This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pollution of the Hudson River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
NovaKK.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are not many articles on the pollution of particular rivers. Here are some similar articles:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ɱ and PointsofNoReturn for help in making this article and for their work on Hudson River. I started this article because the topic "pollution of the Hudson River" seemed to be forked several times, as it was being covered independently in the following articles:
This article could be referenced in a Hudson River superfund site article if one were created.
To make this article, I combined all the content from the above listed articles here. I combined content in categories, then I deleted any content which was repeated. I think that I kept all of the content from all of those articles, then wrote a lede which I thought summarized what was here.
After combining all of this, I deleted the content from the original articles then copied the lede from here to there, and linked to this article as the main article for the topic "pollution of the Hudson River". It is my hope that instead of developing this topic separately in so many places, all development can happen here. On the talk page of all those article I linked to this talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Many of the sources cited in this article are not ideal. I think no source is identified which gives an overview of the history of the pollution of this review and the discussion of a response to the pollution. I think that a source must exist because so many tens of millions of dollars have been spent responding to the pollution issue. If someone has a source to share then please do so here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There is some research by Dr Carpenter on PCBs, especially on effects by zip code in New York state, that i would like to include.
I don't have the brains to do it right now but wanted to make a note. SageRad ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I added knowledge about the origin and composition of the PCBs pollution in the Hudson. It was reverted by an IP user here with the reason "No evidence they shared any responsibility for the polution". That is not material to the inclusion of the content, because it's just explaining what the contamination consists of. PCBs have 209 congeners, and specific concentrations of specific congeners were included in many of the Aroclor formulations. It would benefit the general reader to know the brand names of the contaminants in order to understand the nature of the pollution of the river. I cannot ping you, but i will post on your talk page. SageRad ( talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I added a source to support the content about the contaminants in the river. The source says:
Monsanto recognized the fact that the environmental contamination at its facilities paled in comparison to the widespread contamination caused by the various uses of PCB by the company's customers. Today, General Electric Co.'s problems in the Hudson River and elsewhere are a prime example.
The source cites several supporting documents. SageRad ( talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If you can argue that the source is reliable, for all those reasons, make your case and I'm sure the editor will listen. But if you start by claiming they're whitewashing stuff, I don't see why they should listen to you. And no, I did not template you, as I think you've seen by now. Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The notability of this content was challenged when there was a single source supporting it. An editor above deleted the content and wrote If you want it added find a source that considers it of any importance.
So i did. When i look to
WP:BIAS section of
WP:RS i find this guideline to interpret
WP:V and
WP:NPOV which reads:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
By that guideline's interpretation, a website that appears to be well researched and meticulously edited can be a reliable source even if it has a point of view. The point of view in this case is a vigilance about chemical industry contamination of people and nature, which is relevant to the topic of this article. Therefore, i think that it's a suitable source to establish significance as requested by the editor above. We could attribute the sourcing as suggested by the guideline quoted above. I don't see any reason why this source and this content should not be included in this article, as it is central to the topic of the article. It's almost definitional. Sorry about saying you templated me. I struck that now. I saw the entry on my talk page and i assumed it was a template. Also struck the 'whitewash' comment. I don't know the motivation of another editor. SageRad ( talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
PCB’s were first manufactured in this country in the early 1930s, first by a company called Swann and then Monsanto took over Swan and they were used for a wide variety of industrial applications. When Monsanto would manufacture PCB’s they called them araclor. That was the trade name. When General Electric would get them, they would baptize them anew and call them pyronol. It was like one of these shell games you might run into on 42nd Street. So, I knew there was something called pyrenol up river because I had a list of what they were discharging. I had no idea that pyronol were really PCB’s. And I had no idea where they were coming from. I thought maybe there was some nut in Jersey City who was letting the things loose.
Monsanto recognized the fact that the environmental contamination at its facilities paled in comparison to the widespread contamination caused by the various uses of PCB by the company's customers. Today, General Electric Co.'s problems in the Hudson River and elsewhere are a prime example.
I direct you to this source, the first one i used:
The PCBs came from two capacitor manufacturing plants operated by GE from 1947 to 1975. Together, these plants released 400–800 tons of PCBs (mainly under the Monsanto Co. brand names Aroclor 1242 and 1016) into the river during that time.
If you can tell me how this does not explain in a source that the contamination originated from Monsanto's products then i'd like to hear it. SageRad ( talk) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor deleted this text, calling it "unsourced editorializing". It was indeed unsourced in the article, but i am not sure it is editorializing. I suppose that sources probably can be found to support the ideas expressed, which strike me as important and self-explanatory, and probably expressed in a good number of sources on the topic:
There are many economic effects caused by the PCB contamination. The water cannot be used for agriculture use, money is lost from the fishing industry because of the ban on recreational fishing, medical expenses for people who have side-effects from the water, and the cost of clean-up efforts.
SageRad ( talk) 20:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't call it "unsourced editorializing"and i said
Oh, i stand corrected, you called it "Unsourced editorialising" in the edit summaryso i'm asking if you're really getting on my case because i misquoted your word "editorialising" by an alternate spelling? Otherwise, what inaccuracy are you getting on me about? Seriously, let's not make this overly contentious for no reason. I was trying to introduce a little humor there. I think you were wrong when you said you didn't call it unsourced editorialising weren't you? SageRad ( talk) 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Chemical Industry Archive, aproject of Environmental Working Group, not a reliable source? Pete removed it. Pete, why's it not a reliable source? note the policies and guidelines referenced and quoted above in this talk page. dialogue, friend, dialogue. explain your reasons. That's what the talk page is for. SageRad ( talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that the source has been discussed and there's been room to discuss why you would call it not a reliable source, and that hasn't happened. I need a clear explanation about your thinking as to why you deleted that source. This is how it works here. Discussion, not action by fiat. SageRad ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Pollution of the Hudson River. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pollution of the Hudson River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
NovaKK.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are not many articles on the pollution of particular rivers. Here are some similar articles:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ɱ and PointsofNoReturn for help in making this article and for their work on Hudson River. I started this article because the topic "pollution of the Hudson River" seemed to be forked several times, as it was being covered independently in the following articles:
This article could be referenced in a Hudson River superfund site article if one were created.
To make this article, I combined all the content from the above listed articles here. I combined content in categories, then I deleted any content which was repeated. I think that I kept all of the content from all of those articles, then wrote a lede which I thought summarized what was here.
After combining all of this, I deleted the content from the original articles then copied the lede from here to there, and linked to this article as the main article for the topic "pollution of the Hudson River". It is my hope that instead of developing this topic separately in so many places, all development can happen here. On the talk page of all those article I linked to this talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Many of the sources cited in this article are not ideal. I think no source is identified which gives an overview of the history of the pollution of this review and the discussion of a response to the pollution. I think that a source must exist because so many tens of millions of dollars have been spent responding to the pollution issue. If someone has a source to share then please do so here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There is some research by Dr Carpenter on PCBs, especially on effects by zip code in New York state, that i would like to include.
I don't have the brains to do it right now but wanted to make a note. SageRad ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I added knowledge about the origin and composition of the PCBs pollution in the Hudson. It was reverted by an IP user here with the reason "No evidence they shared any responsibility for the polution". That is not material to the inclusion of the content, because it's just explaining what the contamination consists of. PCBs have 209 congeners, and specific concentrations of specific congeners were included in many of the Aroclor formulations. It would benefit the general reader to know the brand names of the contaminants in order to understand the nature of the pollution of the river. I cannot ping you, but i will post on your talk page. SageRad ( talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I added a source to support the content about the contaminants in the river. The source says:
Monsanto recognized the fact that the environmental contamination at its facilities paled in comparison to the widespread contamination caused by the various uses of PCB by the company's customers. Today, General Electric Co.'s problems in the Hudson River and elsewhere are a prime example.
The source cites several supporting documents. SageRad ( talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If you can argue that the source is reliable, for all those reasons, make your case and I'm sure the editor will listen. But if you start by claiming they're whitewashing stuff, I don't see why they should listen to you. And no, I did not template you, as I think you've seen by now. Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The notability of this content was challenged when there was a single source supporting it. An editor above deleted the content and wrote If you want it added find a source that considers it of any importance.
So i did. When i look to
WP:BIAS section of
WP:RS i find this guideline to interpret
WP:V and
WP:NPOV which reads:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
By that guideline's interpretation, a website that appears to be well researched and meticulously edited can be a reliable source even if it has a point of view. The point of view in this case is a vigilance about chemical industry contamination of people and nature, which is relevant to the topic of this article. Therefore, i think that it's a suitable source to establish significance as requested by the editor above. We could attribute the sourcing as suggested by the guideline quoted above. I don't see any reason why this source and this content should not be included in this article, as it is central to the topic of the article. It's almost definitional. Sorry about saying you templated me. I struck that now. I saw the entry on my talk page and i assumed it was a template. Also struck the 'whitewash' comment. I don't know the motivation of another editor. SageRad ( talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
PCB’s were first manufactured in this country in the early 1930s, first by a company called Swann and then Monsanto took over Swan and they were used for a wide variety of industrial applications. When Monsanto would manufacture PCB’s they called them araclor. That was the trade name. When General Electric would get them, they would baptize them anew and call them pyronol. It was like one of these shell games you might run into on 42nd Street. So, I knew there was something called pyrenol up river because I had a list of what they were discharging. I had no idea that pyronol were really PCB’s. And I had no idea where they were coming from. I thought maybe there was some nut in Jersey City who was letting the things loose.
Monsanto recognized the fact that the environmental contamination at its facilities paled in comparison to the widespread contamination caused by the various uses of PCB by the company's customers. Today, General Electric Co.'s problems in the Hudson River and elsewhere are a prime example.
I direct you to this source, the first one i used:
The PCBs came from two capacitor manufacturing plants operated by GE from 1947 to 1975. Together, these plants released 400–800 tons of PCBs (mainly under the Monsanto Co. brand names Aroclor 1242 and 1016) into the river during that time.
If you can tell me how this does not explain in a source that the contamination originated from Monsanto's products then i'd like to hear it. SageRad ( talk) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor deleted this text, calling it "unsourced editorializing". It was indeed unsourced in the article, but i am not sure it is editorializing. I suppose that sources probably can be found to support the ideas expressed, which strike me as important and self-explanatory, and probably expressed in a good number of sources on the topic:
There are many economic effects caused by the PCB contamination. The water cannot be used for agriculture use, money is lost from the fishing industry because of the ban on recreational fishing, medical expenses for people who have side-effects from the water, and the cost of clean-up efforts.
SageRad ( talk) 20:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't call it "unsourced editorializing"and i said
Oh, i stand corrected, you called it "Unsourced editorialising" in the edit summaryso i'm asking if you're really getting on my case because i misquoted your word "editorialising" by an alternate spelling? Otherwise, what inaccuracy are you getting on me about? Seriously, let's not make this overly contentious for no reason. I was trying to introduce a little humor there. I think you were wrong when you said you didn't call it unsourced editorialising weren't you? SageRad ( talk) 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Chemical Industry Archive, aproject of Environmental Working Group, not a reliable source? Pete removed it. Pete, why's it not a reliable source? note the policies and guidelines referenced and quoted above in this talk page. dialogue, friend, dialogue. explain your reasons. That's what the talk page is for. SageRad ( talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that the source has been discussed and there's been room to discuss why you would call it not a reliable source, and that hasn't happened. I need a clear explanation about your thinking as to why you deleted that source. This is how it works here. Discussion, not action by fiat. SageRad ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Pollution of the Hudson River. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)