Talk:Barrick Gold

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics links at bottom of page[edit]

Is it to Wikipedia's standards to have obviously anti mining activists as link from this information? There is no clear indication that their editorial standards can be trusted.

Regarding Bush Admin[edit]

this section from Greg Palasts book should be NPOV'd and added to the article

In the final days of the Bush (Senior) administration, the Interior Department made an extraordinary but little noticed change in procedures under the 1872 Mining Law, the gold rush-era act that permitted those whiskered small-time prospectors with their tin pans and mules to stake claims on their tiny plots. The department initiated an expedited procedure for mining companies that allowed Barrick to swiftly lay claim to the largest gold find in America. In the terminology of the law, Barrick could “perfect its patent” on the estimated $10 billion in ore—for which Barrick paid the U.S. Treasury a little under $ 10,000. Eureka!
Barrick, of course, had to put up cash for the initial property rights and the cost of digging out the booty (and the cost of donations, in smaller amounts, to support Nevada’s Democratic senator, Harry Reid). Still, the shift in rules paid off big time: According to experts at the Mineral Policy Center of Washington, DC, Barrick saved—and the U.S. taxpayer lost—a cool billion or so.
Upon taking office, Bill Clinton’s new interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, called Barrick’s claim the “biggest gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy.” Nevertheless, because the company followed the fast-track process laid out for them under Bush, this corporate Goldfinger had Babbitt by the legal nuggets. Clinton had no choice but to give them the gold mine while the public got the shaft.

It could be NPOV'd but how can you count on the verifiability of a piece that uses prose like 'digging out the booty'?


Tagged as being non Neutral Point of View[edit]

This article make clear statements in the section on Pascua Lama about what the mining practises will be, which are in clear conflict with the published positions of both Barrick and the Chilean government. No sources have been referenced to validate the environmental claims against the Pascua Lama mine. Rather than repeating the discussion on this issue, please look at the talk page for Pascua_Lama.


This article has clearly been written from an anti-mining perspective ignoring to gather Barrick's status and the most powerful gold companies and one of the more enviro-cooperative. The information on Pascua Lama is just plain wrong. Someone needs to fix this.

disagreed and no, its poorly written but more or less correct.

Which means absolutely nothing without sources. This is an article on the company, not a "see who can list the most poorly-written criticisms" contest.--DMCer™ 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the information is correct, the whole article is just a detailed list of things that Barrick has done wrong. --The Dark Side 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment; the article emphasizes the evil nature of the corporation, without showing any of the beneficial parts. For example, how many employees do they have, how much money has been added to local economies by the mines, and how much taxes do they pay, among many other questions not discussed in the article. As a matter of fact, there are more things left out than are in the article. I do not recommend that the "anti-Barrick" points be removed unless they are out-and-out false, but I do recommend that more information be added so that readers can get an honest impression of the company; something which they can't at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.181.33 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very poorly written. I think the language is slanted both ways, depending on what part of the article you're reading. Wikipedia should be about verifiable facts, not speculation on legal actions against the company. Mining company legal concerns in third world countries are very difficult to sort out and are often extremely muddy. This article should stick to the known facts about Barrick Gold. Perhaps a page should be made for environmental concerns about the company. A3camero (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of use agree. I'll try to get to it when I get a chance, but I'm pretty busy at the moment. That'd be great if someone can go ahead and move all the NPOV info to a new article about the environmental criticisms or the like. That pretty much includes everything after the intro, though some paragraphs towards the bottom discussing the company's acquisitions can be left in the main article. —DMCer™ 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up per our discussions. 90% of it was actually pasted directly from environmental activist sites. It's archived here.—DMCer™ 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental activists are notorious for their ignorance of the mining process. They are even worse than generalist journalists who never let the facts get in the way of a juicy story. Wikipedia seems to be full of much the same sort of commentator who is only interested in raking up the dirt on mining companies and not telling us anything about their activities or operations. Why, for instance, is the Blanchard episode included when the case was thrown out of court and he apologised? It was all a nonsense from the start and anyone with the remotest knowledge of the gold market could have told you so years ago. Do any of the contributors to this article have the necessary technical background to be able to assess these various accusations and determine whether they are significant? It doesn't look like it.Egoli (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


At least a small reference to Bre-X?

Ok, I have been monitoring this for more than a year. No progress has been made so I decided to remove all the content that didn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.226.217 (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on court case settle out of court was removed because it was lacking references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.226.217 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work...[edit]

There are a number of notable public figures on Barrick's international advisory board and I would like to add a paragraph between paras. 2 & 3 or between paras. 3 & 4. Open to criticism and suggestion and with no objection I will do so in about a week. JaxPrat 13:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just came in and edited the paragraph on the exclusion from the norwegian pension fund, just cleaning it up a little and removing what to me seems like irrelevant information. In my honest opinion, lots more work is needed on this article... The environmental impact section sounds like it's been cut-and-pasted from some spokesperson's list of talking points. Ok, just throwing it out there, don't have time to do more now myself, just my two cents... --Anderssl (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I really didn't have time, but it seems doing this was more interesting than what I was supposed to be doing... Tried to clean up the "Environmental record" section a little, moving the criticism to the top since the rest reads like a defence against that criticism. However, I'm noticing that the entire "Criticism and some facts" section is about the same topic, so it should probably be merged together. --Anderssl (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I merged them myself, and try to organize and trim the material a little more. I think the section is still unbalanced and not well written - there is some brief mention of criticism which doesn't get clarified any further, and then a lot of scattered anecdotal evidence of how great Barrick is treating the environment, with no proper explanations to make sense of all the facts that are thrown out. If someone with more detailed knowledge - and fair and unbiased intentions - could have a look at this section, it would be great! --Anderssl (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by what seem to me contradictions in some of your edits. You added a line that suggests by implication the awards are somehow less meritorious because none have come from NGOs, while at the same time editing out reference to the several month gap between Norway's sale of the stock and Norway's announcement of the sale of the stock. Generally your rework of the material seems to weigh heavily in favour of the criticism and sparingly in counter content. There is also considerable use of loaded phrases like "Barrick claims". Are you confident your POV is neutral when you edit this entry? Don'tDoWindows (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for contributing. I guess I agree that the line about NGOs is not really well written. In my opinion it is significant that none of the awards seem to come from independent organisations - that raises some doubt about the motivations for the awards. But this should preferrably be written with reference to some notable critics, if they can be found. I am open to changes. Apart from that, yes I removed some "praise" but not much of the criticism, simply because there was almost no criticism from the start - but a LOT of badly written, badly sourced and not seemingly relevant "praise". I see you have even removed some more of that, so I guess you agree. As for the time gap thing, that is a standard procedure of the fund that it does to avoid hurting their own investments with the announcements. AFAIK, none of the critics of the ethical divestment policy are criticizing that particular side of it, and even if they did, that should be discussed at the Government Pension Fund of Norway page, not here. Apart from that, I don't see how a phrase like "Barrick claims" is POV. I've been trying to add some structure and cohesion to the section, trying to make statements fit together in a readable whole. More work is needed, if you have suggestions I am very much open for ideas! --Anderssl (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be sure, I think, that you haven't chosen to use the word 'claims' in an effort to cast doubt on the statements. That's not what Wikipedia is for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid  : "While the word "claim" may be used appropriately, it can also be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. Editors should avoid this improper usage and instead choose a neutral alternative.

  • Dubious: "Politician Jones has come under fire for his use of racial slurs in a prior career. Jones issued a statement in which he claims that he is not a racist." [A fact followed by a "claim" leaves readers inclined to believe the fact and disbelieve the claim.]
  • Instead: "Jones said in a statement, 'I am not and have never been a racist.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tDoWindows (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use this space to discuss the article, not my psychological state or hypothetical examples. Where in the article do you think the word "claim" is used in an inappropriate manner? I don't have a problem with rewording, as long as the text remains cohesive and readable. --Anderssl (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to make sure - the only place in the relevant section of the article the word claim is used is in the following sentence: "Barrick is fighting a lawsuit by the local government claiming compensation for the Marcopper Mining Disaster, which it inherited when taking over Placer Dome, Inc." Is this what you are objecting to? What should it say instead? --Anderssl (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

":Most or all of these awards have been given by other corporations, business associations or government institutions in areas where Barrick does business; none have been handed out by independent NGOs." It should be one or the other, but not both, and cited, I think. Additionally, is it a verifiable fact or your opinion that awards from NGOs are demonstrably more meritorious than awards from corporations, business associations or government institutions? I remain concerned about your NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tDoWindows (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that "awards from NGOs are demonstrably more meritorious than awards from corporations, business associations or government institutions". However it is implied that where the awards come from is relevant information. I think it is pretty obvious to most people that an award you get from your business partner is something different from an award that comes from an independent organisation.
As it stands, the only source for the awards comes from the company's website, which is hardly a reliable source in this context. I propose we remove all mention of the awards until independent sources are brought forward. --Anderssl (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree the company's website as a source is any less reliable than an activist site. However, I agree Wikipedia's standards are better served by deleting the reference to awards than allowing content that you've written with an implicit message, which suggests NPOV issues. Don'tDoWindows (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porgera research claim[edit]

I reverted the following reference that was added by a user with IP 99.199.11.236, which doesn't seem to support the claim about research at Porgera:

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2005, Vol 42(2): 327-339, "Self-weight consolidation of mixtures of mine waste rock and tailings" - Author: Wickland, Benjamin E.; Wilson, G W

First of all, the article doesn't mention Barrick. It does mention Porgera and Placer Dome in the Acknowledgements section, but as far as I can see it doesn't mention how these are related to the topic of the article; and is written a year before Barrick took over Placer Dome. If there is something I have missed, please enlighten me, but otherwise this seems to be just an article about a mining technique which may or may not be related to Barrick at all.--Anderssl (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic?[edit]

"The historical record of these types of projects in Chile and the companies' real-world ability to meet legal environmental constraints makes the processing of residual-waste a point of contention. The inability or unwillingness of local authorities to stand up to spills and breaches of environmental requirements is well known and another key point of disagreement with opponents to the project.

The recent approval (as of 2000-2009, during the Lagos and Bachelet presidecies [35] ) of many controversial projects such as large mines, dams for power generation, huge salmon farms, forestry, etc. in spite of many legal and environmental concerns, again question the ability or willingness of the Chilean Government to address local communities concerns' when clashing with large corporations and perceived economic benefits [36].

These issues have recently even been criticized by the OECD as major impediments for Chile being able to join the 'elite club' of developed countries[37]."

In my view these additions are irrelevant to the article. They do not address Pascua-Lama or anything about the entry. Previous material has been deleted on these grounds. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tDoWindows (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, these paragraphs should either be rephrased to address the Pascua Lama project specifically, with approrpiate references, or they should be removed. --Anderssl (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


long overdue citation[edit]

Deleted: However controversy is still rampant as to the real environmental impact, as mine exploration has already been linked to a 56 to 70 % depletion in the three glaciers nearest to the mine site.[citation needed]

A citation was called for almost a year ago... it would seem to me if it is this specific it should also be verified with a source.

It's been several years and nobody has added citations to a couple of lines. Does anyone want to do it or should they be removed?

  • Criticisms include poisonous spills of cyanide, mercury and other heavy metals, leading to environmental damage and the poisoning of human populations.[citation needed]
  • In several countries, Barrick Gold has been accused of violating human rights, and its employees charged with crimes.

Joeywonder (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

content relevant?[edit]

"The historical record of these types of projects in Chile and the companies' real-world ability to meet legal environmental constraints makes the processing of residual-waste a point of contention. The inability or unwillingness of local authorities to stand up to spills and breaches of environmental requirements is well known and another key point of disagreement with opponents to the project.

The recent approval (as of 2000-2009, during the Lagos and Bachelet presidecies [1] ) of many controversial projects such as large mines, dams for power generation, huge salmon farms, forestry, etc. in spite of many legal and environmental concerns, again question the ability or willingness of the Chilean Government to address local communities concerns' when clashing with large corporations and perceived economic benefits [2].

These issues have recently even been criticized by the OECD as major impediments for Chile being able to join the 'elite club' of developed countries[3]."

All very interesting context about Chile's economy and political situation, but better suited I think to an entry on Chile's economy or the Bachelet or Lagos presidencies. Does not stirke me as bearing directly on the Pascua-Lama project (except possibly by implication, which raises questions about NPOV.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterMittyBagehotII (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ricardo Lagos, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Lagos and Michelle Bachelet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachelet
  2. ^ Environmental Issues in Southern Chile, http://www.allsouthernchile.com/southern-chile-environmental-issues.html
  3. ^ Chile, Environmental Problems May Impede Entry to OECD, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7489056/CHILE-ENVIRONMENTAL-PROBLEMS-MAY-IMPEDE.html

Why George H.W. Bush isn't mentioned here?[edit]

He's one of the main investors at BG.--Ruouester (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholders come and go, even the big ones, I don't think, they should be mentioned in general. However, giving Bushes high profile as a former US President, if you got a reliable source for this information, you should definetly add it! Calistemon (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind Daniellis89 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions read like activists have been using the article again[edit]

The material deleted reads like activists are writing the article again which is not what Wikipedia is for. Having followed the links I see nothing that suggests the web sites in question have a reputation (or published standards) for fact-checking and accuracy or a professional structure in place for content checking that meets the accepted measures of verifiability or standing as a reliable source as outlined in Wikipedia:Verifiability I have moved this content here because it appears to clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards and is better tabled for discussion purposes.

"Critics site that this participation in a wildlife refuge is mere greenwash and it is especially insulting as the main demand of the local landowners association is for the resettlement of people away from the mine site to a new area where they can live a subsistence lifestyle.

The Porgera Landowners Association, who own 2.5% of the mine, and the Akali Tange Association, the Porgera-based human rights organization that has been reporting on the abuses near the Porgera Mine since 2003, joined forces in 2008 to become the Porgera Alliance. This coalition traveled to Barrick's Annual General meeting to voice their demands of the company, an have returned every year since.

One of the most well-publicized abuses at the Porgera Mine is the burning of houses near the mine site. Barrick housed police who – based on situation reports from Barrick Gold – burnt down an entire hillside of houses adjacent to their Porgera Mine. Barrick initially denied these allegations, remarking that it was their understanding that 50 temporary shacks were tore down. But, a follow-up Amnesty report, released in January 2010 showed evidence of at least 130 permanent houses burnt down, while villagers were beaten, harassed, and detained.

In Tanzania, there have been two reports confirming lasting negative effects of a toxic spill in Tanzania that occurred last May. The latest report, commissioned by an interfaith committee in Tanzania and written by scientists from Norwegian University if Life Sciences and the University of Dar es Salam, found potential life threatening levels of arsenic around Barrick’s North Mara mine in Tanzania. The study investigated the area around the tailing dam and the site of an accidental spill that occurred on May 9, 2009. Despite that fact that these areas were tested four to seven months after the spill, this study shows that the water remains toxic for human consumption and grazing use. According to Evans Rubara of the Christian Council of Tanzania, "Following the spill in May, 203 people became ill, 43 people died, and 1358 livestock died according to the Ward authorities in North Mara.” Barrick responded to the report criticizing the integrity of the science, to which the authors responded with a detailed defense of their methodology."

And

"The Pascua Lama project is also plagued by a lawsuit by the Diaguita Huascoaltinos Indigenous community against the Chilean state, recently admitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Their claim states that the government not only violated the Diaguita's Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), but they also did not consider comments submitted by their community in the Environmental Assessment Process of the Mine. The claim also states that Barrick's claim to land on and near the Pascua Lama project on the border of Chile and Argentina relies on a series of fraudulent land claims to collectively held-Diaguita Huascoaltinos land. The Diaguita Huascoaltinos also initiated two lawsuits against Barrick in Chile, seeking to slow down and stop Barrick's mining and exploration on their land."


There are no citations in the content that revert to reliable published sources. Above all, there is no attempt to add any content that provides either counterbalance to the claims, or if there is none, confirms the claims. This is basic NPOV and suggests that the content is activist driven, as the discussion page indicates it has been in the past. The sites used as sources more closely match Wikipedia's definition of Questionable sources rather than Reliable sources. The Questionable sources section states "they are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Activists in my opinion are sincere people generally but I feel very strong Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a platform to advance opinion or agendas. Unless the content can fully meet established Wiki standards for verifiability, reliable sourcing and NPOV I don't feel it should stand. WalterMittyBagehot3 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HRW report on human rights abuses at Porgera[edit]

I came across this: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/02/01/papua-new-guinea-serious-abuses-barrick-gold-mine These look like the important bits:

  • "Private security personnel employed at a gold mine in Papua New Guinea have been implicated in alleged gang rapes and other violent abuses, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today."
  • "Barrick has responded with appropriate vigor to the allegations brought forward by Human Rights Watch. The company opened a major internal investigation, facilitated a criminal investigation by the Papua New Guinea police, and made a commitment to take steps that could strengthen oversight and accountability for the security force at Porgera."

...is Human Rights Watch a reliable source? There are also several other news articles that mention the HRW report. Dracunculus (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, HRW are an RS but the statements should be attributed to them. They've been through the RS noticeboard several times. Citing the news articles about the HRW report would help to show that it's notable too. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I took a go at it... The story seems to have received limited pick up by media, so details from credible sources were confined. I researched it as best I could. There were charges made and I assume the court process is underway and ongoing as there is no indication of resolution.WalterMittyBagehotII (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's quite sensitive (horrible for the women affected) and some newspaper reporting was quite salacious... does this seem appropriate? I'd rather opinions than simply post it given the sensitive subject matter.

Early in 2011, Human Rights Watch detailed reports of sexual assaults of local women around the Porgera mine, identifying members of mine security staff as the perpetrators.[1] The report detailed violent beatings and incidents of gang rape. [2] Three men were arrested on charges including rape. [3] Employees were fired, [4] and the company said it would continue to co-operate with the criminal investigation and make changes to security at the mine. [5] In its response the company acknowledged appreciation of the work by Human Rights Watch in documenting facts for investigation. [6]In media interviews Human Rights Watch criticized the company “for not acting sooner” but said it had responded “with appropriate vigour,” [7] while indicating company officials were “genuinely shocked.”[8] WalterMittyBagehotII (talk)

Knowing the country well, it's likely that the security employees were locals. All in all, pretty normal behavior for tribal opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.90.158 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bouw, Brenda (February 1, 2011). "Barrick dealing with crime claims at Porgera site". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 26, 2011.
  2. ^ Thin Lei Win (03 March, 2011). "Gang rape on the rise in Papua New Guinea". TrustLaw, a global centre for free legal assistance and anti-corruption news. Retrieved March 26, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ [http: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/02/3127886.htm/ "Barrick dealing with crime claims at Porgera site"]. ABC News (Australia). February 2, 2011. Retrieved March 26, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  4. ^ "Barrick condemns violation". PNG Post Courierl. February 8, 2011. Retrieved March 26, 2011.
  5. ^ Bouw, Brenda (February 1, 2011). "Barrick dealing with crime claims at Porgera site". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 26, 2011.
  6. ^ "Response to Human Rights Watch Report". Barrick Gold Corporation. 02 February 2011. Retrieved March 26, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Bouw, Brenda (February 1, 2011). "Barrick dealing with crime claims at Porgera site". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 26, 2011.
  8. ^ Albin-Lackey, Chris (February 10, 2011). "Responsible Mining: Companies Can't Go It Alone". Forbes. Retrieved March 26, 2011.

Proposed Deletion of External Links[edit]

Seeking opinion on deleting some of the external links at the bottom of the page which on the basis of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links “…Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions” as well considering Wikipedia criteria outlined in Sources that are usually not reliable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources (see Questionable Sources and Self-Published Sources.) No indication about fact checking or editorial standards/processes for content on these sites either. Suggest the deletion of the last five considering those criteria but again seeking opinions. WalterMittyBagehotII (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, and only keep a few, official ones. Calistemon (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barrick Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Barrick Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barrick Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrick Gold. 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:

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) 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Barrick Gold. 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:

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) 05:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Barrick Gold. 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:

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) 22:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed conflict of interest[edit]

The following single-purpose accounts appear to have edited the article with an undisclosed connection to the article topic.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoI review complete[edit]

To fellow editors in good faith I believe I have removed the edits subject to Conflict of Interest made by JimmyGOZ. Some edits from JimmyGOZ were retained as useful. I believe the article does have PoV issues, but it would be contentious for me to involve myself further. I encourage future editors to bring balance by adding meaningful, referenced content.

To corporations and their agents who seek to manipulate public perception: your actions are noted and rejected as unethical in the stongest possible terms. Further reputational damage will flow from your attempts to edit Wikipedia in bad faith. Doug (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Doug, for the quick and thorough cleanup and summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singe Purpose Account Editing[edit]

Hi User:Wittyubiquity I see you recently deleted all content about Porgera Gold Mine. First up welcome to Wikipedia, but please note that using it for the sole purposes of editing Barrick Gold related articles in a favorable way is not appropriate. Please see WP:SPA and WP:NPOV. If you have any affiliation to Barrick Gold, please declare it. CT55555 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT55555! You're doing a great job and there's no favoritism here. You added the same content to two articles. Why not direct people to the article with better information? Wittyubiquity (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be too much to include all the content on the mine in this article, but it's appropriate to to have some of it on the Barrick Gold page, as they own the mine, and the content is about actions that Barrick did, including in Canada. Notable aspects of the other mines are included. Your edit deleted everything, and it's impossible for me not to notice that:
- you didn't do that for any other mine
- just the one that had notable human rights abuses CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 Agree that the topic is notable as it has been widely covered around the world by many NGOs and journalists for many years. Your edits are positioned as if the Canadaland podcast was original reporting with new information, which it was not — and I doubt the podcast complies with WP:NPOV as the podcast mining series is clearly editorialized with the title "Stories about the dirty business of Canadian mining." (I love Canadaland by the way.) As a next step, I will attempt to build on your additions with more info from more neutral or reputable sources so that the article is better. Wittyubiquity (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I rejected the blanking of all content, I welcome any attempts to improve what I wrote. CT55555 (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrick_Gold&oldid=1205762590"