Talk:Environmental impact of the Three Gorges Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its a Fact[edit]

Don't you people read news reports? the environmental crisis brought by 3 G D is quite obvious. The Dong Ting lake is nearly gone this year because this damn dam hold the water in the upstream. what else facts do you need? Dong Ting Lake is the 2ed largest freshwater lake in China!! Maybe be we can post more media link in this article and let the readers find the facts themselves in the news reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Www.i2p (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?????[edit]

This page is not biased as some have reported. It is a criticism page and will only list criticisms of the dam. If you want to list pros about the dam, make another page in favor of the dam. This page is not here for China to bring propaganda to and yes the dam does have alot of problems and alot of environmental issues surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.211.177 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see, different people have different attitudes. It's not me who put this POV tag on this page. Someone else think it is biased.Calvingao (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be biased if some of the environmental issues have been deliberately left out. There may be issues that have been left out due to insufficient research but that would mean the article is incomplete rather than biased. It is not a criticism page since that would suggest a point of view on the negative side. The page should be a collection of the environmental issues surrounding the dam. Any positive aspects of the dam belong in the main article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

We have articles on WP about "Environmental impact of xxx" and "Environmental effects of xxx", and now we have "Environmental issues with xxx". Sounds colloquial to me and is not in harmony with what we already have on WP. I think one of the other two title options would be better. Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues is a little more NPOV than impacts. Effects would work in the title of this article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Environmental issues" gives the most hits than does "Environmental effect" and "Environmental impacts". "Environmental problems" would be a colloquial phrase. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Environmental impact" is a standard way to refer to how a project will affect the local environment. Naming this article "issues" sounds like an editorial stance. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This article seems to only discuss negative environmental issues, and more balance is needed. What about flood control, drought relief, and reduction of polluting emissions compared with fossil fuels, which are surely positive environmental impacts? Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Looks like they should be added. Sigh... More work! -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Johnfos, as you mentioned above, the article name does lead itself to only discussing the negative side of the dam. If the article name is changed, then I would include positive impacts; this seems like the best way to proceed to me. "Impacts" or "Effects" would work for this, so we could move it here or here. It doesn't make much difference to me, although the section in the original Three Gorges Dam article is entitled "Environmental impact." As it stands right now, however, the article needs some major renovation to become NPOV. Who do we know that has experience?  ;-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... the Environmental impacts of dams is pretty concise and good, but the issue you run into creating something like this article is overlap. And honestly, a lot of the environmental "advantages" are generic to all dams, thus we sort of wind up with a very negative article. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but making this article neutral seems kind of impossible. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another good point. I believe we can make this article npov, but it would be basically a copy of Environmental impacts of dams. Maybe turn this into a summary and put it back in the article? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are generic impacts of all dams but not all dams threaten the Siberian Crane and help push the Baiji of extinction as is the case with the Three Gorges Dam. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the reason we say most of the impacts overlap. We're not assuming they all do, Alan, the concern here is that there won't be enough that are specific to each dam (and therefore this one) to account for a separate article for each. For instance, we could go through all the dam articles and in the "impacts" section put a link to Environmental impacts of dams. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular dam and the effects are quite notable it is deserving of a separate article. I am not suggesting that every damn, sorry, dam article should have an separate environmental effects article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this article?[edit]

Before people put a lot of work in here, I would just like to ask if we really need this article. All of the content so far has come from Three Gorges Dam, and I'm not at all clear about the rationale for, or benefit from, such a split. If this article is expanded to achieve a more balanced perspective, I would guess more info would come from Three Gorges Dam, creating a lot of confusing overlap for little purpose. Three Gorges Dam may even lose its GA status if we keep taking more content from it. Shouldn't we have one good article instead of two mediocre ones? Johnfos (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I split this article out from the Three Gorges Dam article for three reasons:
Whether it is POV or not does not depend on whether it is part of the main article or as it now stands. It is POV if the content not the article name is POV. The only reason it may lessen the criteria of the Three Gorges Dam article as a GA is that I did not include a summary section in it. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "[t]he only reason it may lessen the criteria of the Three Gorges Dam article as a GA is that I did not include a summary section in it," then include a summary. Your comment that the article name does not come from any one point of view is moot here; the object of npov includes both the title and content of an article. There does seem to be enough content here to justify its own article, if taking this information out of Three Gorges Dam and replacing it with a summary will not effect its "GA" status. If removing this content will demote the article, I would strongly suggest re-adding it. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After my previous comment I di create a summary section in the main article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A summary[edit]

All right, let me take this opportunity to put all of my thoughts here....They've been a little scattered here because I haven't had a lot of time lately. I think this article is definitely adhering to a negative point of view, i.e. it stresses only the negative aspect of dams' impacts to the environment. Now, the article was split from the main article, and I think that as it stands now, it is long enough to stand on its own. However, if we simply remove the pov material, this may just be a copy of Environmental impacts of dams, as Theanphibian mentioned, because the impacts of dams are mostly generic. Then, if we remove the stuff that parallels the other article, there may not be enough left to justify anything but the original section in Three Gorges Dam. Therefore, I propose that anyone who wants to work on it may do so here, the objective being to achieve npov on the article without making it so short it cannot stand alone. If this cannot be achieved, we should still make it npov and then merge it back in. Let me know what you all think. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate what is POV in the article? Be sure not to confuse a POV with the case where there are more negative issues than positive issues (as may be the case with this dam). Another point is where your Wikipedia philosophical outlook lies. I am a seperatist in order to assist with categorisation of articles and to accommodate the short reader attention span that is now prevalent.-- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article does not adhere to a neutral point of view not necessarily because of specific instances in the article, but the fact that the article as a whole gives undue weight (direct quote from NPOV (see here)) to the negative environmental aspects of the dam. Also, your claim that "[a]nother point is where your Wikipedia philosophical outlook lies" is laughable when compared with the content of npov which emphatically says, "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." It doesn't matter what your viewpoint on splitting and merging is, just like it doesn't matter whether you believe dams have positive as well as negative impacts on the environment. What we are trying to determine is whether this article has enough notability to stand alone, and whether its original article can stand without it. Please let me know if I've been uncivil; that is not my goal here. I'm simply trying to state my case, and Johnfos's too. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Fleetflame has proposed that this article and Three Gorges Dam be merged.

Support. I also support the merge proposal, from an interested but casual oberver point of view it make little sense as a sparate document. User:66.167.200.162 at 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.200.162 (talk)
Support. I totally support the merge proposal, for the reasons discussed above. Johnfos (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Both topics are notable, NPOV and referenced, therefore both can be justistified as standalone articles. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (disclaimer: Johnfos asked if I would comment [1]) - I think that the information in this article would work as a section of the TGD article. If more environmental issues should crop op, or the original article should need some *major* expansion, the merge can be reconsidered, but for now I don't think two articles are justified. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Three Gorges Dam article is already long enough. This subpage will satisfy MoS. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that this section has been split from Three Gorges Dam. The length of the parent article has nothing to do with whether or not a section should be split from the article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recommendation to split long articles into smaller ones but the Three Gorges Dam article is only 36kb long so you are correct in this particular case. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also wise to split if one aspect is being given too much attention compared to others, and the aspect is notable in itself. Richard001 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per WP:FORK. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:CFORK (which I suspect is what you are referring to) the article is neither a content nor a POV fork. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprizing how many people misinterpret the content forking page. Richard001 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Merging into one article will give reader a whole view of the project.Calvingao (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of this article is in the Three Gorges Dam article. Those that seek further information can then visit this page. That is how it should work - everyone that visits the Three Gorges Dam page will not be interested in an in-depth treatment of every aspect of the dam, hence the need to split out the more detailed sections. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Too short really. If it were longer, maybe, but it doesn't exactly seem to lift much burden from the main article, and the environmental aspects certainly deserve at least this much space there. Richard001 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with caveat. Taken overall, discussion on this page seems to focus on two issues - 1) is it possible to balance the article by effectively extending it to cover both the positive and negative effects of the dam project, in particular covering the attempts to ameliorate any negative impacts of the project?; 2) is there a need for this article, given how short it is, and the fact that it can adequately be covered by the main article? As I see it, the solution to the second of these points is to solve the first of them. If the article can be made more all-encompassing, giving more information about positive aspects and amelioration measures, then it will definitely be long enough to stand alone, especially since (a) the main article is itself quite lengthy and (b) any extended article on the project's environmental impact is likely to unbalance the parent page. As such, I would suggest attempting to solve the first of these problems. if it is possible to expand this page, then I would be opposed to a remerging; if it is not, then remerging would seem to be a reasonable option. Grutness...wha? 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article is not at present so long as to unbalance TGD, but there seems to be more than enough relevant material to do so. If the parent article were similarly expanded, this would need to be split off for reasons of length anyway; presently at 30 kb (sans pictures), length concerns are definitely on the horizon. Leaving a summary there and delving more deeply into the details here seems in keeping with standard summary style. This article could well use more detail on flood control, impact on fishing (river, delta, and ocean), local and international reactions, rainfall, sediment and farming, pollution and carbon emissions (saved over life of dam vs. produced in construction) &c. Many of these are general issues applying to most dams, but I feel certain that they have been rehashed in the news and in the literature to apply specifically to TGD, with specific estimates. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In my opinion, this article is not detailed or long enough to warrant its own entry, given that the main article is not particularly long in itself. NikNaks93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and level of detail have a high degree of subjectivity. If there is insufficient detail it can be added rather than merging the two, and then having to go through the tricky process of splitting at some later date. The dam is an important and topical subject so there is sufficient material out there to have the two articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the article grows long enough , you may always to move whole section into a new article and summarize it for the main article section. These should be parallel processes not just creation a new article based on different information as the main article.Beagel (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting can be difficult. Why not expand the two articles now? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really think it is dumb to have two articles. We should just join the two articles they are basically the same topic. --Mythbusta4 (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles are both about the dam but one is about specific aspects of it, namely the environmental effects. There are plenty of other articles that have have specific aspects split out as their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged D*D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.11 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the final status of this article: merge or not? As this discussion has been opened more than year, it is time to close this discussion.Beagel (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to close It think this article should be merged back into the main article and consensus supports that. My 2 cents: This project has had both unprecedented negative and positive impacts. If there were a split, it should be on impacts in general. In relation to size, this article could fit back into/be merged into the main article.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. Now merged with main article. Johnfos (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality versus negativity[edit]

I seems to me that the negative issues documented in the article are being seen as making it POV. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 10:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good Alan! Not only are they seen as making the article adhere to a particular point of view, they do, because they give undue weight to the negative aspects of the dam's effects. Even the title suggests the dam does nothing but evil to the environment. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the article is part of the main article or as a standalone article the problem of neutrality would then still be a problem. Therefore the neutrality of the article should be fixed. There would be nothing gained by merging it back into the Three Gorges Dam article. Also, are you saying that we should have no articles on the negative aspects of a topic where no positive aspects of it exist? Would you consider the article to be NPOV if the the renewable energy aspect was mentioned as well as being a new energy source to enable the Chinese to pursue development and economic growth? This leads to other environmental issues but that's another story! -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that simply merging it would achieve nothing; it still needs to be changed to npov. However, there is simply no justification for saying there are no good aspects of dams. For several good ones, see Environmental impacts of dams. Yes, lower carbon gas emissions from power plants is a good effect, but not the only. Again, the article must not give undue weight to any viewpoint. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why merge the page? We should fix the neutrality issue since their are reasons for having it as its own article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for merging has already been discussed--all dams have similar impacts on the environment and the few that are specific to each (in this case, the Siberian Crane and Baiji) are rarely going to be notable (and are not, here) to have their own article. They can fit nicely into the parent while still adhering to npov and other applicable guidelines. Alan, you have said, "this particular dam and the effects are quite notable," but you have not said why, nor can you, because they simply are not. Therefore, the article should be summarized and replaced within the Three Gorges Dam article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it notable under WP policy but the scale, impact and international interest make it notable. Wikipedia:Notability says that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, [it] is presumed to be notable." -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Please read through the comments left above; there is also further discussion here. This article was split without discussion and some editors have raised concerns over whether it is a content fork and, if not, if the impacts of this particular dam are notable enough to warrant their own article, or if this should be re-merged into Three Gorges Dam. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OUTSIDE OPINION I'd say keep it separate simply because of the length of the main article. Rather than merging it back in, try some NPOV work on what's here now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, there's to much material to merge. DGG (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's too much material to merge. This article is maybe two paragraphs longer than the equivalent section in the Three Gorges Dam main article, and also has references where the section of the main article has none. I also think, from a reader's point of view, that readers of the Three Gorges Dam article will expect to find content relating to that article in one place. I would change my mind if this article were expanded. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake[edit]

I don´t see the word quake anywhere. Should be included IMHO, as very massive dam and far more massive large water bodies are a possible cause for minor and major quakes --demus wiesbaden (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_the_Three_Gorges_Dam&oldid=1075131585"