Jump to content

Talk:Clyde cancer cluster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.236.170.160 (talk) at 23:11, 9 January 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Improvements

I thought about tagging the article with some tags, but I feel that would just give the article a bad reputation. It's really not a bad article. I just want to find ways to improve it. It is very well written and has relevant sources.

Some things I realized that can be improved about the article are the following:

  • We may need more information about the specific people and cases. There are many articles about Alexa Brown, one of the girls who died from the cancer, and Warren and Wendy Brown, who are the parents of this child, and were probably the most contributory and influential people in the cause of investigating the cancer and were the main guys suing Whirlpool. Several sources talk about fundraisers and memorials held for Alexa, so perhaps we should go into specifics about those. Kole Keller (according to the back cover of Fighting for Answers - A Tragic Story in Clyde) is another kid who died at age 6 after receiving cancer at age 4. I'm sure there are sources for all of these kids. It may be possible to make sections or bullet points regarding the specific notable people (3 or more references would be nice and is always my general rule I follow for stand-alone articles) who got cancer and died from it, or who may still have cancer (BLP mentioning requirements apply; remember this is a small town).
  • The documentary itself is notable to talk about, at least for a couple of sentences. I found several news sources about the documentary called Fighting for Answers - A Tragic Story in Clyde, Ohio. Adan Garcia, the creator of the documentary; his sister died of the cancer, and was notably a young adult and not a child. I can't remember her name off the top of my head. Anyway, I'd like more help for this article. I feel that I'm doing everything all alone at this point and no one has taken interest to help me with the research and the improvements. I, right here in Clyde, purchased a copy of Garcia's documentary but some parts of the copy are broken as I assume and the only parts I can watch are clips of Adan sitting in the studio and talking to the camera. These clips include him talking about his idea of the creation of the documentary, his idea of his "visions of Alexa Brown's spirit speaking to him", etc. The back cover of the documentary's DVD case has some written information about Adan's credentials, and he says in the DVD about how he currently lives in Albuquerque. I don't know if we should necessarily include all this information, because that info itself probably doesn't have many sources and is just trivial information. The documentary may even be notable for its own article, if there are enough sources to make it more than just a 5 sentence article with a synopsis summary section.
  • The second court case. The sources about the cancer cluster pertaining to Whirlpool's fault from 2012 to 2015 state that there were two separate court cases; I believe it was one by the families of the cancer cluster, including Wendy and Warren, called Wendy Brown et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, and another case that was by the government of Sandusky County. Honestly, I purposefully excluded the content of the second court case from the article, because I felt it would confuse the readers, and honestly when I read about it confused me. This is why we need attention from experts on law.
  • In the article, we need to include more information about the specific types of cancer and more scientific things in general about the cancer. Science is definitely not one of my strongholds, I'm much better at writing about series of events and occurrences, but science is, I admit, my worst topic as far as expertise goes. We definitely need experts or people with more knowledge on cancer in general.
  • The article needs to clarify how Whirlpool was connected with the benzaldehyde found in the attics of people's homes. This is probably another job for a chemistry expert. I have no idea really what benzaldehyde would even be used for honestly. Things that need to be clarified: 1.) Motive (if known): Why did Whirlpool put benzaldehyde in people's homes? Was it a mistake? Did they claim it was a mistake? Or did they do it on purpose? Could it have been that they used homes as an outlet for getting rid of benzaldehyde waste, as they did for the PCBs in Whirlpool Park? Or was there some other immoral reason they did it? 2.) What's the big deal? Why is benzaldehyde dangerous and linked with the cancer? clarify that, 3.) More details, what is benzaldehyde used for in this case? The entire attic itself, pipes inside it? Electrical wiring? The chimneys? This stuff is all a mystery to me until I do extensive research, but I'd be grateful for someone who was more knowledgeable on benzaldehyde to help me.
  • The article may need attention on the minor mentions of chemistry. Some chemicals are mentioned in the article, such as PCBs and benzaldehyde. Again, I'm not an expert on chemistry. Should we go into more details about the chemistry? I don't know, but a chemistry expert might know. This article may need attention from an expert on chemistry because of this.
  • In general, the article needs more sources and needs more information from those new sources, and possibly the current sources. There are so many news sources out there. I think I mostly included local news sources. Maybe I should've included more diverse sources, such as one I found from a news company in Columbia, South Carolina.
  • The article's references need to be reformatted to fit standard Wikipedia-style web references, and I don't know how to do that.

In general, what I'm looking for is a person, or even better, people, who are knowledgeable about the subject or can spend a lot of time learning about the subject, willing to help me improve this article with a great portion of their time. My ultimate goal is for this article to achieve Good Article status on the English Wikipedia. If any people would like to help me improve the article, please feel free to leave messages here or on my talk page. Thanks for your time. PS: I will post a notice about this linking to this talk page on several WikiProjects. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two criticisms, intended constructively

With the admission that I do not at all defend what might have transpired...

Benzaldehyde

Some explanation of why Whirlpool used benzaldehyde would be helpful. And some discussion of its hazards. According to Ullmann's Encyclopedia, "The probable lethal dose by mouth for a 70-kg human is estimated to be 50 mL." That's a lot of benzaldehyde. If true (chronic vs acute, etc), detecting this compound in some attics is not alarming. But chemophobia can be a blunt weapon, and we want to be careful not to propagate misinformation, even if it appears in the press.

I don't usually say these sorts of words on Wikipedia, but, shit!!!! I just found another article;
That says something completely different than the attic story. From what I've now gathered, Whirlpool was apparently releasing benzaldehyde from the factory. I'd thought something sounded funny about there being "benzaldehyde in people's attics". I now see why we can't mostly rely on the press for evidence. As for the source I just gave, I don't actually know how reliable blogs are as sources, but I just thought that emission of the gas makes a lot more sense than it "being in a home attic" "and it was Whirlpool's fault (for some reason)". Philmonte101 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was very wrong about my judgement of the Wikipedia article I made. I shouldn't act so high and mighty. My apologies. I think the article may need to be rewritten in a lot of areas for accuracy. If anyone would like to help, it'd be very much appreciated. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind it being factually inaccurate. It wasn't necessarily inaccurate, it's just that emission from the factory wasn't clarified. Yes, benzaldehyde could've been found in attics, but the article only has one source regarding benzaldehyde, so the statement doesn't make much sense. I'll continue to collect references to gather information. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to WP:MEDRS?

The references don't cite secondary sources reanalyzing published information. Ideally the article would be anchored with articles in major medical or toxicology journals. Otherwise it comes across as something written by well intentioned authors but based on weak technical knowledge. Harsh words, I know, but such are required to produce an article we would all be proud of. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Smokefoot I get what you're trying to say, which is why this article needs more references and not less.

I didn't include these two references anywhere, but they are .gov sites. People say that .gov sites are almost always reliable. Plus they are official documents made by the Ohio EPA, which, as you read in the article, is one of the two major government organizations investigating the cluster. Does this count as to what you're talking about? Philmonte101 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, these are primary sources. Hmmmm. I'll take a look for medical journals; I'll be back shortly. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Smokefoot

See User:Philmonte101/Clyde cancer cluster/References#Undated. It contains articles created by law firms. They're undated so I think that's a secondary source, is it not? This is not about medical issues, but these are reanalyzers of the press, and often are law firms involved in the Whirlpool court cases. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick look while picking through and making citations out of all of them, but I haven't found a single medical journal out of the first page of Google results. Hopefully I'll get lucky and find one later. Philmonte101 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found 2:

Philmonte101 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smokefoot, I took a look through Google Scholar and PubMed, and I found nothing published on this – not "no reviews", but "nothing". Zero hits in reliable sources that were actually about this subject. This may be one of those awkward subjects in which it's notable under GNG due to attention in the popular press, but zero MEDRS-preferred sources exist.

BTW, the reason I was looking for sources is this: We have de-contextualized incidence numbers in the lead, and that's always a disservice to the reader. The lead could be misunderstood as saying that 35 kids have cancer right now, rather than about two per year for two decades. The reader also needs to be told how many should have been expected (1? 10? 100?) in that area over that time period. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Alexa notable as an individual article? poll

In my search for sources, I searched specifically for sources about Alexa Brown. There are a considerable amount. There are 2 things that can happen:

  • Alexa Brown can be mentioned somewhat lightly at Clyde cancer cluster and have her own article, or:
  • All this info about Alexa can be mentioned only at Clyde cancer cluster.

Alexa is, as far as I can see, the most notable victim in the so-called cluster. She has a yearly run local to Clyde, Ohio called the Alexa 5K and I also found an organization called "Alexa's Butterflies of Hope". In a lot of articles about the cluster, they consistently refer to Alexa and how her death affected the Brown family. Alexa was also very influential in that it led to the Brown family making political actions, as well as influencing another Clyde native Adan Garcia to create the local documentary Fighting for Answers - A Tragic Story in Clyde, Ohio, who claimed that he "had visions of her telling him to make more action toward getting rid of the cluster." (that sounds crazy I know, but it is factual that he said that in the documentary so we might want to add that as well) I found her birth date and death date, so Alexa could support her own article. The problem is, there are huge BLP issues, because Warren and Wendy Brown, her parents, as well as her older adult sister, Amanda Brown, are still alive today and Alexa has, like I said before, encouraged them to do many things regarding the cluster. Plus there's also WP:ONEEVENT, which can also be an issue, because she's only known for one event.

In a nutshell: Alexa Brown may be notable for her own article because she has considerable news coverage, is the most noted of all the victims of the cluster, and has had an impact on local culture, such as being the sponsor of several nameable fundraisers, and the fact that she died 6 years ago so that may get rid of BLP questions about Alexa herself. Alexa Brown may not be notable for her own article however, because of WP:ONEEVENT and because of possible BLP issues with Warren, Wendy, and Amanda Brown, her family members, who would definitely be mentioned in the article. A negative also is that we may just be able to mention all the important things needed on Wikipedia; the purpose of an Alexa Brown article would be to talk about her early life as well as give an infobox with specific information (DOB, DOD, etc.). I don't mean to sound mean, it is sad that she died I agree, but as far as Wikipedia notability goes, is this extra information going to be considered trivial and unnecessary?

I'll hold a vote here. There are 2 separate sides. The vote ends on January 20, 2015 at 12:00 AM EST. Use the Support template if you support her having her own article, and the opposite for her only being mentioned on this article. I won't vote, I'll just remain neutral here, because honestly, I don't really know what I should do about that. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be canvassing votes in this poll. Could you explain how you selected the recipients of your invites, please? --Pete (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Skyring All of those people have either edited the article, participated on this talk page, or in this deletion discussion. I also notified User:Davidwr, because he contributed to a lot of deletion discussions from my previous articles. Philmonte101 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list of editors here and especially on the article is sparse. I hadn't considered the deletion poll. Thanks. But Wikipedia is not a democracy and !votes per se are meaningless. To develop consensus we do more than count noses. Perhaps this could be reframed as an Request for Comment, attracting a wider set of eyes? --Pete (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it on my to-do list. Philmonte101 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an RfC is the right mechanism for a poll of this nature if you want a poll. I'd say that perhaps a simple discussion would be enough. I would say it could go either way but i think an article on Alexa Brown might be justifiable in terms of notability. It is heartbreaking. Things like this should never happen.

As i read about this cancer cluster, i am struck by the way that the EPA dragged its feet and seemed more there to help the corporations to evade responsibility. I also note from one of the lawsuit judgments that the PCBs in the contamination were Aroclor 1254 brand PCBs which were a product of Monsanto at the time. They also knew of the serious nature of the dangers but chose to hide the extent of what they knew and to continue to sell them anyway, which is documented at Chemical Industry Archives. SageRad (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:SageRad Could you please help me by giving me the specific link to the page you've found on that site? I've found several official court documents here, but I don't believe I've ever seen what you're referring to. Philmonte101 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. Here (it's misspelled as "Arcolor" but intent is clearly "Aroclor") and here spelled correctly as "Aroclor 1254". SageRad (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:SageRad Hmmmm... I've already found the first link you sent, and the second link I haven't seen yet. The second link is one of the earlier tests though, before the Whirlpool Park assessment. I can't really understand all the things on that document by skimming through it, but (feel like an idiot here for asking these elementary questions) why do they continuously mention Whirlpool? Were they using this Clyde City Dump to dump toxic waste as well? Was this also one of their charges? I hadn't seen that as a charge yet, and you seem to understand this document more than I. Philmonte101 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In short because i think people suspected that Whirlpool dumped these chemicals. SageRad (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa Brown I believe is notable (and therefore should have a separate article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Alexa Brown meets the minimum requirements for a separate article, I believe that WP:N's lead is relevant here: "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article". Creating separate pages for these tightly related subjects both causes editorial hassles (trying to keep the two pages in sync and needing to decide whether a piece of information belongs on one page or the other) and reduces the likelihood that a reader will get the whole story (because most people will only read one of them). Also, keeping it all here may reduce the temptation to use the biography for (self-)promotion of the politically active parents and/or their organization. IMO merging/not splitting is the better answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply to Philmonte101's poll of 23:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC): As a purely practical matter, we can avoid the issue of "does this person qualify for a stand-alone article" by having a section devoted to "notable victims" with space given to the most widely-reported-on victims. The space for each of the "top 2 or 3" victims in relation to each other should be in proportion to the press they received, and the space given to all should be in proportion to the media press given to other topics in the article unless doing so would make the article be too "heavily-weighted" as it relates to the victims. If that is the case, then a spin-off article about the victims as a group or about the most-heavily-reported-on victim (or victims) may be in order provided that the topic ("victims of the Clyde cancer cluster" or "[specific victim's name here]") meets Wikipedia's criteria for a stand-alone article. I do not plan on spending much if any time on this article, I'm just throwing this out as a "generic" way to handle cases where a spin-off topic might meet the stand-alone article criteria but where there is a good argument to be made to have the content contained in a larger article instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable article overall

I just think that the article lacks in encyclopedic tone and possibly intent. The article also seems to be aimed at some sort of social justice cause against a big industry, i.e., cliche and premature. If there is no secondary literature - none - what is the rush to create an article? And if this article is so devoid of the foundational documentation, why talk about creating secondary articles on possible victims of an alleged malpractice? Sorry to be so negative.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created by a 'newer' and quite prolific editor who may not be aware of all the policies to which more experienced editors are prone to throw around. Please consider the 'tone' of the talk page and make it more encouraging and patient. This is one motivated content-creator who I believe has a lot to contribute and could use some collaboration and assistance. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a documented cancer cluster and there is a lot of news reportage on it, and there is a seriously notable story here, don't you think? What would be the reason not to create and article, and what sort of secondary sources are you speaking of that might come along later? SageRad (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about those that did not just come from the press, and I can see where User:Smokefoot is coming from. It is unfortunately true that there are far more news articles on the topic, literally close to a hundred that I've found so far, and not very many official documents about the topic compared to that, and if you also add documents made by law firms that were involved in the court case. @ User:Smokefoot, people keep saying that there are neutrality issues and tone issues, but honestly, even though I'm the sole article creator, I think I have the right to say that I don't really see either of those things. Also, even though that it is most likely that Whirlpool was at fault here, I only said what the feds found, where they found it, and what Whirlpool was charged for. And also I'm planning to rewrite the article completely once I'm done collecting sources, and I will admit, there is one false statement in the current article that I just realized. The family who currently owns Whirlpool Park Site was not sued, as said in the current article, but they actually joined the families in order to sue Whirlpool, and once the families had left the case, the family who owns the site were the only ones left and they were sort of outnumbered. Philmonte101 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philmonte101: thanks for the professional and candid response. I gave you my reproving comments, focused, as you point out, on great sources. Secondary sources are the backbone of many technical articles, and yours is in between that realm, which I usually operate in, and the more newsy realm, which this one touches on. I probably shouldnt have said anything, but I figured that you should hear one hard-love comment vs sugar-coated encouragement that is often dished out to newish editors. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Philmonte101 I'm not one who's mad at you; you simply stated your opinion and that's okay. I do honestly wish there were more official sources that told the whole long story about the cluster. This article is about a controversy that lasted a decade or more, so official documents should have documented these things more fully. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also, one of the reasons I can infer as to why there aren't enough official documents on the matter may be because of the EPA, the ODH, and and the feds being sort of lazy about investigating the matter. In my head, this entire thing was an unfortunate occurrence and it's very sad not just because of the people who died and those who still have cancer, but the extreme immorality on the corporations and on the federal and state government. There simply are times when being lazy is absolutely not an option. Of course, these opinions that I have on the matter that I just stated will obviously not be put on the article, but I'm just saying that I'm inserting my opinion here. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will also state my opinion that it's more than just being lazy on the part of the EPA, but that of course is also solely an opinion and not for the article itself, but it's an observation of the way the EPA works too often. SageRad (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are not really the place for opinions on justice, who did right vs wrong, and unfortunateness/sadness, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for recording factual information, and the Talk pages are intended to focus on actionable editing themes to that end. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is WP:NOTFORUM but some basic discussion around the topic is ok and can lead to better articles. SageRad (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source says cause is unknown

If this source for the article [1] claims that the cause is unknown, why does the article say that Whirlpool did it? Geogene (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the person editing the article to date, but i've observed it for a few days and done some background reading of the sources, and my understanding on this question is that:
  • the article doesn't say that Whirlpool did it, and
  • information changes through time so a 2010 article that says experts are baffled may not be the last word on the subject.
It looks to me like the article is a work in progress given that there has been a lot of editing so far by a few users in the last few days, and that perhaps the lede is leading and needs a cap at the end to say that Whirlpool was fully exonerated, if that was the case and can be supported, or if there is just lack of conclusive evidence either way, then that should be expressed, and tone and innuendo is definitely critical to pay attention to for sure, for we surely don't want an article that insinuates guilt by innuendo, but rather an article that states clearly what is verifiable by reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of the cluster remained a complete mystery among the community for years, because the agency's pre-2011 investigations led to no conclusions,[8] leaving citizens extremely worried.[9][10] The article is set up to finger Whirlpool. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Geogene Well the reason I wrote that is because it's true. The cause of the cluster is not a complete mystery to the people anymore; everyone in the general public is now blaming Whirlpool, at least, all those in the town. Ask anyone in Clyde; they'll tell you "Whirlpool did it!" So whether it "fingers" Whirlpool or not, it is still factual that Whirlpool is at this point blamed for the entire thing and that no one else is being blamed. Anyhow, I'm now writing a new article to replace this one anyway. Its layout can be found at User:Philmonte101/CCC. Also, more references can be found at User:Philmonte101/CCC/R. It plans to state more of the bare facts and not to imply anything to confuse critics. That article will also be a less simplified version of the events that occurred and will state all of them in great, encyclopedic detail. I'm going to be a busy writer today. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Public opinion among residents is indeed a claim which is supportable can be in the article, though we must make sure to keep the article from implying guilt through such a claim. I think public opinion is probably a notable part of the article but Wikipedia must not state that in a way that implies in Wikivoice that Whirlpool is to blame. However, this doesn't mean that Wikivoice cannot state that there is a strong public opinion to that effect if that is verifiable and looks to be notable. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I really don't know why you took out the law firm and cookbook references, as well as the references to official court cases. Those are the only sources that back up the news articles, and there's not many. Please don't take those out when the article is recreated. Remember that news articles alone aren't always 100% true and we shouldn't rely on them for the article's factual accuracy (as much as we can anyway; there will be times in this article where we have no other choice). Philmonte101 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cookbook source is not needed to support the claim that benzaldehyde is the main ingredient in imitation almond extract because that is sufficiently supported in the hyperlink. I actually find the presence of that parenthetical (the active ingredient in both bitter almond oil and imitation almond extract) a bit odd and wondered why it's there. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:SageRad I honestly thought it was odd too, because I don't see how almond has anything to do with cancer and it being a toxic gas. None of the sources as I've read them yet have said much of anything about almonds either, so it makes little sense in my mind to add that there. Philmonte101 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that the question of benzaldehyde is not notable enough to be in the lede. That part is an odd detail in the whole story. I would advocate to remove the whole mention from the lede and leave that to the body wherever it fits in the timeline as a detail of the history. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "what benzaldehyde actually is" is highly relevant to the reader. We don't want a dihydrogen monoxide problem in the lead, so scary-sounding chemical names need to be identified by what they called when they're at home. In this case, benzaldehyde is a common, GRAS-certified food called "almond extract". The reader's reaction to "stuff I have in my kitchen cabinet and use when I bake a cake" is very different from "chemical whose name I'm not sure how to pronounce", and the reader's reaction to the first is the accurate one.
Sure, it's a little odd that it is present in someone's attic rather than in a bottle in their kitchens. However, it could have appeared there through the actions of the homeowners, e.g., because they used a "natural" bee repellent or because they stored something almond-scented in the attic (or near ventilation that goes to the attic). It could also be there through the actions of any company that handles plastics, as it's a common reagent for making some kinds of plastics.
It would be nice to have the article include some relevant information about why this concerned anyone who knows what the stuff is. It would require a dose massively higher than food levels to exceed the known-safe levels, and even then, there's some evidence that the chemical may be wikt:carcinostatic (=exactly the opposite of causing cancer). Perhaps it's primarily being checked as a marker (e.g., this is here, so who knows what else might have been here, too)? Or perhaps it's reported because news journalists didn't spend much time finding out what the chemical is? I don't know. But the original effect was little more than "A chemical was found! Let's all be scared!" We can do better than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, i agree. It would be nice to understand why people were concerned about that chemical which is not overly dangerous, or else leave it out of the lede unless it's seriously notable in regard to the cancer cluster's history. It seems like a red herring kind of detail to me. SageRad (talk)10:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't know whether I agree or disagree about adding the benzaldehyde "issue" to the lead. The fact is, Whirlpool was also charged for the benzaldehyde in people's homes as if it was Whirlpool's fault. Everyone is right, I shouldn't have made the article assume so much as it was Whirlpool's fault; I think that was a part of my own partial ignorance and I apologize for that. What we need is to focus on the facts, which is that they were sued. I think that the fact that Whirlpool was sued should definitely be in the lead, because one of the most known things about the cluster is the court case. I know this from speaking with natives. Years ago before I even really knew about the cluster at all, I heard from family members in Clyde "it was all Whirlpool's fault, bla bla bla". Almost the entire outraged population of the town blames Whirlpool. Although now that I overlook it (like I said I'm no chemistry expert, and far from it), it seems there are many things that could have possibly caused the cluster. Like my outline says, there are many suspected things, and I honestly think it seems that Whirlpool's PCBs in the park is the most likely cause, and don't get me wrong, PCBs I believe are bad. But also keep in mind there could have also been more than one cause. Such as: I have no evidence supporting this but it's just an example: Let's say that the PCBs are what caused most of the cancers, but the completely unrelated case of the pollution of wells in Vickery caused a few of the cancers also. So you're right, we shouldn't point fingers. But Whirlpool's case should definitely be in the lead; definitely the PCB issue. It is wrong that they dumped toxic waste into what they knew was a public park after all, whether it caused cancer or not. But the benzaldehyde issue; I'm not really sure whether that should be in the lead because it's such a sketchy theory that is possibly based on chemophobia. Benzaldehyde was classified as a "dangerous substance" apparently by some organizations which may have lead to the assumption "Oh well dangerous substance = cancer cause!" but that's not always the case really and cancer is a thing that scientists are still investigating the cause and cure of, so it is really hard to come up with conclusions about the real cause. Since others in the encyclopedia have challenged that as possible chemophobia, though no sources lead to this, I think we should overlook it definitely. All this new article I'm rewriting will talk about is the events that occurred, victims, court cases, investigations, and suspected causes, the medical information about the cluster and its cases, and the cluster's effects on popular culture. In other words, it's going to state bare facts and nothing but bare facts if I can help it. I am a teacher, and therefore, I am a very busy person even though it didn't seem like it from the constant editing from the past few weeks (I was on vacation in Ohio seeing family for Christmas). But most nights I should be able to work on it. Sorry but don't expect any complete drafts soon; expect the work done in a couple of weeks. If anyone wants to help out, feel free, I honestly don't care if you edit my draft (just don't vandalize): User:Philmonte101/CCC. Seriously, thanks to everyone for all your help and criticism. I honestly was uncomfortable at first thinking no one would even look at this article even though it's a very interesting, yet also very sad topic. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have a source laying responsibility directly at the knees of Westinghouse, we should not imply it was them what done it. We seem to be leading the reader to make a conclusion not explicitedly stated by the sources. That is synthesis and we are not allowed to do that. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Made an attempt to make clear what is community belief and what is objective. The flow could use some fixing though. Also removed mention of "citizens". Not sure what that was about but unless citizenship is important or in question it seems a bit off.69.236.170.160 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Ohio's (state) EPA says, emphasis mine: Both ODH and SCHD have worked with the affected families to try to determine whether any of the cancers diagnosed have similarities in terms of exposure or origin. If these similarities had occurred, it could give investigators information about where to focus additional environmental investigations. To date, both health departments’ work with the affected families has not revealed any environmental similarities....No environmental risk that could be related to a cancer cause was identified. The Agency also has evaluated area companies’ compliance with environmental laws and reviewed all existing information on local conditions to look for any unusual environmental conditions or areas that the Agency felt merited further investigation. Again, no environmental risk related to a cancer-causing agent or condition was identified. [2] Unless that's substantially different from what other agencies have said, that's the impression that the readers should get from reading the article. Although lawsuits, illegal dumping, and contaminated parks found in the process of the investigation are fair game for the article, of course. Geogene (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer to all editors: I understand there are serious issues with this page that I did not address or notice before. That is why the page is being completely rewritten. I really would recommend that this page have a deceased amount of editing to this mainspace page because once the first complete draft of the rewritten article is completed, the content of this article will be (almost) completely replaced. (don't get me wrong, I'm not disallowing people to edit the mainspace, I can't do that, this is a free encyclopedia) It may be better if you helped to edit the draft at User:Philmonte101/CCC. I do, however, understand that the mainspace page is what viewers will read, so in the case that readers come earlier than the draft is rewritten, I see you guys are trying to make it as good as possible to current peers. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for everyone but I don't see a great improvement with your draft article. Also if you just replace this article wholesale with another without consensus it will just get reverted. Why don't you start opening up discussion on the parts you want added. 2600:1010:B014:6210:FD58:46D0:13E9:F6F1 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of people who have not opposed to this, after I've said it to everyone like 6 times that I was replacing the content of the article. Besides, the important thing to remember here about the current article is that it doesn't have nearly enough information about the topic. So little information that the vague sentences have led to bias. Also, where's the page in the Wikipedia namespace describing an automatic reverting rule for more informative rewrites? For instance, I completely rewrote Mona the Vampire without necessarily someone consenting to it and someone thanked me for the rewrite, and people have also improved the rewritten article since. You have to remember; it even goes back to Wikipedia's slogan: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit(/change)". Philmonte101 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD is good, but multiple editors have invested time in the article, there should be discussion and some agreement before a total overthrow. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)There's some understandable confusion about how many people Philmonte101 is discussing with. I mostly agree with the IP user(s) in this thread but am not editing here logged out. Geogene (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
You know, honestly, some parts, like the intro, will probably be mostly copied into the rewrite. Most of what's going to happen is many of the sections will be split, and new sections will be added. I will place information according to the nearly 200 sources I find. Philmonte101 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to help you not run into a wall, but you can do what you want. Your original article needed to be significantly cut back because you added too much with too weak of sourcing. You now want to double down and I am letting you know that you do not seem to have consensus for that. I looked at your draft and don't see anything much I would copy over. I was hopping you would at least try it in pieces so that you would not get discouraged. 2600:1010:B017:3823:CCAA:BEDC:95C8:D661 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a draft; the draft is not necessarily going to be how it exactly is in the end product. In other words, after I publish the draft on the article, other users should improve the article from there, i.e. remove sections if necessary, add info, copyedit, etc. The main problem is the lack of info. If you do all the research, you'll see that some statements in this article are still somewhat biased. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. The article is already published. If you want to make sweeping changes get consensus. 2600:1010:B017:3823:CCAA:BEDC:95C8:D661 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That draft is basically just an outline at this point. Instead of going away and rewriting everything and then putting the whole thing into the article, it would be better to either discuss the changes in this Talk page or to put the changes in, one section at a time, and let other editors help polish it. There's no reason for everyone to wait for you to get around to writing an actual draft.
On another note, I'm not exactly sure why people have been removing law firm references. We should keep in mind that we need to differentiate our sources at least some, and most of the possible sources we could are unfortunately primary sources. And law firms are a type of source still, because they come from the people involved in the court cases. Of course we shouldn't rely only on those sources to back up a statement, but those should be additional backup. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because involved lawyers are not reliable for anything but there own opinion and law firm sources would only be reliable for non contentious info about the law firm itself. Also adding two or three unreliable sources doesnt then make the info reliable. 2600:1010:B017:3823:CCAA:BEDC:95C8:D661 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This case was dismissed in 2014." Exactly why the article needs to be rewritten. It's true that Sandusky County v. Whirlpool was dismissed in 2014, but Brown v. Whirlpool was not dismissed until 2015. Now you see my point, correct? Some of the info is still false, the citations are not cited correctly, and I've correctly formatted the collection of them and the new refs at User:Philmonte101/CCC/R. There are many reasons this article needs to be rewritten. And a lot of the things in "Political funding" are going to have to be readded with even more information. It won't be called political funding in the rewrite, but instead called "funding", but it will talk about the Browns' trip to DC and about fundraisers such as 3 Baldies and Alexa's Butterflies of Hope. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because a mistake is present you want to rewrite the whole article? No then I do not see your point. If there are issues fix them. If there is more info, add it in pieces to see what consensus holds. Your list of sources is so filled with trivia that it is not useful for building an article without a lot of editing. Also you seem to be under the impression that we are some sort of memorial site. For a victim to be notable you need a source that the victim was actually a notable part of the story. A hometown paper commenting on the funeral would not suffice. Also two parents moving to DC may possibly warrant a sentence if you can find a secondary source that it was in any way important. You seem to believe that every bit of trivia you can find vaguely related to the cluster should be added. I disagree and I think you will find that most other will as well 69.236.170.160 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I implying that these sections are memorials? The points of those are to ultimately show the specific cases these people had and the influence they gave their parents/family members to contribute to "stopping" the cluster. Please reply saying what you think is wrong with this. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also if any of the others are not notable to have their own sections, then Alexa Brown would definitely be notable because her parents, Warren and Wendy Brown, had opened up to research and investigations on the cluster because of their daughter's cancer and death. They also created several fundraisers and things named after Alexa that are named in many, many, many sources. If you asked me, I'd say the Brown family is the leading and most important family to be mentioned in the article in attempting to find out the cause of the cluster and then getting rid of the cluster. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not implying they are memorials. You are writing memorials and I am telling you that. You are trying to write the story as opposed to writing an encyclopedia article about the story. Have you found a secondary source that any of these victims are notable? You think they are notable so you are looking for primary sources on them and then writing your interpretation. This is all beside the point of you being uncollaborative. You have been asked to discuss your changes and to work on the article. Instead you are writing a separate article without input and telling everyone you will overwrite this one and they can not do anything about it.69.236.170.160 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you continuously are complaining (forgive me for using that word) about the rewrite, and if you have a legitimate concern about it being "unconsensual", why is no one else complaining about it? You're almost claiming that everyone who's ever edited the article disagrees with the idea of it being rewritten, but only one of these people has actually come back and agreed with your point (User:Geogene). I think if you're going to act like I'm doing something immoral, you should at least back up your statement with statements by other people. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three people as I was not all of the ip's. Which is most of the people on this talk page and honestly this is not a very visible page so is probably all that you are going to get. It is not like you were asked for something difficult. All that was wanted was you to bring the your proposals over one at a time so that they could be disscussed. Can you please explain why you could not do this? Also please stop with the games. If you are trying to make some statement by pretending to quote me please actually use the words I used.69.236.170.160 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting into an argument, which is not all your fault, partially mine. Let's try to resolve our problems peacefully from this point forward. My answer to the last comment: Fine, I'll make proposals section by section to be added.
Another note, about the IPs, all of you should've made it clear from the beginning that you were different users. I seriously thought that the two IPs were the same person. I would highly recommend the both of you, or the three of you, or whatever, to get your own accounts and use them please. I'm not saying that to violate your personal freedom on this site, and truthfully you can do whatever you want, but it may continue to confuse editors in the future. And I must say, I'm probably not the only person who was confused by the IPs. Those of us who are confused, we all probably would ask that you make accounts to better clarify who's making the comments in the future. I have to say that I'm somewhat suspicious, because all of these IPs tended to have leaned towards the exact same viewpoint, and please don't act like that's the only viewpoint, because SageRad and other users have tended to lean more towards inclusion, while you all tended to lean more towards deletion of parts. If you are the same person trying to expand the amount of supposed people believing a certain viewpoint, please stop what you're doing now, because it violates WP:SOCK. I am not accusing anyone of anything pertaining to sockpuppetry, so please do not make an argument about sockpuppetry, let's just drop it; it's just a warning. Thanks. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unhappy with the way wikipedia treats ip's take it up at the Village Pump but bringing it up now as if you are doing me a favor to allow me to edit is crass. Also accusing me of violating WP:SOCK without any evidence is just more gamenship. Just stop it. It is the strength of the argument that matters and all this other garbage you are bringing in is just disruption.69.236.170.160 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break one

Well i've been observing and I appreciate Philmonte101's work and judgment. Of course many editors will have much input, but can we let a hard working editor work on this with constructive input but not chastisement? I think victims need to be mentioned and described in brief according to sources. I also think local news coverage is reliable for filing in some gaps in the topic. Let's work as humans and read the sources, and coverage a good article that treats the subject fairly and neutrally. Let's not get bogged down in Wikilawyering and such. Let's be as collegiate as possible. SageRad (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:SageRad, for breaking the pessimism. I will take all of your suggestions and try to find a way to make a to-the-point short description of the people. I am not writing unencyclopedic content; in fact, let's just imagine this. If someone were to come to an encyclopedia looking for info on the Clyde cancer cluster, don't you think they'd want at least some information on some of the most mentioned (4 or more sources) victims? Even if it's just 1 or 2 sentences? Any editor not only should follow the standards, but must imagine what it's like from a reader's point of view who may just be an average joe who doesn't know much at all about Wikipedia or its complex standards. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. I think they would want information on the Clyde Cancer Cluster not obituaries. 69.236.170.160 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obituaries" are out of the scope of the article. A lot of people have accused me before of WP:MEMORIAL, but do you even know what a memorial is? A memorial has opinion words in it, such as "sad", "we will miss", "good person", "happy", "unfortunate", etc. And it's not like I said anything promotional like obituary sites also often do. My draft says nothing assuming that these people were good people, that their deaths were unfortunate, or that the section was made specifically to be in memory of that person. I think you are misunderstanding that I'm inserting facts found in sources, and there is no intention of ever "creating a memorial" as you're saying. That is a very pessimistic way to look at things. Yes, it is true that an argument of deleting some of it is valid, but treating it like it all doesn't need to be there is very extreme and you've made no attempt to make a compromise about anything, like SageRad is suggesting. They are suggesting that we just make the descriptions shorter and less to the point where they seem like obituaries. I guess the thing I'm concerned about is your complete deletion idea sets. If all of Wikipedia followed this mindset, we'd have more than half of the amount of articles we have now deleted, literally. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact

I apologize for being sort of a jerk earlier about the rewrite. I have now decided not to completely overthrow the article, and to edit it as it is, and to use User:Philmonte101/CCC/R as a place I can retrieve my references from, and User:Philmonte101/CCC as more of a sandbox than a full out draft. From now on, instead of fighting, let's collaborate, IP addresses. This is what I asked for from the beginning anyway, and was throwing off what I asked for. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I must note that there will be a hell of a lot of changes, especially to the current sources. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend bring them here first to stop edit warring.69.236.170.160 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you said: Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to include more info on Wendy and Warren Brown going to DC

As title says. There are many sources talking about this trip, but facts are given out in a rather dicey manner and it's hard to get solid facts about them. This trip also seems to only be mentioned in the news so far. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So poor sources without solid facts about a trip to Washington DC. Wait till there are good sources will solid facts at least one sources of which affords any actual value to the trip and ties it to the cluster directly.69.236.170.160 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to include more info on fundraisers in Funding section

As title says. Fundraisers include but are not limited to the golf fundraisers, Alexa 3K (the race), Alexa's Butterflies of Hope (organization), and 3 Baldies. I think they're important because they had an impact on the investigations and even the culture of Clyde itself, which is what I really like to focus on when editing/making Clyde articles. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what are your sources for this impact on the investigation? This is the kind of information needed to know if it belongs in the article or not.69.236.170.160 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to include information, in sections, about victims with 4 or more news sources and at least 1 non-news source

We've discussed this before, but this will bring it into an organized discussions. We have some half-agreers to including a list, and some very strong disagreers, who believe that it violates WP:MEMORIAL. I know that Alexa Brown should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article, because of fundraisers, etc. I will not add a "Victims" section until we have consensus. If it comes down to it, keep in mind that we could also make a separate article, List of Clyde cancer cluster victims, which will be based on the Brown v. Whirlpool document, which lists all of them (at least from the plaintiffs who participated). Also keep in mind that the victims in the list are not all people who have died in the cluster, for instance, the Hisey family, which is mentioned in some sources. Making a list article about is a very bad idea, though, and I would highly encourage not to do that because of BLP issues, but it is another thought, if someone argues "Well if we include some victims, why not include all victims?" Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I think that even though the sections could technically be seen as obituaries, there are many things countering to this. My supporting arguments are listed here:
  1. These may not be just biographies of the victims, but will include their impact, for instance, the impact on the parents' decisions to become a part of the fundraiser, or to help demand answers from the EPA, etc.
  2. "Obituary" or not, these are sourced statements written in an encyclopedic manner. I define encyclopedic as: starting with a definition and including non-promotional and non-opiniated factual statements afterwards in an organized manner, as well as possibly using intext quotes. In no way are they intended to be memorials of the people, they're intended to add to the encyclopedia article in order to give more information for the reader's benefit. I've had an argument before, stating, "I think [people reading the article] would want information on the Clyde Cancer Cluster not obituaries." Well if you think about it, the victims are the entire point of it being called a cluster. It's not like rocks have gotten cancer. No, these are actual people, so why not list the specific people. Like I said before, this article contains a broad variety of topics, i.e. law, culture, Ohio, medicine, chemistry, etc. We need to provide the reader with information according to all these topics, not just 1 or 2 of them.
I'll list more here as I think of them. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I ask what are your sources? The issue isn't whether we mention notable victims. The issue is are the victims notable and how we would mention them. Obviously, putting any notable victims in prose is better than a list though. Also if this is supposed to be an RFC it is not well done. The question should be neutral and easy to understand. This is neither.69.236.170.160 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clyde_cancer_cluster&oldid=699048684"