Talk:Resolution Copper

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arizona Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality issue and cleanup[edit]

An editor has added a number of comments re the waste rock and tailings disposal from the proposed mine. These are rather polemical and disorganized. On my list when I get time (after New Years??). --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a bit, removed a bit of WP:SYN and WP:OR. Vsmith (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Better now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gross exaggeration[edit]

The 1st paragraph under Mining Method contains the following:

"According to Indian Media Today, "it is expected to leave a 7,000-foot-deep pit (that’s five Empire State Buildings), a huge hole in the ground two miles wide".</ref name=ict>"

This is obviously untrue. The BLM puts the subsidence as up to 1,000 feet. The 7,000-foot figure is the maximum depth of the orebody, so the only way the subsidence could be 7,000 feet deep would be if all the rock above the orebody were to be removed, which would be true only for open-pit mining - not block caving. This is a blatantly unreliable source, and should not be used. Plazak (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Claim from unreliable source[edit]

I moved this statement out of the article:

Indian Media Today wrote in 2015, that a 7,000-acre, 500-foot-high waste dump of toxic tailings" would be created. [ref name=ict/]

This is the same unrelaible source discussed above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Project Connection?[edit]

The article says that Rio Tinto has funded a research project by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development (HPAIED) on mining and tribal economic development. The only citation is to the HPAIED website, which does not contain any mention of such a project. Is there a source available for this claim? James Haughton (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]