![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why does there need to be duplicate information in the water supply history, some of which was twisted for political purposes? What the media does and does not cover is not necessary to this article. I did explain my edits. At this point, even if you respond, give you lack of proper response in the edit, you are responsibility for edit warring and should be reported. Spshu ( talk) 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This article has a few introductory comments at the start, but not enough to really understand what happened. Then it starts delving into detailed discussions on history, etc. The article would be much clearer if there were an overview of the technical aspects of the crisis, inserted between the first paragraphs and the more detailed historical sections. The overview might mention that:
Many of these details can be gleaned by careful reading of the more detailed sections, but putting it all together in an overview section would be significantly clearer. Hermanoere ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As an extension of the original request, I'd like the article to discuss why Detroit water was fine, but Flint River water is not fine. The lead pipes were going to be there either way; that much is clear. But what was Detroit putting in the water (or taking out of the water) in order to avoid lead leach? And what was the river water supplier doing differently? It may be hidden elsewhere in the article's text, but I believe it should be at the beginning of the article. After all, there is obvious mention of lead pipes, blaming them, but it's not like Flint's pipes suddenly switched from non-lead to lead along with the switch from Detroit to the river or the lake. D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Later it became publicly known that federal law had not been followed. A 2011 study on the Flint River found it would have to be treated with an anti-corrosive agent for it to be considered as a safe source for drinking water. Adding that agent would have cost about $100 a day, and experts say 90% of the problems with Flint's water would have been avoided.
The article stated that state democrats wanted more funding to fix the water situation. The republicans didn't want that and therefore that is why the Democrats rejected the first bill. BabyEinstein555 ( talk) 04:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure there's going to be more? Does "the first" need to be there? I see "the first" popping up everywhere these charges are mentioned, and I think it needs to be re-worded. Mr. Spink talk★ contribs 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flint water crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate reliable reference? No, archived sources still need to be checked Facts that could be sourced: "After Flint changed its water source from treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department water (which was sourced from Lake Huron as well as the Detroit River) to the Flint River (to which officials had failed to apply corrosion inhibitors), its drinking water had a series of problems that culminated with lead contamination, creating a serious public health danger. The Flint River water that was treated improperly caused lead from aging pipes to leach into the water supply, causing extremely elevated levels of the heavy metal neurotoxin."
Is anything missing that could be added? More on -the financial emergency -state legislative hearings -government and economic failure in result of the crisis
Vzandrel ( talk) 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Vzandrel
Today I added in the word "Lawsuit" into this pages information. The Flint Water Crisis has caused many to develop lawsuits against the city and city officials involved. I added a link from CNN about the many lawsuit that have been put into action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asustu1 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Failed infrastructure and economic decline resulted in the toxic levels of lead in the city's water supplyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
[Michigan Environmental Council 1]. To prevent another contamination crisis officials, such as Government Snyder should consult professionals and make qualified decisions. "Snyder and his administration introduced a corrosive water source into an aging water filtration system without adequate corrosion control (APHA)
[1]."
[environmental and energy management news 1] "I wonder how many of the individuals who made those bad decisions were professional engineers, licensed plumbers, or water-treatment specialists?"Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Larry Clark, Sustainable Performance Solutions LLC) In addition to professional consultation, EPA reform of water-testing techniques that concentrate on neighborhoods with lead pipes could "ensure that all cities get an early warning when lead levels rise to the danger point (Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)."
Addressing the government's neglect in Flint's crisis from infrastructure failure due to the city's economic decline could prevent another municipal disaster
[2]. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Vzandrel (
talk)
04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)vzandrel
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Upon skimming this article, I saw no indication that it explained that a fix would have cost $100 per day. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/internal-email-michigan-blowing-flint-over-lead-water-n491481 "Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn't take action." Or: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead-poisoning-flint-edition/#42932fd4212f "In April, 2014, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager changed the city’s water supply from Detroit’s Lake Huron treated water with anti-corrosives to water from Flint River, in a poorly thought out cost-saving maneuver. They did not add anti-corrosives to the Flint system, as that would have cost $100/day." I have seen many people try to blame state officials, or even Federal officials, and ignore the omission of adding material to the water to balance its pH, and to make it non-corrosive to pipes. That could even be done today. Why did the locals, the people actually in immediate charge of the water system, not do that? 75.164.162.8 ( talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flint water crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a small thing, but can we not use a view of the city skyline from literally 1979 as the featured photo in the infobox? Is there nothing in the commons or someone from the area can take to use in the infobox? Good lord. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 09:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I'm critiquing an article for my ESPM class at a university. Has the "possible link to disease spike," been verified? Some dates didn't include the year, and I think it would be easier to follow along if all years were posted. Information regarding the Republican Presidential candidate should be updated. There are a few grammar errors, like in "Education and Research." Can "donations from religious organizations and groups," be updated...any new info? Sbrink1 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Michaelguerena ( talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Michael Guerena
Not sure how to best integrate this into the article:
-- Neutrality talk 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
https://www.rt.com/usa/376769-diabetes-air-pollution-latino-children/ https://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/2/231.full medical study http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2017/01/27/db16-1416 journal article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479716301566 http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-clean-air-act-waiver-1487791925-htmlstory.html https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/uosc-apl020717.php
Michaelguerena ( talk) 01:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
The links work for this article. No plagiarism that I have checked. The author(s) have a variety of sources coming from scholars journals, news websites that are based in Michigan, several newspaper posting like the New York Times, CNN, etc. Not that much direct quoting which is good because a Wikipedia article is not a research paper, per say.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Most of the information is current. Although one highly salient issues that needs to be addressed is the issue of racism and the demographics and income of the city of Flint. This area is resided by a majority of people of color, particularly, black people. Racism played a role in providing support and protection from health and environmental hazards. This also answers the questions that although this article seems factual, it leaves the most important issue of all, racism in the Flint Water Crisis.
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The majority in the article seems to be factual - from what I have read - with headings explaining the government's role in Flint, both local, federal, and state wide. Like stated in the previous question response, one thing that distracted me was the impartial rhetoric the author(s) used when explaining who was affected in Flint and how the mayor played a role in delaying information about lead poisoning to the residents of Flint. Other than these few distractions, the article portrayed a great amount of information into understanding the basis of what happened in Flint, Michigan.
Mick.romero ( talk) 07:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The timeline says
June 24, 2015 – EPA manager Miquel Del Toral states in a memo that Virginia Tech scientists, led by water expert Dr. Marc Edwards, found extremely high lead levels in four homes.
But the 'Virginia Tech water study' section says:
In September, 2015 a team from Virginia Tech arrived in Flint
It also says
had repeatedly been ignored by city, state and EPA officials
Should the 'Virginia tech water study' section be updated to include the june tests?
Should say the total money and water donated at the topmost part of the section's body. -- NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Michigan Environmental Council>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Michigan Environmental Council}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=environmental and energy management news>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=environmental and energy management news}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Why does there need to be duplicate information in the water supply history, some of which was twisted for political purposes? What the media does and does not cover is not necessary to this article. I did explain my edits. At this point, even if you respond, give you lack of proper response in the edit, you are responsibility for edit warring and should be reported. Spshu ( talk) 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This article has a few introductory comments at the start, but not enough to really understand what happened. Then it starts delving into detailed discussions on history, etc. The article would be much clearer if there were an overview of the technical aspects of the crisis, inserted between the first paragraphs and the more detailed historical sections. The overview might mention that:
Many of these details can be gleaned by careful reading of the more detailed sections, but putting it all together in an overview section would be significantly clearer. Hermanoere ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As an extension of the original request, I'd like the article to discuss why Detroit water was fine, but Flint River water is not fine. The lead pipes were going to be there either way; that much is clear. But what was Detroit putting in the water (or taking out of the water) in order to avoid lead leach? And what was the river water supplier doing differently? It may be hidden elsewhere in the article's text, but I believe it should be at the beginning of the article. After all, there is obvious mention of lead pipes, blaming them, but it's not like Flint's pipes suddenly switched from non-lead to lead along with the switch from Detroit to the river or the lake. D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Later it became publicly known that federal law had not been followed. A 2011 study on the Flint River found it would have to be treated with an anti-corrosive agent for it to be considered as a safe source for drinking water. Adding that agent would have cost about $100 a day, and experts say 90% of the problems with Flint's water would have been avoided.
The article stated that state democrats wanted more funding to fix the water situation. The republicans didn't want that and therefore that is why the Democrats rejected the first bill. BabyEinstein555 ( talk) 04:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure there's going to be more? Does "the first" need to be there? I see "the first" popping up everywhere these charges are mentioned, and I think it needs to be re-worded. Mr. Spink talk★ contribs 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flint water crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate reliable reference? No, archived sources still need to be checked Facts that could be sourced: "After Flint changed its water source from treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department water (which was sourced from Lake Huron as well as the Detroit River) to the Flint River (to which officials had failed to apply corrosion inhibitors), its drinking water had a series of problems that culminated with lead contamination, creating a serious public health danger. The Flint River water that was treated improperly caused lead from aging pipes to leach into the water supply, causing extremely elevated levels of the heavy metal neurotoxin."
Is anything missing that could be added? More on -the financial emergency -state legislative hearings -government and economic failure in result of the crisis
Vzandrel ( talk) 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Vzandrel
Today I added in the word "Lawsuit" into this pages information. The Flint Water Crisis has caused many to develop lawsuits against the city and city officials involved. I added a link from CNN about the many lawsuit that have been put into action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asustu1 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Failed infrastructure and economic decline resulted in the toxic levels of lead in the city's water supplyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
[Michigan Environmental Council 1]. To prevent another contamination crisis officials, such as Government Snyder should consult professionals and make qualified decisions. "Snyder and his administration introduced a corrosive water source into an aging water filtration system without adequate corrosion control (APHA)
[1]."
[environmental and energy management news 1] "I wonder how many of the individuals who made those bad decisions were professional engineers, licensed plumbers, or water-treatment specialists?"Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Larry Clark, Sustainable Performance Solutions LLC) In addition to professional consultation, EPA reform of water-testing techniques that concentrate on neighborhoods with lead pipes could "ensure that all cities get an early warning when lead levels rise to the danger point (Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)."
Addressing the government's neglect in Flint's crisis from infrastructure failure due to the city's economic decline could prevent another municipal disaster
[2]. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
Vzandrel (
talk)
04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)vzandrel
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Upon skimming this article, I saw no indication that it explained that a fix would have cost $100 per day. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/internal-email-michigan-blowing-flint-over-lead-water-n491481 "Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn't take action." Or: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead-poisoning-flint-edition/#42932fd4212f "In April, 2014, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager changed the city’s water supply from Detroit’s Lake Huron treated water with anti-corrosives to water from Flint River, in a poorly thought out cost-saving maneuver. They did not add anti-corrosives to the Flint system, as that would have cost $100/day." I have seen many people try to blame state officials, or even Federal officials, and ignore the omission of adding material to the water to balance its pH, and to make it non-corrosive to pipes. That could even be done today. Why did the locals, the people actually in immediate charge of the water system, not do that? 75.164.162.8 ( talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flint water crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a small thing, but can we not use a view of the city skyline from literally 1979 as the featured photo in the infobox? Is there nothing in the commons or someone from the area can take to use in the infobox? Good lord. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 09:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I'm critiquing an article for my ESPM class at a university. Has the "possible link to disease spike," been verified? Some dates didn't include the year, and I think it would be easier to follow along if all years were posted. Information regarding the Republican Presidential candidate should be updated. There are a few grammar errors, like in "Education and Research." Can "donations from religious organizations and groups," be updated...any new info? Sbrink1 ( talk) 03:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Michaelguerena ( talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Michael Guerena
Not sure how to best integrate this into the article:
-- Neutrality talk 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
https://www.rt.com/usa/376769-diabetes-air-pollution-latino-children/ https://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/2/231.full medical study http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2017/01/27/db16-1416 journal article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479716301566 http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-clean-air-act-waiver-1487791925-htmlstory.html https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/uosc-apl020717.php
Michaelguerena ( talk) 01:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
The links work for this article. No plagiarism that I have checked. The author(s) have a variety of sources coming from scholars journals, news websites that are based in Michigan, several newspaper posting like the New York Times, CNN, etc. Not that much direct quoting which is good because a Wikipedia article is not a research paper, per say.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Most of the information is current. Although one highly salient issues that needs to be addressed is the issue of racism and the demographics and income of the city of Flint. This area is resided by a majority of people of color, particularly, black people. Racism played a role in providing support and protection from health and environmental hazards. This also answers the questions that although this article seems factual, it leaves the most important issue of all, racism in the Flint Water Crisis.
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
The majority in the article seems to be factual - from what I have read - with headings explaining the government's role in Flint, both local, federal, and state wide. Like stated in the previous question response, one thing that distracted me was the impartial rhetoric the author(s) used when explaining who was affected in Flint and how the mayor played a role in delaying information about lead poisoning to the residents of Flint. Other than these few distractions, the article portrayed a great amount of information into understanding the basis of what happened in Flint, Michigan.
Mick.romero ( talk) 07:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The timeline says
June 24, 2015 – EPA manager Miquel Del Toral states in a memo that Virginia Tech scientists, led by water expert Dr. Marc Edwards, found extremely high lead levels in four homes.
But the 'Virginia Tech water study' section says:
In September, 2015 a team from Virginia Tech arrived in Flint
It also says
had repeatedly been ignored by city, state and EPA officials
Should the 'Virginia tech water study' section be updated to include the june tests?
Should say the total money and water donated at the topmost part of the section's body. -- NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Michigan Environmental Council>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Michigan Environmental Council}}
template (see the
help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=environmental and energy management news>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=environmental and energy management news}}
template (see the
help page).