|
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
Additional notes:
|
|||||||
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 |
Contents
Jewish Bolshevism
Neutrality of this article is highly questionable. Someone keeps deleting my concerns off the Talk page.
There is obvious bias in that article; its dismissal section uses Jewish absence in parties other than Soviet communism (Bolshevism) as an argument for why they are not overrepresented in Soviet Bolshevism, which is ridiculous.
It also states in the beginning that this is an anti-semitic canard, but does not make an honest attempt at supporting that statement.
Third opinion needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Anti-semitic_canard.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.109.21 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Crimea
Currently, are we categorizing Crimea under Ukraine, Russia or both? While it seems that Crimea is currently mostly categorized under Ukraine, the head article (Crimea) and some of the categories (Category:Transport in Crimea, Category:Crimea geography stubs) are categorized under both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am under the opinion that it should be categorized under both, since both countries claim the peninsula.XavierGreen (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Panama Papers
Could we possibly get some more eyes on this article? I am an involved editor and do not have specific issues at the moment but the article is still missing significant implications for entire countries (Senegal and Uganda come to mind) and has been plagued by possibly-political edits by people who have not otherwise contributed. For example, the mention of international sanctions against Russia after it invaded the Ukraine was deleted, and nobody answered an invitation to discuss on the talk page. Mentions of Hillary Clinton have been moved into a subsidiary article which is AfD'ed, and supposedly erroneous material was deleted from the Bangladesh section. I have not had time to look into that one, and that editor may be correct, but that is the heart of the problem -- contentious material, and very few editors at the moment. Thanks to anyone who chips in. Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea. Panama Papers could use more eyes. SageRad (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
History of automobile safety and Ralph Nader
Due weight issue in the History section of our project's article Automobile safety. Contended content:
On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.[1][4][9][10]
References
- ^ a b Wyden, Peter (1987). The Unknown Iacocca. William Morrow and Company. ISBN 068806616X.
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
- ^ Jensen, Christopher (November 26, 2015). "50 Years Ago, ‘Unsafe at Any Speed’ Shook the Auto World". The New York Times. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...By the spring of 1966, “Unsafe at Any Speed” was a best seller for nonfiction...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
- ^ "Unsafe at Any Speed hits bookstores". History (U.S. TV channel). A & E. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
On this day in 1965, 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader publishes the muckraking book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. The book became a best-seller right away. It also prompted the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, seat-belt laws in 49 states (all but New Hampshire) and a number of other road-safety initiatives.
- ^ a b Brumagen, Regan. "Unsafe at Any Speed, Work by Nader". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader’s book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country’s first significant automobile safety legislation.
- ^ "Congress Acts on Traffic and Auto Safety". CQ Almanac. Congressional Quarterly. 1966. pp. 266–268. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
Breaking into the traffic safety inertia was the publication in November 1965 of “Unsafe At Any Speed,” a book written by Ralph Nader a 32-year-old Connecticut lawyer who had served as a consultant for the Department of Labor and a Senate subcommittee in 1964–65. House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.) Oct. 21, 1966, credited the final outcome of the traffic safety bill to the “crusading spirit of one individual who believed he could do something…Ralph Nader.”
- ^ Weingroff, Richard F. (2015). "Epilogue: The Changing Federal Role". President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Federal Role in Highway Safety. United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration.
- ^ Glass, Andrew (February 10, 2016). "Ralph Nader testifies before Congress on auto safety". Politico. Retrieved April 27, 2016.
Nader’s advocacy of auto-safety issues, helped lead to the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation sought to reduce the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents by establishing federal safety standards for American-made vehicles, including safety belts.
- ^ Lee, Matthew T. (Winter 1998). "The Ford Pinto Case and the Development of Auto Safety Regulations, 1893—1978". Business and Economic History (Cambridge University Press) 27 (2): 390–401.
Auto safety legislation was also partly the result of the publication of Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which acted as a catalyst for turning the auto safety movement into a legislative force.
- ^ a b Lee, Matthew T; Ermann, M. David (February 1999). "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis". Social Problems 46 (1): 30–47.
The legislative branch had focused on driver behavior and road design until Ralph Nader (1965) and others convinced Congress that many of the 50,000 annual auto deaths resulted from unsafe car designs. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, one year before Ford began designing the Pinto, produced America's first significant federal auto regulation.
- ^ Hendrickson, Kimberly A. (2003). "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act". In Kutler, Stanley I. Dictionary of American History 5 (3rd ed.). Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 561–562.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Attempted dispute resolution at article talk
- Talk:Automobile safety#Neutrality of History section - general discussion of multiple article neutrality issues
- Talk:Automobile safety#Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed - discussion of due weight of Ralph Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed
- Talk:Automobile safety#History of automobile safety off-topic in article "Automobile safety"? - discussion of due weight of history
Diffs
- 07:06 27 April 2016
- 11:36 27 April 2016
- 20:08 29 April 2016
- 20:12 29 April 2016
- 20:23 29 April 2016
Discussion
Coverage in Wikipedia is of course proportional to coverage in reliable sources WP:DUE; beyond the proportionality demanded by policy, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources explicitly stating the pivotal role of Ralph Nader in the history of automobile safety, including The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time, and the United States Department of Transportation. The US is an industry leader, and the 1960s a watershed decade, and Ralph Nader a significant actor, in the history of automobile safety, and so they will always have due weight in History section of our article Automobile safety. Very obviously, the due weight of Ralph Nader, the book Unsafe at Any Speed, and Nader's congressional testimony in the History of Automobile safety is not none.
Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew? The contended content has been deleted multiple times. Arguments for exclusion advanced at article talk include tagging the contended content as off-topic, and a related claim of a bizarre undocumented editorial policy, local to our article Automobile safety, under which the History section is strictly limited to a simple listing of the dates of introduction of new safety features and new regulation, totally devoid of relevant context and background, see for example 11 April 2016, the intent of which seems to be to leave our readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety improvements delivered by benevolent manufacturers WP:READERSFIRST. At article talk the two (2) sentences mentioning Ralph Nader in the contended content were described as War and Peace and dismissed as "burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered." Further, in service of diminishing the significance of Nader, the significance of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself is non-neutrally deleted.
Our article Automobile safety is currently of size 22 kB (3538 words), "readable prose size", less than half of the size at which article length begins to be a concern WP:SIZE. Our article Automobile safety is unevenly sourced; the contended content is among the better sourced paragraphs.
Assistance from uninvolved colleagues with experience in the application of our project's neutrality pillar is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is little accurate in Hugh's interpretation of the reasoning and (absence of) arguments presented (by him) for inclusion. A major problem with the addition is that it created a 2nd level section solely for that addition, which is almost certainly not the most significant book or action about automotive safety. (It might, although probably not, be the most significant book or action about US automotive safety.) Furthermore, there were (in the original paragraph, and probably in this one) opinions masquerading as fact, which must be specifically attributed. The opinion is attributed to 8 references; unless it occurs in all of them, it must be specifically attributed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Others, more familiar with the articles in question, may have more interpretation or factual errors to report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Attacking the motives editors in the NPOVN description is probably not the best way to start a neutral discussion. "Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew?" This is an attack on the motives of the other editors and an implication of bad faith. Springee (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: HughD, please do not significantly modify or add to your comments after others have replied as you did here [[1]]. It can create a false impression of the statements other editors were replying to. You have been warned about this several times including earlier today [[2]]. Springee (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments on the contended content from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: editing material after the fact without clear notification can create false impressions of the talk page discussion. You have been told to please not do that by at least three editors in the last week or so. Here you are doing it again. [3] Springee (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This is not really an NPOV issue, but rather one of understanding the scope of the article. The lead makes it clear that it is a technical article, outlining the various safety technologies and features invented and implemented by the engineers. Social aspects would be rarely dealt with in such an article, if at all. For dealing with your topics, you probably want a separate article on Automobile safety legislation or something of that sort. Moreover, the legislation has more to do with the delivery of safety technologies, not the technologies themselves. So, it is understandable that the editors of that page do not welcome your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- The title of the article is Automobile safety. The lede of the article is:
Automobile safety is the study and practice of design cars, construction, equipment and regulation to minimize the occurrence and consequences of traffic collisions.
- "This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry." This sentence certainly does not assume good faith with regards to other editors. Perhaps those editors simply have a better feel for what readers of the article might want to see. The fact that the article has been around for around a decade and hasn't taken on the political undertones you are advocating suggests that you don't have a good sense of what should be in the article or what might be important to its readers. Springee (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Seems alright to me as an interpretation of a long-term pattern of editing. I don't know if it's correct or not at this point, but can you please allow people to speak plainly? It's not a personal attack. It is a remark about what one editor sees as a pattern and a problem regarding NPOV. Discuss it, but don't shut down the editor who says that with an accusation that it's a personal attacks. I could likewise say that you're making a personal attack by you telling the editor "you don't have a good sense of what should be in the article or what might be important to its readers". Jeesh. Let people speak. This can be a discussion. Say your piece and let others say their piece. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- "This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry." This sentence certainly does not assume good faith with regards to other editors. Perhaps those editors simply have a better feel for what readers of the article might want to see. The fact that the article has been around for around a decade and hasn't taken on the political undertones you are advocating suggests that you don't have a good sense of what should be in the article or what might be important to its readers. Springee (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The WP:PROSE issue is certainly valid, but that is not for this board. As far as WP:NPOV is concerned, you need to find books that cover the topics the page covers and see if they cover the political issues as well. The ones I found on Google Books didn't cover any political issues. In such case, NPOV says the article shouldn't cover them either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, how would you summarize the above cited sources? Hugh (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand the question. But I would describe it as consumer activism that led to auto safety regulation.
- It appears that the article doesn't have much coverage of regulation even though it is within its scope. Perhaps you can add a section on regulation there. But you would need to find good scholarly sources that discuss the subject in its entirety, rather than specific events. The Oxford Encyclopedia on Economic History [4] seems to be a good starting point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Lewchuk, Wayne (2003), "Automobile and Truck Industry: Industrial Organization and Regulation", in Mokyr, Joel, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, Oxford University Press, p. 199, doi:10.1093/acref/9780195105070.001.0001, ISBN 9780195105070
-
Led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a campaign was launched to force vehicle producers to pay more attention to safety. The state responded with a series of regulations in the 1960s, intended to force reluctant manufacturers to improve safety standards.
- "It appears that the article doesn't have much coverage of regulation even though it is within its scope." Are we both discussing article Automobile safety?
- "Proposals in Europe would require cars sold there to have a minimum/maximum hood (bonnet) height."
- "School buses and Semi-trailer trucks in North America are required to bear retroreflective strips outlining their side and rear perimeters for greater conspicuity at night."
- "In 1958, the United Nations established the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, an international standards body advancing auto safety."
- "Over the next several decades, three-point safety belts were gradually mandated in all vehicles by regulators throughout the industrialised world."
- "Effective on new passenger cars sold in the United States after January 1, 1964. front outboard lap belts were required."
- "Effective in 1966, US-market passenger cars were required to be equipped with padded instrument panels, front and rear outboard lap belts, and white reverse (backup) lamps."
- "These required shoulder belts for left and right front-seat vehicle occupants, side marker lights, collapsible steering columns, and other safety features."
- "Initially, the US NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) crash tests examined compliance with the occupant-protection provisions of FMVSS 208."
- "In 1984 New York State passed the first U.S. law requiring seat belt use in passenger cars."
- "In 1986 the central 3rd brake light was mandated in North America with most of the world following with similar standards in automotive lighting."
- "In 2009 NHTSA upgraded its roof-crush standard for vehicles weighing 6000 pounds or less."
- "NHTSA has issued relatively few regulations since the mid-1980s..."
- "Within Europe ECE Regulation R44 dictates that children below 150cm must travel in a child restraint that is appropriate for their weight."
- "...it is not allowed for children below the age of 3 to ride in a passenger vehicle without "security system"..."
- "Sweden specify that a child or an adult shorter than 140 cm is legally forbidden to ride in a place with an active airbag in front of it."
- "In some areas, new drivers' vehicles must bear a warning sign to alert other drivers that the vehicle is being driven by an inexperienced and learning driver."
- "Several states require additional testing for elderly drivers."
- Hugh (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Kautilya3, how would you summarize the above cited sources? Hugh (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The WP:PROSE issue is certainly valid, but that is not for this board. As far as WP:NPOV is concerned, you need to find books that cover the topics the page covers and see if they cover the political issues as well. The ones I found on Google Books didn't cover any political issues. In such case, NPOV says the article shouldn't cover them either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Haven't gotten into the specifics, but i must say that the social and political dimensions of automobile safety are of interest to readers as much as the technical developments. Telling the history of the changes that were made or not made, and why, is important, as well as the technical specifics. Changes don't spring from the thin air, and sources do support telling the history. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The article, as was noted, is a technical article that gives a general time line. The appropriate place to put some of the historical causes would be in the parent article of each subject. So in this case the political backdrop of a safety act could be in the article about that act. Springee (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain
The article is nominated at DYK and there are apparently concerns over it's neutrality. However, no specific point is mentioned there. Can any one please say how the issue can be fixed? Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Nimbo, Enugu State
I wish I had time to look into this. I saw something go by on Recent changes, and was led to the section "Public Perception". It seems to me that statements and opinions are being presented as facts, and that the section, maybe even the whole article, needs some oversight. Thanks to whoever can help out. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) neutrality RfC
A discussion concerning neutrality is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy?. Input from editors with experience in neutrality would be helpful. Thank you.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
John Thune
I don't have the time at the moment, but someone should take a comb through John Thune. I already changed that he was "born in a small town, Pierre, South Dakota" to he was "born in the South Dakota state capital Pierre" but the entire bio is a marble-etched monument to Thune's blinding success in the face of his humbling modesty. There's also a lot of questionable sources, like genealogy websites. LavaBaron (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mary Fallin
Perhaps because her name has shown up on some longlists for Trump VP possibilities, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin has seen an uptick in editing, and some of the edits might be seen to be inconsistent with our NPOV policies. The article in its previous state was not perfect, and one persistent IP editor has made a series of changes that have consistently removed the negative content and added positive content, in some cases written in campaign-style promotional prose. [5][6][7] Attention from additional editors sensitive to NPOV issues would be very helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
UNDUE violation at New Testament
WP:UNDUE violation at [8]. Please help. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussed with sources at Talk:New Testament#Reverting original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
— From a source removed as stated above
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the problem has been solved by compromise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oyu Tolgoi Mine
This is a request for neutral editor(s) for the article Oyu Tolgoi mine. The subject of the article is, within the context of Mongolia and global copper mining, important and notable, but currently the article is subject to occasional anonymous edits which are demonstratively inaccurate or untrue, use citations out of context to create a misleading narrative effect, and have editorial/political bent. I have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia guidelines, as I work for the subject of the article, so I am requesting that editor(s) with a neutral point of view take on curating this article for accuracy and neutrality.
The main body of the article could use substantial work in being more factually accurate and having better citation. An example is in the milling and mining section:
- “Initially the mine will process 70,000 tonnes of rock per day, ramping up to 85,000 tonnes from both the open pit and the underground mine (underground mining is to be done by block caving).”
This line is not cited, so it is unclear where these numbers come from. They are also inaccurate. The nameplate capacity of the mine concentrator is 100,000 tonnes per day, and it is the capacity currently expected even when the underground mine comes on line.
The “controversial issues” section suffers from both factual errors and an editorial bent that appears to violate the neutral point of view guidelines. An example is the line:
- “Mongolia's Southern and Central Zones occupy terrain traditionally used by nomadic herdsmen. Diverting already scarce water resources to mining could jeopardize their livelihoods.[20]”
The line is verbatim and unquoted from the cited source, and it is being used out of context to imply that Oyu Tolgoi is jeopardizing the livelihoods of the herders. The entire section is constructed this way with many of the citations either being used out of context or arguably unrelated to the point being made. Instead of a point-by-point refutation, I have prepared an alternative construction of the article as a potential starting point. This builds on the current article, removing the factual inaccuracies and attempts to be neutral throughout. Are there editors who will take this up and ensure this article meets Wikipedia’s standards? -- Chimeramind-timetraveler
Proposed rewrite |
---|
-- Oyu Tolgoi mineThe Oyu Tolgoi mine (Mongolian: Оюу Толгой, also Oyu Tolgoi, Turquoise Hill) is a combined open pit and underground mining project in Khanbogd sum within the south Gobi Desert, approximately 235 kilometres (146 mi) east of the Ömnögovi Province capital Dalanzadgad.
HistoryEarly exploration and prospective work was carried out by Soviet and Mongolian geologists in the area now known as Oyu Tolgoi in the 1950s, which was followed by detailed state mapping surveys in the late 1980s. Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) acquired exploration licenses for the area in 1996.[3] After drilling 23 holes over three years, BHP suspended its exploration activities and entered a joint venture with Canadian miner Ivanhoe Mines to continue exploration in the license area.[4]
Ore BodyOyu Tolgoi’s ore body is a series of copper-gold porphyry deposits running north-by-east to south-by-west across the eight by 10 kilometer mine license area.[15] The primary reserve case deposits are the Central Oyu Deposit (open-cut) and Hugo Dummett Deposit (underground). [16] The deposits extend beyond the current mine license area, and there are suggestions of a 26 kilometer mineralization trend inclusive of the current mining area.[17]
Mining and MillingOyu Tolgoi currently is an open-cut only operation generating US$1.63 billion in revenue on production of 202,200 tonnes of copper in concentrates in 2015. Ultimately it will be an open-cut and underground mining operation. Ore is mined from the open-pit using shovels and haul trucks, and is crushed and conveyed overland to a concentrator.[20]
FinancingOyu Tolgoi is funded by a combination of equity and shareholder loans.[24] In December 2015, Oyu Tolgoi’s shareholders signed a US$4.4 billion project finance facility with a consortium of international financial institutions and 15 commercials banks.[25] Corporate StructureOyu Tolgoi is owned by Turquoise Hill Resources (a majority owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and the Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi (a Government of Mongolia owned holding company) with 66% and 34% stakes, respectively. The company is overseen by a board of directors with representatives appointed by the shareholders in proportion to their ownership stake. There are nine members of the board, including the Chairman, with three members appointed by the Government of Mongolia.[26]
ReferencesReferences
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeramind-timetraveler (talk • contribs)