Talk:Gateway Program (Vancouver)

Reference to Alex Fraser Bridge widening has been deleted.

This bridge was originally opened with only four lanes. There was additional capacity on the bridge and after only nine months the additional two lanes were made "fully operational." see: http://www.leg.bc.ca/HANSARD/34th3rd/34p_03s_890516p.htm#06811

I have found some references that indicate that this additional capacity may have been intended for transit: (see http://2010watch.com/projects/gateway.html)

Other reference to the expansion after nine months: http://www.transport2000.ca/malahat2007.htm http://deltan.ca/Transportation/Introduction.htm

I think that the original comment about the Alex Fraser Bridge should be reinstated.

Rob_ (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rob. I found another source (Vancouver Sun) and added that too. I think we can safely call it a fact that the bridge opened with four lanes. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

It appears that large sections of this article have been rewritten and are now worded more like a public relations or marketing piece rather than an encyclopedia article.

For example "new Port Mann Bridge will alleviate congestion" is an opinion. Most experts and the overwhelming evidence of highway expansion dispute this statement.

"..improving the quality of life for residents.." also problematic

"... the SFPR alignment does not impact the Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area..." is contested. Some experts feel that the alignment will affect hydrology which will impact the Conservancy area indirectly.

Rob_ (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this article as containing "news release" language. I think there are several statements that need to be rewritten or removed but I will wait for others to comment before making these changes.

Rob_ (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small wonder

One of the recent IPs editors, 142.22.128.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), traces back to a gov.bc.ca office in Victoria. Sigh. Now it would be really, really nice if anyone who is unable to edit with a neutral point of view on this topic would consider refraining from making this article sound like a press release. Please review our Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Language

"Gateway road and bridge improvements compliment other road and transit improvements planned or underway. These improvements contribute to providing an efficient transportation network. "

These sentences seem overly promotional and do not seem to add any thing that is encyclopedic content. I propose deleting them.

"Vehicles idling in traffic cause a significant amount of pollution and have a negative impact on overall quality of life." Are there any studies on the amount of idling that currently occurs on highways impacted by Gateway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.170.120 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the first two sentences along with some other fluff. This article is a mess. Thanks for coming by and helping to clean it up. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Do we really need to have not one, not two, but THREE photos showing protests about the program? That's disgustingly not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.13.87 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edits result in an artilce that is no longer NPOV

Major sections of this article that discuss opposition to the this project have been removed. I would suggest that these changes be undone. In the meantime it should be marked as no longer NPOV.R_ (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the majority of the article before I changed was about opposition to the project. This current version only describes the project with a little bit of opposition thrown in. It is absolutely neutral. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 00:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the previous version of the article. It contained 2905 words. The sections on opposition to the program contained 626 words. 22% hardly consitutes a "majority."

10 of thousands have signed petitions opposing this program. Some polls show the majority of residents oppose this project. The majority of local govenment oppose this project. Opposition to this project is a major part of the story about this project. To obmit this information is a disservice to the readers of wikipedia.207.216.164.61 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people living south of the Fraser would oppose the the new PMB, it's freaking congested no matter what time of day you cross it. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleted portions of the article pointed out there are groups south of the Fraser opposing the project. There have been large rallies south of the Fraser opposing the expansion project. I believe the May 2008 Synovate poll also indicated significant opposition south of the Fraser. I also don't understand the relationship between citizenship opposition to the project and congestion since even the project proponents recognize that this project will not reduce congestion. Irregardless, the exact location of the opposition to the project should not determine whether discussion of that opposition should be included in this article. The fact that there has been significant opposition should not be ignored by this article and the article can not be considered neutral if it does so. I would recommend undoing the deleting sections and will do so unless someone can present a reasonable explanation of why it should not. In the future it would be better if you made changes to an article in smaller chunks and offered better explanations for your changes.R_ (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the version of 11:15, 7 February 2009. I am not saying that every single change that I reverted was bad, and I will try to reinstate some of those changes. However, the changes made since Feb 7 have removed a large number of relevant facts and significant points of view. Here is an example of content that I restored: "In response to the mitigation measures proposed the Environmental Stewardship Branch of Envirnoment Canada wrote that "...that the changes are not sufficient to alleviate its concerns related to the impacts of the Project on Pacific Water Shrew (PWS), hydrology, aerial deposition, and ecological integrity of Burns Bog." That is appropriate material for a Wikipedia article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back, some material is blatantly promoting the anti-Gateway views of the LRC. I will be adding some opposition info back to the article, however the blatant promotion material will not be added back., єmarsee ^(Discuss) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits clearly are designed to show only one point of view and dismiss others. They are not neutral. Let me give you a couple of examples to help you understand. You leave in the statement "...Environmental Assessment Process show only a negligible increase in greenhouse gas emissions." That is one point of view. And it is appropriate to keep it in the article. But you deleted a statement about an analysis (complete with the appropriate citation) that contradicts this point of view. The concept of neutral point of view means that you must show both view points not just one. You left in the statement "...Attempts to mitigate these impacts have been made through refinements ..." which again is just one point of view. But you deleted cited statement from that offered a different point of view on the same issue. And it this case it was a statement from the federal agency, not the LRC.R_ (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the cited statement about ghg emissions to balance the POV expressed in the EAP. If anyone feels this is not NPOV please give a specific explanation here.R_ (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the cited statement from a Federal government department that offers a response to the POV on Burns Bog mitigation expressed in the EAP. If anyone feels this is not NPOV please give a specific explanation here.R_ (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote has been removed from this statement. I think the quote here is valuable. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations). Another experienced Wikipedia editor has specifically pointed out that this quote is appropriate material for a wikipedia article (see comment by Clayoquot above). Please refrain from making edits if you are not familiar with Wikipedia guidelines.207.216.164.61 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation is absolutely not needed. A summary of the article is fine. I think you are forgetting that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, including those who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. єmarsee ^(Discuss) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The quotation gives specific information about why the department was critical of EAP. This is valuable information for people wanting to learn more about the subject. Your "summary" of the quote does not get to these specifics.

- As I have pointed out using a quote clearly is what is preferred in the Wikipedia guidelines. Especially in cases such as this where there is some controversy.

- Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia but contributors should make an effort to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia guidelines and recommendations and where appropriate follow them. And when an edit is meant to follow Wikipedia recommendations shouldn't that edit be preferable? 154.20.83.221 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism_sections) state that it is preferable to move statements from the general criticism section to the relevant section. The guidelines state : "While sometimes appropriate, this structure is not optimal, as relegating all criticisms to one section usually results in an unbalanced presentation. When present, such sections should be considered a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section. It may then be desirable to have a "General criticisms" section near the end of the article, for those points which did not neatly fit anywhere else."

The edits I made clearly are meant to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Why are you changing them?

Not only did it follow these recommendations it reduced repetition in the article. Doesn't that improve the structure of the article? R_ (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to weigh in here. Ultimately a subject like this will find that anyone who has anything to contribute will -by nature- not be truely neutral. Having said that, members opposed to the project, who are clearly posting and commenting here (Clayaquot?), have no right to oppose the placement of information from 'government sources' if that balances the article out. I have seen no links to independent/scientific studies that indicate any kind of majority of opposition as claimed, however that does not mean that the opposition view points are not worthy of discussion.

I think at the end of the day Wikipedia is useful only if it stays as close to the facts of the matter as possible and 'disputable' claims about the level of public support and controversy should be minimal. There IS controversial elements and so I think as the article stands now - it is an appropriate element. I think another image of the project - a map or something relevant - would offset the one of David Suzuki (minimal relevance to that image). Otherwise this is a good article. Smacg (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me??? I don't oppose the placement of information from government sources. I've made one edit to the article since May 2008, and that was primarily to restore about 18kb of content that someone else had deleted. I think I've made it clear that what I objected to was the removal of information from the article. I sincerely wish you all well in sorting out whatever disagreements you're having about this article. I wish I had the time and energy to help sort things out, but at this point in time I don't, so'd prefer to stay out of it for now. Good luck. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is consensus (myself, clayoquat and Smacg all agree) that the quote from a government source is helpful. The person that removed the quote has not offered any reason here on the discussion page. And it does follow the wikipedia recommendations. So I think we should put it back in.R_ (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Resolutions

I have reinstated information about resolutions passed by municipal and regional bodies in regards to this project. I think that is important to have information on the decisions of democratically elected governments in relation to this project.R_ (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groups

The criticism section mentions "the groups" opposed to the project but does not name them. I propose reinstating those names. R_ (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing every single group that opposes the Gateway Program creates a huge list that would be considered POV towards the anti-Gateway groups. I propose for every group that you insert, you have to find one pro-Gateway group that is not connected to the government. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we shouldn't have a huge list here - only groups of significance. But, I don't think that having to list an equal number of groups on both sides is a requirement to make an article NPOV. If the reality is that there are moe groups on one side of an issue the artile should reflect that fact. However, if there was a only a list from one side that would be a POV problem.96.49.137.216 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]