Talk:Wyangala Dam

Earthquake
Please note, an earthquake of 4.6 on the Richter Scale is a significant event in terms of Australian seismology (being the third largest quake since the devastating Newcastle Earthquake) - it is a note worthy event in the dam's history. Otherwise, the concerns over the dam wall should be removed, it never collapsed, it caused no deaths.150.203.189.158 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so, there has been many 4.6 (even some higher) quakes in Australia, fact is it isn't the third largest quake since Newcastle Earthquake. It was a one event which had no notable effects to the dam. 124.183.163.127 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is arguably, at the very least an important seismological event, according to http://www-a.ga.gov.au/imf-natural_hazards/imf.jsp?site=natural_hazards_earthquake mapped statistics since 1989. I still maintain that if it is so unimportant in the dam's history (being it's only seismologic event causing concern/panic) then the fear of the dam shifting in a non-event flood should be removed as well. 150.203.189.158 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That map only shows the recent quakes, not past ones. Fact is there has been a few high 4 quakes in the Riverina (that is just one of many regions in the state let alone Australia) since the mid 1990s for an example, still not a notable event but would have been different if it was like the Kalgoorlie-Boulder quake. With the other issue it would be best to start a new section about it (I have no view of it). 124.183.163.127 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But in having no view on it, but having a view on this then you're being hypocritical. In fact, the addition I am pushing is of more importance than a number of unsubstantiated parts of the article, and it seems illogical to let them stand, and take this one down. The site can be set to search a timeline of quakes; also, this was a quake hypothesised as part of a set of aftershocks from the Caufield Quake)150.203.189.158 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is your point of view which is doesn't belong here. Again it isn't notable in terms of the scope of the project. 124.183.163.127 (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it is yours as well. There is an event in the dam's history; wiki records such history; there is a reliable source (more than can be said for much else in the article); thus, it should be considered a constructive edit. It is not a point of view, because it 'represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.' In fact, to argue that something is not notable because it did not cause failure, damage, or deaths, is further from NPOV. Also, considering wiki's other two criteria, 'verifiability' and 'no original research', then this addition fulfills both (in fact, this is why adding the view that hypothesis exists suggesting that it was an aftershock of the Caulfield Quake is not included because that is unverifiable and would require original research which would always be of a point of view). There is no need to halt the addition of useful information to this article.150.203.189.158 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your the one who admitted to the POV. No it is to do with notability not a POV, I have not point of view just stating the obvious. The new story is clearly one which is over kill (one that sells papers, even thought it was also put online) and the fact as to why Wiki has a one event policy. I'll rather see a Government agency/department/organisation's report on the quake. WTF about you keep on stating your original research hypothesis Caulfield Quake, your a very strange person as this has nothing to do with the quake recorded in Wyangala. 124.183.163.127 (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't originally understand POV; after reading the page, it made the addition seem clearly warranted. Why the article was written is certainly a POV question, and your statement is POV. There were, initially, suggestions, I am not supporting them at all, I am attempting to give you an example of something not suited to wiki.130.56.75.71 (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the content you keep adding is point of view. This is from the news article you citied "This was a minor incident and nothing had changed." which makes it not notable as it clearly states a statement made by State Water that it was minor and no damage. The other problem is the POV OR "The tremor was felt widely around the region, and caused emergency services to respond to fears of failure at Wyangala and Carcoar Dam.", the news article doesn't even state that emergency services (police, fire, SES ect) responded to the dams fearing that they may have failed but that was not the as it was State Water per ''"Dams are designed for significant earthquakes and there are procedures in place," said State Water Customer Service manager, Central Area, Geoff Borneman.


 * "We have a dam safety emergency plan, so as soon as it was confirmed a tremor had taken place, we checked the structure with a visual inspection and our instruments, both at Wyangala and Carcoar Dams."'' 124.183.163.127 (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

- As what has already been stated it is not notable, It was a single event that had no lasting effects. The content added by the Australian National University IP is totally misleading and not supported by sources, yes a 4.6 quake occurred, State Water stated that "dams are designed for significant earthquakes and there are procedures in place" and the fact is the source does not state that "caused emergency services to respond to fears of failure at Wyangala and Carcoar Dam", fact is it was even classed as a minor event. ''"We have a dam safety emergency plan, so as soon as it was confirmed a tremor had taken place, we checked the structure with a visual inspection and our instruments, both at Wyangala and Carcoar Dams.

"This was a minor incident and nothing had changed."''

This quake doesn't belong here as no lasting effects were caused, no significant damage was reported, no one was injured or killed and was even defined as a minor event by State Water. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - Okay. There will need to be clear discussion of the event in the article (the event mind you, the complaint is superfluous at best). Nonetheless, if your need is for a debate, then it can be displayed that alternate arguments were clearly lacking. The only arguments offered in defence of the alternate positions are only POV and notability:

POV is easily defeatable (there is a newsarticle; defined & delineated - the event is not POV).

Notability, separates:

"People notable for only one event" is bad application, if you want to argue it, I will correct it. The final facet of the argument

"Lasting Effects" is curiously poorly defined (to go further, disastrously). Your point clearly is ' a] minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable.'

However, this argument is futile. The earthquake in question had a serious effect (as per the concern expressed in the article) on the human population of Wyangala (this proposition (as per your argument) does not require humanity as a whole, just the human population in question (to express it in ""totality"" should eliminate events such as the Chicago Fire, the Rum Rebellion, and the Burning of Rome). Furthermore '[i]t may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.'

The event of an earthquake in the case of Wyangala Dam is not a POV issue. Evidence supports the simple delineation of an articulation of a historical event (in respect of the site, or as your other argument puts it, which should be accepted as an analogous point) which may or may not appear to be of exact or imperative vitality as of this direct second, may eventually (not automatically) prove important. Again, this is not a POV issue, because POV is generally attempt to avoid unsubstantiated, or self-researched writing from reaching Wikipedia. It is not a POV issue to argue a point. I.e. POV means that a writer should be 'representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources'. Now, unless you have feasible evidence to argue against the sources reliability then you are again wrong.

Furthermore, the argument, proposed by the quote, '"We have a dam safety emergency plan, so as soon as it was confirmed a tremor had taken place, we checked the structure with a visual inspection and our instruments, both at Wyangala and Carcoar Dams." This was a minor incident and nothing had changed' (which not only confuses primary sources from secondary source), is not only a contradiction, it is also no more than what an individual expressed as an opinion. Unlike the edit on this page (supported by further external fact), this aspect of the article includes only interpretation of the event, making it unimportant as to your argument.

Thus, the inclusion of a one of event is not insignificant. The event was important to a "human population". The edit did not consider a POV, it actively avoided such; a POV was expressed only in rebuttal. Also, further argument that it should be an event relegated to the depths of history was actually a POV concern, and should be re-examined before being submitted as a response. Therefore, the edit should be reinstated until further, considered and fully understood, changes are purported in response.

Attempts at complaint are especially pointless without discussion. You can be wrong, you realise?150.203.188.118 (talk)
 * Urm, was there damage to the dam walls? No, Did the dams fail? No, Does the source state that it responded fearing the dams collapsed? No, Did that say it was a major event? No. The event is a minor non notable one event, Your edits are not supported by sources making the POV and OR. Bidgee (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The earthquake was not notable by itself but I can't see any problem with a very brief mention in a history section like it is now. I personally would not have mentioned it because there was no impact. Drought has had a far larger impact and that wasn't mentioned in the article before I added some basics about that today. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Shiftchange about significnce of earthquake in this article. However, this ppears to be one of those occasions on WP where it is better to mention somethign non-notable, and clarify its non-notability, in anticipation of any future addition of misinformation. Having said that,I suggest the earthquake paragraph be moved to Wyangala, New South Wales (or whatever the relevant locality is) once that article is created. In this case, the earthquake is more relevant to the region than the dam.  Lord Vetinari  06:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Updating Needs
The article says "A A$43 million upgrade of facilities commenced in 2009 and, when completed by 2016, is expected to result ..." but a completion of 2016 must have happened by 2020. In fact, a Wall Street Journal article on July 20, 2020, page A20, describes at least 6 new dams or upgrades. There are more upgrades needed in this Wikipedia article, especially about opposition to the proposed work.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)