Talk:Mount Polley mine

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

news coverage resources[edit]

I have no time to expand this article, but there's plenty of material out there in addition to what's already here:

Many statements are contradictory, but that's nothing new in enviro/corporate politicking either....Skookum1 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of coverage and important information in BC's various independent media; here's from the "top three", The Tyee, the Georgia Straight and the Vancouver Observer.

I've left the links bareboned rather than taking the time to copy-paste titles as this is only talkpage, so that an idea what's in each one can be seen; I will probably add more. I haven't looked at the Prosperity Mine article, if there is one, but this tailings disaster is another nail in the coffin of that shelved project; among others.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note that Imperial Metals, whatever the rest of its name is, will also need an article as it's now very notable; its subsidaries like the Mount Polley Mining Corporation can be redirects maybe.Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Polley to article, or not to article[edit]

I just looked it up in bivouac.com, it's only 1255 m / 4117 feet high, with prominence 271m. I'm thinking that title should probably just redirect to this article, with Category:Mountains of British Columbia and Category:Geography of the Cariboo on the redirect. BC Names' entry refers to the their Polley Lake entry for name information, and has a bit of historical info about its namesake; there may be more on him and on the lake from gold rush times, so it may warrant its own article. Hazeltine Creek and Cariboo Creek are rather small, though because of all Cariboo names being on Cariboo (disambiguation) it may be worth a stub at least.Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hazeltine Creek enters Quesnel Lake at Hazeltine Flat; I suspect the locality is known locally as Hazeltine,and given the flat, someone may have homesteaded there or live there still, though no locality is listed on BC Names; there is a Hazeltine Flat on Antler Creek farther northwest, probably named for the same person, but none of the BC Names entries has any name or historical info.....as yet.Skookum1 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here. We have several sources on its geology and probably other info buried within. I'd say it's worthy. It could contain a section each perhaps on the company operating the mine there, as well as a summary of the spill. - SweetNightmares 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the spill that's made it notable, not the mine, though there are as yet tons of mine and geological information from mining cites that need creating. BCMINFILE if you search with that in the search terms will have lots.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just took the time to create it using BC Names and bivouac.com (I was the one, in fact, who charted this for bivouac.com during my time as senior geographer there, in calculating the province-wide network of prominence relationships. I left redlinked Mount Polley Mine which may suit a separate article, and if not could redirect to the mountain article...or to Imperial Metals once it's created. I included the BC MinFile report as an external link.Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster?[edit]

Who's calling it a "disaster"? I would think and inflammatory title like this would need to be well sourced? Special:Contributions/154.20.22.233 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears virtually all media sources are terming it either "Mount Polley Mine Spill" or "Mount Polley Mine Breach" https://www.google.com/search?q=Mount+Polley#q=Mount+Polley&safe=off&start=0&tbm=nws 154.20.228.233 (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not looking very far, then, and Google isn't doing its "job"; "disaster" is repeatedly used in articles listed above, including in titles, and in articles linked from them.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Disaster" is POV. See List of oil spills; no article linked there contains "disaster" in its title. Skookum1 please don't WP:BITE IP users. - SweetNightmares 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, SN, I said nothing about oil spills; and duh, there's List of environmental disasters. Is that a POV title also, then??Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, gee, look what I found. 1947 Centralia mine disaster.Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed SN. Most sober sources (e.g. CBC, CTV, The Province, etc.) are going with neutral terms such as "spill" or "breach". Only the rabble rousers like Vancouver Observer are still using "disaster". As the true physical and social impacts of this event apparently diminish by the day, Wikipedia's continued use of the more sensational term does start to look like POV pushing rather than balanced encyclopedic content. Pyrope 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me your "sober" sites are corporate-oriented and with close ties to the mining industry and therefore POV, and CTV and the Province have corporate-political ties to Imperial Metals, so does the BC Liberal Party; CBC is politically neutered of late and apes the Global-style of coverage; Global being the owners of the Province and CTV. I didn't start the title, but I do question the motives of the name change...but oh, gee, questioning motives isn't acceptable right? yeah, right.... your styling of the independent and non-corporate Vancouver Observer as "rabble rouser" is p.r. troll-talk and is also not acceptable if what I have just said isn't, as is your also-POV wording "more sober sources". I've been "bit" by IP users a-plenty in my time, all with an obvious agenda pushing corporate-speak or partisan-speak. I reject the notion that the Observer, The Tyee and the Straight are not reliable sources; time and again they have proven more reliable than the mainstream media and its pushing of neutered language, as with "oil sands" vs "tar sands", and its ties to the corporate world.
"Balanced encyclopedic content" means inclusiveness of all sources; and frankly, there's more detail and actual pertinent material in those publications on various topics than there has ever been in the Sun or Province or CTV; calling them "rabble rousers" because they don't toe the corporate line, using terms recognizable as part of corporate p.r. put-downs of them, is...well, never mind, it's clear we don't see eye-to-eye this. But "balance" doesn't mean putting UNDUE weight on the allegedly more "sober" coverage of the corporate media vs independent media, especially not using derogatory descriptions to discredit the latter, as you have just done. The claim in "who's calling it a "disaster"? I would think and inflammatory title like this would need to be well sourced?" is disingenuous, for anyone following this matter. Who's calling it a disaster?" The Union of BC Indian Chiefs for one, and the Esketemc First Nation, for another, and the St'at'imc Chiefs Council. Four of the links above use "disaster" so that makes the IP user's "who's calling it a disaster completely disingenous; oh, the CBC article, as I recall, described it as the largest such disaster in Canadian history. And it is.
I'll run a comparative search on the three terms "breach", "spill" and "disaster", and we'll see what comes up; but I'll be discounting repetitions of CTV and Province coverage in other outlets of the same media chain(s)....I saw nothing wrong with the title in POV terms because it IS widely used by the media, and by those affected by this; the first two terms, also, could confine this only to technical details of the spill itself, vs the wider disaster to the fishery and fauna and local economy and society that only "disaster" can adequately describe. The invective against the independent media here sounds a bit too much like the stuff that comes from the climate denial to be taken seriously. Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

google-search comparison of what the sources use[edit]

I didn't filter for facebook or twitter or the like, and I note that yahoonews and huffington post copy is Canadian Press or otherwise derived/adapted from CTV/CBC coverage; Canadian Press' office in BC is closely tied to the Sun and Province and (via marriage) to the BC Liberal Party, which received a million dollars in tax-deductible funds raised in Alberta last year to further a "flow-through tax credit" which was passed six months later by the beneficiaries...; the incestuousness of the mainstream media evident in their avoidance of the term "disaster" is duly noted. 'Twas me, by the way, who alerted The Guardian to the event, and as the first non-North American major media to cover this, that they don't avoid the word "disaster" in their article is also duly noted per what the IP user said above. They are using the word, the UBCIC is using the word, the Cariboo Regional District is using the word....shall I go on?

How to filter out results from other Canadian papers in the media chain(s) the Sun, Province and CTV are part of , and likewise whatever Glacier Media and Black Press's publications, which are an effective monoolistic control on local newspapers in BC, is as valid a requirement for any filtering of these results that some might conduct to remove blog-type citations; but as with BC Legislature Raids in its day, independent journalists in BC who will not work for or are not welcome at CanWest or Global or whatever it's called now are generally held in higher regard by educated readers...not, of course, by those who dismiss them as "rabble rousers".Skookum1 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And important to note, per the IP user's "who's calling it a disaster?" the first time the word "disaster" occurs in The Guardian's article is " British Columbia’s government has insisted the dam failure is not an environmental disaster." so WP:DUCK applies to the comment about me "biting" the IP user per his incantation of the government's POV.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for those who might styled The Guardian as a "left-wing rag", I just checked the Times of London, the Independent and the New York Times, none have any coverage of this at all yet. The Epoch Times which is a global newspaper published, I believe, twice weekly, has two articles.Skookum1 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, please do try to assume good faith. Also, don't confuse independent with reliable, the two are not at all the same thing. My assessment of VanObs' relibility is based entirely on their behaviour in covering this event. Take their recent story covering the announcement of test results on water and fish safety, for example. Both sets of tests showed that water was safe to drink and fish were safe to eat; a good news story in most people's books, surely? Yet VanObs chose to open their headline "Residents scoff as..." That isn't, balanced, nuanced, objective reporting, that is yellow press sensationalism of the worst kind. In the last couple of days they have been so desperate to keep the scare-mongering alive that they have even taken to giving over a large chunk of a story to quotations from the security guard standing next to the water tanker in Likely, as though he were some sort of reliable authority. Bizarre. Other than Imperial Metals and Global both being TSX-listed, please do also provide some evidence for your claimed "corporate-political" links between the two. Pyrope 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of those sources is not valid and is obviously POV per your use of "rabble rousers", which is a parroting of corporate/BC Liberal putdowns of sources critical of them. As for corporate-political links, why don't you read some of the coverage, there's lots of material on that. LOTS.Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My assessment is "not valid"? I gave you specific examples of poor journalism, you give me abuse. That does rather undermine your own credibility, not mine. And if there are "LOTS" of sources out there for the information you, again, fail to substantiate then why are you having so much difficulty providing any? Pyrope 02:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of them as "poor journalism" is yet more POV maundering; I am not abusing you, I am calling WP:DUCK, as also with the parroting of hte BC government's position that this is "not an environmental disaster". I have provided examples of other wiki-articles with "disaster" in them, pointed out that it has been described as such by man people affected, including First Nations governments, and you say I have not substantiated them, even though I have....you are being countefactual and apparently will not read or acknowledge, 94,000+ sources and are talking through your hat in claiming I have no substantiated them; whereas you are refusing to read them, it seems, by your POV claim that they are "poor journalism" and "rabble rousers". Your POV is on clear display, as is your resistance to acknowledge valid sources, including those of FN governments and organizations.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had just thought that since virtually all the local, regional and national media outlets including The Tyee and The Straight were calling it either a "spill" or "breach" that it would be titled as such here. Those sources calling it a "disaster" appear to be ideologically slanted alternative news sources. I just don't see how a very small number of outlier sources can automatically negate the vast majority of media outlets (including those that are commonly accepted as highly reliable soruces elsewhere???) 154.20.228.233 (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the entire discussion here and it appears that: 1) Skook believes his opinion of the MSM is supreme and therefore they must all be flatly dismissed (does he have any proof of these "corporate ties" of is this just his opinion/speculation?) 2) he has strong POV on environmental and native issues 3) he's just going to overwhelm anyone who disagrees with post after post after post of conspiracy claims and undocumented/unproven corruption of anyone or any source he doesn't agree with. I read wiki a lot and contribute once in a blue moon. Thought I could lend something to this article but I don't have the time or energy for this kind of bullying. Peace out. 154.20.228.233 (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you are the one calling them "ideologically-slanted news sources" as if CTV and the Sun weren't. You weren't interested in improving or expanding the article, only quibbling about the title to match the government's line that it is not a disaster; That's POV and highly suspect; you don't contribute once in a blue moon; your only other edit has been on the MH-17 downing. And yes, I do have respect for covering environmental issues and native issues, and this is definitely a native issue; suggesting that my desire to see that material fairly represented and not whitewashed or ignored or branded as "ideologically-motivated" is only so much more POV from your side, and also part of the government/corporate's penchant for newspeak.Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are interested in making sure that the article's title properly reflects the situation and, most importantly, the common terms being used to discuss this event. As your own research has shown, use of the term "disaster" is very much a minority position with only 94k uses compared to more than 400k uses of alternate terms, including one term (mine spill) that outnumbers "disaster" by more than two two one. You then tried to engage in some intellectually bankrupt manipulation by claiming entirely unsubstantiated duplication between sources that you claim are mere mirrors of one another. Even here you don't appear to be aware of even basic facts, such as CTV and The Province being independent sources that are not actually linked in any way (one being owned by Shaw Communications, the other by Postmedia). Again and again I have asked you for evidence to support your claims, but all you can provide are personal attacks and abuse. That isn't the behaviour of a reputable editor, that is the behaviour of a troll. Put up or shut up: provide sources that substantiate your claims of both "corporate-political" links and inherent bias in mainstream media sources. Pyrope 13:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative evaluation of google searches is called for by most RM closers, but that doesn't mean that they can't be filtered for qualitative concerns. 317,000 hits minus the 244,000 that very POVishly do not use "disaster" is 71,000 hits. Closer examination of those may show that it's the same article, repeated across the news monopolies that dominate Canadian media i.e. the same article typically appears in the Vancouver Sun as in the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen and more. That's "blanketing results". I'm not behaving like a troll, that was the IP user who, confronted with answers to his question "who's calling it a disaster" and confronted with a sample of 94,000+ hits that do use that term, including the Cariboo Regional District and the UBCIC and more, has decided he's lost and accused me of bullying, when his cant and "line" is an aping of the BC government's position, now under fire from independent media and also the CBC; you want to argue about whether it's a disaster or not and style me as a "troll" and POV and the sources you don't like as "ideologically driven" "rabble rousers" and "poor journalism", as for your insistence I provide "claims of corporate-political links and inherent bias in mainstream media sources".....

....but the sources I would provide, aside from being already given (but you won't read or acknowledge as valid), we're stuck at an impasse; you refuse to admit those as valid sources, I maintain that the monopolistic nature of Canadian media is well-known and is subject of widespread discussion in Canada, including in academia...so you're engaging in "get me a shrubbery" to eat up time and energy and keep this "discussion" going with POV putdowns of criticism of the government/corporate sphere and you sound just like them. Filtering the google searches takes time and is a red herring. I've seen this kind of thing before; too much. That you incant the usual denunciations of the independent media as "rabble rousers" and more indicates you do NOT have NPOV in mind. What work have you done to add your preferred sources/information into the article? What kind of opposition are you going to undertake when I - or anyone - start adding things the UBCIC, the first nations whose territory it is or whose fishery is being affected (despite denials from the government that there's anything wrong).....or are you here, as the IP user was, to bitch about the title and not do any actual work on the title; and to try to slander me for POV when your own is on clear display.

And btw, I live in another timezone far from yours, and have a whole bunch of personal matters going on not worth relaying t o someone as callous as you obviously are; it's not like I'm going to jump up and run to the sources to fulfill the demands of someone who's made it clear he is hostile to those very sources? Sorry, not gonna play that game; the financial ties between the newspaper/media chains and the ruling parties are well-known in Canadian politics, as is the role the mining industry has had in putting the BC Liberals in power and getting legislation it wanted fulfilled. If you're not aware of all this, it's either because you don't know anything about Canadian political realities, or are are here to dissemble and nothing more...all the while spouting troll-talk that's recognizable from the news forums in all media, including the mainstream media's forums. Quibbling about the article's title while doing nothing to improve and expand it, and demanding I prove what many Canadians already know and Canadian journalism schools and communications analysts have been saying for years. You're asking me to prove the obvious, while continuing to denounce sources you don't like as "ideologically driven" as if the Sun and Globe and Mall and CTV weren't.Skookum1 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, no sources to substantiate your claims. I have shown you, with evidence, why I consider VO to be a poor source for news. You have come back with.... nothing. Pathetic. Pyrope 14:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "buddy" I've had a day doing stuff; dammit; going to the store,dealing with a dead phone, a dead friend (really), a virus, my work, and am not about to spend my evening pandering to demands from a POV troll who has already denounced the type of sources that would carry that information, which your precious "sober" sources pointedly don't; because it exposes the truth about their incestuous relationships at all levels; you have built a wall against sources that don't jibe with your position, why should I spend my evening and the next day or two satisfying someone who has already made it very clear he won't accept what he doesn't want to hear? I'm not your pet monkey,and I'm tired of the "get me a shrubbery" tactic. I repeat what I've already said, which you haven't acknowledged or taken action on; either add what you want to expand the article or stop arguing about the title and denying that obvious realities of the Canadian political-media-government triad exists; I see you're from the UK, though live in Canada now.....if you genuinely have never heard of what I'm talking about, you don't read much outside your "sober" sources and their cadre of "write what we want or get fired" team of dissemblers; scores of writers have left their employ or been fired for not toeing the line; it was even gloated by a conservative columnist that there are no more 'liberal' columnists west of the Great Lakes; indeed not, most write their own sites now or work for independent papers...the very ones you maintain are "ideologically driven", which is code for "not conservative".Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! So anyone who disagrees with you is simply dismissed as a "POV troll"? This despite the fact that it is me who has been providing proof of my statements and you who is hiding behind abuse and hearsay? Frankly I don't care how busy your day has been, if you engage in debate here then do it properly, don't just keep making poor and ill thought out excuses. All of the prejudice and POV has been coming from you, and you very clearly have an agenda in maintaining the image of this event as some cataclysmic, world-news-coverage-worthy event. Yet as with so many occurrences of the same, you level those charges against your opponents with no proof whatsoever. You accuse any source that doesn't use the term "disaster" as doing so for agenda-setting and POV reasons, yet you seem to think that use of that term is entirely reasonable and not at all POV whatsoever, oh no. Yes, I have been living in Canada for around the last decade only, does that mean I can't comment on what is and isn't a reliable media source? Again and again and again and again and again and again you level spurious and entirely unsupported accusations against mainstream media, but you seem to think that you are exempt from justifying your opinion with actual facts. Again, if these "corporate-political" links are actually a matter of fact then you should be able to point me to reputable sources that have documented them. It is not up to me to make your arguments and provide proof for you, that is your role in this debate. Pyrope 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two days of arguing with negative contrarians wanting to sanitize the article's title to suit their political agenda; and you do have a political agenda; silencing what you don't like, and denouncing anyone saying it, including me. I'd posted a notice at CANTALK about expanding the article, I didn't make any suggestions that it should be slanted one way or the other; I'e only laid out my knowledge of the reality of Canadian media and corporate-ruling party ties because of the POV already pushed here by the IP user's launching of the name dispute, and the rank POV or your "rabble rousers" bitch about media you don't like; in the meantime no work at all has been done on the article....which perhaps was his, and perhaps your, whole purpose here; to prevent making the article into what it should be, a summary of all coverage of the event and the background and political criticism/aftermath arising from it. You have only thrown our red herrings and "get me a shrubbery" demands, that's all I'm hearing, and I do not see you showing any effort at doing anything but a POV campaign against the current title, repeating recognizable anti-independent media troll-talk..and attacking me and demanding I sit up and do tricks, which you'll just s**t on anyway. You're the pathetic one, buddy, I've seen your kind before and am familiar with the bag of tricks you're hauling out here, and the denunciation of facts and sources you don't want to hear...... you're a waste of time, and IMO that's your whole purpose here. Skookum1 (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facts. Show facts. The voices in your head and the prejudice in your heart are not facts. Making scurrilous and unsupported attacks against me and my motivations for engaging in this debate are a coward's debating tactic. Pyrope 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here ya go, FACTS as to sources of the topic of this discussion, which is hereby showing that your position, and that of the now-departed POV troll, and your own POV trolling and accusations and denunciations against me, are useless diversions from the issues at hand; which is expanding the article, and settling the STUPID and FALSE claim that "sober" "reliable sources" do not use the term "disaster". If you're not going to expand the article and are only here to demand food for your red herring, go find yourself another fishbucket. Case closed; your demands I prove the obvious about Canadian media and ties between governments and the corporate world are not at issue for the purpose of this talkpage, which is to discuss the article. I've wasted enough time on your garbage-y accusations and cant; go find another article to argue about its title; the sources below (and there are more out there) demonstrate that there IS an answer to "Who's calling it a "disaster"? I would think and inflammatory title like this would need to be well sourced?" and yours and Sweet Nightmare's claims that the title is POV: then so are the Williams Lake Tribune, local MLAs, local mayors and resort owners, the provincial Privacy Commissioner and Grand Chief of the UBCIC, and an Alaskan senator.....even the BC Mines minister says it "may...be a disaster", after first denying it was (just like you, Sweet Nightmares, and the now-departed p.r. hack IP user. Either improve the article or GET LOST.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, yet more flannel and misrepresentation without actually addressing the question I put to you. Where are the "corporate-political" sources? You were using that argument to dismiss one set of sources, which is most certainly an editorial issue, yet you provide no proof. Faced with a complete inability to provide that proof you suddenly decide that it isn't the issue any more. Your opinion of "obvious" is not at all convincing an argument. Try again, again. Pyrope 19:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more articles using "disaster" from the Williams Lake Tribune[edit]

Per the above, very annoying troll-hype against the term disaster and supposed "rabble rouser" and "ideologically driven" sources and claims of "poor journalism", an easy-to-find and very obvious close-to-the-ground media source has these headlines and articles from the Williams Lake Tribune, the main paper in the Cariboo region:

A Disaster Psycho-Social Support (DPS) team has deployed locally to offer residents emotional support for their unique impacts and needs. Emergency Management BC (EMBC) requested DPS services from the Provincial Health Services Authority, which co-ordinates trained volunteers to provide services to communities affected by emergencies and disasters. EMBC is funding the deployment and information on how to access the services will be provided directly to residents
Imperial Metals Corporations issued a statement about the disaster Tuesday, stating the tailings dam breach had stabilized and that they are working closely with provincial ministries, local agencies and emergency response officials
“If it comes down, then we are just starting our disaster., from quotes from lakefront resident Pohney Whitmer
[Williams Lake Band chief Ann] Louie was very disappointed that nobody from Imperial Metals contacted the band after the disaster.

The Tribune is a weekly newspaper owned by Black Press since 1975 (that chain's first newspaper) and was founded as an offshoot of Ma and George Murray's Bridge River-Lillooet News during World War II So "Who's calling it a disaster", the main local newspaper, the local MLA, and Emergency Services BC calling in a Disaster Psycho-Social Support team, that's who. States of Emergency and DPS teams are not called in for non-disasters.Skookum1 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since August 8 though, that's interesting. Actually the latest WLT coverage has avoided using the "disaster" term. See:
So, as far as "who's calling it a disaster" goes, clearly not the Williams Lake Tribune. They called it that initially, but since more knowledge and test results have been provided they don't seem to think it is any more. And states of emergency are called for... emergencies! (The clue is in the name, do you see?) If they were always and only called for disasters they would be called "States of Disaster". Pyrope 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was launched on August 8, it is now nine days since then. That's not "out of date". Black Press controls the Tribune and probably reined in the editor and its writers. The fact remains taht local residents, the local MLA, the provincial Privacy Commissioner, and The Guardian and other papers used the word; Stop flogging a WP:DEADHORSE, your claim of "out of date" is specious and nosensical and is further evidence of your POV agenda here, which is to obliterate the word "disaster" from the public record. Take it to the Privacy Commissioner, go harass the MLA, and local residents, and tell them it's not a a disaster.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more articles using "disaster" from CBC.ca[edit]

I know the right-wing-partisan lobby in Canada, spearheaded by SunMedia but including the regular troll-pack in major news forums, want the CBC privatized so it does as its told, and consider it a hotbed of left-wingers, but here are articles from the CBC website, which is noted for "sober" journalism:

Local residents are calling it an environmental disaster.
Reporting what local residents are calling it doesn't make that the position of the CBC. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham says concerns are being raised about what the provincial government knew about the condition of the Mount Polley mine and whether the public should have been notified of the potential risks before the disaster occurred.
This one is fair enough, they did use the term in this case. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the Mount Polley disaster will have a profound impact on the mining industry throughout the entire province," said Phillip, who said the province, the federal government and the mining industry all share in the blame.
"The Mount Polley disaster is being viewed as a consequence of what happens when you simply abrogate your responsibilities."
Again, both cases of the CBC reporting verbatim what third parties have said. This does not make it the CBC that has used the term. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stale again, this dates back more than a week to a time when it did appear to be a true disaster. Times change, more information becomes available, and a proper assessment of the true impact becomes possible. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald MacBurney was a foreman at the Mount Polley Mine for 7 years and says he warned management of a disaster in the making
Yet again, verbatim reportage. Not a term employed by the CBC or its reporter themselves. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Following a disaster in British Columbia this week, questions are being raised in northern Ontario about the safety of storing mine waste in tailings ponds. Pictured here are tailings ponds in Sudbury, Ont", caption lead photo on article
The recent disaster at the Mount Polley Mine released billions of litres of wastewater into river systems.
But environmental groups like Mining Watch Canada remain skeptical that full-site rehabilitation after such a disaster is ever possible.

So....CBC uses the term, and the foreman of the mine used that word when speaking of having warned the company of the problem beforehand. So to the POV denouncers of the term, put a sock in it.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the POV accusation, like you are some unimpeachable arbiter of neutrality! That's hilarious. As pointed out above, only one of those uses is not simple reportage of a third party's words and opinions, or has not been superseded by changing events. Since last week the CBC have almost entirely used "spill" or "breach". Picking and choosing your evidence and not providing a broad overview of a source and how that source has evolved in time is pretty shoddy debating, but that seems par for the course with you. Pyrope 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

usages of "disaster" in the Vancouver Sun[edit]

It seems we don't have to use "rabble rousers" and "ideologically-driven" "poor journalism", the "sober" Vancouver Sun to prove what my opponents above have been vociferously denying and attacking me for, has lots of usages, including from local politicians and senior bureacurats (the provincial Privacy Commissioner), and both a denial and an admission of possibility from the Minister of Mines,

The travellers saw news about the mine disaster on televisions at the airport.
However, Zorn said that from the eight guests they were hosting, they learned that news of the mine disaster was featured prominently in places such as Switzerland, Belgium and Germany.
However, Zorn said that from the eight guests they were hosting, they learned that news of the mine disaster was featured prominently in places such as Switzerland, Belgium and Germany. (Zorn operator of a local tour company)
She added that a lot of work needs to be done to clean up the mine disaster, and the province is focused on that. But it is also working to get up-to-date imagery that puts the scope of the incident in perspective and encourage visitors to come to the Cariboo. "She" being MLA Carol Oakes
Len Doucette, general manager at the Hills Health Ranch at 108 Mile in the south of the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, added that the scope of the disaster was initially exaggerated, with terms like “B.C.’s Exxon Valdez” applied to it.
'Tests on water and trout in the waterways around a tailings pond breach in B.C.'s Interior remain within guidelines, but local First Nations aren't convinced the disaster won't have lasting repercussions. [lead paragraph of the article]
privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham said concerns are being raised about what the provincial government knew about the condition of the Mount Polley mine and whether the public should have been notified of the potential risks before the disaster occurred
"My office has been closely monitoring recent events involving the Mount Polley mine tailings-pond breach, which has significantly impacted the people and lands of B.C.'s Cariboo region. In the aftermath of the breach, concerns are being raised about what government knew about the condition of the Mount Polley mine and whether the public should have been notified of potential risks before the disaster occurred," Denham said. Denham is the Government of BC's Privacy Commissioner
B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse is not an environmental disaster, equating it to the “thousands” of avalanches that happen annually in B.C. [lead paragraph of the article]
Central B.C. First Nations, some area residents and Williams Lake mayor Kerry Cook have described the collapse of the dam as an “environmental disaster.”
Bennett acknowledged the dam collapse may be a mining industry, a geotechnical and a political disaster. Bennett is the current Minister of Mines for British Columbia
Jay Ritchlin, the western region director general for the David Suzuki Foundation, said while there’s little doubt the dam collapse was “bad” and that it will require longer-term monitoring to determine its effects, he saw little use in arguing whether it was an environmental disaster

The Province has many articles with "disaster" in them, including in headlines. The term was used by an Alaska senator, also. CTV had lots of instances of "disaster", but none about this event/ series of events; as per my observation above, they are "ideologically driven", perhaps the better wording is "politically connected".Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Sun is a very interesting source and I'm glad you thought to look through. However, I'm afraid that it doesn't support your opinion. In pretty much every case you cite their own commentary uses only "spill", "breach" or similar, and they only use "disaster" when they are paraphrasing interviews that they have conducted with third parties. Notice how rarely they use verbatim quotations. This is the mark of a good journalist. Keep you own opinions to yourself, but don't put words into the mouths of others. If your interviewee uses "disaster" then you use "disaster" when you report their opinions. However, don't use a qualitative and subjective term in the simple commentary on events. Pyrope 21:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Picky picky picky. The provincial Privacy Commissioner and the mayor of Williams Lake and the local MLA and the leader of the NDP and local residents and The Guardian have used it, it's found in headlines and ledes, it's used by the FN bands, and more. Go stuff it. Are you actually going to work on the article or just keep on fighting over the title on a totally POV agenda? Never mind, I already know the answer....Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not picky at all. If the facts change in 20 minutes then the circumstances change, never mind a span as long as 9 days. The title is the banner beneath which the whole article is constructed, so actually it is the most important part. If you are saying that having a non-neutral title is unimportant to you, then why are you complaining so much? I will work on the article when I am confident that I am not going to be enmeshed in tedious and time-consuming battles with editors who only want to represent one side of a topic. For starters, it would have been good to eradicate any mention of the entirely fictional "Imperial Mines" entity, which despite your crusade for factuality were still there until IP editor 216.232.227.60 removed them. Pyrope 09:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what's more important? Expanding the article from sources, or a name dispute?[edit]

In all good faith, I posted this on CANTALK hoping that others would take my lead about the scope of coverage and the many issues and background arising from it, and work on expanding it with needed content. Instead a name dispute has been launched, and a huge group of sources treated in a derisive manner by at least one editor supporting the IP user's complaint, which is POV and recognizably so, as is that supporting editor's usages; yes, what I said back is POV too, but it's because balance is needed, not one-sided wiki-derogation. To me, this article needs balanced expansion, not an UNDUE and time-consuming battle over its name.Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could people please edit this article with proper references and without personal attacks ?[edit]

  • Note: Could people (or maybe just DiligentDavidG — but then there are two unsigned posts in a row, so maybe not?) please fix their signatures below, or else convince me that it's worth taking a tour through the history to learn who wrote what? Note also that four tildes give a proper sig, while five tildes just give a timestamp. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I've fixed my indenting to the one-colon level and added the three-tilde undated signature to posts of mine that had been broken into paragraphs; also unindented follow-up posts below just-earlier posts of mine so that all my posts are at the same colon-level and all paragraphs are now identifiable as my own by way of the untimestamped 3-tilde sigs in brackets.
My main concern is that throughout out the persistent madness above, I have constantly gone and provided sources as examples, and all of those sources contain material that could expand the article, which at least DigitalDavidG did a bit of expansion on; though deleted a hostile citation-needed template to a phrase which appears in many sources, other than the three I did provide as references, without even attempting to search that phrase; which is clearly opprobrium to all other participants in this own section, whose views and POV too closely coincide with that of the government/corporate-side p.r.. Balance is what this article needs, in all its material, not one-sided reliance on government statements and a certain pro-government columnist, while downplaying as above the WTI citations as "out of date" when really they're only nine days old; that the paper Sage Birchwater works for has since stopped using "disaster" is apt demonstration of the centralized control of the flow of information by the government-friendly/allied news monopolies. As yet Grand Chief STewart Philip's comments and others like his have not yet been added to the article and that's my bad for not ignoring the troll...though doubtless we'd have seen some edit was and cries of "biased sources" from the same element.Skookum1 (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the values of Wikipedia is that multiple editors help lead to a balanced article - part of that process should be respect for other editors. Someone please enlighten me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that includes that one person can put in unreferenced material and expect someone else to find the references - I understand that it is the responsibility of someone adding material to to also reference it. Also I don't believe it is appropriate for one editor to assume what work another editor has done or has not done to find references for material someone else added - it is neither POV nor an indication of lack of effort for an editor to remove unreferenced material.

I don't know if there is a way to raise a complaint about editors behavior towards other editors, so I will start by asking here that everyone please stick to respectful behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiligentDavidG (talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, noting that you took out a phrase that was easily citable and jibed with the agenda of those above who ranted about "disaster" being POV and not found in mainstream sources, and noting how many of those I found, including the two I just added in replacing that phrase that you had removed, your statements about more balanced articles on your own userpage, which I read with interest, is rather....odd. I was accused by those above of being POV and a troll, while their own POV was on blatant display. Now, it happens that you are a mining consultant, and have taken an interest in mining articles and..... you should really read WP:COI sometime, and WP:Paid editing (policy) and WP:Paid editing (guideline) and more.....I'm not saying your paid, but in all likelihood you are under contract to some mining company or association somewhere, if not Imperial Metals or GoldCorp. so going after my behaviour when there are implication of COI and Paid Editing is...a tactic, to be polite...or seems to be, as I am not assuming bad faith and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to WP:AGF and WP:COI and more......Now, I don't know if it was you who added the cite from the BC Government Newsroom without naming the publisher, but given that that was left out was a "sin by omisssion" by whomever did. There are plenty of other sources out there than them, which do not have a POV agenda as they very implicitly do. Your userpage talks about ensuring balanced coverage of mining articles.....I hope that doesn't mean not including things you just don't like and favouring government and mining industry statements and POV.(Skookum1 (talk))
If you are really interested in a fair and balanced article, then you should incorporate material from the many citations I have provided above, which contain considerably more balanced information than the very and obviously/implicitly POV material from the BC government which now dominates this article. I have no POV agenda, and no COI whatsoever, and other than being a citizen (though living far abroad at present), am a long-time Wikipedian who has taken on POV issues on both sides of the enviro propaganda-war, such as trimming POV dross on Great Bear Rainforest and other articles. I am more than willing to collaborate with you on this article, within my own time constraints (I do have other things going on in my life and within Wikipedia), but seeing you delete an easily citable passage with apparent too-much-simlarity to those disproven above, also by easy searches for citations....well, whatever (Skookum1 (talk))
I was in fact contemplating how to address your apparent COI adn so-far-associated-POV activity here without taking this to the formal procedures of the various ANI boards that apply...and have just added material to Talk:Marlin Mine which I note you have also edited on substantially, while you were complaining about me here. It's late in my timezone and I've spent enough time on this matter today; more than enough.....I can be very polite if not attacked and insulted as I was above. You are a professional, I hope that you will consider all I have said, and take some time to study WP:COI and related materials, and make a full disclosure as is now expected of business professionals editing Wikipedia, and refrain from making more-than-technical edits on articles about companies or associations you may have or have had contracts with...and please bear in mind seeking procedures to silence me on this page to further the POV your edits have been about....is WP:AGF.16:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Y'see, you are at least working on the article, unlike those whining about "disaster" being used in the title. There are ways to adjust the title, formal procedures that take a fair bit of time and are not constructive in terms of expanding the article...in the interests of NPOV, while I am asleep overnight, please use the material provided to create a First Nations concerns section, and more balanced coverage than the rather dry material that is all that there is here so far...on WP:CANTALK I simply asked for others to help expand the article; and got dragged into a nasty bit of business above from somebody who was only here to bitch about the word "disaster" and another who slagged non-MSM media as "rabble rousers" and "porr journalism" and other POV comments. And it was me who tagged this article with WikiProject Mining, which also implied hoping that people from the mining sector of Wikipedia would add technical and corporate material; there is as yet no Imperial Metals Corporation page not a Mount Polley Mining Corporation/Mount Polley Mine article, where the technical and corporate data about the companies and the mine itself belong; I did as result of Sweet Nightmare's comment above, spend some time making a separate article for Mount Polley which has the citation from BC Minfile about the mine's geology and claims history; Mount Polley Mine could be a subsection there, as the mountain itself is not otherwise all that notable.Skookum1 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And since when are the National Post, the Financial Post, and that Australian Mine Safety Journal "not proper references"??Skookum1 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deal: You don't call me names, and I won't call you names, and we both work on this fairly and balanced and not exluding information from one side or the other; I'm into inclusion and expansion, and have long sought for balanced/complete coverage of anything I work on here, whether it's history, geography, FN material, biographies, town articles, whatever. When I get accused of things by people pointing fingers who are not...being nice...I get my back up, and yes, my fangs come out. But given the situation of your professional career re this industry....I'm really not the one with the bigger problem here, as far as formal procedures and policies go...16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I trust I will see some 'responsible editing' on your part when I wake up, and perhaps some more editors from WP:Environment and WP:Canada also taking part. I don't want to spend my next month on this article or in any ANI as recipient or nominator of that "honour"....I had had plans of writing some history articles this month, but .... well, nobody else was finding cites here, while claiming sources didn't exist to support the title; I think, as you will I hope agree, I have more than adequately proven that 'that term" is in fact in wide use in media, by public officials, and more.....and is not "POV" but adequate to describe more than just the details of the spill itself. No one has yet called it a "scandal" other than a handful; but that again, if that were to arise, is actually a different title/article....material that is widely discussed right now as to campaign donations and such, well, that maybe could go on Imperial Metals or Christy Clark or Bill Bennett (politician) (not sure of the MoM's article name, Premier Bennett II I think is at William Richards Bennett. There's a lot to be done in Wikipedia because of these events; making procedural vendettas is a bore and a waste of time as far as constructive work to expand/improve articles goes, no? Good night, sir, I look forward to seeing your contributions tomorrow (it's quarter to midnight here).Skookum1 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the comments above, as a note to any interested, I do work in the mining industry but have no economic association with Imperial Metals, nor any economic association with Goldcorp. DiligentDavidG (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. In the interest of what is laid out at WP:COI, you should make a full disclosure of any such economic associations and any mining industry associations you may belong to on your user page, and consult with the talkpage at COI and the policies and pages listed there as to what to do for any articles/subjects that you do have professional consulting association(s) you do have and as to approprate procedures on any such pages related to your professional activities in Wikipedia; normally that would be making requests on article talkpages for someone else to make an edit for you, other than punctuation, spelling and formatting edits. Good night again.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate guidance from others - I do not understand that COI requires editors to disclose their membership in industry organizations (I presume that would extend to disclosing membership or involvement in other interest groups ?). I don't see involvement in the industry as a "conflict", but would appreciate guidance from others (Skookum1 you have given me your view, thank you). DiligentDavidG (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor I'd just like to point out that the COI guideline covers the promotion of an editor's business, financial or other interests, which includes paid or unpaid advocacy. If your work in the mining industry is not directly or indirectly related to the cited article topics (for example they're your competitors or you are an employee/consultant/analyst for any party mentioned), then I don't think that you have a conflict of interest, notwithstanding that should you maintain a neutral point of view. In the same way, someone who works for a computer company isn't disqualified from editing computing articles, providing the above mentioned criteria are met.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition of references for "largest environmental disaster"[edit]

Something for others to consider - when this article was first created on August 7 the statement was included “The spill has been called one of the largest Canadian environmental disaster in modern history“. The only reference to the article at that time was a CBC article that as far as I can tell did not contain that statement. On August 10 I added the note “citation needed” to this unreferenced statement. As of August 16 no-one had added any reference so I deleted the statement as unreferenced. Skookum1 then reinserted the statement and referenced three articles that included the statement - all three of which are dated August 12 and later, so none of these references were available at the time the statement was first inserted, nor when I added my “citation needed”. I don't think it is the job of other editors to find attributions to unreferenced statements in articles - and certainly not to keep checking over time to see if a source eventually emerges. (I posted this earlier today, then took it down because I thought I wouldn't drag this debate out, but this evening I realized that Skookum1 had posted on other parts of Wikipedia the accusation that I acted improperly, so I want to provide the logic I saw in my actions) DiligentDavidG (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article[edit]

Expanded the lead of the article, added a trusted source that confirms the information、 Fund Barra (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Polley_mine&oldid=1209218978"