This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section One Historical context for dispute
Section Two Dispute details
Section Three Arbitration
Section four Reparations Required and Transboundary issues
Section Five Smelter's Continued polluting and long term legacies
Sliver9754 (
talk)
16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Trail Smelter Dispute
moved by
The Interior
(Talk)
02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Inversehypercube! thanks for adding the photo and links, and for all the edits you have done. the photo especially is great, I had not seen that one before.There should be more pieces of this article up in the next week or so, we appreciate any comments or edits you have as we try to grasp this complex dispute and the resulting arbitration. Sliver9754 ( talk) 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Went live with my section (Dispute Details). Figured it would be best if we spaced out our additions to avoid data dumps. Anyways feel free to fix it up. -- Sdesousa ( talk) 07:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm live, guys! -- Kelselle ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've edited the Lake Roosevelt section for clarity and I've used the phrase 'well intentioned', but does that make the piece more argumentative now? May need another word for this. I've also stated the case is ongoing (which is true) without further jumping into the specifics of the case. This section of Lake Roosevelt only covers up to 2004 to fit with the historical framework of the article as a history class project. We suggest a more thorough article be made into the dealings of Lake Roosevelt by someone from the Wikipedia community willing to do so! --
Kelselle (
talk)
03:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
maybe the interior or inverse hypercube could help us promote another article to be created for Lake Roosevelt. we think there is a lot to say here. the allegations made by the colville tribe are not without merit, but the high mineral content in the surrounding area, coupled with other industrial activity and the northport smelter's possible impact, despite no longer being in operation, may still have been responsible to a higher degree than cominco. it is difficult to determine.
Sliver9754 (
talk)
06:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just added to the lead as suggested by Inverse Hypercube, I am going to read through and try to eliminate a bit of repetition. Can anyone look at my lead/ edits and comment or change if you see need? We need to have this all done by Tuesday. Looks great so far, you guys have done a good job with everything here. Sliver9754 ( talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I also feel like the "Precedents and Long-Term Legacies" section is a bit too long. Kelsey, do you think you could summarize it a bit? I feel like the part about setting/not setting a legal precedent is not totally crucial. Just my thoughts. -- Sdesousa ( talk) 02:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering what you guys think about the overlap in the section of Arbitration Details and the paragraph before it? Mhills91 ( talk) 03:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
hey guys, just doing some more changes tonight, Steven can you check the data about the scientists from both countries and what side they were advocating for? I seem to remember we all thought it interesting that the American Smelter association was interested in protecting the smelter so that it would not set a precedent for Mexican cross-border pollution. I changed the last sentence of the major players section because i wanted to be sure of this and have left it neutral that they were both investigating. I think if the american scientists were also on the smelter's side we need to be clear that this is a fact and have a separate sentence and citation explaining this. anybody have an opinion? I will do more edits tomorrow. Sliver9754 ( talk) 06:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I noted some major overlap in Mike's Tribunal section and Ambika's Reparation section. Basically say the same thing right after each other. --
Sdesousa (
talk)
17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks for that steven, I will leave it as I changed it. I will look over mike and ambika's and see if I can reduce the repetitions. Sliver9754 ( talk) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
hey mike, your second paragraph repeats a lot of the dispute details as described by steven, which seems odd because the title is arbitration, not dispute. we need to resolve this. I removed your first sentence because it went back to 1927 when steven was talking about 1935 by the end of his section. I think it is important that there be flow between sections. can we fix this? Sliver9754 ( talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Went through and clean up some of the sentences - I also added some links to Wikis.
Mhills91 (
talk)
04:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
good changes kelsey, thanks! nice edits, mike, steven, hopefully we are not all just changing the same things back and forth. I added an intro sentence, what do you think? I think we also need to clean up the references. do we need both the footnotes and references for all? I tried adding to the reflist and it won't let me in. ideas? Sliver9754 ( talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of British Columbia supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section One Historical context for dispute
Section Two Dispute details
Section Three Arbitration
Section four Reparations Required and Transboundary issues
Section Five Smelter's Continued polluting and long term legacies
Sliver9754 (
talk)
16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Trail Smelter Dispute
moved by
The Interior
(Talk)
02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Inversehypercube! thanks for adding the photo and links, and for all the edits you have done. the photo especially is great, I had not seen that one before.There should be more pieces of this article up in the next week or so, we appreciate any comments or edits you have as we try to grasp this complex dispute and the resulting arbitration. Sliver9754 ( talk) 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Went live with my section (Dispute Details). Figured it would be best if we spaced out our additions to avoid data dumps. Anyways feel free to fix it up. -- Sdesousa ( talk) 07:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm live, guys! -- Kelselle ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've edited the Lake Roosevelt section for clarity and I've used the phrase 'well intentioned', but does that make the piece more argumentative now? May need another word for this. I've also stated the case is ongoing (which is true) without further jumping into the specifics of the case. This section of Lake Roosevelt only covers up to 2004 to fit with the historical framework of the article as a history class project. We suggest a more thorough article be made into the dealings of Lake Roosevelt by someone from the Wikipedia community willing to do so! --
Kelselle (
talk)
03:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
maybe the interior or inverse hypercube could help us promote another article to be created for Lake Roosevelt. we think there is a lot to say here. the allegations made by the colville tribe are not without merit, but the high mineral content in the surrounding area, coupled with other industrial activity and the northport smelter's possible impact, despite no longer being in operation, may still have been responsible to a higher degree than cominco. it is difficult to determine.
Sliver9754 (
talk)
06:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just added to the lead as suggested by Inverse Hypercube, I am going to read through and try to eliminate a bit of repetition. Can anyone look at my lead/ edits and comment or change if you see need? We need to have this all done by Tuesday. Looks great so far, you guys have done a good job with everything here. Sliver9754 ( talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I also feel like the "Precedents and Long-Term Legacies" section is a bit too long. Kelsey, do you think you could summarize it a bit? I feel like the part about setting/not setting a legal precedent is not totally crucial. Just my thoughts. -- Sdesousa ( talk) 02:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering what you guys think about the overlap in the section of Arbitration Details and the paragraph before it? Mhills91 ( talk) 03:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
hey guys, just doing some more changes tonight, Steven can you check the data about the scientists from both countries and what side they were advocating for? I seem to remember we all thought it interesting that the American Smelter association was interested in protecting the smelter so that it would not set a precedent for Mexican cross-border pollution. I changed the last sentence of the major players section because i wanted to be sure of this and have left it neutral that they were both investigating. I think if the american scientists were also on the smelter's side we need to be clear that this is a fact and have a separate sentence and citation explaining this. anybody have an opinion? I will do more edits tomorrow. Sliver9754 ( talk) 06:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I noted some major overlap in Mike's Tribunal section and Ambika's Reparation section. Basically say the same thing right after each other. --
Sdesousa (
talk)
17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks for that steven, I will leave it as I changed it. I will look over mike and ambika's and see if I can reduce the repetitions. Sliver9754 ( talk) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
hey mike, your second paragraph repeats a lot of the dispute details as described by steven, which seems odd because the title is arbitration, not dispute. we need to resolve this. I removed your first sentence because it went back to 1927 when steven was talking about 1935 by the end of his section. I think it is important that there be flow between sections. can we fix this? Sliver9754 ( talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Went through and clean up some of the sentences - I also added some links to Wikis.
Mhills91 (
talk)
04:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
good changes kelsey, thanks! nice edits, mike, steven, hopefully we are not all just changing the same things back and forth. I added an intro sentence, what do you think? I think we also need to clean up the references. do we need both the footnotes and references for all? I tried adding to the reflist and it won't let me in. ideas? Sliver9754 ( talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of British Columbia supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)