Talk:Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission

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

POV issues and relevance of History section[edit]

Hi Danimations,

The History section is almost as long as the entire article on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle royal commission and it needs to be forked out into other headings or other wikipedia articles. It's length ensures that readers will lose interest in what is an interesting event as the relevant info is not front and centre. There are some events such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet that have no relevance what so ever to the Royal Commission. I see the relevance with respect to previous inquiries or reports on Nuclear Fuel Cycle issues in Australia, but this requires it's own separate section at the bottom along with the "Related events" section.

I've been looking over this article and it seems that there is a lot of focus on the validity of the Commission and a larger focus on the negative side. There are particular sentences that have an implication that the referenced person are acting in a dubious or deceitful manner. Furthermore there are some references such as speeches by people quoted that are selective in their quotation. Most notably the part on Dr Timothy Stone where he states in the beginning of his speech in the SACOME youtube video that he is "not actually pro nuclear. Provided it is cheap and safe and low carbon I'm very happy..." but the article implies that he has this bias when there is a caveat.

Cheers --Raidelaide (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

Agreed re: length of history section. In absence of more concise third-party summaries of relevant events, this article has served as something of a catch-all of relevant events and political context and certainly warrants condensing. Thanks for your update of the timeline section, though I think that section now deserves to be referenced to indicate its reliability.

The History section was originally called 'Pretext' which is more forgiving of the section you have drawn attention to re: Government appointments and sackings. Perhaps returning the section heading to it original title, Pretext, would justify the retention (and appropriateness) of this section.

Tim Stone's caveat "I'm not pro nuclear etc." is quite fanciful when you consider his previous work. A quick look at this biography will show how dubious his proclamation is. I'd be happy to include it, but it should feature with a counterpoint, demonstrating his long term professional efforts to advantage the nuclear industry. --Danimations (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

The pretext or history section needs to be forked out to other relevant pages, such as the relevant Australia pages, or further down in the article to ensure that the relevant information to the commission is up front. Otherwise this is looking like a chronological blog post and that is not useful to anyone using this page for information. Even stating it as Pretext implies that these events are linked to the Royal Commission, and as I'm aware from my research it was announced in February of 2015 and that was it. Since Dr Stone stated it on record with the caveats, which could point to why he is involved in those projects, trying to point out otherwise is a POV issue.

I'm having difficulty understanding why the pretext section is even there. Not one part indicates why it is relevant to the article itself.

WP:POV is useful to ensure neutrality in articles, especially ones that can be polarising.

--Raidelaide (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC

Future of history/pretext section's content[edit]

I've been thinking about the Pretext/History section and what to make of it.

The relevance of some of its content may seem indirect, though I believe this can be significantly improved with some condensing and rewriting. For example, should the Commission decide that further nuclear industrial development is desirable for South Australia, both state and Federal laws will need to be changed to facilitate it. This makes this South Australian Royal Commission significant on a Federal political level.

Obviously there is relevant background on the Commission's expert advisor Barry Brook currently in this section, which demonstrates his long-term commitment to nuclear industrial development in both SA and Australia. He is a prominent figure in this field in Australia. Former Premier Mike Rann's position on nuclear industrial development may suggest why such a commission did not occur earlier, as might other government appointments and sackings, given those persons professional histories. Incidentally, BHP considered developing uranium enrichment capacity in South Australia back in the 1970s, something which is yet to be mentioned here.

This Royal Commission is a key episode in a story spanning decades.

Perhaps some of this detail needs to be moved into a new page entitled Nuclear industry in South Australia, which might include sections on prior public discourse/debate, key figures etc. Then, key points could be condensed and summarised, and retained within this article. Your 'forking out' suggestion makes sense, Raidelaide.

I'd appreciate any other editors' thoughts on this. I'd also be happy to take the lead and act boldly on this myself. --Danimations (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

I don't follow this line of reasoning for this entire section. Parts can be added into Nuclear Power in Australia page that has relevant lists relating to the things covered in the context section.

This page should be, and only be, related the the Royal Commission and not a narrative. That is for users of wikipedia to decide rather being prompted in a non neutral manner. The example you used of Prof Barry Brook can be sourced from the linked page that is written about him.

You have said it yourself when you state "This Royal Commission is a key episode in a story spanning decades". That is for another place to discuss and not in an online encyclopaedia. A blog would be more suited to that form of publication.

Essentially this page needs to state the creation of the Royal Commission, the main persons involved in the Royal Commission (and not peripheral), What it is investigating, Where they are investigating, Who they are investigating, and the reported conclusions of the commission.

It should not be a narrative of indirect events that have a similar theme but are not connected.

Context needs to be removed or forked into relevant sections.

It's fine to have notable persons responses to the royal commission, but these need to be at the end of the piece. In addition to a list of relevant inquiries that have taken place at the federal and state level. Not an essay on them inserted into the article.

I'd urge you to look at the following section in the description of what Wikipedia is (see point 3). This is why I think this section is unnecessary.

Raidelaide (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start 'forking out' in August[edit]

Thanks for the links and your input Raidelaide. I'll commence the 'forking out' as discussed next month- it will be a sizeable task and I won't have time to tackle it until then. --Danimations (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

Would you like me to start removing the sections that can be forked and remove the irrelevant sections that are not in line with Wikipedia policies and design? I'll add reasoning to why.

Raidelaide (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

I'm concerned that since you appear to be a new editor, and have previously deleted content on this page which was referenced, that referenced information may be lost. I have concerns that Wikipedia:PRESERVE may not be adhered to, should you commence the process of 'forking out'. The newness of your account on Wikipedia doesn't explain your level of familiarity with certain WP policy and guidelines, however. Could you please explain this apparent inconsistency? --Danimations (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

This is the list of sections in the Pretext header that need to be forked or made into new pages, although for some content there isn't a page yet and these sections will need additional info to abide by Wikiedia policies:

Pretext section Work to do
Olympic Dam mine expansion plan Already has a wiki at Olympic Dam mine, new info should forked out and added there
Australian Nuclear Energy and the Switkowski Review Already has a wiki at Nuclear power in Australia and Ziggy Switkowski, new info forked to these two pages
Three mine policy ends Already has a wiki at Three mine policy, new info forked there
UCL Australia and Uranium Council are established, Jack Snelling visits AREVA UCL Australia info to UCL Australia; Uranium council info to a new page; Jack Snelling visit to AREVA is not relevant to the 2015 Royal Commission, interesting but not relevant.
Barry Brook promotes nuclear power and criticises opposition Already a wiki at Barry Brook (scientist), new info forked out to there
Fukushima disaster, Olympic dam expansion approvals, UCL expands Already a wiki at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Olympic Dam mine, and UCL Australia, new info forked these wikis.
Olympic Dam mine expansion deferred, AREVA office established Already a wiki at Olympic Dam mine and AREVA, new info forked to these pages
Nuclear industry advocacy intensifies, Holden closure in 2017 announced Already a wiki at Holden with closure info in it; There is information in here that should go to the respective pages of the persons identified (UCL, Steve Bracks, Julie Bishop, Stefaan Simons etc.)
Shaping the future of South Australia This is a list of discussions on Nuclear that are not relevant to the KPMG report this section is apparently referring to. Similar to the point above, the cited persons and organisations need to be forked out respectively. Also there are people referenced in here that have no direct relevance or are notable for wikipedia.
Government appointment and sackings No relevance to the Royal Commission, should go into the Department of State Development wikipedia page.

Considering that you have already added information into those linked wiki pages previously, it shouldn't be an issue. Aside, those edits in other pages is they I raise the WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY issues. They are all interlinked and the work has been done in the past few months after the Royal Commission was announced solely by yourself, and I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

In addition to this there have been other inquiries and commissions that can be linked in a simple bulleted point section at the bottom of the Royal Commission page, for example:

  • Switkowski report
  • Fox inquiry

etc.

As for the "inconsistency". I like to read up on the policies/rules of the area I am working in to ensure that there are no problems, ergo due diligence. With respect to the deletions, I've only deleted two words and revised that particular edit to be consistent with what was referenced since Dr Caldecott is not a registered paediatrician, and the key dates section that was to make it easier to read rather than a bullet point.

Raidelaide (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & next steps[edit]

Thanks for the list you've provided above, it will certainly help expedite the forking out process, and serve as a record for the benefit of others, showing where further information will be dispensed to. I still believe there's a case for summarizing/condensing some of the detailed info currently appearing under "Pretext", in order to augment the existing "Uranium Industry in South Australia" section.

I would like to commit some time to this, and have expressed that I will be able to make that time commitment next month.

I have concerns regarding your sense of urgency to substantially reduce the content of this page. You say that you study policies in areas in which you work... are you in any way working professionally in association with this Commission or with the Government of South Australia? If so, please be aware that a potential Wikipedia:COI issue may arise.

If you are concerned that I may have infringed Wikipedia:ADVOCACY or Wikipedia:NPOV, I'd like to point out that you are the first to make such an accusation. My Talk page does not demonstrate any such concerns or support such an argument. The recent comment 'advice' by DGG actually is complimentary of my NPOV approach, noting that I am "covering a large industry in a npov manner."

Please take note that the one specific NPOV example you raised earlier this week, Tim Stone's 'I'm not actually pro-nuclear' caveat has been added to the page today (incidentally, prior to my reading your most recent comment here). I should also add that it is also highly unlikely that the article would have received a B-class quality assessment were it riddled with NPOV or any other problems. --Danimations (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

No worries, I'm happy to help. I think there is scope to have a list that details just the headings of relevant or similar processes that have occurred in South Australia and Australia.

"I have concerns regarding your sense of urgency to substantially reduce the content of this page. You say that you study policies in areas in which you work... are you in any way working professionally in association with this Commission or with the Government of South Australia? If so, please be aware that a potential Wikipedia:COI issue may arise."

I see what's happened here, what I meant was:

I like to read up on the policies/rules (Wikipedia's rules and policies) of the area I am working in (Wikipedia) to ensure that there are no problems (editing/creating Wikipedia Pages).

So no, I am not in breach of COI here.

As for the reference to the comment by the mod, the second part of that sentence is what I was referring to, as you may be creating article that adhere to NPOV however, there are some instances where it is giving the operation that it is not. Should've added more context there to avoid confusion.

I have the time to help make this page a great resource for people to go to to find out what this Royal Commission is about. Hence, why I started the talk to edit the page than just going in an editing without explanation. It's not like it'll take days to do, a couple of hours would be all that is needed. I've noticed you've created profile pages for people mentioned in this page and edited others within hours, so it can be done that quickly.

The main issue I see is that there is this constant narrative running though this page to attempt to question (discredit?) the Royal Commission's independence. There is the structure of the page, constant references and use of language that go to questioning the independence. It may just be coincidence as this is a live work in progress.

For example 5.1 should be in 10, 4 needs to be at the end as it is not relevant to the Royal Commission (interesting but not relevant), 7 should be after 11, and 8 and 9 swapped.

Raidelaide (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC) —[reply]

As above I've changed the order to ensure that people viewing this page see the relevant information on the Royal Commission up front.

As it stand I see issues with the following pieces:

  1. There is a section solely on Dr Timothy Stone and none for the other expert advisory members. This needs to be merged into the personal page of Dr Timothy Stone or bios for each member expanded.
  2. Section Independence of Inquiry is editorial and will need to be changed.
  3. Pretext Section needs to be removed and content shifted to other pages and not minorly edited

Raidelaide (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments[edit]

I was asked to comment:
  1. Everything before Feb 2015 belongs elsewhere, as does everything not directly related to the Commission. This includes all of section 2, 3, 6, 11, 12. The simplest way to deal with it is to immediately split it out into an article on "History of Nuclear power in Australia", and then consider merging it with existing articles, or considering if an additional new one is needed. There does need to be some background, but the way we deal with that here is to link to the articles giving it. The sooner this is done, the easier it will be to consider the rest of the material.
  2. Perhaps the word "pretext" has a special meaning in Australia, such as "background". But to me it means "false reason, given in order to justify doing something where there is actually a hidden motive." Obviously it will be removed when the section is removed, but that it was used at all converns me. As I read the entire article, it gives me the impression that it was in considerable part written by an opponent of nuclear power. I don't think it was deliberately slanted, but it's hard to really be neutral in something that one cares about, and one often doesn;t realize the effect one is having. I'll go into details here if asked, after the extraneous material is removed.
  3. The list of scheduled hearings does not belong in WP. It's a violation of WP:NOT NEWS. Remove it entirely, please.
  4. The section on the individual international hearings is excessive detail. One or two sentences is enough. The quotes from Scarce seem intended to indicate he might be biased, and in any case are excessive detail. Similarly with much of the material in section 10. Even accurate wquotescan give the impression of bias depending on how they are used.
  5. Sections on the individual members do not belong here. If the members have articles, they should be linked, along with a one or two word description. If they do not, a sentence or so might be needed.
  6. Until the Commission has published its report, or some preliminary version of its report, I do not see how anything other than a very short article is justified. The best way to cover public comments is to mention them briefly and link to the news sources for the details. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

Thanks for the input DDG.

With respect to forking out info to park it in another article, wouldn't there be an issue whereby it can become a WP:COATRACK problem?

Raidelaide (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

As per discussion above earlier with Danimations and the present one with DDG, I have removed the details that are not relevant to the commission and the sections that do not read as a neutral view. The entire pretext section did read as an essay against nuclear in Australia and was removed as per reasons noted.

There are still issues with the two sections questioning the independence of the commission and the research.

I've decided that the legislation section is relevant as Royal Commissions are bound by rules that most people do not realise. The creation of this commission is because of the guidelines in that Act.

Raidelaide (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

Re 2. I can't understand how "Pretext" could ever be intended as an impartial heading, especially considering the subject matter which we all know attracts rather dedicated opponents. No, there is no special colloquial meaning in Australia, DGG. The rather similar word "Context" would have sufficed, without all the *hidden agenda* nuance.

Moatareactor (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotations[edit]

I'd like to discuss the use of quotations to justify statements.

The opinions of individual members of the public shouldn't be quoted as factual information with respect to the commission. While there are notable people who have wikipedia biographies that have made statements the use of persons from the community who do not meet wikipedias notability guidelines should be removed.

Raidelaide (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns[edit]

This article was flagged with significant copyright concerns by Earwig Copyvio Detector. Aside from the verbatim reproduction of the Terms of Reference (which are not among materials excluded from copyright), content has been identified from and now blanked as closely paraphrased from the fully reserved page at http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/worldwide-visits/united-states-and-canada/

For a few examples, this content includes:

Source text Article text
Presentation of Safety Regulations in relation to the licensing, construction and operation of the current and future reactors, intermediate waste storage and disposal, and mix and expertise of staff needed within the Commission. Presentation of safety regulations related to licensing, construction and operation of the current and future reactors, intermediate waste storage and disposal, and mix and expertise of staff needed within the Commission
Discussions centred upon national energy policy development and implementation with emphasis on energy mix, new generation reactor research studies, reactor license extension and financial incentives to support new investment. Discussed national energy policy development and implementation with emphasis on energy mix, new generation reactor research studies, reactor license extension and financial incentives to support new investment

This is not all of the content that follows closely; I've just taken a couple of passages. There are others that include language and structure from the original.

Unfortunately, where only one source discusses information it can be quite difficult to convey the same information without following closely on language. However, the more of such close paraphrasing occurs, the more likely we are to run afoul of copyright. In some cases, if additional content cannot be woven in or the material written in structure and language, it may be better to simply link to the original. When the original content is publicly hosted by the copyright owner, this creates no copyright issues for Wikipedia or our reusers.

The section has been blanked to allow interested contributors an opportunity to secure license, to verify that the content is not a copyright issue (whereupon it will be restored by an administrator or copyright clerk) or to propose a rewrite. The article will be revisited after about a week (depending on the backlog in the area) to see if comments have been left here to explain why copyright concerns should not apply or if a rewrite is proposed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to agreed plans to 'fork out' content?[edit]

Dear User:Raidelaide: what happened to the consensus we reached here regarding the appropriateness of 'forking out' content from this article to others, for the purposes of meeting WP:Preserve? --Danimations (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

All the information is still available from the edit logs that can be easily reached to put into other pages. Although I must admit when I looked at the other pages, there was already information that referred to the points made in the pretext sections. In some cases it was done by yourself so it was duplicated here. As per the discussion with DDG it was removed as it was not relevant.

As per consensus there was none. It was me suggesting to help and you telling me you'll do it later. As this is a live issue and a current event it would be pertinent to have relevant information and readability to ensure that outside users can read this with ease. Having an entire essay at the top of the page is not conducive to people reading this page.

Raidelaide (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

  • The point agreed upon by myself and User:DGG was that content should be moved to other pages where appropriate, not removed from Wikipedia entirely. In the spirit of collaboration, it would have been appropriate for you to assist in the moving of content to other related pages rather than flatly deleting well over 100,000 characters of content. It will take a long time for me, or any other editor who uses the Visual Editor, to move content and preserve the citations elsewhere, consistent with WP:Preserve. That task has been made harder given that 170 or so refs are now buried in history logs only.

I have also added WP:SPA tags to your comments for the benefit of other editors who may read this conversation. To date you have expressed interest in this article exclusively. Is this likely to change in the future? --Danimations (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

I've only been on here a month now and I only have so much time to contibute between work and family. Yes I will contribute to other articles in due course, one step at a time. This SPA tag is highly unfair and they should be removed. Especially considering the first two bullet points in WP:SPA state:

  • New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.

I fully understand this and hopefully my explanation alleviates your concerns.

  • Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

Hopefully you can see this. I have already been questioned on a conflict-of-interest by yourself.

You can see from my first talk page comment that I was keen to help because when I first came across this page when googling for info on the Royal Commission it was very hard to read. It was more like an essay than a encyclopaedic article.


The following link has all the "pretext" section in it with all the references that can be easily copy and pasted into the relevant articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle_Royal_Commission&diff=673635819&oldid=673635361

A lot of the information as I already have stated before was duplicated in the respective pages (the ones outlined in the table above) and in some cases by yourself. Also there is an 'undo' button to undo the changes. If that'll make it easier for yourself to edit.


Also I would like to know what this edit was that I deleted earlier on that violated WP:PRESERVE?. According to my logs it was to delete a reference to Dr Helen Caldecott as a paediatrician and keep it in line with what the description in the bio was.

Raidelaide (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

After waiting almost two weeks and a self imposed cooling off period it seems like there is no desire to respond to my concerns with regards to the tagging and messages I posted on your personal talk page Danimations.

As such I removed the tags myself as it is an unfair representation.

Raidelaide (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

work still needed[edit]

It might help if you rewrote the table and list sections in prose. As it is, it does not look like an encycopedia article. The various bio incorporated into it to explain the importance of the participants is excessive--if we have articles on them they can be linked; if not, descriptions in a few qwords are enough. (Photos of people commenting on their work are particularly irrelevant). The list of hearings is incommensurate detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for revisiting this, DGG. I agree with your comments re: tables and excessive detail. Aside from the 'key dates' section (an initiative of Raidelaide's, which I originally wrote as prose) you will notice that the remaining excessively detailed International Visits table is really the last relic of this prior, table-heavy format. --Danimations (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large deletions[edit]

I have removed a significant amount of text and tables from this article. I recognise these edits potentially undo a large amount of work, but there appeared to be a lot of unnecessary detail from primary sources. I suggest more could be still be cut. Happy to discuss further with editors if necessary. Landscape goats (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-

Ta. Quick question - I'm a bit confused about an aspect of the process. In the "announcement and sequence of events" section it says that the first of 30 to 40 public hearings is to commence on Sept 9. However judging from other material public hearings in both regional SA and Adelaide have been in progress for some time now. Does the Commission distinguish between public hearings and public forums? Landscape goats (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public hearings & community consultation[edit]

  • Thanks for asking the above question, Landscape goats. The past community consultation sessions and coming public hearings are two distinctly separate activities, each with a different objective. The Community Consultation sessions were to explain the nature and scope of the commission, and to encourage interested parties to prepare written, or in some unusual cases, oral submissions (where age, literacy or other impediments existed to writing a submission existed). The objective, as I understand it, was to introduce the Commission to communities, and explain the submissions process. Submissions closed on August 3 and the process of publishing them to the Commission's website is ongoing. Media reports have indicated that over 250 submissions were received.

The coming Public Hearings are altogether different. The Commission has identified individual expert witnesses (presumably through the previous submissions process and via international visits) to provide further information to the Royal Commission in person. As I understand it, the public is welcome to observe these sessions- though that hasn't been made clear yet. I am gleaning that impression based largely on the label given: Public hearings. --Danimations (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-

Thanks Danimations. The commission's web page doesn't seem particularly clear on this. Do you think the current sources support the level of detail we have in the article (i.e. the suggestion of two distinct phases to the consultation process)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscape goats (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are likely to be other media stories which mention the public hearings, and there are certainly others which discuss the community consultation sessions. I haven't read anything which makes a point of the distinction between the two. Since you've taken an interest in this topic, you might like to contact the Royal Commission directly and suggest they clarify this on their own website. I think it's worth anticipating further verifiable clarification of this separation, given that the hearings will be starting in just over a week. In my opinion, readers would benefit from knowing that a new activity is commencing soon. I suspect we'll be able to verify this with citations within the next week or two. --Danimations (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the written (and associated oral) submissions, the public hearings and the international visits are the processes by which evidence is being obtained. I don't know what the community consultation sessions which will run concurrently with the public hearings are intended to achieve, as the formal submission period closed on August 3. The next opportunity for public involvement that I'm aware of will be the response period to the preliminary findings report, expected in Feb 2016. --Danimations (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So to summarise, from here the commission is going through its own process of investigation, whereas up to this point it has received written and oral submissions. Does this make sense? I'm not sure about anticipating events prior to good sources being available, but I agree that what's currently in the article with regards to the process will do for the time being. Landscape goats (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I believe your comment above is a fair summary. Te distinction is between oral submissions (for anyone who couldn't write one, but wanted to have their say) and the pending expert witness testimonies, which will also be oral presentations- though I suspect they may also bring forth new written and other material evidence in the process- but I'm speculating there. I think you've done some good work improving the article's structure and condensing its contents. --Danimations (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nice words Danimations. To be honest I think the article could be condensed a bit more - this is a story that still has a long way to run. But clearly a lot of work has gone into it and I know that it's harder to do the research and create the text than it is to cut it down, which is what I have done in this case. Regarding the investigation process I gather from the website that witnesses will be responding to questions from the commissioner. So not so much about people having their say, but rather about the commissioner conducting an investigation to determine the facts. Landscape goats (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above the two sessions are separate. From what I've read, the public consultation is to raise awareness and to get people to engage. Initially this was to get responses to the issues papers. As this phase is now complete they are moving onto the inquiry/hearing phase where the commissioners interrogate the evidence presented from the issues papers and hear from experts that have been put forward in submissions etc. Just to clarify some terms it looks like that Kevin Scarce is the Chair of the Royal Commission and that the senior staffers are classed as Commissioners as per the Royal Commissions Act.
It is confusing with the public consultations running concurrently in regional areas. Raidelaide (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reference/source to share for your Scarce = chair and senior staff = commmissioners tip, Raidelaide? It would be good to include this, but we'll need a verifiable source for that level of detail. --Danimations (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is from the Royal Commissions Act 1917 (SA). There is a section and defnitions that denote that someone is appointed Chair and Comissioners are employed. See:
"commissioner means any person who is appointed by the Governor to constitute, or to be a member of, a commission"
"chairman means chairman of the commission, and includes the person for the time being acting as such chairman, and, in cases where the commission is constituted of a sole commissioner, means such commissioner"
Raidelaide (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Data[edit]

The poll that currently sits in the opposition section is a bit out of place considering that The Advertiser ran that poll as an informal street corner survey and that they ran four other surveys online during the same period of time with different results.

Two polls on the 12th of March had four responses to "Do you support an expanded nuclear industry for South Australia?", with the following results with 6,212 and 3,052 responses respectively:

  • Yes - we should embrace nuclear power generations and waste storage → Poll 1 = 56%, Poll 2 = 24%
  • Yes - we should store nuclear waste but not build nuclear power stations → Poll 1 = 2%, Poll 2 = 24%
  • No - but we should maintain the current uranium mining arrangements → Poll 1 = 16%, Poll 2 = 23%
  • No - we should shut down the industry altogether → Poll 1 = 26%, Poll 2 = 29%

Before these two there were two more on stories related to the Royal Commission: "What role do you think SA should play in the nuclear fuel cycle?" (9/2/15) 6,653 responses

  • Mining only = 7%
  • Waste storage only = 1%
  • Mining and waste storage = 3%
  • The complete cycle... = 67%
  • No role at all = 21%
  • Enrichment only = 2%

"Do you support a nuclear industry in SA?" (6/3/15) 231 responses

  • Yes = 76%
  • No = 21%
  • Unsure = 3%

I'm of the opinion that either these surveys need to be included for balance, or as it would be too cluttered none, including the one already published, are used.

Since these are online and street corner polling that are not standardised and randomised to ensure consistency with the South Australian population that their use regardless is uncertain. Presently the Essential polling and others that are used in the Nuclear Power in Australia page are sufficient enough on these issues as they are statistically significant. If we wanted to do a SA specific poll in this Royal Commission page, the SACOME survey in the Nuclear Power in Australia page is probably the most relevant. However since that is from a lobby group I'd rather err on the side of caution and not use any at all.

In short, the above polls need to be included or all removed. I'm leaning to the latter. Thoughts?

Raidelaide (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing the current text and table with a short text only summary of the outcomes of all 3(?) polls (maybe not presenting all the data). I'm not sure that such a summary belongs in either the support or opposition sections of the public response section. Maybe it belongs in its own subsection. I'm undecided about including the outcomes of the SACOME poll. It was conducted before the Royal Commission was announced, was it not? However it is relevant context - what do you think? Landscape goats (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If its agreed that featuring the SACOME poll is appropriate, please make sure the SACOME article is wikilinked- it might also pay to refer to its author in full: South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy. Obviously, SACOME has an interest in representing the financial interests of its members (which include several companies engaged in uranium mining). SACOME has not published the specific wording of questions asked, and I am somewhat skeptical of the survey- but that doesn't invalidate it. I am not opposing its inclusion, but simply wanted to say that its origins are relevant to the commission, especially since SACOME presented Kevin Scarce at one of their events in December 2014, have made a submission to the RC and have commented on it in the media. Another option could be to break out a new section regarding the uranium mining industry response to the RC- this could also refer to submissions made by SACOME, the Minerals Council of Australia, AREVA, BHP Billiton etc. along with the SACOME commissioned survey results. --Danimations (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first preference is not to use any at all in this royal commission page as it'll clog up the public response section with non-professional polls. Nevertheless, you've reiterated the caution I'd use when using that SACOME poll. It is linked in the Nuclear power in Australia page and the reference (ref 90) has the PDF which does include the questions if you'd want to have a look at them. As it stands I think that it is sufficient for the professionally conducted polls to only reside in the Nuclear power in Australia page. If that is the direction we go in (no polls on Royal Commish page) then it may be prudent to add in a link to the bottom of the page to Nuclear power in Australia and Uranium in Australia pages.
As an aside thought, do you think (and Goats too), that since a lot of information about Uranium and Nuclear is coming out with specific regards to South Australia that there is either A) a section in the Nuclear power in Australia page or B) a specific page called Nuclear in South Australia be created? Raidelaide (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a good time to revisit my comment from back on July 6 (scroll up to see it in its original context):

"This Royal Commission is a key episode in a story spanning decades. Perhaps some of this detail needs to be moved into a new page entitled Nuclear industry in South Australia, which might include sections on prior public discourse/debate, key figures etc. Then, key points could be condensed and summarised, and retained within this article. Your 'forking out' suggestion makes sense, Raidelaide."

Obviously I support revisiting this idea, though we would need to be mindful of WP:recentism and provide historical context. I believe a new page specific to South Australia would be more appropriate than expanding the existing Nuclear power in Australia article, which is already quite long. Also, much of the contents of recent and coming discussions re: nuclear lies beyond the scope of "nuclear power" as it relates to waste management, enrichment, fuel fabrication etc. --Danimations (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there is a fair bit of history on the question of context. To my mind the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant some context in the article itself since it (the inquiry) represents a move towards bipartisanship on an issue that has divided the Australian community for a long time. And the fact that the SA government owns around a third of the world's uranium resource.
Regarding the question of whether a separate page covering the nuclear industry in SA is warranted - are there similar articles for other states in Australia, or provinces/states in other countries? Landscape goats (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nuclear industry in Canada article could possibly provide a model, though it suffers from recentism in some sections and is light on for citations. It also lacks discussion of political and civic attitudes towards the industry over time. A Uranium mining in Australia article exists already, as does the Nuclear power in Australia article discussed here previously. Regional articles could be justified in a few other regions in my opinion- Ontario, Pennsylvania and New Mexico all come quickly to mind. I have a global interest in this subject and would contribute to such pages in due course should they be created. There would inevitably be some resulting content overlap with existing nuclear power/uranium mining articles though.

A section existed previously in this article entitled 'Uranium industry in South Australia' which provided, in my opinion, some useful background information/context. There was also a much longer Pretext section which was discussed above, then deleted, which focused on political context from 2005 to 2015. I believe this content was deserving of a home elsewhere, but no suitable single article existed for it. Some of the content was forked out, but much of it remains buried in the history log.--Danimations (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which was very light on context, and the Pretext section was noted by others as well as myself to contain a lot of irrelevant information that was presented as somehow linked to the Royal Commission. I understand that you have a belief towards that information being linked, however there was no definitive evidence that highlighted the assertion. We have been over this before, and you've been corrected by another user on this matter, the information you wrote up was not lost forever and as such here is a link that has the information that you wrote up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle_Royal_Commission&diff=673635819&oldid=673635361
If a Nuclear in South Australia page is created it will need to be written very carefully to just present the information as it stands and not be slanted in any particular direction or omit information to define a narrative, which is what WP:RECENTISM is getting at. Hence, the interpretation of that infomation will be for the reader to decide and not the editor. There were some sentences in the Uranium Industry in South Australia section that were fine and others that focused on issues that were not related directly to the industry and were out of place. Here is a link to that previous section. South Australia has a lot of history in this sphere and it will require decent research efforts to ensure neutrality. From looking at a bunch of the South Australian authored submissions there seems to be a wealth of references to play on which is handy.
In essence the new page should be quite dry and just have information as it is much like the Nuclear in Canada page. — Raidelaide (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the nuclear industry in SA is notable enough to warrant its own page? Landscape goats (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point probably not. Although in the general pages it would warrant some drawing out. From memory the first processing plant was at Port Pirie, the first mine was at Mt Painter/Arkaroola, and it's host to the largest uranium resource in the world. Raidelaide (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funding of Royal Commission[edit]

I added a citation needed tag to the Federal funding statement. Danimations do you have a source for this information? Otherwise it will have to be removed in due course.

— Raidelaide (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the existing SA Budget Papers source. --Danimations (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? As it only contains the State funding of around $6 million. This is the relevant quote "$6.0 million over two years for the operating costs of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, established on 19 March 2015" — Raidelaide (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'll look at either undoing the edit via the history links, or just redoing it. Thanks — Raidelaide (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context discussed in media reports[edit]

The national and economic context in which this Commission sits is appearing in the media with increasing frequency. Some examples:

--Danimations (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the job of an encyclopaedia to inform people of bare facts and events and not editorialise. What is the point of these references for this page?

--Raidelaide (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear industry in South Australia[edit]

The Commission concludes today. As such, a new article Nuclear industry in South Australia has been created. Perhaps the follow-up to the Commission's recommendations can be placed in historical context there. --Danimations (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that a section on the findings of the Final Report should be included in this Royal Commission article. Johnfos (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added a "Missing" tag. Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle_Royal_Commission&oldid=1198092680"