Talk:Mountaintop removal mining

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgan.emma, RenLK. Peer reviewers: Tlaloc0011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SandersJR, Camisasn28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV

This is a quite POV article -- at the very least, the mining industry's position should be cited. -- Jaysbro 14:45:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

• I added sections on legislation and economics of MTR, which should accomplish this. --doubleplusjeff 2006-27-08

• I added citation needed flags to the criticism section. This needs attention from an experienced Wikipedian who can correct the weasel words and poor formatting. Durova 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Economist recently labeled the coal industry 'Environmental Enemy No. 1.'" ... The source really seems to cite the burning of coal as Environmental Enemy #1; not the industry, and certainly not MTR. I moved this fact to the article Coal. Doubleplusjeff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the worse POV I have ever discovered on Wiki. From the first sentence the inflammatory and prejudice words flow. “often referred to as mountaintop mining/valley fills (MTM/VF),” Not all MTR mines involves valley fills. Some mines use the excess spoil to reclaim older pre-law mines. Other MTR mines utilize small hollow fills in combination with back stacking on bench. Trying to confuse the MTR mining and the valley fill issues is an attempt paint all surface mining on the top of a ridge with the more controversial practice of valley filling. Using the word “extreme topographic destruction and deforestation of the summit” ” is inflammatory. Would these same terms seem appropriate in the description of what happens when a contractor starts building a new housing sub-division.66.63.211.79 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com

Unless someone can make serious corrections I will change the section on "Process" to the following in order to remove POV comments and add more detailed facts: >>>Land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold or burned. According to the federal surface mining law SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation. however, coal companies are often granted waivers and instead reclaim the mountain with "topsoil substitute." The waivers are granted if adequate amounts of topsoil are not naturally present on the rocky ridge top. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. The overburden is then moved by various mechanically means to areas of the ridge previously mined. These areas are the most economical area of storage as they are located close to the active pit of exposed coal. If the ridge topography is to steep to adequately handle the amount of spoil produced then additional storage is used in a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill or “hollow fill”. A front-end loader or excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to a an often on-site processing plant. and washed. Millions of gallons of by-product from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open-air pools isolated from natural waterways by earthen dams. This procedure allows any usable coal particles to separate from the water and settle to the bottom. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators back stack spoil from the next area to be mined into the now empty pit. After backstacking and grading of spoil has been completed topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) is layered over the spoil layer. Next grass seed is spread in a mixture of seed, fertilizer, and mulch made from recycled newspaper. Dependant on mostly surface owner wishes the land will then be further reclaimed by adding trees if the post mining land use is forest land or wildlife habitat. If the land owner has requested other post mining land uses the land can reclaimed to be used as pastor land, economic development or other uses specified in the SMCRA.

Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in a vertical descent of hundreds of extra feet into the earth. Many of these seams mined in the MTR method are to thin to be mined using any other method of mining. <<< End of "process" changes

I have spent many years of my life working in the design and planing of MTR mines. I have retired from the industry for 15 years and love the mountains of East KY and WV. I have a healthy respect for the emotions that this subject brings out in good people on both sides. Wiki is not the place for debating POV for either side. This page should be factual and informative only.66.63.211.79 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reed@setel.com

The coal slurry impoundments mentioned in the "process" section have nothing to do with MTR mining. They are for disposal of waste materials from coal washing operations, which is done regardless of the mining method. Most pre-date the MTR mining going on in their vicinity. Mention of the impoundments should be removed as that are a topic for a separate article.

Also, draglines are used to excavate the blasted overburden, above the coal - not the coal. The coal is removed with front-end loaders and trucks, or shovels and trucks if the seam is thick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I should just go ahead and make the edit, but this is my first time actually making any kind of a contribution (not quite the first time I've wanted to, though :-) ). It seems to me that, in the Introduction, the phrase, "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States, the most biologically diverse temperate hardwood forests in the world", while technically factual (though unsourced), still reeks of POV. Unless some direct mention is made of environmental concerns in the Introduction, shouldn't this be moved to the Criticism section? Editing this to read "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States" would leave the clarity of location untouched, while removing the unexpected and out-of-place reference to ecological concerns.

References

Reference Source

Reverted back to include Toxic West Virginia reference. This is not link spam, this is an actual documentary that is directly related to this article. Thus this is a related to this piece and needs to be included. Also, you do not gain anything from google as wiki marks all links do not follow! (comment by User:Vicebs)

What if we put the Toxic West Virginia link in the External Links section, rather than the article text? If you don't approve of this, then maybe we could move create a new subsection of Criticism about the many documentaries or public awareness boosts that mountaintop removal has received recently (Appalachian Voices' "ilovemountains.org" would be another example for such a section), and move Toxic West Virginia there. I'd feel much more comfortable about including the link within the article if the advocate for doing so wasn't a representative of the company who produced the film... Doubleplusjeff 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Economics section a reference is needed for the sentence "Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow the only access to thin seams of coal that traditional underground mining would not be able to mine. MTR is some times the most cost-effective method of extracting coal and provides high paying jobs[15].[citation needed]" A good reference can be found on the web at the site http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/default.htm. I do not know how to add citation. Someone please add this site. Click "employment" on left margin and then "employment/ wages by county" for detailed informaition. This same site also has some great information of reclamationa and post mining land uses.

Also please add a section on Reclamation and Post mining land uses. A wonderful citation for this section would be the video from the state of Kentucky's web site on Coal Education. http://www.coaleducation.org/miningtv/Elk_in_KY/Elk_in_KY.htm. Please add this to help balance this article.199.43.48.149 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com

Fighting Back

Below is text I removed which I believe to be too biased or promotional. I think it would be good to have a summary of movements that are fighting against MTR, which summary could include a lot of material from this addition, but a laundry list of musicians who released albums and wrote books doesn't seem appropriate. --Rschmertz 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Artists Fighting Back

Writers in the region have been active in the fight against mountaintop removal. In 2005, 16 Kentucky writers released a public statement condemning the mining practice, which led to the issue being widely discussed in the state media for the first time. Those writers were also active in getting more national coverage for the topic, placing editorials in nationally-read newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. In 2006 the authors group released a book of their collected writing on the topic called Missing Mountains, edited by Kristin Johannsen, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary Ann Taylor-Hall. The book was surprisingly popular within the region and included an introduction by Silas House and an afterword by Wendell Berry. In 2006, Kentucky musicians banded together to create a compact disc of music that opposed mountaintop removal. The result was the bestselling Songs for the Mountaintop. Both book and album were produced by Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a group of concerned citizens that has been one of the leaders in the fight against mountaintop removal mining. In 2006, West Virginia writers released a similar authors statement and in 2000 one of West Virginia's best known authors, Denise Giardina, campaigned as governor on a ticket to stop mountaintop removal.

US Tag

I just did some major re-edits to the page, but my main point for writing on the discussion page is that I removed a US-centric tag from the page. The reason I removed it is that, while this page does concentrate on the US primarily, the practice takes place almost exclusively, as far as I've ever heard, in the appalachian mountains located in the US. While I've heard about plenty of strip mining in other countries, and a few MTR sites out west, but I've never heard of an MTR site in another country, so basically MTR is as American as Mount Rushmore and the tag seems as aptly placed here as it would be on that page. D-rew 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that really, MTR is by far most common in the US, so yeah, its not much help focusing on another country that hardly practices MTR at all. --66.32.252.104 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to include "U.S." where sentences related specifically to the U.S. I also added a reference to Peru's Yanacocha gold mine, which appears to use MTR. Doubleplusjeff (talk)

Yanacocha is open pit, not mountaintop removal. I removed the reference to Yanacocha.Plazak (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the specification "in the U.S." because I think it is unneccesary. As stated elsewhere on this page no references have been found to MTR outside the U.S. I'll give it a few days, but if no references can be found I think they should be removed.D-rew (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside links

So, the links section is too big, and I'm having difficulty whittling it down because so many of the different links are so similar (community groups against MTR). For most of them it would be difficult to justify which ones are more important, but I don't advocate deleting all of them because methinks they are an important part of the MTR debate. Any help i could get in this area would be...well...helpful.D-rew 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe add a subsection for the dozen-odd grass roots groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.180.196 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Mountaintop Removal Mining Index link removed? Seems like the kinda link we want.D-rew (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm thinking about creating a seperate page for the controversy over MTR per pages like Free trade controversy and Global Warming controversy. Thoughts?D-rew (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote would be to keep Controversy as part of the MTR core article, but to further break up this section into distinct sub-sections. I could easily see the following subheaders:

1. Biodiversity
2. Health Concerns ...which would contain the "coal-dust" paragraph, as well as perhaps info about well/groundwater pollution.
3. Sludge Ponds
4. Social Causes against MTR ... this is obviously a huge deal (if this sounds PoV, just look at the "External Links" section), in my opinion "newsworthy" enough to have its own section in an encyclopedic article.

Doubleplusjeff 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I like that idea, I think it'll certainly helps us all work on inevitable POV battles on a one by one basis, as well as laying the criticisms out better, for all to see. The biodiversity section and sludge ponds are already starting to look good .D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Controversy/Criticism section is getting pretty large and should be moved to Criticism of mountaintop removal mining (leaving a summary and a link to the main article). Only two of the sections above are stated in the main article and that section already takes up 1/2 of the page, although I think the sludge pond should be considered an issue with coal mining in general (although there is nothing referencing it in that article or in environmental effects of coal either), not just MTR, but that is a whole other kettle of fish. Maybe once Social causes (defiantly part of the criticism portion) and health concerns are added a split should take place...thoughts?--Kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I get concerned when the page reads the "main issue has been over the physical alteration of the landscape." Actually, nature will erode the mountains anyway. Since nobody is seeking to stop "natural" erosion, I don't think the controversy is the "alteration" of the landscape so much as it is the rate at which it changes and the effects, if any, of said change. Scientists will state that erosion will eventually reduce the mountains in the eastern USA to lower elevations. Is this "lowering of elevations" through "erosion" bad? No, we live in a dynamic system (the universe), and we can not stop these processes. Humans tend to like things to "stay the same" and generally are, for some reason, scared of change. Let us at least describe the reason opposition to mountaintop mining exists and stay away from describing it as being concerned with the "physical alteration of the landscape." The landscape will change--when the temperatures rise, when sea-level rises, etc... I'd follow facts--does it degrade water quality, reduce habitat, provide jobs, and others so that people can reach a decision--on their own. I don't think Wikipedia should "preach." Rather, I'd like to see Wiki provide honest facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.86.101 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On avoiding future edit wars

• How do ya'll think this statement should read.

"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."

I edited it to read

"The controversy over..."

but it was reverted by TMLutas for this reason "Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining."

Despite a lack of evidence to the contrary I edited in the poorly worded statement "More generally many object to the use of coal as an energy source." which was rv by Djoeyd114, as NPOV issue.

My question is, how should it read? I think we should say what the controversy over MTR is, and not wishy-washy around it. If there is something besides the issues listed that is controversial about MTR, it seems like it should be added to make this page all the more encyclopedic. Opinions?D-rew 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think that this is pretty clear:

"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."Athene cunicularia 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't you want to state what all the controversy is over. If the statement doesn't entirely cover the controversy (implied by the some) than it seems we can put what else is controversial. Not to mention I've heard few lamer resons than this"Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining" for editing. D-rew 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a good draft for how it should read but here's my two cents on the big picture. Some people don't like energy, period. They're called luddites and rarely operate in the open because their ideals are so ugly once you work out the math (90%+ human death rates to get to a sustainable luddite world) that few actually openly adhere to the ideology. Other people don't like coal because they perceive it as dirty and ecologically unsound. Any technique that enhances the economic viability of coal is going to get dumped on by these greens.

And then there's the crowd that have no problem with energy, no problem with coal, yet find MTR to be a bad idea. This is the most attractive of the opposition positions and all three factions will tend to make public statements on these grounds to maximize their popularity and effectiveness.

I believe a good open would recognize the anti-coal and anti-energy aspects of MTR controversy while concentrating on those opponents who are merely upset about this specific technique. TMLutas 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Advocating for a lack of POV, How about this as a last statement?

Coal's mining and use as a fuel have long been controversial amongst environmentalists due to potential environmental impact and coal burning's potential role in global warming. Much of the controversy over MTR ,however, stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, and well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.

My guess is (observing some of your statements) you might not like the GW tie in. The reason I inserted it is to get a full view of what the controversy is over, and, like you said, go general to specific.D-rew 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• How about this

Because of the destructive nature of the practice, Mountaintop removal mining is controversial among environmentalists, local residents, and others; controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.Athene cunicularia 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I posted this two days ago and nobody has responded, I'm going to edit the page.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• In an attempt to include both sides I edited the paragraph to read

Because of the physically destructive nature of the practice, MTR mining is controversial, and is disparaged by environmentalists, local residents, and others. Controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well as from the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal. Advocates of MTR point out its efficiency, its ability to provide jobs, and the resulting increase of flat land in areas where there is often little.

Approve / Disapprove?D-rew (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd highlight the contradiction that people who oppose mountaintop mining do not oppose "natural" erosion that will reduce the elevations of the mountains. Simply expose a flaw in that argument does not mean that mountaintop mining is any more "acceptable." Rather, it simply removes a flaw in many arguments made to say that mountaintop mining is "wrong" or "bad" due simply to the topographical alteration. Since "natural" erosion will eventually lead to lower elevations, it isn't the change in elevation that is alarming or controversial. It may be the rate of said change is a problem, but nobody is suggesting we go build Mount Saint Helens back up to its "pre-blow" dimensions--and that was a big change. Rather it is "man" that is changing the mountain top. I'd simply describe "changes in topography are often cited as ..... but that nobody complains when natural process alter topography (give examples if you want)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.86.101 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Valley Fill Photo?

Anyone have a quality photo of a valley fill? The article refers to these over and over, but the textual description is difficult to convey what one actually is. Please include a photo thumbnail if you have one. Doubleplusjeff —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

ilovemountains.org has some good images on their flickr site. I'm currently in contact with someone at the organization in an attempt to be allowed to use the images b/c they are copyrighted.D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good valley fill pix here - sorry Im a new user and cant add them - these are not copyrighted

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html&usg=__guTK_Xuaq6w1781p53zKF7abz4I=&h=394&w=525&sz=30&hl=en&start=15&sig2=hpXp6ZW7L7L6Xg3iYUw3Cw&tbnid=qOhmcl8AeTPpqM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&ei=P6wpSZzbHqDMefe8vMQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmartin%2Bcounty%2Bcoal%2Bimpoundment%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den --Flashdark (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any progress on getting a free photo of a valley fill? There are a lot at Flickr; it's just a question of sending a Flickr Mail to the photographer and requesting that they change their license on that photo to Creative Commons. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Global tag

Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag?Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want the full shpeel see the US tag talk portion of the page. In short its not that this page isn't centered on the US, its that all evidence points to MTR being centered in the US. If we can get some references on global MTR sites or something like that than I think the tag could be placed back in.D-rew (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got it, thanks. Sorry for the oversight. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, never hurts to reiterate these things.D-rew (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind of strip mining?

Isn't this just a kind of strip mining? Isn't the main difference that this tends to remove more surface layers (and are not expected to restore them)? In theory a strip mine might be shallow and could work its way beyond the horizon, by having one working trench and placing the removed surface layers behind it as it progressed. Removing a mountain top implies not gluing together a replacement (which is not practical with current costs and materials). -- SEWilco (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Strip mining is so named, not because it "strips" off the overlying rock, but because the mining is done in long strips. In contour stripping (in mountainous terrain), mining is done in long strips along the outcrop. In area stripping (in flat ground), mining is again done in long strips, with the overburden from each strip placed in the excavation produced by the previous strip. As far as I know, mountaintop removal mining is not done in long strips, and so more resembles open-pit mining (paradoxically, however, without the pit) than strip mining. I'm not a coal miner, but there are probably some out there who can correct any errors in my statement. Plazak (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you have taken it upon yourself in the Mining article to redefine Mountaintop Removal Mining as a type of strip mining. Perhaps you should consult with others first. Plazak (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sludge ponds

NOTE: The thread about the Buffalo Creek Flood was moved from another section of the Discussion page to here, for semantic cohesion.
While the Buffalo Creek Flood illustrates the danger of slurry ponds, this particular dam wasn't a result of mountaintop removal, but rather another type of coal mining. Of course, the article doesn't directly attribute it to MTR, but perhaps another example would be better. Doubleplusjeff 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Buffalo Creek disaster in the mountaintop removal article is highly misleading, as it implies that the disaster was connected to mountaintop removal. This example whould be removed. Plazak 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not stated in the article that either of the two sludge ponds mentioned, either at Marsh Fork Elementary School, or the Martin County Sludge Spill, are related to MTR. If they are related to MTR, this fact should be stated and documented. If not, they should be moved to the article on coal sludge ponds. Plazak (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are MTR mines above both the Marsh Fork School and at Martin County Coal, where the Oct 2000 spill occurred. I have personally seen both of these mine sites and photos are here http://www.appvoices.org/images/MarshForkAerial_full.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashdark (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo shown in the link above does not show a MTR mine above the impoundment. I live in the center of the MTR area and have worked on MTR jobs. Most MTR mines do not have sludge ponds. Sludge ponds are used in conjunction with "coal washer plants" that primarily porcess coal mined from underground mines. The sludge spills should not be allowed in this article. 199.43.32.81 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reed@setel.com

I work for MSHA in a Division responsible for slurry/tailings ponds. The Shumate Prep Plant and Impoundment (near Marsh Fork school) and the Brushy Fork Prep Plant and Impoundment up the valley, both have received almost all their coal from underground mines. This will change a bit as the MTR operations nearby start up - but the slurry imprisonments have nothing to do with MTR - they would be needed regardless of the mining method.

I will remove the reference to them in the "Process" section - which itself needs much further amplification. The "sludge pond" section really doesn't belong in this article at all but needs to be in a separate article or as an expansion to the (currently incomplete) Tailings pond article. I'll let someone else remove this section and take the flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the sludge pond section is misplaced> I will (temporarily) blank it pending moving it to a more appropriate place.--Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

External links

I reduced the number of external links (~30 down to 2). Most of the links were to grassroots groups who oppose MTR or videos by them, some were EPA stuff (the two i kept are). Not sure if they were the right ones to keep but something had to be done. I also added the no more links tag, so if links are to be added, they should be discussed here first, subjects like this tend to draw lots of external link attention.--Kelapstick (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The external links section had indeed become overgrown, but such a mass deletion of all links except the government's seems slightly suspect, especially for an article about a controversial practice. Perhaps rather than leaving those references absent from the page, we could summarize the main media works and organizations (Media and Organizations were the two main subheadings of the former external links) somewhere else in the article -- in an encyclopaedic style, of course, rather than listing links! A cursory glance at those links you removed reveals that most were critical of the practice, so I suggest (see also my suggestion under the "Criticism" heading of this discussion page) we put those two subheaders under the Criticism section of the article. --Doubleplusjeff (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the content of the external links section could be summerised into prose in the appropriate section, using in-line citations to reference them. The content of the links is far more valuble if included in the body of the article, rather than as a bulk list at the end of the article. I may have been a little excessive in my external link removal, but IMO the majority of the external links section in any article should be about the subject itself, not about opposition to the subject.--Kelapstick (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

article split

I copied the criticism section in a new article (Criticism of mountaintop removal mining) and the see also links that were to opponents of MTR mining, as they are more related to the criticism of MTR than to MTR itself. The leading two paragraphs are still in this article, but the criticism is large enough to warrent its own. The criticism section of any article should not make up half the content, even if it is a controversial subject.--Kelapstick (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to review what you've done here and I've reverted you and deleted the criticism page. I don't really have much of an opinion about this article because I know nothing about this subject but shunting the criticism off to the side on an article that isn't excessive in length does raise concerns about a POV fork. I ask you to please discuss moving the content with other editors because I don't think this is a non-controversial move. The reason I reverted you is that when you created the new article, you violated the terms of the GFDL by not referring to the fact that you had copied the text from this page, but rather it was presented as though it was all your own work. This is a violation of the GFDL which requires the original authors be credited with their work. Please don't move it again without a consensus with other editors. Sarah 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I reverted the page move to a capitalised title because this article describes a mining process and doesn't appear to be a proper noun. The article itself doesn't use capitals except for when using acronyms and both the websites used as external links use lower case. So I can't understand why it was capped and there doesn't appear to be any discussion here. I don't have any personal objection to it being capitalised if it is decided that is appropriate but it doesn't seem consistent with the MOS or with its usual usage. Sarah 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image size

I removed the forced image size of the two pictures in the article heading, they were pretty big, and overlapped (on was centred). They maybe should be a little bigger and moved somewhere further down the article (or not). Also there is an image of a Dragline at the Centralia Coal Mine, is that an MTR mine, the mine's article doesn't say anything about it.--kelapstick (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral writing/NPOV nomination

Though it appears to have been discussed in years past, I took a look at this article, and it only took a moment or two for it to reek of bias to me. I've found numerous places where both the writing and the content appear to have a conspicuous lack of neutrality, earning a flag for each. To go over a few of the more prominent examples that stuck out:

• Writing: This isn't quite as serious a problem as the POV one, but it still further compounds things. Many of the issues here might not be the result of deliberate bias, but nonetheless exemplify what to strive to avoid when writng a neutral article.
  • Potential over-use of double-quotes: Starting right with the introduction, I see heavy use of double-quotes around various terms. According to the Manual of Style, they would be justified if the enclosed terms were being used in an unconventional or unattrubatble manner, but given that they appear to all be cited through reliable sources, use of double-quotes is unjustified. In such cases, because the purpose is to mention the word rather than use it, the Manual of Style recommends italics instead.
    • I would also note that not all uses of double-quotes are unjustified, though, as some properly fulfil the use of scare quotes, such as the term "fill material", as it is in reference to the term being ill-defined. The quotes are unjustified merely when the term has a well-cited or consensus definition that is being used.

• Weasel words: While it appears that prior attempts have cleaned some of these up, I notice some still remain. One quote that stands out is "According to SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation." The sentence is cited with what appears to be a good, reliable source. Were the statement a known lie, the use of the phrase "according to" would be justified. However, as the exception is based on the granting of waivers, which aren't gauranteed.

Similarly, "Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice..." doesn't appear to be cited, and is another classic example of weasel words? Who, precisely, are the critics? It should either have a reliable source cited right there that echoes the same statement, or should be removed in favor of a more list-like organization detailing specific examples of these "critics."

Lastly, I see mention of "desired geological material," which strikes me as an unusual way to describe mineral resources. This feels like it could be another example of weasel-wording, in a manner as to try and distance it from more "accepted" resources.

• Point-of-View: It appears that this article, which is about an apparently passionate subject matter, has had a lot of non-neutrality built into the content. Avoiding bias in an encyclopediac article is relatively simple; for a subject like this, the article should discuss the definition of the subject, its context, (history, legal environment, etc.) and then its impacts, (economic, ecological, health) including any reception/response/criticism arising from it; even with the apparent majority being critical of the subject, it's still possible to maintain neutrality while not giving undue weight to any potential counter-viewpoints. Here's some examples I spotted where things went wrong:
  • Improper/poorly-cited introduction: The first half is allright. "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts..." however, is apparently un-cited, only sourcing the "adverse human health impacts." That level of detail doesn't belong in the introduction; mention of criticism can be warranted, if included in a neutral manner. As is, it appears to give undue weight to criticism, as this article is not "Criticism of Mountaintop mining removal."
  • Early focus on deforestation: Although it's not until the "process" section right thereafter where it's even explained how deforestation directly comes into play, the fourth paragraph of the "overview" section switches right from describing the location of MRM, and then launching into a well-cited series of notes on the deforestation taking place there. Such sentences are well-sourced and written in a manner that on its own is satisfactorally neutral, but its placement is problematic, again applying undue weight. Rather, it should be further down the article, as one of the core statements of the "environmental impacts" section.
  • What's the SMCRA? While I was able to go and readily find out that the article was referencing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, the article provides no inline linking or any case where it even provides the full name. While mostly an error of writing/wikifying the article, it also could be construed to try and minimize the weight of this piece of legislation which is core and critical to the article.
  • Messy "impacts" section: For the most part, this sections problems are NOT neutrality-related, but amidst the poor organization of it, it also placed some more undue weight on "critics contend"s. This section is on impacts, not "critics," so it should follow a clear structure that reflects this, based around a small number of core, well-established facts, such as the previously-mentioned section on deforestation. Then it should follow up with more specific supporting notes on each major point.
  • The entire "Community Action" section: This is possibly the worst offender in terms of POV in the article. Beginning with "Some artists have been leaders in the fight against the process of mountaintop removal," it reads right off as more or less a direct advertisement for a cause. That section should not even exist, at least as named and structured. Certainly, there's room for "criticism," and with a topic this controversial such a section is necessary in order for the article to be neutral. But to lay it out as if it's accepted consensus that opposing MRM is "the good fight" is downright bias. Some of the contents could be worked into a proper "criticism" section where appropriate, but by and large the section needs to be deleted.

Overall, I see that this article DOES have the potential to be neutral, but it's got a long way to go. And right now, the lack of neutrality is almost certainly the biggest single detriment to the article: normally lack of solid content and inline citations/sources are the biggest hurdle toward getting to B/GA+ status, but this article already has way, way more good sources listed than any other Start-class I've seen. It just needs stronger neutrality. Nottheking (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say and have made some changes to the article. The "Community action" section has been cut back a lot, and the title changed to "Books and films". I'm removing the tags, and ask that you edit the article in the usual way to make any further changes that are needed. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

7 Years Later

This article is still as biased as it was.

This article was added as a subset to the "Surface Mining" article. Where it belongs.

Additionally, the proper name is Mountain Top Mining. MTR is only used by environmentalists... Google: "Mountain Top Removal Mining" the only results are from environmentalist sites.

By allowing the name to stay this article remains a POV issues and furthers an agenda.

Deletion of article, merging under surface mining, renaming to its proper name: Mountain Top Mining.

PeterWesco (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Than I would suggest attempting to improve it and submitting a formal move request rather than outright proposing it for deletion.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed the article should be titled mountaintop mining and mounaintop removal mining should simply link to this page, and not be the title.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mountaintop removal mining → Mountaintop mining – WP:POVTITLE WP:PRECISION. Mountaintop Removal Mining is "new speak" used by environmental groups. MTM is the name used in text books, non-agenda publications, the US Goverment, etc. To illustrate this point I refer to one of the POV references used in the article: http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/ The aforementioned source describes their anger that the government has not adopted their terminology. The continued use of MTRM instead of MTM is a continued demonstration on the blatant POV of this article. MTR/MTRM will still be referenced in the article and it will be done in a way to remain NPOV and certainly not how MTM is currently referenced. Precision: As discusssed below, MTM is surface mining and always requires the removal of the mountaintop. PeterWesco (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:CAPS, Mining should not be capitalized. Comment. Regarding POV, it is impossible for this article to have a so-called neutral POV. With the word "removal", it is "biased" in favor of environmentalists, without the word "removal" it is biased in favor of industry. As long as both are covered in the lead sentence, what's the big deal? The only way Wikipedia could remain "neutral" is to change the title back and forth on some regular schedule. As per point of fact though doesn't the operation in fact "remove" a mountain top, i.e., after the mining is done, is not the surveyed elevation of the mountain lower? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Another thought: Do mining operations ever put an underground mine shaft on the top of a mountain, mine at the top of the mountain by extracting coal up the shaft, leaving the mountaintop intact, and not removing it? If so, then perhaps this article needs the word "removal" to disambiguate this type of mining from the underground shaft type which is done on a mountaintop. If mountain top mining always removes the mountaintop, then I suppose this disambiguation is unnecessary, and per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." So if "mountaintop mining" unambiguously defines the fact that the mountain top is removed, then perhaps the word "removal" is over-precision and can be removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mountain Top mining always involves the removal of the mountain top. The process described in the article is not disputed. Explosives are used to take off the summit ridge, the waste is dumped in the valleys, etc etc. It is a form of surface mining... Surface mining does not involve shafts. Refer to the article: surface mining. Agreed on MOS:CAPS, I have adjusted to address your (correct) concern. PeterWesco (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. On 20 January 2007, Mountaintop removal moved to Mountaintop removal mining, reason: This name is used in the article and is more accurate. It also matches what is used in wictionary. Moving more in an "industry-friendly" direction. Keeping both removal and mining in the title, rather than one or the other, is a fair compromise? But checking out Wiktionary, since 14 January 2007, the entry has been wikt:mountaintop removal. I see that the acronyms used in the article are either MTR or MTM, there is no MTRM acronym in the article. I suppose "mountaintop removal" unambiguously defines a mining operation, unless one might remove a mountain for some reason other than resource extraction. Maybe, per WP:COMMONNAME "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Baffling. How exactly is this a POV title when you concede that "Mountain Top mining always involves removal of the mountain top."? You're on slightly firmer ground with the precision argument, but I had never heard your proposed title, so I decided to play the hits game (phrases in quotation marks, -wikipedia for the general search, keyword search for WorldCat):

Term	Google	GBooks	GNews	GScholar	JSTOR	WorldCat
Mountaintop removal mining	184,000	3,340	157	572	33	135
Mountaintop mining	110,000	2,920	104	711	39	100

As you can see, it's very mixed usage. I agree with Wbm that both possibilities are POV (cf. the repeated clashes over Pink slime), but it looks like the current title was chosen as a compromise between "Mountaintop removal" (skews anti-industry) and "Mountaintop mining" (skews pro-industry). It seems we're all agreed that the topic in question is literally mining after the removal of a mountaintop, so I see no compelling reason to change. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per BDD, further, you can mine at the top of the mountain by tunneling without removal, so it becomes ambiguous with the rename -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Both terms are used, both are used to advocate a POV position, so neutrality and commonname don't help us much here. However in the form described here, mountaintops are removed, so clarity favours the current nameat Mountaintop removal mining.Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, although I think it's not all that important, for the sake of NPOV I agree with the renaming as the most authoritative publications on the process use MTM and not MTRM.

See here Large Numbers of Birth Defects Seen Near Mountaintop Mining Operations 2011- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm

& http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153119.htm Cumulative Impact of Mountaintop Mining Documented Boundarylayer (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. PeterWesco (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Also called "hilltop removal mining"?

Is there a specific term for mining on the summit of a hill instead of a mountain or are they called the same thing? Hilltop removal mining does not redirect to this article. Volcanoguy 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

It's Hobet, not Hobit, you ignorant, murderous environmental liberals. As for POV, this entire article is written from one that paints all capitalists and workers as some kind of demonic entity. It's skewed so far left that it's nothing more than socialist propaganda.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mountaintop removal mining. 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/20081120041942/http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html to http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html

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

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) 08:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legislation in the United States

Hello, I have added informaiton to the legislation section. Some information pertained to what was previously posted, but I have added the most recent information I could find.Camisasn28 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reclamation

Hi Wikipedia, I added a reference to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to the section on reclamation of Mountaintop Removal mine sites. I also included links to other relevant pages from within the section, including the wiki pages on erosion and reforestation. I felt that it was important to include the legislation the laid the groundwork for how MTR mine sites are reclaimed today. SandersJR (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias

"Critics contend that...", this transition sentence comes across as ambiguous. The opposing groups pertinent to this topic are not clear. I also do not think that a "Critics" section is necessary or helpful. Would a section providing historical context of opposing groups that have been involved be more effective? Morgan.emma (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Mountaintop removal mining in urdu

Translate it 202.47.55.103 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)