This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lake Pedder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The dams were pushed against public complaint, and the whole raison d'etre for the push,was the notion of hydro-industrialisation as a cheap electricity issue. Therefore revert is a pointless removal of detail. User:SatuSuro 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is POV, 'The New Lake Pedder" has no resemblance to the original lake. To have named the article Lake Pedder is incorrect in the first place. User:SatuSuro 14:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole article has a strongly biased PoV. Its more about the politics behind the lake than anything else. Not good. Krym66 ((5th December 2006))
I'd have to agree, the article has a strong POV bias. It reads more like a lobby site on the restoration campaign, for example "Artificial impoundment and diversion pond"
This is an encyclopaedia, there may be controversy about the naming of the greater lake containment area, but Lake Pedder is the officially gazetted name of the area and should be treated as such. Information on the current state and expanse of the lake is entirely lacking. Maps, photographs etc.
I'd propose splitting the article, firstly a description of the current lake. Secondly a description of the drowned lake. Finally a splitting off of a large portion of the information into a separate article detailing the controversy surrounding the lake.
Cameronmurtagh ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back after your long break - I would say that this might be an encyclopedia, but in the public domain/real world (even the Utas historians seem to have a problem) there has no balanced historical account of this lake and its issues anywhere - the sides are still both unbalanced as they were 30 years ago and in view of that to insist on a NPOV article here either requires an excellent knowledge of the all available resources and materials about both sides - for instance a good view of the material that is placed in the new book about brenda hean, and the recent unrepentant self referrent histories of the hydro.
If you have the material great (WP:RS etc etc) - if you dont - well that hasnt hindered a million edits on wikipedia then - as they used to say 'be bold!' Satu Suro 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What I love about Tasmania articles - this one section stretches three years Satu Suro 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV tag has been placed on this article - as I questioned the neutrality a year ago and hadnt followed up .
(1) Lake Pedder from the perspective of the HEC was a part of what they assumed was their natural right to dam anything in Tasmania regardless of what anyone else said, either Tasmania, Australia or the world for that matter. - as a consequence the 'new lake pedder' which they consider part of their heritage as dammers - was for the benefit of all tasmanians and should be celebrated as the peak of HEC power 'over' differing opions as to their wisdom.
(2) Lake Pedder (original) was considered by many bush walkers and adventurous tasmanians - well before the activities od the SWTAC - considered Lake Pedder (original) to be something that could not be 'improved' and really was a feature that had been long understood as something that was of australian - world heritage status before such was legally enforcable. People died in the process from accidents in their desire for the world to know of the issue.
(3) The outcome of the Franklin River case vindicated the lost lives of those who had fought for the saving of Lake Pedder. The creation of the south west wilderness world heritage area simply reinforces this.
(A) the current Lake Pedder article simply describe the Old Lake Pedder and the New Lake Pedder in limited geographical description. It needs to be very clear that the two lakes with one name is a travesty as there is no comparison in any sense.
(B) the political history of the issue - which needs to be carefully referenced - in a separate article similar to the way the Franklin River/Franklin Dam articles have been created. The Battle for Lake Pedder is not too naive a title.
In this article - either - a chronological narrative of the pro and anti dam campaign events. OR 'The cases for and against' - as there is a massive amount of material from both sides over time.
Please leave comments here - preferably in the form of a vote for breaking into two articles:
"Many people opposed to the flooding of the original lake do not accept the legitimacy of the official, gazetted name of Lake Pedder for the body of water that drowned it in 1972."
Drowned?! A lake can drown? Are they in danger of drowning when it rains? The use of the word here is covertly pushing a POV in the guise of a description.
GeneCallahan 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
this article about a natural geologic feature has been transformed into an article about policies and opinion on dams.
please remember that this artcile is "Lake Pedder" not "To dam or not to dam Lake Pedder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 ( talk) 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that the following articles: Serpentine Dam, Scotts Peak Dam and Edgar Dam be merged into this article because it is very unlikely that they would ever have enough of their own content to be worthwhile and that a general Lake Pedder article will cover the issues much better. -- maelgwn - talk 05:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Not supported it is around the other way - issues? - royal australian engineers people take the issues seruiously about the details of each individual hydro construction in tasmania (like the rearguard actions of making sure their dams and structures and engineering get national heritage status - and as a consequence - a careful search of online and offline sources could further enhance the articles about the subsidiary dams and lakes) - a general lake pedder article is less and less a historically accurate location of details of the complexities of the area or the issues -as there are, over time quite disparate items that almost beg of separate articles. To lump geographical and engineering features into the lake peeder article is ill advised and falls into a now 3 decade trap of trying ti simplify otherwise complex historical issues Satu Suro 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I had forgotten about Notability but even then it is more complex than it appears. Ill remove the merge tags. -- maelgwn - talk 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lake Pedder. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Pedder. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the current page is split into 2 cross-referenced pages, one covering the current lake and one the natural or historical. Some technical suggestions at the end of this proposal.
I contend that the current page's info is conflicted in that it discusses 2 different lakes but attempts to do so using the same name for both. The name Lake Pedder legally applies to the current impoundment, but once applied to the natural lake now submerged beneath it. The section, "A controversial and contested name", attempts to address the issue.
The article tries to present the 2 different lakes in a balanced way but in doing so does a disservice to both, in my view. The current lake and its values are not well described, and the historical lake's description appears under the name and brief description of an entirely different body of water.
For example, the term, "original lake" or "original Lake Pedder" is used 15 times in the article in distinguishing the two different lakes. Similarly, the term, "new lake/Lake Pedder/impoundment" is used 6 times, and the term, "current lake/Lake Pedder" twice.
The introduction is also incredibly confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the lake's history: "Lake Pedder, once a glacial outwash lake, is a man-made impoundment and diversion lake located in the southwest of Tasmania ... formed by the 1972 damming of the Serpentine and Huon rivers by the Hydro Electric Commission of Tasmania...". How was it "once a glacial outwash lake" if this is the way it was formed? The intro simply does not make sense. Of course, this can technically be fixed, but it's illustrative of the problem I've raised - the current article always has to grapple with covering 2 different subjects under one name or heading.
Anyway, this is posted for the purposes of discussion.
The existing page could include a disambiguation note referring readers to the second page covering the historical or natural lake. The page for the historical/natural lake could be called "Lake Pedder (up to 1972)" or better, "Lake Pedder (original lake)" and would also have a disambiguation note. Most of the restoration proposal information would go in the new page. Of course, if the impoundment was ever drained, the current page would become the 'historical' one. Cheyne ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lake Pedder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The dams were pushed against public complaint, and the whole raison d'etre for the push,was the notion of hydro-industrialisation as a cheap electricity issue. Therefore revert is a pointless removal of detail. User:SatuSuro 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is POV, 'The New Lake Pedder" has no resemblance to the original lake. To have named the article Lake Pedder is incorrect in the first place. User:SatuSuro 14:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This whole article has a strongly biased PoV. Its more about the politics behind the lake than anything else. Not good. Krym66 ((5th December 2006))
I'd have to agree, the article has a strong POV bias. It reads more like a lobby site on the restoration campaign, for example "Artificial impoundment and diversion pond"
This is an encyclopaedia, there may be controversy about the naming of the greater lake containment area, but Lake Pedder is the officially gazetted name of the area and should be treated as such. Information on the current state and expanse of the lake is entirely lacking. Maps, photographs etc.
I'd propose splitting the article, firstly a description of the current lake. Secondly a description of the drowned lake. Finally a splitting off of a large portion of the information into a separate article detailing the controversy surrounding the lake.
Cameronmurtagh ( talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back after your long break - I would say that this might be an encyclopedia, but in the public domain/real world (even the Utas historians seem to have a problem) there has no balanced historical account of this lake and its issues anywhere - the sides are still both unbalanced as they were 30 years ago and in view of that to insist on a NPOV article here either requires an excellent knowledge of the all available resources and materials about both sides - for instance a good view of the material that is placed in the new book about brenda hean, and the recent unrepentant self referrent histories of the hydro.
If you have the material great (WP:RS etc etc) - if you dont - well that hasnt hindered a million edits on wikipedia then - as they used to say 'be bold!' Satu Suro 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What I love about Tasmania articles - this one section stretches three years Satu Suro 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The NPOV tag has been placed on this article - as I questioned the neutrality a year ago and hadnt followed up .
(1) Lake Pedder from the perspective of the HEC was a part of what they assumed was their natural right to dam anything in Tasmania regardless of what anyone else said, either Tasmania, Australia or the world for that matter. - as a consequence the 'new lake pedder' which they consider part of their heritage as dammers - was for the benefit of all tasmanians and should be celebrated as the peak of HEC power 'over' differing opions as to their wisdom.
(2) Lake Pedder (original) was considered by many bush walkers and adventurous tasmanians - well before the activities od the SWTAC - considered Lake Pedder (original) to be something that could not be 'improved' and really was a feature that had been long understood as something that was of australian - world heritage status before such was legally enforcable. People died in the process from accidents in their desire for the world to know of the issue.
(3) The outcome of the Franklin River case vindicated the lost lives of those who had fought for the saving of Lake Pedder. The creation of the south west wilderness world heritage area simply reinforces this.
(A) the current Lake Pedder article simply describe the Old Lake Pedder and the New Lake Pedder in limited geographical description. It needs to be very clear that the two lakes with one name is a travesty as there is no comparison in any sense.
(B) the political history of the issue - which needs to be carefully referenced - in a separate article similar to the way the Franklin River/Franklin Dam articles have been created. The Battle for Lake Pedder is not too naive a title.
In this article - either - a chronological narrative of the pro and anti dam campaign events. OR 'The cases for and against' - as there is a massive amount of material from both sides over time.
Please leave comments here - preferably in the form of a vote for breaking into two articles:
"Many people opposed to the flooding of the original lake do not accept the legitimacy of the official, gazetted name of Lake Pedder for the body of water that drowned it in 1972."
Drowned?! A lake can drown? Are they in danger of drowning when it rains? The use of the word here is covertly pushing a POV in the guise of a description.
GeneCallahan 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
this article about a natural geologic feature has been transformed into an article about policies and opinion on dams.
please remember that this artcile is "Lake Pedder" not "To dam or not to dam Lake Pedder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 ( talk) 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that the following articles: Serpentine Dam, Scotts Peak Dam and Edgar Dam be merged into this article because it is very unlikely that they would ever have enough of their own content to be worthwhile and that a general Lake Pedder article will cover the issues much better. -- maelgwn - talk 05:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Not supported it is around the other way - issues? - royal australian engineers people take the issues seruiously about the details of each individual hydro construction in tasmania (like the rearguard actions of making sure their dams and structures and engineering get national heritage status - and as a consequence - a careful search of online and offline sources could further enhance the articles about the subsidiary dams and lakes) - a general lake pedder article is less and less a historically accurate location of details of the complexities of the area or the issues -as there are, over time quite disparate items that almost beg of separate articles. To lump geographical and engineering features into the lake peeder article is ill advised and falls into a now 3 decade trap of trying ti simplify otherwise complex historical issues Satu Suro 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I had forgotten about Notability but even then it is more complex than it appears. Ill remove the merge tags. -- maelgwn - talk 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lake Pedder. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Pedder. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the current page is split into 2 cross-referenced pages, one covering the current lake and one the natural or historical. Some technical suggestions at the end of this proposal.
I contend that the current page's info is conflicted in that it discusses 2 different lakes but attempts to do so using the same name for both. The name Lake Pedder legally applies to the current impoundment, but once applied to the natural lake now submerged beneath it. The section, "A controversial and contested name", attempts to address the issue.
The article tries to present the 2 different lakes in a balanced way but in doing so does a disservice to both, in my view. The current lake and its values are not well described, and the historical lake's description appears under the name and brief description of an entirely different body of water.
For example, the term, "original lake" or "original Lake Pedder" is used 15 times in the article in distinguishing the two different lakes. Similarly, the term, "new lake/Lake Pedder/impoundment" is used 6 times, and the term, "current lake/Lake Pedder" twice.
The introduction is also incredibly confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the lake's history: "Lake Pedder, once a glacial outwash lake, is a man-made impoundment and diversion lake located in the southwest of Tasmania ... formed by the 1972 damming of the Serpentine and Huon rivers by the Hydro Electric Commission of Tasmania...". How was it "once a glacial outwash lake" if this is the way it was formed? The intro simply does not make sense. Of course, this can technically be fixed, but it's illustrative of the problem I've raised - the current article always has to grapple with covering 2 different subjects under one name or heading.
Anyway, this is posted for the purposes of discussion.
The existing page could include a disambiguation note referring readers to the second page covering the historical or natural lake. The page for the historical/natural lake could be called "Lake Pedder (up to 1972)" or better, "Lake Pedder (original lake)" and would also have a disambiguation note. Most of the restoration proposal information would go in the new page. Of course, if the impoundment was ever drained, the current page would become the 'historical' one. Cheyne ( talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)