Talk:Ok Tedi environmental disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Update[edit]

I have now implemented my edits. Feedback would be great. Alix11 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Planned Edits[edit]

An outline for the changes I plan to implement on this article:

  • Introduction

Fix up grammatical mistakes ie. run on sentences.

Define exactly what the disaster entailed.

Expand on how the disaster "harmed the environment and people".

  • Environmental Impact

Try to source and verify some of the material.

Expand on the effects to the health of the river and its fish.

Fix up sentence structure and overuse of certain words.

Alix11 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

would be good to get a photo of the river on this page Aliasd 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nomadtales for the pic! Aliasd 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be rated high importance due to the high level of media attention surrounding this? Aliasd 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I moved the article from Mining pollution of the Ok Tedi River to Ok Tedi environmental disaster. It was moved to the former title by Merbabu (talk · contribs) on January 6 with no discussion and the edit summary "less POV/emotive, more staid/encyclopedic" which I think is a misinterpretation of our WP:NPOV policy. WP:NC says, "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." It isn't POV to use terms that reliable sources use. WP:NPOV says, "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." The search engine test supports the latter title, both for Google and Google Scholar.[1] [2] [3] [4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects on the indigenous population[edit]

Maybe another important component that could be incorporated into the article are the social effects that the Indigenous population experienced due to the opening of the mine? In the last sentence it says that that there were positive effects but I think that it would be important to note the negative implications that arose due to a cash based economy, changing housing situations, introduction of alcohol, etc. Rebecca(Labrador) (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion, I think. As long as the content you add cites a reliable source, it should be welcomed. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Environment & Society Peer Review[edit]

I read over the article and looked at your contributions and see that you have made the article much better to read and understand. I feel like you should incorporate some images to show the effects of the Ok Tedi environmental disaster. Another thing you could do is add some more sources because there is quite a bit of information but lacks citations. Other than that I think you did a good job contributing to Wikipedia. Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmetallic (talkcontribs) 03:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ok Tedi environmental disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)