Talk:Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project

Australia: Victoria / Maritime Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!

Start

Any ideas on how we should organise the information in this article? Here's a start: some background on the issue (the project planning dates back to 2004); a clear timeline of events associated with the dredging; a separate controversies section.... Davido321 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really good to have is a map showing how Phillip is being dredged...Davido321 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A map would be a great idea. How about some community involvement too, some truthfulness and accountability also perhaps? Or consideration for lifeforms other than human? Nick carson (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarify

From the lead With a budget of $AU969 million, $AU150 million of this cost taxpayer funded[1], the dredging project is currently being carried by Dutch company Royal Boskalis Westminster for the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC), a statutory body established by the Victorian Government responsible for the running of the port, at a cost of $AU500 million and is expected to be completed before December 31, 2009.... The highleghted part is it necessary to explain who/what PoMC is in the lead, the current sentence is hard to read initial thought is what does the cost of PoMC and that its to be completed by 2009 have to do with the dredging. Gnan garra 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I think an infobox of some sort is needed here, but I'm not sure what would be appropriate. Im thinking mabye we could create one especially for the article, much like Myki. Davido321 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some photos would also be nice - it depends who lives in the area and when the dredger heads back up the Yarra. The map is a good idea too - any weblinks to an existing one to work off?

I am in contact with Blue Wedges's professional phtographer and I will hopefully have some photos to put up soon when everything is confirmed. There is a good map to go off here (blank version without the project areas highlighted here), in the body of the article there are links to Kilometre points which may be useful and there are some maps in the Environmental Effects Statement which could be useful. Davido321 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realise that they're basically dredging Melbourne and Port Phillip's entire shipping channel system! That's insanely stupid. Some photos from Blue Wedges themselves or Watershed Victoria would be helpful, we need to see the actual pickets and rallies, so far it's all cargo ships and dredgers. Nick carson (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Port of melbourne logo.gif

The image Image:Port of melbourne logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident of Melbourne, I think port of melbourne waived their right to copyright when they ignored our right to uncontaminated coastal waters. Nick carson (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

Most of the article appears to be written in a way which is leaning towards the side of the environmentalists and does not provide a balanced view, mainly in the use of negative connotations. Example:

"A rockfall incident occurs at an area known as the Canyon at The Heads, with the PoMC claiming the rockfall is minor and damage is minimal and temporary".

If anything, that statement downplays the severity of the rockfall in question. This article is entirely biased in the other direction in truth. Nick carson (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. This article used to effectively be Blue Wedges propaganda until various authors stepped in to change it. The word 'claiming' must be used in this context, as there are no references or further information to justify it. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable.

Flipper24 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue wedges seek to inform and spread awareness through such actions, not proliferate alleged propaganda, have a chat to them before accusing them of such. Nick carson (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cite some examples from the Blue Wedges website:

"Here’s the “state of the art” equipment for moving the 3 million tonnes of toxic sediment from the Yarra to the middle of Bay dump site. Looks like something from Dickensian England doesn’t it? "
"Radioactive fish and toxic government?"

I take back what I said about the 'propaganda', but perhaps to use the words "spreading misinformation" as more appropriate. Flipper24 (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only misinformation I can spot there is the use of the word "radioactive" as I doubt there is radioactive material sufficient to affect the fish population in the affected areas. Nick carson (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the main Shipping Channel

A Map of the main Shipping Channel (and also the Geelong Channel) would be very useful in the context of this article and also for the Port Phillip article. It could highlight the areas being deepened. --Biatch (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If I had time I would compile the various versions and make one myself. Nick carson (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I've gone through and done a cleanup of the article. Several statements and sentences were skewed against community groups. I've also added further information regarding toxic sediment dispersal, the 2009 auditor general's report and other information regarding aspects of the project that are under question. Nick carson (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that your modifications have actually now skewed the entire article into supporting Blue Wedges. The previous wording was neutral, and not skewed. I'll rewrite it again to make it more neutral. Deleting the 'fact' template is also against Wikipedia rules and also please try to cite everything you add to the article. Please refrain from doing so. Flipper24 (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which exact instances and on what basis do you allege that my contributions "skewed the entire article into supporting blue wedges"? On what basis do you allege that the previous wording was neutral? Please note that I am not and have never been affiliated with Blue Wedges in any manner, nor have I contacted them in any capacity. Nick carson (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall cite some examples:

"Other groups have since taken its place, including the large and well-organised Watershed Victoria..."
"Suspicions and accusation of corruption surrounding the tendering process"
"Forced bankruptcy of community groups by the Victorian State Government"
"The project has caused massive amounts of controversy among the Victorian population."
"Legal costs were pursued by the state government in an effort to send the community group bankrupt and halt any further activity by the group."
The addition of quotation marks to "endangering their lives" in the following sentence: "Seven protesters are arrested for endangering their lives after breaching maritime safety regulations."

Essentially, everything that you had added to the article, was biased towards the anti-dredging argument. The original article was sound and was well-balanced. If you believe anything in the current article to be bias, list them here and we'll see if we can hammer out some sort of compromise. Flipper24 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of fact... Watershed Victoria are quite large and well-organised. There have been suspicions and active accusations of corruption surrounding the tendering process in both independent and mainstream media, and even more in academic published papers. The state government pursued legal costs deliberately to bankrupt the community group YWYS, even the VG doesn't dispute this, factuality lies in their very actions. It has been a very controversial project, the environmental controversies have actually paled in comparison to the financial controversies. Quotation marks are added to identify a shakey statement in that prior to the presence of unwarranted authorities, those involved in that particular case were not actually "endangering their own lives" and such a statement is in addition, an inappropriate one as it is not a crime to participate in non-violent direct action. Nick carson (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For something to be "well-organised" is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Yes there have been accusations of corruption, but before you add it to a wikipedia page, please reference it from a reliable source (e.g a newspaper). Likewise with the 'bankrupting' YWYS and Blue Wedges (besides the fact that YWYS is against desalination, not dredging).

As for the rest (and previously), I quote from Wikipedia's policy: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Flipper24 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Port Phillip Channel Deepening Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070831195511/http://www.channelproject.com.au/global/docs/MR_050805_InjunctionDecision.pdf to http://www.channelproject.com.au/global/docs/MR_050805_InjunctionDecision.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]