Talk:Carmichael coal mine

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carmichael coal mine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919231015/http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au:80/major-projects/expanding-the-port-of-abbot-point.html to http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/major-projects/expanding-the-port-of-abbot-point.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Jobs and economic benefits

The jobs and benefits growth is basically a list of various claims and quotations. That is not what we should be including in an encyclopedia. We need to summarise into Wikipedia's voice, not just regurgitate others speech or views. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Try being unbiased. If that mine has cons, it has some pros too Abheygpt1 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• biased Abheygpt1 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal challenges

The following cases need to be added:

• 2016 Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Minister for the Environment [2016] FCA 1042

• 2017 Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Minister for the Environment and Energy [2017] FCAFC 134.

Skinnytony1 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

coal ash quality

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD regarding the refusal of (talk) and (talk) to provide any clear description of their reversions of the article, I ask here that they refrain from edit warring. they have stated that I did not provide a reference and i have performed original research. a statement under oath does not constitute original research. the reference directly contradicts the ABC article. The ABC article directly discusses the contents of this court case and misrepresents it. please review the reference.

This is a reflection of the total mineral content of the entire coal deposit however Adani has planned to target coal seam strata for bypass coal, coal of lower overall ash content and higher quality than the total average of all coal in the basin ie. the most valuable coal, that does not require washing, a standard industry practice in which low quality deposits of coal are not mined.

Please familiarise yourself with the original research policy. Wikipedia does not care what your interpretation of the court evidence is. It cares what the interpretations in reliable sources are. If you can find a reliable source that agrees with you, go to town. If you can't, then you're out of luck. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

the dubious tag describes accurately how they are misinterpreting the evidence provided hence this source is unreliable because it is based on fabrication and omission. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You claim that they are misinterpreting the evidence. Wikipedia doesn't care a jot for what some rando on the internet thinks about the conclusions of the ABC. It cares about what reliable sources have to say. If you can find a reliable source that agrees with you, cool! If you can't, then you're just out of luck. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What The Drover's Wife said - I also can't help thinking that if this is actually a contradictory claim there won't be any problem at all finding reliable sources discussing it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, no reliable source = no inclusion and I think the POV tag can also be removed. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

POV tag should go. No proof of POV edits. Ratel (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References