Talk:Spatial justice

Poor Article
This article is very esoteric. As someone without much experience in topics like this, the article failed to convey what 'Spatial Justice' actually is. The use of the word 'Space' seems like jargon but with no hyperlink to a page with an explanation. The sentences in the first paragraph appear to try and build a link to what Spatial Justice is but they all seem like wishy-washy non sequiturs. The rest reads like bullshit. 94.192.113.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

I completely agree. This is one of the most inane and vague articles I have ever read. "Space being a fundamental dimension of human societies, social justice is embedded in it."... Staggering - I don't even know where to start with that sentence. This wouldn't even pass as a high school report. Awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.143.96 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd add to the above concerns. This article uses dense language, and simply pushes the manifesto of the spatial justice political philosophy. All references are from either a single website, or from references cited by that website. This article would benefit from broader more neutral and explanatory language. It also needs to position spatial justice within broader philosophical and political concepts, and explain or remove the many phrases and words that are used to mean something specific to this field, and that are not understood by a general audience - including, I would argue, 'spatial justice' itself. Perhaps this page would better sit within another page, like those that explore related protest movements like 'Occupy Wall Street' or 'Right to the City' (as a section on the philosophy of those movements), or those that consider broader social justice and political philosophy movements. 149.171.160.96 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC) An inexperienced Wiki user who doesn't know how to raise issues in other ways.

Ideology, not Education
This piece does not even bear close resemblance to an encyclopaedic article. It is nothing more than an ideological argument.

It has been flagged for it's poor quality for years, and not fixed. Must surely be time it was consigned to the dust bin.

Mjdoyle86 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)