Talk:Environmental impact of irrigation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:34, 10 August 2013

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment B‑class

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adding the neutrality is disputed tag.

I arrived at the article initially on a yak shaving exercise otherwise related, but after skimming it briefly. I have ended up placing a POV tag on it because of its extremely one-sided presentation at a venue that requires a five sided approach. While there is no dispute concerning the negative impacts that can occur, their presentation very strongly implies that these happen regularly, widely and normally. There is no mention of these conditions existing naturally. There is no qualifier of 'where properly managed' and particularly to the point 'when not properly managed' (designed/utilized/implemented/etc). The presentation makes no mention of 'when' these occur/ed, when they first were identified, and when they became of environmental concern to the world.

The article does mention these occurrences 'at the tail-end area of the river basin and downstream of an irrigation scheme', and effects are 'indirect and complex', yet insufficiently weighed in the beginning to provide the necessary balance. This article does not even present water as a renewable resource, which is otherwise used anyway for mans' purposes. I will summarize, by saying that in the sentence: 'Irrigation projects can have large benefits, but the negative side effects are often overlooked.' The 'can should be 'do' and the 'are often overlooked' should be 'have been overlooked and are being studied.' I believe this might reset the proper tone for a neutral presentation. If there are not good points to irrigation, then why is it so widely used in areas world-wide that have few alternatives. While I may keep an eye on this, editors more attuned to the specifics will have to take the lead. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProject Agriculture|class=B}}
 {{WikiProject Environment|class=B}}
+== Adding the neutrality is disputed tag. ==
+I arrived at the article initially on a [[Wiktionary:yak shaving|yak shaving]] exercise otherwise related, but after skimming it briefly.  I have ended up placing a POV tag on it because of its extremely one-sided presentation at a venue that requires a [[WP:Five Pillars|five sided approach]]. While there is no dispute concerning the negative impacts that can occur, their presentation very strongly implies that these happen regularly, widely and normally. There is no mention of these conditions existing naturally. There is no qualifier of 'where properly managed' and particularly to the point 'when not properly managed' (designed/utilized/implemented/etc). The presentation makes no mention of 'when' these occur/ed, when they first were identified, and when they became of environmental concern to the world.
+The article does mention these occurrences 'at the tail-end area of the river basin and downstream of an irrigation scheme', and effects are 'indirect and complex', yet insufficiently weighed in the beginning to provide the necessary balance. This article does not even present water as a renewable resource, which is otherwise used anyway for mans' purposes. I will summarize, by saying that in the sentence: 'Irrigation projects can have large benefits, but the negative side effects are often overlooked.' The 'can should be 'do' and the 'are often overlooked' should be 'have been overlooked and are being studied.'  I believe this might reset the proper tone for a neutral presentation. If there are not good points to irrigation, then why is it so widely used in areas world-wide that have few alternatives.  While I may keep an eye on this, editors more attuned to the specifics will have to take the lead.    Regards, [[User:CasualObserver&#39;48|CasualObserver&#39;48]] ([[User talk:CasualObserver&#39;48|talk]]) 04:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)