Talk:Mountaintop removal mining

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference Source 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yanacocha is open pit, not mountaintop removal.  I removed the reference to Yanacocha.Plazak (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: US Tag

message: 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)
thread_title: Outside links

message: 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)
replies: text: Good valley fill pix here - sorry Im a new user and cant add them - these are not copyrighted
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html&usg=__guTK_Xuaq6w1781p53zKF7abz4I=&h=394&w=525&sz=30&hl=en&start=15&sig2=hpXp6ZW7L7L6Xg3iYUw3Cw&tbnid=qOhmcl8AeTPpqM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&ei=P6wpSZzbHqDMefe8vMQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmartin%2Bcounty%2Bcoal%2Bimpoundment%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den --Flashdark (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any progress on getting a free photo of a valley fill? There are a lot at Flickr; it's just a question of sending a Flickr Mail to the photographer and requesting that they change their license on that photo to Creative Commons. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valley Fill Photo? 

message: Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag?Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, got it, thanks. Sorry for the oversight. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, never hurts to reiterate these things.D-rew (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Global tag

message: Isn't this just a kind of strip mining?  Isn't the main difference that this tends to remove more surface layers (and are not expected to restore them)?  In theory a strip mine might be shallow and could work its way beyond the horizon, by having one working trench and placing the removed surface layers behind it as it progressed.  Removing a mountain top implies not gluing together a replacement (which is not practical with current costs and materials).  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strip mining is so named, not because it "strips" off the overlying rock, but because the mining is done in long strips.  In contour stripping (in mountainous terrain), mining is done in long strips along the outcrop.  In area stripping (in flat ground), mining is again done in long strips, with the overburden from each strip placed in the excavation produced by the previous strip.  As far as I know, mountaintop removal mining is not done in long strips, and so more resembles open-pit mining (paradoxically, however, without the pit) than strip mining.  I'm not a coal miner, but there are probably some out there who can correct any errors in my statement.  Plazak (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I also see that you have taken it upon yourself in the Mining article to redefine Mountaintop Removal Mining as a type of strip mining.  Perhaps you should consult with others first.  Plazak (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a kind of strip mining? 

message: NOTE: The thread about the Buffalo Creek Flood was moved from another section of the Discussion page to here, for semantic cohesion.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree that the sludge pond section is misplaced> I will (temporarily) blank it pending moving it to a more appropriate place.--Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sludge ponds

message: I reduced the number of external links (~30 down to 2).  Most of the links were to grassroots groups who oppose MTR or videos by them, some were EPA stuff (the two i kept are).  Not sure if they were the right ones to keep but something had to be done.  I also added the no more links tag, so if links are to be added, they should be discussed here first, subjects like this tend to draw lots of external link attention.--Kelapstick (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links section had indeed become overgrown, but such a mass deletion of all links except the government's seems slightly suspect, especially for an article about a controversial practice. Perhaps rather than leaving those references absent from the page, we could summarize the main media works and organizations (Media and Organizations were the two main subheadings of the former external links) somewhere else in the article -- in an encyclopaedic style, of course, rather than listing links!  A cursory glance at those links you removed reveals that most were critical of the practice, so I suggest (see also my suggestion under the "Criticism" heading of this discussion page) we put those two subheaders under the Criticism section of the article.   --Doubleplusjeff (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed the content of the external links section could be summerised into prose in the appropriate section, using in-line citations to reference them.  The content of the links is far more valuble if included in the body of the article, rather than as a bulk list at the end of the article.  I may have been a little excessive in my external link removal, but IMO the majority of the external links section in any article should be about the subject itself, not about opposition to the subject.--Kelapstick (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I copied the criticism section in a new article (Criticism of mountaintop removal mining) and the see also links that were to opponents of MTR mining, as they are more related to the criticism of MTR than to MTR itself.  The leading two paragraphs are still in this article, but the criticism is large enough to warrent its own.  The criticism section of any article should not make up half the content, even if it is a controversial subject.--Kelapstick (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to review what you've done here and I've reverted you and deleted the criticism page. I don't really have much of an opinion about this article because I know nothing about this subject but shunting the criticism off to the side on an article that isn't excessive in length does raise concerns about a POV fork. I ask you to please discuss moving the content with other editors because I don't think this is a non-controversial move. The reason I reverted you is that when you created the new article, you violated the terms of the GFDL by not referring to the fact that you had copied the text from this page, but rather it was presented as though it was all your own work. This is a violation of the GFDL which requires the original authors be credited with their work. Please don't move it again without a consensus with other editors. Sarah 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I reverted the page move to a capitalised title because this article describes a mining process and doesn't appear to be a proper noun. The article itself doesn't use capitals except for when using acronyms and both the websites used as external links use lower case. So I can't understand why it was capped and there doesn't appear to be any discussion here. I don't have any personal objection to it being capitalised if it is decided that is appropriate but it doesn't seem consistent with the MOS or with its usual usage. Sarah 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article split 

message: I removed the forced image size of the two pictures in the article heading, they were pretty big, and overlapped (on was centred).  They maybe should be a little bigger and moved somewhere further down the article (or not).  Also there is an image of a Dragline at the Centralia Coal Mine, is that an MTR mine, the mine's article doesn't say anything about it.--kelapstick (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: Though it appears to have been discussed in years past, I took a look at this article, and it only took a moment or two for it to reek of bias to me. I've found numerous places where both the writing and the content appear to have a conspicuous lack of neutrality, earning a flag for each. To go over a few of the more prominent examples that stuck out:
*Writing: This isn't quite as serious a problem as the POV one, but it still further compounds things. Many of the issues here might not be the result of deliberate bias, but nonetheless exemplify what to strive to avoid when writng a neutral article.
**Potential over-use of double-quotes: Starting right with the introduction, I see heavy use of double-quotes around various terms. According to the Manual of Style, they would be justified if the enclosed terms were being used in an unconventional or unattrubatble manner, but given that they appear to all be cited through reliable sources, use of double-quotes is unjustified. In such cases, because the purpose is to mention the word rather than use it, the Manual of Style recommends italics instead.
***I would also note that not all uses of double-quotes are unjustified, though, as some properly fulfil the use of scare quotes, such as the term "fill material", as it is in reference to the term being ill-defined. The quotes are unjustified merely when the term has a well-cited or consensus definition that is being used.
:*Weasel words: While it appears that prior attempts have cleaned some of these up, I notice some still remain. One quote that stands out is "According to SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation." The sentence is cited with what appears to be a good, reliable source. Were the statement a known lie, the use of the phrase "according to" would be justified. However, as the exception is based on the granting of waivers, which aren't gauranteed.
::Similarly, "Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice..." doesn't appear to be cited, and is another classic example of weasel words? Who, precisely, are the critics? It should either have a reliable source cited right there that echoes the same statement, or should be removed in favor of a more list-like organization detailing specific examples of these "critics."
::Lastly, I see mention of "desired geological material," which strikes me as an unusual way to describe mineral resources. This feels like it could be another example of weasel-wording, in a manner as to try and distance it from more "accepted" resources.
*Point-of-View: It appears that this article, which is about an apparently passionate subject matter, has had a lot of non-neutrality built into the content. Avoiding bias in an encyclopediac article is relatively simple; for a subject like this, the article should discuss the definition of the subject, its context, (history, legal environment, etc.) and then its impacts, (economic, ecological, health) including any reception/response/criticism arising from it; even with the apparent majority being critical of the subject, it's still possible to maintain neutrality while not giving undue weight to any potential counter-viewpoints. Here's some examples I spotted where things went wrong:
**Improper/poorly-cited introduction: The first half is allright. "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts..." however, is apparently un-cited, only sourcing the "adverse human health impacts." That level of detail doesn't belong in the introduction; mention of criticism can be warranted, if included in a neutral manner. As is, it appears to give undue weight to criticism, as this article is not "Criticism of Mountaintop mining removal."
**Early focus on deforestation: Although it's not until the "process" section right thereafter where it's even explained how deforestation directly comes into play, the fourth paragraph of the "overview" section switches right from describing the location of MRM, and then launching into a well-cited series of notes on the deforestation taking place there. Such sentences are well-sourced and written in a manner that on its own is satisfactorally neutral, but its placement is problematic, again applying undue weight. Rather, it should be further down the article, as one of the core statements of the "environmental impacts" section.
**What's the SMCRA? While I was able to go and readily find out that the article was referencing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, the article provides no inline linking or any case where it even provides the full name. While mostly an error of writing/wikifying the article, it also could be construed to try and minimize the weight of this piece of legislation which is core and critical to the article.
**Messy "impacts" section: For the most part, this sections problems are NOT neutrality-related, but amidst the poor organization of it, it also placed some more undue weight on "critics contend"s. This section is on impacts, not "critics," so it should follow a clear structure that reflects this, based around a small number of core, well-established facts, such as the previously-mentioned section on deforestation. Then it should follow up with more specific supporting notes on each major point.
**The entire "Community Action" section: This is possibly the worst offender in terms of POV in the article. Beginning with "Some artists have been leaders in the fight against the process of mountaintop removal," it reads right off as more or less a direct advertisement for a cause. That section should not even exist, at least as named and structured. Certainly, there's room for "criticism," and with a topic this controversial such a section is necessary in order for the article to be neutral. But to lay it out as if it's accepted consensus that opposing MRM is "the good fight" is downright bias. Some of the contents could be worked into a proper "criticism" section where appropriate, but by and large the section needs to be deleted.
Overall, I see that this article DOES have the potential to be neutral, but it's got a long way to go. And right now, the lack of neutrality is almost certainly the biggest single detriment to the article: normally lack of solid content and inline citations/sources are the biggest hurdle toward getting to B/GA+ status, but this article already has way, way more good sources listed than any other Start-class I've seen. It just needs stronger neutrality. Nottheking (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a lot of what you say and have made some changes to the article. The "Community action" section has been cut back a lot, and the title changed to "Books and films". I'm removing the tags, and ask that you edit the article in the usual way to make any further changes that are needed. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral writing/NPOV nomination 

message: This article is still as biased as it was.
This article was added as a subset to the "Surface Mining" article.   Where it belongs.
Additionally, the proper name is Mountain Top Mining.    MTR is only used by environmentalists...  Google:  "Mountain Top Removal Mining"    the only results are from environmentalist sites.
By allowing the name to stay this article remains a POV issues and furthers an agenda.
Deletion of article, merging under surface mining, renaming to its proper name:  Mountain Top Mining.
PeterWesco (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Than I would suggest attempting to improve it and submitting a formal move request rather than outright proposing it for deletion.--kelapstick(bainuu)  07:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed the article should be titled mountaintop mining and mounaintop removal mining should simply link to this page, and not be the title.
Boundarylayer (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 Years Later 

message: Is there a specific term for mining on the summit of a hill instead of a mountain or are they called the same thing? Hilltop removal mining does not redirect to this article. Volcanoguy 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also called "hilltop removal mining"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mountaintop removal mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120041942/http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html to http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello,
I have added informaiton to the legislation section. Some information pertained to what was previously posted, but I have added the most recent information I could find.Camisasn28 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislation in the United States 

message: Hi Wikipedia,
I added a reference to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to the section on reclamation of Mountaintop Removal mine sites. I also included links to other relevant pages from within the section, including the wiki pages on erosion and reforestation. I felt that it was important to include the legislation the laid the groundwork for how MTR mine sites are reclaimed today.
SandersJR (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclamation 

message: "Critics contend that...", this transition sentence comes across as ambiguous. The opposing groups pertinent to this topic are not clear. I also do not think that a "Critics" section is necessary or helpful. Would a section providing historical context of opposing groups that have been involved be more effective? Morgan.emma (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Translate it 202.47.55.103 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountaintop removal mining in urdu