Talk:Nuclear optimism

Cannot find the term "nuclear optimism" in any of the references

I can't seem to find the term "nuclear optimism" in any of the references. Is it a neologism? If so, who invented it? How long has it been in use for?Katana0182 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading an early version of this article but agree that "Nuclear optimism" is not a commonly used term, and so it shouldn't have an entry in an encyclopedia. I'm adding a Notability tag. Johnfos (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mixing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons like in this article looks like a synthesis. I added a relevant tag to the article. Beagel (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More relevant and reliable third-party sources have been provided now, and it is clear that the topic is notable, so I have removed the Notability tag. Johnfos (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Inherent POV.

This article, to me, appears to be subtly yet inherently POV. For example, it identifies atomic and hydrogen weapons with nuclear reactors. This isn't a fair comparison, as both work through extremely different means of operation. In fact, this appears to be borderline propaganda attempting to achieve a WP:SYNTHESIS of the term 'nuclear optimism' from a variety of sources so as to achieve an artificial commingling of nuclear reactors and hydrogen/atomic weapons.

Never mind that nuclear reactors weren't exactly the biggest hits of the 'high' Atomic Age, which saw the tests of weapons, but not much else, while the nuclear reactors that were built caught the flak the weapons testers should have gotten 20 years before for their 'atomic playboyism'.

It's like combining the article on hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen bombs under the title 'Hydrogen optimism' because both involve hydrogen. Katana0182 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Restoring lost text

Katana, you should be aware that the two paragraphs about nuclear power that you added here [1] are:

• POV: they are staunchly pro-nuclear and anti-renewables.
• Off-topic: I can't even see where "Nuclear optimism" is mentioned, although the term "anti-nuclear" is mentioned five times.
• Original research: Not a single citation supports what is being said in these two paragraphs.

So I have reverted to the older version, which has fewer problems. Johnfos (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on slew of tags

First, thanks for the interest and attention.

I agree that this article is currently at best "Start" class. I got interested in the idea reading a few different articles and created a short article. I hadn't gotten around to completing it wondering what interest it might spark from the larger community. I hadn't checked back until today.

To respond to some comments and questions:

• Some of the references do explicitly use the term "nuclear optimism" or "nuclear optimist". The commentary that says they don't seems to be reflective of not actually reading the references.
• Atomic and hydrogen vs. nuclear weapons: There are technically distinctions to made here but "nuclear weapon" is a blanket term that is commonly used to talk about all of these kinds of technologies (whether that is technically accurate or not). This article is not a scientific one and it is Wikipedia policy to use common terminology in the way that it is normally used.
• Commonly used: I agree that this term is not in widespread use (probably because the concept itself is not very politically correct these days) but it is used by some experts on the subject as the references show. The concept is expressed using other terms as well. If somebody wants to suggest another term as the title of the article feel free.
• Notability: I think I have at least established that the term is used and expresses a real concept that is of scholarly interest. The justifications stated for adding this template, therefore, seem contrived. Some additional references would be good, of course, but, as I stated, this is a "Start".
• Relationship between power and weapons: This is not "Synthesis". Many people, especially back in the 50s and 60s, saw nuclear technology as a whole as the path of the future. Nevertheless, it is true that there is a major distinction between the optimism surrounding the two types of technologies. I would not be opposed to splitting this article into two if there is a strong feeling about that. But if this is the concern then please say so.

I would request the following.

• Please remove the synthesis template unless an actual justification for it can be provided. If you want the article to be split then please say so (or better yet, do it).
• Please remove the notability template or provide actual justifications for it.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added multiple references for the statements that were questioned.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are and have been people who had unreasonable expectations of what atomic weapons could accomplish (aside from piles of billions of the dead). You tap into an accurate feeling, that the supposed "benefits" of atomic arms were nonexistent. I think there are few outside of neoconservative think-tanks and certain political cliques who believe that atomic weapons have much of a future doing anything except being turned into electricity or stored in some deep pit somewhere, to be forgotten about.

There also was a tremendous amount of hype about the "Atomic Age" that was, in a way, irrational exuberance for anything "atomic", just as a few years ago, there was an irrational exuberance for anything "Internet" related or "e-enabled" or "i-whatever". There was never any criticism intended about the whole idea of truly irrational exuberance about what the whole family of nuclear technologies could accomplish in a general way (atomic cars, atomic can-openers, etc), and about atomic weapons in particular. If you want to get into some truly awful misapplications of atomic things, I would think that, for example, shoe-fitting fluoroscopes, radium-painted clock dials, and radioactive quackery, such as the radioactive patent medicine Radithor would definitely be due for a mention rather than solely focusing on early atomic power. For example, I think that some beauty pageant actually had a "Miss H-Bomb" or something like that...

What I would urge is that we confine discussions of past feelings to the past. I'd like to bound the conversation here by saying that the topic should be about the irrational optimism about atomic technologies that was present in an era stretching from about the 1920s until, I would say, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If we were to talk about advances in nuclear medicine or efforts to construct more nuclear reactors today, I'd urge that it be clearly separated. For example, science-based nuclear medicine using radioisotopes as well as technologies like the gamma knife has greatly expanded the medical field, while nuclear power, though certainly controversial, as others here will attest, has proven to be a useful and expanding option for many nations.

My criticism was not directed at the perspective the article took on atomic weapons or atomic exuberance of the past, and I should have been more selective than general in how I criticized. My apologies.Katana0182 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Katana0182, thanks so much for getting back.

Responses in bullet-form (I use bullets to much but they keep my thoughts organized):

• Actually the idea that nuclear weapons stop wars has never really died and there are still quite a number of people out there who espouse the idea (see Ganguly 2008 and the Tepperman Newsweek article). The notion is not very politically correct which is why it is not discussed very openly in the general public. I mostly don't agree with the idea but the fact that we haven't been vaporized yet does say maybe I don't know everything ...
• I actually was motivated to write the article because of the recent resurgence of nuclear optimism, both in terms of power and in terms of weapons. I think it is actually interesting to look at how the optimism has waxed and waned over the last century.
• I do agree that "nuclear optimism" is not used to refer to nuclear medicine and the like. I originally put that qualification in the intro but, since there was so much concern about citing, I took that out (I couldn't find a reference that explicitly said those were excluded). But it would seem the fact that I can't find references that include nuclear medicine is justification enough to say that's not part of the topic.
• I appreciate your kind words.

Thank you.

--Mcorazao (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing in this article is quite impressive. However, it does not solve the synthesis problem. It is ok to write an article about the nuclear energy optimism. It is also ok to write an article about the optimism about nuclear weapons or radioactive isotopes used in medicine. However, mixing all these things together is clearly WP:SYNTH. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Beagel, thank you for writing back.

I am not sure where you get "clearly" from. Although obviously not every source connects these, "clearly" many do. Apart from the examples already cited in the article consider,

• The Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed Nuclear Energy - Mentions the fears that many have had that nuclear power technology could be misused to make bombs.
• Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (pg. 164-166) - Discusses how as the U.S. and Soviet public in the 50s was sold on the benefits of nuclear power they became less opposed to nuclear weapons.

Your personal belief that these two concepts should not be connected is not relevant. People do make this connection whether you or I think that is valid or not.

Please remove the tag.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

A couple of editors have raised concerns about this article, specifically WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. Since we seem to be at an impasse I am proposing a straw poll to field opinions from other editors and hopefully motivate more discussion.

Please note: this poll concerns the merits of the topic, not whether or not the article at its current stage of development merits GA, A, B, C, or Stub. Although commentary on improvements is certainly appreciated please focus responses on whether the topic itself deserves development.

Question: Should this article

1. Be deleted.
2. Be split into two articles, one discussing optimism regarding peaceful applications and one discussing optimism regarding weapons.
3. Be reduced in scope.
4. Be kept with its current scope with improvements.

Thanks in advance.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Responses:

• RfC comment. First, just to be clear about the format of this RfC, please note: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I haven't gone through the sources for myself, but if this is to remain as a page, there must be secondary sources that prominently use the term "nuclear optimism" to apply simultaneously to all of the topics covered in the page. If not, the page should be deleted, and any useful material not already in other pages should be merged into them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - Thanks for the comment. Look at Evans pg. 2 for an example of the two (weapons and power) being connected under the banner of optimism. Also, I am not sure I understand your argument. Doesn't suggesting that the specific words "nuclear optimism" must appear in every reference violate WP:NAD? Isn't that like saying that if a book only talks about cars then it is inappropriate to use as a reference for automobile? And regardless, why would this imply deletion rather than one of the other options.

Thanks again. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the sources themselves, which I have not read and do not plan to read, let me answer your questions in terms of policy and in terms of what I meant. Not a dictionary has absolutely nothing to do with it. I never said that the specific words must appear "in every reference." I said that they must appear, in a significant way, in some. Absent that, for an editor to make the original claim that "nuclear optimism" applies to all these things would be WP:SYNTH. If there are sources that connect the ideas as you say, then there is no problem, but if not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well ... so bottom line, your concern is addressed (i.e. if you do not plan to read the references I am not sure what else I am supposed to do to address your concerns)? Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes (assuming other editors agree with you about the sources). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. At first I had concerns about this topic being non-notable, and placed a Notability tag at the top of the article. But more relevant and reliable third-party sources have been provided now, and it became clear that the topic was notable, and so I removed the tag. Johnfos (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Split into two articles. If there will be sources saying that the "nuclear optimism" applies to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons as combined, keep this article. Otherwise, which is the current situation, split it into two articles to avoid WP:SYNTH. Beagel (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Beagel, thanks for the feedback.

Well, I cited Evans as a source for this as well as a couple of others that relate the concepts. Nevertheless I am still not sure what is at the heart of the concern here. I think it is safe to say that any source that talks in depth about optimism with respect to one issue inevitably discusses the other. States that have advanced nuclear energy technology always have a leg up on developing weapons and this fact is widely discussed. You cannot be an optimist about nuclear energy and be a true pessimist about the weapons. I can cite more sources but since I am unclear why the existing citations are not sufficient I suspect there is something more to your concern. You seem to suggest that you want a source that makes a very specific statement phrased in a very specific way and, while I would like to oblige you, I don't see that this is a requirement for Wikipedia.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if there is a general concensus for splitting I won't oppose but, though there is certainly a distinction in these topics, it seems to me there is not enough to the discussion to merit adding 2 more articles to Wikipedia. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Updated comment. I said above that it depends on what other editors think about what the sources say. Seeing what Beagel said subsequently, I decided that I should take up Mcorazao's request to look at the sources for myself. I've read the first couple of pages of Evans, as suggested. If that's the strongest argument for the phrase "nuclear optimism", then I have to conclude that this page is WP:SYNTH and a WP:Content fork. Evans does not use the phrase "nuclear optimism" at all in those pages. He writes about a "spirit of optimism" about the use of nuclear power. We already have a page on the Nuclear power debate. That's where this material belongs, as part of one side of that debate. Splitting it off as a subject on its own violates SYNTH and POVFORK. Sorry to say this now, but the page should be made a redirect to Nuclear power debate and material here should be merged into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thanks very much for taking the time to read through the references. The effort is appreciated.

I'll reiterate the argument about specific wording in individual references is a WP:NAD issue. The only reason that any citations that use the title of the article need to be cited at all is to establish that this is an appropriate name for the article, not to establish notability of the topic. I have more than established that the two words as pair are widely used to refer to these concepts. Arguing that Evans is not discussing the same thing because he did not choose to put the word "nuclear" before the word "optimism" ... well I'm not sure what to say about that. And regardless, there are other sources cited there as well that clearly connect the concepts.

WRT the overlap with Nuclear power debate, it is certainly true that the articles overlap. However, the most that could be argued is that this is a sub-topic (one side of the debate) and certainly a sub-topic is entirely valid. Nevertheless, this article is not really even a simple sub-topic. The nuclear power debate article focuses entirely on whether or not nuclear power is valid to use right now or at all. Nuclear optimism, in general, is a viewpoint that nuclear technology is a long term solution to many of societies problems, not simply some localized technology. That philosophy is not really touched on in the debate article (maybe it should be but that's another discussion altogether).

I have to say that, frankly, your comments are essentially a straw man. You are trying to make this article be about something it is not. If there is some rephrasing or rewriting you would like to suggest to make its topic clearer or less biased I would very much appreciate such suggestions. But I am not sure what to do with what you have said.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about it being about more than just nuclear power, but material could also be merged into Nuclear weapon, for example. You posted an RfC, and you got comments. Don't worry about me taking this to AfD, because I won't. But I have given you my best take on how policy applies here, and your counterarguments do not convince me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I really do appreciate your taking the time to provide feedback, especially given how few have responded. I certainly to not mean to malign you personally. I am simply trying to figure out how to come to a meeting of the minds, so to speak, but we seem to be on opposite ends of reality so I'm not sure how to proceed (I'm reminded of the analogy of two inmates at an insane asylum each accusing the other of being crazy). Much as I appreciate your opinion I can't understand it so I feel at a loss.

Perhaps this is an indication that I have not adequately explained the topic in the article. I guess I'll try to improve that ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I never felt maligned personally. Maybe you are, quite understandably, very close to the article. It might help to just wait a while, and see if other editors weigh in, and what they might have to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::I think the article deserves to stay. I think that a possible title could be "Early Nuclear Era". By having the article be about a place in time in a particular field, it would allow for both the optimism and weapons aspects. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Relenting

Folks, I'm disappointed that my attempts to attract interest in this topic have not been fruitful. Nevertheless as I think about it, though I find this idea interesting as a sociopolitical study, I guess I am not passionate enough about it to want to fight for it as much as it seems will be necessary. Maybe the issue has been a poor formulation of the subject matter on my part but I guess I'm not sure of a fundamentally better way to write the intro.

I think I'll refrain from trying to move this article forward. If anybody wants to split it, delete it, merge it, or what have you, I will abstain from comment.

Thanks for the input from those who have commented.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that I came here a little late but here are my thoughts:

I think the article deserves to stay. I think that a possible title could be "Early Nuclear Era". By having the article be about a place in time in a particular field, it would allow for both the optimism and weapons aspects. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

An article like what you are suggesting might be appropriate. But that is substantially different from this one. First, this article only slightly deals with the opposing viewpoints (since those viewpoints are not what it is about) and, regardless, does not really deal with all of the technological and historical issues. In other words, this article focuses entirely on a single philosophy and cultural elements surrounding it whereas what you are describing is a historical article which could incorporate this and other philosophies plus a whole lot more about history. Also this article discusses modern viewpoints so it is not strictly about the early era (although the early era was obviously the pinnacle of this philosophy in popular culture).

In any event if somebody wants to write such an article I'm sure a lot of the content here would be useful.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

This article covers the same territory as Atomic Age. That covers the optimism around in the mid 20th Century as this one does. What is the need for both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussexonian (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, your statement is, strictly speaking, untrue. The Atomic Age article covers a lot more than just the optimism of the mid 20th century. In general Atomic Age is covering a historical era (incompletely to be sure but that is its intended scope) whereas this one was intended to cover a viewpoint and philosophy. To the extent that this article covers history at all it is only to discuss how the attitude has evolved but not to provide a history of the Atomic Age. To the extent that it covers other viewpoints it is only to provide contrast.

In any event, as I have said above, since I seem to be alone in thinking this article has merit I wash my hands of it. I only ask that if editors choose to get rid of it please do so for honest reasons.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding delete nom

I thought I was giving everybody what they wanted by putting this up for deletion but apparently there are actually folks who do believe the topic has merit. Thanks. Would anybody like to take a stab at a rewrite on at least the lead to try to address the concerns of the detractors? Though I know the article needs a lot of refinement and expansion in general, I don't fundamentally know what to do to it to address the concerns about synthesis (the reason I gave up in the first place was that I had no idea how to build consensus).

Any help is appreciated ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Move nuclear weapons part to nuclear peace

I noticed there is an article called Nuclear peace that talks about the viewpoint that nuclear weapons can prevent warfare rather than encourage it. I think the nuclear weapons section should be moved to that article, a link there added to this one, and a note that those two viewpoints are separate. --Tweenk (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is an end-around to argue that this article should be deleted, which we just went through. Removing the nuclear peace discussion from this one eliminates a huge part of this article and makes it a different topic. As I've said before, I don't know what to do with this article to make everybody happy. --Mcorazao (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection - Artificial Conflation

The Title Term appears to have no fixed meaning, being used variously to refer to: current optimism about the future of nuclear power, past optimism (atoms for peace), and thirdly, optimism about MAD.

I'm not convinced that a term /has/ encyclopedic meaning if it is merely a pairing of words whose meaning varies so widely in context. This term is nearly as arbitrary as a captcha, and I can't much imagine how one would bring meaning to this term without indulging in original research. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected the article as there have been considerable problems with it since 2009, and most issues are already better covered in other WP articles. Johnfos (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)