Wikipedia

Talk:Murray–Darling Basin Authority

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Learn more about this page

Murray–Darling Basin plan

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given that the plan is currently the subject of large and noisy protests, we need to be careful not to blindly accept the POV of the authors of the plan, which is what the section does currently. Secondly, the plan in its current iteration, despite its claims, does not "optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes". This is not just my POV, it is a fact acknowledged by the MDBA itself. The Water Act required the MDBA to only consider the needs of the environment and not the social and economic impacts on people who live in the basin. That is why the parliamentary inquiry into these impacts had to be established - to allow this discussion to occur. At the moment, the article accepts the claims of the MDBA as fact. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you BUT isn't this page about the MDBA and what 'it' does, what the Authority is, it's projects, it's role, etc? Shouldn't a discussion about the for's and against's The Basin Plan be held on a separate page dedicated to The Basin Plan? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

POV - The Basin Plan

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not to sure that the few words that have been changed is really POV. I have read the POV page and the wording (not the dot points) is not one persons words but many, many peoples gather knowledge. The National Water Commission, The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, MDBA, states and territories and individual people and groups have worked on The Basin's Plan. So I think the article (words) does represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.

What do others think? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consensus

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi all,

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.

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are not the consensus, fact is you have misused and abused the policy to push your POV and ownership of the article. Wikipedia didn't release the plan nor should it push a POV for the plan. The use of "claim" is is far more neutral then "The MDBA state that The Basin Plan is aiming to:". Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not pushing a POV I just would like the article to be neutral and I have no ownership over it. I have no affiliation with either the MDBA or the Murray-Darling. So, in saying that, I am happy to go with claimed IF consensus is formed over time. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is clearly some disagreement between the MDBA and irrigators about the plan. Using primary sources such as MDBAs own plan to frame the terms of the article is clearly breaching WP:POV and WP:V. The MDBA and its publications are not an independent source for its own article, especially when there is dispute over the claims. Just because it is a government agency does not mean that its claims are treated as gospel truth. Here, we have the MDBA claiming that the plan will have minimal social and economic impact - irrigators and basin communities say otherwise. How we reconcile these competing claims is to use reliable, independent sources to describe the dispute. What we do not do is write the article from the POV of one side and accept their claims without reservation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I hope I have outlined more of the context of the MDBA's role and better explained what the plans intentions are in a neutral tone by using reliable, independent sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks great and reads great - WELL DONE. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are still a fair amount of self published sources in this article, mainly sourced from the Authority's own website. Whilst I have made some attempt to clean them up, the situtation is not ideal. Three good relibale third-party souces are the Senate Committee for Sustainable management by the Commonwealth of water resources (reported October 2010), ABC Rural website: Murray Darling Basin Plan (up-to-date news of the basin plan), and The Land (Australia's leading rural newspaper). Jherschel (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've added the reasons for the resignation of Mike Taylor. Perhaps it's better to add the correct reasons for the resignation, rather than remove the resignation altogther. Jherschel (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did add the correct reason for his resignation in the beginning of the article, sorry it wasn't to your liking. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Keeping the summary section at the beginning of the article to only the crucial issues is the aim. More detail can follow in the body of the article. Consistent format of citations, makes the references easier to read. Jherschel (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Funding cuts

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparently there is a bit of a problem with funding that this article doesnt mention. This interview from Senator Simon Birmingham gives some specific cutback data points, but the whole funding arrangement needs to be described before the cuts have any context. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murray–Darling_Basin_Authority&oldid=1217174828"