Talk:2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill

ML what is that?

I strongly suggest the usage of cubic meters instead of ML that: 1> is not an SI unit 2> sounds silly 3> makes comparing quantities harder.

NOTE: With Litre, prefix over h are not used, cubic meter should be used instead

how many pounds of what?

arsenic. cadmium. lead. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:ITN

The article has been nominated for listing at In the News on the fron page. Pleas feel free to comment at the nomination, and avoid adding any unreferenced material to the article. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Chart

I'd suggest not including this chart. It makes the article suddenly harder to read; the readings were taken upstream; the readings could change; the readings may be irrelevant to the main topic, the spill.

Metal	Measured ppb	Colorado limit ppb	times over limit
arsenic	264	10	26
cadmium	6	5	1.2
copper	1,120	1000	1.12
iron	326,000	1000	326
lead	5,720	50	139
manganese	3,040	50	61

--Light show (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The readings were taken 15 miles upstream of Durango. Silverton is about 45 miles upstream of Durango. I don't think they're irrelevant. It's true they could change, although they will probably decrease.

I don't like stressing "times over limit"; I think it's a newsy way of getting shockingly large numbers (percents are even worse). The acceptable values for drinking water are in the ppb range, parts per billion, because drinking water shouldn't have metals in it at all. The limits are a numerical equivalent to "as close to zero as we're likely to find in natural water." Now, 1,000 ppb is 1 ppm, 1 part per million. One part per million is 0.0001%, one milligram per liter.

That doesn't mean I'd drink water with 5.7 ppm of lead, but I didn't like how the article stated "times over limit" without saying what the limit was. It's a comparison of two very small numbers, and it can be misleading to compare two very small numbers as a ratio; the numbers should be ppb. Roches (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The other missing factor is that those regulatory limits look suspiciously like drinking-water limits and the field data are clearly whole-water, including the suspended, colored metal oxides. Filtration is the first step in treating raw water for drinking. The dissolved metal concentrations immediately thereafter will be much lower and almost certainly within limits. Treatment plants quite appropriately shut off intakes while the contaminants passed, for the good operational and business reason that they didn't want to overload their filters, but toxicity was a minor factor. Justaxn (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Color

One of the most striking characteristics of this mishap is the bright orange color. Has anyone read any explanation for the color? Is it related to the toxic materials in any way? Spiel496 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is related to the toxic materials. Most of the color is attributable to the iron and copper. Iron and copper can produce various reds, yellows and oranges, and the effect of mixing them is the same as mixing paints. The orange is a startling color, but it's seen in many places. See Acid mine drainage for an explanation and for other examples.

One of the characteristics of a heavily mineralized volcanic-remnant area is the presence of sulfur compounds ... they make things yellow. If you look at the tailings around gold mines and prospect holes, you'll see yellowish dirt dominates the tailings. The abandoned mine tunnels accumulated all these leached minerals that normally just flow into Cement Creek and then into the Animas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.57.37 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The really dangerous materials like lead and cadmium are not present in a high enough concentration to affect the color. Roches (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Roches, that was helpful. I think including a sentence and link in the article would be good. For example, "The orange color in mine discharge is due to precipitates of iron hydroxide and other minerals associated with the acidic chemistry within the mine." Just something to indicate that the color is one of many things going on, and does not itself reveal the toxicity. In fact, non-soluble stuff like that should be of least concern, right? Spiel496 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Though a large part of it is likely the metals, in part its probably the muds, and other sediments that accumulated in the tailing ponds, beside just the metal. If you have ever seen pictures of areas with red clay after construction, and during a heavy rain: the rivers can get quite reddie/brown. Sadads (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandip Hazra, Bron In kolkata India, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.80.78 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Employees or contractors?

When I saw this article yesterday the lead stated the spill was caused by employees of the EPA. Now it states it was a contractor. Is there a good source for this? It's a relatively subtle change but significant, especially given how the disaster is being used by some to argue that the EPA as a whole is ineffective. If the accident itself was caused by a contractor, this may imply lesser fault on the part of the EPA itself. Vox and the Daily Caller mention contractors, but the EPA's own press release just states that "EPA was conducting an investigation" with no mention of contractors. 2601:644:101:9616:6886:8CA2:7E6F:1E1F (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it to "workers" until their is a clear consensus, we might want to footnote this, until its clarified (investigation maybe?), Sadads (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Missouri based Environmental Restoration LLC is the contractor involved causing this spill. 74.61.107.101 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Disaster?

Despite the excitement in media, this is an incident, not an environmental disaster. Perhaps we should tone it down a little. Justaxn (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Justaxn:It is when several states declare "disaster" status for the event; it might be considered hype in some circles, but we don't have sources that are challenged that assessment by states. Sadads (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sadads:The cases listed in Environmental disaster have 10's to 1,000's of immediate fatalities. Here we have undefined possible consequences in the indefinite future. Acid mine drainage is a bit like climate change—quite serious but incrementally small. This incident is an increment.Justaxn (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

An environmental (not to mention political) disaster does not need immediate fatalities to be classified as such. Not to mention that the EPA have (albeit still half-heartedly, based on stunts like their attempts at trying to head off lawsuits with legal releases) admitted responsibility for the disaster, though 24hrs afterwards, during which time they ill-advisedly concentrated on attempted political, rather than actual, damage control. Said attempt was not only unsuccessful, but also may have worsened the political fall-out for both the agency & the Obama administration even further. The old saying about the cover-up being worse than the crime does rather come to mind here. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"A political disaster", "stunts", "attempted political damage control", "cover-up"? Sources? Note that inclusion in categories without sources is also OR. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of some fairly left wing outlets (e.g. Washington Post) most of the national media in the U.S. are treating the EPAs actions in this matter as a full-fledged scandal. Here's a relatively mild example from the Washington Times And that's even leaving aside the row over the Taylor letter. Neither the EPA nor the current administration have exactly covered themselves with glory during this saga. The entire mess is arguably getting so bad now that at least two media groups with links to the administration (Bloomberg, CNN) seem to have rather conspicuously halted up to date coverage of Gold King.

God only knows what else has yet to emerge into the light of day, but it's not likely to be pretty, to say the least. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, most of the national media have lost interest in it. I'd go with the Post before the Times. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Scandal mongering is against guidelines. So is predicting events. Your comments seem strongly biased and without support. --Light show (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither was my intention. I suppose it may beg the old question; Is major controversy == scandal? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

They're obviously very different. In this event, an accident happened, one party took responsibility and damage has been done. There's neither a controversy nor a scandal, and neither are mentioned in the sources. Whatever your intention was, the result is the same and against those guidelines, including synth. --Light show (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Also, not only has the EPA already rowed back (e.g. the attempt to use Standard Form No. 95 legal releases to severely limit liability) on what was already a half-hearted admission of responsibility for the disaster, but the fallout from it, both political & otherwise, is likely to reverberate for quite some time to come despite ongoing PR damage control efforts. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Original Research

I made a large removal of content here [1]. It looks like it was produced by a subject-matter expert but was original research. The policy that applies is WP:SYNTHESIS. For the record I think the content is factual, but unusable due to policy. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The only OR is the conversion of 3 million gallons into a proportion of streamflow nearby. That's little different than a Convert template. Every other statement is fully cited, so I restored it. More details, please, if we are to generate consensus to remove. Justaxn (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: What OR synthesis do you read in the paragraph? I don't see it.Justaxn (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Stream conditions temporarily returned to those that had been common 20 years earlier. citation to a USGS open file report from 2005. Geogene (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Restated the sentence and moved it to end of paragraph for less emphasis. The citation now clearly refers to earlier conditions, not a claim that it interprets the present. Please ping me again if this does not satisfy the concern. Justaxn (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Justaxn:No amount of re-wording will fix this. Geogene (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Nevermind, I see somebody else got it. Geogene (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is OR: the observation about conditions of 20 years ago, the statement about the make-up and the prevalence of acid mine drainage, or the reappraisal of the volume of the spill. Which of those, specifically, is OR? The most controversial of the three would appear to be the description of the volume in terms of stream flow. When I saw "fifty million gallons" myself, I immediately wondered how much that was in terms of the body of water it was spilled into. Stating the average flow rate of the river at a measured location is verifiable data, not OR. "Fifty million gallons" is a bit like the sensationalized iron content that was "hundreds of times" the Colorado limit. It's a big number, but an Olympic-size swimming pool is 660,000 U.S. gallons. Bodies of water contain a lot of water.

This kind of OR claim seems to occur often on current-events articles. Someone who has actual subject-matter knowledge adds something to an article and it's claimed to be OR because the news media haven't yet stated the exact same fact. But the media are journalists, not scientists, and they're paid to sell a story. It's not WP:SYNTH to use sources that apply to the subject matter to make statements that apply to the story. An example is acid mine drainage itself — I learned about it, and about the organisms that live in it, as a college freshman. Note that this does mean we can say the waste water is typical mine drainage, but we can't say anything about the specific contents of this waste, as that would be OR, and most would recognize the difference. Roches (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

When Wikipedia editors interpret data in any way that existing secondary sources haven't yet, it's OR. Subject matter experts are welcome (and needed!) but aren't an exception to core content policy. Remember: WP has pretensions of being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It's not a good idea to encourage people to interpret things for themselves.... Geogene (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Geogene: :@Roches: Yes, I am a subject matter expert, having spent 7 years supervising an acid mine drainage research project in a copper mining area in Arizona more than 20 years ago. Nothing in the contested section is too original to explain in elementary school show and tell. I once gave a parallel explanation to a congressman's chief of staff. If a politician can understand it one on one, I'm pretty sure WP readers can as well. A fundamental idea of science is mass balance: how much of what comes from where, and how does that compare to what's already there? Transitions between solid and dissolved phase in response to oxygen and pH changes are high school chemistry. I was aware of AMD research at Cement Creek 20 years ago, part of the more than 150 publications in the cited bibliography. These geochemical processes are common and consistent around the world, well known for more than 75 years by those interested in the subject. Nonetheless, most people have other interests and are surprised by an incident like this. I chose a relevant citation for each sentence. If a different one might be better, please choose from the bibliography. The article needs some science to counterbalance the chattering classes. I've put it in twice. It's truth. It's not OR. But I leave it to another to restore it now. Justaxn (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts it's the truth, but "truth" is not enough. An independent verifiable source needs to publish that connection of prior readings to this recent event. If you contacted the media and they published your facts as being relevant to this spill, then we could use it. Or if any outside source has since published the connection then we could use it. But if an editor, no matter how expert, implies the connection by citing historical details, it's synth.--Light show (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article at present says in essence this is a terrible disaster because we can put a lot of zeros after some numbers and we're all going to die. It doesn't even link to Acid mine drainage, which is well documented in the basin for decades, is the reason for the proposed Superfund listing (mentioned in passing), and is the same thing happening in the 2000 other mines in the Animas basin (mentioned in passing). The only parallel to this discussion I can imagine is a flurry of excited articles about an unknown bird circling a town and frightening people. A knowledgeable birder reads the descriptions and writes "it's obvious this is a turkey vulture. Here is background information about turkey vultures. They don't attack people or babies or favorite kittens." Then that content is deleted as OR and Synth.

Already in the included citations but not in the article are NYT 8/11 statement that at Durango, toxicity levels had already returned to pre-incident levels. That sounds "temporary." And Lake Powell Chronicle 8/12 is cited but we don't use "The EPA has advised that the leading edge of the plume was last reported as east of Shiprock, NM and is no longer visible due to dilution and sediment levels in the river." That sounds like the effect fades to zero as the scale of the river grows. Both points were in the deleted content.

If you want science in WP, trust scientists to write and cite it correctly. If you don't want science to interfere with emotional extremism, check the policy on WP:BS. Justaxn (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want science in WP, trust scientists to write and cite it correctly. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you'll have to follow the house rules. This is not something that can be negotiated. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Justaxn, I think your statement would be valuable if you can find an outside source. You wrote, "The waste water in this incident is classic acid mine drainage, which is common around the world where subsurface mining exposes metal sulfide minerals such as pyrite to water and air." The cite should refer to "this incident," and not implied. The flow rates, volumes, etc. are technical jargon that should be in a technical article such as acid mine drainage, which would be linked. --Light show (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Light show, The incident occurred in Cement Creek basin, perhaps 10 square miles, where dozens of science articles discuss details of acid mine drainage. Another incident in a century-long series does not need a fresh science publication (on a year lag time) to be recognized as the same process. Justaxn (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't link to acid mine drainage at all before I put in a link that read "mine tailings" instead of "acid mine drainage." (It says acid mine drainage now.) That is what it is, and it is not synthesis to say so, especially not if it is properly qualified. In nearly every news-type article I've edited, the same thing happens: I, or others, try to add information that is acceptable to add, but it is removed under WP:PRIMARY or WP:SYNTH. I nearly tried to get involved in the OR policy, because it's very easy to apply it inappropriately, but I got exhausted with arguing over minutiae and just avoided editing anything newsy.

I still do not see how @Justaxn:'s statements violate SYNTH, although I haven't read all the revisions. Certain news outlets will run this as if it's the disaster of the century until something else comes up, so maybe the issue is that we can't say it's not going to be on reliable-source "Top 10 Disasters of 2015" linkbait articles, despite some reports that the contamination might have gone away. Or is it that this might not be acid mine drainage? I'm hesitant to say that's what it is with certainty, but it's not my area of expertise, and I know enough to say that it resembles acid mine drainage. It's not original research, and it's not synthesis, to say "acid mine drainage is orange water that comes out of mines, some orange water came out of a mine, therefore this is probably acid mine drainage." (There's more to it than the orange color, if the logic seems faulty.)

The article is improved if it contains scientific information that is relevant and recognizable as appropriate. This information does not need to be approved by any news outlet; the source does not have to pertain to the current event, if it is recognizable as information that does pertain to the event. For information to be unacceptable per WP:SYNTH, there should be consensus, and there isn't here. Roches (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to chime in here to note that, frustrating though it may be, we have to stick to what reliable sources say. To quote from WP:SYN: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." 2601:644:101:9616:11A8:B79E:E584:C647 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That is only synthesis if the conclusion is not mentioned by either of the sources. If the conclusion does follow from the sources, it is not synthesis. The examples in WP:SYNTH are not useful for this purpose, and without a specific example here it's difficult to discuss. I think, here, the sources do state the conclusion (if the claim of synthesis regards applying existing research to a current event), and the opposition to including the content is not based on an attempt to demonstrate why that conclusion does not follow.

I also want to say that the "I know it's true" sentiment discussed in WP:NOTTRUTH is not applicable to real scientists wanting to add real science to articles that don't have it. It clearly refers to subjective truth, not to well-established research that simply isn't widely known. The standard is verifiability, and "this fact, although not yet reported on TV, is verifiable" meets that standard. Roches (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An addition: A number of points in WP:NOTSYNTH apply here, and one I can mention without being mean is "SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal". This provides an useful test for scientific claims. A claim is not original research if it cannot be published in a journal that does publish original research. While there is legitimate original research to be done about this incident, establishing that a spill from a site containing known materials caused the expected effect would not be original research; there is nothing surprising about the way the iron and copper concentration went up, then down. Roches (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Drawing your own conclusions for sources is synthesis. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter if you think the conclusion follows from the sources. It doesn't matter if you think you are a "real scientist". If you want to publish your own conclusions, start a blog. 2601:644:101:9616:2928:11F9:D872:6F75 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It does matter if the conclusion follows logically from a source. There is a difference between this and merely having an opinion that the conclusion follows.

I initially said "real scientist" because there are articles where people who have read some books have added fringe material that is not accepted by the scientific consensus. I've seen the "if you think you are a" thing before. Please consider how that statement would sound if you replaced "scientist" with a few other professions. Roches (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Accident cause

Perhaps a section describing how the accident occurred might be useful....--108.51.236.225 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, but having taken another look at the article after reading your suggestion, I think the description is in fact sufficient. The article tells us who made the mistake and what they were trying to do when it happened, and as far as I'm aware, that's about all we know. If you find reliable sources that tell us more, or would prefer to consolidate all this information into a separate section, go right ahead. Riverhugger (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking if there is a diagram fo the mine, showing how the water accumulated, where the EPA workers were, where the river is...

To me, it's a bit hard to figure how a mine floods out... I always think of a mine starting at surface and then drilling downwards.--108.51.236.225 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

See the figures in [2], particularly figure 34. In general, any sufficiently large hole in the ground (mines, tunnels, missile silos) will tend to behave like a water well if engineers don't put a lot of thought and planning into preventing it from doing so. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Dave Taylor's letter to the editor

Six days before the blowout, Dave Taylor wrote a prescient letter to the editor predicting this exact sort of failure. On August 13 contributions from two editors citing this noteworthy letter were reverted twice by Geogene without explanation. Care to reach consensus on this? 216.67.35.227 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory, sourced to somebody's letter to the editor. Further, I'd probably have deleted this section as promotionalism, except for the fact that it addresses me directly. No prejudice toward anyone else that might feel like deleting it for similar reasons. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The second half of Mr. Taylor's letter is indeed uncharitable towards the EPA's motivations, but the first half of the letter is substantive and surprisingly prescient. The letter is being reported in numerous secondary editorial sources. It seems surprising you do not even want it discussed here. 216.67.35.227 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We can't cite someone's letter any more than we can cite a blog post. They're not reliable sources. An if some RS mentions it, it would still need context to the article, or else it would simply be interesting trivia. --Light show (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Spurious argument. The local newspaper carries the news that a geologist predicted the careless actions of EPA would result on this. There is your RS. XavierItzm (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an editorial. It isn't RS. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The editorial states someone predicted the disaster and cites fact and location. Specifically, it reads: "Dave Taylor of Farmington, New Mexico, wrote the Silverton Standard and The Miner a few weeks ago and virtually predicted this disaster." RS may not necessarily be opinions, but this is no opinion: it is a statement of a fact.
Or do you deny that Dave Taylor predicted the disaster?
XavierItzm (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Quit spamming the link. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quit not addressing the issue. Do you deny Taylor predicted the disaster? In writing? In the Silverton Standard?XavierItzm (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. I don't care what Taylor said or whether he predicted anything, and I care even less about what other people think about it. The only thing to discuss here is whether reliable sources are talking about it or not. They're not, so far. Don't use this talk page as a soapbox. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Newspaper of Record for the City of Ouray, the Ouray County Plaindealer is not a RS? XavierItzm (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's missing the point, because as I said above, at least once, the piece is an editorial. Editorials are not RS for statements of fact. See WP:NEWSORG. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Rarely is what applies here. Not "never". I am afraid you have been caught in a falsehood when you wrote "Editorials are not RS for statements of fact," because the policy is not as categoric as you wish it in order to censor out the prediction. XavierItzm (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a document confirming the claim that the EPA built a concrete bulkhead at the Red and Bonita mine before this incident happened.
Construction started the month before the incident.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/upper-animas-red-and-bonita-bulkhead-fact-sheet-5-22-2015.pdf
24.197.221.122 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This needs reliable, secondary sources. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This piece in Russia Today seems to connect a lot of the above items. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

RT's reliability is extremely questionable these days. Geogene (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:No original research

I started a new section at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:No original research. It concerns the application of OR to scientific concepts that represent a consensus within the relevant field but have not been mentioned in secondary source coverage of the event. Editors who may be interested include @Justaxn:, @Light show: and @Geogene:. Roches (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

FOIA request is a gold mine of information

The Las Vegas Sun has an interesting story (already cited in the article) about what the EPA knew before the blowout. Here is a quote from an EPA study; "This condition has likely caused impounding of water behind the collapse," ... "Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals." Also, the Sun says "Much of the text in the documents released Friday was redacted. Among the items blacked out was the line in a 2013 safety plan for the Gold King job that specified whether workers were required to have phones that could work at the remote site, on a mountainside at more than 11,000 feet in elevation." Abductive (reasoning) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Avoidance of characterizing this as 'toxic'

I'm concerned by edits, of which this was the most prominent [3], that appear designed to remove the word 'toxic' as a description. Other more subtle changes have followed, which may or may not have merit, but attempts to rewrite direct quotes and drain (bad pun intended, sorry) the word from the article, when it's been used by many sources, merit explanation and consensus. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tdhere shouldn't be quotes from newspapers in Wikipedia articles. Paraphrasing is the norm. Now, as I mention above, there are quotes by FDA people in the FOIA request that are suitable for the article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia quotes newspapers in millions of articles. And paraphrasing numerous articles using the word toxic should preserve that word. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  millions? Garbage in, garbage out. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The concern is quite valid. Since the beginning, the article was constantly edited to make the disaster appear as slight as possible. One might think there are EPA PR agencies or EPA staff editing the article. XavierItzm (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Economic concerns"

"Before the incident, the local jurisdictions refused Superfund money to cleanup the regions' derelict mines due to economic concerns"

Such as tourism? —User 000 name 05:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@User000name: As far as I can tell, that was the primary concern. I updated per your suggestion. Sadads (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pendley findings

@Lindenfall: self-published reports by tort lawyers probably don't belong in the article without extensive secondary sourcing. And, when your additions have been previously rejected, i'd appreciate if you'd discuss first, not giving it a month and trying again in case I'm not still watching. Finally, I believe that the DOI report, and its findings, are already extensively covered. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Geogene: I had just noticed the revision reversal, so had looked for another source of criticism and added it, too. "Giving it a month and trying again in case I'm not still watching" is off the mark, uncalled for, and runs quite contrary to the spirit of Wiki. Such remarks only serve to discourage new editors; I would appreciate if you would refrain from insult. Lindenfall (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Letter to the editor

A letter to the editor that was published in a small town newspaper still does not warrant mention in the article, even if some claim it is a "prediction" of the spill. People have been trying to edit war that in since 2015, and while I wasn't looking, apparently someone succeeded. I've now removed it, suggest it stays out of the article. With that level of determination to include such an obscure piece of local interest, nearly always that means that there is some form of COI driving it. With that gone, the "clarification" from his interview on Breitbart is no longer needed, either. Geogene (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Geogene, thanks for cleaning it up and keeping our website free of wrong views and opinions! 65.190.186.126 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What about the owners of the mine?

Who did the mine site belong to in 2015? Why were the owners not made responsible for the work that the EPA started doing in July 2015? I think this is an important bit of information missing in this article. Met-Haus-Allee-M (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)