Talk:The Doomsday Machine (book)

See for example, the review of the book in ENERGIA by Chiara Proietti Silvestri (in Italian) and the Kirkus review on Amazon.

The book was critically reviewed by Fred Pearce in the New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com%2Fblogs%2Fculturelab%2F2012%2F03%2Fdoomsday-drivel-promoting-nuclear-paranoia.html&ei=g6-zUfO_KI6r0AWUjYDoDw&usg=AFQjCNHKo97jRq7CP3Q-gGJjJAfUJMyuYA&bvm=bv.47534661,d.d2k

Gemtpm (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues
I think I've addressed those issues, thanks. The notability one is odd - the book has been discussed by the New Scientist and the New York Times, and is debated all over the internet. The cover image I have obtained here: https://d1ldy8a769gy68.cloudfront.net/180/978/023/033/834/0/9780230338340.jpg File:Doomsday-machine-book-front-cover.jpg Otherwise the account is a straight summary of the reviews mentioned above, the views/ opinions come either from therese reviewers, or from the book itself. I think much more detail could be added, (the list of Myths was inteneded to structure the book, but seems to have rather premptorily deleted?) but this is perhaps all that is needed. I've added a couple of subheadings and the book intro as requested. The categories perhaps someone else could add? I leave the box there for the moment. Gemtpm (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Mmmmm... thanks for your attention to this. Yes, I got some odd automated messages... Anyway, regarding notability - here's some more thoughts: A news weekly review: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-doomsday-machine-the-high-price-of-nuclear-energy-the-worlds-most-dangerous-fuel/420444.article
 * I made a quick copyedit and cleanup of the article. There are still some issues that need to be addressed. The notability guidelines for books states that we meet the threshold for notability, if the book "...has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." At this point, we have Kirkus and New Scientist. The NYT article only provides a brief mention and is not actually a review of the book. I went ahead and added the full infobox for books and a category. It could use more cats, but I wasn't sure how to define it. I added the POV tag due to statements commentary made in the article that is not directly attributed to a source. Terms and phrases used include "carefully", "despite being at its heart", "notably", "claimed", "threat from man-made", "Why is the figure so low when we often read that nuclear is a key part of the 'world energy mix'?", "trick". I could go on with more, but I'm hoping you're understanding the intent here. I don't see an issues with the image. Did you receive a message from a bot or another editor? Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cindy  ( talk ) 20:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The NYT is more than a brief mention, it is using the book to illustrate one of the main points of the piece. There is the Energia review, which is a full length review... which I don't think is on the web though so hard to point at... It was reviewed in the Jurnal 'Energy and teh Environment' which can be confirmed here: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/y9433k218n681003/

The US books site ran it as one of its online book salons: http://fdlbooksalon.com/2012/04/22/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-martin-cohen-and-andrew-mckillop/

I think this counts as multiple, no-trivial and 'independent' reviews for WP purposes?

Now to the POV. I really don't get this. The page is describing what the book argues. Hence there is a POV. If it is not clear that this is what these phrases are doing, maybe we can deal with it by inserting 'as the book argues', and so on?

Thanks for fixing the info book!

Back to you now!

Gemtpm (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Gemtpm, Cindy, I tried to solve some issues of apparent bias by tweaking the vocabulary a little bit. I also added complementary info on the Atoms for Peace speech, in the form of a link to a sub section of the article on the speech. Perhaps if we could just quote some of the reviews of the book, in the Critical reception section, we could address the notability concerns while at the same time enriching the description of the theses of the book.--Pierre-Alain Gouanvic (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pierre-Alain, I'll follow that suggestion up about quotes now. The article is essentially paraphrased from the reviews, so I will make that clearer too. As there is no response from Cinders, I think we can assume the points have been resolved and have removed the notices. If they are re-instated, there should be a proper and specific reason given for doing so.

To summarise: under the WP guidelines, the book is notable, this notice should not be used. Few books would qualify as notable if this line were followed.

The POV issue - has been addressed per Pierre-Alain's lead.

The recent events point, is simply inappropriate. Presumably this is a reference to Fukushima, but the book is not about Fukushima but about nuclear economics.

Gemtpm (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

responding to last copy edit and new queries
Thanks for the work, Cindy.

When? The book was published in 2012, the phrase is from the book, and is generally understood I think as meaning something rather general. The claim could be cited directly to page 34, for example, where it reads:

"Yet, as with most technological solutions, novelty has shielded nu- clear from a clear-eyed assessment of its actual usefulness. Many people in the “old-nuclear” countries, where civil nuclear power was first developed from the 1950s and 1960s, can still recall how atomic energy was first pre- sented to them. In schoolbooks, in speeches from leading politicians, and in the press, an impressive chorus of recommendations for ever bigger and bigger high-tech reactor projects presented nuclear power unambiguously as the energy of the future."

And a bit later: "…with a new millennium starting, nuclear power was back— suddenly reinvigorated with a surge of multibillion-dollar projects—or at least plans for them. Once again, the atom was to be the energy of the future."

The 'or' was an 'and', I have taken that out.

"This leads to "tricks" to manipulate figures (cost projections of construction, decommissioning and insurance schemes), the extension of the life of the reactors, the reuse of the depleted fuel) in order to conceal the fundamental non-affordability."

In the 'Reception' section, the first POV is actually the language of the Italian Energia review, and so should be sourced to there, but could be backed by a quote from the Kirkus review:

"The authors deliver a convincing account of the partnership between industry and government (essential because nuclear plants require massive subsidies) to build wildly expensive generators whose electricity remains uncompetitive without more subsidies."

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/martin-cohen/doomsday-machine/

Gemtpm (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Energia
Unfortunately, it is hard to get to the Energia review, and although I have it here it is I suppose not possible to put it in WP Commons for consultation. The nearest I can give is the Energia site itself, as I have now done, but of course this is in Italian, so all references are necessarily indirect.

Of course, the same points 'could' be made differently, but it is a shame to let the referencing problem drive the content! Gemtpm (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)