Talk:Environmental issues in Canada

short list

As this page is about issues, at least by its wording, rather than by specific cases (excepting for the Clayoquot mention, which is the only specific here as yet) I thought it worthwhile to start a short list of articles that I know are related:

• Sacred Headwaters
• Great Bear Rainforest
• Eagle Bluffs
• Uranium mining in British Columbia
• Offshore oil exploration moratorium

Lots more just wanted to plunk those down; this page ultimately will probably be best broken down by province.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I envisage that these Environmental issues in Country are to be an overview of all of the notable issues. Perhaps the ones that are of a lesser notability at a national level can be incorporated into related articles at a state level. I have started a few musings on this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Planning‎ . -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In re your edit comment accompanying this post, there's an overlap in membership between {{NorthAmNative}} and {{WikiProject Canada}}, and we work hard to accommodate native sensitivities while at the same time resisting, or hoping to (but not always), the highly POV tone of much of the native perspectives on history. What I'm getting at is that, between your two foci, environment and indigenous peoples, to remember that Wikipedia is no more a place to advance an agenda than it is a place to promote a company or a product. Balance is important; on both sides. Remember that environmentalism is a POV, so is the sovereignty movement; one can report on them, but care has to be taken not to take sides. Tough act, especially in a highly-polarized poiltical/cultural environment like BC. I, too, have a backlist (longer than that shortlist, and mostly in my mind) of environmental flashpoints and environmental issues/locations, including historical ones and ones currently out of the public eye; partly I don't have the time to write/research them, partly it's hard for me to distance myself from them enough to be NPOV on some of them; and I've got lots of other topic-areas that are if anything thornier and, to me, more important to get written/done before my wikipatience runs out (again). There's still POV content I know of out there in BC articles, some pages either I or someone else has de-POVized or de-brochurized; "sanitize the rhetoric out" (mostly history and political scandals), some pages innocent enough but in need of a rinse to get rid of the soap, and the softsoap, and in too many cases the hype or one kidn or another. Sorry for my rambling topicality, it's part of my style, but wanted to give you an idea of the status of environmental and native articles already. I haven't frequented {{WikiProject Environment}} much and havent' seen its tempaltes on BC articles, or didn't know to put them on; but many haven't yet been written; Hat Creek coal-thermal proposal, Moran Canyon Dam and taht's just the old projects, never mind the current bunch of PPP run-of-the-rivers. I'll be glad to nurse your articles along, and suggest topics and resources and such (I'm always coming across some) I guess is what I'm saying; just expect teh clippers from time to time; never meaning to be nasty, just hell-bent on correctification and overly thorough (and erratic, as you can tell).Skookum1 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure what I did to prompt this response. I do understand POV issues with indigenous people and with the environment. Here in New Zealand there is some debate about the pre-European history of the Māori people, who only had an oral record of past events. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really do anything, it's kind of my style to tangentialize off something; I do ahve my hackles up, not at you, about the gung-ho zealotry of many enviromentalististic types, again not saying you are one and in fact hoping you're not; the hacikles aer up because more and more I run across propagaanda and softsoap pieces, often environmental-Indigenous in tone/content, and just know that when a series of articles and categories is based on a certain theme it tends to attract input of a POV nature; "POV watch" is a big thing of mine, but not just in that topic area; most other editors are concernedwith maters of style and bulletification and obscurities of format/stle; my thing is watching for politicized language and seletive arguemnts and half-truths made to seem religion.....long story, nothing to do with you, but worth assaying notes, as this is the "main" article (for hte {{catmain}}) and kind of "notice" on my part that gee-whiz-holy-mother-earth environmental-indigenous politicking has turned up beofre in Wiki; almost as commonly as corporatist. I'm not meanng to lecture or be unwelcoming, it's more by way of listing considerations. In a yard with unturned stones, I'm t he kind who turns them all over.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, about "I envisage that these Environmental issues in Country are to be an overview of all of the notable issues" I'm not sure, given the volume of issues in Canada, that something much more like a list page is needed; there's just too much, the place is too damned big. Determining the most notable issues, out of a sea of, well, thousands....jmaybe a top ten from each province? But who decides the top ten? And are these teh current top ten (ehnce news) or are they historical as well? More on this later, don't mean to go on too much.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Klappan coal-bed methane proposal on the Tahltan article

OK, here's one for you that I don't have time to do - including research and de-POVizing the relatively neutral tone; what's POV is the composition of what's talked about; a smaller reduced paragraph summarizing should stay on this page, with a {{main}} template directing it to the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal (or "Klappan River coal-bed methane proposal]]); here's where it gets tricky; the same authors also wrote Sacred Headwaters, which I wish had a catchier name (Kablona doesn't sound like it would be; too easy to pun "kablooey"); it's a certified term, with a BC govt report usage to back it up; but it's essentially about the Klappan coal-bed methane proposal; the Sacred Headwaters movement only began in response to it. But when the inevitable "merge" template gets placed on them, if the Klappan is split off from the Tahltan article, as it really has to be, where would you stand on which was the correct name - the native-designated name, or the encyclopedic one? And it has to be split off, because if Wikipedia only reports on this project on the Tahltan page, and only has a Tahltan-perspective article, that is POV. There's other technical details which, like much rhetorical writing, takes a fact as if it means something without knowing all the rest of the related facts; that over half of mining activity in BC was in 2006 does not indicate a trend/long term - similar situatinos prevailed in the past, back during the Stikine and Cassiar gold rushes and since. Mining is always in flux....anyway what I'm getting at is that the mining industry has to be presented fairly, and articles shouldnt' be written just to advance agendas concerning them without also giving them the nod in the content. Or in the selection of titles; don't mean to preach, just observing all the technicalities/contingencies and hoping you might make the time to split the article; which can carry the new cat of course; there's other similar splits in need of doing out there, that one just happens to be in my memory at hte moment; another would be the Brittany Triangle, I suppose.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another technicality - if the coal-bed methane thing remains the primary content on Tahltan (there's lots of ethnographic stuff and history that could be added) it behooves it to have {{WikiProject Mining}} and {{WikiProject Energy}}. The rail line thing, by the way, is the old Dease Lake Extension started on by Dave Barrett, and was meant to run to Fairbanks originally.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Name-dualities abound, by the way, for places as well as projects and even people; "most common usage" is the preferred one; sometimes google hits are used to decide that; but that may just be who has the better webspider bait for the search engines, y'see (money or talent). I guess for now the two articles here will coexist; Sacred Headwaters may wind up as a park like the Stein or Tsy?los; the project is a separate article; they'll jsut overlap a lot, same as a Hat Creek article overlaps with the Pavilion Lake and Marble Canyon articles....Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Leduc oil.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340 for Engineers - Fall 2023 - 66826

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshjay22, Writ340ti, Lavendermeadow1, Abubna (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)