Talk:Mono Lake Committee

Untitled
This seems more like an adversment to me, or politically bias. Suggestions??--Gephart 08:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gephart (or anyone else), could you be more specific? Which parts of the article seem biased to you? --Don Don 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than go into the intricacies of water conservation issues in the MLC article, I've added a link to this article in an attempt to resolve our NPOV dispute. If anyone else has any ideas, please contribute. If no one says anything for a week, I'm going to consider the NPOV dispute resolved. Any objections?--Don Don 17:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, i re-read this article trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, this is just case specific.  It is a non-notable water conservation effort to a single lake in a single state. The inbound links are to unrelated topics.  I vote to delete, but will wait a weak or so to see if other respond.--Gephart 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote to retain. Mono lake is often mentioned in water rights discussions and I was glad to see it here.35.10.151.119 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote for deletion, and the Mono Lake Committee is far from non-notable. It was an organization that single-handedly stopped the City of Los Angeles from destroying what was left of the Mono Lake ecosystem, and through its lawsuits set new precedents in water-rights policy and law across the West. Highly notable. Definitely not biased. FCYTravis 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote to delete. The lawsuits that resulted only set state laws and precidi based in california, and had little to no effect on state and federal enviromental laws.  I say what are we waiting for!128.208.36.51 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is *not* a vote for deletion. If you wish to start one on this article, please see WP:AFD. However, I warn you that it will massively fail and will waste your time. FCYTravis 03:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see how the article is biased: I tried for a neutral statement of facts, attribution, and tone in my original version --- subsequent edits did not substantially add POV. I'm happy if people add more facts, I just don't see how this is biased. Please be more specific.

Also, this topic is far from non-notable. The MLC has been very influential in altering the ecology of Mono Lake. Mono Lake is not just a pond: it's 65 square miles, one of the oldest lakes in North America (>1Myr), and habitat for >1.5 million birds. The MLC article is just as notable as the article for the lake itself.

-- hike395 06:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, after reading the article on Mono-lake, and taking all these points into consideration, i think i'm going to go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. After doing more research i understand the comments more clearly as why to keep the article.  Thanks for all the help.--Gephart 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

March 2020: Article Revision
I've been meaning to expand and improve this article for ages, but am finally getting started. The MLC lawsuit was a major historical event, and they're still doing important stuff, so they deserve a better article.

I have broken the article into 3 fairly obvious sections. And I have added an important published reference (so hopefully we can get rid of the "need references" warning soon), and one isolated but important fact from that reference. I will be expanding the article over time based on facts in "Storm over Mono" (available for $7-$10 on Ebay), but anyone else is free to change and discuss the article as well (that's how Wikipedia works). My approach is going to be piecemeal and spread over time.

If you've never worked much with Wikipedia, you might take a look at an article I wrote about getting started. A key take-home message: references are important.

http://sfinney.com/images/mwp01.pdf

Finney1234 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)