Talk:Thorcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Tim333 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for just deleting it and not replying. Amazing the politeness around here these days.

search bot... stupid[edit]

Search bots have low intelligence. The article on Wikiversity is, of course, similar to this Wikipedia article, because the creator of the two articles is the same... namely me. Stupid bots!Siphon06 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected copyright issues[edit]

This article has been under repeated attack for suspected copyright infringement. Let me make this clear. The content on www.thorconpower.com is available under a share-for-all (SA) license. There is no copyright infringement nor are there complaints from the website owner. If anyone feels there are specific problems, add this here rather than blindly adding tags or even blanking pages, and I will make the required changes in wording etc. if necessary. Try to be constructive. Blanking pages or adding tags is deconstructive.Siphon06 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Thorcon content is licenced CC-BY-ND. That is not a compatible licence here. Some content in the article was copied from parts of the Thorcon site (see this comparison, for example). The page will now be checked for other similar problems. That usually happens within a week or so, depending on workload at that board. Meanwhile, you are welcome to work on a copyvio-free rewrite (there are instructions of the template), but please note that the existing text should not be copied over to the new page. Siphon06, this seems to be a good time to ask whether you have any connection with the company? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am writing this article for the company as a pro bono (not paid) offer to have a general descriptive article of Thorcon on the web. I know the company owner and am an unpaid advisor to his team.

Not a compatible license? Ok it is not SA, but, here is what the link you provides says, which by the way has no link to CC BY ND specifically,

"The CC licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes, and without modification."

Therefore there is no basis for your claims of copyright infringement.

If you are unsure you can check with the Thorcon website owner. Siphon06 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the link to compatible to learn which licences are compatible here, in Wikipedia. As you can see, CC-BY-ND is not among them.
Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. As I am sure you are aware, conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking where it says "click here" on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/POV[edit]

I contest any accusations of conflict of interest. I do not have a conflict of interest here. I am not paid or contractually bound to Thorcon in any way whatsoever. There is no "interest". I have had emails with the website owner. That's it! If that is conflict of interest, everything is conflict of interest.Siphon06 (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You stated above that you are "an unpaid advisor to his team". If you are an advisor to the project, this is an external relationship that may undermine your ability to contribute to the neutral development of content about it. The article itself displays a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's purpose. Our intent is to summarize what reliable, disconnected sources have to say about notable subjects. We aren't interested in reproducing what the company says about its project, but rather revealing with news sources, unconnected industry websites and other entities say about it. The company's own verbiage (including in press releases) should play little part here. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more on this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect license header on Thorcon website[edit]

Just received mail from the website owner. The copyright is per Wiki compatible SA, but the website incorrectly states a different license. This is an error and the website owner informed me this will be changed asap.Siphon06 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: the license on the website has now been corrected to the SA license. See www.thorconpower.com This solves the supposed license incompatibility/copyright issues...Siphon06 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New deletion submission question[edit]

Hey guys, I found a third party references. I'd like to take a stab at saving this one - it's definitely an advertisement or awareness campaign of some sort. I don't care how siphon presents it. It's also copypasta from their main page. I think we could do the article in less than 500 words and link to other molten reactor projects or categories to make this a legitimate wiki artcile. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to just start editing this page out (even though it desperately needs a trimming & more 3rd party references). Is it bad form to insert changes to the articles while they are on the delete list? -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

From a group with webpresence going back to 2001: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Molten-Salt-Reactors/ & the DNSstuff: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#whois%7Ctype=domain&&value=world-nuclear.org showing 2001 creation. I've got two from 2007: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste & http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/.

I'm putting this one under construction and working on encyclopedic summary for this, then going to chop out the awareness campaign stuff, tie in the 3rd party references, add categories & link to the technology pages involved already, then just leave an external link to the official site which has word for word everything already included in here. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Siphon06: ... just notifying you out of courtesy that we are going to try to save this page, but it will not look the same. As it stands now, it lacks some pretty core things ... see WP:POV & WP:OR or look for point of view & no original work links off my user page User:IamM1rv#Wiki_higlights. We can always go back and add in important things, once you can provide references if they decide to keep the page at all.
Notes on new artcile: 1) Removed as much of the promotional or advertising language as I could. 2) Added citations 3) Scrubbed references section & moved rest to new See Also section, adding in several highly over linked wiki pages too. 4) Added in piece on controversy of one of the alternate fuel sources for the reactor. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note, I'm not a nuclear scientist, I tried to draw a line based on what is different from reactor & what would be found if you opened a published book. This still needs some citations I think too, but not from the official page (original research). -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ThorCon[edit]

Moved from my talk-page.: Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this the place to talk the removal of most of the text in the Thorcon article? I worked especially hard on the opening paragraph to make sure there were many references. Since I don't know much about writing Wiki style, I went to another nuclear vendor article and used the same format for the opening article. The other article has no editor warnings. What do I need to do to make the opening paragraph acceptable? I will work on one section at a time to correct the article.Martinburkle (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Martinburkle, I've moved this here to keep it together with other discussion about this article, I hope you don't mind. As you can see from this page, the article has for years been plagued by inappropriate additions by editors with some connection to the company. Could you kindly clarify whether you also have such a connection? (if so, you must disclose it).
Not for the first time, I removed a lot of material from the page because it was not supported by solid independent reliable sources. The company's own publicity materials are (obviously!) not independent, so are not suitable for use as references. I'm sorry if I undid some of your work in the process.
The real problem here is that the company does not appear to be notable by our newly-revised standards for companies and organisations. Unless a good number of solid references are added in the near future, I'll probably nominate it (again) for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. I am a retired systems analyst with a 50+ year old physics degree. I read about energy topics as a hobby. I met one of the originators for about three minutes once. I am not employed by ThorCon USA Inc. I am not a consultant for Thorcon or anybody. I am in Indiana at least 1000 miles from all of the ThorCon people. I so disclose.

Logically, it seems to me that the notability chalenge needs to be addressed first. I have found this to be a difficult standard due to the judgement required for each of the four attributes. Since notability is new to me, I do not know how to judge notability. I have found a number of new references and would prefure your notability judgement before I return to the article. Here is the first new reference:

1. Is the DOE notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage because the DOE had to evaluate both the company and the proposed research prior to granting $400,000. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the DOE. c. This is a reliable source because DOE has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This is not a secondary source because the grant was awarded based on the DOE analysis. [1]Martinburkle (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ DOE. "GAIN Voucher Recipients 1st Round - 30 Apr 2018" (PDF).
Martinburkle, thank you for clearing that up (I'd already come to about the same conclusion by doing a bit of looking around). I think the DOE source is usable as a reference for statements that (roughly) (1) Thorcon is developing a prototype molten salt reactor and (2) that it received funding to develop sensors to be used in that prototype. That's just my opinion; if you want a fuller or more authoritative answer, we have a reliable sources noticeboard where anyone can ask questions like this, and where plenty of people are around to answer them with care and in detail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I did not find one of those people who would answer with care and in detail. Martin, you started this discussion on the talk page of an editor, who moved it to Talk:Thorcon, which is where you should be having this discussion. Warmly, Lourdes 02:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 2. Is Power Magazine a notable source?

a. This significant coverage because it includes many paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the Power Magazine. c. This reliable source reporting on an International agreement between Indonesia and ThorCon. d. This is a secondary source because the Indonesian side of the agreement had to analyze the ThorCon data.

[1]


3. Is EIRP notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage it does an apples-to-apples cost comparison of eight advanced nuclear designs. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the EIRP. c. This is a reliable source because EIRP is independent of the nuclear industry. However, EIRP was founded in 2013 and is a small think tank. Are they too small to be reliable? d. This is a secondary source because EIRP analyzed data provided by the companies.

[2]


4. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage provides a detailed description of the ThorCon product. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the IAEA. c. This is a reliable source because IAEA has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This may not be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

[3]


5. Is the World Nuclear Association

a. This significant coverage because it includes several paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the WNA. c. This may be an unreliable source because it is a trade organization. d. This may not be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

[4]


With these references is ThorCon a notable company?