Talk:Bean Station, Tennessee

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Bean Station, Tennessee. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2006-04-47.csv
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HQu4Spqa?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopest%2Fdata%2Fcities%2Ftotals%2F2012%2FSUB-EST2012.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2012/SUB-EST2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
User:AppalachianCentrist has been adding the word "controversy" to a section about Bean Station's sewers. Nothing suggests this topic meets the criteria of a controversy outlined at WP:CRIT, and the sources cited only say elected officials have been reluctant to install new sewers due to the cost. Not sure what the controversy is. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic of installing a wastewater treatment system in the town is considered controversial due to the often heated political discussion the topic brings. This is supported by a statement regarding the issue of delaying its construction from the town's former mayor: ""Every system in this town has failed us. Businesses are leaving because of no sewer. You can’t attract anything without a sewer. We could have been way ahead. It’s nothing but a political ruse to try to do this. The grant has already been established, it’s already been awarded, the avenue to get the money to match the grant is available.""

The engineering report in the tab also lists the need for wastewater treatment: ""Many of the existing ST/DF (septic tank/drain field) systems in the Town are failing. Such failures are apparent by the “surfacing” of waste on the ground surface. Sufficient area must be set aside for a back-up system after the original system ceases to properly operate. However, failure may not occur until after several years of operation. In many cases, the areas that were set aside for backup are used for other purposes. Many property owners are left with no option to construct additional drain field lines. As such, a public sewer system is the only option to eliminate the failing ST/DF system... As previously indicated, the Town has long considered the need for a public sewer system due to the number of failing septic tank/drain field systems. Town officials also know their ability to attract businesses and create jobs are limited without a public sewer system.""

--AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You wrote that this is controversial because of the "often heated political discussion the topic brings", but your example shows a disagreement between one person and the elected town council? As for the engineering report, it very objectively discusses the septic system and the town's limited abilities to attract business and jobs without an upgrade.  How does this contribute to your feeling this is controversy? Again, are you able to provide specific examples of how Bean Station's septic system is "controversial", per WP:CRIT? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reach a consensus without seeking dispute resolution. Could you please respond?  Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see a resolution if the wastewater tab is noted to an extent for its need or the issue regarding it, it does not have to say Wastewater controversy, but can Need for wastewater or Wastewater issue suffice?

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "Wastewater", which imparts no bias and lets readers come to their own conclusion? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , sounds understandable, so it has been changed to that. Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)