Talk:Boundary Dam Power Station

Hello, I've been asked to provide clarification on the removal of the controversy section of this page. The fact of the matter remains that final costs are still being reconciled and determined with 30 vendors who have contributed contractually to this project. Our organization does not have complete financial data to accurately communicate at this time and won't until late into 2015 when legal contracts and negotiations have been settled. Negative earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization noted from the author of this area is pure speculation at this point based on absolutely no financial data . {WikiProject Canada|sk=yes|class=stub|importance=low}}

Energy Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reverted to October 21 version

I have reverted the article back to the October 21 version - all of the substantive edits since then are non-neutral and read like an opinion piece. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR,WP:SYN and WP:OPINION.--ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wholesale deletion of the content was a smidge heavy-handed. The plant is the first CCS project in the world to go beyond technology demonstration. SaskPower has hidden its very weak economics, yet the deleted content referenced articles from global sources such as the FT and The Economist. Do we have to wait until SaskPower's story gets written up here before it can be made neutral with the deleted content? --scruss (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can add, without editorial comment, material that accurately reflects what is in those sources. What we cannot do is synthesise from that material and draw conclusions of our own that are not in the sources to create a totally unbalanced article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked here as an admin to see if I can sort things out here... I have edited the information down into a balanced version which keeps much of the useful information that was excised. I found that your edit comment, Ukexpat, "Rv - all of the edits after this point read like an opinion piece and are not-neutral." was a bit too generalised - yes, much of it was synthesising a conclusion... but quite a bit of the information after that point was neutral, and I've reinstated it. The rest though, I left out, as it did go well beyond the usual level of synthesis towards original research and did appear to be pointed. It's still there in the edit history, though, and I'd encourage editors to see if there are single unbiased publications which reach the same (or different) conclusions - they could be drawn on for further expansion of the article. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now managed to add back in quite a bit more of the information in a more neutral way. Please remember that being neutral doesn't mean ignoring controversies about the project, it simply means noting both the pluses and the minuses without giving undue weight to different aspects. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]