Jump to content

Talk:Franklin Dam controversy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unsigned earlier message

I wish we were as efficient in preventing the Karahnjukar dam in Iceland from being built. It is now in building for one aluminum smelter of Alcoa. Petur Thorleifsson,Reykjavik,Iceland. natturuvaktin.com

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

  • Can link the Commonwealth: ...tervening by threatening to secede from the Commonwealth if they did so. Perhaps as a result, th...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dam Map

I have previously seen a map showing the extent of the proposed dams. Does anyone have a copy of it that could be put on Wikipedia, or that could be traced to create an new picture? I think it would be quite useful for this article. Alternatively, does anyone know the proposed elevations of the surface of the dams? I could possibly make a map from that information --Ozhiker 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hey some articles here on the west coast of tassie are so quiet you can hear the trees growing. As I said in your talk page I do have the newsprint 'proposals' in storage - so its a matter of time SatuSuro 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lakes project

Maybe someone with no english? - the dam was never made - it does not belong to the lake project! SatuSuro 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the lake project tag - the dam/lake was proposed but never eventuated - I am sure the lakes project does not want hypothetical lakes :) SatuSuro 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Similarly - it might have been a proposed dam - it never was made so the catepory of being in the australian dams category seems odd SatuSuro 03:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarly - although it was a proposed/planned dam - it was never constructed - so I have removed the category for dams and reservoirs - on the basis that the category is for constructed - and no one has commented in 15 months to the contrary SatuSuro 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Language

The language all over this page is far too informal, definitely not encylopedic style. "Greenies" should never be used, for one. I'd also suspect this page was written by a Green, especially given that Bob Brown isn't introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.253.4 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The only example of informal language you gave was the use of the word 'Greenies'. Re this: a) 'Greenies' has only ever appeared in quotation marks to denote it as a colloquialism, b) 'Greenies' was an important part of the cultural landscape (I note you didn't complain about the unquoted use of the word 'hippies', c) 'Greenies' accurately reflected the language which most pro-dammers used to describe conservationists - 'Greenies' was usually the term used by pro-dammers, whereas conservationists themselves preferred the term 'conservationists'. btw, I'm not sure, but I don't think the term 'a Green' was much used until the advent of the Green Party, which I think only formed in Australia under that name after the Franklin Dam had been stopped.

You write that "Bob Brown isn't introduced". Well, he was. The article has long read "The Tasmanian Wilderness Society, under activist Bob Brown,", with wikilinks to 'TWS' and to 'Bob Brown'. At the time, Brown's only substantive position was leader of the TWS; the Green Party wasn't formed until some years later. Brown is no more and no less introduced than any other named person in the article, which is as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.63.162 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ACT Legislative Assembly?

The article claims that the "No Dams" was written on 25% of ballot papers at an ACT Legislative Assembly election in 1982. How is this possible when the article on the ACT Legislative Assembly says it was created in 1988? Was there some other election, or is the whole story a fabrication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't give a formal citation source, but the 'No Dams' write-in was commented on in at least one newspaper at the time - I remember that the large daily political cartoon in some newspaper was of two people driving through Canberra; one asks the other why the electors are voting, and the other replied that it was some referendum about some dam in Tasmania.

However, you're quite correct, at the time the ACT LA was instead the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. I'll fix that up in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.63.162 (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Legislative Council control

The Liberal-controlled Legislative Council then blocked the Labor government's 'Gordon-above-Olga' compromise, instead insisting that they proceed with the original proposal. The two parties could not agree on a solution, which led to a deadlock between the two houses of parliament.

I thought the Liberals had no MLCs before 1991 and generally left the elections to independents. Which was the case? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative-controlled might be a better description. Rebecca (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The Tas upper house was pretty weird (perhaps it still is?) in that (if I remember correctly) only 3 MLCs were voted for in any one election, so each election was rather like a by-election, and celebrity candidates tended to do better than party nominees. I remember Peter Thompson, who unsuccessfully stood as an MLC candidate in 1982, describing the resulting mix as very conservative. I remember several people describing the upper house as effectively being a Liberal house, but I suspect that it may not be possible to prove this to NPOV standards, and so that the references to the 'Liberals' and to 'The two parties' should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.63.162 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference 20!

This is NOT a reference, merely an assertion! The idea that the "green vote" was what put the ALP into government in 1983 is a gross exaggeration. It no doubt increased Hawke's majority - some of those Victorian seats were notable for having a strong interest in the issue (Brown had a huge meeting in Melbourne during the campaign). But Fraser was largely brought down by the state of the economy. Unemployment had risen to 12% (although they've changed the definition of unemployment since then, so it would be more like 10% or so now), and inflation was around 10%. They had introduced an unpopular wage freeze to try to control inflation... You get the picture. There was still a lot of residual indignation against Fraser for his forcing of an election in the Dismissal, and his aloof an autocratic style. A poll taken in early 1983 showed that 12% of Liberal voters felt strongly enough about the Franklin dam issue to vote against any party supporting the dam, and 10% of ALP voters felt strongly enough about it to vote against any party committed to STOPPING the project. So it is far from clear that the Green Vote, was somehow decisive in putting Hawke into the Lodge. The most strongly pro-ALP state after that election was WA, where the "No Dams" people were largely absent (it was too far away). It is ridiculous to claim that Hawke needed 51 to 52% of the 2PP vote to win the election, when he got less than 52% of it in 1984 and retained office, albeit with a reduced majority (it was still a comfortable one though).

This article is clearly a partisan Green item which not only describes their campaign, but tries to claim they are the decisive group in Australian politics, with the power to topple governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! For someone complaining about overstatements you are doing a heck of a lot of that yourself!
You wrote 'So it is far from clear that the Green Vote, was somehow decisive in putting Hawke into the Lodge.' This is attacking a straw-man - it is implying that more was claimed that was actually claimed. Firstly, Reference 20 refers to 'it has been loosely suggested(20) that the anti-dams vote helped bring down the Liberal government' (emphasis added); Reference 20 itself begins with 'From memory (need ref!)', and Reference 20 concludes with 'This simplistic analysis suggests' (emphasis added).
Your 2nd paragraph above then extrapolates with wild dishonesty when you say 'This article is clearly a partisan Green item which not only describes their campaign, but tries to claim they are the decisive group'. What you could have honestly said was "This footnote is probably a partisan conservationist item which ... tries to suggest that in 1984 they had the power to help topple governments". To counter your own repetitions I'll again point out that the main text only said "it has been loosely suggested(20) that the anti-dams vote helped bring down the Liberal government". You support this yourself when you wrote in your 3rd sentence above "It no doubt increased Hawke's majority". Even your 10% and 12% figures above are compatible with my own recollection that at least 2% of Australians were prepared to change their usual vote in favour of saving the Franklin.
You wrote above "It is ridiculous to claim [emphasis added] that Hawke needed 51 to 52% of the 2PP vote to win the election, when he got less than 52% of it in 1984 and retained office, albeit with a reduced majority (it was still a comfortable one though)." Well, again, that "claim" was prefixed with the words 'From memory (need ref!)'. More importantly, you argue against the possibility that Hawke needed 51-52% of the 2PP in the March 1983 election by referring to the figures for the following December 1984 election, even though there had been 24 newly created lower house seats in the interim. Was that in the era when govts gerrymandered ferociously? I don't know, but neither have you put up anything to disprove my recollection of 51-52%. And yes, I wrote that original Reference 20 - I'm afraid I've forgotten my password.
I'll attempt to fix matters to your satisfaction by changing "it has been loosely suggested(20) that the anti-dams vote helped bring down the Liberal government" to "the anti-dams vote increased Hawke's majority - some federal Victorian seats were notable for having a strong interest in the issue (citation needed)". Perhaps you yourself could provide the citation, given that above you wrote "It no doubt increased Hawke's majority - some of those Victorian seats were notable for having a strong interest in the issue (Brown had a huge meeting in Melbourne during the campaign)."
This change will delete Reference 20 from the main article. When I wrote it 2 years ago, I hoped that someone would come up with some hard figures, but no-one has, and it was foolish of me to think that anyone would attempt such analysis 25 years later (especially given that since the 2010 federal election it is hardly necessary to point out the potential for Greens to hold the balance of political power...) I also apologise for trying to grow a wikipedia article from a reference, and thus leaving the article vulnerable to such an attack. My only consolation is that 212.39.162.130 overreached rather more than me. But thanks for keeping us on our NPOV toes, which is the standard that makes Wikipedia such a useful tool. 61.68.63.162 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The contributor formerly known as Applejack1234

Exaggerated claims in referendum

The reference for the referendum questions says that 23,839 votes had "No Dams" written on them. That's a total of 9.4% of the 254,119 votes cast. A total of 84,514 or 33.25% of cast votes, were informal but counted as being against the dams, which includes those who put only a second preference. At least this is better than the Tasmanian Hydro page which claims that 45% had "No Dams" written across them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear 212.39.162.130, you've got it wrong, and the article is quite correct. If you go to the article's reference you talked about, on the last row of the last table it reads: NB: Total Ballot Papers endorsed 'No Dams' from all sources / 84,514 / 33.25%. ("Endorsed" means 'written upon'.) Perhaps the reason for your confusion is because you read at the same reference "The Electoral Office originally ignored 23,839 votes with 'No Dams' on them but further legal opinion recommended that they be recounted", but did not realise that there were a further 24% of votes which also had 'No Dams' written on them but which also indicated one of the two dam options. The Tasmanian Hydro page you complain of made a similar mistake (which I'll correct) - that reference is rather hard to understand.
The confusion is hardly surprising. The Tas govt knew it couldn't win a referendum which had a formal 'No Dams' option, so instead it only gave the options of the 'Gordon River above Olga River dam' and the 'Gordon River below Franklin River dam'. (No-one wanted the Gordon above Olga option: depending on your viewpoint, it was like being asked "Would you like to lose one eye or two eyes?", or "Would you like $5,000 or $10,000?") The Tas govt's concern that it couldn't win an honest referendum was born out by the results: 8% of voters voted for the 'compromise' Gordon above Olga scheme, and 45% of voters voted informally. Plus 8% didn't vote at all. But the old adage of 'if your case has no merit, baffle them with BS' worked a treat, and 25 years later that referendum is still distracting us. 61.68.63.162 (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The contributor formerly known as applejack1234

More pictures and less fiddling?

The article now only has one picture. The NO DAMS yellow triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NoDamsTriangle.jpg) was deleted because no-one dealt with the copyright issue, e.g. made a fair use claim such has been made for the Island Bend photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_island_bend.jpg). If you have a bit of time, there are many iconic images that were significant for the Franklin Campaign. I would be particularly interested if source and permission could be found for the whole-page newspaper ad that appeared in the major dailies just before the fed election that Hawke won.

Also, there has been a bit of vandalism lately. It would make it easier to keep track of vandalisms if people could minimise changes that make debatable improvements to style at the cost of meaning understood by the original author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.144.195 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, if only. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. If you want something done... But I've reinstated the triangle with a non-free rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap your talk page is fixed - it did not have nowiki format around the symbols - take care of that. I have a large archive related to this subject and yes, the fair use doesnt work for most of what I have... sats 08:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Fair usage is only required for quotations and images; we are perfectly allowed to cite and reference anything, or the encyclopedia's coverage of the last century or so would be thin indeed. And it's citations the article most needs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant the images - the lack of maps and images of the various places and proposed dams and impoundments make this a very weak article - visually anyway sats 09:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Maps of course can be drawn. There are some expert mapmakers who contribute to Commons -- see for instance File:Maluku Islands en.png -- you could ask one of them for what you want drawn, you never know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Flinders By-election

The fact that more than 40% of voters wrote "no dams" on their ballot papers in the Flinders by-election was very significant, and deserves more than a single sentence. Previously there was a whole paragraph describing the consequences, but this has now been pruned to a single sentence because of a lack of citation from printed sources (afaik there is nothing on the free internet that substantiates the missing facts). I suggest that the Flinders by-election remains as a single sentence, because although it would be NPOV to describe 40+% of Victorians writing 'no dams' re a Tasmanian dam as 'astonishing', and not currently supported to describe it as 'significant', it was in fact both astonishing and significant.

Re the actual percentage, I think it may have been between 41.5% and 41.9%. It has variously been truncated to 41% in one source (see wiki Flinders By-election) and conservatively described as 40% in another (see review of Geoff Law's book). In the Franklin campaign, The Wilderness Society typically had a few scrutineers viewing a substantial fraction of ballot papers, and figures re write-ins reported at the time were probably accurate to the nearest percent. I don't know if the AEC provided official figures for the Flinders By-election write-ins.

btw, voters did not 'spoil' their ballot papers by writing "no dams" on them - the fed law was (and afaik still is) that so long as writing on a ballot paper does not identify the voter or obscure their intention, then the vote remains valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.186.86 (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franklin Dam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franklin Dam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Franklin Dam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franklin_Dam_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=1183387325"