This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
W. A. C. Bennett Dam 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I won't place a POV tempalte on this for now, as what's there is rankly factual but it does come off as a rebuke at Hydro; yet none of it is POV language, though there's a certain POV logic/presentation to the story. The article shoudl primarily be about the dam, asnd the Tsay Kah Dene, though important to the story, is only part of it. What's needed here is some of the engienering coverage; the write pu of Bonner and Shrum et al is rather POV in falvour and tehre are more specficis that can be profided so as ti give it a more netural tone; and Bennett was widely commented upon for naming things after himself, or after his "staff" - cabinet minsters etc. Ray Williston I don't recall being a "leader of the province" -a cbainet minister for sure, but was he even Deputy Premier? - no, there never was such an office under WAC - so the description there strikes me as editoriazied quite a bit. the Gordon M. Shrum Generating Station should also have its own article, as it is a separate building, and likewise of engineering and architectural interest; This is one article that is simultaneously "engineering, politics (and not just FN politics) and environment/geography content all has to be eventually covered. In an NPOV fashion, which is tricky to do with politics and environment.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
here is a way better image of the dam for some "member" who wants to upload it:
http://baden.nu/Williston.jpeg
It is from BC Hydro public domain:
http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/site_c/document_centre/stage_2_reports.html
Stage 2 Report: Consultation and Technical Review
-- 189.188.227.71 ( talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the addition of the name of this policy, but to me the plural form resonates; maybe both were used. My understanding, however, is not that it means the Peace and Columbia Rivers, but rather Bennett's insistence that the Columbia and Kootenay be kept as two separate rivers, rather than allowing the Americans to build a higher dam south of the border that would have merged the two streams into one very large lake encircling the Selkirk and Purcell Mountains; it was about this that he stonewalled both Ottawa, who were willing to go for it, and the Americans, who were demanding it. Peace River was the result of a compromise proposed by him where he would build Peace River to compensate for the reduced capacity for the intended High Columbia, which I'm not sure where it was supposed to be; maybe just south of the border; the Treaty Dams were also his way of ensuring British Columbians jobs in the exploitation of the Hydro capacity. Anyway largely at this point wondering if it's plural or singular "Two River(s)", and it's an important policy though obviously I don't quite have the details down-pat but needs an article eventually; I know it's gone into in detail in Paddy Sherman's bio Bennett! but don't have a copy handy. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I see there are spaces in the name as given; not sure if Hydro uses that, I think it's just W.A.C. Bennett Dam with no spaces between the caps; it's custom in BC to omit the periods entirely, though ultimately the official name is what would go here. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of converting references to Mitchell's book to the shortened footnotes format. This might be useful for the UBC students who intend to work on this article in the next few weeks. Bouchecl ( talk) 18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Norma's part:
Introduction (see my sandbox) and section 2
-- Heatheralyse ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Heather's part:
1. History
1.1 WAC Bennett and high modernism 1.2 Two Rivers policy
Ben's part:
1.3 surveying the land 1.4 construction of the land (maybe including naming)
Norma's part:
2. Economic investment and opportunity - all three will mainly use Stanley and the Mitchell source
2.1. Province of British Columbia 2.2. BC Hydro 2.3. Local community and workers
Travis' part:
3. Social Impacts
3.1. Aboriginal communities 3.2. Local residents
Kayla's part:
4. Environmental impacts
4.1 Downstream 4.2 Upstream and Williston Lake
Normaromann ( talk) 04:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Heather I think you forgot your own name? You did history right? I just added that and I also added my sources Normaromann ( talk) 00:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the introduction to announce what will be coming later as part of our revision of the article. Normaromann ( talk) 01:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I posted the history sections 1.1 and 1.2 in my sandbox in case anyone is interested in looking them over before they go on to the article Sunday night. -- Heatheralyse ( talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, I guess I am not a true "Ambassador" of whatever project or class you guys at the University of British Columbia must be, but I don't think the effort to improve the article was entirely successful. Let me list a few PROBLEMS I see so far.
We are writing about the history of the dam based on the scholarly literature available. It includes not only the logistics of its construction but also the social, political, and economic developments that lead to its construction. Accordingly to the literature cited here, the construction of Bennett Dam was part of a spate of dam building around the world which was influenced by an ideology of development which scholars have labelled high modernism. As an ideology of development, high modernism was part of the social and cultural circumstance that helped bring about the construction of the Bennett dam. -- Heatheralyse ( talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well the problem there is obvious. Scholarly work of this kind is driven by fashions. The fashion reflected here will be dead inside of twenty years, replaced by something else. Remember Scholasticism? Once the cutting edge in philosophy, now merely an historical footnote. Readers of an ENCYCLOPEDIA article on a dam do not want a tour of the latest social constuctionist bogosity, they want the facts. So write like Joe Friday, not like Joe Derrida. If you think all that stuff is important, then write a scholarly article and get it published in a scholarly journal. The key to any successful piece of writing is to know your audience. Ask yourself: what is the audience for an encyclopedia article? Whoever it is, I would suggest it isn't back-patting academics, trading the latest jargon the way kids used to trade baseball cards.
One other thing to keep in mind: the opening of the second paragraph is an exercise in circular logic. "Bennett’s convictions, and therefore the policies of his government, concerning hydroelectric development have been regarded as a manifestation of the ideology high modernity." Note that while we begin with a definite statement (Bennet's convictions) once we get into the meat of the sentence, it turns out that it's based on a passive construction (have been regarded), meaning that it's a violation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, that is, it's just some schmuck's opinion. Notice too that the opinion is illegitimately extended by a "therefore" so that if we reconstruct the process we get: IF it is the case that an ideology I designate as high modernism existed in 1963; AND IF it is the case that WAC Bennet subscribed to that ideology; THEN IT FOLLOWS that he must have held opinion x in regard to building dams; OR AT LEAST that building dams can be said to be a "manifestation" of said ideology. You can see then, that the whole process is circular nonsense. Even if we accept that something called high modernism existed (though clearly, it is implied, not in a conscious way, which is another problem), absolutely no proof is offered for the second assertion (WACB was a believer). So the proof of the propositions in the end rests only on the existence of the dam itself, hence, the argument assumes the conclusion before it even starts. Theonemacduff ( talk) 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I just posted sections concerning the construction of the dam and I want to know where everyone thinks is needed to continue to improve this article. I'm aware that the new material has some duplication of information so over this week I'm going to go through the article and try to consolidate these factoids in whichever sections they seem most appropriate. I have also included a new image as a previous user had suggested we do. As far as I can tell the image should be ok by wikipedia standards as it is found in a free public domain document, however if I'm wrong we definitely need to use an image other than the one of Williston Lake that had previously been used. (I have removed the image as I do not believe it can verifiably be considered in the public domain as the user had suggested).
A couple of other items to suggest:
-perhaps moving the info about the naming of the dam after Bennett to the intro? It seems like that may be a better location.
-We may want to revisit the older version of the article found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=W._A._C._Bennett_Dam&oldid=481262406 it includes a few informative sentences about first nation migration and, as mentioned by Uruiamme, information on the visitors centre which should be worked in somewhere in the article even if it is beyond the scope of our course.
-In even older versions of the article their is brief mention of lawsuits being settled concerning the damage caused to communities by the flooding. Relevant? perhaps.
-Maclean mentioned the sinkhole incident which is documented online by newspaper articles, it could be included as a one sentence tidbit but I'm not sure of how relevant it is since it seems to be an isolated incident with no long standing effects. Still, if someone wants to put it in somewhere I wouldn't object but personally I'm not going to spend time tracking it down.
-Lastly I have covered some of the basic steps of the construction project but haven't delved into components such as the intake structure, details of the G.M. Shrum generation station, surrounding branch off developments in Hudson's Hope, etc. partially because of the amount of data I've already dumped is large and second because It may be too detailed for a wikipedia article. Thoughts?
-by the way, I talked to someone who has been up at the dam before and they don't believe there are fish ladders but I can't verify it.
-- Biredale ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm the reference. I was there. Could write a book about it. But, never mind. You know better. The BC Electric Company never existed and never started the dam project, as you will have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.184.197 ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
People in the talk section mention sinkholes, but no sinkholes are mentioned in the article. Has something been removed from the article?
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 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
W. A. C. Bennett Dam 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I won't place a POV tempalte on this for now, as what's there is rankly factual but it does come off as a rebuke at Hydro; yet none of it is POV language, though there's a certain POV logic/presentation to the story. The article shoudl primarily be about the dam, asnd the Tsay Kah Dene, though important to the story, is only part of it. What's needed here is some of the engienering coverage; the write pu of Bonner and Shrum et al is rather POV in falvour and tehre are more specficis that can be profided so as ti give it a more netural tone; and Bennett was widely commented upon for naming things after himself, or after his "staff" - cabinet minsters etc. Ray Williston I don't recall being a "leader of the province" -a cbainet minister for sure, but was he even Deputy Premier? - no, there never was such an office under WAC - so the description there strikes me as editoriazied quite a bit. the Gordon M. Shrum Generating Station should also have its own article, as it is a separate building, and likewise of engineering and architectural interest; This is one article that is simultaneously "engineering, politics (and not just FN politics) and environment/geography content all has to be eventually covered. In an NPOV fashion, which is tricky to do with politics and environment.... Skookum1 ( talk) 14:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
here is a way better image of the dam for some "member" who wants to upload it:
http://baden.nu/Williston.jpeg
It is from BC Hydro public domain:
http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/site_c/document_centre/stage_2_reports.html
Stage 2 Report: Consultation and Technical Review
-- 189.188.227.71 ( talk) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the addition of the name of this policy, but to me the plural form resonates; maybe both were used. My understanding, however, is not that it means the Peace and Columbia Rivers, but rather Bennett's insistence that the Columbia and Kootenay be kept as two separate rivers, rather than allowing the Americans to build a higher dam south of the border that would have merged the two streams into one very large lake encircling the Selkirk and Purcell Mountains; it was about this that he stonewalled both Ottawa, who were willing to go for it, and the Americans, who were demanding it. Peace River was the result of a compromise proposed by him where he would build Peace River to compensate for the reduced capacity for the intended High Columbia, which I'm not sure where it was supposed to be; maybe just south of the border; the Treaty Dams were also his way of ensuring British Columbians jobs in the exploitation of the Hydro capacity. Anyway largely at this point wondering if it's plural or singular "Two River(s)", and it's an important policy though obviously I don't quite have the details down-pat but needs an article eventually; I know it's gone into in detail in Paddy Sherman's bio Bennett! but don't have a copy handy. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I see there are spaces in the name as given; not sure if Hydro uses that, I think it's just W.A.C. Bennett Dam with no spaces between the caps; it's custom in BC to omit the periods entirely, though ultimately the official name is what would go here. Skookum1 ( talk) 04:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of converting references to Mitchell's book to the shortened footnotes format. This might be useful for the UBC students who intend to work on this article in the next few weeks. Bouchecl ( talk) 18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Norma's part:
Introduction (see my sandbox) and section 2
-- Heatheralyse ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Heather's part:
1. History
1.1 WAC Bennett and high modernism 1.2 Two Rivers policy
Ben's part:
1.3 surveying the land 1.4 construction of the land (maybe including naming)
Norma's part:
2. Economic investment and opportunity - all three will mainly use Stanley and the Mitchell source
2.1. Province of British Columbia 2.2. BC Hydro 2.3. Local community and workers
Travis' part:
3. Social Impacts
3.1. Aboriginal communities 3.2. Local residents
Kayla's part:
4. Environmental impacts
4.1 Downstream 4.2 Upstream and Williston Lake
Normaromann ( talk) 04:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Heather I think you forgot your own name? You did history right? I just added that and I also added my sources Normaromann ( talk) 00:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just changed the introduction to announce what will be coming later as part of our revision of the article. Normaromann ( talk) 01:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I posted the history sections 1.1 and 1.2 in my sandbox in case anyone is interested in looking them over before they go on to the article Sunday night. -- Heatheralyse ( talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, I guess I am not a true "Ambassador" of whatever project or class you guys at the University of British Columbia must be, but I don't think the effort to improve the article was entirely successful. Let me list a few PROBLEMS I see so far.
We are writing about the history of the dam based on the scholarly literature available. It includes not only the logistics of its construction but also the social, political, and economic developments that lead to its construction. Accordingly to the literature cited here, the construction of Bennett Dam was part of a spate of dam building around the world which was influenced by an ideology of development which scholars have labelled high modernism. As an ideology of development, high modernism was part of the social and cultural circumstance that helped bring about the construction of the Bennett dam. -- Heatheralyse ( talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well the problem there is obvious. Scholarly work of this kind is driven by fashions. The fashion reflected here will be dead inside of twenty years, replaced by something else. Remember Scholasticism? Once the cutting edge in philosophy, now merely an historical footnote. Readers of an ENCYCLOPEDIA article on a dam do not want a tour of the latest social constuctionist bogosity, they want the facts. So write like Joe Friday, not like Joe Derrida. If you think all that stuff is important, then write a scholarly article and get it published in a scholarly journal. The key to any successful piece of writing is to know your audience. Ask yourself: what is the audience for an encyclopedia article? Whoever it is, I would suggest it isn't back-patting academics, trading the latest jargon the way kids used to trade baseball cards.
One other thing to keep in mind: the opening of the second paragraph is an exercise in circular logic. "Bennett’s convictions, and therefore the policies of his government, concerning hydroelectric development have been regarded as a manifestation of the ideology high modernity." Note that while we begin with a definite statement (Bennet's convictions) once we get into the meat of the sentence, it turns out that it's based on a passive construction (have been regarded), meaning that it's a violation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, that is, it's just some schmuck's opinion. Notice too that the opinion is illegitimately extended by a "therefore" so that if we reconstruct the process we get: IF it is the case that an ideology I designate as high modernism existed in 1963; AND IF it is the case that WAC Bennet subscribed to that ideology; THEN IT FOLLOWS that he must have held opinion x in regard to building dams; OR AT LEAST that building dams can be said to be a "manifestation" of said ideology. You can see then, that the whole process is circular nonsense. Even if we accept that something called high modernism existed (though clearly, it is implied, not in a conscious way, which is another problem), absolutely no proof is offered for the second assertion (WACB was a believer). So the proof of the propositions in the end rests only on the existence of the dam itself, hence, the argument assumes the conclusion before it even starts. Theonemacduff ( talk) 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I just posted sections concerning the construction of the dam and I want to know where everyone thinks is needed to continue to improve this article. I'm aware that the new material has some duplication of information so over this week I'm going to go through the article and try to consolidate these factoids in whichever sections they seem most appropriate. I have also included a new image as a previous user had suggested we do. As far as I can tell the image should be ok by wikipedia standards as it is found in a free public domain document, however if I'm wrong we definitely need to use an image other than the one of Williston Lake that had previously been used. (I have removed the image as I do not believe it can verifiably be considered in the public domain as the user had suggested).
A couple of other items to suggest:
-perhaps moving the info about the naming of the dam after Bennett to the intro? It seems like that may be a better location.
-We may want to revisit the older version of the article found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=W._A._C._Bennett_Dam&oldid=481262406 it includes a few informative sentences about first nation migration and, as mentioned by Uruiamme, information on the visitors centre which should be worked in somewhere in the article even if it is beyond the scope of our course.
-In even older versions of the article their is brief mention of lawsuits being settled concerning the damage caused to communities by the flooding. Relevant? perhaps.
-Maclean mentioned the sinkhole incident which is documented online by newspaper articles, it could be included as a one sentence tidbit but I'm not sure of how relevant it is since it seems to be an isolated incident with no long standing effects. Still, if someone wants to put it in somewhere I wouldn't object but personally I'm not going to spend time tracking it down.
-Lastly I have covered some of the basic steps of the construction project but haven't delved into components such as the intake structure, details of the G.M. Shrum generation station, surrounding branch off developments in Hudson's Hope, etc. partially because of the amount of data I've already dumped is large and second because It may be too detailed for a wikipedia article. Thoughts?
-by the way, I talked to someone who has been up at the dam before and they don't believe there are fish ladders but I can't verify it.
-- Biredale ( talk) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm the reference. I was there. Could write a book about it. But, never mind. You know better. The BC Electric Company never existed and never started the dam project, as you will have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.184.197 ( talk) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
People in the talk section mention sinkholes, but no sinkholes are mentioned in the article. Has something been removed from the article?
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 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)