Talk:P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company

Pollution sourcing
I moved the "citation needed" tag to the claim that the factory polluted the river, as that is what needs support, and i retained the source that i had added previously. I think it's useful to have more sources than fewer. That source supports the general pollution levels of the river.

By the way, as a kid i played in the river right there with my brother, and saw deformed fish and crayfish and frogs. That's personal experience. I'll work on a literary source but thought you might be interested to know that. SageRad (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? If it's OR to say something outright, then it's also OR imply it. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why what? I don't understand your comment at all. To imply what? To say what outright? I agree we need a source if that claim has been challenged, and the "cn" tag is what that's for. I don't understand your comment, could you please explain more, ? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The claim in question is that that specific company polluted the river in a big way. The following sentence, saying that the river is still polluted, reinforces that uncited, questionable assertion. Did the company pollute the river or not? If there's no source that said it did, then implying it did (with the second sentence) is OR. Adding a source to the OR just makes it more problematic, not less. That isn't fixing the problem, it's making it worse. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, i see what you mean now. I'll look for sourcing then. Removed until adequate sourcing found. SageRad (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)