Talk:Mono Lake Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This seems more like an adversment to me, or politically bias. Suggestions??--Gephart 08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gephart (or anyone else), could you be more specific? Which parts of the article seem biased to you? --Don Don 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than go into the intricacies of water conservation issues in the MLC article, I've added a link to this article in an attempt to resolve our NPOV dispute. If anyone else has any ideas, please contribute. If no one says anything for a week, I'm going to consider the NPOV dispute resolved. Any objections?--Don Don 17:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i re-read this article trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, this is just case specific. It is a non-notable water conservation effort to a single lake in a single state. The inbound links are to unrelated topics. I vote to delete, but will wait a weak or so to see if other respond.--Gephart 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote to retain. Mono lake is often mentioned in water rights discussions and I was glad to see it here.35.10.151.119 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • This is not a vote for deletion, and the Mono Lake Committee is far from non-notable. It was an organization that single-handedly stopped the City of Los Angeles from destroying what was left of the Mono Lake ecosystem, and through its lawsuits set new precedents in water-rights policy and law across the West. Highly notable. Definitely not biased. FCYTravis 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete. The lawsuits that resulted only set state laws and precidi based in california, and had little to no effect on state and federal enviromental laws. I say what are we waiting for!128.208.36.51 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is *not* a vote for deletion. If you wish to start one on this article, please see WP:AFD. However, I warn you that it will massively fail and will waste your time. FCYTravis 03:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see how the article is biased: I tried for a neutral statement of facts, attribution, and tone in my original version --- subsequent edits did not substantially add POV. I'm happy if people add more facts, I just don't see how this is biased. Please be more specific.

Also, this topic is far from non-notable. The MLC has been very influential in altering the ecology of Mono Lake. Mono Lake is not just a pond: it's 65 square miles, one of the oldest lakes in North America (>1Myr), and habitat for >1.5 million birds. The MLC article is just as notable as the article for the lake itself.

-- hike395 06:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Ok, after reading the article on Mono-lake, and taking all these points into consideration, i think i'm going to go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. After doing more research i understand the comments more clearly as why to keep the article. Thanks for all the help.--Gephart 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)