Talk:Anti-nuclear movement in Australia/Archive 1

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: fail
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
 * 5. Article stability? pass
 * 6. Images?: pass (at GA level)

This is beautifully done to this point - many thanks to User:johnfos for great work. To reach GA it should probably cover a few more things, some very briefly: If everyone is comfortable with this assessment I can try and make some contributions to follow up, particularly on the NDP and the ALP policy
 * Maralinga and the Royal Commission of Inquiry, which fed public anti-nuclear sentiment via some good traditional Australian 'pommie-bashing'
 * The Nuclear Disarmament Party and perhaps mention Peter Garrett's role at that time, give his current ministerial responsibilities
 * Some specific sites, such as the Roxby Downs protests and mine; the negative views about mine safety arising from the Rum Jungle site; Ranger Uranium Mine
 * Ongoing (very public) debates within the Australian Labor Party about its no new mines / 'three mines' policy (particularly since, as currently drafted, the reader might mistakenly tend to form the impression that the ALP was anti-uranium)
 * (For FA-level comprehensiveness more than GA) compare and contrast to New Zealand and its decision to go nuclear-free, impact on ANZUS treaty etc and how that relates to the anti-nuclear movements in each country.
 * Ideally it needs some graphics - a photo of a major campaign event (such as the mid-80s rallies) or of that protester/s always dressed as death on a barrel of yellowcake; or a map showing major uranium mines in Australia - but I'm aware of all the problems with images - particularly for events that are non-current but still in in-copyright era!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. — hamiltonstone (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Hamilton, for your very fair review. Yes, it would be good if you could see your way clear to adding some more content please. Thank you for reviewing. Johnfos (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey John, think I've sorted it... but with not much experience with these things, who knows! See you around... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For info re Coronation Hill
It is a common misconception that there was a proposal in the late 1980s to mine uranium at Coronation Hill in Kakadu National Park. There was a small uranium mine at that location in the 1950s or 1960s (the hill's non-Indigenous name is related to the deposit's discover at the time of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, I think). However, hte major controversy in the late 80s / early 90s concerned a proposed gold mine. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Hamilton, for this clarification and for your additions to this article. I will re-submit it for GA soon... Johnfos (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to article
I think we need to ensure that only major items are included in the "external links" seciton, and not news items etc which may be minor in terms of the subject and/or better included as references to article text. Ultimately the same may be true of the "quotes" section. I'm going to integrate some of this into the body of the article.

Generally, there also needs to be care taken re NPOV. At the moment there are no views outlining criticisms or limitations of the Australian anti-nuclear movement and this perhaps should be addressed (it was not something I thought about originally). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Based on the last review +a lot of work passed since then, I'll pass this. Some suggestions for further improvement... Nice work all involved! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead could do with a word in bold...not sure what, but it just looks...odd
 * The second paragraph really should talk a bit more about what anti-nuclear stuff has been done here
 * Any more quotes?


 * Thanks, Diggy, for reviewing, and thanks also to Hamilton for his efforts. We did have some more quotes at one stage, but they seem to have been taken out.  Will try to retrieve them and make some other improvements... Johnfos (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and you're welcome. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Long "see also" list
I'm surprised the article meets GA standard with such a long "See also" list. Many of these articles should be linked from the text. I was particularly surprised to find that Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant is not worthy of attention in the article, I would be stunned if its abandonment was not related to the Anti-nuclear movement in some way. --Scott Davis Talk 12:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article explains that the first groups which were specifically anti-nuclear were formed in 1976 and 1977, and these included the Movement Against Uranium Mining and Campaign Against Nuclear Energy (or Power). But the Jervis Bay saga occurred much earlier, from 1969 to mid-1971.  As Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant explains, it was mainly a change in PM and financial concerns that led to the shelving of the Jervis Bay project.


 * I think that Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant deserves a link in "See also", but not a further mention in connection with the Anti-nuclear movement. As WP:ALSO explains, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Johnfos (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1980s and 1990s
I think we could do with more content in this section, especially in regards to Jabiluka. If anyone has good sources and wishes to contribute here, it would be appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See also links
There is currently a difference of view between editors Johnfos and Alan Liefting about what should be in the external links section. Like Alan, I think the the links to the Diesedorf book, and to Renewable energy in Australia should not be there. They are unrelated to nuclear issues in the encyclopedic sense. I see them as risking POV-pushing - encouraging readers to examine the alternatives to nuclear, when this should strictly be an article about the movement opposing it. I'm going to take them back out and leave a message on both editors' talk pages. hamiltonstone (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point re POV-pushing but since the anti-nuke movement advocate renewables a link to Renewable energy in Australia is justified. Having such a link obviates the need for less important articles such as books. Similary, WRT to the link to Uranium mining in Australia, it obviates the need for a link to List of Australian inquiries into uranium mining. Even though the link is in the first para an important link such as this is justified in being in the See also section. Some readers may overlook the first occurrence of the link. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those links should be included in the text instead, so that readers have context about why they are important. Otherwise they are too peripheral to be in the see also section.  NJGW (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article published
I happened to notice that a 2009 version of this article (and some other WP articles) are contained in [ http://www.amazon.com/Anti-nuclear-Movement-Australia-Australia-Renewable/dp/6130023480 Anti-Nuclear Movement in Australia] by Alphascript Publishing, ISBN 6130023480 -- Johnfos (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Quotes
Some quotes that editors may wish to draw on, but which are out of place as a list in the article itself: Nuclear power in particular is rejected because of its substantial risks (proliferation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, waste management and reactor failures) and economic costs, and because within several decades it will become a significant emitter of CO2, mainly from the fossil fuels used in mining and milling low-grade uranium ore. Based on existing technologies, nuclear power is neither a long-term nor a short-term solution to global warming. -- Dr Mark Diesendorf, 2007.

Promoting nuclear power as the solution to climate change is like advocating smoking as a cure for obesity. That is, taking up the nuclear option will make it much more difficult to move to the sort of sustainable, ecologically healthy future that should be our goal. -- Professor Ian Lowe, 2007.

There are significant constraints on the growth of nuclear power, such as its high capital cost and, in many countries, lack of public acceptability. As a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is further limited because it is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which is responsible for less than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Because of these problems, the potential for nuclear power to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels is limited. Few predict a doubling of nuclear power output by 2050, but even if it did eventuate it would still only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5% – less than one tenth of the reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. -- Dr Jim Green, 2005.

If serious plans for a nuclear power plant in Australia are ever developed, and construction begun, it is safe to say that this would trigger a massive expansion of the anti-nuclear movement, which been relatively dormant for decades, drawing on strong latent public opposition to uranium mining and nuclear power. Australian activists would mount direct action campaigns. The boost to activism would be enormous. -- Dr Brian Martin, 2007. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and nuclear power
Is anybody out there?

I have just read this article for the first time. While I agree with most of the content, I have some general problems with the way the article is constucted

1. it is dated

2. it implies there is a single movement which opposes all three of uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The situation is more complex than that.

3. it incorporates not only the history and rationale of the anti-nuclear movement, but also aspects of the anti-nuclear debate in Australia. The coverage of the debate is rather superficial and one-sided, quoting anti-nuclear sources almost exclusively.

Obviously the article is about an opposition movement, so it necessarily focuses one side of an argument; however if it is going to cover the debate, the arguments need to be presented in a balanced way.

In the Australian context it is understandable that the issues of uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear weapons have become conflated, given the history of our nuclear knights who explicitly promoted nuclear power in part as a path to nuclear armament. However today there is a new generation of Australian experts, exemplified by Barry Brook, who while opposing nuclear war, argue that nuclear power could make a significant contribution to CO2 reduction. They deserve better coverage than the article provides. Alternatively, the references to the debate could be combined with the article on the nuclear power debate in Australia,.

Any thoughts? If people agree I would be willing to recast the article to disentangle the mining/power/weapons threads and either include a more balanced description of the debate or start a new article.

Prosopon (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post…


 * Certainly the article has an historical focus, which would seem appropriate given that most anti-nuclear activity in Australia occurred some decades ago. But, yes, some recent updates could be added.


 * I would have thought that most anti-nuclear groups in Australia would oppose uranium mining, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. For example, the Anti-nuclear Alliance of WA says it has concerns about “uranium mining, nuclear power, weapons and waste” . What is your main WP:Reliable source which describes the “complexity” in the Australian movement which you speak of, and “disentangles” the mining/power/weapons threads?


 * The Nuclear power in Australia article has sections on nuclear politics and the nuclear debate, so I would have thought that a full and balanced treatment of these topics would be best located there. Barry Brook is mentioned there already and I think that really is the best place for discussion of his views.
 * -- Johnfos (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes on reflection I think you are right - overwhelmingly the movement in Australia has opposed all three of mining, power and weapons, and this goes back some decades, so I guess my concerns would be addressed by clarifying that for international readers, and maybe referring to the nuclear knights by way of partial explanation.


 * But in referring to disentangling complexity I was thinking about the issues rather than the movement. Seems to me the emergence of environmentalists such as Brook, Flannery etc who see nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming, and who do make a distinction between opposition to nuclear power and nuclear weapons, is a very significant development. Certainly there has been a strong reaction from the mainstream movement, mirroring the international situation. I haven't seen a summary review of the Australian debate, but there are plenty of references from each side.
 * Prosopon (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have started a new section in the Nuclear power in Australia article, see and hope that you may contribute there. Johnfos (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Anti-nuclear movement in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080805195706/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/report/fullreport.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/Isr/uranium/report/fullreport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105234421/http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate/ to http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/nuclear-climate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120312194611/http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/east-pacific/Australian-Rallies-Remember-Fukushima-Disaster-142242575.html to http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/east-pacific/Australian-Rallies-Remember-Fukushima-Disaster-142242575.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anti-nuclear movement in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071031222602/http://www.greenpeace.org:80/australia/issues/nuclear-power to http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/nuclear-power

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)