Talk:Lake Pedder

Earlier comments
The dams were pushed against public complaint, and the whole raison d'etre for the push,was the notion of hydro-industrialisation as a cheap electricity issue. Therefore revert is a pointless removal of detail. User:SatuSuro 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not a 'pointless removal of detail'. I added the actual date of construction instead of the general '1970s' which wasn't very useful.  Further the discussion regarding cheap energy had been dealt with in the previous paragraph.  I was removing POV and making the article more accurate. Maustrauser 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is POV, 'The New Lake Pedder" has no resemblance to the original lake. To have named the article Lake Pedder is incorrect in the first place. User:SatuSuro 14:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole article has a strongly biased PoV. Its more about the politics behind the lake than anything else. Not good. Krym66 ((5th December 2006))

I'd have to agree, the article has a strong POV bias. It reads more like a lobby site on the restoration campaign, for example "Artificial impoundment and diversion pond"

This is an encyclopaedia, there may be controversy about the naming of the greater lake containment area, but Lake Pedder is the officially gazetted name of the area and should be treated as such. Information on the current state and expanse of the lake is entirely lacking. Maps, photographs etc.

I'd propose splitting the article, firstly a description of the current lake. Secondly a description of the drowned lake. Finally a splitting off of a large portion of the information into a separate article detailing the controversy surrounding the lake.

Cameronmurtagh (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back after your long break - I would say that this might be an encyclopedia, but in the public domain/real world (even the Utas historians seem to have a problem) there has no balanced historical account of this lake and its issues anywhere - the sides are still both unbalanced as they were 30 years ago and in view of that to insist on a NPOV article here either requires an excellent knowledge of the all available resources and materials about both sides - for instance a good view of the material that is placed in the new book about brenda hean, and the recent unrepentant self referrent histories of the hydro.

If you have the material great (WP:RS etc etc) - if you dont - well that hasnt hindered a million edits on wikipedia then - as they used to say 'be bold!' SatuSuro 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What I love about Tasmania articles - this one section stretches three years SatuSuro 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues
The NPOV tag has been placed on this article - as I questioned the neutrality a year ago and hadnt followed up.

(1) Lake Pedder from the perspective of the HEC was a part of what they assumed was their natural right to dam anything in Tasmania regardless of what anyone else said, either Tasmania, Australia or the world for that matter. - as a consequence the 'new lake pedder' which they consider part of their heritage as dammers - was for the benefit of all tasmanians and should be celebrated as the peak of HEC power 'over' differing opions as to their wisdom.

(2) Lake Pedder (original) was considered by many bush walkers and adventurous tasmanians - well before the activities od the SWTAC - considered Lake Pedder (original) to be something that could not be 'improved' and really was a feature that had been long understood as something that was of australian - world heritage status before such was legally enforcable. People died in the process from accidents in their desire for the world to know of the issue.


 * extra comment - some consider the new Lake Peeder to be incorrect and insist on calling it the Huon Serpentine impoundment...

(3) The outcome of the Franklin River case vindicated the lost lives of those who had fought for the saving of Lake Pedder. The creation of the south west wilderness world heritage area simply reinforces this.


 * It is possible that the resolution of the NPOV nature of the article - and the dual world in which the HEC has existed in Tasmania - could be placed in another article - similar to the ad hoc manner of the Franklin Dam and Franklin River articles -

(A) the current Lake Pedder article simply describe the Old Lake Pedder and the New Lake Pedder in limited geographical description. It needs to be very clear that the two lakes with one name is a travesty as there is no comparison in any sense.

(B) the political history of the issue - which needs to be carefully referenced - in a separate article similar to the way the Franklin River/Franklin Dam articles have been created. The Battle for Lake Pedder is not too naive a title.

In this article - either - a chronological narrative of the pro and anti dam campaign events. OR 'The cases for and against' - as there is a massive amount of material from both sides over time.

Please leave comments here - preferably in the form of a vote for breaking into two articles:


 * Support - the separation of two articles - one a geographical description only, the second a detailed annotated article about the politics of the creation of the New Lake Pedder. SatuSuro 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a big topic, so I don't see why one article with suitable divisions wouldn't be acceptable. MrsPlum 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Loaded language
"Many people opposed to the flooding of the original lake do not accept the legitimacy of the official, gazetted name of Lake Pedder for the body of water that drowned it in 1972."

Drowned?! A lake can drown? Are they in danger of drowning when it rains? The use of the word here is covertly pushing a POV in the guise of a description.

GeneCallahan 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have no fear - dont worry - just change it - if you check the lead sentence - the term used there was flooded - the term 'drowned' - is used for where smaller/older water bodies are inundated - it is common usage - however you are welcome to choose which is probably more appropriate SatuSuro 12:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Article lacking in geographic and geologic information
this article about a natural geologic feature has been transformed into an article about policies and opinion on dams.

please remember that this artcile is "Lake Pedder" not "To dam or not to dam Lake Pedder" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I have proposed that the following articles: Serpentine Dam, Scotts Peak Dam and Edgar Dam be merged into this article because it is very unlikely that they would ever have enough of their own content to be worthwhile and that a general Lake Pedder article will cover the issues much better. -- maelgwn - talk 05:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not supported it is around the other way - issues? - royal australian engineers people take the issues seruiously about the details of each individual hydro construction in tasmania (like the rearguard actions of making sure their dams and structures and engineering get national heritage status - and as a consequence - a careful search of online and offline sources could further enhance the articles about the subsidiary dams and lakes) - a general lake pedder article is less and less a historically accurate location of details of the complexities of the area or the issues -as there are, over time quite disparate items that almost beg of separate articles. To lump geographical and engineering features into the lake peeder article is ill advised and falls into a now 3 decade trap of trying ti simplify otherwise complex historical issues SatuSuro 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose merge Notability recognise all places are notable as such Dams are notable of and by themselves, additionally each of these dams are on different rivers have unique features. Specifically looking at Edgar Dam google returns an unwashed 17,000 hits apparently edgar dam is on a fault line and there was extensive survey and testing to ensure it viability/safety before construction. That looks to me as there being material for an article its just hasnt been written to any extent yet. Serpentine dam Tasmania 1.1m unwashed google hits that one is the cause for the loss of habitat for Centrlepis pedderensis which neither of the other two dams have in common. Scotts peak dam 16,000 unwashed ghits, had engineering challenges due to the nature of the location on which it was built. Its also one of only two dams of its type in Australia. All up there isnt a lack of information thats the reason behind these being stubs its rather that there are a lack of editors working on these articles. Gnangarra 15:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Geographically separate and independently article-worthy.  A quick Google seasch gave up this .  Plenty there for expansion, if that's the problem.  –Moondyne 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I had forgotten about Notability but even then it is more complex than it appears. Ill remove the merge tags. -- maelgwn - talk 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lake Pedder From Mt Eliza.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 3, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lake Pedder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080722063934/http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Hydro_power/Catchment+Areas/Gordon+Catchment/ to http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Hydro_power/Catchment+Areas/Gordon+Catchment/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Pedder. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/Hydro_power/Catchment%2BAreas/Gordon%2BCatchment/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821115426/http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/wha/wherein/detail.html to http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/wha/wherein/detail.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed split
I propose that the current page is split into 2 cross-referenced pages, one covering the current lake and one the natural or historical. Some technical suggestions at the end of this proposal.

I contend that the current page's info is conflicted in that it discusses 2 different lakes but attempts to do so using the same name for both. The name Lake Pedder legally applies to the current impoundment, but once applied to the natural lake now submerged beneath it. The section, "A controversial and contested name", attempts to address the issue.

The article tries to present the 2 different lakes in a balanced way but in doing so does a disservice to both, in my view. The current lake and its values are not well described, and the historical lake's description appears under the name and brief description of an entirely different body of water.

For example, the term, "original lake" or "original Lake Pedder" is used 15 times in the article in distinguishing the two different lakes. Similarly, the term, "new lake/Lake Pedder/impoundment" is used 6 times, and the term, "current lake/Lake Pedder" twice.

The introduction is also incredibly confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the lake's history: "Lake Pedder, once a glacial outwash lake, is a man-made impoundment and diversion lake located in the southwest of Tasmania ... formed by the 1972 damming of the Serpentine and Huon rivers by the Hydro Electric Commission of Tasmania...". How was it "once a glacial outwash lake" if this is the way it was formed? The intro simply does not make sense. Of course, this can technically be fixed, but it's illustrative of the problem I've raised - the current article always has to grapple with covering 2 different subjects under one name or heading.

Anyway, this is posted for the purposes of discussion.

The existing page could include a disambiguation note referring readers to the second page covering the historical or natural lake. The page for the historical/natural lake could be called "Lake Pedder (up to 1972)" or better, "Lake Pedder (original lake)" and would also have a disambiguation note. Most of the restoration proposal information would go in the new page. Of course, if the impoundment was ever drained, the current page would become the 'historical' one. Cheyne (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about splitting the article. I can see your point. In some senses they really are quite different lakes, but the transformation of one into the other is really a key part of what we should be describing. I don't know which of your proposed articles would contain that. Another factor is that the small section titled Restoration Campaign foreshadows a possible third stage of the lake's life. As someone on the mailing list of this campaign (but not directly involved), I can assure you it's an active one. My feelings at this stage are that we should maintain one article, and improve it. All the modern history of the lake should be described, probably with greater separation of the stages. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks HiLo48.
 * I think, when considering the deep past history of the lake, the current 51-year impoundment period is really an aberration, or may eventually be seen that way. The history and the natural/cultural values belong to the original lake but the name (and therefore the current Wikipedia page) now applies to the impoundment.
 * Legally and nominally (i.e. name-wise) the original lake has ceased to exist, which is one reason why I believe it deserves its own page. In other words, the current page can only include the natural lake as a kind of historical footnote, because the official (Tas Govt) viewpoint is that the original lake "no longer exists". Cheyne (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't respond to one of your points: "the transformation of one into the other is really a key part of what we should be describing. I don't know which of your proposed articles would contain that."
 * I wouldn't agree that there has been a 'transformation' at all, only a formal transfer of name, which is the issue. The only commonality in my view is that one waterbody overlies the other.  Which is why the page is so confusing as is.
 * I'd suggest most of that kind of information (and the proposed restoration information) would go against the natural lake's page. The current lake's page would be mainly descriptive of what's there now (physically and in terms of usage) and how this came about technically as part of the Gordon scheme.  This page wouldn't ignore the original lake - it would link to that of the original lake and also make mention of it.
 * The impoundment would still have been created if the original lake had never existed. And it would have a unique rather than ambiguous name.
 * I think we should deal with the obvious ambiguity by disambiguating the issue, surely a justifiable approach. Splitting elsewhere on Wikipedia (and with less justification) is extremely common - a big factor in increasing the detail and clarity of the information on the site. Cheyne (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)