Talk:Syncrude/Archives/2013

Duck Deaths

I believe that having the "duck deaths" issue the first and largest controversy mentioned for Syncrude is pretty silly and not notable enough for this article, certainly not before adding more important controversies involving Syncrude such as water use, tailing ponds, CO2 emissions, 1% royalties, cost overruns and so on. Our acerbic friend Jerkface disagrees. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? TastyCakes (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has so many edits, I'm suprised that you haven't acquianted yourself with the standard guidelines on notability. The duck deaths controversy meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, however fleeting it may seem to you (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NTEMP#Notability_is_not_temporary).

The duck deaths controversy is the most recent, which is why it was placed up top. If you have more information to add into the article, go ahead and add it, but don't try to sneak in your POV by adding quotes around words, diminishing certain portions, or removing certain portions without consulting others who have contributed to the article. Waiting around 1 to 2 months before you try to push your POV onto the article again is not going to work either.

If you think the duck deaths are silly, that's your POV and you're not following objectivity guidelines. If you think that it's not notable, the Wikipedia notability guidelines say otherwise. I don't see anything here but you trying to push your POV down other people's throats.

Also, I'm not your friend, buddy.

Jerkface03 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't add the quotes first, CBC did in the original article. If you want to argue that they are POV, fine but it was you that used them as a source. Second, a list of controversies shouldn't be given by date but by importance, and an obvious smell of Recentism is in the addition. Third, my reason for saying it is not notable is not that it's "fleeting" but that in the scheme of Syncrude as a whole it is unimportant, for the reasons given above. You saying it is notable does not make it so. And finally, with the attitude you've got, I doubt anyone is your buddy, guy. TastyCakes (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if CBC added the quotes in first or not. Wikipedia is not the CBC.

Oh, so now you don't think that it's fleeting? Interesting how a few edits ago you essentially said it was a fleeting news story when you removed the section: "As I said at the time, the duck deaths were a passing news story with little lasting consequence and so shouldn't have been added to the article. Removing..." So is it fleeting or isn't it fleeting? The fact is that it meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, no matter what excuse you try to conjure up to remove it. It is a controversy that recieved national media attention in Canada and it revolves around Syncrude, so it belongs in the article.

Like I said, if you think that the article doesn't represent "the scheme of Syncrude as a whole," then go ahead and edit it and restructure it, but stop with your POV pushing. The duck deaths section meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

I'm not your guy, friend.

Jerkface03 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this once more, you are not judge and jury about whether the duck deaths meets notability criteria. And since you apparently misunderstood what I was saying I will say this again as well: the duck issue is non-notable (in my opinion) for a number of reasons spelled out above. You included it in the article because it was a current event at the time, a content bias known as recentism. While I do believe the story had only a fleeting impact on the minds of most people that followed it (ie they would be hard pressed to remember the details now), that in itself does not define the subject as non-notable. But it certainly hints at the triviality of it. Plenty of other equally trivial subjects regarding Syncrude have also made headlines for a few days and then disappeared, but they never make it into the Wikipedia article. An example is when part of the plant shut down and for a week or two they were belching smoke experienced all the way to Fort McMurray. Or when people are killed on site. Or at Suncor when the fire gutted the plant and cut production. TastyCakes (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivial = your POV. Just because you declare it doesn't make it so. All the points you bring up sound relevant, feel free to add them into the article. Jerkface03 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New plan: since I am convinced I'm right, I'm going to revert it every time you put this trivial nonsense back in. Sooner or later this will attract an admin, who will probably lock the article and then read through the comments and (hopefully) agree with me. TastyCakes (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go trying to push your POV again. There are other ways to resolve the situation other than threatning an edit war. You and I both know that's not how things are done here. You're only going to get yourself in trouble for trolling. Jerkface03 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ways such as what? From my perspective you are the one who has started this "edit war" by consistently inserting non notable material into the article. And who says anything about threatening? TastyCakes (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1600 ducks actually died, it was only fairly recently released. I don't have a better citation, but it was all over the news in Fort McMurray. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Syncrude+pleads+guilty+ducks+death/1992302/story.html Fireemblem555 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only 42 million ducks in Canada. Who added this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.68.224 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)