.2018.1470924. ISSN 2469-4452. In WP:TWL Connection to the concept of Slow violence (found because it was cited in multiple sources)
8. Kinefuchi, Etsuko (2023), Brinkmann, Robert (ed.), "Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice in North America", The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1073–1092, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-01949-4_74, ISBN 978-3-031-01948-7, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL Connection to other polluted areas
9. Njoku, Anuli U.; Sampson, Natalie R. (2023), Liamputtong, Pranee (ed.), "Environment Injustice and Public Health", Handbook of Social Sciences and Global Public Health, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–20, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96778-9_37-1, ISBN 978-3-030-96778-9, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL
10. Flemming, Leon; Alber, Amanda (2024), Weber, Florian; Kühne, Olaf; Dittel, Julia (eds.), "Wahrnehmungen der Cancer Alley in Louisiana aus neopragmatischer Sicht – Ein Vergleich phänomenologischer Eindrücke mit Lokalzeitungen" [Perceptions of Cancer Alley in Louisiana from a neopragmatic perspective – A comparison of phenomenological impressions with local newspapers], Transformation Processes in Europe and Beyond (in German), Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 275–295, doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42894-5_13, ISBN 978-3-658-42893-8, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL. In German, so probably relatively free of US politics
11. Ray, Keisha (2023-05-31), "Does Where We Sleep Matter?", Black Health (1 ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–142, doi:10.1093/oso/9780197620267.003.0005, ISBN 978-0-19-762026-7, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL. Really about where people live, rather than just sleeping
12. Krieger, Nancy (2024-04-23), "Epidemiologic Theory Counts: Harm, Knowledge, Action, and the People's Health", Epidemiology and the People's Health (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 293–348, doi:10.1093/oso/9780197695555.003.0008, ISBN 978-0-19-769555-5, retrieved 2025-05-14 In WP:TWL. Connection to the concept of Sacrifice zone

Most of these have a couple of paragraphs, though some are longer. Some are fairly narrow in their focus. Some are primary sources. But I think that all of them are reliable in some way. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Those are the sort of sources we should be using, yes. And not preprints, raw census data and advocacy sites. This topic has long-suffered from the lack of WP:MEDRS sourcing for the key health aspects of the topic but with PMID:36828212 that situation too is improved. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)