Talk:Environmental impact of irrigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adding the neutrality is disputed tag.[edit]

I arrived at the article initially on a yak shaving exercise otherwise related, but after skimming it briefly. I have ended up placing a POV tag on it because of its extremely one-sided presentation at a venue that requires a five sided approach. While there is no dispute concerning the negative impacts that can occur, their presentation very strongly implies that these happen regularly, widely and normally. There is no mention of these conditions existing naturally. There is no qualifier of 'where properly managed' and particularly to the point 'when not properly managed' (designed/utilized/implemented/etc). The presentation makes no mention of 'when' these occur/ed, when they first were identified, and when they became of environmental concern to the world.

The article does mention these occurrences 'at the tail-end area of the river basin and downstream of an irrigation scheme', and effects are 'indirect and complex', yet insufficiently weighed in the beginning to provide the necessary balance. This article does not even present water as a renewable resource, which is otherwise used anyway for mans' purposes. I will summarize, by saying that in the sentence: 'Irrigation projects can have large benefits, but the negative side effects are often overlooked.' The 'can should be 'do' and the 'are often overlooked' should be 'have been overlooked and are being studied.' I believe this might reset the proper tone for a neutral presentation. If there are not good points to irrigation, then why is it so widely used in areas world-wide that have few alternatives. While I may keep an eye on this, editors more attuned to the specifics will have to take the lead. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about serious environmental impacts of irrigation, not about effects of irrigation in general, like economical impacts, impacts on the food situation etc. The article on Environmental impact of reservoirs has a similar tone, and it is not easy to give it a happy ending. The present article is not POV, but factual and heavily substantiated by literature references. Quite possibly the article is incomplete. The five sided approach includes "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute: ...". Any improvement is welcome, like adding a section that shows how careful management has mitigated environmental damage. Any article on other impacts of irrigation, including beneficial impacts (which are enormous), would also be welcome. I appreciate the concern of CasualObserver and his/her initiative to bring it up for discussion. It is worth extensive consideration, because the issue at hand is "anxious". The tagging, however, seems impulsive and premature and might be appropriate only after a thorough exchange of views has led to that conclusion. Water and Land (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
On 2 September a sentence was added about the importance of irrigation to alleviate the concerns of CasualObserver. Water and Land (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the NPOV dispute by adding information that represents the other side of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantfroelich (talkcontribs) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental impact of irrigation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)