Talk:Newmont Mining Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newmont Mining Corporation article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Protected, and thoughts from an administrator

Protected to work out the dispute. I would remind Jentry and the other anon user that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy. It's also not a mouthpiece for corporate PR. I'll be watching discussions here and interjecting guidance when I feel it needed. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Why is there no mention of the controversy that surrounds this company in the opening paragraph? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy, its also not a platform for Newmont's PR. I think we owe it to readers to write a balanced article on Newmont. This means telling all sides of the story Bartlantz 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipedia then a soapbox for one sided portrayal of controversy?

It seems that user Howrealisreal has been using the Wikipedia Wiki for Newmont Mining Corporation for months now to present a one sided portrayal of controversies which exist at a number of the companies operations. When researching Newmont I noticed this and was displeased. The facts I presented are just that, verifiable facts, how is this not neutral?? Yes, it is true that amongst tens of other places these facts are portrayed on Newmont's company website. The mannar in which user Howrealisreal has constructed the environmental controversies section of the Newmont Mining Corporation Wiki does not portray the situation in a balanced and neutral light. dissapointing...

Why do you choose to categorize the section I would like to add to the environmental controversies section as "Mouthpiece for corporate PR" that sounds like you have judge the statements without even considering them... again dissapointing...

The majority of the information that I would like to add is either just scientifically factual or has come from independent audits and assessments of the various controversies. Is it because these independent judgements and facts portray an alternative to what user Howrealisreal has written that they are not allowed? Is it because they are used by the company to defend itself against illogical ad-hominum attacks?

I will read the wikipedia documents you made reference to and attempt to learn how I should portray these facts as an alternative to the one sided portrayal of the current controversies.

Thanks Jentry 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)JentryJentry 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to reprint subjectivly biased information cut and pasted from the Newmont website. The content you added does not have any references, and also was in html format, both of which are not preferred for Wikipedia. Although Newmont Mining Corporation presents the information on their website as facts, it is obvious that it is nothing more than unsourced POV statements that even the company acknowledges it is attempting to use to fix its "negative image problems". If you want to do research on Newmont Mining, I would suggest that you find some better sources (other than the biased website mouthpiece of the corporate interest), like objective scholarly peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then re-write the material you find in your own words with references. As for the environmental controversy, I believe that it is written in a neutral light (including just the facts of the reports, attributed quotes from newspapers, & the fact that some charges brought against Newmont were dropped...) Seems to me, the only side of the controversy that you want in the article is no side, exhibited by your first edit to the article when you completely censored out material that was collaborated on by many users. Wikipedia cannot allow one person's dissent to hijack an entire article. If you have any comments on specifically what you find to be violating the NPOV policy in the article, indicate them here and I will be more than happy to help compromise. Thank you. --Howrealisreal 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Two points: 1) Cut and pasted information from a copyrighted website is never going to be acceptable on Wikipedia. You may quote brief portions, or you may paraphrase information, but a cut and paste job of copyrighted material isn't going to be left in any article about anything. 2) Jentry, if there are items you specifically dispute, say which they are, and propose an alternative or some kind of extra information you feel would make it fairer. We can even take it paragraph by paragraph if you feel it necessary. Wikipedia functions on consensus-building, and the ultimate goal here is for everyone to be satisfied with the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Friedman and Kate, thank you for assisting in my education of what Wikipedia is, and is not, I am admittedly new to this medium and find it intriguing. I still do not however believe, as you say, that the controversies are presented in a neutral light... three of your four references function by the way, and the Jarkata Post does not have a reputation of being fair and balanced. I accept your challenge to conduct more research and help you build paragraph by paragraph a more comprehensive portrayal of the controversies you list. Jentry 19:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How then does this look Paragraph by Paragraph, Pardon the HTML...
(Comments in red)


In Indonesia, where about thirty percent of Newmont's revenue is produced, the corporation became involved in a controversy pitting their historical mining methods against the Indonesian Environment Ministry and an emerging grassroots environmental activism movement.

(Minor changes in word choices in first paragraph)

In August 2004, a US$543 million lawsuit was filed against Newmont by local villagers who claim that pollution caused by the company's mining activities has caused serious illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, birth defects, and a decline in fish stocks. At around the same time, the mine was shut down as planned because its reserves were depleted.
Independent Studies by the World Health Organization [1] and Australia’s Premier Government Laboratory CSIRO[2] among others showed that the root cause of the illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, and birth defects, was not related to Newmont’s Mining Operations or Methods but instead the villagers poor hygiene, sanitation, poverty, and substandard living conditions including the villagers use of the bay as their area of refuse disposal and bathing area simultaneously. These maladies are unfortunately common amongst the coastal communities of Indonesia.
The US$543 million lawsuit was soon thereafter dropped by the villagers.
At Newmont’s new operations the company now conducts medical surveys of villagers in the area to establish baseline data on the health of the population surrounding its operations. (Rebecca Bream and Shawn Donnan, Financial Times, 18 Nov 2005, page 32)


In November 2004, an independent report found that sediment and fish in Buyat Bay, located in North Sulawesi province, were contaminated with Mercury and Arsenic as a result of mining at Minahsa Raya. In particular, the report indicates Newmont's use of submarine tailings waste disposal methods, which are illegal in the United States. Newmont vehemently denies the findings of this report, which contradicts its own studies, and reports released by Indonesia's former environmental minister. They claim that the decline in public health is as a result of poor sanitation and substandard living conditions. [2]

(Which unbiased independent report that you mention in the above eliminated paragraph presents findings that are diametrically opposite of those presented by CSIRO and the WHO?)


In addition to the suit brought by the villagers over this situation a separate US$133 million dollar civil suit was raised by the Indonesian Government against Newmont’s local subsidiary PTNMR. In summary, the Court agreed with PTNMR’s position that the Government should be bound by its contractual commitment to resolve disputes through conciliation or arbitration. Noting that the Con¬tract of Work binds all parts of the Indonesian Government, that PTNMR has contractual obligations to comply with environmental laws and regulations, and acknowledging that Indonesian law recog¬nizes the enforceability of arbitration agreements, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute.


Executive director of Greenlaw Indonesia, Andri Akbar Chaniago, said that the verdict was obscure because the substance of the lawsuit was not about the dispute between the Indonesian government and the company, but about the company's violation of the country's environmental regulations. [4] Environmental activists are contemplating an appeal.
This statement is just as biased as a quote from Newmont’s CEO, I believe it should be removed or an oppssing statement of opinion and subjectivity allowed, i am sure I can reference one from a similiar source)


The ruling by the South Jakarta district court has no impact on an additional criminal trial for the company's top local executive, American Richard Ness, on charges stemming from the same allegations. His trial began in Manado in August 2005. If convicted, Ness faces up to 10 years in prison, and the company faces a US$68,000 fine. Though Mr. Ness has been detained for some time the government of Indonesia still has not explained to him why he is being accused or what laws he has broken [5]


(There is also other information of more encyclopedic quality and less centered on the controversies I would like to add to the Newmont Mining Corporation Wiki over the coming months while ensuring that the controversies section remains balanced and the information there is complete and accurate.)
I await your comments
Jentry 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what you've done. It's easiest to just take it a paragraph at a time; more gets confusing and rather, well, unreadable. Let's do this, see below. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

In Indonesia, where about thirty percent of Newmont's revenue is produced, the corporation became involved in a controversy pitting their mining operations against the Indonesian Environment Ministry and an emerging grassroots environmental activism movement.

Proposed changes:

Comments:

  1. My initial comment is that this says there was a controversy but not what the controversy was about. We should try to get to what the controversy was sooner than this. On the "controversy" section overall, my general impression is that too much text is devoted to this series of incidents; it can be pruned significantly while retaining the salient points. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, I am happy to scratch the first paragraph entirely, the only reason I left it in my proposed changes is because I never wrote it in the first place. It is fine with me if it begins with in August 2004.... because the controversy that is mentioned centers around three lawsuits that were brought against the company and its employees of which, two have been dropped and only one remains. Jentry 09:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, where did our discussion go, I am assuming you are Americans and must have been celebrating the Holidays but I would like to resume productive discussion about my suggestions above it's been five days now with no comments from the administrator or Mr. Friedman ... Jentry 00:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've encouraged him to come comment on the paragraph above. With his agreement we can move on to the next paragraph. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry for holding up the works here. It is true, I was out of town for Thanksgiving and I've also been quite busy filing paperwork so I can graduate from college in the next couple weeks. Anyway, I am committed to working with you guys to get to some sort of compromise about the environmental controversy section that does not sway the perspective too far to either side. I have no problem with eliminating the short blurb in the beginning and starting with "In August 2004..." if you both think that is better. I will note however, that after briefly reviewing the reports you included at the BuyatBayFacts.com website that it is nothing but a front for Newmont Mining. If you click over to that site and see the "About Us" section, it will clearly indicate that the site is maintained by the minining company in their attempts to clean up their negative image. I again would like to express to you, Mr. Jentry, that your research will never be taken seriously by me when it is underwritten by the Big Mining industry. Lastly, Mr. Friedman is my father, you can call me Jeremy if you want. And who might you be? Newmont's CEO? --Howrealisreal 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Ok then, so next paragraph;

In August 2004, a US$543 million lawsuit was filed against Newmont by local villagers who claim that pollution caused by the company's mining activities has caused serious illnesses and other health problems, including skin disease, tumors, birth defects, and a decline in fish stocks. At around the same time, the mine was shut down as planned because its reserves were depleted.

Now I am presented with a conflict in taking the discussion paragraph by paragraph for I am only comfortable with this paragraph if a fair response is allowed after its inclusion...

To speak to Jeremy's comments, yes it is true that the buyatbayfacts site is maintained by Newmont Mining Corporation, but the reports there consist of independent third party research from world renowned institutes such as the World Health Organization and CSIRO, My links and citations are to the independent reports by these organizations. If you can find these reports in there entirety on the internet on a more neutral site than the buyatbayfacts site then I would be happy to link to the reports in that fashion. I looked to the entities themselves, but as yet, have been unable to find the complete text of the actual reports. If your concern is deeper than the reports and with the actual organizations then we have a larger problem of how we will resolve the debate over weather or not the WHO and CSIRO are reputable research organizations ... (Kate, what do we do if this is the case?) Unfortunatly your continued Ad-Hominem attacks on Newmont Mining Corporation are not helping me maintain a productive discussion... I understand you dislike the "BigMining" but unfortunatly do not think that is pertinent to the discussion of the Wiki for Newmont Mining Corporation. So again Jeremy and Kate I await your response and continued discussion and advice as how to proceed. I hope you had a plesant holiday and Jeremy I congratulate you on your upcoming graduation from Pace. As for me, though I imagine that it would be a fascinating job, I am unfortunatly not Newmont's CEO, just ... Jentry... Jentry 15:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, at this point, may I ask what is the current status regarding these lawsuits? There were several filed -- three? -- two were dismissed, and one is still active? Or? Please fill me in briefly. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, it is to the best of my knowledge that only one lawsuit remains, although some of the others that have been dismissed may be appealed. Now to move away from brevity for a moment:

Jentry, this is not about whether or not I like or dislike "BigMining". As a scientist, it is my goal in life to investigate and understand the ecology of anthropogenic activity. As a member of the scientific community, facing a controversial issue like the ecotoxicity of gold mining, I have to say that I am not persuaded by the evidence Newmont has presented on their front website cleverly named "BuyatBayFacts". Although a pejorative term (and I'm sorry if this comes across as ad-hominem), studies like those of the WHO and CSIRO are considered "junk science". But again, it is not my personal opinion that counts. Take, for example, the November 8th, 2004 article entitled INDONESIA: Report Heightens Pollution Dispute with Newmont Mining by Jane Perlez in the New York Times, which explains that the CSIRO report was "paid for by Newmont Mining" and also includes testimony from Robert E. Moran, an independent American hydrogeologist, and Emil Salim, a former minister of environment, among others, that derides the WHO and other Newmont endorsed findings. Enter "Hilmi Salim, the coordinator of the center for natural resources at Padjadjaran University, [who] said Newmont was 'hiding the dark side and only showing the white side,' by emphasizing data that supported its case, particularly on water quality standards, while ignoring data that showed pollution, like those on the sediment." A press release for the governmental report can be found here. If you want a diversity of sources, a 2003 report by the Indonesian Forum for the Environment found that NMR's tailings contain four times the government-allowed level of cyanide and high levels of mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. A team of researchers led by Dr. Ir. Rizal Max Rompas, toxicologist at Sam Ratulangi University, North Sulawesi also found similar results in 1999; the amount of toxic compounds in the area exceeded the legal threshold. But the report's recommendation that the tailings disposal system be evaluated and redesigned was ignored by both NMR and the Indonesian government. I have many other reports and news articles, like a study that talks about Newmont's use of Submarine Tailings Disposal methods (that are illegal in the United States via the Clean Water Act, and the rest of the developed world) specially in Indonesia, and how they promised in an Environmental Impact Assessment that they would dump their toxic runoff from the mine at least 82 meters below sea level before researchers later found tailings a mere 20 meters below the surface of Buyat Bay. But, to make this briefer, as I've already written a lot, I will save those for later... --Howrealisreal 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Let's try to stay on topic for the moment. And thank you both for trying to adhere to civility policies. It can be difficult when you feel as if you're on polar opposites of an issue. My current inclination is to start considering how to address these lawsuits in a fair and evenhanded way. My first thought is that we should have a general paragraph of introduction (Three lawsuits were filed), but that it should mostly focus on the lawsuit that remains. (Three lawsuits were filed -- two of which were dropped -- and one remains (details). The two lawsuits, having been dropped, make them less appropriate for extensive inclusion in the article. After all, anyone may sue for anything, and if the lawsuits were dropped then they're no longer being pursued (appeals notwithstanding -- at the point at which those appeals are filed then it again becomes more relevant). I'll do some research and see if I can't help steer discussions here in a more informed fashion. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
All right. I've done a bit of research. My initial impression is that the social issues around gold mining in general are more interesting -- and possibly more encyclopedic -- than a lawsuit filed against a company. Anybody can sue for anything, and I have removed information about lawsuit filings from other articles for this very reason. But because this has some international and social implications I would not go that route with this article. However, I'm going to propose significantly trimming the information on these lawsuits, since they have yet to be decided. Much of the trimming here is removing information that, it seems to me, is essentially re-arguing the case (which is useless and, moreover, beyond the scope of the article, since it's been dismissed). Maybe it would be better in an article like Dirty Gold Controversy or something like that, where a multitude of information can be brought together, for surely Newmont isn't the only gold company under the microscope. My suggested wording:

In August 2004, the Indonesian Ministry of Environment filed a $543 million (U.S.) civil lawsuit against Newmont, claiming waste from the company's Minahasa Raya mine polluted Buyat Bay, causing nearby villagers to become seriously ill and contaminating local fish stocks. Newmont denied the allegations, arguing that the illnesses had more to do with poor hygiene and poverty. On November 15, 2005, an Indonesian court dismissed the suit on technical grounds, saying the government had breached the terms of its contract with Newmont when it took legal action before seeking arbitration. Environmentalists are urging the suit be appealed.

Though the civil suit was dismissed, there is still pending a criminal suit against Newmont's top U.S. executive in Indonesia, Richard Ness, on charges stemming from the same allegations. His trial began in August 2005 — if convicted, Ness faces up to 10 years in prison, and the company faces a $68,000 (U.S.) fine.

Comments? · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate, it sounds good to me. I'm beginning to think that less is more for the environmental controversy section, especially given the Wikipedia limitations on original research. As an alternative, I think your wording would be supplemented by some external links to Newmont sites, environmental activist sites, and maybe some newspaper articles on the topic. That way readers can get aquatinted with the subject and then we can point them in the direction of other sources if they want to do further research. It also prevents Wikipedia from specifically taking a side on the issue, keeping with the NPOV policy. Jentry has been missing from these last few comments, but I think perhaps this compromise will acceptable for all of us. Thank you for your guidance. --Howrealisreal 19:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect?

This has been going for ten days. Ready to do some editing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jentry hasn't answered the compromise language yet, but I think this is probably okay to unprotect for now. I'll unprotect. Thank you Tony. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


On unexpected business travel, will return and comment more on Mon. I like Kates suggestions of starting an additional article to voice the "Dirty Gold" concerns... I agree with Jeremy's suggestions of adding external links to a myriad of sites on both sides fo the gulf to allow readers to make their own educated determinations. Jentry 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Wow, I am very pleased with this entire experience, it was productive and I believe the Newmont Wiki is better for it. I think the current page represents a decent encyclopedic entry for the corporation. I will from time to time add informataion to the Wiki and I welcome continued healthy discussion as we have had over the past few weeks. 69.4.4.200 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Jentry 17:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a PR page

Whoa, what happened to this page? From the discussion it seemed like things were resolved but now it's just a boring page devoid of any context or mention of the widespread controversy Newmont's practices has brought up all over the world.

Can we revert this back to one of the versions people on the discussion list agreed represented both sides of the issue in an accurate and fair manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.146.60 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mrmichelle happened to this page. I smell a rat. Looks like a pretty cynical attempt at P.R. and reads like a stock prospectus. For now, I'm just going to stick the controversies section back in...but if somebody wants to revert to an earlier version--pre-Mrmichelle--they'll hear no complaint from me.Staple 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equity Ounce

"Equity ounce" is an obscure term which is not defined on this page. A Google search "define:equity ounce" returns nothing. There is no Wiktionary entry.

Can someone define this term for me? Thanks. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)