Talk:Nuclear power controversy

message: This page is currently cut in past  mostly from nuclear power and a little bit from nuclear reactor and pebble bed reactor.  I'm not interested enough to write much of this myself, but I'll probably delete uneccesary information for the controversy of a mattter of days if no one else gets to it first.  I feel that there should be an article on this the controversy since so much of it has crept into other articles.  I would prefer we have one site to consolidate the controversy.  I was motivated to do this in the hope that in the future nuclear technology articles can concentrate on the technologies and not the controversy, and whenever this stuff gets mentioned, we can just write Energy use is a controversioal topic, see nuclear power controversy for more information. Lcolson 23:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I was going to add some content here, but I see the article is not really finished and is cut and pasted from Nuclear power.  Why was it created?  What is it for? — Omegatron 01:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this article might be used to push some POV or it might be to create a splinter page (not correct terminology but you get me, right?)--Apartmento 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WP:POV fork? — Omegatron 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (First) The argument given by the originator (top of page) seems justified: Quote: I was motivated to do this in the hope that in the future nuclear technology articles can concentrate on the technologies and not the controversy. And (Second) the Nuclear power article has owergrown to app. 65.000 characters (w. spaces), 22 twpical text pages. One quarter of that would be IMO the best size. It is a matter of preference, but I prefer shorter articles and a chance to dig deeper ("research") the matter at will, through links. The beauty of hypertext!. The problem is, however, how to move text from one article to the other w/o getting into edit wars. MGTom 01:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moving "controversy" to another article is not a good way to split an article, though.  What you really want to do is break it into neutral chunks and split each one.  "History of nuclear power" "Modern adoption of nuclear power" "Nuclear power technologies" etc. — Omegatron 01:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to add some arguments and sources to balance this article, but I didn't bother, because that's not Wikipedia is for.  The entire article is a POV piece and should be considered for speedy deletion. "Proponents note that several opponents of nuclear power have been forced to conclude..." give me a break. 212.64.98.189 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article exist? 

message: I think the page should stay, rather than arguing a point, the page could be viewed as summarizing an opinion...and no one would delete these pages:
Catholic
Protestant
Muslim
Buddhist
But they're the same thing, just talking about a point of view, not aggressively arguing it.
--24.245.11.103 12:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate 

message: I've reverted some of the details that I included in Jan 2007. While CO2 emissions due to energy use are the main contributor to global warming, there are other gases, and also direct emissions not related to energy use. The contribution of cement, for example, is significant . Excluding these aspects makes the article more concise, but risks missing some important details. GrahamP 09:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air pollution