Talk:Thacker Pass lithium mine/Archive 1

Archive 1

March 2021 edits

It would be nice we sources to the supposed killing were not just "it happened" but rather actual sources. The BLM has already stated that the killings were no where near the site.

It looks like Timwhite1818 and Doug Grinbergs may have a difference of opinion about how to handle recent activity concerning Thacker Pass. It would be good to discuss changes here rather than reverting.

My opinion is that there is a March 5 Reno Gazette-Journal article that would be good to reference. My opinion is that the https://www.protectthackerpass.org/join-the-blockade/ source is not a WP:RS source. It would be helpful if we could find a newspaper article that mentions that site. Perhaps that site could be put in to an External links sections? Comments? Cxbrx (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's an Elko Daily article that mentions the website. Cxbrx (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section about the protest and added the RGJ and Elko Daily articles. I encourage editors who are editing about the protest to review WP:COI. I also encourage anonymous editors to get accounts. I'm hopeful that we can have a neutral and informative article. Cxbrx (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible move to 'Thacker Pass'

I am considering whether it would be appropriate to move this page to 'Thacker Pass' instead of 'Thacker Pass lithium deposit'. It might be appropriate for this to be a broader article in light of the historical significance that this site appears to have for nearby indigenous people. (It is apparently a historical massacre site, contains burials, and Paiute people who hid in and around Thacker Pass to evade capture by U.S. military are now culturally distinct from other Paiute people in the region). I would be happy to complete this move, but since there appears to be concern about my objectivity (possibly reasonable, although I'm not sure I've given cause for that concern) I would like to float the idea here before doing so. To be clear, I am proposing that this page on the Thacker Pass lithium deposit should be a section in a broader article entitled 'Thacker Pass' that also contains historical information about the site. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Larataguera, Thanks for bringing this up on the talk page instead of doing the move arbitrarily. In the interim, I created a redirect for Thacker Pass to this article (in hindsight, this does make the move a bit more complex, but I wanted to indicate that I'm taking your suggestion seriously. Having the redirect does not preclude the move.) I believe that the notability of Thacker Pass is because of the lithium deposit and the protest. My guess is that over time, "Thacker Pass" may become shorthand for the lithium deposit and the protest and that eventually a move might be in order. However, right now, there is very little coverage of anything but the lithium deposit and the protest. Concerning the massacre, I did find one reference (Bill Haywood's autobiography) for a massacre at Thacker Pass, but that reference is an autobiography, thus a first person account and not the best source. One issue with the history of indigenous peoples is that much of the history is oral or not otherwise documented in sources that are traditionally considered to be "good" sources by Wikipedia. When did the massacre occur? It would be good to have a paragraph supported by some references about the massacre that included the name. Ideally, these references would be from peer-reviewed journal articles, books or newspapers. Word of mouth, especially from a recent interview or an autobiography, carries less weight. Do any of the BLM reports for the mine include ethnographic history of the area? Citing a BLM report would help support the massacre. (BTW - not all massacres actually happened, see Massacre Lake, which is debunked by [1].) I suspect that you may have a WP:COI here, so probably the right thing would be to propose some text about the massacre and the Paiute name with references here in the talk page and then an editor could add it as a section to the article. In the near term, let's keep the article at this location and see how other editors feel. Cxbrx (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

First, since Cxbrx has concerns about it, I would like to assure you that I have no conflict of interest, and that I would reveal a conflict of interest if it did exist. I would prefer if any further concerns are voiced on the basis of my edits; I believe you will find that my edits are factual, well-cited, and pertinent.

That out of the way, Paiute people from the Fort McDermitt Reservation are stating that Thacker Pass is a culturally important site by reasons of

1. being a massacre site (the Paiute word for Thacker Pass deriving from this story)

2. containing burials, and

3. being strategically instrumental to their evasion of the U.S. military in the mid-1800s (this evasion leading to the existence of Fort McDermitt Reservation where these families were relocated after their eventual capture or surrender).

All of this information can be found in the statement accompanying People of Red Mountain’s petition to the Dept. of the Interior or in the statement on their fundraising site [neither of which am I apparently allowed to cite on Wikipedia]. There is also this interview with Fort McDermitt tribal member Myron Smart. (You can start from about 16:20 if you want to save some time.) Incidentally, the massacre in Haywood’s autobiography appears to date from the later period when the Paiute were evading capture—not the earlier massacre from which Thacker Pass derives its name in the Paiute language.

I will write up a paragraph to include in the present article as you suggest. If you don’t mind I’ll make my own edit, because there is no reason that I shouldn’t. You are of course welcome to revise where appropriate, and I’ve appreciated all of your contributions so far. Thank you.

It still seems to me like moving this article is imminent. I can certainly agree that Wikipedia isn’t a place for ‘breaking news’; so there’s no big rush (although the history is old). It does seem inevitable that further reports and information about these stories will be forthcoming.

Finally, I’d just like to say in response to your comment that One issue with the history of indigenous peoples is that much of the history is oral or not otherwise documented in sources that are traditionally considered to be "good" sources by Wikipedia that Wikipedia will not be an objective repository of human knowledge if indigenous oral history is erased. Rather, it seems that indigenous accounts of their own history should be considered truthful until proven otherwise. It makes a comprehensive approach to confirm indigenous oral histories with documents from colonizing historians, but I don’t think indigenous oral histories bear the burden of such proof. Erasure of indigenous oral history is a subjective and undue attachment to colonial versions of history; and if colonizing historians refuse to admit indigenous oral histories, I’d say it’s a WP:COI.

Surely this has been discussed elsewhere in other contexts. Perhaps you could suggest some talk pages where this has come up?

Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Larataguera I'll assume good faith that you don't have a WP:COI here, so please by all means go ahead and make your edits. My comment about the history of Indigenous peoples is more of a lament about the issues with using an oral history as a reference on Wikipedia and pointing out a weakness in how Wikipedia operates. I don't have any references for talk pages concerning using oral histories as references, if you find any then please let me know. However, in reading first person oral histories by Whites concerning Mike Daggett, I've found many inconsistencies (though this would be WP:OR.) Perhaps oral Indigenous oral histories are more reliable, though I have not looked for research concerning the reliability of Indigenous oral histories. My point is that oral histories tend not to be peer reviewed thus tend not to fall in to the standard Wikipedia idea of "good" sources.

I suggest you make your edits and as much as possible include very specific citations about precisely where the information came from, which would include the name of the person who said it, when they said it and a pointer to a source of that information. Your reference to the Myron Smart interview would be a good citation with which to start. Such a citation may experience push back from other editors, but I think it is worth a try. It would be great if there was a citation that discussed the mention in Haywood's biography, though this might be somewhat off topic. I suggest also including details about the Paiute name, along with a citation.

Concerning the petition, if it is notable, then a news article will probably appear. My opinion is that a good article has not too many links to websites of companies or protesters and more links to reliable sources such as newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Links to blogs and non-WP:RS websites tend to weaken the article and make it look more like an advertisement. This is just my opinion. I want to see a good article about Thacker Pass that includes the controversy. Right now, the article is mostly about the protest and does not include much about the point of view about people who are for the mine - this could change over time.

About moving the article, let's see if another editor has an opinion. If you feel strongly, perhaps you could wait a few days and then follow the procedure at Template:Requested move. Cxbrx (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added historical information about Thacker Pass that is now well documented in various news sources and cited some of the better coverage. I would like to request that this article be moved to 'Thacker Pass' because the historical information does not relate to the lithium deposit. Larataguera (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, leaning towards keeping the article where it is. The notability of the article stems from the proposed mine and the protests. If there was no proposed mine, would there be an article? Looking at WP:GEOLAND for geographic features, if there was no proposed mine and protest, I would have stronger support for this being a separate article if there were WP:RS documentation about the massacre. Many mine locations have an Indigenous prehistory. Many locations have had massacres. Are all such locations notable by themselves, or do they belong in a list? I'm not sure. By all means, feel free to follow the procedure at Template:Requested move. I'll probably vote a weak keep and ask to not block consensus, such that if I'm the only weak keep, then it is fine if it is moved. You raise good points, I encourage you to proposed the move, let's see how other editors feel.

BTW - Some of the sources that you cite are not as strong as I would like. [2] seems to be a blog on an environmentalist site. [3] is a radio interview. [4] is an opinion piece. Ideally, I'd like to see more peer-reviewed sources or at least WP:RS sources. Ideally, I'd like to find an ethnographic history of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe that was peer-reviewed and supported the statement about the two surviving families. I agree that reporting and scholarship in this area is lacking and as we have no other sources, we should keep these sources while looking for other sources. Cxbrx (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the "historical context" section is now twice as long as any other section and taking up about a third of the article overall. I think this supports my earlier suggestion to move the article to 'Thacker Pass' Larataguera (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose move. The article is about the proposed mine. The background information is often important to understand the context including why it is proposed here and why others oppose this location. Continuing events will expand the article. The article would have to be completely rewritten to move the mine to a subsection of the article. A new article is easy to split out if content on Thacker Pass becomes unwieldy and doesn't all relate to the mine situation. A summary would remain with a link to the lengthier article about Thacker Pass. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Dates of the massacre

The article currently states that the massacre occurred between 1865 and 1889. It would be good to narrow down the range of years.

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe states that "Sarah Winnemucca, a Northern Paiute activist and author, worked as an interpreter, scout and hospital matron at Fort McDermit from 1868 to 1873" and cites "Canfield, Gae Whitney (1988). Sarah Winnemucca of the Northern Paiutes. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 55–76. ISBN 9780806120904". It is conjecture on my part and WP:OR, but if the massacre occurred while Sarah Winnemucca was at Fort McDermit, then she almost certainly would have written about it as she wrote about the Battle of Mud Lake. I searched Sarah Winnemucca's book, but had no luck.

I also searched A Native American encyclopedia : history, culture, and peoples and had no luck.

The other source that I've seen for the massacre is Bill Haywood's autobiography. Jim Sackett "a pensioner" describes the massacre from the soldier's point of view. Sackett mentions Andy Kinniger's house and Charley Thacker. Ox Sam describes the massacre by soldiers, but does not provide dates. I don't see Haywood's autobiography as a WP:RS source, but perhaps these names could be used as a starting point for research? Cxbrx (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I searched Michno's "Encyclopedia of Indian Wars Western Battles and Skirmishes, 1850-1890" and had no luck there. I did find a mention of the 1867 killing of 12 Paiute at Steens Mountain by soldiers based at Camp McDermit. Searching GBooks and the physical copy of the book for various names like McDermitt, Thacker, Kinniger, Sackett found nothing. I'm disappointed because I've found Michno to be fairly comprehensive. I'll keep looking... Cxbrx (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked in to Charley Thacker. Haywood states that Charley Thacker took two of the children from the massacre. Confusingly, the children were named Charley and Jimmy Thacker. I've not been able to find the children, but the elder Charley is mentioned by Kerns as being about 85 when he died in 1936, giving him a birth year of roughly 1851, which means he would be roughly 14 in 1865, so the massacre was probably later than that if Charley was present. Charley Thacker's brother Bob was possibly married to Sarah Winnemucca, see note 62 in Kerns. I find it hard to believe that Charley would not have told his brother Bob about the two children who then would have told Sarah, but it could be that someone was not on speaking terms. Page 86 of Reno's Sarah Winnemucca Annotated Bibliography states that in 1876 Bob Thacker replaced Sarah Bartlett (one of Sarah Winnimucca's married names), so there could have been hard feelings?

The naming of Thacker Pass does not have much to do with the massacre, but I looked in to it. The earliest reference that I've found for Thacker Pass is in the 1886 Disaster USGS Topo Map. Carlson's "Nevada Place Names" does not mention Thacker Pass. I have an older copy of Carlson and Thacker Pass does not appear in it. The GNIS decision was made in 1988. Cxbrx (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just can't seem to quit this. From mentions in Haywood, I looked for Charley and Jimmy Thacker and via my library I found the non-free source Heritage Quest which has an Indian Census Roll dated June 30, 1897, that has Jim and Charley Thomas Thacker as being of age 25, which would put the earliest date of the massacre as being around 1872, which is about the year they were born. I did also find a mention of Jim Sackett as being a pensioner. I found no mention of Andy Kinniger in Heritage Quest. So, it seems that Haywood's reporting of the massacre has a factual basis because it mentions people who can be found in the historical record.

In Bragg's "Humboldt County 1905," p. 47 mentions a letter by E. F. Dunne that appeared in the Gold Hill News on April 17, 1865 that describes the how Lieutenant Wolverton killed 10 Indians twelve miles from Cottonwood and then "pushed them on to Martin Creek Gap" 32 miles from Willow Creek. These locations seem to be near Thacker Pass, though to the east. However, 1865 seems early when compared with Charley Thacker's birth year of roughly 1851 and the approx. 1872 birth year of Jim and Charley Thomas. I'm a bit disappointed that this event was not mentioned by Michno.

At this point, I feel I'm delving in to WP:OR, so I'll set this aside for now. Cxbrx (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A bit more about this, Bill Haywood was born in February 1869. On page 20 of his Bill Haywood's autobiography, he writes that he left for Nevada when he was 15, which would be roughly 1884. Later in his autobiography, he writes about hearing about the massacre that had occurred in the past, so it seems likely that the massacre happened before 1884. From here, the next steps would be to contact Michno, look around at the Nevada Historical Society or read the [https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/newspapers/nevada/ Nevada historical newspapers around 1872. Cxbrx (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to close this out, a number of edits by Boldoso updated the article with references citing a September 1865 massacre near between Thacker Pass and Willow Creek. IIRC, I did find some mention of the September 1865 massacre, but thought it was not the massacre in question because it is fairly far from Thacker Pass and the date seems a bit early for Charley Thacker to have participated, he would have been 14 in 1865. Still, there are a number of good sources for this significant massacre at this location and to date it this is the closest, largest massacre to the subject of the article. Many thanks to Boldoso doing the updates. Cxbrx (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Boldoso (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Cxbrx for such thorough research on potential massacre dates. On paper, Willow Creek, around 10 miles from eastern edge of Thacker Pass, across the Quinn River Valley, does seem bit of a stretch, so understandable you rejected it as a candidate. Also find prospect of a 14 year old Charley Thacker participating in 1865 Willow Creek attack highly improbable. His death at 85, in 1936 appears well documented, and given the 1897 census records the children's ages as 25, 1872 as earliest year seems logical. It tends to undermine the link between Willow Creek and Haywood's account.

I think as the article now reads it's not entirely clear that lawyers for the tribes are claiming that the 18681865 massacre should be grounds for an injunction and further consultation under ARPA (or NAGPRA). The source that most clearly stated this was the recent AP article now twice removed. I thought it may have been removed inadvertently, but since it happened again I assume it was intentional. I think it should be clearly stated that this is the position the tribes are taking, because otherwise the relevance of the 18681865 massacre might be unclear to readers. I am bringing this up here, because if I add that information I'm concerned it will be removed, because there appears to be some objection to that source. (The headline is a little sensational, but it contains a clear statement of the position the tribal lawyers are taking: "accounts of the massacre make it very likely that the Sept. 12, 1865 massacre happened, at least partially, within the project area.”)Larataguera (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is all a bit confusing. Are you referring to the September 6 RGJ article? The citation to the RGJ article is still present, I agree that it could be made more clear. What do you mean by "twice removed"? The judge's October 10 ruling was on the Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP), which could be (I have not checked) be part of ARPA or NAGPRA. I think it is important to represent that the ruling was about digging exploratory trenches for archaeological evidence and that the judge allowed the archaeological digs to proceed. I have not completely analyzed the ruling so I'm not prepared for details right now, though I could review it over the next few days. The judge did rule that the locations described in the 1868 field notes "are not within the Project area." (BTW - you write about the 1868 massacre and the 1865 massacre, I believe you mean the 1868 survey notes and the 1865 massacre.) Maybe you could start a new section in the talk page with some proposed text? Or just WP:BEBOLD and make some edits, perhaps a paragraph at the top of the "Historical Context of Surround Area". I'm not sure I like that section title, but let's go with it for now. If you stick with paraphrasing the September 6 RGJ article, the your edits will probably be fine. One could write that the Tribes feel that the 1865 massacre occurred within the project, but that the judge ruled otherwise. Also, don't forget to indent your reply with a leading colon (:), see Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. Cxbrx (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am talking about the October 5 Associated Press article. This article reports the tribes' motion to reconsider the September 3 ruling (you said Oct 10—it was in September) and also that the tribes' lawyers are claiming that the 1865 massacre is the same as the massacre described by Haywood and that it occurred "at least partially within the project area". Without that claim (and the formal motion to reconsider) the connection between Haywood's accounts and the 1865 massacre are just conjecture and not clearly related to the proposed mine. I have attempted to include this source twice and it's been removed both times. I'll try again. Larataguera (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the AP article and where reference to it was removed. If you'd like, I could add the October 5 AP article later today. Or, you could add it again. I think the removal was perhaps inadvertent. I agree that the article should mention the October 5 AP article. Thanks for catching my error about the date of the ruling above.

I agree that the current "Historical Context of Surrounding Area" is a bit long - at some point there may be a separate article. Interestingly, the contemporary sources do not refer to the massacre has happening at Thacker Pass, they refer to it as happening at "Queen River Valley", "Quin's River Valley, on Willow Creek" and "Willow creek in Queen's River valley". The earliest reference I've found for Thacker Pass is the 1886 Disaster USGS Topo Map. So, there is some question as to what an article about this event would be called. I've found no evidence that the location of the massacre was called Thacker Pass at the time of the massacre, it seems like calling it something else might be more accurate. I'd prefer to keep the discussion of the massacre here for the time being. See Battle of Mud Lake for a similar event. Cxbrx (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Boldoso (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerning article:Tribes:New evidence proves massacre was at Nevada mine site

I don't regard Wikipedia as a 'news' site or a platform for promoting sensationalist headlines or conjecture. The ruling is not far off, if there is new evidence and the court acknowledges it's validiity then it should be included: in similar sober fashion to Judge Du's recent ruling stating that 1868 camp remains surveyed in T44 R36 were outside the Project Area.

Possible conflict of interest and single purpose account

I'm concerned that Boldoso may have a WP:COI with this article and as they only have edits to this article, their account is a WP:SPA, so I've added a section to User talk:Boldoso. I hesitate to bring this up, and I greatly appreciate the quality of Boldoso's edits to this article, but I have concerns so I'd like to be sure. Perhaps Fettlemap, who has many more edits than I could take a look? Cxbrx (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Boldoso replied on User talk:Boldoso and I'm happy with his prompt and reasoned reply. It might be helpful if another editor took a look. Cxbrx (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we be citing court documents?

Another possible issue is that we might be delving in to WP:OR. In particular, is citing court documents using WP:PRIMARY sources? Personally, I find the court documents to be fascinating and only wish the WP:SECONDARY coverage would provide links to those documents. For example, where we cite the October 5 AP article, it might be useful to also link to associated legal filing. I'd prefer to link to the court documents on PACER instead of a random GitHub repo, but PACER is only available with an account. Cxbrx (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a pity registration is required for PACER access to court filings, although I'm finding their contents to be a useful springboard for locating independent citations. For example, the map presented to court which showed the Indian camps were actually outside the project area in the Quinn River valley. That evidence, in addition to Judge Du's remarks concerning 1868 Field Notes, led to citation of original 1868 O.A. Palmer Survey map. The WP:SECONDARY,on the other hand, can be inaccurate or misleading with recent statements suggesting Indian camps are within the project area:

October 5 AP article "Lawyers for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and Burns Paiute Tribe of Oregon stated:“The proximity of the Indian Lodgings in the project area,...”"

It can be confusing when 'Thacker Pass', 'Lithium Americas Project Area' or 'Nevada Mine site' are used interchangeably. Especially since often quoted 'Thacker Pass Massacre' appears to have occurred predominantly within the Quinn River Valley according to contemporary reports. An area map to clarify would be useful though not sure on wiki policy re: displaying Google Maps. Any suggestions? Boldoso (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A map would help, but creating a map would probably be WP:OR. My reading of the October 10 legal filing is that the plaintiff's are stating that the federal troops attacked from the east and drove the Paiutes west. The Owyhee article states that the fighting occurred over several miles. I think what this comes down to is a basic difference of opinion as to where there might be human remains. As editors, we should be using WP:RS sources and avoiding WP:OR. I think we have plenty about the massacre and when the ruling of the judge is covered in a WP:RS source, we can cite that.

About maps, there is a Template:Google maps to cite Google maps, but using an image capture from Google maps is almost certainly a copyright violation. I've seen images that are portions of USGS topo maps included in articles, which I've assumed are permitted because works by the US government are not copyrighted, see Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. Cxbrx (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the map info Cxbrx.

A present day map could be useful and serve to illustrate position of Indian Camp Remains in relation to Thacker Pass. If US government sites are not copyrighted, then I may take a look at adding an image from a suitable Govt. source. I've previously cited Humboldt County - Land Parcels, for viewing specific Townships, but was unsure of copyright re: adding a map directly on page. Humboldt's 'print' facility automatically includes full attribution, optionally generates png files, maybe for Wiki Commons upload?

Incidentally, pretty easy to find Palmer's camp locations by zooming in on Humboldt Land link above. For example, when within T44 R36 Township, locate S22/23 border and compare with Palmer's T44 R36 Map and notes: "Along the line between Sec.22,23, and between the creek and the meadow I found the remains of an extensive Indian camp."

I found this explanation of Township's useful.

Owyhee Avalanche describes Payne's 18 soldiers/volunteers riding west from Willow Creek towards the Quinn River attempting to surround an Indian camp, with 9 of the men attacking from that direction, the remainder skirting behind the camp. Seems didn't go to plan, with the Indians spotting the attack from half a mile away or so. Owyhee article goes on to describe an extensive battlefield, which is consistent with escape in all directions, 18 men being a fairly porous barrier.

Palmer's 1868 Field Notes are evidence of Indian remains at specific locations within the Quinn River Valley and authenticity doesn't appear to be disputed, just their relevance to Thacker Pass Lithium Project. It's possible Palmer read Avalanche's 1865 'Indian Attack In Quinn River Valley' three years prior, and noted the connection when surveying T44 R36 in 1868: "Many Indian skulls and other remains to be found scattered over this junction of the Township"..."It was at these camps [plural] that Captain R.C Payne, with Co E, 1st Nevada Cavalary attacked and whipped a body of Indians on Sept 12th 1865."

Haven't found any mention yet in recent media coverage concerning protecting this particular area of Quinn River Valley as a massacre site but on private land so maybe different rules? Boldoso (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern about advocacy

I spent time last evening trying to tighten up the lead and make it directly relevant to the lithium mine itself, while creating sections on environmental concerns and moving content relevant to active protests into the relevant section. Some of my edits were changed this morning and I have a concern that the article is being used for advocacy because I do not think that the summary needs to include details pertaining to environmental concerns or cultural history aside from maybe a sentence that these things exist. I feel that those discussions merit their an subsections and that the summary should be concise. Also, I feel that the section on environmental concerns could likely be broadened.

Thanks in advance! Oncontour (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the lead for a more concise summary, but the lead should reference all important subsections in the article to produce a full summary of the article per Wikipedia style. MOS:LEAD. This was my intent. Some redundancy with later sections is expected and appropriate.

I agree that the section on concerns could be broadened. I may work on it some later, and I like the new layout for the article. Thanks for your contributions! Larataguera (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that the way you have reverted changes to the lead reflects news-style writing and does not succinctly introduce the topic of the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine. This is why I am concerned that the page is being used for advocacy: the points you have added to the lead reflect concerns of certain parties around conflicts with the proposed line, and highlight recent developments in the lead. From what I can tell, your reversion of my changes goes against MOS:LEAD guidelines… Oncontour (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the topic "including any prominent controversies" and also that weight of material in the lead should reflect treatment of that material in the body of the article. Currently, approximately 75% of this article (by word count) is about legal challenges, cultural history, and protests, and I have written the lead to reflect that weighting of subject matter within the body of the article. It is possible (as Cxbrx has suggested) that emphasis on cultural history is WP:UNDUE. All this said, I will attempt to edit the lead and make it more concise. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter! I'll see what I can do.Larataguera (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to add some balance and cut out some specifics that are covered later in the article. With this revision, the lead weighs cultural concerns, protests, and lawsuits much less than the article as a whole (53% in the lead to 75% in the article by word count), so I hope this will meet your concerns.Larataguera (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am still very concerned these edits are advocacy. There is almost nothing about the technical, scientific, or geological aspects of the proposed mine. I think this page should probably be flagged as controversial. Oncontour (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oncontour I don't think I understand your position. I agree that more scientific, technical, and geological information could be added to the article. There was some information about the sulphuric acid process, but you took it out. Not sure why. If technical information were added (and I encourage you to do so) then a summary of that information should be placed in the lead.

In any case, there are ample secondary sources establishing the noteworthiness of the lawsuits, protests, etc. It is not advocacy to provide information about noteworthy controversies surrounding the mine.

Please consider adding technical information that you find missing! I'm sure it would improve the article.Larataguera (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I’d like for other editors to weigh in here. I added and rearranged content in good faith after finding issues with narratives of protest and piecemeal environmental concerns highlighted in the lead, that merit greater discussion in subsections. I have tagged the article with an NPOV issue — I don’t feel your edits are in good faith and I believe they are advocacy. Oncontour (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I cut a little more out this morning. My edits are in good faith, and I don't appreciate being accused of bad faith when I have clearly supported my edits in wikipedia policy according to MOS:LEAD and made attempts to address concerns. I still don't understand the concerns, and I do not think that Oncontour has clearly cited wikipedia policy to support their concerns about advocacy. I agree that other editors should weigh in.Larataguera (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My position is this. I worked on article before the BLM announcement in early January 2021 - there were very few sources and in my mind the subject was barely notable. The WP:RS coverage after January 2021 greatly increased the notability. Larataguera has made a number of edits that have promoted the coverage, but I feel that they are definitely working in good faith. Boldoso made a number of much needed edits about the massacre and though I want to clean that up a bit, I feel that Boldoso's edits are somewhat on the other side from Larataguera, which is a good thing. In particular, I'm concerned about copyright issues and overdue emphasis on the attack/massacre, though I do feel that a separate attack/massacre article might be warranted. However, I feel that Boldoso is also working in and assuming good faith here. I feel the article has a NPOV. In particular, reporting about the protest is reasonable well supported. Moving away from some of the sources would be a good thing, and I see that happening as there is more coverage. I also agree that more information about the geology of the mine would be good, though I prefer not to see a verbatim repeat of what is elsewhere in the McDermitt Caldera article or Hectorite. A bit more about how the refining process is proposed to work at this location would be welcome.

More precisely, I think that the summary definitely needs to cover the protests, that's a large part of what makes the subject notable and why readers will be looking at the article. This needs to be balanced with avoiding placing undue weight on a current event (Wiki is not news etc.) Oncontour, I don't particularly support your edit of placing a POV tag on the article, though I appreciate your well-meaning intention and definitely appreciate having another editor working on the article. Would you consider removing the tag? Or, if not, please continue to provide more discussion about what you see as necessary for you to feel comfortable in removing the tag. I need to attend to some other non-wiki issues for a few days, so I'll have some time later this week to dig in. The bottom line here is that I greatly appreciate the efforts of Oncontour, Boldoso, Larataguera and other editors on this article. We all seem to have energy for this article, maybe we should try to get this to GA and nominate it for the Did you know section? Cxbrx (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Cxbrx. I have removed the POV tag from the article per your request. I can similarly try to dig into more content in the coming days on the engineering processes and some of the climatic/environmental considerations about the project, drawing from the Environmental Impact Statement and related resources. Lastly, I apologize if I overreacted by accusing bad faith, I just feel that a significant aspect of the story is not being told in the article; to do with proposed technical and engineering aspects of the project. I'll do my best to contribute meaningfully from here on out. Thank you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncontour (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy and bias in recent edits to lead

Recent edits to the lead by Oncontour are factually inaccurate and seemingly biased. I have issues with the following statements:

1. "overlaps with...golden eagle breeding sites, one of which must be disturbed in order for mining to take place." Figure 4.5-16 of the FEIS Appendix A shows at least three active golden eagle territories overlapping with the project area, and a fourth that is very close. We should also consider that this figure is prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, who is a party in the lawsuits and not to be considered an unbiased source of information. (It would be better to have a completely independent survey of raptor territories. Imagine response from other editors if I referenced a raptor survey prepared by Protect Thacker Pass!) At the very least, we should not understate the impact from an already potentially biased source.
2. "Two indigenous tribes nearest to the proposed project have endorsed the mine and are working alongside Lithium Americas to develop the project" The closest tribe is the Fort McDermitt Reservation. High Country News reported that, "In April, the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone tribal council voted unanimously to withdraw the tribe from its agreement with Lithium Nevada, based on a petition from tribal members." I am not sure who the second tribe referred to in this statement would be.
3. "overlaps with...habitat of numerous widely-distributed plants and animals..." I'm sure it does, but that's hardly notable and worth putting in the lead except to create the sense that there aren't threats to less widely distributed plants and animals such as those mentioned in the lawsuit filed by the coalition of environmental groups. This statement does not seem to maintain NPOV.

All in all, I would like to assume that these recent edits are in good faith and intended to balance a perceived (and previously voiced) belief in use of the lead section for advocacy. However, these factually inaccurate and clearly biased statements force me to strain myself in maintaining that assumption.Larataguera (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

1. From the final Environmental Impact Statement: "Under the Proposed Action, the Applicant is requesting authorization from the USFWS for disturbance to and loss of annual productivity from one Golden Eagle breeding pair for a period of up to five years from the date of the issuance of a take permit, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act."
2. You are correct. I found the memorandum of agreement between BLM and three neighboring tribes. I corrected my previously incorrect language (the tribes did not necessarily support the project or work alongside Lithium Americas Corp.). Hopefully this correction and clarification will suffice.
3. These statements are factually correct and contextualize the types of environmental consequences of the proposed mine. Oncontour (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have looked more closely and actually do feel that the point (#2) raised by Larataguera regarding an MOU between Tribes was misplaced. I removed it with comment Oncontour (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is what is happening to the lead section:

1. Oncontour removed material summarizing the mine opposition from the lead section. This material had existed in the article for months. They stated that they would like the lead section to be concise.
2. I restored the summary and explained my rationale with support in MOS:LEAD.
3. Oncontour accused me of advocacy, and I made some changes to address their concerns.
4. Oncontour continued to accuse me of advocacy and bad faith, and flagged the article. I made further changes, and they removed the flag after Cxbrx weighed in.
5. Oncontour then populated the lead section with new material promoting the mine that is not supported or even mentioned in the article. Some of this information is factually inaccurate or disputed.

Oncontour, why is it important that the lead section be concise when it summarizes existing content of the article, and yet you expand the lead section with new information promoting the mine when that information doesn't even exist in the article? MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE states that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I feel that you are not contributing meaningfully to the content in the article itself, and you are just trying to take over the lead section without doing the work to support your edits. New information should be added to relevant sections FIRST and then when that information is stable and consensus is reached, it should be added to the lead section if it makes sense to do so. This way, if there are disputes, they can be resolved in the body of the article, not in the lead section. For example:

• "Thacker Pass lithium mine has...received support from environmentalists and some Native Americans" This might be true, but it isn't developed in the article. Which environmentalists? Which native americans? Is this support notable enough to be included in the lead? I don't know because you haven't written anything about it.
• I dispute the number of eagle pairs being 'disturbed'. A more objective phrasing would be to state that BLM needs a take permit from the USFWS for one nesting pair within the project area. If we expand with more detail on eagle disturbance, then documentation of other eagle pairs with territory overlapping the project area should be mentioned. The current phrasing suggests that these other pairs don't exist. This should all go in the environmental concerns section, and when it is developed and stable, we could consider which portions of it might belong in the lead.
• Thacker Pass lithium mine has "the potential to make the United States independent from lithium imports for its projected electric vehicle demands." The reference you cite for this statement does not make this claim.

I feel like you are applying a double standard: my edits summarize relatively stable existing information, but you try to remove them. Your own edits promote the mine with new information that isn't otherwise supported by prior content, but you seem to think they belong in the lead section anyway. This concerns me and makes me wonder if you have stock in LAC or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larataguera (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost, I apologize for the fact you feel like I am applying a double standard. I don't want to come off that way and would be happy to recuse myself from editing the page any further as it is a bit deflating for me to try to bring nuance to the issue that is emblematic of a fundamental tension regarding climate change mitigation in the US. I contend that your edit history, and contributions across Wikipedia generally, are consistent with narratives pushed by protest organizers. I am trying to be as neutral as possible but if my edits appear one sided, I am happy to step back and let other editors take this on. I am curious if you are a member of one of the organizations protesting the proposed mine, User:Larataguera?

• I tried to respond to the concerns you brought up on the Talk page about my recent edits. I did some more research, found that, although there was a project engagement agreement between Lithium Americas Corp. and at least one of the nearby tribes (Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone), it was unclear to what degree their relationship stands today. How can an article say that an agreement was cancelled without introducing the fact that an agreement was made in the first place? I tried to add some detail on that issue, not in the lead but in the relevant section on Legal Challenges, contrary to you accusation that I am merely trying to manipulate the Lead.
• The details on support from environmentalists (like Professor Glenn Miller) are established in the article and deserve to be highlighted in the lead, as his opposition to the lawsuit that Great Basin Resource Watch filed were significant enough to be broadcast throughout the national media. Why would we imply that all environmentalists oppose the project in the lead if there is very vocal dissent against the opposition as a large part of this story? Regarding Native Americans in support of the project, I agree that detail still needs development in the body text; referencing things like the testimony filed by Alana Crutcher in the lawsuits, the fact that many Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone tribal members have applied for jobs at the mine, and the nature of discussions between BLM, Lithium Americas Corp, and relevant tribes that took place not only after the onset of the protests (which this article had previously emphasized strongly) but also preceding the protests. I apologize for not adding that detail in the body before adding a mention in the lead. I am still somewhat of a novice Wiki editor.
• If you would like to move the detail about eagles out of the lead and into the section on environmental concerns (that I created) I would welcome that. I also find those details a little out of place and slightly cherry-picked; not necessarily representative of the broader concerns that should be more succinctly outlined in the lead. I was simply trying to add more precise information with sources. Also, your visual interpretation of a digital map disagrees with text in the environmental impact statement. In my opinion, the results of the independent survey that was carried out by contractors working for the BLM are probably the best citation available for the presence of eagle nests but I will happily defer if you have independent sources.
• The article I linked to states the projected annual production of the proposed mine, which is roughly 60,000 tons of lithium carbonate equivalent per year at it's "Phase 2" stage. In 2020, the US demand for lithium carbonate equivalent was about 10,000 tons . I think it is hard to find sources of projected demand specific to the United States, but global estimates suggest that demand should triple globally by 2025 . If the US demand scales proportional to global demand, the Thacker Pass project, at it's "Phase 1" production level of 30,000 tons per anum of lithium carbonate equivalent, would meet the United States demand for lithium in 2025. My addition of this detail, though I agree I could have added it in more gracefully and with stronger attributions, was meant to suggest how significant the potential is for the Thacker Pass mine to meet United States demand for lithium mid-decade. I feel that the scale of the proposed project is important to highlight in the Lead.

I think now that I have tried to WP:BEBOLD I will step back for a while. If my contributions are valued, maybe I will come back in. But I don't want to argue too much as I am not too wedded to this issue by any means; I am just fascinated by climate change transitions and what is necessary to achieve goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Wishing you my best and sorry again for any contention I have created. Oncontour (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oncontour I'm not trying to chase you off. I do feel like you are systematically making edits that either understate the impact of this mine or overstate support for the mine without clearly providing citations. In particular, I object to unsupported, dubious, or erroneous statements placed in the lead section; I would prefer potentially contentious content be placed elsewhere in the article so that we can reach consensus on that content before summarizing it in the lead section.

I do appreciate your efforts to address some of the concerns I have voiced. I have moved your uncited statement about "support by environmentalists and some native americans" out of the lead and into the "responses" section. If you can demonstrate that the project has significant support from environmental and native groups, I would be happy to return it to the lead. So far all we have in the article to support this statement is the response by Glenn Miller. Miller's statement is already referenced in the lead, and that reference will remain.

I am not a protest organizer, and I do not belong to a protest organization. I think human organizations are typically problematic. My edits across wikipedia are broadly focused on the intersection between human rights and the environment with emphasis on indigenous issues and land rights. I find this to be an area where content in wikipedia is sadly lacking, and I am in a position to improve wikipedia's coverage of these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larataguera (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oncontour I will invite your comment (or anyone else's) on my recent changes to the lead. I propose that we keep reasons for or against the mine out of the first paragraph entirely and limit that paragraph to physical description of the mine and its location in place and time. I have attempted to keep the second paragraph neutrally worded. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larataguera (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I love your edits, Larataguera. The lead reads great to me, and -- you are right -- I like it better than whatever I had drafted before. If I contribute from now on, I'll keep it to the body of the article and within those areas where you have suggested my contributions are dubious or malicious. I still believe that there is significant discussion on the environmental implications of the mine missing from the article; which I might add to. I strongly disagree that all of my edits are one-sided but I do appreciate you being direct with how you feel. I feel I have added information throughout the article that is representative of multiple stakeholder perspectives with regard to this issue (i.e. the section on Environmental Concerns, detail on lack of consultation in the lead, etc.). To the contrary, the interests you have expressed around indigenous issues and land rights are still more thoroughly represented in the article than physical, engineering, and environmental aspects of the project; but we can address that in time. I understand that we all bring our unique strengths to this process. I like where we are at here and thanks for your patience and willingness to work together. Look forward to continued work on this page. Oncontour (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cxbrx (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Cxbrx (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Attack vs Massacre

There is also the question of whether it was an attack or a massacre. Sources that are contemporary to the incident such as the Owhyee paper call it an attack. Haywood calls it a massacre. For the time being, we should probably use the term that was used in the closest source, but at some point, this may need to be resolved. This event should probably be added to List of Indian massacres in North America. Cxbrx (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Emotive terms can be difficult, quoting comtemporary news of 'attack', or Haywood's 'massacre' currently provides reader with some sense of independence from a particular viewpoint. I refrained from quoting both Greg Minchon's and History.Net's descriptions of Willow Creek: 'the last skirmish in Nevada', both are cited. sagebrush buccaneer Boldoso (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused here, it seems like the article quotes both Michno and historynet? There is the possibility of copyright violation here, see Wikipedia:COPYPASTE and WP:QUOTE. Works before 1926 are typically in the public domain, the quotes from Michno (2007) and Wild West (2011) should be carefully evaluated and perhaps rewritten without the quotes. Would you be interested in taking a shot at revamping those paragraphs? Cxbrx (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look, was a little wary of 'paraphrasing' original author's words. Boldoso (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On Sunday 10/16, I'm going to take a shot at paraphrasing the Michno and historynet quotes. Feel free to make those changes before then. 23:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I finally got around to paraphrasing Haywood, Michno and historynet. My understanding is that there is a procedure to follow here to get the revisions cleaned up, it seems a bit heavy-handed to me, but I'm trying to follow protocol. Cxbrx (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

BLM's comphrehensive Ethnographic Assessment (65-3), also presented to court, which lists all known massacre sites and battles in Nevada. You might find that interesting. BLM Filings Boldoso (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The Ethnographic Assessment is an interesting read. BTW - Battle of Kelley Creek in 1911 is known as the last massacre and thus postdates this event. I guess the Historynet article is defining a skirmish as an event involving federal troops. IIRC, there is some question as to whether some of white participants at Kelley Creek were even deputized. The Nevada state police were involved in Kelley Creek, but certainly no federal troops were involved. I'd need to look more carefully at Michno to confirm the last skirmish claim. Using Google to search for "the last skirmish in Nevada" with and without quotes brings up interesting results. With quotes, I got three hits: this article, the historynet article and a .ru clone site. Searching without quotes brings up the Battle of Kelley Creek wiki article and other articles about Kelley Creek. Yes, searching Google is not super-reliable, but in this case, the claim in historynet's article is not well supported. Ideally, there would be another citation to support the claim in historynet's article. The Thacker Pass Lithium Mine article should be more clear about the definition of a skirmish. BTW - Sadly, the Ethnographic Assessment refers to Mike Daggett as Shoshone Mike, a name that was only used after his death. Cxbrx (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Surprising just how many battles and massacres in BLM's Ethnographic Assessment, with those terms used interchangeably in places. No mention in EA of 1865 Willow Creek (skirmish/fight/attack/massacre/battle) or Thacker Pass for that matter. Found no public evidence as yet tribes aware of, or commemorated event, until after ROD in 2021. Think the term 'skirmish' was used by Greg Michno & History.Net since 18 soldiers/volunteers attacked relatively small Indian camps (<100?), so in military terms a reasonable characterization. Mincho's book mentions the "Willow Creek fight" as being the "last skirmish" before Nevada volunteeers mustered out at Ft. Churchill. So, in his account the reference is to the last skirmish for the Nevada volunteers rather than the absolute last. If you'd like to read Mincho's 2 page account of 1865 Willow Creek via Google Books then this link should display The Snake Conflict p131 and skirmish mentioned on Snake Coflict p132 Boldoso (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lots of recent edits by IPs

Today has lots of edits from IPs. Geolocating them places a few of them in Australia, and others in various locations. It seems odd to me that all of a sudden the number of IP edits has greatly increased. Fettlemap has been doing a bunch of cleanup and I see that Chidgk1 and Larataguera have been editing as well (thanks!). My concern is that we are going to lose a bunch of reasonably well crafted text with citations to a coordinated WP:SPA effort. At some point, it may be necessary to protect this article against edits by IPs, though I'm not sure when. I'd appreciate hearing from other editors about this situation, and I'd appreciate if the IP editors would get accounts! Cxbrx (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the situation. The IPs that seem to be working together was worrisome. Fettlemap (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article was not on my watchlist - I noticed because it appeared in the metrics at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change as having a lot of edits. Suggest you wait a bit and see what ip editors do in next few days before considering restricting. Adding to my watchlist for a little while. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I just got a chance to review the IP edits. It seems like it was probably a single editor using multiple IP addresses (with an open-proxy server or something like that?), so I don't think it's necessarily a coordinated effort from multiple users. It does look like this was an attempt to remove content related to environmental concerns and indigenous resistance, and I expect these efforts will continue because of WP:BIAS. That said, I'm not sure blocking IP edits will necessarily help with that. I have experienced on other articles that IP editors can offer constructive content, including what appear to be indigenous perspectives. It may be that blocking IP edits will have the net affect of exacerbating the internal bias that already exists on Wikipedia by silencing outside contributors who don't have accounts. Larataguera (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to details of the massacre

The massacre is a key part of the current discussion in the courts, but I'm concerned that we have WP:UNDUE coverage. In particular, perhaps we should remove the 1923 Good paragraph because no one is stating that there was much activity at that time. It is sort of attempting to prove a negative. Boldoso, would you be OK with removing the 1923 Good paragraph? Cxbrx (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it in for now as 1923 Survey balances current news items cited on wiki page in which tribal lawyers assert a massacre occurred within Thacker Pass and that Indian remains are present in Thacker Pass. That fact that a survey of Thacker Pass, 100 years ago, independent of current disputes, showed no obvious Indian remains or camps is relevant: any remains would be much less disturbed and more obvious at that time than present day. Incidentally, the court filings show one of those lawyers is W.Falk, who is a co-founder of protectthackerpass.org and camp organiser, his self-published blog and fact sheet cited on this wiki. Boldoso (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to clean up much of the redundancy in the article today. I think as it evolves bit by bit, a lot of things get re-stated. I'd like to tackle the cultural history section, but I'm a little concerned that there might be some opposition to that, since I contributed less to that section. I think it's a bit over-long though... Maybe since the November court ruling, some of the content might feel less important? Just thought I'd check. Larataguera (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic "Cultural history" section - most of which should be moved to its own article or removed

The content following the first two paragraphs in this section, starting with "In September 1865, Robert C....." seem to not be at all about the mine, but rather a history of the attack or massacre which occurred nearby...which means that by Wikipedia standards, this is irrelevant Original Research. WP:OR

It could potentially be put into its own article, but I'm not familiar with the notability standards of historical events. But other than a pointer to such an article, the above-mentioned content doesn't belong in THIS article.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We could create an article on Thacker Pass as a natural and cultural artificat. i think it would look pretty good.1.36.61.37 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is grist.org a WP:RS?

Hi ‎Larataguera, I saw your two recent additions citing https://grist.org. I'm not so sure grist.org is a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_130 Grist.org being used as a reliable source? does not provide a definitive answer. Perhaps grist.org should be avoided here if similar material can be found elsewhere?

In particular, your edit added the term "pre-colonial". That term is not present in the grist article, though you added the term when you added one of the grist references. The other reference to First Voices Indigenous Radio is probably not WP:RS and should be replaced with something else as well.

In that same change, you state that a second massacre occurred at the site and use grit as a citation.

Is there any chance that you could find support for a earlier massacre in a WP:RS and remove the links to grist and perhaps First Voices Indigenous Radio? Cxbrx (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Grist is NOT a Reliable Source, or Independent Source: WP:IS. Their listed mission on their about page is: Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Our goal is to use the power of storytelling to illuminate the way toward a better world, inspire millions of people to walk that path with us, and show that the time for action is now. Since 1999, we have used the power of journalism to engage the public about the perils of the most existential threat we face. - They are clearly more of an advocacy organization, who will only tell one version of a story; the version that supports their point of view.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that Grist is generally pro-lithium, pro-electric car (per their emphasis on climate change). So if the concern is that this source wouldn't fairly represent BLM and LAC, I don't think that's too likely. here they discuss mining lithium from the Yellowstone Caldera without mentioning any downsides. They seem to like the idea of EVs being accessible to everyone. They hope that Tesla batteries will usher in a solar powered utopia. And indeed the article does provide some balance from an LAC spokesperson; they also mention the ambiguity of the opposition from the Ft. McDermitt tribe. So Avatar317, if they're only telling the version that supports their POV, I'm not sure where that POV would be on this mine.

@Cxbrx I'll see if I can find a better source, but I'm afraid the history of this site has become hopelessly muddled. It goes back to what I said months ago (not sure if you remember) about Indigenous oral traditions being marginalised by Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. (By the way, since then I've come across this, which partially sums it up. I knew it would be somewhere.) There is an old opinion piece by Wilbert that discusses the earlier inter-tribal massacre, but I don't think it's much good here.

In short, if someone wants to revert those edits, I won't take it personally. I'd appreciate it if there was some language to maintain the Grist article, because I actually do think they're a reliable source for this particular issue. I suspect that there will be more sources referencing the earlier massacre later on, and maybe some of those sources will be more reputable. I shouldn't have used the term pre-colonial if it wasn't in the source. My apologies. I'll take that part out anyway. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, looks like they were already reverted. I missed that. Oh well. Larataguera (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Relying on sketchy sources seems to be an established pattern of behavior for you. I will document this in more detail when I have more time.1.36.61.37 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

MMIW

removed "missing and murdered women" from lead for now as WP:undue weight. There is a sentence still in the body of the article so perhaps someone would like to expand that to explain how the concerns relate to this mine in particularChidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The content of the lead is the result of a WP:BRD consensus process involving multiple editors. Please don't remove content without discussion. I can expand information about MMIW concerns if necessary to clarify that connection for readers, but the connections between resource extraction and MMIW are well established and confirmed by extensive studies. It has also been voiced in dozens of articles in the specific context of this mine. Native people's concerns about the safety of their women represent a valid environmental justice concern, and it is not undue weight for it to be listed among the concerns they have expressed about this mine. Larataguera (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added more content about MMIW as requested. I felt like this additional background on environmental justice concerns cluttered the protests section, so I modified the section about environmental concerns to hold this information. Hope this helps. Larataguera (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to provide more background on the MMIW issue, because I think that Chidgk1 is correct that this issue needs further explanation. Most readers are probably not aware of correlations between resource extraction and MMIW. When I provided the background, it was reverted by Avatar317. I've now re-written it without using sources that don't specifically mention Thacker Pass. I get it that the sources need to be connected to this mine in order to avoid original research. That said, the synthesis of these issues (this mine, and MMIW) is not my synthesis. People have voiced these concerns repeatedly in secondary sources. If the reader needs additional background in order to understand these concerns, I don't see an issue with linking to other sources that support this correlation, such as the Canadian national inquiry or other articles. It's not as if I'm doing original research to draw these correlations in the first place. I'm providing background so that people can better understand the correlations that are already being made in the secondary sources. Larataguera (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, sources that correlate resource extraction with MMIW generally are not misplaced in this article, because Thacker Pass is resource extraction. If an article about dogs used a source with information about mammals, no one would think twice, because dogs are mammals. Thacker Pass is resource extraction, and sources about resource extraction are relevant (especially when they provide background needed to understand broader issues that people are voicing). Larataguera (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You linked to an article from a highly POV environmental group and a Twitter post that did not contain what you claim. These are not reliable sources. Also you are committing a form of original resarch called Synthesis and it appears you are doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.61.37 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Research you find about Resource-Extraction could go in an article about RE, but not THIS article. If a news source mentions that the mine will use trucks, we can link to trucks, but we don't devote space in this article further explaining what a truck is, any more than what sources about THIS subject talk about the specific type of trucks the mine will use.

The problem with your reasoning is that it allows cherry-picking for correlations or side-topics one editor may want to include. Those same correlations may also exist for ANY large projects in remote areas, like dams, aqueducts, solar, and wind farms. Not all "resource extraction" activities are equally similar. Plain (old-style) oil drilling and fracking are both RE, but fracking has profoundly different impacts to the water table. Each type of mining has specifically differing impacts. It is OR to claim generalized RE impacts from THIS mine when sources do not make that specific connection.

As a side comment, it should also be made clear whether the connection is stated as fact by a NEUTRAL reporter, or ALLEGED by proponents/opponents. Thanks for finding better references for the other statements!!---Avatar317^(talk) 01:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Avatar317 for clarifying your edits in this discussion. I appreciate your objective approach. I'm fine with the MMIW content more-or-less as is.

It is concerning that when other editors provide background with sources such as this one or this one or this one, no one objects that these sources don't mention Thacker Pass. Why is it apparently acceptable to provide background about domestic lithium production, but not about environmental justice? Both are complex topics that some readers may need help understanding, but only one of these topics is allowed to benefit from background information.

Similarly, I'll be the first to say that Wilbert isn't an objective source, but LAC CEO John EvansLithium Nevada CEO Alexi Zawadzki's explanation of how this mine will stop climate change is allowed to sit in this article indefinitely; Wilbert's explanation of MMIW concerns is removed immediately. I think we should ask ourselves why that is?

Is anyone going to remove Zawadzki's Evans' statements? Three quarters of the sources in the cultural history section probably don't mention thacker pass lithium mine. Is anyone going to remove that content? Obviously I could do these things, but I half expect I'd be accused of advocacy if I did. To be clear, I'm not speaking to anyone in particular here. I just think there's a systemic bias. Larataguera (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

1) Background info on lithium not connected to this mine is also Original Research and should be removed. I can look at those instances you note. (Not to excuse what you're seeing, but I think a lot of people don't properly understand Wikipedia's OR policy: this part: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,... ") I'd like to note that I haven't read all of this article and only came across it recently, and have only tried to improve sections that I have read.

2) You may have missed my previous comment on this Talk page; I was waiting for some input, but I did intend to remove the majority of the "Cultural History" section as OR and irrelevant.

3) I think I removed the LAC CEO's statement with this edit, but I can't find any reference to anyone named "Evans" in the article...??

Thanks for pointing these things out!---Avatar317^(talk) 01:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It was the CEO of the Nevada subsidary (Zawadski). Can't keep all these billionaires straight! Larataguera (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317 On the CEO paraphrase: Per Wikipedia:Quotations: "We encourage the inclusion and use of all reliable sources—including biased ones—but biased and point-of-view (POV) content must be reliably sourced and POV language must be quoted and attributed, rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a directon that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis." -- this means when you try to create WP:DUE in an article, you include clearly biased or "invested" voices, as long as you aren't using the quotation to bias the article in one direction or another. This is more common in articles about creative works, like Novels or Films, or in Politics articles -- where you need the position of the politician. In this case, its worth bringing the voice of the organization into the article, but with clear language describing how the author is trying to change the opinion of others, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

See also, WP:BIASED, Sadads (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that we've run into a little trouble removing Zawadski's opinions. I have replaced Wilbert's explanation of MMIW issues. Larataguera (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: The ESSAY (not policy) you link to on Quotations, says, as you point out: "We encourage the inclusion and use of all reliable sources..." If you read the WP:SPS section, the CEO's OPINION is a RS for what HE BELIEVES and can used in an article about HIM, but not about the mine. *IF* an Independent Source quotes him (and likely would also quote the protesters), than we can include those quotes from the IS.

The problem with using the CEO's opinion article and Wilbert's opinion article, is that neither one of those necessarily represent the broad swath of mine supporters and opponents. An IS would put their views in perspective, as the "The Nation" article did saying that Wilbert is a member of "Deep Green Resistance (DGR), a radical movement". We need an IS to put the CEO's opinion in perspective as to whether the majority of mine supporters agree with his views or not. IS's would add perspective to individual opinions and are the proper place to get viewpoints for proper WP:DUE balance.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Example of why Independent Sources are needed rather than opinion articles

from: CNN [Max Wilbert] said: "Electric cars won't actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions that much; they will reduce emissions but not by a sizable amount." Driving gas-powered vehicles in the US comes at a cost to the climate. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for nearly 30% of total US emissions; more than any other sector, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Note that the statement of the opinion writer was fact-checked and rebutted by the Independent Source reporter. This is the type of reporting we need for BOTH Wilbert and the CEO's opinions.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, this example doesn't actually make your point very well, because if this is a fact-check and rebuttal by the Independent Source, then it's a vast oversimplification of a complex issue. This can happen when non-experts interview experts. A more nuanced opinion by Wilbert would discuss how electric cars merely move carbon emissions from the transportation sector into the manufacturing sector, because they have higher embodied energy, etc etc... We obviously can't get into a discussion about all that here, but in this example one could argue that the article would actually benefit from a more nuanced analysis by Wilbert (if such an analysis were published in relation to this mine), rather than this cursory rebuttal by a non-expert interviewer Larataguera (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Except Wilbert doesn't seem to have given a more nuanced opinion. Maybe he doesn't understand the issue in all its nuance. Do you have any sources that say that Wilbert's opinion was more nuanced than what the reporter reported?---Avatar317^(talk) 06:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't speculate on what Wilbert told the reporter, but Wilbert has co-authored a well reviewed book on this topic. Reviews indicate that the book is detailed and exhaustive, that the authors are knowledgeable, and the book is well researched. Wilbert's assessment is apparently dour (and hence unpopular), but even cold reviews acknowledge his nuanced and comprehensive analysis. Larataguera (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We simply do not use very many primary sources on Wikipedia because you usually have to interpret them and then you go down the original research rabbit hole.1.36.61.37 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that we are having a conflict over the need for reliable, secondary sources is sad. The editor arguing for using primary sources so extensively is in fact here for the sole purpose of POV pushing.70.89.187.53 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to fundraising site, possible single purpose account

Larataguera made an edit that included a link to a fund raising site. I removed the link, I'll probably add a citation needed template. The account might be a WP:SPA, they have only edited this article and may have a WP:COI. Rather than linking to the fund raising site, it would be better to find a WP:RS that reports about the petition. Cxbrx (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cxbrx:I hadn't been able to find a better citation for the petition, but I'm sure one will come up. Totally fine with leaving it uncited until that time. Larataguera (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We are indeed looking at an SPA that is not here to build an encyclopedia.70.89.187.53 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

How is importing lithium a “strategic vulnerability” for the USA?

I mean you don’t burn it like petroleum. So it should be easier to build up a strategic lithium reserve shouldn’t it? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it "flows" (is used in) into electric car and grid storage batteries, and so without the inputs, our economy will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels (which as long as we don't start blocking new oil drilling, fracking, pipelines, coal, etc, wouldn't be a "strategic" or geo-political risk), but since we do seem to be doing those things, without something to replace them, our economy will crash as energy costs continue to increase, and we'll have the problems the EU is having now. (How will we heat our homes during the night when the sun doesn't shine, there is insufficient wind, and we have no batteries to store electricity generated previously.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you had a strategic lithium reserve would that not solve the problem? Like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is a little bit WP:NOTFORUM. I think a strategic reserve would help buffer geopolitical unpredictability, but in an economy based on perpetual growth there always have to be new sources of raw material. I'm sure there will be increased emphasis on recycling, but EV batteries are not currently designed to be recycled. And even if they were, there's always going to be demand for more. Gold for example has been mined for centuries, and it isn't burned like petroleum either, but no one is saying, "oh, we've got enough of that stuff!" Larataguera (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Does the environmental impact assessment assess the net environmental impact?

I had a quick look at the EIA https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1503166/200352542/20030633/250036832/Thacker%20Pass_FEIS_Chapters1-6_508.pdf but I could not figure out whether it took into account the environmental benefits of replacing fossil fuelled vehicles. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these (so I could be wrong) but I believe that in general, these EIA reports (whether federal or state) are meant to assess ONLY the LOCAL environmental impact (thereby consideration for LOCAL plants and animals, not the fauna and flora in Indonesia, for example, if those islands would be flooded with rising sea levels), so no, the benefit for helping transition the economy should be beyond the scope of these types of reports. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah I have now found a quote which seems to explain their reasoning so I will add it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Having said that I cannot find Appx K of the EIS - if anyone knows where it is please could you link from the article thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously there was a lot of uncertainty in 2020 when the EIS was written. But if the judge orders the EIS to be rewritten then presumably nowadays they could at least estimate the minimum number of gigafactories that will be built in the US. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Chidgk1 the quote you included was about further detailed analysis of downstream GHG emissions from the end uses of lithium-based products (emphasis mine). I agree with Avatar317 that the EIS is meant to assess local impacts. Partly, the global impacts are too complex for this kind of study. Presumed CO2 savings from this mine would depend on a huge number of variables including consumer driving and charging patterns; grid profile of energy sources; model of vehicles produced; further downstream CO2 emissions (that this study didn't assess); CO2 emissions from mining of other critical minerals for the same batteries; and more. I'm sure people have attempted this sort of thing, but probably not specifically in relation to this mine and with lots of caveats about how speculative that study would be. There would not be consensus about it Larataguera (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly the scope of the EIS is what we call scope 1 and scope 2 not scope 3. From the article on US EIS it seems there ought to be a statement of the scope but I did not see it. I am not familiar with US environmental impact statements so feel free to revert my edits if I made a mistake Chidgk1 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, trying to tell the readers what we feel they might be interested in will often lead to disallowed WP:OR...we need to stick to sources about this mine and secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are far superior because they reduce the chance of misinterpreting or misunderstanding a primary source. WP:PRIMARY.

Secondly, on thinking about this more, I think it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE to estimate the downstream global GHG reductions of this specific mine: if it doesn't get built, the price of lithium goes up and another mine will get built somewhere else, that might not get built if this one is built. If we don't drill for oil here in the US, and global oil use continues to increase, it will be drilled somewhere else. Demand is the driving force. (Yes, notaforum, sorry, but if the human population decreases and we have "enough" lithium than demand could go down, and we wouldn't need to mine every source of lithium on the planet. It is slightly caused an economy based on perpetual growth, but a far greater cause is that all 8 billion humans on the planet would like to live in the first world standards that 2 billion of us enjoy; almost no humans voluntarily choose to live in extreme poverty to save the planet.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)