Talk:Ok Tedi Mine

Point of View

This article seems to have a non-neutral point of view. Just look at the first paragraph. Tom Bonnie 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is an article about a mine, not about an environmental catastrophe, allt he environmental stuff should be moved to its own section, have its own main article, and the mine description should be more factual. Personally, from living in the area around Ok Tedi (which I am sure original submitter never has) The area around the mine is STILL one of the most unspoiled natural areas of the world. I agree the tailings dump was/is an important ecological issue, but not the main focus of this article! I will clean this up within the next few days. Alaisd 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to improve the organization of the article. When I began editing the article, I expected to find that the environmental damage was overstated. I changed my mind. May I remind Alaisd of the policies of WP:ATT and WP:NOR? Personal observations and knowledge may not be used as sources for content though they may guide research. Currently, the environmental damage content is well-sourced and notable. In my opinion, it would be POV to not mention it in the lead to the article. The article is not so long (7700 bytes including references) as to merit a separate article for the environmental content, in my judgement.

WP:LENGTH provides the following helpful guidance. "There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information." Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the environmental issue should be only one subheading in this article, and have its own article. The fact that there is so much information about this one aspect of the mine and the river out there is causing a takeover of the articles. Alaisd 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you think aspects other than the environmental impact should receive more attention. I have reorganized the article a bit and added some additional information about the mine. Some of the environmental material may not satisfy WP:ATT and may need to be removed, but I haven't had time to examine it. At this point, I favor achieving the balance that you discuss above by adding more information about other aspects of the mine and by removing inadequately sourced environmental content, as necessary. I think that as the article grows, better balance will be achieved, although it may still not be entirely to your liking. You are welcome, of course, to add well-sourced content to approach that balance more closely. I don't think WP guidelines or policies support breaking up the article, at this point, and I've quoted a relevant guideline above to support my opinion. I would favor further reorganization. I'm not sure that "aftermath" is a good heading. "Ok Tedi Mining Ltd" might be more specific and clear. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Although the perceived environmental damage seems great there has been another aspect to the mines operation. Ok Tedi has also brought modern medicine, clean water and a more varied food supply to the 15 or so thousand people that live in the vicinity of the town of Tabubil." I don't think this belongs in the Environmental Disaster section as it is irrelevant to the actual disaster. I feel it also conveys a non-neutral POV, suggesting that services provided compensate affected communities for environmental damage. Further, it is common practice for mines to establish these types of services around mining projects, for the benefit of both the local community and mine personnel. Andrew. 05 April, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.224.167 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2013 April 4‎

Andrew, I would add that no source is given for that content. I've removed it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone has put it back in, so I've removed it. A NPOV statement would be fine, but not this! --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Same statement is repeated again in body & cited -- but still has NPOV problems. I'll try to remember to come back to this & fix it. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Construction

Allegedly the mine was a Bechtel construction, could we have some information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.228.67 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)