Talk:North–South Pipeline

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal North–South Pipeline is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Bias?[edit]

This article is mess and despite displaying both side's arguments it still reads with a heavy anti-pipeline bent. Oosh (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions as to how to make it less biased? There really isn't too much good (that is factual) to be said about the whole project. --Nickmarlow1 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be noted, the water being taken from the North East are NOT savings. The farmers that have paid for the water every year since the installation of the irrigation scheme, have been on restrictions for the last decade. This effectively means while paying for 100% of their water, then only receive a fratcion of that. For example, last year they were allocated 27% of their right. There are no savings until the farmers are allocated 100% of their right! —Preceding Vader comment added by 220.237.44.213 (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right 'Oosh', the article is a bit of a mess and in need of a copyedit, it also displays both sides of the argument, however, the allegation of bias is merely a reflection of the reality of the subject matter; the pipeline is not required, should not be built and will not alleviate the affects of drought in this region of the continent, nor is it the most appropriate way to secure Central Victoria's water needs. Nick carson (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to bias, I always have difficulties with sentences like "The intention is to augment Melbourne's water supply." That's what the government says. I would argue that while it may do that, the government's real intention is to convince voters that they are doing something good for them. We must be very careful when stating reasons for doing something to not just repeat government propaganda.

I also have concerns about the cost. Quoted at $750 million, I doubt if it includes the massive disruptions to traffic on the highways impacted by the construction. Difficult to measure, for sure, but still a real cost. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are huge economic and environmental costs involved in this pipeline. The better option would have been to implement a comprehensive sustainable water management plan or even consider the Tasmanian option.

I have conducted a fair bit of research into the desalination plant and the pipeline and I can assure you they have surprisingly little to do with saving water, restoring environmental flows or augmenting Melbourne's water supply. Rather, they are vital elements to setting up an interconnected state water system to facilitate the privatisation of Victoria's water. There is much much more at play here and I will attempt to depict the truth within these articles. Nick carson (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oosh was right - and stayed right for two years it seems. The article was appallingly biased - lobby group reports were/are being used as "reliable sources" for critical facts; irrelevant and uncited facts were being added to make the issue look as political as possible; counter-arguments are not being presented; only groups on one side of the debate were listed in a completely unsourced list; etc etc etc. I've done a basic clean-up. This is not a campaign website. Nick, please don't "attempt to depict the truth": concentrate on providing relevant facts from independent reliable sources - our gole is a neutral point of view and verifiability, not truth. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone, One could argue that any proof using articles or reports released by the government who initiated the project are automatically biased towards the benefits of the outcome. I am in no way suggesting they are not valid in the article, rather suggesting that they may equally represent the opinion of one side of the story as do articles and reports that represent the other side. I am certain that Our Water Our Future does not represent an unbiased opinion as it was released by the ALP and not an "independent reliable source" (by the way, i don't know what to do about signing off, i just thought i'd make that point that whatever hamiltonstone has removed citing bias should've included anything from Our Water Our Future, or Melbourne Water. Sorry if this is inappropriate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.118.54 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images?[edit]

We need some images! We need images of construction, rallies/protestors, we need locator maps, etc. Anyone who can help out with images, perhaps we can borrow some from greenlivingpedia.com? Can anyone help with this? That would be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This is a list of references not cited in the article and which had been dumped in the external links section. They shouldn't be there, and i'm moving them here so the resource isn't lost: