Talk:Flint water crisis/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Flint water crisis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

term "Flint"

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In several locations the term "Flint" or something similar that is used and it gives the very false impression that the City of Flint made the decision to go to another source of water and how they treated the water or other concerns related to the water crisis. It should be made 100% clear that there was no normal City government representing the people of Flint prior to and during the crisis, it was a manager from the state who had the authority to act they felt necessary without input or approval from the citizens of Flint. The term "state appointed emergency manager" should replace the term "Flint" where appropriate.

Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to made the switches where you feel it is appropriate. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should not be politicize and creating false impressions. Flint has since 1967 had Flint River water as its standby emergency system as Flint had to test the water each year then dump the water (which also made its cost higher). Second, the City Council voted 8 to 1 just prior to the financial emergency to switch to KWA with a mayor in place who supported the KWA. There is the normal government in place for the most part as the City Government representing the people were intact as both the elected council and mayor were still in existence. ABC12 in a televised segment had Governor Synder indicated that the Emergency Manager was direct to follow the city's elected official on its recommendation on long term water source given they would be left to deal with it. Again, the city council voted 8 to 1 (both times the "No" vote was for a long term use of the Flint River water as its permanent source) for the KWA water. Spshu (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How am I "politicizing and creating false impressions"? I'm not a politician and everything I've posted are well sourced facts. If you think something is incorrect, correct it (with a reliable source of course), but don't accuse me of something I'm not doing. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flint water crisis. 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/20160127011737/http://www.abc12.com/news/localnews/headlines/Truckloads-of-water-to-be-delivered-to-Flint-senior-centers-365458881.html to http://www.abc12.com/news/localnews/headlines/Truckloads-of-water-to-be-delivered-to-Flint-senior-centers-365458881.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) 14:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

bias

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry, but the timeline lacking the appointment of the emergency manager is egregious. Why is there no highlighting that this emergency manager trampled over the local rights of the people of Flint? The way the timeline is written, you'd think that that City officials decided - off the cuff - to switch the water to their own detriment. You guys leave this gap wide open. This is yet again more racism and white innocence. Thanks for showing that Wikipedia is as biased as it has always been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.22.85 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a few lines about it. There's also a large section about it at Flint, Michigan#Second_financial_emergency:_2011–present. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So where is the historical content of this Talk page?

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I was surprised to discover no comments on this talk page. Sure, the answer could be blamed on "archiving", but that only explains the "how", not the "why" part of it. In my experience, I notice that usually where Talk pages are virtually empty, it is because somebody wants to conceal past controversies, and that reason is often because somebody is trying to manipulate the page according to his desired POV. For example, the Synopsis points out that the iron and lead content of the water was due to the lack of "corrosion inhibitors", but strangely the article does not state that the cost of these corrosion inhibitors would be between $100-150 per day. (An approximate figure I've frequently seen in articles.) Who, exactly, decided to omit those corrosion inhibitors, and expose the city to a cost of perhaps tens of millions of dollars? And why does this WP article fail to mention this? https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Water.html 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "manipulate the page according to his desired POV". Everything on this article is factual and well sourced. The talk page is archived so people don't resurrect months (or even years) old threads, not to "conceal past controversies". It's better to open new threads for new concerns. If you think something is missing from the article, add the information where you think appropriate after you find a reliable source to back it up. I'm not finding the "$100-150 per day" figure in the article you linked to either. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/flint-water-crisis-corrosion-pipes-erosion-trust/ "By not adding a corrosion inhibitor, Flint was going to save about $140 per day. But the inestimable costs of the errors made in Flint will reverberate through the community for a long time and their magnitude will dwarf the original planned savings." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I added this info and your source to the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am going to have to complain about the archiving. I just checked Archive 3, and it contained comments dated as early as October 15, 2017, and as late as December 29, 2017. To archive just that material is utterly insane. I think it might have been reasonable to archive material prior to mid-2016, leaving everything else in the Talk page. Further, I went back to Archive 2, and found a specific and detailed reference to the issue of the cost of the anti-corrosion chemical, which was stated to be "$100 a day". (I am not the person who made that comment.) Why wasn't that suggestion acted upon? I will include a copy of this material below. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

[material found in Archive 2]

Fix would have cost $100 per day. The article should mention this.

Upon skimming this article, I saw no indication that it explained that a fix would have cost $100 per day. See http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-water-crisis/internal-email-michigan-blowing-flint-over-lead-water-n491481 "Marc Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech who has been testing Flint water, says treatment could have corrected much of the problem early on — for as little as $100 a day — but officials in the city of 100,000 people didn't take action." Or: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/01/09/what-you-need-to-know-about-lead-poisoning-flint-edition/#42932fd4212f "In April, 2014, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager changed the city’s water supply from Detroit’s Lake Huron treated water with anti-corrosives to water from Flint River, in a poorly thought out cost-saving maneuver. They did not add anti-corrosives to the Flint system, as that would have cost $100/day." I have seen many people try to blame state officials, or even Federal officials, and ignore the omission of adding material to the water to balance its pH, and to make it non-corrosive to pipes. That could even be done today. Why did the locals, the people actually in immediate charge of the water system, not do that? 75.164.162.8 (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [end of material copied from archive 2 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I added your info already. The previous edit must have been accidentally overlooked. I also changed the archive minimum to 60 days. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

How much information is too much information?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is extremely extensive, perhaps too much so. I don't like the idea of removing information, but I think this article would be far more effective if many sections were consolidated greatly. For example, the bit about presidential candidates could be reduced to one sentence "The Flint Water Crisis was a talking point of both sides of the 2016 presidential election." 50.59.62.5 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They were more than just "talking points". Clinton and Sanders had a CNN debate in Flint and that was the only issue talked about. Trump came here too during the campaign and even visited the water plant to see the source of the crisis in person then held a town hall about it. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Over?

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

@TomCat4680:, you were warned that you were at 3RR then you did a 4th revert. What part about THE expert, Professor Edwards, on the Flint water crisis declaring it over is unclear to you. It was based on whether or not there are still lead pipes in the ground then the crisis would go back to the time that the lead pipes were place in the ground. Nor does it matter that the adults in Flint are not paying attention that the crisis is not over thus "scaring kids". Just because people want to extend the crisis for there own benefit. What part of a (Expert declares qualified end to water crisis in Flint AP article at the Denver Post is not factual? Spshu (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Edwards never explicitly said the crisis is over. That's just the Denver Post's opinion and they're hardly an expert on the matter. The lead pipe replacement won't be finished until 2020 and people are still being told by him and other experts to use filtered or bottled water. Some schools are still reporting extremely high lead levels per an April 2, 2018 article: (Elevated lead found in 4 percent of final water samples from Flint schools): "Doyle Ryder Elementary School continued to register high lead at multiple test sites -- six in the last round of testing -- and also had three samples that registered more than 100 ppb of lead, more than six times the federal action limit." TomCat4680 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

News reporting is not opinion and the article is an AP article at the Denver Post. Per the opening sentence: "An expert who has warned about dangerous lead levels in Flint, Michigan’s drinking water declared on Friday a qualified end to the crisis." This has been reported in Flint local media, so it isn't an opinion. So what schools are reporting as that has to due with their internal pipes. Spshu (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Flint Community Schools are public property therefore the government is responsible for replacing their pipes. The information in my article is from MDEQ scientific testing. Dr. Edwards never actually literally said himself "the water crisis is over" and if he did it'd be contradicting scientific tests, so it's unlikely he will any time soon. The AP isn't an expert source either. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So, what if government is responsible for replacing the schools' pipes as that doesn't keep the crisis alive. Edwards is on record as stating that the crisis is over twice. The AP is a reliable source reporting reliably on what Dr. Edwards stated. He is the one issuing scientific tests on the whole city. He actually advised against removing the lead pipes and for the city to work to reduce water cost for its residents as the actually issue that needed to be addressed.

Per the AP article: "'Today, we have equally definitive data showing that he levels of these parameters currently in Flint water are now back to normal levels for a city with old lead pipes,' Edwards said. 'Obviously, there is still a crisis of confidence among Flint residents that’s not going to be restored anytime soon. It’s beyond the reach of science to solve — it can only be addressed by years of trustworthy behavior by government agencies, who unfortunately lost that trust, deservedly, in the first place.'" All you are doing is pushing the "crisis of confidence" not the actual crisis.

"Edwards’ team has collected samples from 138 Flint homes, with the fifth and likely final round last month. The testing showed that lead levels continued to stay well below the federal safety standard of 15 parts per billion." He has done the scientific tests that agree with the MDEQ's. Spshu (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I read the article but he did NOT himself say the crisis was over. That's what the AP (mis)interpreted it as. Unless you have a direct quote of him actually saying the crisis is over, it isn't. It won't be until ALL of the pipes are replaced and so far less than half have been. Not just service lines under the streets either, but also those in any public property including schools and other government buildings. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NO, I don't need a quote as I gave you a quote from the article that attributes to Edwards a statement that the crisis is over. You need to provide a quote to show that the AP misinterpreted it as I have heard it elsewhere. The AP is a reliable source as are most journalistic sources per WP:NEWSORG. Spshu (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

YES you do because Edwards didn't say it himself. They twisted his words. They claimed he said something that he never actually said. They reached their own conclusion. That's just bad journalism. Unless he uttered the exact phrase "the Flint water crisis is over", it is NOT over. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Governor Whitmer Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Poor water services

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The crisis in flint Michigan began in 2014, some companies there tampered with the water system and then the water became contaminated with lead and affected about 100,000 residents in the area. A state of emergency was called in 2016 to figure out why or what could be done, some of the locals were handing out water bottles, celebrities started fund raisers to help the problem. It was said in 2017 the water levels were acceptable but residents said it was false.Hxnx (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Clearly, Tomcat4680 is trying to disrupt the history of this article and Talk page. People who are clearly unusually interested in an article are put at a large advantage if the content of the Talk Page is wiped clean frequently, as it has been here. Such behavior is manipulative and malicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a new/unresolved issue about the article itself to discuss or are you just against archiving talk pages? The info wasn't "wiped", it was just moved to a different location. Please don't un-archive talk pages. Please remember to assume good faith instead of making baseless accusations. I have won two awards for editing this article. I've changed the archive limit to 90 days but the threads you un-archived were from April anyway. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am against you trying to manipulate this page by concealing (and yes, archiving is concealing, in the way you do it) the history of this Talk page. I included some of this old material to demonstrate that you were trying to take control of this page, and especially this Talk page. I might have "assumed good faith" months ago, until you repeatedly proved that you had no good faith at all. I made no "baseless accusations": You repeatedly showed that you were trying to conceal this page's history. Stop pretending that you own this page. Archiving anything less than one year of Talk page is manipulative and malicious. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How is it "concealing"? What is wrong with archiving old threads about resolved issues? The information still exists for future reference for all users, it wasn't "concealed". If you have a problem with the article, address it, but attacking me isn't going to solve anything. I never said anything about owning this article either. Like I said raised the archive limit from 60 to 90 days. There's no rule about the minimum or maximum amount of days until a talk page can be archived, it depends on how active the talk page is, and this one is pretty dead. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You refer to "resolved" issues. Maybe you mean, "resolved in your favor"? And "archiving" this information is setting it aside, making it less accessible than the talk page is. That IS "concealed", to the degree you can accomplish your desired goal. Does the inexperienced WP person even know what an "archive" is? Or how to access it? Maybe a person doesn't merely want to read the article, he also wants to see the Talk page material too? Are you now admitting that at one point, you thought that archiving after 30 days was okay? WHO set that archive time to 30 days, in the first place? You? As for a "rule" on archive time: The lack of a "rule" doesn't mean that YOU can arbitrarily choose any value you want. Then, you said, "it depends on how active the talk page is, and this one is pretty dead". I am utterly astonished by that statement!!! The reason this talk page looks "dead" is that YOU have MADE it look "dead", by setting the archive time to a very low value. It seems to me that there is no basis to "archive" a Talk page, merely because it seems "dead": If anything, it is the "extremely active" talk pages which eventually need to get archived, to the extent that they get very long. A "dead" Talk page should virtually never NEED to get archived, even if the last comments were months or years ago. If anything, a Talk page should remain, containing evidence of prior issues, prior controversies, prior questions: Because, ultimately, many things are never truly "resolved". This is particularly true of what amounts to a continuing news item, as the Flint Water issue obviously is. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose "favor" it was or wasn't in, the point is it was resolved peacefully though a consensus and reopening it is beating a dead horse. Yes I admit 60 days was maybe a little too low that's why I increased it to 90. This isn't about me either, its about what's best for the article. Stop assuming bad faith.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I will also add this from WP:Archive: "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact." (end of quote). I think 75 KB is a fine limit. Has the archive time ever been necessary to archive a 75 KB Talk page? Find out. If you cannot justify having a Talk page less than 75 KB as a limit, you have no business supporting an archive time so short as to archive material of less than this bulk. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

How long it will take to reach 75 KB is anyone's guess though. A week? A month? A year? A decade? I think 90 days is plenty of time as long as the issues have been resolved through a consensus. Also you glanced over the second part, which is true in this case, it has multiple resolved or stale discussions. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you "misunderstand" the meaning of the 75KB value. That value is a guideline to how long a Talk page should be before we should consider archiving it. There is little reason to archive any Talk page unless it is becoming too long. An empty talk page is one that conceals the prior history of discussions of the content of the main article. Setting an archive time to 30 days, or even 90 days, is only appropriate if the volume of new material which eventually gets included causes the volume of the Talk page to exceed the 75KB value. Also, you cannot justify setting an archive time to a low value merely because it might later result in a length of a talk page of 75KB or more. The reason is that we can "always" reduce the archive time, months or even years from now, to keep the value at that 75KB target. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:D425:5619:7EC6:41D1 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Effort at mediation

Hi editors of this page. I’m not very familiar with the dispute but I have watched a documentary on this crisis. It’s very disturbing and contraversial. Props to all involved for getting this info out on Wikipedia. This is a a very necessary article indeed!

I had a look through two pages of the talk page dispute but it is all about whether or not (and when) the talk page should be archived. In an effort to get involved and get things back on track, could someone just tell me what is the disputed content on the article page? Maybe for the sake of newcomers to the talk page we could just recap the topic being discussed. Edaham (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I said at the ANI, he doesn't have a content dispute, just thinks it's being archived too early and doing so is "concealing". The discussion and his personal attacks against me are above. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Its actually only a problem if we keep talking about it. Let's just start a new heading with whatever content the IP editor wants to raise. We can do that directly under this post. I'm pretty sure that the IP editor didn't mean to level a personal attack against you but was just concerned about the way posts are archived. Edaham (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's why I increased the archiving frequency from 60 to 90 days. I think three months is plenty of time for people to comment on an old thread, in case they think the issue wasn't resolved, even if consensus says it was. I'm hoping this will prevent further disputes on this matter. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be fine. Sounds like an acceptable concession. Edaham (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no Edaham, you haven't considered my points. There is no inherent reason why a discussion on the Talk page "must" be erased, except arguably because the 75KB value is reached. I'm sure Wikipedia's servers have plenty of large 10-terabyte (or larger!) hard drives, and I've heard that the full database will download about 60 Gigabytes of data. So, there is no reason that to need to "clean up" the Talk page, merely so that it holds less text. Maybe Tomcat4680 simply doesn't want the history of discussion in this Talk page to be available for consideration by typical editors. Causing the Talk page to be gradually erased would achieve what he wants to see happen: He wants to erase the "institutional memory", because the large majority of editors probably don't want to, or even don't know how, to open the archive. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:D425:5619:7EC6:41D1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If you wouldn't have disappeared for two weeks and read the ANI I started against you that you never bothered responding to, you would have seen that the archiving bot was set (by someone else, not me) to keep at least three threads on the talk page no matter how old they are. Since there's only two right now, they're going to stay indefinitely for now. Problem solved. Issue resolved. Discussion over. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Text in Article not Matching Citation

If you go to the citation given for "As of early 2017, the water quality had returned to acceptable levels; however, residents were instructed to continue to use bottled or filtered water until all the lead pipes have been replaced, which is expected to be completed no sooner than 2019." there's no mention of "residents were instructed to continue to use bottled or filtered water until all the lead pipes have been replaced", at https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2018/12/04/state-shrugs-flint-pipe-replacement-work-ahead/2204132002/. I'm editing the text to reflect what in the citation. Zenten (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There was another instance of a citation not matching the source. The page text read "However, this is disputed by residents, experts, and other officials who report that as of January 2019, the water in Flint is still not safe to drink." The linked source is an interview in which Rep. Dan Kildee is asked "Are you confident that the water there is now safe for residents to drink?". The representative answers "No, I don't think we can trust it yet. It is getting better, we have to acknowledge that. We should by the end of July, certainly by the end of the summer, have been able to replace all of those lead service pipes that have been the source of the poisoning, but people don't trust it yet. They were told the water was safe once before when it really wasn't. I think until those lead lines are gone, it's going to be pretty difficult to have full confidence, but we are getting there." This is the opinion of one official, does not contain any references to expert opinion, and the official isn't even reporting that the water is unsafe, merely that it is difficult to have confidence in the water's safety until the pipe replacement finishes. In light of this, I edited the sentence reflect what's actually in the citation. --LazyDog21 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Chronology

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The timeline is flagged suggesting it be converted to prose .I don't think it needs to and should stay as is . Wiki style suggests that lists are ideal for chronologies What are the opinions ?Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's fine like it is. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of it? Everything in it, as far as I can see, appears in prose in the rest of the article. Prose is the default way that articles are written, and there is no need to repeat everything again in a dumbed-down format. Kaerana (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the entries in the timeline aren't repeated, they're only in that section. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't see any that weren't repeated, but if that's so, then they should be in the prose anyway. What possible reason could there be to use a bullet pointed list in place of prose? Kaerana (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Look harder (e.g. read the entire article!). Most of the entries in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 parts of the chronology aren't anywhere else in the article. I added them so I should know. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So, like I asked already, why do you want them in a bullet point simplified form instead of in prose? Kaerana (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to change it to prose, go ahead. Just don't remove any of the sources. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Basic information to add to the lead of this article: is Flint still using the Flint River as its water source, or did the city switch back to Detroit's water supply (Lake Huron)? This basic information that readers will surely expect to learn from this article should also be made much more clear in the timeline. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

They switched back to Detroit in October 2015 [1] and switched again to the Great Lakes Water Authority for at least 30 years starting in November 2017.[2]. I added this information to the lead to clear up any confusion. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's much clearer--thank you for your attention and care. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to clear it up. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Flint has clean water now, contrary to popular myth. The crisis has ended.

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This article incorrectly indicates the Flint water crisis remains ongoing at present. This is simply a popular myth. The crisis of Flint’s water was that the water was toxic. It was made safe to drink again by the end of 2017. Therefore, the crisis is over. Consequences of the crisis will last many years to come, granted, but the consequences and legacy of a crisis are not the crisis. If you disagree, please propose criteria under which you would agree that the Flint water crisis has an end date.

I made a well sourced contribution so that the article reflects that the crisis has ended and Flint now has clean water, and addressed the popular myth to the contrary. An admin referred me to BRD, but also twice reverted my contribution in its entirety without any attempt at refinement, contrary to BRD. Situations like this are why I rarely contribute. I put a lot of time into this. I’m done. Much of the public is under the incorrect impression Flint still has no clean water. Wikipedia should set them straight by stating the end date. Thanks PromptStone (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Where's it say it's a "myth"? Exactly who is "saying it's unsafe on a daily basis"? You mention "prominent influencers, activists, celebrities" but don't list any names or provide any sources for these claims. Your whole entry isn't neutral and reads more like a bad essay. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no "refinement" I could have done for that content. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a reliable source agreeing that the crisis is over Politico. It puts the end at February 2019. --Pithon314 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The last line of Political Responses cites an irrelevant source

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Never edited a wiki page, so I'm adding this as a talk topic instead.

The line "Liberal Flint-born filmmaker and activist Michael Moore, angry about the endorsement, devoted a podcast episode to this issue" is cited by source 398, which is about a mother working to increase the settlement amount in a civil lawsuit. I think this line should then be re-sourced or deleted, right?

Lreinirz (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Lreinirz,