Talk:Plutonic Power

message: I removed the political-sell-job "will create so many years of work" bumpf, and also the "TM" on a redlink (trademarks are irrelevant in an encyclopedia article), and also investigated the link to GE about whether or not this is a "partner".  it's not listed on GE's partner page; it's an IPP (independent power producer) in BC-speak and also a PPP (public private partnership)....with Plutonic really only a shareholding "shell" for GE's dominant interest.  Remaining "refs" here are all Plutonic's own website; and therefore not "reliable third party sources".  Missing from this article is teh political setting of this company's situation in BC, which includes BC Hydro being forced to buy power from it at three times the market rate and that its power is seen by critics to be only for export as it will only produce power in seasons when BC Hydro already has a surplus.  A license to print money, in other words, and only for export, not domestic use.  All in all, much to b added; and as evident from the recent COI p.r. expansions, a lot to be watched out for to make sure this is not just a company brochure.Skookum1 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice clean-up — I've made a small change to put back that they're a Canadian company. While GE is their joint-venture partner on various projects and they're obviously deeply in bed with them, I think it's inaccurate to say that they're a GE subsidiary. As a publicly-traded company, they could at best be majority-owned by GE, and that isn't even the case according to their most recent public filings (see the May 1, 2009 management information circular at sedar.com), which indicate that there's no entity owning, directing, or controlling more than 10% of the company's shares. Mlaffs (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The niceties of wording re ownership/control can all be worked out; critics of the IPP industry in BC view Plutonic as, at best, a proxy for Warren Buffet/GE.  There are numerous controversies relating to this company and the political environment which has made it possible, I don't have time to expand this article appropriately but for starters here is a search for "Plutonic" at The Tyee.Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How are political opinions expressed on other pages similar to this one?Pointroberts (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very carefully, and always cited as opinion rather than as statement; though news items concerning facts which generate those opinions can be straightfowrad statements; but everything needs citing.  Not having political coverage of a politically controversial company, or a controversial project, is WP:POV, so this article needs a lot of further material for balance, e.g. on the actual environmental imt and controversy surrounding the so-called "headwaters of Bute Inlet" (i.e. the basin of the Homathko River, one of the province's largest-by-volume rivers) and the water-rights/sale implications for NAFTA, powerlines etc; ....the company's own press releases on this, or t he government's, are not sufficient, given the dscale of controversy and also because such links would be self-referential, ie.. WP:COI (conflict of interest) in nature.  Reliable sources are verifiable, reliable, third-party sources, not the company's own website and p.r. materials. So in asking "hyow you are political opinions expressed" bear in mind that those of the company already have been; it's those of others which have not.  For other pages with political content, maybe the best example at present is 2010 Winter Olympics though I could point to other articles if i gave it some thought....Skookum1 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: COI issues/content