Talk:Lake Pedder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Lakes
 Lake Pedder is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Flag
Portal
 Lake Pedder is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lake Pedder article.
Article policies


[edit]

The dams were pushed against public complaint, and the whole raison d'etre for the push,was the notion of hydro-industrialisation as a cheap electricity issue. Therefore revert is a pointless removal of detail. SatuSuro 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not a 'pointless removal of detail'. I added the actual date of construction instead of the general '1970s' which wasn't very useful. Further the discussion regarding cheap energy had been dealt with in the previous paragraph. I was removing POV and making the article more accurate. Maustrauser 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is POV, 'The New Lake Pedder" has no resemblance to the original lake. To have named the article Lake Pedder is incorrect in the first place. SatuSuro 14:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole article has a strongly biased PoV. Its more about the politics behind the lake than anything else. Not good. Krym66 ((5th December 2006))


[edit] Issues

The NPOV tag has been placed on this article - as I questioned the neutrality a year ago and hadnt followed up .

(1) Lake Pedder from the perspective of the HEC was a part of what they assumed was their natural right to dam anything in Tasmania regardless of what anyone else said, either Tasmania, Australia or the world for that matter. - as a consequence the 'new lake pedder' which they consider part of their heritage as dammers - was for the benefit of all tasmanians and should be celebrated as the peak of HEC power 'over' differing opions as to their wisdom.

(2) Lake Pedder (original) was considered by many bush walkers and adventurous tasmanians - well before the activities od the SWTAC - considered Lake Pedder (original) to be something that could not be 'improved' and really was a feature that had been long understood as something that was of australian - world heritage status before such was legally enforcable. People died in the process from accidents in their desire for the world to know of the issue.

extra comment - some consider the new Lake Peeder to be incorrect and insist on calling it the Huon Serpentine impoundment...

(3) The outcome of the Franklin River case vindicated the lost lives of those who had fought for the saving of Lake Pedder. The creation of the south west wilderness world heritage area simply reinforces this.

It is possible that the resolution of the NPOV nature of the article - and the dual world in which the HEC has existed in Tasmania - could be placed in another article - similar to the ad hoc manner of the Franklin Dam and Franklin River articles -

(A) the current Lake Pedder article simply describe the Old Lake Pedder and the New Lake Pedder in limited geographical description. It needs to be very clear that the two lakes with one name is a travesty as there is no comparison in any sense.

(B) the political history of the issue - which needs to be carefully referenced - in a separate article similar to the way the Franklin River/Franklin Dam articles have been created. The Battle for Lake Pedder is not too naive a title.

In this article - either - a chronological narrative of the pro and anti dam campaign events. OR 'The cases for and against' - as there is a massive amount of material from both sides over time.

Please leave comments here - preferably in the form of a vote for breaking into two articles:

  • Support - the separation of two articles - one a geographical description only, the second a detailed annotated article about the politics of the creation of the New Lake Pedder. SatuSuro 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a big topic, so I don't see why one article with suitable divisions wouldn't be acceptable. MrsPlum 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded language

"Many people opposed to the flooding of the original lake do not accept the legitimacy of the official, gazetted name of Lake Pedder for the body of water that drowned it in 1972."

Drowned?! A lake can drown? Are they in danger of drowning when it rains? The use of the word here is covertly pushing a POV in the guise of a description.

GeneCallahan 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Have no fear - dont worry - just change it - if you check the lead sentence - the term used there was flooded - the term 'drowned' - is used for where smaller/older water bodies are inundated - it is common usage - however you are welcome to choose which is probably more appropriate SatuSuro 12:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)