Talk:Love Canal

Accuracy

The article uses as a reference Eric Zuesse's February 1981 essay, "Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out". This contains some inaccuracies which have then been transferred to the article. For example, the article informs that the land was involuntarily compulsory purchased by the school board from Hooker; a letter in the Love Canal Archives, from B. Klaussen, Hooker's VP, to William J. Small at the Niagara Falls Board of Education, dated October 16, 1952, demonstrates that Hooker chose to donate the land to the board. The article also gives the impression that Hooker was against the transfer of land, and went to great lengths to warn about the potential hazards. Again, the historical record contradicts this, with memos in the archive written by Klaussen saying: "The more we thought about it, the more interested Wilcox [Hooker's legal counsel] and I became in the proposition and finally came to the conclusion that the Love Canal property is rapidly becoming a liability. We became convinced that it would be a wise move to turn the property over to the school provided we would not be held responsible for future claims or damages..." (B. Klaussen to R.L. Murray, President: memo regarding Love Canal, April 25, 1952; Love Canal Archives). It is possible that Zeusse, writing in 1981, was unaware of these documents, or they were not then available to the public, but Zeusse's reliability, and neutrality, is certainly compromised by their omission. The documents are reported in RS, specifically The Road to Love Canal: Managing Industrial Waste before EPA (Craig E. Colten, Peter N. Skinner, University of Texas Press; June 28, 2010). If there are no objections, I propose that the article be rewritten to reflect the actual sequence of events and to remove the questionable pro-Hooker bias. Keri (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this needs some careful work, and i sense some serious bias introduced into this article some years ago. SageRad (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I linked this article from the article on PCBs. It surprisingly was not linked to that article even though the contamination included PCBs. Here is a source that we ought to include if it's not already:Brown, Michael H. (December 1979). "Love Canal and the Poisoning of America". The Atlantic.

Even page 24 of this source which also seems POV in its goal of minimizing appearance of real harm, contradicts the Reason article in the year of sale (1957 versus 1953) and the lack of the word "involuntarily". We do need better sourcing and greater verifiability. SageRad (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i have made this edit to get rid of questionable and disputed claims that are in conflict with some reliable sources, and added the 1979 Atlantic article by Michael H. Brown. Essentially, i reduced the claims in the lede to the lowest common denominator among the sources, so that at least while this is figured out, the article is not making unsupportable claims. That seems the best course of action generally, to remove claims that are in serious dispute and then to seek the most supportable claims to add if needed. SageRad (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag to the article because it seems the neutrality of the article is questionable in terms of WP:NPOV policy. Specifically, to my eyes, it looks like the article has been massaged with a pro-industry bias throughout, to minimize blame to chemical industry and to minimize appearance of harm caused. SageRad (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Road to Love Canal: Managing Industrial Waste before EPA (Craig E. Colten, Peter N. Skinner, University of Texas Press; June 28, 2010) can be previewed here and shows there's a section on "Transfer of Trusteeship" which states the school board was unprepared and unqualified to deal with the toxic waste, directly contradicting the Reason article from 1981 and the current version, which claims the school board was well informed of the hazards and proceeded anyway. I'm going to pare down the "Sale" section of the article until I can get a full version of the text, if that's ok. Chrstphrwng (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chrstphrwng: I have the book on my desk at the moment; I can OCR the relevant pages (151-154, 157-161) and email them to you using your Wikipedia email address, if that's helpful. I never got around to revisiting the article myself, and I'm quite a procrastinator ;) Keri (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

To me Zuesse's essay ( "Love Canal The Truth Seeps Out" http://reason.com/archives/1981/02/01/love-canal/2 ) provides some interesting background details about the history before the sale of the dump. I think they are worth mentioning, if they are true:

• The economic boom in the town was due to the chemical industries in the first place.
• The chemical dump was created in a "fully responsible" way, by the standards of that time: rural location, low-leakage clay encapsulation, and such.
• The school board was specifically eyeing this land for expansion, as a perfect solution to economic pressures.

Also afterward:

• A few years after the sale, in November 1957, the board was severely reminded of the hazardous nature of the land which was now under construction. They went ahead anyway.
• The board, which by this point was certainly fully aware of the dangers (and cautioned by their lawyer Boniello), sold off parts of the land to other developers and passed off the liability like a hot potato.
• For the next 20 years, there were repeated chemical leaks. I cannot believe that during this whole time the authorities were ignorant unless they simply wanted to close their eyes.

I would also reiterate what one user said earlier in the talk page, nearly 10 years ago. A site with a "Free market" slogan can still have valid information. I don't think wikipedia should be the place for bigotry of any kind, whether pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist. Also Zuesse lays out carefully some factual inaccuracies, and misleading innuendos in Michael Brown's work (see fifth page).

Personally, I interpret the whole Love Canal fiasco as a long tragedy of irresponsibility across the board, with a long sequence of failures and mistakes. At many times the whole thing could have been stopped. The company could have tried much harder to warn of the danger / to refuse the sale. The school board could have heeded the warnings from Hooker and their own lawyer, and actually checked the records. The building contractors could have checked the records after literally digging into chemical wastes. And as Zuesse points out, the damn company decided to stonewall when questions started to be raised. Etc. Etc. --Nanite (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Keri:, is it just the essay part that is disputed or are you referring to the *entire* disaster? Uptoniga (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons raised above, I'm not comfortable that Zuesse is a reliable/neutral source. There is also a lot of emphasis on the Hooker "caveat" which ignores material now available in the LC archives. It reads as though Hooker were forced to hand over the land and had no idea that the school board would subsequently construct schools on it. Keri (t · c) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

hmm its already removed. Uptoniga (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that some of the section was trimmed; I've added information regarding Hooker's internal company memos discussing the sale and how they saw it as a means of evading liability. Keri (t · c) 11:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite + GA Nomination

I have completely rewritten the article after some exhaustive effort. Uptoniga (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I also nominated it for GA status. Uptoniga (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel as though the section in which the pre-disaster state of the town is discussed, could be a little meatier. Surely additional information could be added here. Koharbuffalo (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Koharbuffalo:, im open to suggestions. Uptoniga (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed

Per Wikipedia:Splitting, where the specific material within one section becomes too large, and in this case satisfies criteria for a separate, distinct article, I am proposing the section on the disaster be split and recreated as Love Canal disaster. The page here may then be focused on the actual neighbourhood. Keri (t · c) 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Centralia, Pennsylvania and Centralia mine fire. Keri (t · c) 13:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't 100% agree. The phrase itself "Love Canal" is virtually synonymous with the disaster itself. It is rather difficult to mention the neighborhood without referencing the disaster. In addition, the new article would leave this page to be a really short stub. Uptoniga (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Keri, I have a alternate proposal. How about the neighborhood be placed into Love Canal, New York, while the disaster stays here. Uptoniga (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That also works for me. Keri (t · c) 21:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose split I see no virtue in this for readers. All it does is take a tiny geographical article out of the contamination article and lose the context it provided. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Split, preferably per Keri's original suggestion. The Love Canal disaster was obviously significant but it is inconsistent to essentially define a neighbourhood by an event. By barely describing Love Canal, the article in its current state also manages to be simultaneously recentist and not current. --pmj (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, I could support a split into Love Canal, New York and Love Canal/Love Canal Superfund site/Love Canal disaster, however, is the current Love Canal even independently notable as a neighborhood? --Nanite (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that a split was briefly attempted but then undone --- Keri is this still planned? --Nanite (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Western Railroad

I note someone has put a "disambiguation needed" tag on the Western Railroad Corporation. After some investigation, I beleive "Western Railroad Corporation" is itself in error. William T Love appears to have originally come from South Carolina; he is shown in Railway Age as an incorporator or executive in several railroads in the western US, none of which have "Western" in their names. Of the various railroads which were named "Western Railroad" or "Western Railway", most either post-date 1892, or ceased business well before then; I can see no indication of William Love having any connection with them. Given those facts, I strongly suspect William Love was a "western railroad executive", and someone in recent times has erroneously capitalized that into "Western Railroad executive".

The article would probably be improved by removing Western Railroad Corporation, and just describing Love as a "railway executive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:102:B920:29B3:BC00:9BA:E51 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"William T. Love, the promoter of this plan, was for some years employed by Western railways in building up towns along their lines". In the article A Model Industrial City, published in the New York times on May 31st, 1893, the author uses capital "W" for Western and lowercase "r" for railways.

In 1893 Would the word "Western" be typically be capitalized if it were referring railways in the "West" or would it only have been propper if "Western" was the name? 76.169.9.211 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicated Street Addresses

Decades ago I was put through a one-week course on Love Canal in connection with my work, and we learned that the street addresses in the Love Canal area were duplicated elsewhere in Niagara Falls, due to originally separate settlements being annexed, and the collection of evidence was made more difficult by repeated errors along the lines of which 99th Street was meant. J S Ayer (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lake Ontario???

The "Early history" section opens with: "In 1890, William T. Love, an ambitious railroad entrepreneur, prepared plans to construct a preplanned urban community of parks and residences on the shore of Lake Ontario."

Although the northern boundary of Niagara County is the shoreline of Lake Ontario, the City of Niagara Falls, in which Love Canal is located, is at the bottom of the county on the Niagara River, 15 miles south of the lake.So, the idea he would be building a community on the shore of Lake Ontario makes no sense at all.

Perhaps he meant to build the community on the banks of the Niagara River?

2601:645:C300:5120:CD5F:7A45:E062:A8E2 (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's talking about Model City, not Love Canal. But... neither one is on the shore of Lake Ontario. My guess is that the original plan was to build on the lakeshore, and that didn't happen. But you're right it would be nice to get this cleared up. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent article in NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/nyregion/love-canal-toxic-homes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare His Home Sits Alongside America’s First Superfund Site. No One Told Him.

Mjrconsultant (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)