Talk:Ok Tedi Mine

Mining Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Melanesia: Papua New Guinea Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Papua New Guinea (assessed as Mid-importance).

Point of View

This article seems to have a non-neutral point of view. Just look at the first paragraph. Tom Bonnie 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is an article about a mine, not about an environmental catastrophe, allt he environmental stuff should be moved to its own section, have its own main article, and the mine description should be more factual. Personally, from living in the area around Ok Tedi (which I am sure original submitter never has) The area around the mine is STILL one of the most unspoiled natural areas of the world. I agree the tailings dump was/is an important ecological issue, but not the main focus of this article! I will clean this up within the next few days. Alaisd 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea to improve the organization of the article. When I began editing the article, I expected to find that the environmental damage was overstated. I changed my mind. May I remind Alaisd of the policies of WP:ATT and WP:NOR? Personal observations and knowledge may not be used as sources for content though they may guide research. Currently, the environmental damage content is well-sourced and notable. In my opinion, it would be POV to not mention it in the lead to the article. The article is not so long (7700 bytes including references) as to merit a separate article for the environmental content, in my judgement.

WP:LENGTH provides the following helpful guidance. "There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the environmental issue should be only one subheading in this article, and have its own article. The fact that there is so much information about this one aspect of the mine and the river out there is causing a takeover of the articles. Alaisd 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think aspects other than the environmental impact should receive more attention. I have reorganized the article a bit and added some additional information about the mine. Some of the environmental material may not satisfy WP:ATT and may need to be removed, but I haven't had time to examine it. At this point, I favor achieving the balance that you discuss above by adding more information about other aspects of the mine and by removing inadequately sourced environmental content, as necessary. I think that as the article grows, better balance will be achieved, although it may still not be entirely to your liking. You are welcome, of course, to add well-sourced content to approach that balance more closely. I don't think WP guidelines or policies support breaking up the article, at this point, and I've quoted a relevant guideline above to support my opinion. I would favor further reorganization. I'm not sure that "aftermath" is a good heading. "Ok Tedi Mining Ltd" might be more specific and clear. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

Allegedly the mine was a Bechtel construction, could we have some information on this?