Talk:Pollution of the Hudson River

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NovaKK.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar articles
There are not many articles on the pollution of particular rivers. Here are some similar articles:  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pollution of the Ganges
 * Pollution of the Pasig River
 * Pollution of Lake Karachay

About this article
Thanks and  for help in making this article and for their work on Hudson River. I started this article because the topic "pollution of the Hudson River" seemed to be forked several times, as it was being covered independently in the following articles:
 * Hudson River
 * Hudson Valley
 * General Electric
 * Pete Seeger
 * Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
 * Polychlorinated biphenyl

This article could be referenced in a Hudson River superfund site article if one were created.

To make this article, I combined all the content from the above listed articles here. I combined content in categories, then I deleted any content which was repeated. I think that I kept all of the content from all of those articles, then wrote a lede which I thought summarized what was here.

After combining all of this, I deleted the content from the original articles then copied the lede from here to there, and linked to this article as the main article for the topic "pollution of the Hudson River". It is my hope that instead of developing this topic separately in so many places, all development can happen here. On the talk page of all those article I linked to this talk page.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources cited
Many of the sources cited in this article are not ideal. I think no source is identified which gives an overview of the history of the pollution of this review and the discussion of a response to the pollution. I think that a source must exist because so many tens of millions of dollars have been spent responding to the pollution issue. If someone has a source to share then please do so here.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Research by David Carpenter
There is some research by Dr Carpenter on PCBs, especially on effects by zip code in New York state, that i would like to include.
 * Low birth weight and residential proximity to PCB-contaminated waste sites
 * "In the last several years, Carpenter has written studies linking ZIP codes in New York with low-birthweight babies, thyroid disease in women and female reproductive disorders such as endometriosis. And his department has studies waiting for publication that link ZIP codes to elevated risks for stroke, ischemic heart disease and high blood pressure."

I don't have the brains to do it right now but wanted to make a note. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin and composition of the PCBs pollution
I added knowledge about the origin and composition of the PCBs pollution in the Hudson. It was reverted by an IP user here with the reason "No evidence they shared any responsibility for the polution". That is not material to the inclusion of the content, because it's just explaining what the contamination consists of. PCBs have 209 congeners, and specific concentrations of specific congeners were included in many of the Aroclor formulations. It would benefit the general reader to know the brand names of the contaminants in order to understand the nature of the pollution of the river. I cannot ping you, but i will post on your talk page. SageRad (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an off hand mention in the source you supplied. It didn't even merit its own sentence. If you want it added find a source that considers it of any importance. 2600:1010:B013:47E:6055:E869:8BBE:5460 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will do so. Thanks for responding. SageRad (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * welcome to wikipedia 2600:1010:B013:47E:6055:E869:8BBE:5460 I noticed your reversal on PCB's which I watch and from there arrived here. the summary for your reversal appears to be incorrect, as the source clearly supports the claim. as far as your reply to sagerad above, what you consider an "off hand mention" would also not justify a reversal of content. if you are concerned about the source mentioning the claim offhand, there would be 2 things you could do: a} find a better source (as sagerad is doing) or b) place one of numerous inline flags at your disposal through WP tools. I will restore the content in the meanwhile for the reasons above, and you can go from there in a constructive way.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a source to support the content about the contaminants in the river. The source says:

The source cites several supporting documents. SageRad (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor deleted the Chemical Industry Archives source, but that is absolutely acceptable. One cannot whitewash Wikipedia for political convenience. SageRad (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks? Really? The source fails WP:RS, but I will not waste anytime trying to convince you. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you won't waste any time trying to convince me, then how can i assume you're here in good faith? SageRad (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that's what we do here, SageRad: WP:AGF. It's a policy. The editor said it's not a reliable source, and you have not argued that it is (it appears to be an advocacy website). Claiming that because the user, ArtifexMayhem, didn't explain as much as you wanted them to, that therefore they are "whitewash[ing] Wikipedia for political convenience", yeah, that's a textbook personal attack, for which I will place a note on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we please slow down a minute. Do you have to template me upon joining this conversation?  The effect is to whitewash the article, not necessarily being the author's intent.  I'd like to know the rational that this would not be a reliable source for establishing significance of the source of the pollution, when it makes it clear that there is a significant story here, with extremely solid primary documents.  Please note well that a source with a point of view can still be a reliable source. This one is particularly well supported and carefully written by an organization that has been specializing in this area of inquiry for a good number of years now. I'll look for a third source anyway.  SageRad (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind everyone that we are discussing whether to include the source and composition of the primary contaminant of the Hudson River in an article entitled Pollution of the Hudson River. SageRad (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The content of the edit isn't really my concern. If I remember correctly, the other editor removed one of two sources because, they said, it wasn't reliable. If you have one good source for a statement you don't need two, or three. The point is rather that if someone makes a judicious edit, removing one source but not the statement which then, by implication, they think is well-enough verified by the other source, it makes little sense to accuse them of "whitewashing". So, besides that showing a lack of good faith and a rather esoteric extrapolation of their comment, it makes little sense. If you can argue that the source is reliable, for all those reasons, make your case and I'm sure the editor will listen. But if you start by claiming they're whitewashing stuff, I don't see why they should listen to you. And no, I did not template you, as I think you've seen by now. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The notability of this content was challenged when there was a single source supporting it. An editor above deleted the content and wrote If you want it added find a source that considers it of any importance. So i did. When i look to WP:BIAS section of WP:RS i find this guideline to interpret WP:V and WP:NPOV which reads:

By that guideline's interpretation, a website that appears to be well researched and meticulously edited can be a reliable source even if it has a point of view. The point of view in this case is a vigilance about chemical industry contamination of people and nature, which is relevant to the topic of this article. Therefore, i think that it's a suitable source to establish significance as requested by the editor above. We could attribute the sourcing as suggested by the guideline quoted above. I don't see any reason why this source and this content should not be included in this article, as it is central to the topic of the article. It's almost definitional. Sorry about saying you templated me. I struck that now. I saw the entry on my talk page and i assumed it was a template. Also struck the 'whitewash' comment. I don't know the motivation of another editor. SageRad (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a third source that establishes verifiability and notability. The story as told on PBS by the well-known public affairs news anchor Bill Moyers mentions Monsanto as being the source of the contamination in the Hudson River and describes how the business was done. Here is a mention on CNN's Money.com establishing further notability. This is part of the story. SageRad (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The PBS story does not link Monsanto to the contamination, except through a chain of synthesis. While I am sure that this chain is correct, we need someone to connect the dots. We can't do it ourselves or invite the reader to do so. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The interviewee in the PBS story says:
 * I think that makes it clear that the source describes the origin of the contamination. I think you're pushing really hard to get this out of the article. I ask you why. I also note that you and i have had a contentious relationship to date, and a few contentious words yesterday or today, and i don't think you've edited this article until now. That has a certain appearance. I am concerned about accuracy and completeness of this article. I am concerned about the whole story of pollution of the Hudson River being told as it is given by reliable sources. What is your motivation? SageRad (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the same motivation as guides my work on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article. Keeping things accurate, sourced, and pertinent. I see editors there trying to insert supposition and synthesis into the article, trying to guide the reader's mind along a path never explicitly stated. I'm seeing the same thing here: tenuous chains of logic and synthesis. If Monsanto sold GE PCBs which GE then released into the river, why don't we have somebody saying so in as many words? --Pete (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do. SageRad (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do. SageRad (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the CNN source cited above, there's no link there, either. Until we find some direct source stating that the PCBs released by GE were provided by Monsanto, I think we should remove the claim from the article. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An editor deleted the CIA source, with reason "Synthesis. No link stated." whereas the source does make clear the significance of the link, with:
 * To me, that is the source saying that the pollution of the Hudson River is a prime example of the widespread contamination caused by the release of PCBs into the world by Monsanto's sales of the Aroclor products. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. SageRad (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a direct link. While I am quite sure that Monsanto sold GE PCBs which GE then released (legally, I might point out) into the Hudson, we need someone to state this explicitly. Conversely, if all we have are vague suppositions, just how solid are our facts? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well i am seeing a direct link by the sources, at least four, here in this section. The first source "Of PCBs and the River" stated the fact explicitly, if you go up and read this talk page section. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any direct link in any of the sources provided. I don't think we should have unsourced speculation in our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any direct link in any of the sources provided. I don't think we should have unsourced speculation in our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I direct you to this source, the first one i used:

If you can tell me how this does not explain in a source that the contamination originated from Monsanto's products then i'd like to hear it. SageRad (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That word "mainly" is a problem, also "under the brand names". Logically, some of the PCBs were not under Monsanto brand names, and do we know that Monsanto manufactured everything under those particular brand names? It's a bit of a stretch to tag Monsanto with contamination when someone else's materials might have been the real problem. Again, there is no clear and unambiguous statement. We seem to be directing our readers to a conclusion that is not specifically stated in any source. And again, I note that it was perfectly legal for GE to release PCBs into the Hudson, regardless of their origin.


 * If we are somehow trying to present an image of Monsanto knowingly dumping illegal chemicals into the Hudson, then this is at variance with the sources we have. --Pete (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We're not trying to present any image. We're just telling the reality as reflected by reliable sources. The content only states the composition of the bulk of the contaminants. I believe the sources support that the "bulk of the contamination" is Monsanto's Aroclors and that is all that is claimed in the article. I believe that notability is also established with mainstream media sources, as well. SageRad (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , this is the section to which i referred below. Thanks for your conscience and your time. SageRad (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unsourced editorializing" content for review and sourcing
An editor deleted this text, calling it "unsourced editorializing". It was indeed unsourced in the article, but i am not sure it is editorializing. I suppose that sources probably can be found to support the ideas expressed, which strike me as important and self-explanatory, and probably expressed in a good number of sources on the topic:

SageRad (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't call it "unsourced editorializing", so let's be accurate here. And let's find a source, rather than just dangle opinions into an article from some lofty editorial hook. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, i stand corrected, you called it "Unsourced editorialising" in the edit summary -- my mistake, i used the American spelling. :)   Snark meant in the most light-hearted humorous way. SageRad (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. Minor point, I know, but getting the details correct is always a good basis for writing an encyclopaedia. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious or humorous? I assume that's humor, too. Can't always tell by text you know? SageRad (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfectly serious. We can't just write a sorta mighta coulda encyclopaedia that's kinda accurate. Not if we have a choice. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What i mean,, is that i wrote that you called it "unsourced editorializing" and you actually wrote "Unsourced editorialising" with an 's' by the Australian spelling i'm guessing -- and you told me I didn't call it "unsourced editorializing" and i said Oh, i stand corrected, you called it "Unsourced editorialising" in the edit summary so i'm asking if you're really getting on my case because i misquoted your word "editorialising" by an alternate spelling? Otherwise, what inaccuracy are you getting on me about? Seriously, let's not make this overly contentious for no reason. I was trying to introduce a little humor there. I think you were wrong when you said you didn't call it unsourced editorialising weren't you? SageRad (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to ping me every time, especially when I've got the page open. It's on my watchlist, anyway. You used quote marks to enclose an inaccurate quote. Yes, the spelling was different. I would never use the American spelling, and it's annoying to see it implied. I don't mind if you quote me, just do it accurately, please. I can't believe this is turning into a thing. Jeez. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You say encyclopaedia, i say encyclopedia. Let's call the whole thing off. Seriously, sorry if i offended you by quoting an American spelling on "editorilising". SageRad (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that i'm not inserting it back into the article. I'm only putting it here on the talk page for consideration by editors, and sourcing if editors decide that this train of content ought to be in the article. I respect your edit which was according to guidelines and policy. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Through discussion and policy we find the path to the truth. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so you know, i'll probably find some great sources that explain the economic and cultural impact of the pollution and then add this sort of content back into the article, because it seems like an obvious aspect of the pollution of the river, which i know about firsthand. SageRad (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all I ask. We source our stuff. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. That always leads to a stronger and better encyclopedia. SageRad (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialogue needed
Chemical Industry Archive, aproject of Environmental Working Group, not a reliable source? Pete removed it. Pete, why's it not a reliable source? note the policies and guidelines referenced and quoted above in this talk page. dialogue, friend, dialogue. explain your reasons. That's what the talk page is for. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the source has been discussed and there's been room to discuss why you would call it not a reliable source, and that hasn't happened. I need a clear explanation about your thinking as to why you deleted that source. This is how it works here. Discussion, not action by fiat. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As per discussion above. An opinionated advocacy website does not have the credibility of a more impartial source. Find a better source, please. If none are available, then what does this tell us about the message you are wishing Wikipedia to push?


 * There have been numerous official investigations into Hudson river pollution, for example. Presumably they produced reports, which would be in the public domain. This sort of gravitas is exactly what we need, not opinions from one-eyed crusaders seeking to use Wikipedia as free advertising and source of page links. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like a fine source. Why exclude it? 72.79.196.124 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What source is this? What was deleted?
 * Is this it? The source cited does not seem to match the statement made.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . That diff is not relevant, as it's some later fallout of some contentious editing. This is a relevant diff. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That source is a publication provided by a project of the Environmental Working Group. It is biased, but it is still a reliable source for the biased perspective it presents. Wikipedia is NPOV because it presents reliable sources with all majority perspectives of every bias.
 * So far as I can tell, the statement is an undisputed fact. The source being used does not verify the fact, but rather, establishes that there is a point of view which thinks the fact is important. For that reason, this source might be cited.
 * There might be arguments against using this source, but this should not be dismissed as "seeking to use Wikipedia as free advertising and source of page links". I do not see evidence of inappropriate advertising only in this link. If there is more to the story then I would look at more.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This fact and its notability was being exhaustingly challenged by an editor or two above in this talk page, if you have time to read it, and that is why i even came to add that source, to establish notability. Thank you for taking time to look at this. We need more eyes everywhere when there is contentious dialogue. Much appreciated. SageRad (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pollution of the Hudson River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626205553/http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlist08.pdf to http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlist08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)