This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ok Tedi Mine 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to have a non-neutral point of view. Just look at the first paragraph. Tom Bonnie 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an article about a mine, not about an environmental catastrophe, allt he environmental stuff should be moved to its own section, have its own main article, and the mine description should be more factual. Personally, from living in the area around Ok Tedi (which I am sure original submitter never has) The area around the mine is STILL one of the most unspoiled natural areas of the world. I agree the tailings dump was/is an important ecological issue, but not the main focus of this article! I will clean this up within the next few days. Alaisd 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Although the perceived environmental damage seems great there has been another aspect to the mines operation. Ok Tedi has also brought modern medicine, clean water and a more varied food supply to the 15 or so thousand people that live in the vicinity of the town of Tabubil." I don't think this belongs in the Environmental Disaster section as it is irrelevant to the actual disaster. I feel it also conveys a non-neutral POV, suggesting that services provided compensate affected communities for environmental damage. Further, it is common practice for mines to establish these types of services around mining projects, for the benefit of both the local community and mine personnel. Andrew. 05 April, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.224.167 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 2013 April 4
Allegedly the mine was a Bechtel construction, could we have some information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.228.67 ( talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ok Tedi Mine 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to have a non-neutral point of view. Just look at the first paragraph. Tom Bonnie 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an article about a mine, not about an environmental catastrophe, allt he environmental stuff should be moved to its own section, have its own main article, and the mine description should be more factual. Personally, from living in the area around Ok Tedi (which I am sure original submitter never has) The area around the mine is STILL one of the most unspoiled natural areas of the world. I agree the tailings dump was/is an important ecological issue, but not the main focus of this article! I will clean this up within the next few days. Alaisd 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Although the perceived environmental damage seems great there has been another aspect to the mines operation. Ok Tedi has also brought modern medicine, clean water and a more varied food supply to the 15 or so thousand people that live in the vicinity of the town of Tabubil." I don't think this belongs in the Environmental Disaster section as it is irrelevant to the actual disaster. I feel it also conveys a non-neutral POV, suggesting that services provided compensate affected communities for environmental damage. Further, it is common practice for mines to establish these types of services around mining projects, for the benefit of both the local community and mine personnel. Andrew. 05 April, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.224.167 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 2013 April 4
Allegedly the mine was a Bechtel construction, could we have some information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.228.67 ( talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)