Talk:Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

email as source

That sounds like private email - which is not WP:RS. A reliable source will be something that everyone can inspect and verify TEDickey (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This email is a response to a public request for information on Ohio EPA's web request information. The response is from Ohio's Media Relations Coordinator for Southwest Ohio, speaking on behalf of the state. This source would be comparable to a written correspondence (letter) from the federal government responding to a freedom of information act request for information. The above criticism would be the same as saying the federal government's correspondence sounds like a private letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernald Uncovered (talk • contribs) 16:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But it's not published. You should start by reading the guideline and if you find something that looks like an exception to the rule, you should discuss it here TEDickey (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Source

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.)."

In this case:
1) Piece of work itself (written correspondence in email format)
2) Creator (Media Relations Coordinator for Southwest Ohio)
3) Publisher (the state of Ohio)

It sounds like the dispute is when a 'Public Relations Spokesperson' conveys information on behalf of the state, does it depend on the audience of whether that's considered published or not? I think the exception here is this email was from a government spokesperson, not from an individual. If that's not true, then the government can take many positions on the same issue without any accountability.
Fernald Uncovered (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The guideline WP:RS is unambiguous - you need a reliable source, point-by-point for anything that might be controversial, not just a "source". Unsourced material just gets cleaned up. TEDickey (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

reliable source

"authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject"

There appeared to be inconsistencies in Ohio EPA's oversight of the Fernald site environmental restoration project. Ohio EPA was the only authoritative and reliable source as to the conduct of their actions. I went directly to Ohio EPA for clarification about their inconsistencies. I informed Ohio EPA I was intending on publishing their response. I asked direct and explicit questions. The Media Relations Coordinator for Southwest Ohio, speaking on behalf of the agency, with the full knowledge of my identity and intent, gave explicit answers. The response from this government agency was not taken out of context or altered in any way.

point-by-point

In chronological order:

1) The CERCLA Remedial Investigation Study found radium contamination in the groundwater at the DOE Fernald site in excess of the legal limits.
2) The CERCLA Record of Decision, which carries the weight of law, explicitly states the cleanup goals (Final Remediation Levels) represent the legal limits.
3) The Fernald site radium cleanup goals were 8 times the legal limit.
4) I informed Ohio EPA, in a face-to-face meeting, the cleanup goals were above the legal limits.
5) Ohio EPA reported (published) the cleanup goals were consistent with the legal limits.
6) Ohio EPA did not require DOE to test the groundwater for radium contamination.
7) Ohio EPA did not require DOE to implement radium specific remediation efforts of the groundwater.
8) Ohio EPA did not require DOE to place limits on how much radium waste could be buried onsite.

After the environmental restoration project was declared complete -

9) New housing development of two hundred homes in the Fernald area canceled.
10) Ohio EPA published their intent to buy/restrict water rights in the Fernald area.

This prompted questions (direct and explicit) from me to the only authoritative and reliable source as to the conduct of the Ohio EPA's actions, the Ohio EPA itself. No other source would have been appropriate to speak for or explain Ohio EPA's actions -

11) Ohio EPA reported (published) through their 'Public Relations Spokesperson' that there was no evidence of radium contamination of the groundwater.
12) Ohio EPA reported (published) through their 'Public Involvement Coordinator' that cleanup goals (Final Remediation Levels) above the legal limits were acceptable and appropriate because there was no evidence of radium contamination at the site.

Ohio EPA, as a government agency, was defending their actions by reporting through agency spokespersons or representatives of the agency (not personal emails). In all due respect, when an government agency can report its actions are acceptable because the ground-rules were wrong to begin with is a controversial matter. Shouldn't what the government says be more important than what form of media the government uses to say it? Fernald Uncovered (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But where is your published source? (Another one to keep in mind is WP:OR, though there are other possibilities) TEDickey (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063150/http://www.epa.gov/ to http://www.epa.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)