Talk:Flint water crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

TomCat4680'S edit

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)

You can't just delete half the article (especially when its so well sourced) without someone noticing and challenging it. Whether or not you think the media is biased or the information contained in the article is repetitive is irrelevant. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• You're both acting foolishly. Now please go and remove that WordPress source, lest I chide you both for failure to read WP:RS--since you both restored it. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not acting foolishly. I gave reason edit which TomCat4680 ignore than bizarrely claim were not reasons. I removed the that WordPress source in my edit that TomCat4680 reverted, so that would be a 4RR so I cannot do so. Given that you direct came down on me. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes you were. It's hard for me to parse your grammar, but a self-revert does not count as a revert. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My reasons were perfectly legit. Deleting over 7,700 characters of text without talk page consensus to do so is simply unreasonable and disallowed. Also, I got the same 3RR warning you did but I self delete my talk page to keep it clean. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave both you and Tom a warning, Tom just chooses to remove things from his talk page, which is allowed. (He did acknowledge the warning) In addition, Drmies is ready to slap both of you on the wrist if needed, so if you want to report someone, that might not be a good idea. Spshu, it would be a wise idea to propose your changes exactly here on the talk page, where other editors (not just Tom) can comment, and you can gather consensus. You were BOLD and were reverted, so the next step is to discuss. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you are interrupting that edit and will cause an edit conflict. Spshu (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Except, TomCat, you proclaimed me a vandal by using a blank summary which is not the case nor legitimate per [[WP:FIES] " Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." Particularly, since I did give an edit summary. And where except in your mind is "Deleting over 7,700 characters of text without talk page consensus to do so is simply unreasonable and disallowed."? It is not at WP:CONSENSUS. Why would removing duplicate information in the body in the same general section not, so I have to ask if a previous editor had the problem of add duplicate "the the" or a stuck keyboard that added extra characters?

I use blank edit summaries all the time (so do hundreds, maybe even thousands of good editors). It's not vandalism. Some edits just don't need them IMO and if you want to see what was changed, click on diff. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

NO, It is you accusing me of vandalism or templating a regular, you know like you don't like having done to you. It use to be stated that is what a blank edit (or the standard undo) summary means near the edit summary window on the edit page. Again, per WP:FIES indicates you are likely to be reversed thus FIES indicate that general good editors do not use blank edits. So you purposely accused me of vandalism and should know that a veteran editor would revert said edit as being done with no reason what so ever. Spshu (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

NO, I never accused you of vandalism. I accused you of deleting over 7,700 characters of text without a consensus to do so, which you can't deny doing, it's all in the written records. Quit twisting everything around. I'm on the anti-vandalism squad and if it was vandalism I would have reported it to WP:AIV and sent you a vandalism warning. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite your protest, you did in fact claim it was vandalism by standard usage in using the standard reversal of "20:08, 9 February 2016‎ TomCat4680 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (133,691 bytes) (+7,716)‎ . . (Undid revision 704138895 by Spshu (talk))". None of your edit summary indicate said policy you claimed above and have now admitted does not exist. You expressly lie in "your edits were unexplained. you deleted half the article for no good reason. leave comments both sides of the aisle to keep article unbiased" when the original edit had an explanation and so did the reversal. Which is it? Where there no explanation ("your edits were unexplained.") or reasons given ("you deleted half the article for no good reason. leave comments both sides of the aisle to keep article unbiased")? The clear show that you want to talk out of both sides of your mouth (or out right aggravate me). Thus you lied as they are directly contradictory. Removing duplicate information in the same section is a good reason. "other misleading or unnecessary info about the media" keeps the article "unbiased"? WP:BOLD contradicts any need for your or any other permission to make corrects or any other edits before hand. Spshu (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh so now I'm a liar? I'm done talking to you. You're not being civil. Goodbye. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you not get the point that you have not been civil in your edit summaries? Given contradictory statements that is a logic conclusion that you are technically lied in this instance. I did not call you a liar. So, you can be uncivil but not me? WP:CIVIL states: "Explain yourself. Insufficient explanations for edits can be perceived as uncivil." Spshu (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You said I expressly lied but didn't call me a liar???? Now who's talking out of both sides of his mouth???? I NEVER accused you of vandalism. Say it until you're blue in the face but it's simply untrue. You interpreted it as such based on an unrelated policy about edit summaries, but like I already said if I had thought your edits were vandalism I would have both warned you and reported you appropriately. I never did either of those things therefore your claims that I accused you of vandalism are pure bull****. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the word I used was "lied" not liar, so technically, yes I did not call you a liar. I am call that edit summary a lie. You want to claim it so much, then OK you are a liar. Secondly, I was back up my claim of your incivility. You never expressly accused me. But that notices has been near the edit summary for years. You claim you should not be template since you are a long time editor, but you want me to believe that you have been completely unaware of that previously existing notice? Spshu (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make a damn difference whether you said "lied" or "liar"!!!! The point is you accused me of doing something I didn't do (again!!!). Yes, I might be guilty of writing a bad edit summary because I was a little angry and in a hurry (and we're both guilty of edit warring, whether you admit it or not) but I NEVER lied about anything. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, It does because I removed that source before in the string of edits reversed and only reverted you to follow up with a revert that once again removed it. Per 3RR: "...that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." ie. removal of blog source. So to self revert I would have to add it back not remove it.

TomCat, the duplication information did not match the source and was a paragraph above the same general information only separated by a header. I already indicated that I saw some media bias and did not remove it because it was the news media. I am saying that the coverage by the media isn't relevant. And the ACLU, a political organization, does not qualify as news organization. A blog is not a RSource, which I removed. So, you get to bias the article and claim that it is unbiased (edit summary "your edits were unexplained. you deleted half the article for no good reason. leave comments both sides of the aisle to keep article unbiased"?

I didn't originally add either of those sources (ACLU or Wordpress), so feel free to delete them, I don't care. I add mostly from The Flint Journal, and sometimes I use Detroit Free Press or Detroit News, or the Flint and Detroit TV stations. I know what ACLU is and I don't read blogs at all because I can tell the difference between facts and opinion. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did care enough to revert me. And claim that it was "your edits were unexplained. you deleted half the article for no good reason" per your edit summary to my edit summary: "unexplained reversion of dupl. info regard water supply history, other misleading or unnecessary info about the media".

I meant I don't care if you delete the Wordpress or ACLU articles any time in the future, since I didn't add them originally (Neutrality did IIRC). I did originally add the Maddow articles though so it bothered me you deleted them. Which policy backs up your claims of "other misleading or unnecessary info about the media"? Just because you disagree with Maddow's opinions (or anyone else's for that matter) doesn't make them "misleading or unnecessary". TomCat4680 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It is basically is given media undue weight and WP:NPOV: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias,..." . Spshu (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So the article needs both of these?

• water source history § Before 2014: "Flint declined the final DWSD offer. Immediately after Flint declined the offer, DWSD gave Flint notice that their long-standing water agreement would terminate in twelve months."
• water source history § Switching water source: "EM Kurtz signed the KWA water purchase agreement on April 16. On April 17, the Detroit Water and Sewer Department gave its one-year termination notice to the city just days after the County and City rejected the DWSD's last offer."

"Rowe Professional Services, located in downtown Flint with close ties to the city was the catalyst for the new water project." This primary sourced (thus not a RS) and not completely supported in the text. Rowe was not the initiator of the KWA. We have a KWA article and that article clearly states that other factors were in play.

Mayor Walling receiving day to day control of Public Works department had nothing to do with the switch as it was months after the switch thus was move in the next phase of the crisis: Early water contamination §.

• "The plan was to attach to the Karegnondi system, which was under construction, pending completion nearly three years later (currently scheduled for completion in June 2016)."

Removal of non-RS info from jezhud.wordpress.com? Why should have the source been kept.

Do we need two sources (CNN and weather.com) to cite that Flint switch back to Detroit system in October 2015?

"...Detroit Water system (Lake Huron water; and soon to be Great Lakes Water Authority" corrected from "On October 8 (, 2015) ... Lake Huron water (from the newly created Great Lakes Water Authority)" as while the authority exists it did not take over the Detroit water system until 2016.

"The work of Guyette and the ACLU was credited with bringing the water contamination to public light." ? Flint Residents were aware of it for some time. This is so vague. Flint City issued the bacteria and TTM warnings. VTech, Hurley and Genesee County Health Department brought the lead issue to light, not Mr. Guyette. Who by the way was caught putting out misleading information, proclaiming that no termination notice was sent to Flint from Detroit Water, which is sourced in our article.

Five or six show segments on the Rachel Maddow Show is extensive coverage with a few of them with just Democratic US Representative Dan Kildee? She is basic debunked by the sourced Financial emergency in Michigan that Snyder did not originate the emergency manager, or emergency financial manager) as they go back to Governor Blanchard's term (1988), who was a Democrat. Spshu (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been way more than five or six and shes talked to a ton of local people besides Dan Kildee. She came to Flint even to do a whole episode about it (who else in the national media can say that????) and had like eight guests from Flint on it. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, the source article talk about 3 show that had a segment ("..including three segments in the last 10 days on MSNBC's 'The Rachel Maddow Show.'"). I added 3 for the two Kildee segments and the town hall, where she miss-proclaimed that the water was untreated. She interview Flint Journal Editor Bryn Mickle, who has not written a fact based editorial about the water crisis at all, big woop. Again, the news media isn't the news and should not be in the article. Spshu (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No you're incorrect (again). Another Flint Journal article (by Amanda Emery) clearly states "Guests for the [Maddow's] town hall include Flint Mayor Karen Weaver, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, Lanice Lawson, creator of Bottles for Babies, Curt Guyette of ACLU of Michigan, Bryn Mickle and Ron Fonger from The Flint Journal, Nancy Kaffer from The Detroit Free Press, and others, according to the release." Here's videos of others besides Kildee and Mickle appearing solo: Dr Mona Mayor Weaver TomCat4680 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No sure what you consider me "incorrect (again)". I said nothing about the guest of the town hall and explicit added the town hall plus the two unmentioned Rep. Kildee appearances to the three mentioned in the first source: "MSNBC's Rachel Maddow keeps national spotlight on water crisis in Michigan" which those three included appearances by Dr Mona and Mayor Weaver. It is basically is given media undue weight and WP:NPOV: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias,..." . Spshu (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just one thing: you reverted me so you could revert the other editor. If you revert yourself reverting me, any admin is going to realize that this was a self-revert. We're powerhungry and drink the lukewarm blood of newborn babes, but we're not totally dumb. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Though you knew my record, Drmies? I have been reported and warned for self reverting. Spshu (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

TomCat4680, still waiting on your response to: "And where except in your mind is "Deleting over 7,700 characters of text without talk page consensus to do so is simply unreasonable and disallowed."? It is not at WP:CONSENSUS." Spshu (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It borders on both page blanking and section blanking. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That does apply see WP:BOLD and reaffirmed by Wikipedia:Content removal: "deletion of part of a page can be accomplished by a single editor, even an unregistered editor, and can be done boldly". Spshu (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay fine it's not disallowed, I crossed out that part that out of my previous comment, but I still think several huge chunks of well sourced material shouldn't be removed simultaneously without a talk page consensus first. Removing over 7,700 characters of text in a single edit is just way too much all at once IMO. I know you thought you were just being bold, but come on, slow down a little bit and take your time. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Article lacks clear overview

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:

• It was common practice (before lead's health risks were well understood) to install lead piping as feeders from cast iron mains to individual houses (durability, ease of installation, cost)
• Metallic lead can leach into water from these pipes, causing health problems
• As both cast iron and lead pipes age, they can develop oxide (and other) scale that serves as a barrier to leaching of iron and lead into water
• It turns out that in Flint's case, the chemistry of the water from Lake Huron, and additives from the water plants, had allowed these scales to properly form in the existing pipes
• When the water supply was switch to Flint River water, lower pH and higher saline content disrupted the scale layers on both the lead and cast iron pipes, allowing leaching of metals into the water
• The first thing residents noticed was brown color and bad taste
• Iron in water, although unpleasant, is not harmful (which may have been a factor in the slow response by political leaders)
• However, additional testing (VT, etc.) also found high levels of lead, which is harmful
• Water was switched back to Lake Huron water, but the pipes had already been damaged, and leeching continues
• Mitigation of the lead toxicity problem may include:

- Adding chemicals to aid in re-forming of oxide and other scales again (which is being done now, but may take some time to become effective)

- Tearing out all existing lead piping and replacing with more modern substitutes (may take some time, and will cost a lot)

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)

Sounds like a great idea. I bet after some thorough research, a lot of the more general information you mentioned could become a good article on its own too (i.e. Lead pipes in the United States and/or Lead abatement in the United States like Neutrality suggested a couple of sections ago). TomCat4680 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the timeline isn't quite clear. There are some nice long-form feature-style articles popping up, so hopefully we can draw upon these. Neutrality^talk 05:39, 14 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)

A search just now yielded this article from CNN, 1/11/2016 has this to say:

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.

Are there any sources that might confirm this, or that might suggest that those in charge might acknowledge it or be plausibly ignorant of it? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference 145 is not used correctly

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)

I changed it. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"The first criminal charges"

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)

Per [1] "We may have charged these three gentlemen, but that doesn't mean we are done, [Michigan Attorney General] Bill Schuette said". Whether or not that means more people may be charged is uncertain, but I'll take out "the first" until then. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160129084857/http://www.wnem.com/story/31076877/michigan-lawmakers-approve-28m-more-for-flint-water-crisis to http://www.wnem.com/story/31076877/michigan-lawmakers-approve-28m-more-for-flint-water-crisis

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

bergmanucsd critique

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)

Prevention

Failed infrastructure and economic decline resulted in the toxic levels of lead in the city's water supply. 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)." "I wonder how many of the individuals who made those bad decisions were professional engineers, licensed plumbers, or water-treatment specialists?" (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)." Addressing the government's neglect in Flint's crisis from infrastructure failure due to the city's economic decline could prevent another municipal disaster. Vzandrel (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)vzandrel

References

Fix would have cost $100 per day. The article should mention this.

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129165455/http://www.wnem.com/Clip/12156762/dr-nicole-lurie-leading-federal-response-in-flint to http://www.wnem.com/Clip/12156762/dr-nicole-lurie-leading-federal-response-in-flint
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129084857/http://www.wnem.com/story/31076877/michigan-lawmakers-approve-28m-more-for-flint-water-crisis to http://www.wnem.com/story/31076877/michigan-lawmakers-approve-28m-more-for-flint-water-crisis

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Image in Infobox

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)

I hope this one from 2006 is more to your liking. I went ahead and added it anyway. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To be frank, it's not whether or not I like the aesthetic of any particular picture, and rather my wish for something a bit more temporally accurate. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Critique an Article" for ESPM 163AC

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)

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Michaelguerena (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Michael Guerena

CDC finds first genetic link between Legionnaires' outbreak, Flint water

Not sure how to best integrate this into the article:

• Ron Fonger, CDC finds first genetic link between Legionnaires' outbreak, Flint water, MLive (February 16, 2017).
• Steve Carmody, New tests raise questions about the source of Legionnaires Disease outbreak, Michigan Radio (February 16, 2017).

--Neutrality^talk 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I added data and quotes from those reports and cited them. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Neutrality^talk 04:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 5 ESPM 163AC

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)

espm response to wiki article

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 third paragraph of the Other responses section goes into depth about the environmental racism issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I gave it its own section: Flint water crisis#Accusations of environmental racism. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

virginia tech timeline

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?

Yes this should be cleared up to avoid any confusion. Feel free to do so. TomCat4680 (talk)

The donated money and water section

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)

Yes, I found a source for the total amount and added it. It's around $33.4 million in case you're wondering. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)