Talk:Mountaintop removal mining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

This is a quite POV article -- at the very least, the mining industry's position should be cited. -- Jaysbro 14:45:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

  • I added sections on legislation and economics of MTR, which should accomplish this. --doubleplusjeff 2006-27-08
  • I added citation needed flags to the criticism section. This needs attention from an experienced Wikipedian who can correct the weasel words and poor formatting. Durova 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


"The Economist recently labeled the coal industry 'Environmental Enemy No. 1.'" ... The source really seems to cite the burning of coal as Environmental Enemy #1; not the industry, and certainly not MTR. I moved this fact to the article Coal. Doubleplusjeff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo Creek Flood

While the Buffalo Creek Flood illustrates the danger of slurry ponds, this particular dam wasn't a result of mountaintop removal, but rather another type of coal mining. Of course, the article doesn't directly attribute it to MTR, but perhaps another example would be better. Doubleplusjeff 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Buffalo Creek disaster in the mountaintop removal article is highly misleading, as it implies that the disaster was connected to mountaintop removal. This example whould be removed. Plazak 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Source

Reverted back to include Toxic West Virginia reference. This is not link spam, this is an actual documentary that is directly related to this article. Thus this is a related to this piece and needs to be included. Also, you do not gain anything from google as wiki marks all links do not follow! (comment by User:Vicebs)

What if we put the Toxic West Virginia link in the External Links section, rather than the article text? If you don't approve of this, then maybe we could move create a new subsection of Criticism about the many documentaries or public awareness boosts that mountaintop removal has received recently (Appalachian Voices' "ilovemountains.org" would be another example for such a section), and move Toxic West Virginia there. I'd feel much more comfortable about including the link within the article if the advocate for doing so wasn't a representative of the company who produced the film... Doubleplusjeff 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting Back

Below is text I removed which I believe to be too biased or promotional. I think it would be good to have a summary of movements that are fighting against MTR, which summary could include a lot of material from this addition, but a laundry list of musicians who released albums and wrote books doesn't seem appropriate. --Rschmertz 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artists Fighting Back

Writers in the region have been active in the fight against mountaintop removal. In 2005, 16 Kentucky writers released a public statement condemning the mining practice, which led to the issue being widely discussed in the state media for the first time. Those writers were also active in getting more national coverage for the topic, placing editorials in nationally-read newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. In 2006 the authors group released a book of their collected writing on the topic called Missing Mountains, edited by Kristin Johannsen, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary Ann Taylor-Hall. The book was surprisingly popular within the region and included an introduction by Silas House and an afterword by Wendell Berry. In 2006, Kentucky musicians banded together to create a compact disc of music that opposed mountaintop removal. The result was the bestselling Songs for the Mountaintop. Both book and album were produced by Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a group of concerned citizens that has been one of the leaders in the fight against mountaintop removal mining. In 2006, West Virginia writers released a similar authors statement and in 2000 one of West Virginia's best known authors, Denise Giardina, campaigned as governor on a ticket to stop mountaintop removal.

[edit] US Tag

I just did some major re-edits to the page, but my main point for writing on the discussion page is that I removed a US-centric tag from the page. The reason I removed it is that, while this page does concentrate on the US primarily, the practice takes place almost exclusively, as far as I've ever heard, in the appalachian mountains located in the US. While I've heard about plenty of strip mining in other countries, and a few MTR sites out west, but I've never heard of an MTR site in another country, so basically MTR is as American as Mount Rushmore and the tag seems as aptly placed here as it would be on that page. D-rew 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that really, MTR is by far most common in the US, so yeah, its not much help focusing on another country that hardly practices MTR at all. --66.32.252.104 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to include "U.S." where sentences related specifically to the U.S. I also added a reference to Peru's Yanacocha gold mine, which appears to use MTR. Doubleplusjeff (talk)

Yanacocha is open pit, not mountaintop removal. I removed the reference to Yanacocha.Plazak (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the specification "in the U.S." because I think it is unneccesary. As stated elsewhere on this page no references have been found to MTR outside the U.S. I'll give it a few days, but if no references can be found I think they should be removed.D-rew (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside links

So, the links section is too big, and I'm having difficulty whittling it down because so many of the different links are so similar (community groups against MTR). For most of them it would be difficult to justify which ones are more important, but I don't advocate deleting all of them because methinks they are an important part of the MTR debate. Any help i could get in this area would be...well...helpful.D-rew 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe add a subsection for the dozen-odd grass roots groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.180.196 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Mountaintop Removal Mining Index link removed? Seems like the kinda link we want.D-rew (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I'm thinking about creating a seperate page for the controversy over MTR per pages like Free trade controversy and Global Warming controversy. Thoughts?D-rew (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote would be to keep Controversy as part of the MTR core article, but to further break up this section into distinct sub-sections. I could easily see the following subheaders:
  1. Biodiversity
  2. Health Concerns ...which would contain the "coal-dust" paragraph, as well as perhaps info about well/groundwater pollution.
  3. Sludge Ponds
  4. Social Causes against MTR ... this is obviously a huge deal (if this sounds PoV, just look at the "External Links" section), in my opinion "newsworthy" enough to have its own section in an encyclopedic article.
Doubleplusjeff 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I like that idea, I think it'll certainly helps us all work on inevitable POV battles on a one by one basis, as well as laying the criticisms out better, for all to see. The biodiversity section and sludge ponds are already starting to look good .D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On avoiding future edit wars

  • How do ya'll think this statement should read.

"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."

I edited it to read

"The controversy over..."

but it was reverted by TMLutas for this reason "Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining."

Despite a lack of evidence to the contrary I edited in the poorly worded statement "More generally many object to the use of coal as an energy source." which was rv by Djoeyd114, as NPOV issue.

My question is, how should it read? I think we should say what the controversy over MTR is, and not wishy-washy around it. If there is something besides the issues listed that is controversial about MTR, it seems like it should be added to make this page all the more encyclopedic. Opinions?D-rew 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I think that this is pretty clear:
"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."Athene cunicularia 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't you want to state what all the controversy is over. If the statement doesn't entirely cover the controversy (implied by the some) than it seems we can put what else is controversial. Not to mention I've heard few lamer resons than this"Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining" for editing. D-rew 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have a good draft for how it should read but here's my two cents on the big picture. Some people don't like energy, period. They're called luddites and rarely operate in the open because their ideals are so ugly once you work out the math (90%+ human death rates to get to a sustainable luddite world) that few actually openly adhere to the ideology. Other people don't like coal because they perceive it as dirty and ecologically unsound. Any technique that enhances the economic viability of coal is going to get dumped on by these greens.
And then there's the crowd that have no problem with energy, no problem with coal, yet find MTR to be a bad idea. This is the most attractive of the opposition positions and all three factions will tend to make public statements on these grounds to maximize their popularity and effectiveness.
I believe a good open would recognize the anti-coal and anti-energy aspects of MTR controversy while concentrating on those opponents who are merely upset about this specific technique. TMLutas 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Advocating for a lack of POV, How about this as a last statement?
Coal's mining and use as a fuel have long been controversial amongst environmentalists due to potential environmental impact and coal burning's potential role in global warming. Much of the controversy over MTR ,however, stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, and well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.
My guess is (observing some of your statements) you might not like the GW tie in. The reason I inserted it is to get a full view of what the controversy is over, and, like you said, go general to specific.D-rew 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this
Because of the destructive nature of the practice, Mountaintop removal mining is controversial among environmentalists, local residents, and others; controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.Athene cunicularia 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I posted this two days ago and nobody has responded, I'm going to edit the page.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In an attempt to include both sides I edited the paragraph to read
Because of the physically destructive nature of the practice, MTR mining is controversial, and is disparaged by environmentalists, local residents, and others. Controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well as from the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal. Advocates of MTR point out its efficiency, its ability to provide jobs, and the resulting increase of flat land in areas where there is often little.
Approve / Disapprove?D-rew (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valley Fill Photo?

Anyone have a quality photo of a valley fill? The article refers to these over and over, but the textual description is difficult to convey what one actually is. Please include a photo thumbnail if you have one. Doubleplusjeff —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ilovemountains.org has some good images on their flickr site. I'm currently in contact with someone at the organization in an attempt to be allowed to use the images b/c they are copyrighted.D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global tag

Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag?Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want the full shpeel see the US tag talk portion of the page. In short its not that this page isn't centered on the US, its that all evidence points to MTR being centered in the US. If we can get some references on global MTR sites or something like that than I think the tag could be placed back in.D-rew (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, got it, thanks. Sorry for the oversight. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem, never hurts to reiterate these things.D-rew (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)