Talk:Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant

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)

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)

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)

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)

I ask you once again to stop the accusations and adhere to WP:CIV policy. The popularity of Counterpunch is debatable, and beside the point in any case. They are a self-published activist organization which promotes an extremist point of view. I suggest you review policy on WP:RS in this case. Thanks. FellGleaming (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An activist publication is an excellent reference for what "opponents" say about the plant. Can you substantiate why you say Counterpunch is "extremist"? The "potentially catastrophic" quote belongs in the article per WP:YESPOV, though we should ensure it isn't given undue weight.

The stalking accusation does hold water -- many of your recent edits are to articles that he edited first, indicating you have been using his edit history to decide which articles to review. I will AGF for now on your decisions concerning which of his edits to revert. Thundermaker (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. My edit history is heavily into nuclear topics, as is his. It's inevitable that we would edit some of the same articles. Looking at his edit history, I see numerous articles he has contributed to outside the nuclear arena, none of which I have been involved with. I've contributed content to half the entries on US nuclear plants alone, and I believe he's edited this one only. The "stalking" claim is out of line.

Further, I have reverted none of his edits. He has reverted many of mine and other editors, going against WP:CON in articles such as nuclear power. In making changes, I may have removed some fringe or uncited sources that may have originally been added by him, but this is not the same as a wholesale revert. FellGleaming (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, Counterpunch is an extremist source, that doesn't meet WP criteria for a WP:RS. It is self-published editorial content. Further, it publishes such conspiracy-theory books as "Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis", "Whiteout the CIA", environmentalist manifestos such as "Been Brown So Long, It Looked Green To Me", and other far-leftist material. FellGleaming (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced / inaccurate information

The content from the site "ProjectCensored" claims that a "report by MIT and Princeton scientists" concluded Shearon Harris could be "worse than Chernobyl". The ultimate source of this story seems to be Counterpunch, the same extremist website I detail above. As for the report, I can find no mention of it at either MIT or Princeton. Counterpunch claims that "Bob Alvarez" was one of the study's co-authors. Alvarez is not a scientist at MIT or Princeton, though. He is the director of the anti-nuclear group STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation), a member of the anti-nuclear group "Institute for Policy Studies", and one of the many "policy advisors" in the US Energy Department under Clinton's administration. See:

• http://www.radiation.org/about/bio.html

The actual quote in the article is attributed to Bob Alvarez, not any scientist from MIT or Princeton. As the statement is both inaccurate and potentially libelous, I am removing it as per WP policy. FellGleaming (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

REMOVE VALID SOURCE

WHY did you remove my fact and say not in source? Its right here, I am reading it now. What are you trying do do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadmusdroad (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I disagree. I removed the material. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let Fell Gleaming bully you into leaving the article censored. When I last was editeding the page, he was constantly removing any source that he disagreed with and threatening to have me banned from Wikipedia if I didn't let him censor the page.Rndm85 (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost of Units

Firstly, the reference is lost. Link is broken. Either way, that source and statement needs to be challenged. As everyone knows, Unit 1 is in operation. What people might not know is that Unit 2 is about 50% complete. Also, they have built infrastructure for four units. Therefore, it would be incorrect to simply say that they paid so much for Unit 1. Most of what they spent was for Unit 1, but then there's a significant amount spent for Unit 2 and another portion spent for Units 3 and 4. Another point to make is that they paid the full cost of building a Fuel Handling Building for all four units, that price should not be included in "paying so much for just one unit". In conclusion, it seems that it'll be impossible to determine how much was spent on Unit 1 and how much was spent for the other three units. So if this comment is used, we will need to add the fact that a good portion spent was for the other three units that never came into existence. Also, HNP had to undergo extensive add-ons due to the TMI accident, which increased cost. Gilawson (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)