Talk:Green Springs, Ohio
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green Springs, Ohio 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Pollution - is it notable?
editA user blanked my edit that added mention of pollution in the city. I know this is very notable. There is an article on the cancer cluster and there are many many news articles on the topic. I believe it is not justifiable to say this is not notable. I know that pollution is a sensitive topic, but there is no place for whitewashing when it comes to pollution. Not saying that was the motivation of the edit but that motivation seems unknown. The knowledge is very useful for readers to learn about significant pollution and events in the town. So please discuss the reasons for deleting if you wish to do so, and try to gain consensus. We need more discussion than can be done in edit reasons on this topic if there is contention. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
For the second time, the anon user blanked the content, and yet has not come to the talk page to explain reasoning in a dialogue. That is not good practice on Wikipedia and it constitutes edit warring. I have instructed the user in edit reasons to come to talk page and they have not. Their reason was "No evidence it is notable" and yet there is copious evidence that it is notable, and therefore the edit seems to not be in good faith as far as i can estimate. There is a serious problem here if someone acts like this and does not engage in good and constructive dialogue for making a better article, but persists on blanking content with invalid reasons. There is plenty of reliable sourcing to show notability on this content. SageRad (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your source is for another town entirely. Why did you think that source was acceptable for the content? 2601:645:C201:3B60:F9F2:1FF4:50B2:D370 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. It is about a waste site in Green Springs, Ohio, and i have just added a second source which is a document on the EPA website detailing this, which was linked to the original source's story. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- But thank you for finally coming to dialogue. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that I am wrong but that you are not following me. I never said the waste site wasn't in green springs but that your source was about another town. You are hanging the notability of this info on a source that does not even think it is worthwhile to mention the town.
- There are plenty of sources on the matter that do state it is in Green Springs (look for all the ones talking about Whirlpool Park to see). Generally, on Wikipedia, if you can at least find 3 reliable sources, at least news sources, on a topic, then it applies on Wikipedia as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLP in the case of specific living people. SageRad may not have presented three references. But there are definitely more. This Green Springs article needs work in general anyway, so what SR did was make a good start to the section, to which I give thumbs up. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am indifferent to the info on the dump site but though do we really need a list of the equipment :) . There are other issues with the update though. First, it refers to a cancer clusters existence in wikipedia's voice when the source does not even go that far. Second, it uses input from plaintiffs attornies without attribution. Also why we are talking I find the accusation of whitewashing ugly. Should I accuse others of working for the plaintiffs attorney. 2601:645:C201:3B60:F9F2:1FF4:50B2:D370 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It all comes down to reliable sources. There are plenty of sources on the location of the waste site, and there are plenty of sources that establish the existence of the cancer cluster, which is a real thing, a statistical thing that exists. We can add more good sources to support it better if needed. The article on the Clyde cancer cluster contains enough sources to verify that this is a real thing, so the only thing to establish here is the location of the waste site being in Green Springs, which the EPA source does establish. If we need more to establish due weight, that is doable as well. SageRad (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you have sources for the information then add them. My concern is you do not seem to being using care with the sources you are using. Quotes from attorneys should probably not be used for statements of fact and they certainly need to be attributed. I also saw nothing in the two sources you added that spoke of a "geographic area". Pointing to a page with dozens of sources a lot of which are about a lawsuit is also not very helpful. While no doubt the Newton Independant is a fine online newspaper, when it isn't crashing my browser, you might want a bit heavier of a source to tie a cancer cluster to a specific waste site. 69.236.170.160 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It all comes down to reliable sources. There are plenty of sources on the location of the waste site, and there are plenty of sources that establish the existence of the cancer cluster, which is a real thing, a statistical thing that exists. We can add more good sources to support it better if needed. The article on the Clyde cancer cluster contains enough sources to verify that this is a real thing, so the only thing to establish here is the location of the waste site being in Green Springs, which the EPA source does establish. If we need more to establish due weight, that is doable as well. SageRad (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am indifferent to the info on the dump site but though do we really need a list of the equipment :) . There are other issues with the update though. First, it refers to a cancer clusters existence in wikipedia's voice when the source does not even go that far. Second, it uses input from plaintiffs attornies without attribution. Also why we are talking I find the accusation of whitewashing ugly. Should I accuse others of working for the plaintiffs attorney. 2601:645:C201:3B60:F9F2:1FF4:50B2:D370 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources on the matter that do state it is in Green Springs (look for all the ones talking about Whirlpool Park to see). Generally, on Wikipedia, if you can at least find 3 reliable sources, at least news sources, on a topic, then it applies on Wikipedia as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLP in the case of specific living people. SageRad may not have presented three references. But there are definitely more. This Green Springs article needs work in general anyway, so what SR did was make a good start to the section, to which I give thumbs up. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that I am wrong but that you are not following me. I never said the waste site wasn't in green springs but that your source was about another town. You are hanging the notability of this info on a source that does not even think it is worthwhile to mention the town.
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Green Springs, Ohio. 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://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov/ to http://factfinder2.census.gov/
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64vfLAeJ2?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fgeo%2Fwww%2Fgazetteer%2Ffiles%2FGaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html - Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
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).
- 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) 00:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)