Talk:Thacker Pass lithium mine

MMIW

removed "missing and murdered women" from lead for now as WP:undue weight. There is a sentence still in the body of the article so perhaps someone would like to expand that to explain how the concerns relate to this mine in particularChidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The content of the lead is the result of a WP:BRD consensus process involving multiple editors. Please don't remove content without discussion. I can expand information about MMIW concerns if necessary to clarify that connection for readers, but the connections between resource extraction and MMIW are well established and confirmed by extensive studies. It has also been voiced in dozens of articles in the specific context of this mine. Native people's concerns about the safety of their women represent a valid environmental justice concern, and it is not undue weight for it to be listed among the concerns they have expressed about this mine. Larataguera (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added more content about MMIW as requested. I felt like this additional background on environmental justice concerns cluttered the protests section, so I modified the section about environmental concerns to hold this information. Hope this helps. Larataguera (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to provide more background on the MMIW issue, because I think that Chidgk1 is correct that this issue needs further explanation. Most readers are probably not aware of correlations between resource extraction and MMIW. When I provided the background, it was reverted by Avatar317. I've now re-written it without using sources that don't specifically mention Thacker Pass. I get it that the sources need to be connected to this mine in order to avoid original research. That said, the synthesis of these issues (this mine, and MMIW) is not my synthesis. People have voiced these concerns repeatedly in secondary sources. If the reader needs additional background in order to understand these concerns, I don't see an issue with linking to other sources that support this correlation, such as the Canadian national inquiry or other articles. It's not as if I'm doing original research to draw these correlations in the first place. I'm providing background so that people can better understand the correlations that are already being made in the secondary sources. Larataguera (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, sources that correlate resource extraction with MMIW generally are not misplaced in this article, because Thacker Pass is resource extraction. If an article about dogs used a source with information about mammals, no one would think twice, because dogs are mammals. Thacker Pass is resource extraction, and sources about resource extraction are relevant (especially when they provide background needed to understand broader issues that people are voicing). Larataguera (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You linked to an article from a highly POV environmental group and a Twitter post that did not contain what you claim. These are not reliable sources. Also you are committing a form of original resarch called Synthesis and it appears you are doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.36.61.37 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Research you find about Resource-Extraction could go in an article about RE, but not THIS article. If a news source mentions that the mine will use trucks, we can link to trucks, but we don't devote space in this article further explaining what a truck is, any more than what sources about THIS subject talk about the specific type of trucks the mine will use.

The problem with your reasoning is that it allows cherry-picking for correlations or side-topics one editor may want to include. Those same correlations may also exist for ANY large projects in remote areas, like dams, aqueducts, solar, and wind farms. Not all "resource extraction" activities are equally similar. Plain (old-style) oil drilling and fracking are both RE, but fracking has profoundly different impacts to the water table. Each type of mining has specifically differing impacts. It is OR to claim generalized RE impacts from THIS mine when sources do not make that specific connection.

As a side comment, it should also be made clear whether the connection is stated as fact by a NEUTRAL reporter, or ALLEGED by proponents/opponents. Thanks for finding better references for the other statements!!---Avatar317^(talk) 01:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Avatar317 for clarifying your edits in this discussion. I appreciate your objective approach. I'm fine with the MMIW content more-or-less as is.

It is concerning that when other editors provide background with sources such as this one or this one or this one, no one objects that these sources don't mention Thacker Pass. Why is it apparently acceptable to provide background about domestic lithium production, but not about environmental justice? Both are complex topics that some readers may need help understanding, but only one of these topics is allowed to benefit from background information.

Similarly, I'll be the first to say that Wilbert isn't an objective source, but LAC CEO John EvansLithium Nevada CEO Alexi Zawadzki's explanation of how this mine will stop climate change is allowed to sit in this article indefinitely; Wilbert's explanation of MMIW concerns is removed immediately. I think we should ask ourselves why that is?

Is anyone going to remove Zawadzki's Evans' statements? Three quarters of the sources in the cultural history section probably don't mention thacker pass lithium mine. Is anyone going to remove that content? Obviously I could do these things, but I half expect I'd be accused of advocacy if I did. To be clear, I'm not speaking to anyone in particular here. I just think there's a systemic bias. Larataguera (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

1) Background info on lithium not connected to this mine is also Original Research and should be removed. I can look at those instances you note. (Not to excuse what you're seeing, but I think a lot of people don't properly understand Wikipedia's OR policy: this part: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article,... ") I'd like to note that I haven't read all of this article and only came across it recently, and have only tried to improve sections that I have read.

2) You may have missed my previous comment on this Talk page; I was waiting for some input, but I did intend to remove the majority of the "Cultural History" section as OR and irrelevant.

3) I think I removed the LAC CEO's statement with this edit, but I can't find any reference to anyone named "Evans" in the article...??

Thanks for pointing these things out!---Avatar317^(talk) 01:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It was the CEO of the Nevada subsidary (Zawadski). Can't keep all these billionaires straight! Larataguera (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317 On the CEO paraphrase: Per Wikipedia:Quotations: "We encourage the inclusion and use of all reliable sources—including biased ones—but biased and point-of-view (POV) content must be reliably sourced and POV language must be quoted and attributed, rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Our neutral point of view (NPOV) policy requires editors to avoid biasing content in a directon that is different from that of the original source, whether by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering or overemphasis." -- this means when you try to create WP:DUE in an article, you include clearly biased or "invested" voices, as long as you aren't using the quotation to bias the article in one direction or another. This is more common in articles about creative works, like Novels or Films, or in Politics articles -- where you need the position of the politician. In this case, its worth bringing the voice of the organization into the article, but with clear language describing how the author is trying to change the opinion of others, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

See also, WP:BIASED, Sadads (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that we've run into a little trouble removing Zawadski's opinions. I have replaced Wilbert's explanation of MMIW issues. Larataguera (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: The ESSAY (not policy) you link to on Quotations, says, as you point out: "We encourage the inclusion and use of all reliable sources..." If you read the WP:SPS section, the CEO's OPINION is a RS for what HE BELIEVES and can used in an article about HIM, but not about the mine. *IF* an Independent Source quotes him (and likely would also quote the protesters), than we can include those quotes from the IS.

The problem with using the CEO's opinion article and Wilbert's opinion article, is that neither one of those necessarily represent the broad swath of mine supporters and opponents. An IS would put their views in perspective, as the "The Nation" article did saying that Wilbert is a member of "Deep Green Resistance (DGR), a radical movement". We need an IS to put the CEO's opinion in perspective as to whether the majority of mine supporters agree with his views or not. IS's would add perspective to individual opinions and are the proper place to get viewpoints for proper WP:DUE balance.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Example of why Independent Sources are needed rather than opinion articles

from: CNN [Max Wilbert] said: "Electric cars won't actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions that much; they will reduce emissions but not by a sizable amount." Driving gas-powered vehicles in the US comes at a cost to the climate. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation account for nearly 30% of total US emissions; more than any other sector, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Note that the statement of the opinion writer was fact-checked and rebutted by the Independent Source reporter. This is the type of reporting we need for BOTH Wilbert and the CEO's opinions.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, this example doesn't actually make your point very well, because if this is a fact-check and rebuttal by the Independent Source, then it's a vast oversimplification of a complex issue. This can happen when non-experts interview experts. A more nuanced opinion by Wilbert would discuss how electric cars merely move carbon emissions from the transportation sector into the manufacturing sector, because they have higher embodied energy, etc etc... We obviously can't get into a discussion about all that here, but in this example one could argue that the article would actually benefit from a more nuanced analysis by Wilbert (if such an analysis were published in relation to this mine), rather than this cursory rebuttal by a non-expert interviewer Larataguera (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Except Wilbert doesn't seem to have given a more nuanced opinion. Maybe he doesn't understand the issue in all its nuance. Do you have any sources that say that Wilbert's opinion was more nuanced than what the reporter reported?---Avatar317^(talk) 06:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't speculate on what Wilbert told the reporter, but Wilbert has co-authored a well reviewed book on this topic. Reviews indicate that the book is detailed and exhaustive, that the authors are knowledgeable, and the book is well researched. Wilbert's assessment is apparently dour (and hence unpopular), but even cold reviews acknowledge his nuanced and comprehensive analysis. Larataguera (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We simply do not use very many primary sources on Wikipedia because you usually have to interpret them and then you go down the original research rabbit hole.1.36.61.37 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that we are having a conflict over the need for reliable, secondary sources is sad. The editor arguing for using primary sources so extensively is in fact here for the sole purpose of POV pushing.70.89.187.53 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to fundraising site, possible single purpose account

Larataguera made an edit that included a link to a fund raising site. I removed the link, I'll probably add a citation needed template. The account might be a WP:SPA, they have only edited this article and may have a WP:COI. Rather than linking to the fund raising site, it would be better to find a WP:RS that reports about the petition. Cxbrx (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cxbrx:I hadn't been able to find a better citation for the petition, but I'm sure one will come up. Totally fine with leaving it uncited until that time. Larataguera (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We are indeed looking at an SPA that is not here to build an encyclopedia.70.89.187.53 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Problematic "Cultural history" section - most of which should be moved to its own article or removed

The content following the first two paragraphs in this section, starting with "In September 1865, Robert C....." seem to not be at all about the mine, but rather a history of the attack or massacre which occurred nearby...which means that by Wikipedia standards, this is irrelevant Original Research. WP:OR

It could potentially be put into its own article, but I'm not familiar with the notability standards of historical events. But other than a pointer to such an article, the above-mentioned content doesn't belong in THIS article.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We could create an article on Thacker Pass as a natural and cultural artificat. i think it would look pretty good.1.36.61.37 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is grist.org a WP:RS?

Hi ‎Larataguera, I saw your two recent additions citing https://grist.org. I'm not so sure grist.org is a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_130 Grist.org being used as a reliable source? does not provide a definitive answer. Perhaps grist.org should be avoided here if similar material can be found elsewhere?

In particular, your edit added the term "pre-colonial". That term is not present in the grist article, though you added the term when you added one of the grist references. The other reference to First Voices Indigenous Radio is probably not WP:RS and should be replaced with something else as well.

In that same change, you state that a second massacre occurred at the site and use grit as a citation.

Is there any chance that you could find support for a earlier massacre in a WP:RS and remove the links to grist and perhaps First Voices Indigenous Radio? Cxbrx (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Grist is NOT a Reliable Source, or Independent Source: WP:IS. Their listed mission on their about page is: Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Our goal is to use the power of storytelling to illuminate the way toward a better world, inspire millions of people to walk that path with us, and show that the time for action is now. Since 1999, we have used the power of journalism to engage the public about the perils of the most existential threat we face. - They are clearly more of an advocacy organization, who will only tell one version of a story; the version that supports their point of view.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that Grist is generally pro-lithium, pro-electric car (per their emphasis on climate change). So if the concern is that this source wouldn't fairly represent BLM and LAC, I don't think that's too likely. here they discuss mining lithium from the Yellowstone Caldera without mentioning any downsides. They seem to like the idea of EVs being accessible to everyone. They hope that Tesla batteries will usher in a solar powered utopia. And indeed the article does provide some balance from an LAC spokesperson; they also mention the ambiguity of the opposition from the Ft. McDermitt tribe. So Avatar317, if they're only telling the version that supports their POV, I'm not sure where that POV would be on this mine.

@Cxbrx I'll see if I can find a better source, but I'm afraid the history of this site has become hopelessly muddled. It goes back to what I said months ago (not sure if you remember) about Indigenous oral traditions being marginalised by Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. (By the way, since then I've come across this, which partially sums it up. I knew it would be somewhere.) There is an old opinion piece by Wilbert that discusses the earlier inter-tribal massacre, but I don't think it's much good here.

In short, if someone wants to revert those edits, I won't take it personally. I'd appreciate it if there was some language to maintain the Grist article, because I actually do think they're a reliable source for this particular issue. I suspect that there will be more sources referencing the earlier massacre later on, and maybe some of those sources will be more reputable. I shouldn't have used the term pre-colonial if it wasn't in the source. My apologies. I'll take that part out anyway. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, looks like they were already reverted. I missed that. Oh well. Larataguera (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Relying on sketchy sources seems to be an established pattern of behavior for you. I will document this in more detail when I have more time.1.36.61.37 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Does the environmental impact assessment assess the net environmental impact?

I had a quick look at the EIA https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1503166/200352542/20030633/250036832/Thacker%20Pass_FEIS_Chapters1-6_508.pdf but I could not figure out whether it took into account the environmental benefits of replacing fossil fuelled vehicles. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these (so I could be wrong) but I believe that in general, these EIA reports (whether federal or state) are meant to assess ONLY the LOCAL environmental impact (thereby consideration for LOCAL plants and animals, not the fauna and flora in Indonesia, for example, if those islands would be flooded with rising sea levels), so no, the benefit for helping transition the economy should be beyond the scope of these types of reports. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah I have now found a quote which seems to explain their reasoning so I will add it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Having said that I cannot find Appx K of the EIS - if anyone knows where it is please could you link from the article thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously there was a lot of uncertainty in 2020 when the EIS was written. But if the judge orders the EIS to be rewritten then presumably nowadays they could at least estimate the minimum number of gigafactories that will be built in the US. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Chidgk1 the quote you included was about further detailed analysis of downstream GHG emissions from the end uses of lithium-based products (emphasis mine). I agree with Avatar317 that the EIS is meant to assess local impacts. Partly, the global impacts are too complex for this kind of study. Presumed CO2 savings from this mine would depend on a huge number of variables including consumer driving and charging patterns; grid profile of energy sources; model of vehicles produced; further downstream CO2 emissions (that this study didn't assess); CO2 emissions from mining of other critical minerals for the same batteries; and more. I'm sure people have attempted this sort of thing, but probably not specifically in relation to this mine and with lots of caveats about how speculative that study would be. There would not be consensus about it Larataguera (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly the scope of the EIS is what we call scope 1 and scope 2 not scope 3. From the article on US EIS it seems there ought to be a statement of the scope but I did not see it. I am not familiar with US environmental impact statements so feel free to revert my edits if I made a mistake Chidgk1 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, trying to tell the readers what we feel they might be interested in will often lead to disallowed WP:OR...we need to stick to sources about this mine and secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are far superior because they reduce the chance of misinterpreting or misunderstanding a primary source. WP:PRIMARY.

Secondly, on thinking about this more, I think it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE to estimate the downstream global GHG reductions of this specific mine: if it doesn't get built, the price of lithium goes up and another mine will get built somewhere else, that might not get built if this one is built. If we don't drill for oil here in the US, and global oil use continues to increase, it will be drilled somewhere else. Demand is the driving force. (Yes, notaforum, sorry, but if the human population decreases and we have "enough" lithium than demand could go down, and we wouldn't need to mine every source of lithium on the planet. It is slightly caused an economy based on perpetual growth, but a far greater cause is that all 8 billion humans on the planet would like to live in the first world standards that 2 billion of us enjoy; almost no humans voluntarily choose to live in extreme poverty to save the planet.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How is importing lithium a “strategic vulnerability” for the USA?

I mean you don’t burn it like petroleum. So it should be easier to build up a strategic lithium reserve shouldn’t it? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it "flows" (is used in) into electric car and grid storage batteries, and so without the inputs, our economy will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels (which as long as we don't start blocking new oil drilling, fracking, pipelines, coal, etc, wouldn't be a "strategic" or geo-political risk), but since we do seem to be doing those things, without something to replace them, our economy will crash as energy costs continue to increase, and we'll have the problems the EU is having now. (How will we heat our homes during the night when the sun doesn't shine, there is insufficient wind, and we have no batteries to store electricity generated previously.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you had a strategic lithium reserve would that not solve the problem? Like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is a little bit WP:NOTFORUM. I think a strategic reserve would help buffer geopolitical unpredictability, but in an economy based on perpetual growth there always have to be new sources of raw material. I'm sure there will be increased emphasis on recycling, but EV batteries are not currently designed to be recycled. And even if they were, there's always going to be demand for more. Gold for example has been mined for centuries, and it isn't burned like petroleum either, but no one is saying, "oh, we've got enough of that stuff!" Larataguera (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Litigation section(s)

Avatar317, is your intention to merge the litigation section (now 'tribes and litigation') with the regulatory approval section? That's fine with me. Right now, it's a little unclear why litigation is in two separate sections, because the lawsuits have all been consolidated. It just seems a little confusing to spread it between two different sections the way it is now. But it does make sense (because the lawsuits are essentially about permitting) to merge those sections if that's what you'd like to do.Larataguera (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think would be a better structure for the article. I only moved two paragraphs because I thought that those looked good, but that the rest of the litigation section could benefit from some consolidation and trimming of what appears to be Original Research WP:OR: (for example: "The 320-acre colony (130 ha) has been the center of a decades-long fight..." appears to be OR beyond the scope of this article) but I did not have the time to work through that section. It could be moved first and trimmed/improved later as well. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)