|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-nuclear movement article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I'm picking up from recent comments that there are probably too many images in the article, that it is a bit long, and too US-centric. I have addressed these three issues mainly using WP:SS. See what you think. Johnfos (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Johnfos: I've looked over your changes and I've a couple of questions. Firstly, you've reinserted the image of the fallout shelter sign. Do you mind sharing your rationale for including that image? Secondly, after your edits, there are still 18 pictures of people standing around holding banners. I understand that an article on a protest movement will require images of people protesting, but 18 is excessive. I'm sure readers will get the idea with fewer images. Can we remove some, please? Dolescum (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed one more image, and hope this helps. But the remaining protest images are a diverse array and I honestly can't see scope for removing any of them. These images represent global activities over many decades. The two main areas of nuclear disarmament protests and opposition to nuclear power are covered. Many different countries and cultures are included. Different types of protests: sit-ins, human chain protests, concert protests, protests being quelled by the authorities, etc., are represented. This is what we need. Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Johnfos:, thanks, it does help the article look a little cleaner. I'd grasped that the images are trying to convey the scale, history and diversity of the movement but I still can't see the need for so many of them. For example, I count about six images of protests in Germany, most of them recent. I can't see the need for so many pictures of disapproving Germans. Does a protest against nuclear weapons look different to a protest against nuclear power? I'm failing to see how myself, which makes me think that such concepts are better conveyed by the article text. Also, the image of the protest at the Meiji Shrine in Tokyo is shown twice, both in the lead and in the section on 2011. There's certainly room to trim, from my perspective. Dolescum (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Have removed dup image, no problem. Unlike nuclear power, nuclear weapons protests often involve women's groups (see WFP image), and have religious undertones, (see NDE prayer vigil image). Regarding Germany, it is the country with the strongest anti-nuclear movement. The German images cover three main issues: nuclear power opposition, nuclear waste disposal protests about castor train transports from France, and some protests which turned violent, since the early 1970s. All good images I think, which complement the text. Johnfos (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Too one-sided "suggests that there is a consensus among many independent, non-partisan energy experts that nuclear power plants are a poor way to produce electrical power." utter bullshit What about "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." I'll add some balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just edited out "John Vidal writing in the Guardian said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself"." It's essentially a conspiracy theory. I thought of saying it was a conspiracy theory in the text but it's of little merit.
n his book Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Jim Falk explores connections between technological concerns and political concerns. Falk suggests that concerns of citizen groups or individuals who oppose nuclear power have often focused initially on the "range of physical hazards which accompany the technology". Concern often starts with a single issue, such as radioactive waste, but over time concerns usually spread and the focus broadens. Falk suggests that with a richer and more sophisticated understanding of issues comes more concerns and eventually, almost inevitably says Falk, this leads to a "concern over the political relations of the nuclear industry".
John Vidal has said "The point is that right across the world it is not just the nuclear technology which is so offensive to people, but the arrogance, callousness and ruthless steamrollering of any opposition that invariably accompanies nuclear projects. What the pro-nuclear folk here do not seem to understand is that the abuse of political power is as dangerous as the power source itself".
Falk argues that if all the different concerns over the physical hazards of nuclear power were distilled into one succinct statement, it might be this: "that it is a technology whose safety people deeply distrust". Falk says that that distrust also applies more widely, to the whole nuclear enterprise:
People must have come not only to distrust the safety of the technology but also the authority of those who have assured them so confidently that nuclear power is safe. In this sense people distrust the entire nuclear enterprise -- not only its technology, but the public and private organizations, the political parties, and those often prestigious scientists who advocate and assist in the development of nuclear pow
All of the above says to me, and I admit I think anti-nuclear people are crackpots, that a lot of people make money promoting conspiracy theories about nuclear energy. I think it's absurd to suggest that there's a conspiracy to misrepresent the risks associated with the industry yo the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Anti-nuclear movement
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anti-nuclear movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "OECD":
- From Russia: "Russian Federation" (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved 24 February 2008.
- From Climate change mitigation: "OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, Climate Change Chapter, pre-release version" (PDF). OECD. 2011. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
- From Switzerland: OECD and WHO survey of Switzerland’s health system oecd.org. Retrieved on 29 June 2009
- From Fallout shelter: Note that this image was drawn using data from the OECD report and the second edition of The Radiochemical Manual
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- John Vidal (29 February 2012). "The abuse of political power is as dangerous as nuclear power itself". The Guardian.