|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murray–Darling basin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Geography||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
It is not unusal that an area of 42% of the countries farmland, produces 40% of the countries food. But what about the cotton and other farm produce that comes out of this region? What about the portion of farmland used for on-farm forestry? That would help identify that in Australian terms, excluding current conditions, this region is quite productive.Garrie 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
<a href="http://www.fodey.com/generators/animated/ninjatext.asp"><img src="http://r3.fodey.com/1eabf84c85b214605be50e52106460212.1.gif" border=0 width="548" height="107" alt="Ninja!"></a>
number of species vandalism ?
I am not an expert, but I doubt the several hundred million fish-species. Long ago the article stated 34, but did not include a reference .... If someone has the info to fix this nonsense, that would be great ! nice article beyond that so far, but i cant take it too serious due to stated blunder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to use a different word then 'claimed' when citing the aims of the basin plan. It has been changed from the original wording - I have tried my best to think and write better wording and make the statement more neutral but others disagree. I am just trying to form consensus on what wording the article could use in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
The article could use 1.The MDBA state that The Basin Plan is aiming to: or 2.The Basin Plan is claimed to:. I am happy to use whatever is best for the article. My 'vote' is for 1.
I will revert the sentence back to the original wording until a consensus is formed. Thank you all for your help and ideas.
Please forgive the clumsy efforts of a Wikipedia newbie :-) I came across this page whilst looking to find the source of the longest river in Australia. This article appears to me to have such a pro-irrigator bias in terms of the selection of 'news' references (re-issues of Barnably Joyce's press releases and blatantly politically biased articles from Victorian Farmers Federation), even the hyperlink to the Basin Plan actually linking to a lobby group withour acknowledgement.
Anyway it motivated me to sign up - and I declare my own left leaning bias, of which I will be mindfull when aiming to assist with editing.
I agree with your first option - "The MDBA states that The Basin Plan is aiming to..." I also think it is appropriate to identify the Basin Plan link as a lobby group (and a very clever one!)
- Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments. Given your labelling of the basinplan site as a lobby group, can we label all the government sites as lobby groups too? After all, the government has a policy position, doesn't it? Or does marking links as "lobby" groups only apply to links with content that you disagree with? I suspect the environmental lobby are far more "clever" and much better resourced than the representatives of a bunch of poor rural communities coming off 10 years of drought. Sorry for the tone of the my comments but the views of rural communities are marginalised enough without having the likes of people from Fitzroy, Balmain and yes, Noosa declare those views as somehow beyond the pale. I won't be restoring the content again (that would be edit warring but this article (and Murray-Darling Basin Authority should be written from a neutral point of view, not the government's point of view. The MDBA is no less biased than the VFF. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Matt. Your own bias is demonstrated in your response which I do respect as valid. You repeat a number of discursive statements which are not necessarily 'true' (for example - 'the views of rural communities are marginalised enough', 'the environmental lobby are far more "clever" and much better resourced than the representatives of a bunch of poor rural communities coming off 10 years of drought'). I think this bias is eveident in this article hence my concern about its 'neutrality' in its current form.
The Basin Plan link was deliberately hijacked by some lobby group presenting the site as an official link (which is how I ended up following it). I think the link in this article needs an alert to the reader that this is not an official site.
List of rivers
- Ideally, the indents should mark the branching heirarchy of the river system. So Murray should be at the top.. Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Missing from "Native Fauna"
Which are the basins that border this one? Is there a list and map somewhere of all of the non-interconnected freshwater systems of the island continent? Other than the great dividing range, what are the geographic features that produce the boundaries of this basin, and over what span of geological history have they done so? Which are the native species of this basin, how well distrubed are they within and how unique are they without? Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Gigalitre to cubic kilometre conversion
I'm just wondering whether it isn't a bit of an overkill to convert gigalitres to cubic kilometres. They're both metric units. The conversion is trivial: 1,000 GL = 1 km3. It might perhaps be useful for the first conversion to include cubic kilometres to help readers picture the volumes involved but do we need every gigalitre value to be converted into cubic kilometres? I suggest we choose one (gigalitres, cubic kilometres or maybe even teralitres) and stick with it and if we must convert, do so once only. (P.S. this isn't about the acre-foot conversion: keep these). Jimp 03:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Quiggin's comment on this article
Dr. Quiggin has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The article barely mentions irrigated agriculture, which is crucial in understanding both the importance of the Basin and the management problems that gave rise to the Basin Plan. A substantial section on this topic is essential
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Quiggin has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : Schrobback, Peggy & Adamson, David & Quiggin, John C., 2009. "Turning Water into Carbon: Carbon sequestration vs. water flow in the Murray-Darling Basin," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47616, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.