This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Just a quick to note to better explain why I've removed the "Polluted places" section that was recently added. Nearly all of the developed world, and much of the undeveloped world, is polluted. I don't see any way of quantifying polluted sites to vet them for inclusion in such a list, and I think the section might quickly grow to be longer than the rest of the article. Depending on how one defines a "place", there are thousands or even millions of polluted places on the planet. Or consider non-point-source pollution sources, which contaminate air and water globally. It's just unmanageable to include such a list. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I fully support your reversion. It would be hard to identify truly pristine places on the planet. Such an endless list would be of no value to readers and would distort the perception of pollution as only those places listed. Regards   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with that. I didn't find so many Wikipedia articles dealing specifically with polluted places. Maybe I should have called this list "Most polluted places around the world" and could be restricted to good articles to avoid indigestion. The very problem of the actual article about pollution is that there's no example. If this list grows to be too big a specific article could be easily created to regroup them, ceasing immediately to "pollute" main article. I already spotted:

• Love Canal, a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, NY
• Pollution in California;
• Times Beach, Missouri;
• Seveso disaster, Italy;
• Pollution in China;
• Environmental issues in Japan;
• Minamata, Japan;
• Sydney Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia, Canada;
• Environmental issues in the Niger Delta, Nigeria;
• Triangle of death (Italy), Campania near Napoli;
• Cubatão, Brasil;
• List of Superfund sites in the United States;
• Water pollution in the United States;
• Dzerzhinsk, Russia;
• Copșa Mică works, Romania;
• Warren County PCB Landfill, North Carolina;
• Landfills in the United States;
• Coal mining in Brazil;
• List of waste disposal incidents;
• Pollution in Canada;
• List of waste disposal incidents

Some of these articles are very well done, and could serve as models for future works. It's quite a pity, they're not more visible. Nonetheless, I was also very surprised to read the one about Pollution in California : very short. And this state is the most polluted of the US. This list could be a resource for those who alert and fight against pollution. It would also stimulate wikipedians to contribute with articles such as Pollution in Texas or Polluted waters with fracking... Refusing to even try is similar to ostrichs burying their head in sand, refusing to see danger anymore. Pollutant industries (or military...) who pollute the most, would be also very pleased with Rivertorch or Vellela opinions. Are they working as PR for them ? ;-D Auto-censure will not drive us anywhere. And don't forget: pollutions make us ill. Pollutions kills. BTW I'm a physician... I guess Rivertorch and Vellela are still in good health Praticien ( talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC) There're not so many WP articles dealing SIGNIFICANTELY with polluted sites around the world, Superfund sites regrouping the vast majority of american sites. Praticien ( talk) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Praticien ( talk) 18:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Praticien ( talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Praticien, I've left a note on your talk page. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits to this page were recently reverted; they mentioned a fungi and bacteria which consume plastic and steel respectively. I believe they should be mentioned for there potential in environmental cleanup along with any other bacteria people can find that consume a major pollutant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from grammatical issues, there were two problems that I identified with the additions. First, I'd have liked to see stronger sourcing, either from peer-reviewed journals or from highly reputable mainstream publications (e.g., Scientific American, major daily newspapers). One was sourced to a website that I found it nearly impossible to navigate; I have a faster than average Internet connection but gave up trying to load the home page, which froze my browser after loading more than 600 files. The other had better sourcing but still seemed inadequate. More fundamentally, I think that adding the content as written gave undue weight to something that is unquestionably interesting but of very limited relevance to the general topic of pollution. A brief mention, better sourced, would suffice for this article, if it's needed at all. A more specialized article might be better suited to covering this in any detail. (Inicidentally, neither of the sources provided mentioned steel, an alloy which in and of itself is not generally considered a pollutant.) Rivertorch ( talk) 21:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I think you should edit whatever you want, i will review and tell how much i agree with your proposed edits. Thank you. Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, Bladesmulti. I do edit whatever I want, and I'm always glad for constructive feedback. Rivertorch ( talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, you already understood. Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)