Talk:Trail Smelter dispute

Proposed outline for Trail Smelter dispute

Section One Historical context for dispute

• This section will provide background information about the smelter’s history, the importance of the smelter to the town of Trail in terms of number of families employed, businesses reliant on the smelter and years of operation at capacity.

Section Two Dispute details

• This section will briefly describe the parties involved and the efforts made to resolve the dispute prior to going to arbitration. It will also describe the damage as alleged by the complainants in terms of smoke and water pollutants.

Section Three Arbitration

• This section will outline the complexities of the arbitration that resulted when the dispute continued long term, and include the involvement of the federal governments, local officials and international adjudicators. There were some interesting anecdotes around these proceedings.

Section four Reparations Required and Transboundary issues

• This section will describe the outcome of the arbitration and what decisions were made. Cominco had to pay the farmers and also had to reduce the emissions from the smelter, which they did with higher stacks and limiting operations during planting periods. There could be room here for how the farmers felt about the reparations, perhaps whether farming continued in the area?

Section Five Smelter's Continued polluting and long term legacies

• This section could reflect that although changes were made to reduce pollution output, the smelter continued to operate and compensated the nearby landowners. The long term effects of the Cominco operations continue to the present, as seen with current claims against the company.

Sliver9754 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Trail Smelter Dispute
moved by The Interior (Talk) 02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the proposed heading for section five to 'Precedents and Long Term Legacies' because I think it better reflects what I've done with this section. Feel free to leave comments in my sandbox for my draft.--Kelselle (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

work in progress

Hi Inversehypercube! thanks for adding the photo and links, and for all the edits you have done. the photo especially is great, I had not seen that one before.There should be more pieces of this article up in the next week or so, we appreciate any comments or edits you have as we try to grasp this complex dispute and the resulting arbitration. Sliver9754 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! Just a few things; I think the introduction should be expanded to give a brief overview of the conflict (something like Trail, British Columbia#Trail smelter arbitration would be a good idea), since as of now it doesn't really give a good summary. Other than that, I think adding some paragraph breaks would be a good idea, since it's a bit hard on the eyes. Also, for future reference, citation templates are preferable to plain-text references, like the ones in this article. It's not a major issue, but I'll probaby fix that later on.

I will be editing it more in the coming days; looking forward to seeing the complete article! InverseHypercube (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Went live with my section (Dispute Details). Figured it would be best if we spaced out our additions to avoid data dumps. Anyways feel free to fix it up. --Sdesousa (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

found more detail in the smoke smelter book and added it re visible and invisible damage. Sliver9754 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm live, guys! --Kelselle (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've edited the Lake Roosevelt section for clarity and I've used the phrase 'well intentioned', but does that make the piece more argumentative now? May need another word for this. I've also stated the case is ongoing (which is true) without further jumping into the specifics of the case. This section of Lake Roosevelt only covers up to 2004 to fit with the historical framework of the article as a history class project. We suggest a more thorough article be made into the dealings of Lake Roosevelt by someone from the Wikipedia community willing to do so! --Kelselle (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
maybe the interior or inverse hypercube could help us promote another article to be created for Lake Roosevelt. we think there is a lot to say here. the allegations made by the colville tribe are not without merit, but the high mineral content in the surrounding area, coupled with other industrial activity and the northport smelter's possible impact, despite no longer being in operation, may still have been responsible to a higher degree than cominco. it is difficult to determine. Sliver9754 (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is already an article on Lake Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. I think this information can be added to that article without necessitating a new one. It's definitely important information, so feel free to add it. Great job on this article by the way! InverseHypercube (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, InverseHypercube! --Kelselle (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved that content over to Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake.([1]) It's better suited over there. The Interior (Talk) 04:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing Overlap

Hey guys, I just added to the lead as suggested by Inverse Hypercube, I am going to read through and try to eliminate a bit of repetition. Can anyone look at my lead/ edits and comment or change if you see need? We need to have this all done by Tuesday. Looks great so far, you guys have done a good job with everything here. Sliver9754 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the lead and added some content/edits. Looks good. I'm also going through each section and editing. I think there is too much overlap in last bit of Sylvie's section (Historical) and parts of mine (Dispute Details). What do you guys think? --Sdesousa (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also feel like the "Precedents and Long-Term Legacies" section is a bit too long. Kelsey, do you think you could summarize it a bit? I feel like the part about setting/not setting a legal precedent is not totally crucial. Just my thoughts. --Sdesousa (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Steven, I've just edited the precedents and long-term legacies for length. I think it's still important that there is a blurb about setting/not setting a precedent because it reflects the complexities of the case, what does everyone else think? I've edited the rest of the section for length as much as I could, though talking about precedents to begin with is a huge topic and even in this article the section does not cover all of it. Does it look a bit better now? --Kelselle (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering what you guys think about the overlap in the section of Arbitration Details and the paragraph before it? Mhills91 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the paragraph about farmers initially accepting payouts and Washington State's law about foreigners owning property in Washington needs to be cut out - or, at least the first two sentences need to be merged into one that doesn't talk about the Washington State law about foreigners. It could still work with the paragraph before it. --Kelselle (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I think the last sentence of mine repeats a bit in Steven, but I will try to make it clearer that it was the solution Trail Smelter was trying to use to get the smoke away from the local farmers to whom they had just paid a settlement. I do think it is important because this "solution" led to the next problem in Washington. I think the part about not being able to buy in Washington is also important, but maybe could be condensed a bit as Kelsey suggested. i agree that making the precedent section clear is also key, the average reader might not understand the concept without an explanation. Perhaps breaking things into smaller paragraphs would make it more readable too, i noticed that most paragraphs on here are around 6 or 7 lines. Is the lead ok with everyone? and the photo? does anyone have more photos to add? I will review it all tomorrow, have to crash now. Sliver9754 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just broken the first para for precedents and legacies into two. That should make the section more accessible to someone doing a quick glance over the case. --Kelselle (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

hey guys, just doing some more changes tonight, Steven can you check the data about the scientists from both countries and what side they were advocating for? I seem to remember we all thought it interesting that the American Smelter association was interested in protecting the smelter so that it would not set a precedent for Mexican cross-border pollution. I changed the last sentence of the major players section because i wanted to be sure of this and have left it neutral that they were both investigating. I think if the american scientists were also on the smelter's side we need to be clear that this is a fact and have a separate sentence and citation explaining this. anybody have an opinion? I will do more edits tomorrow. Sliver9754 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

After the edits that have been made I feel as though the issue of overlap between our sections isn't as bad anymore, probably only need a few tweaks now. Regarding the scientists, I don't think we should necessarily say which "side" they're on, because they're suppose to be objective (whether this was true or not in reality I don't know if that is up to us to say). --Sdesousa (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noted some major overlap in Mike's Tribunal section and Ambika's Reparation section. Basically say the same thing right after each other. --Sdesousa (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that steven, I will leave it as I changed it. I will look over mike and ambika's and see if I can reduce the repetitions. Sliver9754 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think the second paragraph could be removed in Ambika's paragraphMhills91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

hey mike, your second paragraph repeats a lot of the dispute details as described by steven, which seems odd because the title is arbitration, not dispute. we need to resolve this. I removed your first sentence because it went back to 1927 when steven was talking about 1935 by the end of his section. I think it is important that there be flow between sections. can we fix this? Sliver9754 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you could take that second paragraph of mine out and we would still be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhills91 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph and i think it makes more sense that way. I think the repetition in reparations section is ok though because it speaks to the compensation at different stages of the dispute. for someone who was mostly interested in that aspect it is much easier to find by scrolling down to there. i think part of writing this has to be thinking about how people are going to use it. the other deletion was obvious because it discussed an aspect previously discussed which also disagreed with the heading it was under. make sense? Sliver9754 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Will look at more when I get back to the apartmentMhills91 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration section looks a lot more focused now, nice work. Just need to address the Reparations section and we should be good.--Sdesousa (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just done minor editing work on the referencing for the reparations section. --Kelselle (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Went through and clean up some of the sentences - I also added some links to Wikis. Mhills91 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

good changes kelsey, thanks! nice edits, mike, steven, hopefully we are not all just changing the same things back and forth. I added an intro sentence, what do you think? I think we also need to clean up the references. do we need both the footnotes and references for all? I tried adding to the reflist and it won't let me in. ideas? Sliver9754 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hhmm, let's stick with footnotes since that's what everyone seems to be using in their sections. --Kelselle (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of British Columbia supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)