Talk:Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:14, 5 April 2010

United States: North Carolina Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Energy Unassessed

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism

What is the Wikipedia policy on plagiarism? In the section 'Units 2 &3' a whole sentance, (The first of any new reactors would only be operational in about 2018.), is lifted from the source. Aren't quotation marks required? A referance is made to the article that the information came from but it is not indicated that the exact wording is by the author of the article rather than of the contributer.Kevinharbin (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

To FellGleaming: Facts and sources should not be deleted from articles based only on your disagreement with the point of view. Add your own opposing facts if you wish, but do not delete information. I've put some of the information back and reworded it. For example, I've removed my word "strongly" in order to make it more neutral. I haven't deleted any of your new contributions. Rndm85 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to TMI, saying that Shearon Harris (the subject of this article) received a pump from TMI is on subject. Detailing the TMI incident itself is not, and is an obvious attempt to create a WP:COATRACK article, a violation of WP policy.

With regard to the statement "potentially catastrophic", this is written to suggest that MIT scientists claimed as much, which they did not. If you read the anti-source, you will see that MIT released a report, and an anti-nuclear activist labelled its conclusions "potentially catastrophic". As the statement stands, it is potentially libelous and must go. If you want to reinsert it, making the actual facts clear, you're welcome to do so with no objection from me.

Furthermore, I suggest you review WP policy on reliable sources. Counterpunch fails on several accounts. It is not a mainstream news source, and it publishes extremist material (see this link at http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html). FellGleaming (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will take another look at the words "potentially catastrophic" and see if it can be rewarded in a way that we can both agree on. I'm not reverting your edits. I am making changes in an attempt to reach a version that we can both agree on. This power plant is highly controversial, and there is a section where the controversy is mentioned in detail. I don't think the article is big enough topic to split at this stage.

Counterpunch is a highly referenced and highly popular website, and whether you agree with it or not, it is suitable to reference an article. If you disagree with something that they write, you can add an opposing viewpoint to the Wikipedia article, but do not delete sources. You are stalking my edits on Wikipedia and removing sources and points based on whether you agree with their conclusion or not. Rndm85 (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 : Furthermore, I suggest you review WP policy on reliable sources.  Counterpunch fails on several accounts.  It is not a mainstream news source, and it publishes extremist material (see this link at http://www.easycartsecure.com/CounterPunch/CounterPunch_Books.html).  [[User:FellGleaming|FellGleaming]] ([[User talk:FellGleaming|talk]]) 09:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
+:: Great, I will take another look at the words "potentially catastrophic" and see if it can be rewarded in a way that we can both agree on.  I'm not reverting your edits.  I am making changes in an attempt to reach a version that we can both agree on.  This power plant is highly controversial, and there is a section where the controversy is mentioned in detail.  I don't think the article is big enough topic to split at this stage.
+:: Counterpunch is a highly referenced and highly popular website, and whether you agree with it or not, it is suitable to reference an article.  If you disagree with something that they write, you can add an opposing viewpoint to the Wikipedia article, but '''do not delete sources'''.  You are stalking my edits on Wikipedia and removing sources and points based on whether you agree with their conclusion or not. [[User:Rndm85|Rndm85]] ([[User talk:Rndm85|talk]]) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)