Talk:Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Recent notifications

There has been a long time NPOV tag without any discussion and a copy editing tag without any reason. I will wait till 23rd of Friday, December 2011. If any there is no discussion or explanation, then these tags are worth to be removed to make the section clean. Thanks. Sathishmls (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On "Protest against the opening of Nuclear Reactors"

The entire section carry no or little reference. Appropriate citations should be added or the entire section is to be replaced by a couple of lines briefing up the protests. -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been updated with three new references. Johnfos (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant

Hello, Castroby, I have moved the content to the respective Controversy section. All the content are completely relevant to the current section. If you find any issue, lets discuss. But dont remove the correct content. Sathishmls (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section completely biased in favor of protesters

The controversies section is completely biased. There are non third party sources written by activists. Wikipedia should not take sides but clearly this section gives a biased perspective.Castroby (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All the content are added from trusted sources. They were added to correct the biased perspective shown by the first 2 paraghs of the controversy section. Sathishmls (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DiaNuke is not a trusted third party source and Kavita Krishnan is an activist.You should only add non third party sources like newspapers , magazines, journals , books not blogs of activists. Castroby (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

However if the same Kavita Krishnan is cited from trusted newspapers or magazines its perfectly fine.Its just I can also write a blog in some activist website and can cite is as reference, which is in not compliance with wikipedia standards. Castroby (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Castroby, There is no list maintained by wikipedia on the trusted sources. Only a blog/forum cannot be trusted as anyone can upload any info without the knowledge of the domain/hosting owner. You can refer Kavita Krishnan on many news in thehindu.com like http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/article2342722.ece . However i made modifications on the section. Kindly check. Sathishmls (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will leave the NPOV dispute tag till 30-Nov-2011. If there is no discussion, then its worth to remove the NPOV dispute tag on 30-Nov-2011. Thanks for your contributions. Sathishmls (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Castroby. As there are no more discussions on the dispute, i removed the NPOV dispute tag as stated above. Sathishmls (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

New material has been added to the section and the size of the controversies is growing everyday, while the actual section is not. I just added one line about APJ to make the section more balanced and now there is three lines attacking him and his credibility(which is completely unrelated and I have removed it). Added the dispute tag back. Section is even more biased now. How many lines are there supporting the stand of government and how many are there supporting that of protesters ? Kindly dont try to make Wikipedia a forum to show your dissent.How just it may be Wikipedia can't take a stand. Neutrality is the virtue here. Castroby (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Castroby, you may be a fan or any to any person. But you cannot delete a verified sourced message because of your personal view. You should discuss at the first place. Your contributions does not look like to be constructive. I will make changes now. 12:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathishmls (talk • contribs)

The User: Castroby has removed verified content from the page without discussing by stating his personal views. This is against wikipedia policies. I advice User: Castroby to go through wikipedia policies for constructive contributions. Sathishmls (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I remodified the controversy section leaving only the needed. The current content is balanced. Dont add more to make section bigger and biased. I would request people to discuss on the talk page instead of vandalism act. Sathishmls (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is vandalizing the article Sathish You or Me ? You told me you have no intent to add any more content in controversy section, I just didnt check for two days you have added three line to attack the one line which I added.Homi Sethna died in 2010 how can he possibly comment on this current issue. You are adding a comment which was said in 1998 as if its an immediate response to the current events. Why should one write about the credibility of APJ here if you want to write it go and write it in the article about him. Shall I comment about the credibility of the protesters here ? The whole controversies section looks like a debate. And dont teach me about Wikipedia policies and I am not adding erratic content like you to make a case for the protesters here in wikipedia. Castroby (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"The current content is balanced" How can you even claim that ? There are just two lines (APJ and Central panel) stating the governments views. How many lines are there supporting the protesters cause ? Kindly count it yourself. I am ready to restrict the Governments views to three lines,Are you ready to restrict the protesters view to three lines or some fixed limit ? Castroby (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lines stating the views of protesters :

As of October 2011, thousands of protesters and villagers living around the Russian-built Koodankulam nuclear plant in the southern Tamil Nadu state, are blocking highways and staging hunger strikes, preventing further construction work, and demanding its closure as they fear of the disasters like the Environmental impact of nuclear power, Radioactive waste, nuclear accident similar to the radiation leak in March at Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster.[17] The protesters have clearly stated few specific reasons for opposing the Koodankulam NPP project.[18] According to S P Udayakumar, of the voluntary People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, "the nuclear plant is unsafe" and "the safety analysis report and the site evaluation study have not been made public. No public hearing was held. It's an authoritarian project that has been imposed on the people." Protesters claimed that even advanced countries like Germany has decided to shutdown all its 17 Nuclear reactors through which the country gets 23% of its energy.[19][20] Gopal Gandhi, Grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, former West Bengal governor also said that Indian Fukushima possible in a lecture on 'India 2021- Hazarding Guesses, Guessing Hazards' in New Delhi)[21] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government’s civil nuclear program at the apex Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the "staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies".[22][23] Protesters also claimed that the Fukushima disaster in which the emergency cooling system itself was damaged by the earthquake[26], has made it clear that no one can really predict any disaster occurance.[27] In response to the center panel report, protesters wrote an open letter to the chief minister Jayalalithaa that the center panel's report is "ill-baked and incomplete eyewash report" and also said that the report has "ignored our question on liability, and has given no specific or scientific information on nuclear waste, and vague information on the fresh water needs of the KKNPP".[29]

Lines stating the views of the Goverment:

Renowned aeronautical scientist and former President of India A. P. J. Abdul Kalam responded to the protests by claiming that the Koodankulam Nuclear Plant is safe.[24][25].Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha that "all precautions would be taken at the Koodankulam nuclear plant to maintain the highest safety standards".[17] A center panel constituted by the Government of India ,which did a survey of the safety features in the plant,said the Koodankulam reactors are the safest and fears of the people are not based on scientific principles.[28]

You call this balanced ?! And this is without the out of context comment you added. Castroby (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Castroby, I never told that Homi Sethna told this at present. The reason why i added is the message which Kalam gave is not a qualified one as there were already warnings from the Top Nuclear scientists to Kalam. A solution will be either remove both the lines that is Kalam's line and Sethna's line or else leave both. anyway i will modify the line so that it does not look like present. But dont remove verified content before discussing what is the issue. You have repeatedly doing this many times. Look at [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]

The section we are adding is controversy section and too its a nuclear energy issue. Refer http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. A line states that "But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes". Clearly there are many critical long term unresolved issues. The world is already burning because of this nuclear impact problem.

Also remember, its not about a person or any organisation. its about a technology. Hence i dont think its an issue of adding verified sources without changing the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathishmls (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sathish you are using wikipedia for your own propaganda. Clearly the controversies section is out of balance, I have pointed in the above comments, but I know you will ignore it. There is no rule in WIKIPEDIA which says "REMOVING SOURCED CONTENT IS VANDALISM".Stop posting warning on my user page it will not deter me from stopping people like you from using wikipedia for their own propaganda. If its about technology go and post these thing in the page dedicated for "NUCLEAR ENERGY". You have made this article look like a debate. Fine I will not remove your sourced but irrelevant content, I will also add sourced and verified content in the controversies section. I was previously refraining from it because I didnt want to make the content in the section long because this is not an article for that, I can also play the same game which you are playing. Castroby (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sathish read the "The three-revert rule" and the following before posting vandalism warning on my page.

Castroby (talk) 11:53, 4 2011 (UTC)

Hello Castroby, first i would like to inform you that i did not revert any of your additions/changes. I only reverted the (vandalism behaviour) deleted sourced content which you removed without any valid reason/discussion despite my warnings. Look at [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]

Please read the line which clearly state that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." in the Wikipedia:NPOV#Achieving_neutrality section. I am ready to discuss anything. But you dont seem to listen. I have repeatedly informed you so many times in a very pleasant manner that dont remove any sourced content without a discussion. I never said "REMOVING SOURCED CONTENT IS VANDALISM". Since you are removing the sourced content repeatedly without proper reason/discussing(you removed many times by showing your personal views), it leads to VANDALISM, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate.

While i am adding content to this article without any anger, You seems to be very tensed due to your personal views which you itself have shown in this same discussion like you cannot accept to loose a person's creditability though there were verified sources, your assumed and warned me that you will do game playing. Kindly dont make wikipedia as a battleground. There were many blankings happened in the same page/section. But you never seem to take any action against them. Stay cool and add constructive contents Sathishmls (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted the "The three-revert rule" to tell you that it doesnt count as vandalism to revert ones edits three times a day even without discussion, although its not recommended. I have not tried to remove all your edits,I am only trying to revert your unnecessary and misleading edits.I am sorry for losing my cool I apologize, but you are a propaganda person who is trying to make this page biased. I kindly request you not to make use of Wikipedia for your personal gains.I am not tensed about this plant or APJ I am tensed about wikipedia being used as a potential propaganda tool.I have pointed out the mismatch of points supporting both the sides in my above comments and the section getting bigger and bigger what are your thoughts about it ? Castroby (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless I will not revert your edits without discussion in future. I will also add few more lines to make views of both the sides balanced. Castroby (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Castroby, I just wanted to clear things on the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. You seems to be confused/misunderstood of the wikipedia policy. First understand that this rule applies to wherever editors revert each others contributions quickly and repeatedly within a short duration of time (edit war) due to disagreement and without trying to discuss. Hence this rule does not apply to this article case. Also this rule does not allow/exempt or consider-its-fine any person to engage in vandalism behvaiour like removing sourced material without any discussion despite warnings from the editor. Its aim is to control edit wars. I again advice you to go through wikipedia policies.

I also have no other way than WARN you not to do personal attacks like using the words "personal gains", "propaganda person". I just ignored 1 time. But you are involving more in personal attacks. Remember all your text are archieved. Kindly stay away from doing personal attacks or you may need to meet the consequences. Refer Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Consequences_of_personal_attacks. Sathishmls (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome ,I Am ready to face any consequences :) I will do anything to stop Wikipedia taken over by people with vested interests. Castroby (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally with Castroby. This article is totally biased in favor of protesters. Sathish seems to be using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. 210.211.220.127 (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section has been updated to reflect a more neutral view of events

Nashtam (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC) I have updated the Controversy section since it was clearly biased in favour of the protesters. This was especially necessary considering the recent developments on the matter (GoI acting against NGOs for legal violations etc.) which goes quite in the opposite direction of the tone and conclusion of the 'Controversy section'. Please feel free to challenge and remove the edits as you deem fit. Nashtam (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the version of the article has been reverted back to its biased viewpoint and it is not as per the comments shown in the talk page. I have gone through WP's neutrality policy, and I suggest that we pay attention to this key phrase "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Are we seriously saying that the prominent leaders of the largest democracy on the planet are liars? Request concerned users to please reconsider their position.Nashtam (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nashtam, I agree with you and user Castroby. This article is quite biased in favour of protesters. Moreover, if it is Wikipedia's Policy to prefer only reliable sources (and not those of the WP editors or the general public), nothing can be more reliable than the stated position of the country's Prime Minister and Home Minister. I have reverted the changes and you have my full support on this. Nirmayam (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've temporarily protected the article to give you all time to figure things out. Note that the protection does not sanctify any particular version but I suggest you discuss, concisely please, concerns on either side on the talk page rather than serially reverting each other's edits (when the protection ends). --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi RegentsPark, User:Nashtam has been creating many usernames, i.e., sockpuppeting and been repeatedly removing all the verified sources almost an entire section. I already raised a SPI and it has been confirmed by CheckUser. Please see [[7]]. Today i strongly suspect User:Nashtam has created another user User:Nirmayam and added messages to the article's talk page like User:Nirmayam is supporting User:Nashtam itself. Hence i have reported to the SPI about the creation of User:Nirmayam. Sathishmls (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Sathishmls, I have already responded on this matter at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Rules_in_banning_users_because_of_biased_edits_or_vandalising My initial common sense reaction was that it was not a central issue for this debate, since I was given to understand I was being banned without further notice. However, since User:Sathishmls has now raised this issue twice, it is perhaps proper to officially record that neither User:Castroby nor User:Nirmayam are my avatars. Hope that clarifies doubts on that score.

Now to come to the matter on hand. On reading Wikipedia:NPOV, I realise that there is a lot of thought that has gone into the WP's Neutrality policy. To quote the first sentence, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I take this to mean that both views of an argument must be represented if they are from reliable sources; the only qualifier being that the representation must be fair and proportionate. So, how is that to be judged? Wikipedia:DUE gives the answer in a far more comprehensive way than I could ever have. To quote again the key phrase, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." One can also check Wikipedia:Balance and Wikipedia:VALID for further clarifications.

Solution -> Since prominent people at the highest levels of the Indian democracy have already weighed in quite convincingly on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant debate, I feel that as Wikipedians we have little option but to record those observations and move on, i.e., if we go by Wikipedia:NPOV. The option for the minority opinion is to start another article that elaborates on their position in a more substantial manner than in Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, provided that article is within the guidelines set by Wikipedia:DUE, Wikipedia:Balance, Wikipedia:VALID and other relevant policies.

Nashtam (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nashtam, we don't necessarily report official observations solely because they are official, they have to be relevant. In the context of this article, just because a former president of India says that the plant is safe doesn't mean that we present it as safe. A "controversy" section should present both sides of the controversy, duly weighted. I don't know anything about this particular issue, but something that contains the following three things would be appropriate. First, describe the protests and the concerns underlying the protests. Then give the official government position. Then the rebuttal. If there are any scientific opinions on either side, then they should be clearly given prominence in a separate paragraph, perhaps at the end of the section. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks regentspark for initiating the dialogue on this. Appreciate the gesture, as I am the new user here and obviously still learning the ropes. As you rightly said, "... should present both sides of the controversy, duly weighted." I agree 100%, and that's what the Neutrality policy also insists for all articles. The only question here is what is fair and proportionate and that's where Due Weight policy and other sections of NPOV come in. I don't want to quote sections from it, as that would be like a new zealot convert preaching to an old believer, and that is usually a tiresome experience for the old hand :) I believe I have made my point, and will leave it at that. Also, your proposal is probably reasonable enough. Nashtam (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)