Talk:ZEEP

message: Having read the Candu reactor article I cannot see what justifies "highly successful" as a characterization of Candu.  This could not even be said of Ontario Hydro projects - unless success is a government buying into a government project.  Not a single Candu was ever built in UK or Germany or USA.  The two references offered for that statement are Canadian.  Is a non-Canadian editor available? (As a Canadian I can say that we are very slow to acknowledge our own bias or our own failings as a nation, no matter what jokes are made about our constantly apologizing for ourselves or down-playing our objectives.)
What is the international business community's assessment of the success of the Candu program as engineering for affordable electrical power?  What was the level of transparency and what were the standards of governance in Candu deals such as that with Romania?
"Highly successful" just does not come to mind - and I am not even an opponent of nuclear power. What could a German editor make of this article if proposing to translate it given the German assessment of this technology and this power source?  A Romanian editor in post-dictator Romania?  
The Boeing 737 counts as "highly successful".  Canada produced the first jet passenger transport and it was not - but it was followed by much government cash into aviation for decades.  Some Soviet-era passenger aircraft may have been officially "highly-successful", but not all operators of those aircraft are as enthusiastic.  I remember when Swiss Air was a "highly successful" airline operator, not to mention Pan Am.  But even if they were such at one point in their day, CANDU is not a thing of the past, at least not in Ontario, Canada.
I have removed the expression from the article and will now look for a non-Canadian reference from some more neutral expert resource.
G. Robert Shiplett 00:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Current AECL employees should not be the source editors for this article any more that SNC-Lavalin should be the source editors for their article.
The state of Mac sales resulted in the ouster of Steve Jobs and his replacement be a Pepsi exec. The "success" of Apple is not the "Mac" any more than the "Success" of IBM is the IBM-PC or PS/2.  American Motors was not a "success" except to their fans and wikipedia is explicitly not a fan-site.
If by "successful" AECL wishes to mean "deemed by AECL to be suitable for marketing" then we should say so. "Marketable" is an option - the current federal government in Canada favours "commercializable" or some such.  "Successful" is not what the dissolution of Ontario Hydro could be termed by any neutral observer concerning that effort to cope with unmanageable debt, much of it tied to CANDU projects and poor ROI for those projects.
If AECL refuses to mention the documented problems in the AECL article then a wikipedia editor should intervene.
G. Robert Shiplett 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AECL employee edits 

message: Canadian Encyclopedia is not a reliable source; it is instead a tertiary source like any other encyclopedia.
G. Robert Shiplett 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Encyclopedia not for citations