Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Mediation1

See also:

• Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated

/archive1 /archive2

Mediator's Greeting

Hi, I'm Ed Poor. I will be your Mediator. I will periodically sum up what I can understand about what concerns you all, in regards to the Price-Anderson article.

The little boxes after each statement refer to diffs you can click on to see who said what, before I refactored it. (If the box is empty, it means no one said it, or I'm not sure who said it, or it's just there for contrast.)

I intend not to express any of my opinions on this matter. I haven't even read the article yet! Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Okay, I read it now. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

I also read the CATO thing: they want Price-Anderson to expire, because they believe the free market will take care of everything. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Parties to the Mediation

Enter, and sign in please (3 or 4 tildes)

1. · Katefan0^(scribble)
2. · Woohookitty ^Talk
3. · Benjamin Gatti
4. · Simesa

Mediation Guidelines

1. Everyone, speak for yourself.
2. Address the Mediator, as much as possible.
3. No mind-reading. Don't speculate on what others may be thinking, or what motivates them to say what they do.
4. If there are questions on policy, ask the Mediator.
5. Don't refer to yourself in the 3rd person (Okay, I'll stop ;-)

Now I suggest everyone take a deep breath, start over, and each of you (one at a time) tell me what the problem is. I will then place my summary at the top of the page.

I will also be archiving and refactoring this page frequently. I hope this is not jarring for you. This is not a newsgroup, it's a wiki dedicatied to making accurate, neutral encyclopedia articles. Let's not forget that point.

Okay, let the healing begin! Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 00:38 (UTC)

Summary of Issues

Bullets mean everybody agrees, or I missed something. Numbers indicate disagreement (no particular order).

Diffs show who said what (if you're curious).

POV

1. The GAO doesn't "have a POV" but merely states facts. [1]
2. It's an agency of the US goverment, you betcher ass it "has a POV". [2]

Authority

1. The GAO is utterly objective, so it improperly casts doubt upon it to say According to when referring to what it says. [3], [4]
2. The government cannot state "unverifiable facts." [5]

NPOV

• The article should be neutral. [6]

Insurance

1. The industry should pay its own insurance. [7]
2. The industry and DOE still need Price-Anderson for the same reasons they originally did. Simesa
3. The Wikipedia take no position on Price being necessary, only what it does, who benefits, who pays, how it affects others, and what the effect of not having it might be - leaving the reader to decide whether that effect is good or bad. Benjamin Gatti

Chernobyl

• The Chernobyl accident should be mentioned along with a contrast to non-Soviet plants.

1. (please summarize Ben's Point Below)

Choice of Mediator

• No objections. [8], [9], [10], [11]

What this encyclopedia is

Kitty wrote:

It is not a place where you put your opinions in. It's not a position paper. It's not a forum for views. It's an encyclopedia. What we type in here isn't necessarily what we believe in. Why this is a difficult concept to comprehend, I don't know.

I believe that you have struck at the root of the problem here, my feline friend. Is there a policy page on writing for the enemy? If not, there should be.

Nothing is more common in NPOV disputes than for contributors to fail to grasp this point: that our goal here is not to make the article say the "right" things about controversial topics, but to describe the controversy accurately. And each contributor varies in their ability to do this, depending on the topic.

For example, I can write neutrally on the naming dispute over Macedonia with great ease, comfort, relaxation, poise, etc. Why? Because I'm not emotionally involved. I have no relatives from the region, no financial ties, political involvment. And it's actually reaching closure. I give it maybe one more month.

But I have difficulty with global warming. I don't really know why, but I get really worked up when I approach this topic. I start making errors and having to backtrack - and even apologize!

It's like playing piano, I guess. Some passages are just difficult for me, even though (in retrospect) after I master them, I wonder why - because they don't look any "harder" than other passages. Yet I've found that if I ignore the difficulty, it just takes longer to master the passage.

Maybe this will help us, here, in this Mediation. Maybe writing neutrally is something like learning the piano. (If not, I'm sorry to waste your time.)

But writing neutrally is very difficult. It does not come naturally - to anyone. We all want to express our own point of view. I really suggest we all read Wikipedia:point of view before continuing this discussion. I made some changes to it in recent weeks, and I think it will help.

Sorry to ramble, but maybe sometimes the Mediator has to explain something at length. Anyway, I want this Mediation to succeed. I feel you are all good contributors, and that if we can get past whatever the sticking points are, three benefits will accrue:

1. Wikipedia will get a good article on nuclear power insurance.
2. Wikipedia will gain several top notch, seasoned, cooperative editors.
3. You will all be proud of yourselves and happy to be here.

Please read Wikipedia:POV and give me your comments. Thank you. Uncle Ed 11:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Replies to NPOV

Read, along with NPOV dispute, and agreed to. Simesa 13:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncle Ed 13:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've read them and think they're both good treatments. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncle Ed 20:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be the cynic, but like the Bible, any decent set of rules will leave enough room for people to use them, or argue on a subset, or in a hundred ways - keep the law, and break the faith. My impression is that both sides to this dispute would argue they have "kept the law from their youth" where NPOV is concerned. Certainly I would. But I would focus on the more subtle aspects such as bias in selection of undisputed facts, and writing in such a way as to give one side more credence - for example using the authoritative main paragraph to state that PAA - "Creates a pool" and then using "Criticisms" which is already pejorative to balance that with "Creates a SMALLER pool (the truth)". Benjamin Gatti

Would anyone like to sign the above paragraph? It seems to relate to gaming the system. Uncle Ed 20:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

(Finding it difficult to respond anywhere else but here) - I'm not sure how this relates to "Gaming". I'm just pointing out that most rulesets have enough flex in them to allow those who want to break the spirit of the law, to do so within the letter. - Its a long discussion which probably predates the founding fathers, but even they said a democracy would only work for people of good intent - or something to that effect. While not accusing anyone of "Breaking" the rules, I have demonstrated clear violations of NPOV bias - and I certainly haven't felt constrained by the rules - in balancing the article where necessary. For example - Where it said "Creates a pool of funds" I edited it to read "Creates a smaller pool of funds" More accurate and completely changes the thrust. It seems to me, that 3RR weighs heavily in favor of creative editing rather than direct censorship - which is fine - just observing. (Ramble ramble) Benjamin Gatti

Pretty sure it's Ben. He hasn't signed some of his posts. --Woohookitty 22:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahem

I'm having trouble following the threads here. Couldn't everyone just post at the bottom of the page? And please don't edit the Mediator's Summary section. That's for me to show you what I understand.

If you continue thread-discussion, I can't follow it. And then there's nothing for me to summarize. (and then you want to edit the summary, which results in a vicious circle) Uncle Ed 19:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Point on which a difference is apparent - Cherny

1. The humanity of 30,000 dead, the absence of an entire generation of children who were terminated in utero as a cautionary measure against birth defects. The government cover up which led to countless cases of thyroid cancer (Chernobyl Neck Tie) as instructing the public to take iodine (salt) would a. save their lives, but b. expose the accident. and the fact that Price Anderson is what makes it possible for an accident like Chernobly to occur in the states, and if it did occur, the people responsible could not be held fully accountable. Benjamin Gatti

Ben, try to truncate that a bit into something that is one or 2 sentences. We don't need a full POV statement here. Put it down below. I don't think it belongs in the summary. --Woohookitty 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Deep Archive - (This comment will self destruct)

I archived most everything. Don't Panic. Nothing has been deleted. This is an alternate Universe in which I have moved the previous threads to a seperate page - the Universe of your choice remains equally available.

I'm suggesting if one feels their comments are relevent and still require resolution, that those comments might be pasted back - as an positive indication that they contain unresolved issues. I further suggest that one express shock and outrage if necessary on my personal page - or Ed's, rather than here. Benjamin Gatti

Okay...

I'm willing to try Ed's modification of my proposal, but am a little skeptical about how well it's going to work. We already tried a freeform type of debate and now we're back to a blank page. I'll try to keep an open mind though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

What part of Address the Mediator, as much as possible. sounded like an invitation to free-form debate? :-) I'm here, because you tried that before and it didn't work, so you all asked for a Mediator. Well, try adopting a few of my suggestions on how to participate in a Mediation.

It may interest you to know that user:BrandonYusufToropov and I went through a mediation (as peers, led by a third party Mediatior) and it was outstanding successful. Check his talk page.

Now we can try 2 different things at the same time.

1. Tell me what's bugging you about the article - or about inter-contributor relations.
2. Participate in my proposed "consensus version" experiment.

Things not to do:

#Engage in multi-threaded debates with each other.

#Ignore the Mediator ;-)

#Dump nuclear waste in your trashcan (just kidding)

Okay? Uncle Ed 20:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

To me, going line-by-line is significantly more structured than an open invitation to remove content you disagree with from a dummy page. That is what I meant as "freeform debate," although maybe the phraseology was not as precise as it could've been. Are you suggesting that I haven't adopted your mediation guidelines? I haven't been perfect of course, but I think I've been contributing in good faith. Maybe you disagree -- I'm a bit confused as to the tenor of your post. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, on re-reading my post I see that what you meant and what I said didn't match up. Also, I'm getting stressed out by trying to do too many mediations, etc., at once.

I think we should start with a single line that everyone agrees on. Then add another line. If nobody disagrees, repeat.

If somebody disagrees with a line, we take it out and discuss it. (Meanwhile, we could go ahead and add another line...) Uncle Ed 23:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)