Talk:Victorian Desalination Plant

Serious Re-write needed, un-sourced information, massive bias. Unverifiable.

After giving the article a quick read, I noticed the amount of hearsay evident and the lack of verifiability. Several sources simply say "The Age" Article needs a major re-write to provide a balanced account. Random12347 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are balance problems with the article too, but it is not polite Wikipedia behaviour to make major changes to an article before discussing them here. You made changes before even commenting here, so I have reverted those changes for the time being. Please raise specific issues here, and await consensus by other editors before making changes again.

Also, can you please add new comments to the bottom of the Talk page rather than the top. It makes it easier to follow if comments are in chronological order. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed outline

• Lead
• Context - establish the context under which the proposal is being made
• Proposal

Feasibility study - to comprehensively include all information pertaining to the feasibility study

Environmental Effects Statement (EES) - to comprehensively include all information pertaining to the EES

Tendering & funding - to comprehensively include all information pertaining to the tendering process

Location - of all elements of the proposal

Overview - general overview of the proposal

Construction - for current and potential future construction activities

• Federal court legal action - to include information pertaining to the legal action taken against the Victorian Government
• Opposition

Public rallies - to include all public rallies held in relation to the proposal

Legal Action - for all other legalities in relation to the opposition of the proposal

• Timeline - to properly depict chronology of the proposal and related events

To do

• Images - of the site, rallies, artists impressions of the proposal, etc.
• Maps - of the site and proposal, map of wonthaggi-cardinia pipeline.

Impact on the Environment

The Impact on Environment section fails to provide any sources for the information and contains an opinion piece rather than a factual and well sourced explanation. It needs sources. Random12347 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following stuff, as it is an opinion piece, it is speculation, unreferenced and basically a diatribe. While somewhat poorly spelled and weakly cogent points are made, this had nothing to do with the impact on the environment, which should be paraphrased from the EIS document, available online. Rolinator (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The plant has yet to consider the use of new technology reducing power requirements by 90% :-

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/02/22/engineered-osmosis-revolutionizing-saltwater-desalination/

Installing water tanks is a good idea; if the rain falls in areas where the water tanks are located. At present (2009), there is insufficient rain within the Melbourne metropolitan area (MMA) to warrant water tanks for households. This siutaion has been predicted to get worse. Although it may be a good idea to still have these tanks for short-term use (i.e. for the months ahead) it won't help in the current situation because of the significant lack of annual rainfall over the last number of years. Therefore, these questions have been asked: How will water be obtained in the long-term (i.e. for the years ahead)? In the long-term, how will people in the MMA obtain water from their water tank when it hardly rains?

In the early part of the drought there was more annual rainfall compared to the current situation at hand. Thus, along with the water restrictions (that are still in place) the government encouraged Melbourne households to install water tanks. However, over the last few years annual rainfall in the MMA has dropped dramatically and thus water tanks prove to be fruitless for obtaining and using water long-term.

With regards to the MMA the current problem is (1) significant lack of rainfall over the last decade, especially in the last few years and (2) the dams that hold water for MMA are not anymore in areas where the rain is falling. Thirdly, the drought is expected to worsen in the years to come.

Building other dams in areas where there is some rainfall at present may be very risky (and costly) as it can not be guaranteed that rain will fall in those areas in the future given the extensive drought that is occuring throughout Victoria. Moreover, developing new dams wherever the rain is falling (at present) would be expensive and also impact negatively on the environment.

The current solutions for obtaining and using water, LONG-TERM, for the MMA is (1) water recycling, and (2) a desalination plant. These solutions may not directly involve for the requirement of rain within Victoria or Australia per se. Thus, whilst keeping water restictrions in place, these solutions (which may use more power) could certainly guarrantee water for the MMA in a period of extensive drought; a situation that is occuring presently. Another long-term solution proposed would be to direct water to Victoria/MMA from those areas in Australia with extensive rainfall.

Let's just get the facts straight... What we know is true thus far is what we should focus on first; the tendering process has been suspicious, the lack of an EES or late submission is suspicious, the potential ownership of water by commercial entities is absurd, the forced and intentional bankruptcy of community groups is inexcusable and there is no, nor will there ever be, any reasonable, logical, economical, environmental justification for such a plant. If we are concerned about the future of our water supply, we must first, manage our water sustainably, and second, reduce the human population in the region if there is not enough water to sustain it. Nick carson (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"During the proposal, suspicions have risen regarding the tendering process, the submission of an Environmental Effects Statement and the treatment of community groups by the state government." Creates a bias and really should be removed, the article needs to remain WP:NPOV. Also the Criticism section is highly bias and reads a lot like an opinion piece.Random12347 (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Both that sentence in the lead and the criticism section are objective. If you doubt such information as being objective you have only to read what I would have contributed was I being biased or subjective: "The actions of the Victorian State Government in relation to the proposition of a desalination plant, justified by unscientific and ineffective, inaccurate assessments, has been entirely in opposition with the constitution of Australia and basic ideals of democracy in ignoring the observations by community groups and citizens in general in pleading with their representers to seek rationality and clarity on the matter in that they may become aware of certain facts and pursue better courses of action in securing the sustainable management of our water. Such action no longer constitutes representation and therefore all affected residents shall now be exempt from paying taxes until such time as the state government can correctly manage our water sustainably prior to a future date being set at which water will be declared a free resource in accordance with it's existence as a basic human right." Nick carson (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what would have been written had you intended to create a bias the article needs to be well sourced, this statement is not.Random12347 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was merely providing an example of what real bias on the subject matter would look/read like. Nick carson (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite, proposed outline

This article has been on my to do list for some time, I've begun tidying up the article, doing a general copyedit, reorganising sections, and will do more as soon as I can. If anyone who has any images of the proposed site, artists impressions, photographs of public rallies, etc, to please upload them or email them to me with permission for me to upload them so we can get them into the article :] Please bear with me as I will cite references, fix spelling and straighten all the corners so to speak, in time. Feel free to help in this regard, it would particularly be appreciated in sources references. I've also added a UC tag to the page. Nick carson (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through, did a general tidy up, then expanded upon the information that was already there, added further references. Removed the proposed outline as it was outdated from the current outline in the article. Nick carson (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

World Bank Quote

This quote has been removed:

"Desalination should remain the last resort, and should only be applied after cheaper alternatives in terms of supply and demand management have carefully been considered".

The quote was attributed to the World Bank, but no external link or reference was provided. Further searching via Google showed that the quote was made by an Australian Politician, and no World Bank document was found.

Click here for the relevant Google Search.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• EDIT - THe relevant quote from be found from this document. The context of the quote refers to desalination in the developing world (specifically North African and Middle Eastern nations) rather than in developed countries. It is therefore still inappropriate for the quote to be used in the article. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though a quote about desalination is perfectly warrantable within an article about a desalination plant. Nick carson (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors... thanks for the effort of sorting this out. Nick Carson is hopelessly biased on this subject, so your objective input helps this become a more comprehensive article. If I wanted opinion pieces, I'd read Kenneth Davidson.

In comparrison to the last time I checked in on this article in late March 2009, huge ammounts of information have been omitted. Please supply evidence of individual bias prior to annoucing accusations and keep tongue-in-cheek comments to a minimum as some editors may find them offensive. Please remember to sign your posts on all talk pages and be aware that any major omissions must be discussed prior on the article's talk page with ample time to recive response.

I will be making time in the near future to expand this article to include information regarding the assessment material, tendering process history, full project proposal and public rallies in an encompssing, unbiased manner, if editors are willing to help me with this by contributing copyediting time, sourcing references, uploading photography, etc, they would be more than welcome :] Nick carson (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

From above "there is no, nor will there ever be, any reasonable, logical, economical, environmental justification for such a plant."[1] Nick, you are hopelessly biased. How is an edit such as this [2], neutral? You really should recuse yourself from further contributing to this article. –Moondyne 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A demonstration of bias on my behalf for the purpose of identification is no indication that I will be making biased contributions within articles in the future, nor is it any proof that I have made such contributions in the past. The particular example you've chosen was a comment on a talk page, not content within an article. We are all biased in conversation and free to express our true thoughts and opinions, but within the article itself, such inherent bias takes a backseat to quality contributions. Needless to say, it is useful to be transparent and open with others, I'm not hiding who I am, what I think or what I've done, but surely such things are no justification to accuse one of being biased in their copyediting of WP. Nick carson (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your past and present contributions are biased, and I find it incredible that you think they aren't. I merely offered that talk page quote to explain why they may be biased. If you like I can start posting diffs. I say again, you really should stand back and allow this article to be WP:NPOV (even if you think you know what it says, please read it again). Wikipedia is not a soapbox. –Moondyne 15:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I may be willing to accept that bias may creep into the occasional sentence, and if/when it does/did, I'm more than happy to accept such an instance to be reworded to present a neutral point of view. This has not happened in the last month though, large sections of content have been removed altogether. The small amounts of rewording that were done were either portraying the project in a positive light, not neutrally, or in incorrect tense from the perspective that the plant is already built, which is incorrect as it is still a proposal and potential future construction project. I have stood back in the past and the tone of this article has swung in a positively biased direction. I am not attempting to swing it back to an opposition direction, I am trying to depict the subject manner in a neutral, unbiased, comprehensive and encompassing manner. I have reverted parts of the content that were removed since late June and contributed further new information. We can no longer simply remove content, if we have issues with any content then it will likely be a disputed alteration, thus any proposals for omissions should be discussed on the talk page prior. An example of positively slanted bias can be found in this timeline which does not include any information about legal proceedings or public rallies and is unquestionably a PR exercise and potential candidate for greenwashing accusations. This is simply the truth not negatively tilted bias, which I can supply examples of also if required. Nick carson (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable omissions

I noticed that alot of this article's content has been omitted since late June. Much of this content included information on early assssments, costing, opposition/critisisms, YWYS v MFEH&A case, public rallies and the use of a timeline to adequately establish the chronology of the subject matter. In addition, the location of information that was retained has been compromised as the article no longer flows as well as it did prior to the omissions. Positive contributions since late June have included tidying up references and citation conventions, etc, but other than that the content has been severely compromised and much information lost. I'm doing my best to revert much of what was lost, source new references and perform a general copyedit as I go, but things are going to look untidy for a couple of days so I'll attach an under construction tag so that no information is lost inbetween times. Cheers. Nick carson (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article needs major rewrite by unbiased contributors

I'm sorry but this article reads like a bad joke from EncyclopediaDramatica. The infobox puts the cost of the plant at AU$6 trillion? The article says "Once built, the plant is intended to operate at full capacity for a number of years until Melbourne's dams exceed 65% capacity, at which point the plant will not supply any further water to Melbourne's storages." Except when you look the reference it only says that the plant will be guaranteed to operate at full capacity until the dams reach 65%, it says nothing about what happens afterwards. It has a substantial section on "Suitable alternatives", except that this doesn't really have anything to do with the desalination plant itself, quite apart from the way it doesn't address the problems of those alternatives in a balanced manner. I don't have the time to do a thorough rewrite but I hope someone does. The bias and misinformation makes a mockery of whatever good information that is in the article. --Sckchui (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just took another glance at the article. From the infobox: "Operation Date 2008-3009" Really? It's going to operate for 1000 years? It doesn't even come online until 2011. The article is written as though the desalination plant is a white elephant when then truth is the whole of Australia is experiencing an unprecedented drought with no end in sight, likely to be at least partly caused by global warming and climate change, and if the next 2 years happen to be dry ones the reservoirs in Melbourne could well be completely empty by the time the plant comes online. --Sckchui (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article recently underwent a major rewrite/copyedit. Someone has just vandalised it recently, it's no reflection on it's contributors. Further references are yet to be sourced. The section on suitable alternatives is directly related to the proposed plant, hence its inclusion in the article. I can assure you there is far less bias and practically all misinformation has been removed.

We should also be weary not to place the drought out of context, it is important to understand that the drought will end, there have been many signs that the drought is easing over the last 2-3 years. Anthopogenic climate change will affect the severity and intensity of extreme weather events, so it's only bearing on the drought would potentially be that it lasts longer or is more severe, not that it will last indefinitely, such an assertion is itself the type of misinformation we are attempting to avoid including in this article. Nick carson (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But you don't know whether the drought will last indefinitely. No one does. Droughts have always come and gone in Australia, but anthropogenic climate change is something that we've never experienced before. Higher temperatures means greater evaporation, means drier soils, means less runoff, means less inflow into reservoirs even when it rains. The effects of higher global temperatures on the ENSO is currently unknown. It is quite possible that higher temperatures will cause rainfall patterns to shift southwards. These are all long term changes that cannot be predicted by past experience. In one sentence the article says the drought has been attributed to anthropogenic climate change, a long term change, and then the next sentence asserts that reservoir levels will return to normal after the drought passes, as though the drought was a short term anomaly. So which is it? Not to mention that when actually clicking the link to the references, one finds NOTHING in the reference that says anything about the drought passing, only that desalination is needed as soon as practicable. Then the article says that "With the completion of the desalination plant in 2011, it is anticipated that certain water restrictions will be removed." But if one clicks on the link to the reference, it doesn't say that the possible removal of water restrictions has anything to do with the Wonthaggi plant at all, only "that expanding water trading and introducing a user-pays system for "lifestyle" water use, such as swimming pools and exotic gardens, would allow metropolitan cities to remove water restrictions by 2012." A typical market economist argument that if you raise prices enough, someone will manage to find some way to supply you with what you need. Except the problem is that prices will only be high because the supply is limited, so there's little incentive to expand supply because that would just lower prices, so after increasing prices the supply will still remain low, and the water restrictions can be removed because no one can afford to use the water, not because there'll be more water.

The problems with this article still remains. Controversial assertions are made which are not supported by the references. --Sckchui (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we don't know for sure, but we can assume with high accuracy that it will end, just as we can assume that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and set the following evening. If, hypothetically, the drought does not ease, then it's going to take alot more than a desalination plant to supply us with water. To weather the drought and live with the climate we've got in this region, We have to initiate sustainable water management and drastically cut the ammount of water we use in irrigation/agriculture. This is the only sustainable way forward.

The centence about the drought being attributable to climate change I think is worded incorrectly, it should read: the severity of the current drought has been suspected to be attributed to anthopogenic climate change.

If you see further faults in references, by all means, correct them. I don't dispute the faults you cited above. However, I don't agree that improvements have not been made to this article. It is in far better shape than it once was, particularly in terms of content, NPOV, copyediting performed and format. If you'd like to correct the wording in relation to the drought being attributed to ACC and the potential water restriction lifts, that would be wholeheartedly welcomed :] Nick carson (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost

"Cost of production of desal water to be $1000 a megalitre.[19]" the ref makes no mention that I can see of that. If I missed it please state the page number and lets discuss. And are we talking about operating cost or capital cost, and if the latter, over what period?

Points of contention

Some changes were made and entire paragraphs and sections removed by User:Moondyne. Some changes/removals were warranted and remain undisputed. I subsequently reinstated many of these sections and provided references and/or additional references for them. Moondyne then removed many of these sections again. Rather than get involved in an edit war with Moondyne, I'm seeking to settle the points of contention here.

• 1. The suitable alternatives subsection is warranted as it provides content pertaining to suitable alternatives as suggested by various groups and individuals with direct reference to the proposed plant.

"Whose" suitable alternatives? The word suitable implies that there is some agreed standard of alternatives, which is clearly untrue. The article is here to describe the plant, and issues specific to it. The section goes beyond describing alternative ways of producing potable water—it is making a case for these, which is not our purpose. Refer WP:NOTADVOCATE—this reeks of using the article to grandstand a particular point of view. In any case this is slightly irrelevant to an article about an individual desal plant. The same "suitable alternatives" section could in theory be placed on any desal plant article. I would be less unhappy if it was at desalination plant whihc applies to all plants. –Moondyne 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• 2. The Kwinana Desalination Plant in Perth is of a similar design and uses the same technology, it was built only a few years ago and the two plants have further similarities. This more than warrants any comparison between the two plants on either article.

I could never understand why the Kwinana plant was built where it is. Cockburn Sound is a naturally formed basin (see that satellite photo) about 8km wide and I would guess, with an average depth of about 5-8m, apart from some narrow man-made shipping channels. It does not flush in the way a normal coastline does. Partly because of this, it has a fragile and closed ecosystem and its seagrasses are vulnerable to changes in seawater composition. The Bass Coast is exposed directly to the ocean. Depth contours there show the intake and outlet to be at about 20m, and 40m depths are about another 1km farther out. The coast enjoys full ocean swells and currents. Kwinana was closed when dissolved oxygen levels in Cockburn Sound fell below the EPA’s trigger levels. Because of the geography, I cannot imagine that situation occurring at Wonthaggi. Is there any suggestion that suggest they might? The sentence inclusion implies that the environments are similar in some way that an occurrence like that could be the case. The similarities you mention are the sizes and the method of processing. Why even mention Kwinana? The closure had nothing to do with the plant, it was just water quality (created by the plant). –Moondyne 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• 3. Lets not get into a if or when debate, the best wording would be; "Upon expected completion..."

I'm comfortable with either "when completed" or "upon completion". In this context they mean essentially the same thing. I am not attempting to say that completion is a fait-accompli, but the word "if" does imply an extreme, for which there is no evidence of. "Upon expected completion" sounds slightly mangled and I don't get what the extra word says. –Moondyne 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than these points, Moondyne's contributions to spelling, grammar and referencing have been fantastic :] Nick carson (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hats off to you for raising this for discussion here. –Moondyne 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries.

1. It's more of a comparison and as far as I'm aware comparisons can be included within articles. It's not an assertion by any individual or group, it's just a simple fact, the subject matter in question is a suitable alternative to desalination. I'd still like to see the comparison included, but I'm open to a rewording if you'd like to give it a go.

OK, but I need to ponder the idea for a little bit. –Moondyne 13:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2. I take your point about the Kwinana plant, perhaps that sentence is a little implicit, but I think it's still worth mentioning that plant, perhaps in another section on "other desalination plants in Australia" or something along those lines. I can't imagine why Kwinana was built in that location either, as a WA resident, what explanations can you see?

Kwinana includes a heavy industrial area on the coast. Its close to Kwinana Power Station and Perth, so presumably had good access to power and the metro-area water distribution system. I'd still have thought that somewhere north of the city would have avoided the hyper-salinity issues and water quality issues, but Kwinana might have been easier environmentally because it was already zoned for industrial use. Most of the northern coastal strip is being developed for residential faster then you can imagine and I can't think of any location that'd be suitable but still in close proximity to the metro-area. It'd be interesting to know the answer. –Moondyne 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Agreed. When implied that it was a 100% certainty, but there are still many ongoing disputes surrounding it here in Vic. It's likely that it will be completed, but definitely not a certainty.

Nick carson (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite Possibly the Most Biased Article I have Ever Read on Wikipedia

This is the first time i have contributed to wikipedia. No joke, this is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on wikipedia. Every single paragraph presents at least one point against the proposed desalination plant. Present the facts and let the people decide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.204.39 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's a controversial and a fresh topic. Bound to be a bit of bias, although we should aim to get rid of it. Anyone can add to or modify the article, so long as you follow Wikipedia rules. And do sign up. It's a very safe place here. Nobody hassles you. As for facts, I reckon they're a bit hard to find. We get one version of "the facts" from the opponents, another from the government. Neither is unbiased. But if you can add some, and be more specific in your criticisms, I for one would be delighted to see your contributions.

By pure chance, I will be at Powlett River next week. I hope to be able to add some personal observations as "facts", along with some photos of the site. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Alot of work has gone into presenting a more neutral point of view in this article. It could be easily argued that your comment is more biased than the article itself. The facts are quite neutrally presented. The people have decided, thousands of them sign petitions, they go to the site and protest at lack of community consultation, incorrect feasibility studies and a whole host of other inconsistencies. They even made a community group in an effort to ensure the plant was not built. The group was sent bankrupt by the state government, so they made another group. The money spent on this plant would be better spent on managing our water resources sustainably and more efficiently. Need I add none of that I just mentioned is biased or untrue? The people drinking this water are being given no choice in what they drink, it will cost them more and many of them don't even know about it. This is all just terrible, and yet somehow the article still manages to present to subject matter in a neutral point of view. Nick carson (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick Carson - I happen to mostly agree with your POV, but I think we would both have to admit to some bias showing in the statement "The money spent on this plant would be better spent on managing our water resources sustainably and more efficiently." That contains opinion, not just irrefutable fact.

I had promised above to report back with some personal observations. The construction site is so far having much less of a visual human impact than the neighbouring wind turbines. But the noise of construction is clearly audible from the formerly very peaceful Powlett River Caravan Park. I couldn't hear the wind turbines. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be worded to present some sort of bias, but it is generally accepted fact that several billions of dollars would have been more efficient, more environmentally and economically sound, had it been spent on sustainable water management methods, plans, etc. I'm happy if you want to change the wording.

I wish WP had direct observation woven into it's verifiability policies so we could include your observations. Nick carson (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Number of signatures on the petition

When politicians or TV station get written complaints, they regard each one as representing many more people, up to 1000 unhappy constituents or viewers per formal complaint. Many people feel unhappy but never get around to formally complaining. Many people won't sign petitions if they require name and address. I don't think it's wise to push the discussion towards one conclusion or another. Just give the basic facts relevant to the specific topic. If readers want to investigate the meaning further, that's up to them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I completely agree. Nick carson (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Technology

What technology does this plant use? Reverse Osmosis. But is it triple-pass? ie, a new desalination plant in Saudi Arabia uses triple-pass, so the water goes thru the membrane 3 times to remove all but 5 mg/L of contaminants. [3] 58.178.202.207 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very Poor Article

I came across this article whilst reading about desalination. I felt compelled to add to the discussion to agree with many of the comments above to the effect that this is one of the worst articles I have seen on wikipedia. It is biased, incomplete and very poorly referenced. It needs a complete rewrite. Armourhistorian (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is unbalanced and certainly incomplete. That partly arises from the fact that it is currently under construction in a sensitive political situation. Not sure where you're from, so you may not know, but the sister project to this one, the North-South Pipeline, has been equally if not more controversial. As a combined package from the Victorian state government the two projects have raised some ire. You are welcome to try to address problems that you see, but it difficult to find sources supporting the projects apart from government publications. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I find constant "interruptions" of obsolete measurement units make the article more difficult to read than need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.162.121 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

D!ssent article reference

I removed this reference and the sentence it supported because the actual editorial itself a) says nothing about the Wonthaggi plant, and b) his statement "In fact state and federal governments’ real aims are to create a water market fit for privatisation" is simply an unsupported argument. If anyone wishes to put a similar line into this article ("it's all about privatisation") please use a more unbiased and better researched source. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement of fact that Victoria's water network is about to, or is currently in the process of being, privatised is an accurately researched and well supported one that is not in dispute. The source cited in D!ssent is a reliable and verifiable one and should not have been removed, this is in violation of WP policy. The original content must be reinstated immediately. The assertions that the content in question was biased and poorly researched are in themselves unfounded. Nick carson (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What? Dissent is not a WP:RS, and nor is that content relevant to this article.–Moondyne 04:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Major changes for this article?

There probably needs to be a separate article on Victorian water privatisation. While the plant's construction is probably part of the Victorian government's water privatisation scheme, the two should be separate in Wikipedia. The best solution I think would be an article on Water privatisation in Victoria, Australia, with a section in this Wonthaggi Desal article dedicated to how the plant fits into water privatisation.

I would also strongly suggest that community opposition to the plant and disagreements with official reports and stats be limited to the "Opposition" section of the article, or at least be mentioned only quickly outside it.

The reason for this is that I believe that opponents of the plant have edited the article badly. It is important for all viewpoints to be seen in the Wikipedia article, but adding negative or anti-plant sentences in every paragraph is just too much. it reads badly and comes across as a very biased article - as many people here on the discussion page have mentioned.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with One Salient Oversight in support of the creation of a new article on Water privatisation in Victoria, Australia and a section within this article explaining the relation between the plant and privatisation.

Opposition is not only from the community, but also from other forms of government, NGO's and a host of other groups, organisations and associations, these should all be mentioned under an "Opposition" section. My opinions on the plant are irrelevant and I am editing with an unbiased view to creating content that is balanced, I do not wish to be pigeonholed as a "opposer" or "supporter" of anything.

The bias (or more to the point, lack of balance) present in articles on the various other desalination plants around Australia, are of much more timely need to be addressed. In comparison, this article contains far more balanced content. - The article on the SA plant for example, didn't even mention workplace safety concerns, the fact that one worker died during construction just weeks ago and mentions nothing about the community opposition to the wind farm. Nick carson (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Contract - given to which company???

The article says the contract will expire in 2035....but says nothing about which company or consortium got the contract! We need that info in there. 116.240.160.169 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: "Veolia, head of the BassWater consortium, lost the lucrative contract to AquaSure, an international consortium consisting of Degremont, Suez Environment, Thiess and Macquarie Capital Group." - The Age July 30, 2009. Unfortunately I havn't the time currently to add content to the article itself, apologies. Nick carson (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor artical, no scope, Propaganda

This is the most outstanding example of Wikipedia being used as an opinion bulletin board that ive ever seen. Most of the 'Project Timeline' is completely irrelevant and goes way beyond the scope of informing the reader about the desal plant itself. Its so obvious that this Nick carson character is against the plant, its really quite sad to see him use wiki as a portal for minority view points. I work on the project so for me to make changes would cause a conflict of interest, I sincerely hope someone can re-write this artical from a neutral perspective. Poor form.

Yes, you're right, the article does have a bit of an anti-desal plant POV. I've been thinking about it for a while, and have decided that there is probably a case for two articles. One would simply be about the plant itself - geographic, logistical and technical details, etc. The other would be about the controversy over the plant, a controversy that definitely exists and should be documented. Hopefully the former article would be non-controversial and easy to make neutral. The latter would be more problematic, but we do have guidelines which could help. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I came here to make the same suggestion (re separate article). Much of the existing issue is of WP:WEIGHT, as well as relevance to the article title. –Moondyne 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Leighton Holdings - Thiess edits in article

Has anyone noticed the anonymous edits with a Thiess IP address? Special:Contributions/202.150.63.35. It's probably too late to do anything about these and there are examples of blatant self promotion in other Leighton Group articles, such edits should be considered a massive conflict of interest WP:COI, in future such edits should be reported to the Administrators noticeboard. WP:AN Surfing bird (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's good to notice when edits come from insiders, but they are not necessarily a bad thing. Often such editors can add factual detail less available to outsiders. Yes, watch carefully for bias, but don't assume it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed tense of article as plant is complete

I have changed the tense of the article as the plant is now complete - 'will provide' to 'provides' and also added details of the 'zero water order' meaning the plant has immediately gone into standby.

Pl here (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victorian Desalination Plant. 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/20080803051845/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24016990-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24016990-661,00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This page is funky :) 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)124.188.23.235 (talk)