Talk:Twin Metals mine

Help with writing an article split
Hi there, you recently made an edit at the Ely, Minnesota article and I am wondering if you would be interested in helping me out with that page. I have not lived in Minnesota for years but I continue to have a very strong connection to the state. I had worked on the Ely article and added a considerable amount of copy some years ago and recently read a news article that mentioned the current copper-nickle mining controversy that is presently going on in Minnesota. I also do a great deal of editing on the environment, for example I am the leading editor of Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration (and I also added it to that article), so that sparked my interest. Anyway, after reading the article I thought that I'd just add a few words to update the history section. As I read more and more about the plans to introduce copper-nickle mining I found that the conglomerate that plans to open the Ely mine also have questionable ties to Trump and his presidency. So that added to my interest as well because I have concerns about corporate ownership of our country. I'd like to get more into that aspect but the section I've added is already too long and anything more is out of the question. I would like to split that section off while leaving a substantial but much smaller overview at the article. Also, the split would be very good for both the Trump and the BWCA articles and perhaps several other MN Iron Range articles as well. I've never written an article but I am wondering if you might do that, if you have the interest of course. Hope I am not being too wordy here but this subject is very important to me. Thanks for your time. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello I love working with folks on articles, and am overall probably the most active editor on "northwoods" articles  so the answer is almost certainly "yes".   But I don't understand what new article you have in mind. Could you clarify?  Thanks.


 * BTW Patagonia made a cool short film about combined BWCA and the mine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR_69AnAg1Y&t=47s


 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lovely, lovely, lovely film. I am speaking of the new addition I made to the Ely article which discusses the proposed copper mine which is only a few miles from Ely and just adjacent to the BWCA.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you mean an article on the proposed mine (and the related processes, actions and controversy)? Sounds like an article that should exist if it doesn't already. Fist step would be to find a couple of sources/articles that cover it in depth. This will confirm wp:notability and also provide a sources for some material to start with. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT has this:   The Mpls Star Trib has this (an editorial but it is the Trib's position):    There may be more that I have already used in the article--I will check.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, just clarifying, you are thinking about doing it on the Twin Metals mine specifically? FYI, for editors who are newer at it, the safest route is to get the article somewhat fully built as a draft somewhere, then submit it at wp:AFC and get it blessed and them move it into article space. Being more experienced and less patient, I'm thinking that we'll work on it  briefly in a draft space to the point of deciding on a title and having enough sourcing in there to confirm wp:notability and then move it into article space to build it there.   I'll start a draft space (including a talk page) right away so that, after it's moved our discussions will be with the article history rather than in my talk page history.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK,


 * Here's the draft space for the article: User:North8000/TwinMetalsDraft
 * Here's the talk page for it, let's move our conversation over there User_talk:North8000/TwinMetalsDraft
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I believe that it would be best to just stick with the Ely mine rather than to include the Iron Range proposals. I would appreciate as much help as possible as my health has been very poor, plus I have a new computer that is almost driving me crazy. I'm surprised that I was able to do as much as I did at the Ely article.  Here is one more site from PBS:    I'll move over to the new site now.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(End of the portion copied from North8000's talk page)
 * Hi there, I'd like to explain that when I asked for a "split" I thought it would be quite simple such as what was done with various topics of the BP oil spill article where we eventually needed to start splitting and in that case I did the health effects article after someone split it for me. And in that case I was totally capable of putting a good article together.  So that was what I expected here.  That said, as I have learned more and more about this subject I have been more and more convinced that a stand-alone good and complete article will benefit multiple other areas that inform us about what we see developing in a world that refuses to see the consequence of  quick greedy use of the planet's ability to sustain us and the consequence of ignoring some basic rules of nature.  Now, to get back to more practical issues, I would feel too embarrassed to write a draft here since I feel that you are much more experienced with such things than I.  Anyway, would we start with a proposed outline/topic heading?  Gandydancer (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Me personally, my next step is to read the sources to gain knowledge. But let's just go into a 100% bold /brainstorming mode.  Everybody just write stuff and also don't be bashful about changing what someone else wrote.    Don't even ask, just do it.   Fun in a safe place Wikipedia!  :-) North8000 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Next Steps
Gandydancer, I think that one next step is to keep rolling with "But let's just go into a 100% bold /brainstorming mode. Everybody just write stuff and also don't be bashful about changing what someone else wrote. Don't even ask, just do it. Fun in a safe place Wikipedia!"

I'm thinking that when we get it somewhat looking like and article and agree on a title (how does my proposed one look?) my idea is to move this into article space and continue developing it there. Being one of the new article curation / NPP volunteers I'm familiar with what should be in that process. The main initial question is the topic meeting wp:notability, which is based on sources. This topic meets it 10 times over. So one focus of my efforts is to get the sources used as / incorporated as references. You supplied one source that looks like a good one (the Christian Science Monitor) which is behind a paywall. Do you have access to it? Sincerely, By North 8000 10:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I am in no hurry and am still trying to do a few final things. I'm right now in the process of adding a few sentences on the Babbitt mine because it is constantly compared to this one and appears to now have been approved.  Re CSM, I seem to have gotten through--it is NYT that I have a problem with as I quickly use up my free visits.  What I would like from you right now is a honest appraisal of the work I've done so far.  I also want to make clear that I appreciate any improvements to my wording, etc., rather than to feel insulted.  As for the suggestion to "let's just go bold..."--that makes me feel very, very nervous indeed.  We live in such a divided country right now and I just can't stomach the thought of having, for example, a loyal Trump supporter come along and wipe off half of my hard work in one swipe. If it comes to that we would be better off with just the section I already have at the Ely article.  It truly makes me feel sick to my stomach and not even interested in going on.  PS: I'd also appreciate it if you would put the article in order with appropriate headings.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Nortnh8000, I may need to make it clear--when I said I am in no rush I did not mean it suggest that I am in no rush to hear back from you as I don't feel able to do any further work on this article until I clear this up. In my experience "brainstorming" is an excellent way to sort out goals when beginning a project and I wish I would have been able to do that in this case but I was not, having only myself to mentally discuss how to go about sorting out what was to be put into this article.  I thought you would discuss ideas with me but you did not say anything until now.  So I did the best I could and I feel that a good basic article has been set out that can still use some rounding out and arrangement as needed.  But, it is far beyond the brainstorming stage.  If it is the case that you have a completely different idea for what this article should include I'd rather, at this point, go on my own from here and manage to learn how to enter it for approval, or what ever it is that comes next.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work today on ref work--I am very grateful for help with these things that I do not understand. About the gov't timeline section, I was not aware that this was intended to be in the article, thinking it was only a guide to work with and as such was not careful about my sources.  However, I believe it is good for the article as you have presented it.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of ways to build an article. Some could take a year to be ready for mainspace, some could take a week.  I do think that starting with references and then building material form them puts it on a lot more solid ground from Wikipedia standpoint vs. writing material and then trying to source it. Also the references establish wp:notability right from the start, which is the main question when we review new articles at NPP. Answering your question, I think that the material that you are creating is great.   We've sort of been following my idea of being bold and developing material.  For a collaborative effort I think that this goes 10 times faster vs. being super cautions and polite about every move.  So now, as planned, we have a lot of somewhat piecemeal material which we need to organize into an article.   Regarding my bulleted timeline, that's just something I did without much though as to whether or not it should stay.   I do think that some sort of chronological presentation is a good idea.  Possibly/probably the bulleted list should be converted and expanded into text and become a main chunk of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As you can see from my list of references I spent a considerable amount of time reading all I could find and only stopped when I came to the excellent site that included 43 references. Then I began to build the article once I had all the sources I could find and not before.  It was all time well-spent and I've learned a lot.  I've now finished putting the article into as good of a progression as I can figure out with the best headings I can come up with.  At this point I feel that it would be helpful to me to have one or two good editors take a look at it, people who are unfamiliar with the controversy (as I was only a very short time ago), and comment on how well it has been presented.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of Good Article reviews.  The reason I mention this is at the end of this post. If I looked at this one I'd say that, for a 10 day old article, it looks like a miraculous job of researching, creating and sourcing material wp:notability has certainly been proven.  And it certainly would be fine to put this into article space for further development. Regarding being a fully developed or good article it has an immense amount of work to be done:
 * It needs to be organized. One section (the time line) does represent some organization but being an encyclopedia, that section should really get converted to prose. Perhaps it would be a good framework to cover the governmental and legal history.  The rest of the article lacks organization.
 * There is no lead. Needs a lead which is a summary of the article.
 * Needs more images. A few recommended ones would be a map illustrating the watershed discussions, a map of the proposed mine, and a photo of the location of the proposed mine.
 * Regarding balance, the article is policy compliant (WP:NPOV and WP:weight) because it follows the coverage in wp:reliable sources, which appears to be 95% about opposition to the mine. But to be a good article it really should to a thorough job of presenting both sides and it is currently weak in that area. One idea might be to have sections on the major areas (potential water pollution, jobs/the economy, impact on the qualities of the area, air  /noise/light pollution etc.)  and present the arguments for both sides along with some encyclopedic information in those areas.
 * One ommission is real data or coverage on views of residents on the proposal. (state level, northeast Minnesota level and Ely level)
 * There seems to be a conflict with sourcing on who the 1966 lease was issued to. One source names a different company. And if so, some explanation of the company names/history should be included.
 * Missinginfo: how far is the site from the BWCAW?
 * Point being that the article is very early in it's development process and I already know about a lot of "problems" and areas that need improvement and development. And so I'm reticent to ask for opinions on something that is barely started and which I know has a lot of problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Outline brainstorming
(this is content and not titles)

Lead (summary)

Legal and governmental history (adjust time ranges as appropriate
 * 19xx-xx Creation of Superior National forest and BWCA
 * 1965-1986
 * 1987-2016
 * 2017 - present

Twin metals LLC: History, ownership & structure

Areas of concern (include not just the concerns, but background and data in each area)
 * Jobs & local economy (including some Ely history)
 * Water pollution
 * Air pollution
 * Light pollution
 * Noise pollution
 * Visual impact
 * Traffic impact
 * Proximity to BWCA and impact on it's qualities
 * Impact on qualities of the Superior National forest and adjacent resort areas

Opposition (organizations, prominent figures and key statements by them)

Support (organizations, prominent figures and key statements by them)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Items
Hello I'm concerned about the statement "Local residents overwhelmingly support the mine."....that it is unsourced and may not be accurate. And it is a far-reaching likely to be controversial statement. The article given as a source didn't have that in there nor any "summary" data for Ely. The article did say that the full city council and the Mayor supported it. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look into that and either find a ref or remove it. Re distance from BWCA, I think that there is 5 miles mentioned somewhere in the article, which seemed far to me, but I just came across a MN site that says 3 miles.  I'm happy with the title you have used.  I'm working on the opinions sections as you suggested.  Yes, more pics would sure be good, do you know how to get some?  Would you mind if I would ask my favorite copy editor to go over my work to spruce up my wording?  Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that it was 5 miles by water; I seem to remember 2 miles actual distance. I'm already working on the watershed picture and plan to work on getting the site photo. I'll actually be there in a couple weeks and might take one myself. Regarding the copy editor, sure, the more the merrier.  And tell them to feel free to edit whatever I wrote as well. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you feel about a bulleted list--I know some people frown on using them but it was the only way I knew how to add so much information in short form. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Very good. Say, I see what you mean about my saying "overwhelming approval, etc."  Looking into it I see that it is quite detailed as it goes back to the 2016 Obama decision to refuse the Twin Metal's lease.  In July the U.S. Forest Service held meetings and as it turned out the locals were shocked and furious about the possibility of a reversal of what they thought was a sure thing.  So I think it will need a new section all together.  Your outline will be of great help but I still have not read it.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm very unsure about the two history sections I added today. I found them very hard to write, how much detail, how to try to explain something so complicated in just a few words, etc.  I wonder if I should break them up more into paragraphs.  All in all I'm not sure its any good.  Also, I'm sorry that I don't know how to do refs properly and I appreciate it that you fix them for me.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What nice work!

There's a pretty substantial section about preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. But there seem to be indications that the decided not to do Environmental Impact Statement but instead do an "Environmental Review" instead which apparently is a much less through process. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the source says that there will be a EIS. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That's what Trump did when he gave the executive order to resume the Dakota Access Pipeline. He ended the EIS saying it was too long and horrible and instead had a short version be sufficient.  However, not too long ago one judge ordered it shut down by August 5 and a full review done.  The owners got that overturned but the EIS order still stands.  They take at least a year.  Where is this information that you are quoting from anyway?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it this? I suppose that this should be in the article?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was that May 20th bullet that I put in. But I think I used the wrong term; the sources said environmental impact statement.  I'll fix the bullet. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You weren't wrong--I added that. { Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been tweaking the references as you asked. I think you're doing nice work on them; the one thing is that it looks like you don't know how to reuse a reference vs. completely re-entering / duplicating it. Here's the short version, But I'm also happy to tweak. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The first time that you use it instead of writing " " write " " where "xyz" is a name that you made up.
 * 2) Then when you want to re-se it just write " " and nothing else.


 * There's something wrong with the Local opposition and approval sections. Approval is completely gone and local opposition partly gone.  Strangely they do show up when one goes to edit the page.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm experimenting with trying to fix it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I found + fixed the problem. There was an error in the instructions I gave you and then you followed what I said.    The slash mark was missing  in "Then when you want to re-se it just write " " and nothing else.".  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How does it look?
Thank you for your constant approval and encouragement--it made all the difference as it helped me to enjoy this process. Also, thank you so much for not constantly jumping in to fix my many errors as I went along but rather let me catch them on my own. Through the years I have found it nothing short of maddening to have an editor jump in while I'm still in the process of doing a long edit to make judgements on what I was doing. How does it look right now? Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's fun working with you on this! I think that it's looking good. I was thinking that we probably should look at the overall organization of the material. I've been working on finishing dissolving that time-line listing that I built and then taking a close look at organization.  Since everything relates to everything here it's hard to decide the best way to divide it up.   I was noodling on this.
 * Since the mine does not exist, the "entity" here is really a sequence of legal, regulatory and US governmental events. And so maybe a "main presentation" on the entity is describing those, with chronological (prose, not a list) probably being the best way to organize those. I think that we sort of have this already in the first few sections of the article.
 * Then I think we need a section on the mine itself. Since the mine does not exist, much of this is the operating plan, which we have a section on.
 * Then there the concerns/ factors about the mine itself and it's impacts. I say "about the mine itself and its impacts" because there are also a lot a concerns about the governmental process as well. On the plus side is jobs and injection of money into the local economy.  On the minus side is about a dozen areas.
 * Then there is support and opposition.  Groups, governmental bodies and prominent individuals.
 * Then there is "what they are saying" regarding supporters and opposition. I was think this is scattered through most of the sections rather than being a separate section


 * Any thoughts on this? And any thought on when to move it to article space?  My idea would be me finishing dissolving that timeline.   We we organize it somewhat, write a lead and then moving into article space and then we could develop it further?  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * North, I am happy to trust your experienced judgement on the organization of it all. I have been working with all the information so closely that I wouldn't even know where to begin let alone where to end.  A couple of things, I am from that area--my own grandfather (Tower-Soudan mine) and my husband's father were first-generation miners with my family Slovenians from Tower and my husband,s dad a Swede from Soudan--so I feel too emotionally involved to know how to organize it all.  I would have thought that it's just fine as is, but then I've never reviewed numerous other articles as you have done.  I feel very lucky to have your expertise here.  I'd also hope that you will write the lead.


 * That said, I have thought a few times about how important the physical proposed mine is compared to the events surrounding the actual mine and I see this article much more as a comment on putting a copper mine (of all things!) right next door the pristine waters and lands of a national treasure, as it has been called. Note how that one guy noted that we wouldn't allow it next door to Yellowstone Park, but then we'd think it's OK to put it here???  And so on, the shitty Trump politics and shifty corporate maneuvers.  So, I don't feel one bit bad about including all that info that some may see as biased.  It's not.  On the other hand, I also thought more than once that most people imagine, hmmm, an underground tunnel, a hole in the ground, what's the big deal?  But I did read enough to know that it's a lot more than that.  For example, water will be drawn from Burntside Lake with a pump house located right on the shore and piped to the mine site ("shielded from view" of course, which I thought sounded doubtful as it sounded like it was a fairly large structure).  What else?  For me, even looking at the existing Ely corporate headquarters building seems creepy next to the existing Ely atmosphere.  When do you take your trip?  Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On your earlier items, I just leave my biases at the door when I put my wiki-editor hat on. Generally regarding bias, the wiki policies which say to cover based on coverage in sources provides good guidance despite flaws in that policy.   Combined with trying to provide an informative article which isn't policy but is what any encyclopedia is about.  I haven't got expert enough on what's involved here to answer the questions which underlie your post.  I have some thoughts but they need more knowledge on this (which I intend to learn more within days) before I would try to express them. Thanks for your thoughtful post. On your later items, regarding any things / questions about me personally, could you email me? Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it is far enough along to go live / move it into article space. I think that we have done a pretty thorough job on having the content and sourcing here. I think we covered the thoughts of both sides pretty well. Anti-mine people could argue that we went too pro-mine with respect to preponderance of coverage in sources per WP:Weight as about 90% of that coverage in sources is anti-mine. Pro-mine people could argue that we devoted more space to opposition than proponents. So maybe we found the right balance. The article could use more organization and images but I thought maybe we could work on that when it is in article space. What do you think.....should I put it into article space? Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ya, you betcha! Our Great Mother, Mother Nature, will smile down on us.  So will my mother who taught me to love nature and so will my dad who would be quite surprised that I could write anything at all. {  Gandydancer (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, here goes! This is like having a kid.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is moved into article space. I'll fix those two reference/cite syntax issues. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As it turned out there was a fair amount re the stacking system and I added a section. The refs need fixing.  How long will it take to be accepted? I'd say that all in all this was harder than having a kid which is over in no time at all, especially if you are my daughter Jane who had one in 42 minutes flat, and that's from first twinge of cramping.  Born at home, which of course goes without saying.  What do you know about having kids--you're not a gurl are you?  Gandydancer (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a guy and live in the US. I one of the people that does the "accepting" of articles, but I'm not going to do it on an article that I worked on. The wait can be variable.....like from 1 day to 6 months.   Since this article is an obvious "yes" it's an easy one to review and will probably get done more quickly.   BTW just keep on working on the article; don't let the move into article space change that. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Say, there's a problem with the ref at the Twin Metals proposal section.  BTW, stunningly great lead!  Gandydancer (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. Thanks. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't Wukai just brilliant and marvelous? Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks to them for the nice work! <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)