Talk:Mining in Canada

NPOV dispute

I believe Wikipedia's policy on NPOV has been violated; specifically the following:

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.

Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others

- 10% (1 of 10 paragraphs) of the article is about "international human rights abuses"; diamond mining in Canada isn't mentioned once ; numerous other extremely crucial aspects of Mining in Canada were omitted to give more weight to this concept.

-human rights abuses allegedly committed by Canadian companies are included, yet anti-poverty and local wealth creation initiatives by these same companies were not.

Supporting Evidence:

There is 0 mention of any indigenous mining efforts, of which there is significant documented evidence.

There is 0 mention of diamond mining; Canada is the 5 largest producer of diamonds in the world. In fact, the word diamond does not even appear once on the page.

There is 0 mention of nickel mining; Canada is the 5th largest producer of nickel in the world.

There is 0 mention of asbestos mining; this has played a massive role in the history of health sciences and construction materials.

There is 0 mention of Ontario and specifically the Sudbury region and its impact on the development of early Canada.

Yet somehow 10% of an entire article about Mining in Canada is dedicated to focusing on unspecified international human rights abuses. Talisman Energy, a Canadian mining company, has donated millions of dollars to cultural institutions like the Canadian Museum of Nature. Does that not merit mention if we're getting into good and bad things that Canadian Mining Companies do; is it even about Mining in Canada at that point?

Was any research done on the positive impact Canadian mining companies have played in economic development worldwide and their role in reducing poverty in numerous regions; if it was, why was that not included in the article? Either the research was not included because it did not fit a NPOV narrative, or was not done at all, and the article is now presenting one chosen side of a multifaceted issue.

https://mining.ca/our-focus/international-csr/canadian-mining-contributions-abroad/

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-strat-rse.aspx?lang=eng

For the above reasons I believe what was, and was not, selected to be in article violates NPOV.

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius, I just cut the international mining stuff. Does that solve it? You know, WP:SOFIXIT probably applies here. If you're concerned about balance, you can just add stuff. I whipped this article up with what I was familiar with—mainly from writing Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya—so there was a slant toward international mining issues. I'm not as familiar with domestic mining, so there was less there. I would be happy for you to include more information about domestic mining. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned about the reasoning behind the article's creation in the first place. There was an obvious NPOV issue to me, and now, as you have indicated you just whipped it up about a topic you're not really familiar with. The danger in that is when you're not really familiar with a subject you tend to use your own personal beliefs and inferences to fill the gaps, which ultimately shapes the entire work. I'm concerned as to why "Mining in Canada" was chosen as a platform to talk about international human rights abuses in the first place.

I absolutely don't think there's an intent to push a particular agenda. It seems like its more a case of implicit bias manifesting as a result of unfamiliarity with the topic. That being said, I still don't think this article meets the standards for an encyclopedic entry based on NPOV because there is too much emphasis on what one person thinks is significant, but I am sure there are others willing to weigh in with differing opinions. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius, No, I did not create this as a "way to use my own personal beliefs and inferences to fill the gaps". I created it because it was a notable topic that lacked an article. Now that I have removed the content you objected to, could you please note the portions of it that you still object to? Accusing me of "implicit bias" is not a productive way to resolve this NPOV dispute. Surely you cannot expect anyone to create an article that includes every fact that you consider to be relevant; an article is not non-neutral simply because it omits facts that may be important. The best way to remedy omissions is to add the relevant content yourself; the best way to remedy NPOV additions is to remove it. I removed the content you flagged as WP:UNDUE, so I think the specific complaint you have has now been addressed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have bumped the article back to 'Start' class as this feels like a more suitable position for it given the sections lacking, but I don't see any great NPOV issues. The vast majority of articles start life with only very cursory details, often what is available in mainstream media (where negative mining stories are the vast majority) and not specialist sources. Wikipedia grows by people adding what they can. As has been mentioned above, there is certainly a lot more that could be said on this topic and I'll also invoke WP:SOFIXIT as a good place to start. Pyrop e 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I outlined, I believe the article itself is not a NPOV because it was not created for a neutral reason. If the object was to "create a notable topic" because it lacked an article, I find it hard to believe that while almost no relevant research on the subject was done, a significant section (10%) was devoted to something completely irrelevant that has numerous negative connotations associated with it. You can literally google "Canada Top Mineral Export" to find that it is potash. So why was Canada's #1 mineral export not included but international human rights abuses allegedly caused by Canadian companies were? Which is more relevant to the topic of Mining IN Canada?

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/science-research/earth-sciences/earth-sciences-resources/earth-sciences-federal-programs/minerals-and-economy/20529 - This is the first result when you google "Canada Top Mineral Export" Clearly this wasn't done or this information would have been on the page which raises the question, what research WAS done to merit what was included, and why?

While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. Please note the inclusion of "each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly" and then the bolded section. If I created a short article about Albert Einstein, 10 paragraphs, didn't mention his most important theory, e=mc2, anywhere, but placed emphasis on his racism towards East-Asians, would you think there might be a non-neutral point of view happening in the rest of what was written?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44472277

For example; why was emphasis placed on Uranium being Saskatchewan's #1 export for a period in the 1950's? That seems like an oddly specific time, subject, and place to focus on. It was included because implicit bias led you to believe that this was a significant point on the subject of Mining in Canada, just as your personal opinions led you to believe it was more significant than potash: objectively Canada's largest mineral export. This ultimately influenced the entire article; it essentially requires a complete rewrite to do properly. I think the move to starter class is a perfect place to start working from. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius, This is, frankly, unproductive. You accuse me of not doing sufficient research and having bias. But I simply put in what the reliable sources I found said. I happened not to google "canada top mineral export". You did Google that. So, again, you can fix it, instead of casting WP:ASPERSIONs about my motives. Simply put in the sources and facts you would like. And, presto, the NPOV issues go away.

Moreover, an article does not fail NPOV because it was not created for a neutral reason. It fails NPOV because it either includes too much of one thing, or not enough of another. If you want something to be in the article, then put it there. Complaining about my reasons for writing this article—which, again, were simply: this is a notable topic, and it didn't have an article when I sat down to write it—is not a way to build an encyclopedia. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. I feel like maybe this section isn't being made clear or is being completely ignored. You chose to ignore numerous, extremely important facts about Mining in Canada which are extremely easy to find and enormously relevant, while CHOOSING to include non-related human rights abuses. The SELECTION of non-relevant information and the OMISSION of extremely important information during this articles creation is by Wikipedia's definition, grounds for bias and NPOV.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius, Again, I removed the human rights paragraph. Did you not see that? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that, thank you; unfortunately, I don't think you have been reading what I am saying in the slightest, because I addressed your comment regarding that immediately after it. You seem to be ignoring the whole omission part of the NPOV rule however, I strongly recommended going through it with thought. Please re-read my Einstein article analogy as well; it provides an analogy as to why I question the NPOV of the article. There was clear and overt bias based on omission and selection in its creation, which casts doubt on the relevancy of the material that was included. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GaiusTranquillusSuetonius, OK. So, as far as I can tell, your argument is:

(1) I initially created the article with a view toward international human rights;

(2) therefore, all material I included is suspect and non-neutral.

Is that correct? If so, it's very hard to tell what specific things anyone could do to remedy the purported NPOV violations, if the entire article is tainted with my purported POV.

Would the purported POV issue be remedied if the facts you cite above were included? If so, please feel free to edit the article and include them. If it would not, please then provide specific, actionable recommendations as to how neutrality could be achieved. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is that this article was created to advance a personal opinion, not provide an unbiased encyclopedic overview. The evidence for this comes from the lack of basic research (Omission bias). Yes, all the material you have included IS suspect for bias as a result, that's why you shouldn't include any bias in the first place. I believe the first part of the actionable processes has already been put into motion by marking this as a starter article. Again, as I have stated before, and again you seem to ignore the fact that I have said this already, I think this article should not exist in the public sphere until such a point that the very basics of the topic are researched. GaiusTranquillusSuetonius (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I included a historical overview of the development of mining in Canada, based primarily on content included in the Canadian Encyclopedia; and an overview of its importance to the Canadian economy, relying on an article in The Guardian and various scholarly publications. In my view, that is enough research to start an article. If you think this article is unsalvageable per WP:TNT, you are free to bring it to WP:AFD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you guys want to talk about an outline? If you are trying to do too-down? If not, one of you pick one section and the other one pick another? IMHO the article is too short for its subject. If you each pick a section, you will have this argument again. Probably sooner rather that later Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the removal of international human rights abuses from this article. Newspapers in Canada and elsewhere give much attention to Canadian companies' unethical conduct internationally. This should be reflected in the article.VR _talk 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, I agree with you in principle; I removed it because the NPOV concerns raised above suggested that it was WP:UNDUE to include the human rights content without further context about domestic mining. I will hopefully have time soon to fill out other sections of the article and will restore the international human rights content when I do. Of course, you are free to add whatever material you think is appropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AleatoryPonderings, I look forward to it. And happy new year!VR _talk 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top-Down Ideas

At the mercy of expanding the NPOV discussion board, I thought I'd chime in on my approach for broad-scope articles. Besides examining similar articles for other countries† for ideas, I also examined topic relevant sections on cia.gov, Britannica, WTO. Canada-topics feature a lot of well-fleshed out articles, so it's probably going to look more like a directory than something with a lot of exposition. Sometimes I started filling out a section, only to find a page about it later! The next level below that would pull industry sources, like mining.ca because they'll offer figures about employment and volumes of extractives and GDP, etc. Imagine who would read such an article- maybe investors, but more likely students doing high school or college reports. If there's a current event that's REALLY important but not yet resolved, I try to summarize it into a sentence to avoid turning into a newspaper.

† There are no country-wide mining industry articles with FA/GA status (most are actually C) so a good deal of Best Judgement applies here. Mining in Russia is worth examining. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Mining in Russia is indeed very interesting. All of the articles about mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo are also fascinating stuff. I am not sure what shape the survey article is in these days. I should look. There are also a lot of hijinks with oil leases in West Africa, and of course everyone knows about diamonds. Some of the articles are very peacock and talk about extremists attacking, and others talk about the health effects of “artisanal” mining and others are all about the stock price. These are mostly dealt with in articles on individual politicians and extractive industry shell corporations. Some of it should be in the summary articles imho. I think what you want to do is an outline, which is great, and is probably a fantastic place to start. What if we each picked a couple of countries and did an outline? To be discussed? Then we can compare and try to standardize all the “Mining in Country x?” articles? There will of course be some variation. DRC has a series of associated civil wars; some countries have had bribery scandals, etc. I like what you did for Guyana. I think we should discuss whether oil/fracking constitute “mining”. I have been including them, but in Mexico and definitely in Brazil there is a lot to be said about oil, not to mention Canada. I hope someone else wants to work on Canada. Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]