Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated

message: I have something. Ben, if you insist that we say "The government said..." instead of treating it as authoritative, then I suggest that we label the groups you use in the criticism section as "watchdog" or "liberal". If you can label our sources, we can label yours. I just don't see how a neutral group like the GAO can be compared to an advocacy group like Public Citizen. Just because it is in "criticisms" doesn't mean that anything goes. --Woohookitty 05:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section

message: The next serious nuclear accident will be in 10,000 reactor years - put another way a 50% chance in the next 50 years (because we have 100 reactors. 50% chance in the next 17 year worldwide. That's how I read it somewhere - Simesa can pipe up if i'm wrong.
As for Industry saying they need it - if you really intend to dispute that - i'll be happy to quote it. It's been quoted here at least three times. look it being extended in the Energy Bill - nuclear plants wouldn't be built (or operated) without it. Benjamin Gatti
:, also WASH-1400 - from several sources, WASH-1400 says 1 in 20,000 years based on the situation in 1975. Simesa 06:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Reply to WH 

message: :(the act) has been criticized by environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs as a handout to the nuclear power industry.
Everyone, including me, thinks it's silly to start with criticism. We all want to know what the act is before listing criticisms of it. Uncle Ed 01:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the best thing to do with this sentence? Leave it for a few days, re-insert it further down, or what? Uncle Ed 01:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ed, I don't have an opinion - I think Kate wrote it, and i think that it accurately summarizes the piece as it was (is). Benjamin Gatti
:I suggest we table it until we get past the second sentence. Simesa 04:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The criticism sentence

message: The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957, established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power because the potential consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are greater than insurance companies are willing and able to fully insure.
Aside from WooHooKitten's objections which have been addressed - is there any objections to this sentence as an opener? Benjamin Gatti
:Did I agree to anything? Why do you do that? You assume that everyone has agreed because no one has immediately complained. I still object. We should not have any negative language in the opening sentence because it just sets the wrong tone for an article that is mostly negative already. Again. Explain the law, why its still around and then the criticisms. You can take 4,5 sentences for that. There is no need to cram it all into the first sentence. Absolutely none. I am not going to agree to negative language in the first sentence. I refuse to do it and I hope Simesa and Kate are behind me on it. If not, I still object. Quit assuming that I am agreeing or that "the concerns have been addressed" just because I didn't respond to you in 2.2 seconds after you posted. 
:And my name is woohookitty, not Whoohoo or Whoohoookitty or WooHooKitten. I'm trying real hard to assume good faith and think that you are just having a hard time remembering my name. If you want to call me Mike, that's fine too. --Woohookitty 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not including your opinions does not amount to "censorship". Quit accusing me/us of that please. It's a cheap shot. An encyclopedia is not an opinion journal. I've explained my position time and time again. This article is already mostly criticism. Adding any more would tilt it towards being anti Price-Anderson. What you are proposing is negative. It's tilted towards "nukes bad". If you want verbage fine...we have "attack", "accident", "scheme". All are negative words in the context in which you use them. As we have said, let's take what we have and then you tell us what you want to change, line by line. We're fine with the article as it already appears. I'm not going to sit here and have you come up with more and more POV versions of the article, because you don't really write for the enemy. What you propose is still POV tilted towards your size. I'm not attacking you Ben, but I'm not sure you can write for the enemy. Some people can't. Not a criticism of you, but some people just can't put themselves in the other side's shoes and from you what have shown, you can't do it. So, if it's ok with Ed, just take the article as it stands and go line by line and tell us what you object to. It'll be alot easier that way. --Woohookitty 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better because it "established an insurance scheme"