Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Tim333 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks for just deleting it and not replying. Amazing the politeness around here these days.

search bot... stupid

Search bots have low intelligence. The article on Wikiversity is, of course, similar to this Wikipedia article, because the creator of the two articles is the same... namely me. Stupid bots!Siphon06 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected copyright issues

This article has been under repeated attack for suspected copyright infringement. Let me make this clear. The content on www.thorconpower.com is available under a share-for-all (SA) license. There is no copyright infringement nor are there complaints from the website owner. If anyone feels there are specific problems, add this here rather than blindly adding tags or even blanking pages, and I will make the required changes in wording etc. if necessary. Try to be constructive. Blanking pages or adding tags is deconstructive.Siphon06 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Thorcon content is licenced CC-BY-ND. That is not a compatible licence here. Some content in the article was copied from parts of the Thorcon site (see this comparison, for example). The page will now be checked for other similar problems. That usually happens within a week or so, depending on workload at that board. Meanwhile, you are welcome to work on a copyvio-free rewrite (there are instructions of the template), but please note that the existing text should not be copied over to the new page. Siphon06, this seems to be a good time to ask whether you have any connection with the company? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am writing this article for the company as a pro bono (not paid) offer to have a general descriptive article of Thorcon on the web. I know the company owner and am an unpaid advisor to his team.

Not a compatible license? Ok it is not SA, but, here is what the link you provides says, which by the way has no link to CC BY ND specifically,

"The CC licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide for non-commercial purposes, and without modification."

Therefore there is no basis for your claims of copyright infringement.

If you are unsure you can check with the Thorcon website owner. Siphon06 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the link to compatible to learn which licences are compatible here, in Wikipedia. As you can see, CC-BY-ND is not among them.

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. As I am sure you are aware, conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking where it says "click here" on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/POV

I contest any accusations of conflict of interest. I do not have a conflict of interest here. I am not paid or contractually bound to Thorcon in any way whatsoever. There is no "interest". I have had emails with the website owner. That's it! If that is conflict of interest, everything is conflict of interest.Siphon06 (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You stated above that you are "an unpaid advisor to his team". If you are an advisor to the project, this is an external relationship that may undermine your ability to contribute to the neutral development of content about it. The article itself displays a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's purpose. Our intent is to summarize what reliable, disconnected sources have to say about notable subjects. We aren't interested in reproducing what the company says about its project, but rather revealing with news sources, unconnected industry websites and other entities say about it. The company's own verbiage (including in press releases) should play little part here. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more on this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect license header on Thorcon website

Just received mail from the website owner. The copyright is per Wiki compatible SA, but the website incorrectly states a different license. This is an error and the website owner informed me this will be changed asap.Siphon06 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: the license on the website has now been corrected to the SA license. See www.thorconpower.com This solves the supposed license incompatibility/copyright issues...Siphon06 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New deletion submission question

Hey guys, I found a third party references. I'd like to take a stab at saving this one - it's definitely an advertisement or awareness campaign of some sort. I don't care how siphon presents it. It's also copypasta from their main page. I think we could do the article in less than 500 words and link to other molten reactor projects or categories to make this a legitimate wiki artcile. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to just start editing this page out (even though it desperately needs a trimming & more 3rd party references). Is it bad form to insert changes to the articles while they are on the delete list? -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

From a group with webpresence going back to 2001: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Molten-Salt-Reactors/ & the DNSstuff: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#whois%7Ctype=domain&&value=world-nuclear.org showing 2001 creation. I've got two from 2007: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/187917-startup-gets-funding-for-its-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-that-eats-radioactive-waste & http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/.

I'm putting this one under construction and working on encyclopedic summary for this, then going to chop out the awareness campaign stuff, tie in the 3rd party references, add categories & link to the technology pages involved already, then just leave an external link to the official site which has word for word everything already included in here. -- IamM1rv (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Siphon06: ... just notifying you out of courtesy that we are going to try to save this page, but it will not look the same. As it stands now, it lacks some pretty core things ... see WP:POV & WP:OR or look for point of view & no original work links off my user page User:IamM1rv#Wiki_higlights. We can always go back and add in important things, once you can provide references if they decide to keep the page at all.

Notes on new artcile: 1) Removed as much of the promotional or advertising language as I could. 2) Added citations 3) Scrubbed references section & moved rest to new See Also section, adding in several highly over linked wiki pages too. 4) Added in piece on controversy of one of the alternate fuel sources for the reactor. -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note, I'm not a nuclear scientist, I tried to draw a line based on what is different from reactor & what would be found if you opened a published book. This still needs some citations I think too, but not from the official page (original research). -- IamM1rv (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ThorCon

Moved from my talk-page.

 – Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this the place to talk the removal of most of the text in the Thorcon article? I worked especially hard on the opening paragraph to make sure there were many references. Since I don't know much about writing Wiki style, I went to another nuclear vendor article and used the same format for the opening article. The other article has no editor warnings. What do I need to do to make the opening paragraph acceptable? I will work on one section at a time to correct the article.Martinburkle (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Martinburkle, I've moved this here to keep it together with other discussion about this article, I hope you don't mind. As you can see from this page, the article has for years been plagued by inappropriate additions by editors with some connection to the company. Could you kindly clarify whether you also have such a connection? (if so, you must disclose it).

Not for the first time, I removed a lot of material from the page because it was not supported by solid independent reliable sources. The company's own publicity materials are (obviously!) not independent, so are not suitable for use as references. I'm sorry if I undid some of your work in the process.

The real problem here is that the company does not appear to be notable by our newly-revised standards for companies and organisations. Unless a good number of solid references are added in the near future, I'll probably nominate it (again) for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I am a retired systems analyst with a 50+ year old physics degree. I read about energy topics as a hobby. I met one of the originators for about three minutes once. I am not employed by ThorCon USA Inc. I am not a consultant for Thorcon or anybody. I am in Indiana at least 1000 miles from all of the ThorCon people. I so disclose.

Logically, it seems to me that the notability chalenge needs to be addressed first. I have found this to be a difficult standard due to the judgement required for each of the four attributes. Since notability is new to me, I do not know how to judge notability. I have found a number of new references and would prefure your notability judgement before I return to the article. Here is the first new reference:

1. Is the DOE notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage because the DOE had to evaluate both the company and the proposed research prior to granting $400,000. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the DOE. c. This is a reliable source because DOE has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This is not a secondary source because the grant was awarded based on the DOE analysis. Martinburkle (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Martinburkle, thank you for clearing that up (I'd already come to about the same conclusion by doing a bit of looking around). I think the DOE source is usable as a reference for statements that (roughly) (1) Thorcon is developing a prototype molten salt reactor and (2) that it received funding to develop sensors to be used in that prototype. That's just my opinion; if you want a fuller or more authoritative answer, we have a reliable sources noticeboard where anyone can ask questions like this, and where plenty of people are around to answer them with care and in detail. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I did not find one of those people who would answer with care and in detail. Martin, you started this discussion on the talk page of an editor, who moved it to Talk:Thorcon, which is where you should be having this discussion. Warmly, Lourdes 02:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 2. Is Power Magazine a notable source?

a. This significant coverage because it includes many paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the Power Magazine. c. This reliable source reporting on an International agreement between Indonesia and ThorCon. d. This is a secondary source because the Indonesian side of the agreement had to analyze the ThorCon data.

3. Is EIRP notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage it does an apples-to-apples cost comparison of eight advanced nuclear designs. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the EIRP. c. This is a reliable source because EIRP is independent of the nuclear industry. However, EIRP was founded in 2013 and is a small think tank. Are they too small to be reliable? d. This is a secondary source because EIRP analyzed data provided by the companies.

4. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency notable worthy?

a. This significant coverage provides a detailed description of the ThorCon product. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the IAEA. c. This is a reliable source because IAEA has a large staff of nuclear experts. d. This may not be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

5. Is the World Nuclear Association

a. This significant coverage because it includes several paragraphs of description. b. No-one at ThorCon works for the WNA. c. This may be an unreliable source because it is a trade organization. d. This may not be a secondary source because the info is based on a survey of the primary source.

With these references is ThorCon a notable company?

Major revision

I am planning on major revisions to this article - focusing on the key issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. I will be deleting information that appears to be too promotional or not important to the issues above, information that is readily available on the company's website. There were some initial problems with using the company website and filings with a regulatory agency for the source of information on this design. I think those problems are addressed by stating clearly in the lead paragraph that we are relying on the company to provide accurate information on their design, and inviting corrections or criticism in a new section Critiques. See the discussion of sources at: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1146#Regulatory_agencies_as_a_reliable_source
David MacQuigg 22:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing Conflict of Interest notice. Siphon06 has been inactive for five years. I am removing material and changing the wording on earlier parts that appear to be overly promotional.
David MacQuigg 12:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

copied earlier discussion to get all opinions in one place:
Hello Jac16888. I see you removed an editorial comment in the article ThorCon_nuclear_reactor, but it is not clear whether that means I should proceed with the proposed deletion, or leave the paragraph as is. This article has a history of problems (see the Talk page), and it appears to be abandoned in 2015 by the original author Siphon06, who is no longer available even on a user page.

I would like to continue with revisions to this article and add articles on other reactors - focusing on the key issues of safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. How do these new designs address these old problems? On the ThorCon article, I would like to delete information that appears to be too promotional or not important to the issues above, information that is readily available on company websites. There were objections to using company websites and filings with a regulatory agency IAEA for the source of information. I think those problems are addressed by stating clearly in the lead paragraph that we are relying on these companies to provide factual information on their own designs, but I'm still not sure if this is acceptable. See the discussion of sources at: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1146#Regulatory_agencies_as_a_reliable_source

I am worried now that I am just wasting my time, and I may run into similar problems on other articles. I am not affiliated with any of these companies. I would like to work with an editor who can provide some guidance along the way, and not make a big effort only to have everything trashed in the end. David MacQuigg 23:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I deleted that comment purely because comments such as that go on the talk page, not because I agreed or disagreed with the statement. In terms of making changes to the article, I would simply advise you to be bold, and I would definitely support the removal of overly promotional content. I understand the issues you have with sourcing, and unfortunately it's not something with an easy answer, however much of what is included (with the exception of the critiques section) does not seem especially controversial so use of some first party sources is perhaps not the worst thing (although I am not an expert). I would say that this sentence: "this article is a brief summary of information from ThorCon USA Inc. For more details see the ThorCon documents[2] and ThorCon's Status Report to the IAEA." is not necessary, and the links should just be used within the article where necessary, and that the critiques section does need a rewrite and sourcing to more than one place if possible--Jac16888 Talk 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do as you suggest and delete the lead sentence about sourcing. That will probably get new objections from the editors who originally rejected the article for not having independent sources. Can I get some consensus on how to proceed. Does anyone have enough interest to stick with this topic? I understand Wikipedia has an engineering workgroup. Surely someone there has an interest in nuclear power. David MacQuigg 02:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted the lead sentence about sourcing, but left the 'For more details ...' part as a reminder - ultimately all of this data comes from the companies that designed these reactors, and that will be the same for the other articles in this series.

I have also left in the Critiques section for questions that remain controversial. I think it should be OK as long as it provides a fair summary of each side. David MacQuigg 16:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added some WP:SECONDARY sources and WP:INDEPENDENT scientific papers in the Further Reading section. My concern is still that these don't address the specific details of this reactor, and the only place to get that information is the from the company website or regulatory agency filings. I think that should be acceptable for non-controversial information. Where controversy remains, I propose a short summary of both sides. See the Critiques section. David MacQuigg 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

copied here to get all opinions in one place:
Hello Kuru. I have a question about your edit on ThorCon_nuclear_reactor. "rmv non-WP:RS : open wiki / user-generated material" Is this a ban on anything originating on Citizendium? The statement you deleted was not intended as a reliable source, supporting some questionable point, but just an introductory statement to motivate the reader and set the focus of the article. I can replace that statement with something a little longer: "This reactor is one of many new-generation designs responding to the issues that have held back widespread use of nuclear power, include safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. This article will address those issues."
As for the material being user-generated, I'm not sure what to do about that. I wrote most of the original article ThorCon nuclear reactor for Citizendium, but I am not needing it as a reliable source. As I understand it, their Creative Commons licensing is the same as Wikipedia. How do we acknowledge the source, without saying anything about reliability? Is there a template to do this, or is it better to just add a statement, like the article on Molten Salt Reactors. "This page is a shortened and simplified version of the Wikipedia article, focused on just the issues raised in Nuclear power reconsidered. See the original for more details and additional information on the history and recent developments in many countries." I hope there isn't some conflict between Wikipedia and Citizedium that would preclude this kind of cooperation. Thank you for your attention to this article.
David MacQuigg 02:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no conflict - we just don't use non-source inline external links except in rare situations in the body of an article. It may be more suitable as a link in an "external links" section with some brief narrative on why it is included. If you've copied material from Citizendium, then a brief acknowledgement of the source would go at the end of the article. There's a template for that somewhere, but I could not locate it quickly - it's pretty rare again. It's always always best to use your own words instead of copying from another used-generate site, even one with a compatible license. Kuru (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will copy this discussion to the article Talk page and hope that we can develop a consensus on sources for this article. David MacQuigg 16:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty poor article. The major problem is that it almost entirely relies on information from ThorCon itself. Furthermore, the intro should only mention concrete facts covered by the article itself.

IMO, Citizedium is indeed not a reliable source. --Wickey (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Of all the companies I have been trying to pry information, ThorCon has been the most open. If you are interested in really understanding the technology, and answering questions about safety, etc., you won't find anything like this elsewhere. Let's work on the sourcing problem where really necessary. Then let's challenge the other companies to provide information this good.

Yes, the information on the ThorCon reactor is from ThorCon (either from their website, or from their filings with the IAEA). That is the only place I can find the needed information. I am aware that these companies can exaggerate and mislead in providing information on their own product (although I think that is very unlikely in an IAEA filing). Maybe we should make it more clear in the intro to each of these articles that we are relying on the company to provide accurate information. If there is a challenge on anything in the article, as we have on the question of online processing, we can look for a better source, or include it in the Critiques section.

I don't understand what part of the intro includes facts not in the article itself.

I am not citing Citizendium as a reliable source.

David MacQuigg 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Uggh, you do review your own article as excellent. I wonder why you wrote above that you "would like to delete information that appears to be too promotional", while your only intention is to promote this company. --Wickey (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be like a good-faith attempt to provide information to the public. I don't see anything underhanded, or having a conflict of interest. And saying things like "this is a pretty poor article" without really giving any useful critique is not particularly helpful. Harborsparrow (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not my intention to promote this company or any other. The article is about a reactor, not a company, and it is not even my favorite reactor. I am working on this one, because the editors suggested I improve an old article, rather than start a new one.

I have deleted a few statements from the old article that seemed too promotional. Please be specific about your complaint, and suggest a re-wording. David MacQuigg 16:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Your removal of 'too promotional' consists of deleting one single sentence.

Currently, it is one big promotional article. Even the Critiques section is not about critiques, but contains in fact propaganda. --Wickey (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I welcome suggestions for further deletion of promotional material from the old article. Again, be specific.

The Critiques section is intended to be a brief summary of factual disputes. The best way to do this is quote the actual words from the two sides. If those words are "propaganda", we might want to find another source, or reword the criticism, at the risk of complaints from the side whose words were not accepted. I think of "propaganda" as non-factual argument, like we see in 90% of the discussions on FaceBook. That I am happy to delete. David MacQuigg 15:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

copied here to get all discussions in one place:

I have tried twice to have a private discussion with Wickey on his Talk page, and he just deletes my comments with no response, so I will post them here:

Please discuss your proposed edits of ThorCon nuclear reactor on the article talk page before making any further edits on this article. There has been plenty of discussion of the current revisions, and we seem to have a good consensus on the new emphasis on safety, waste, proliferation, and cost.
David MacQuigg 14:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not engage in edit-war repeated deletions without discussion and consensus on the article talk page. On the question of copyright acknowledgement, at least read the prior discussion on the article talk page: "If you've copied material from Citizendium, then a brief acknowledgement of the source would go at the end of the article." Kuru (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
David MacQuigg 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit that it was a mistake to delete that phrase, but it is also very strange to write contributions on Citizendium and then publish it on Wikipedia under the Citizendium license. I am also still not so sure if it necessary to refer to another platform if it is your own text. --Wickey (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Yes, it is MOSTLY my own writing, but when you write for a publisher, you accept their licensing. So stuff that originates on Wikipedia, stays under Wikipedia's share-alike license, and stuff that originates on Citizendium keeps the Citizendium license. Luckily they are the same license, so the requirement for acknowledging the original forum is the same. Citizendium has a template for doing that. Kuru said he thought there might be a Wikipedia template, but meanwhile just put a brief acknowledgement at the end. These acknowledgements in no way imply endorsement or reliable sourcing. David MacQuigg 15:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions

It is quite misleading to suggest that this article is about existing reactors. There exists not a single one. In fact, the old lead was much more accurately and less promotional. The article clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards. It starts with a lot of propaganda about how safe, clean and cheap it is, before describing what it actually is about. It is is still about the ThorCon TMSR-500 for one project in Indonesia in a very early stage.[1]

It also makes no sense to go into details for a non-existing reactor, especially when neither location, nor timeline are known and the costs are impossible to realistically estimate. --Wickey (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to insist that we cover only reactors that are currently deployed, we cannot answer the questions that are most important about the worldwide move to nuclear power - safety, waste, proliferation, and cost. Look at the time-wasting fact-free debates on social media. Propagandists thrive on generalizations that ignore current designs.

Show us an example of the "propaganda" you are complaining about.
David MacQuigg 16:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The propaganda is in the fact that it uncritically transfers fact-free claims from the designer, e.g. about costs and concealing real costs of decommissioning and unproved untested safety technology, and suggesting that we speak of real life reactors.

Everyone can see that this is a bad atypical article, with the wrong title now. I tried to improve it by moving up the design section, but this was reverted. The images should be in the design section, not in the lead. I repeat that the old lead was much more accurately and less promotional. --Wickey (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I welcome criticism on the "fact-free" claims in the article, or even on the new emphasis on the questions most readers will have when they search for an article on nuclear power. Speak for yourself, not "everyone".

Yes, the factual information on the ThorCon reactor is from ThorCon (either from their website, or from their filings with the IAEA). That is the only place I can find the information needed to answer tough questions about safety, waste, proliferation, and cost. I am aware that these companies can exaggerate and mislead in providing information on their own product (although I think that is very unlikely in an IAEA filing). Maybe we should make it more clear in the intro to each of these articles that we are relying on the company to provide accurate information. We can also make it clear with words like "ThorCon claims ..." If there is an unresolved challenge to anything in the article, as we have on the question of online processing, we can include it in the Critiques section. The Critiques section is intended to be a brief summary of factual disputes (more than a clash of opinions). The best way to do this is quote the actual words from the two sides. On the question of cost, for example, there are plenty of sources you could cite, including the links in our Further Reading section.

As for the overall emphasis of the article, you might want to write an alternative in your sandbox. Wikipedia's senior editors can then choose the best of the two alternatives. This would provide a better result than compromising every paragraph and ending up with mush. I will limit my critiques of your article to the Talk page, so you don't have to undo every change I propose. David MacQuigg 18:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The "IAEA filing" is as little reliable as all other info from ThorCon. Nothing acknowledgment or review by IAEA . The document states that commercial operation starts would be in 2022. Yet, there is not even a possible location for a single plant.

I notice that you basically ignore suggestions for improving the existing article directly. This would be a good start. --Wickey (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The IAEA filing you linked is 6 years out-of-date. https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/ThorCon_2020.pdf is the one cited in the this article.

The IAEA is a regulatory agency with nuclear experts on staff to review proposed designs. They have no incentive to do anything other than protect the public interest. Companies filing these documents have no incentive to lie or exaggerate. In fact, if they have any real plans to get approval, loss of credibility with regulatory agencies will be a serious problem. A document filed with the IAEA should be a more reliable source than even a peer-reviewed journal, and certainly more reliable than the widely cited documents in our Further Reading section.

Again, I welcome any criticism on "fact-free" claims in the article, but be specific. General rants about the company or the IAEA won't help.

Again, if you don't like the new emphasis on safety, waste, proliferation, and cost, and would prefer to lead with the benefits of "modular shipbuilding", the history at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the benefits of "(low cost) thorium", go right ahead with your own article. I did not ignore your suggestions on this. I just don't think these topics should go ahead of the ones I have chosen. David MacQuigg 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you got the point about the so-called IAEA filing. I am not going to write my own article, but may be there are others who have a view on this. Wickey (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

So what was your point? I understood it to be "The "IAEA filing" is as little reliable as all other info from ThorCon." I disagreed and gave reasons why I consider IAEA filings to be MORE reliable than a peer-reviewed journal. Did you read the Critiques section? Are you going to tell me that a UCS report is more reliable than an IAEA filing?

Again (3rd time) general rants about ThorCon or the IAEA are not helpful. Is there an example you can give us that might require a more reliable source? David MacQuigg 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Article "upside down" ?

Let's have some more opinions on this. Mr. Wickey wants to put the Design section at the top, with what I think are unimportant and distracting details like the benefits of "modular shipbuilding", the history at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the benefits of "(low cost) thorium". While all of this may be appropriate later in the article, I think most readers will be wanting information on the issues that are current - safety, waste, proliferation, and cost. From our previous discussion, it looks like there will be no agreement on this. I think Mr. Wickey should hear from a few others before flagging the article as "not meeting Wikipedia's quality standards". This is an editorial disagreement, not something requiring rule enforcement. David MacQuigg 21:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No response other than to delete my comment in the tag. I will delete the tag until we get at least some further discussion. If we can't agree on the new focus of the article, we should stop this edit war and get some guidance from Wikipedia's senior editors. David MacQuigg 15:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Real disruptive edits

I put the subsection back to the place where it belongs. I am not edit warring, but David MacQuigg does. Reflecting my request for other opinions and then moving it into a section above it, which is about an already settled item. Making a disruptive edit to the template I placed and then removing it entirely.

Please stop such poor behaviour and wait for comments by others. You are not allowed to remove the template. It is about the dispute in this section. --Wickey (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please Stop Before this discussion goes sideways again, let me suggest a more productive start:
Wickey: I really want to move the Design section to the top and restore the original focus of this article.
Me: I really want to keep the focus on the reactor itself and the issues that will interest readers who are hearing about the worldwide move to nuclear power and are concerned about safety, waste, proliferation, and cost. The Design section as it now stands is full of irrelevant stuff about shipbuilding and seems a bit too promotional to me, as if they are defending their claims of low cost construction. Just give the numbers, and link to their report.
Maybe you can re-write that section, and if we can't agree it goes at the top, we'll get opinions from some senior editors. David MacQuigg 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem with changing the chronology of this talk page, as you did again with this edit, though I will assume good faith here. I referred to the only sheet mentioned earlier on this page. [2] is specifically about the ThorCon TMSR-500. It is still a promotional story that promises much and proves nothing. I guess, IAEA only read it.

I'm still not understanding your complaint about the IAEA. Are you saying they didn't give ThorCon's filings a thorough enough reading? As I understand it, the nuclear engineers at IAEA ask detailed questions and get multiple revisions of these filings. We keep going around in circles on the question of reliable sources. What would you accept as a reliable source on new reactor designs?

You complained that the filing projected 2022 as the expected date for completion of a demo plant. That was a reasonable expectation in 2016, the date of the report in your original link. The design has been finished for years. The additional delay on this and many other designs has been politics, which no company can control.

Thank you for assuming good faith on the edit to my previous reply. It was as simple update, not intended to change the "chronology" of this discussion.

I don't know what IAEA does and does not. I observe that the "filing" is from ThorCon and I do not see a source that confirms that IAEA reviewed the ThorCon input in the document, and if, what were the results. Here is a docx of the June 2016 filing. It is written by Seong-Deuk JO and Robert Hargraves. The pdf is dated Feb 2017; the docx March 2017. They are exactly the same.

According to this document, p. 17, Seong-Deuk JO is or was an IAEA employee for promoting nuclear energy. According to the same page, ARIS is responsible for presenting all reactor systems in a standard way, balanced and objective, using a standard template. Robert Hargraves, is mentioned as a team member of ThorCon here.

In 2016, ThorCon said their reactor would be ready by 2022; in 2020 they wrote it will operate in 2028. In 2026 they will say it will be operational by 2030.--Wickey (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The current Design section has just the problem of suggesting to describe an existing power station, and the claims about using only fractions of material and costs should be removed. The best way is probably first remove it entirely and then rewrite.

I agree, most of this old section should be removed. Design details that are relevant to the earlier sections can be included there. I'm not seeing much else worth saving.

I have written an uncontroversial start. You can judge for yourself and may reverse it. --Wickey (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest again to put back the old lead, without the DMSR part, for a start. --Wickey (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a fundamental disagreement on the focus of this article. I want to change it to the reactor itself, not the entire power plant, and talk about the issues that most readers will be interested in. If not safety, waste, proliferation, and cost, what do you think should be the focus? We could include a picture of the entire plant, but I would put it at the end, and maybe refer to it in the discussion of cost.
David MacQuigg 18:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Safety, waste, proliferation, and cost" is not a focus, but is instead basically everything. A focus means one thing, not lots of things. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Bowing Out
We have some fundamental disagreements on focus and on reliable sources that won't be resolved with more debate. I've got some other articles I'm eager to get started on, so I will leave this one for you to finish. I only ask that you keep the copyright acknowledgement, at least on the sections I contributed. David MacQuigg 23:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Separative work units (SWUs)

The Separative work units (SWUs) wiki article -1- and the Thorcon fuel cycle Thorcon information -2- are complementary. It is possible to read up on the fate of a used Can (meaning one which has been a fuel source, generating electrical power for 8 years) by reading 1) and 2) together. The graphite moderator materiel will also have to be replaced as a separate task -3-. The regulators will have noted this and will have asked the electrical power company to ensure that 3) is also accomplished in order to keep operating. The Spanish engineering firm Empresarios Agrupados (EA) likely is dealing with task 3) in behalf of Indonesia (the Customer). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

see my spreadsheet for calculating SWUs. David MacQuigg 22:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

The Criticism section of this article has only sentence, and a vague quote about the "worries" of an anti-nuclear advocacy organization. I tried to balance this with a link to a Citizendium Debate Guide page, where the "worries" of this organization are quoted, along with responses to these worries from nuclear engineers familiar with this design. @VQuakr says this is WP:USERGENERATED, and threatens to block me. I guess he is referring to my role as Associate Editor at Citizendium. As editor at CZ, I try to get the best arguments from both sides, in their own words, not mine. I think I have a good balance on that page.
What should we do to avoid anti-nuclear bias in this Wikipedia article? If we can't cite opposing sources, then the whole Criticism section should be deleted.
David MacQuigg 23:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We can cite opposing sources, but they must be reliable, but Citizendium, as it is a user-generated site not dissimilar to Wikipedia, is not a reliable source. The problem is not with you as an editor of Citizendium, the problem is Citizendium itself. There is no "right-of-reply" on Wikipedia; we are not obligated to allow refutations of criticism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. Citizendium, like Wikipedia, is not intended as a reliable source. CZ cites reliable sources, and sources that are clearly understood as advocacy. So for example, CZ provides a link to the WP article on LNT as the source of the statement "Scientific organizations generally support use of the LNT model ..." from the lead in Wikipedia's article on LNT (accessed 18-July-2024). This link is on a Debate Guide page, not in the article itself, where it might be misunderstood as CZ's support of the statement.

So back to the question - What should we do to avoid anti-nuclear bias in this article? How should we respond to the UCS critique, if the one sentence I proposed is not acceptable. Should we spell out exactly what the UCS criticism is, then provide a response from a reliable source. On the CZ page I cited, that response was provided by the designer of the reactor, which would be not allowed on WP.

WP has no equivalent of a CZ Debate Guide. There doesn't seem to be a way to let both sides make their best case, in their own words. Both WP and CZ claim to be neutral, but in my opinion, CZ has a better way to handle controversial issues. How about we embrace the idea that WP and CZ are alternatives, not competitors. CZ can link to WP's enormous body of useful information on non-controversial topics. WP can link to CZ's fair and concise summary of the debate on controversial issues.

David MacQuigg 15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We are definitely not using Citizendium. That simply isn't something we can decide to do here or on any other article talk page per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You'd need to get the policy changed first at WT:RS, but practically speaking this is not going to happen. There is no equivalent to the CZ debate guide because we don't really do "debate". We reach consensus on content based on what the sources say, we don't debate the topic itself. The analogous guide we have is WP:Consensus#Consensus-building, its follow-on sections, and the pages linked from that policy. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether Citizendium is a competitor to Wikipedia or not; Citizendium is not a reliable source, and an external link to it has no place on Wikipedia, per the policy on external links: External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. Nor would a link to Citizendium pass the criteria to be included in an "external links" section (criteria 1, 10, 11, etc.). If the Citizendium page cites reliable sources, then you should cut out the middleman and directly use the reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I could try "cutting out the middleman", but I don't think I can do any better at providing a fair and balanced summary than the Debate Guides I already have. I already get criticism from both sides for my summaries not including their long-winded, emotional arguments, just a link where anyone interested can read it all. Maybe someone more familiar with the rules here can use selected material from CZ pages.David MacQuigg David MacQuigg 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who is familiar with the rules here: material from Citizendium is not usable in Wikipedia articles at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To expand, the idea that we must "balance" criticism in an article is discussed at WP:PROPORTION, which is a section in our policy on neutral point of view. What we are required to do is provide roughly equal weight of each viewpoint in rough proportion to the viewpoint's prominence in reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that support the opposing viewpoint, we should cite those. VQuakr (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe that the Criticism section is balanced? Do you see UCS as a reliable source? David MacQuigg 15:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

UCS is a partisan, reliable source, which is fine to use because we attribute their viewpoint to them (that is, we don't present their viewpoint in "Wikivoice"). If there are reliable sources that present differing viewpoints, we should add them to the section rather than removing what is there. VQuakr (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, although I might argue that UCS has a conflict of interest, due to their raising money from anti-nuclear advocacy.

We could correct the bias I see by making clear that UCS is "partisan". How about:

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that advocates against nuclear power, has expressed worries with the liquid-fueled MSR reactor pattern about issues with safety, environmental impacts, and nuclear proliferation.

I would still like to add something like:

Nuclear engineers familiar with this design have responded to these worries.[3]

David MacQuigg 16:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That... yet again links to Citizendium. If you don't have a RS to propose, then you're wasting our time. I wikilinked the UCS so the reader can read about the org if they wish. "An organization that advocates against nuclear power" would be an unsourced opinion stated in Wikivoice, which we can't add. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr @Writ_Keeper thank you for your time and the explanation of WP rules. So far I do not have any sources that will satisfy those rules and correct the bias I see in this article. I will continue this discussion in a forum where we can get into the substance of the debate, and report back here if I can find a source that might qualify. You guys are doing good work enforcing the rules on a mob of wannabe writers. I hope that I have not contributed to your frustrations. David MacQuigg 15:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you don't have a RS that contradicts the viewpoint in the article then there's no reason to think a bias exists. You're putting the cart before the horse by assuming there's bias. VQuakr (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping to end this discussion, but it looks like you want to continue on the question of bias. Here is where I see the bias:

UCS: “All MSRs chemically treat the fuel to varying extents while the reactor operates to remove radioactive isotopes that affect reactor performance. Therefore, unlike other reactors, MSRs generally require on-site chemical plants to process their fuel." This was not an insignificant error buried in their 148 page report. It is a major complaint featured in their Executive Summary, and echoed all over the Internet in discussions of nuclear safety and proliferation.

ThorCon: “For the record, ThorCon does no chemical processing online to remove fission products or anything else. Xenon and krypton bubble out in the header tank, are held in storage tanks until they have decayed to harmless levels, and then cooled, compressed and stored." This was the response from from Jack Devanney, Principal Engineer (retired), ThorCon USA Inc. to an inquiry from Citendium.

Citizendium has complete coverage of this debate, with full details of the UCS position, and a comment from the designer of an MSR that DOES do online processing (most do not).

Who do you think is telling the truth, an advocate from an organization raising millions from people opposed to nuclear power, or a simple, easily-checked statement of fact from an engineer familiar with the design?

You don't need to repeat the WP rules. I was hoping you might help WP avoid spreading misinformation. You could help by finding a source that satisfies the WP rules, or by using a little common sense. I read somewhere that WP contributors don't have to prove that Paris is the capital of France. David MacQuigg 19:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT. Paris isn't always the capital of France, so context matters on whether a claim requires a source. A private communication with an engineer is not a published source and therefore isn't verifiable. So there is no "misinformation" to correct. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The engineer's statement is verifiable by looking at the drawing of the reactor. There is no online process loop. It's a sealed can, welded shut, no place for bad guys to siphon off a bit of U-233. I tried earlier to cite a document ThorCon filed with the IAEA. That was not allowed, because the information still came from ThorCon. Of course it came from ThorCon. Where else can we find detailed information on the design of their reactor?

I argued that these submissions to a regulatory agency are even more reliable than a typical "peer reviewed" publication, and certainly more reliable than the self-published report from an anti-nuclear advocacy group. UCS is financially motivated to oversimplify (all MSRs are bad) and avoid even a simple fact check from an engineer. The IAEA is motivated only by public safety. They have experts that review these submissions in detail, note problems, ask questions, require revisions, sometimes many revisions. Companies wanting to license nuclear reactors don't screw around with regulators. That could very costly.

You guys need a new rule WP:CommonSense.

Are we done? David MacQuigg 23:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify a little, Wikipedia's policies are such that we should follow what (hopefully competant, well trained and knowledgeable) journalists say in Independent Sources about a subject. So if the WSJ or NYT were to publish an article on ThorCon, hopefully THAT REPORTER would have done the job you are doing here of interviewing people from ThorCon and then whomever the journalist sees as an expert to fact-check the claims of the company's CTO or spokesperson, and then that is what we should use as a source here to show "both sides", with weight given to each side NOT decided by us, but by the independent journalist. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I hope Citizendium will earn, status as an Independent Source, with competent and knowledgeable authors covering controversial topics with balance and objectivity. I view my role in producing an article as that of a traditional editor. I make a special effort to present the best arguments from each side, even when my personal opinion is different. On the topic of nuclear power, I have been called both anti- and pro-. I resist those labels. If anything, I am pro-science. Follow the facts regardless of which side they support.

I welcome anyone here to look at Citizendium's coverage of nuclear power, and tell me what we can do better. David MacQuigg 13:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph sourced SOLELY to Union of Concerned Scientists

I removed the paragraph sourced to UCS. Here is my longer explanation that didn't fit in the edit summary:

Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks or advocacy groups listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research with findings contrary to their policy position; using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks and advocacy groups.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists has done some great work, but now they seem to have given up on science.David MacQuigg 01:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: UCS is definitely not a SPS and is not similar to the examples listed in that policy. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources is a true statement but "academic source" is not our standard for inclusion here. Linking WP:PROMOTION in the edit summary was a good example of WP:UPPERCASE. As a reminder, biased sources can still be used per WP:PARTISAN and do help establish if there is adequate weight to cover a viewpoint. The "statement of fact" here is that UCS has made the claim because this is attributed to them. As such I've contested the removal of the reliably sourced, long standing content. WP:RSN may be a good next step if you have concerns. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can find an Independent Source that has published the opinion of UCS, then we can include what the IS states is the view of OCS concerning this reactor. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Independent", as you are defining it, has no basis in policy as a basis for inclusion or exclusion. Independence as discussed at WP:BESTSOURCES refers to intellectual independence from one another - for example, multiple press copies of the same release to not convey additional weight. UCS is obviously not affiliated with ThorCon. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If "long standing" is a factor, we should restore this version of the Critiques section, which was fair and balanced. It includes details the UCS complaint AND a response from the design engineer. This version was "long standing" before the massive deletion of almost the entire article. David MacQuigg 11:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: I removed the paragraph sourced SOLELY to the Union of Concerned Scientists because that statement fails Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, NOT in an attempt to "add balance" or "neutrality" to this article. I became aware of this content because of the discussion above. I wanted to state this because this discussion should be SEPARATE from the above discussion, which was about ADDED content (which also did not meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines).---Avatar317^(talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise to me. Remove BOTH the UCS propaganda and the responses from nuclear engineers. David MacQuigg 17:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The UCS doesn't fail any sourcing guideline, as explained above. As long-standing content, it should not have been repeatedly removed without consensus to do so. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How can UCS be a "reliable source"? The don't even do simple fact checking. Read Citizendium's coverage of this debate and you will see what I mean. David MacQuigg 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Their report looks pretty thorough. Just because someone disagrees with a conclusion doesn't mean we quit using a source altogether. Neither does a mistake in reporting; all sources do that from time to time. RSN thread started at WP:RSN#Union of Concerned Scientists. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I endorse everything VQuakr has said in this section and the previous one. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not that "someone disagrees with a conclusion". The UCS allegation fails a simple fact check. Yes, the UCS report is thorough, and worthy of inclusion in any debate on reactor safety, but only with fact-checking. Their criticism of this reactor was fact-checked by CZ with a response from the reactor designer. If that response is easily verified (look at the design in the IAEA filings) then it doesn't matter that the source has a conflict of interest. So does UCS. What would happen to UCS funding if they published a report saying the new reactors are safe because there is no possibility of meltdown. Fox TV lost half their viewers when they tried to tell the truth about the 2020 election. David MacQuigg 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)