Talk:Nuclear power in Taiwan

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan Mid‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is it useful to have a separate page for this? There is very little information, maybe it would be better to roll this into the "Energy in Taiwan" page. Stefanmuc (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

There is a discussion which is also related to this article or category. You are welcome to take a part of this discussion. Beagel (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Sources ?[edit]

The section of this article pertaining to the Longmen has NPOV issues and completely lacks sources. Thoughts on a nomination ? Stromulous (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is still relevant given the numerous edits since then, but I'll add a "main" hatnote to the Longmen article, which does a better job summarizing the struggles over Nuke 4.

--Mliu92 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/chin-san/
Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research edits[edit]

Currently, I am at three reverts and hence cannot revert the current edit that the IP editor is adding. IP editor, here is why your edit should be reverted; No original research. It is original research to connect Obama and 'prebush' era to something entirely in Taiwan, nothing even related to Taiwan. Indeed, WP:UNDUE plays a role as well, given only one source is being used, and that's Breitbart, possibly a questionable source and the 'told truth' portion of it is not written in a neutral point of view. Based on what is being promoted, I'd also like to redirect the IP editor to WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not meant to be used for advocacy or a certain POV pushing. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that entire section. Its sources all suffered at least one of two flaws: They did not mention Taiwan, or they did not mention nuclear power. Not one dealt with criticism of Taiwan's anti-nuclear movement. Huon (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the nasty edit war and personal attacks, I think a section with opposing views should still be strongly considered in the article. The Chinese wikipedia has a section on this that could be a good starting point. [1] Lasersharp (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to it, at all. But the sources that made up the 'opposing view' did not discuss Nuclear Power, or did not discuss it in the context of Taiwan's nuclear program, thereby making the connection is original research, which is why User:Huon removed it. Tutelary (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the opposing views section should be up to standards. IP editor spent a lot of time on his criticism section, I tried fixing it knowing it might be deleted. Too bad it has to deteriorate into an edit war. A new start on the section is probably preferred. Lasersharp (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold and readd it, but make sure the references satisfy the claims and are specifically about Nuclear power in Taiwan. Tutelary (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future energy options[edit]

The global growth of most renewable energy technologies is greater than most people anticipated, see Renewable energy commercialisation. There are now studies and proposals in many countries about practical pathways to 100% renewable energy. The variability of some renewables has turned out to be more easily manageable than first thought, and many different strategies are available, see Variable renewable energy. So I'm restoring the lost info which reflects this NPOV perspective. Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your references don't even mention Taiwan nor nuclear power. Therefore your cheerleading and dubiously self promotional references from a renewable energy advocacy site promoting none other than renewable energy (who would have thunk?) are not fit for an encylcopedia article about Taiwan's nuclear power. Essentially you're doing WP:ADVERT. So I'm reverting your promotion piece again.

31.200.144.195 (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I just removed another one of your edits that again had nothing to do with Taiwan, that is, your copy and pasted text from ITER about it potentially taking until 2050 until it is commercialized. This text was removed as if Taiwan joined the ITER project and therefore greater funding arrived, which might be what the former president Lee Teng-hui is suggesting for Taiwan, then it wouldn't take until 2050 now would it? Your edit is therefore a counterfactual, as it assumes that if Taiwan invested, it would still take until 2050.

31.200.144.195 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too much thought given to anti-nuclear protests[edit]

More than half of all photos and 1/3 of the article is about the anti-nuclear movement in Taiwan; Perhaps there should be a spin-off article on this issue, but I don't think it should take up a large portion of the main page on nuclear power in Taiwan.

Stevo D (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, no info on pro nuclear movement is given. currently the article is written in extremely one sided manner 160.83.42.137 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]