Talk:Flint water crisis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:45, 3 September 2018 edit2601:1c2:4e02:3020:4146:2231:c4f1:8e76 (talk) →Someone is trying to erase the discussion history of this Talk Page.: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:58, 3 September 2018 edit undo2601:1c2:4e02:3020:4146:2231:c4f1:8e76 (talk) →Someone is trying to erase the discussion history of this Talk Page.Next edit →
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Somebody, whose identity is obvious from the history section, wants to delete past discussions on this matter. Let him state his motivation. I have seen other Talk pages with content over 5 years ago, even 10 years ago. I don't advocate that, but I do think that there is no reason to not include about 3 years of discussion. ] (]) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)		Somebody, whose identity is obvious from the history section, wants to delete past discussions on this matter. Let him state his motivation. I have seen other Talk pages with content over 5 years ago, even 10 years ago. I don't advocate that, but I do think that there is no reason to not include about 3 years of discussion. ] (]) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

			I am copying the following material from a previous version of this Talk page, in order to show that the disruptive influence here is "Tomcat4680"


			So where is the historical content of this Talk page?
			I was surprised to discover no comments on this talk page. Sure, the answer could be blamed on "archiving", but that only explains the "how", not the "why" part of it. In my experience, I notice that usually where Talk pages are virtually empty, it is because somebody wants to conceal past controversies, and that reason is often because somebody is trying to manipulate the page according to his desired POV. For example, the Synopsis points out that the iron and lead content of the water was due to the lack of "corrosion inhibitors", but strangely the article does not state that the cost of these corrosion inhibitors would be between $100-150 per day. (An approximate figure I've frequently seen in articles.) Who, exactly, decided to omit those corrosion inhibitors, and expose the city to a cost of perhaps tens of millions of dollars? And why does this WP article fail to mention this? https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Water.html 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

			Nobody is trying to "manipulate the page according to his desired POV". Everything on this article is factual and well sourced. The talk page is archived so people don't resurrect months (or even years) old threads, not to "conceal past controversies". It's better to open new threads for new concerns. If you think something is missing from the article, add the information where you think appropriate after you find a reliable source to back it up. I'm not finding the "$100-150 per day" figure in the article you linked to either. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
			http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/flint-water-crisis-corrosion-pipes-erosion-trust/ "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. But the inestimable costs of the errors made in Flint will reverberate through the community for a long time and their magnitude will dwarf the original planned savings." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
			I added this info and your source to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
			I am going to have to complain about the archiving. I just checked Archive 3, and it contained comments dated as early as October 15, 2017, and as late as December 29, 2017. To archive just that material is utterly insane. I think it might have been reasonable to archive material prior to mid-2016, leaving everything else in the Talk page. Further, I went back to Archive 2, and found a specific and detailed reference to the issue of the cost of the anti-corrosion chemical, which was stated to be "$100 a day". (I am not the person who made that comment.) Why wasn't that suggestion acted upon? I will include a copy of this material below. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)



			Clearly, Tomcat4680 is trying to disrupt the history of this article and Talk page. People who are clearly unusually interested in an article are put at a large advantage if the content of the Talk Page is wiped clean frequently, as it has been here. Such behavior is manipulative and malicious. ] (]) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:58, 3 September 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flint water crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 years

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Michigan Mid‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Water Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Water Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Disaster management

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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): Vzandrel, A10630534 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vzandrel.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Teresachiyannebeamon.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 720 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flint water crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 years

Someone is trying to erase the discussion history of this Talk Page.

Somebody, whose identity is obvious from the history section, wants to delete past discussions on this matter. Let him state his motivation. I have seen other Talk pages with content over 5 years ago, even 10 years ago. I don't advocate that, but I do think that there is no reason to not include about 3 years of discussion. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am copying the following material from a previous version of this Talk page, in order to show that the disruptive influence here is "Tomcat4680"

So where is the historical content of this Talk page? I was surprised to discover no comments on this talk page. Sure, the answer could be blamed on "archiving", but that only explains the "how", not the "why" part of it. In my experience, I notice that usually where Talk pages are virtually empty, it is because somebody wants to conceal past controversies, and that reason is often because somebody is trying to manipulate the page according to his desired POV. For example, the Synopsis points out that the iron and lead content of the water was due to the lack of "corrosion inhibitors", but strangely the article does not state that the cost of these corrosion inhibitors would be between $100-150 per day. (An approximate figure I've frequently seen in articles.) Who, exactly, decided to omit those corrosion inhibitors, and expose the city to a cost of perhaps tens of millions of dollars? And why does this WP article fail to mention this? https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Water.html 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "manipulate the page according to his desired POV". Everything on this article is factual and well sourced. The talk page is archived so people don't resurrect months (or even years) old threads, not to "conceal past controversies". It's better to open new threads for new concerns. If you think something is missing from the article, add the information where you think appropriate after you find a reliable source to back it up. I'm not finding the "$100-150 per day" figure in the article you linked to either. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/flint-water-crisis-corrosion-pipes-erosion-trust/ "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. But the inestimable costs of the errors made in Flint will reverberate through the community for a long time and their magnitude will dwarf the original planned savings." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC) I added this info and your source to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC) I am going to have to complain about the archiving. I just checked Archive 3, and it contained comments dated as early as October 15, 2017, and as late as December 29, 2017. To archive just that material is utterly insane. I think it might have been reasonable to archive material prior to mid-2016, leaving everything else in the Talk page. Further, I went back to Archive 2, and found a specific and detailed reference to the issue of the cost of the anti-corrosion chemical, which was stated to be "$100 a day". (I am not the person who made that comment.) Why wasn't that suggestion acted upon? I will include a copy of this material below. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Tomcat4680 is trying to disrupt the history of this article and Talk page. People who are clearly unusually interested in an article are put at a large advantage if the content of the Talk Page is wiped clean frequently, as it has been here. Such behavior is manipulative and malicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories: