::::::Your comparison here is way off.  You cannot rename things and change science to fit with your political views.  I am sorry that is not how the world (and not wikipedia) works.  I studies physics at university, the word nuclear does not mean fusion!  GO look at the nuclear bomb article they are both included there.  On top of being just plane factually wrong, I don't even understand you objection.  No one is proposing that the article be written to imply that nuclear power plants are using fusion.  NO one is implying that the article make people believe that nuclear is ok as it currently stands since fusion is a possibility.  Do you really think people are that stupid?  Even if they are (which I don't buy) that does not mean that we can change the facts to make you happy.  I am not even advocating that fusion be mentioned in the introduction at all!!!  I only want the introduction to be scientifically accurate and wording it to exclude fusion specifically is not only POV (in the ext ream) but it is wrong.  You seem to think that not anti-nuclear is POV since you appear to think that only unreasonable people disagree with you.  Well there was a version of the intro that called out Fusion, then there was your version that excluded it specifically, a version that does not mention it but does not exclude it is a nice NPOV compromise and has the added benefit of being scientifically/factually correct.  |