Talk:Barakah nuclear power plant

Gulf name

About the Gulf naming: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/27/gulf-of-understanding --Robertiki (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And also Persian Gulf naming dispute --Robertiki (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, again Robertiki. I did not mean anything personal when discussing this on your talk page. I was surprised at your reverting of my edit , citing "Plant is on the arabian side, so please respect twin name". As mentioned, there's no such thing as a "twin name". I see you have already attested to this yourself, by providing the above links (not that an article in The Guardian is a valid reference), but more to the point, the Persian Gulf only has one name, whether you're on the Iranian side, the Arab side, or if you're in Australia. Just as the Gulf of Mexico only has one name, no matter where you are. Again, I am happy to discuss this. Please let me know if there are other grounds, based on which you believe my edit is incorrect. And, please, I mean a reason somewhat more acceptable than "some arabs woke up one morning and decided to call a geographic feature by another dreamed-up name". Have a great day, Kamran the Great (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, ignore revert edit summary, it was hasty and short.

First: any nation has the right to change the names of geographic features. It is a matter of freedom. No nation has exclusive rights, no matter how old or strong, to impose his naming conventions outside his borders. The Persian Gulf naming dispute is a silly dispute. If the Arabs want to change the name in their use, and in their documents, let them do. What's the matter ?! The story is full of examples of renamings. A recent example (and in the United States): Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute.

Second: what was my choice ? In 2004, the National Geographic Society published a new edition of its National Geographic Atlas of the World using the term "Arabian Gulf" as an alternative name (in smaller type and in parentheses). So did I, in parentheses.

Third: why I asked myself the question? Because i noticed in the following readings:

http://www.emirates247.com/business/energy/quarter-of-uae-s-power-from-nuclear-energy-by-2020-2011-03-17-1.369643

“Enec has selected a preferred site for the nuclear energy plants, which is located at Braka in the Western Region of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi on the Arabian Gulf, approximately 53 kilometers west-southwest of the city of Ruwais.”

And searching more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-03/abu-dhabi-said-to-revive-debt-plan-for-first-nuclear-power-plant-ie3wyuib

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315300814

http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/uae-nuclear-builder-weighs-financing-for-fourth-reactor

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1167426!/infoDup%5B0%5D/uploadInfo/fileUpload/infoFile/nuclear-new.pdf

and so on ...

This is an Encyclopedia, and not read only by Iranians, but also by Arabs. And it is certainly possible that young Arabs, have heard only about an Arabian Gulf. Therefore I feel that it is our duty to help them, meet them.

Why an article in The Guardian is not a valid reference ? What is that you don't like in that column ? If you explain me, maybe I understand more about your point.

And in the United States there are talks to change the name of Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. The Mexicans should not feel offended. Nobody will impose that name in their own text books. But USA citizens have the right to choose the naming the feel more appropiate. (before Mexico was born, what was that gulf name ?)

I am not Arab, and before this exchange of views, I did not knew there was a dispute. --Robertiki (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Robertiki; here's the problem with changing geographic names at will. Imagine the chaos if people would just wake up one morning and decide to change names at random.

Here's a hypothetical scenario, an exchange between two hypothetical people :

"we found parts of the missing plane at the bottom of the Magenta Sea", says one. "at the bottom of what???", asks the other. Again repeating themselves, they say "the Magenta Sea, the Magenta Sea!!" ... "hmmmmm ... I don't know where you're referring to; we can't seem to find that sea". "Oh", say the first ones again, "we meant the Baltic Sea ... we just decided, this morning (just for fun), to call it something else" !!!!!!!!!!!

see what I mean?

now ... just imagine (again hypothetically) if everyone did that... the world would not survive the chaos.

and lastly ... can you please clarify your comment above where you say "any nation has the right to change the names of geographic features"? IF that were the case, why would there be directives (many of them, in fact) issued by the United Nations and listed at Persian Gulf naming dispute regarding correct usage?

Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The case is about nations and official choices, not single persons that, one morning, wake to change names at random. And liberty is always a bit more caotic then the ordered life under, for example, fascism. What you seem to see as caos, for other is opportunity and free expression. The UN directive about the naming is a political decision, not a "right", and and it refers strictly to UN documents. There is no sanction or fine or else for who does not adhere. Anyway, what you consider to be a rule, is not enforceable in the Arab states. So we have all these english reading kids who know only about the Arabian Gulf. What is your solution ? Honestly, what harm comes to adding Arabian Gulf in parentheses?

More formally: as per WP:WIAN, disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. Examples include:

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Arabian%20Gulf

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_field=search&q=arabian+gulf

http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/ (conventional plus 25 variants)

and reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/world/middleeast/persian-gulf-arabian-gulf-iran-saudi-arabia.html?_r=0

What you want is that Wikipedia "take part" in the dispute. I believe that Wikipedia should reach out to both parties. --Robertiki (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kamran the Great: I think I gave you adequate reasons to restore the double naming. It would be nice if yourself undo your reversal (a gesture of greatness).--Robertiki (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Robertiki: with all due respect, my friend; I thought I had given you "adequate reasons" that the double-naming is confusing, invalid and unnecessary, not to mention false. As it stands, I assure you, everyone will know where the Persian Gulf is. I appreciate your flattery, but I will respectfully disagree with the points you have made, referring to them as "unnecessary" at best. It also appears that the "Wikipedia standard" (I never thought I'd use that phrase, ever!) is to use the correct name, exceptions being where it is a direct quote/reference to the false name elsewhere. Considering my revision is not "wrong" (again to say the least), methinks we can agree to leave it as such. Thanks, Kamran the Great (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Operation of Unit 2

@TuomoS: the reuters, world nuclear news and iaea pris page seem to state that the reactor is operational? Nathanielcwm (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah is commercial operation and grid connection a separate thing? Nathanielcwm (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. World Nuclear News wrote that "Nuclear operators will now begin the process of gradually raising the power levels of Barakah 2's reactor, known as power ascension testing." Unit 1 started generating electricity in August 2020. Then there was about eight months of test operation at various power levels. When everything had been tested, it entered commercial operation in April 2021, see [1]. If it takes a similar time at unit 2, we could expect commercial operation around May 2022. They could be faster now that they have experience from unit 1. --TuomoS (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)