Talk:Tennessee Valley Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tennessee Valley Authority article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Structural suggestion 2 A problem with argumentation 3 Argumentation and wider sourcing 4 Damn dams 5 Simpler language 6 Statist 7 In need of major work 8 Is it legal? 9 Controversy - EPA 10 fish?

[edit] Structural suggestion

I'd like to focus for a moment on organization of the article, which is meandering right now (if not lurching!) I believe it would help to start things off with a historical section (after the intro) dealing with “The Creation of TVA.” This could lay out historically, rather than philosophically, the motivating issues and events (some already addressed in various places), such as: the impetus of the Great Depression (joblessness and economic collapse), the New Deal spirit of government activism, the poverty and backwardness of the Tennessee Valley area, utility holding companies and calls for reform (including advocacy for public power), the role of Sen George Norris, opposition to TVA's creation, the Supreme Court decision. Following this, I think it would be most logical to pursue the subsequent history of the agency from the 1930s to present. The narrative text might then conclude with a section, possibly called something like “Assessment,” succinctly and even-handedly covering major pro and con assessments of TVA. Does this seem like a workable basic structure? I know I'll need to do more research before I can be a very useful contributor, but I will try to do so. RickDC 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A problem with argumentation

The following addition is, I think, a case of argumentation that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article: One study says that public utilities are inadequate on maintainence. They note that federally owned power systems spends significantly less than private systems on this. They report that the TVA "spends only 5% of its revenues on maintainence." And, they say that as a consequence ability to produce power suffers. Privately owned damns produce 20% more electricity than federally owned ones. They also report that TVA charges more to its preferred customers than private utilities charge to the same class of customers.(CBO, Should the Federal GovernmentSell Electricity)

It's perfectly normal for encyclopedia articles to have supporting and opposing arguments in regard to the the subject --especially for Wikipedia articles. On Wikipedia, they're usually in a section called "Criticism" though. Maybe we should make such a section. RJII 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I think a your suggestion of a "Criticism" section would work. Some of the "pro-public-power" paragraphs also seems problematic and should probably be similarly separated from the neutral text.

the "criticism" should involve major figures (Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater). That will require some research by an editor. What we do not want is editors to propound anti-socialist rhetoric here, or quote obscure critics solely because of their POV. Rjensen 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What happened to the desire for "scholary sources" that you've been advocating in the FDR article? The study I put in is certainly scholary. And, the book (The TVA Idea) I put in is well cited by scholars --it's a classic. RJII 06:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's policy is that editors are NOT ALLOWED to insert their personal POV. Please abide that ironclad rule, even if you don't like socialism. Rjensen 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't insert my own POV in articles. I insert the POV of credible sources. If I have a POV and there's no source for it, I'm certainly not going to inject that into an article. If sourced information happens to favor a particular POV, that's fine --it's certainly no violation of a Wikipedia policy. All sources are the POV of the sources. RJII 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to cherry pick your sources to fit your personal POV. Are you in fact committed to Wiki goal of no POV in the article or not? Rjensen 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am. But, you're misinterpreting the policy if you think that the POV of sources can't be presented. You certainly seem to cherry pick sources to support your POV. RJII 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV would be for the editorial to say that X is good or bad. But it's NPOV for the editorial to say that a given source says that X is good or bad. RJII 07:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

well good, we're on the same wavelength. TVA generated as much controversy as electricity, and there are plenty of solid sources to use. Start with Hoover's Memoirs vol 3 ch 40. Please avoid offbeat sources--they weaken Wiki's claims for reliability and quality. Rjensen 07:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given any "offbeat" sources. I provided a scholarly study and a classic book on the subject by Dean Russell. Anyway, there is no rule against "offbeat" sources --whatever that is. RJII 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

yes Wiki insists on using the most reliable sources. Those that have been vetted by experts qualify; those that are self-published do not qualify. Why should we piddle with junk here? There is plenty of solid material on all issues re TVA. Rjensen 08:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What "junk" are you talking about? What "junk" sources have I brought into the article? RJII 16:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentation and wider sourcing

I tried re-writing the 1st two paragraphs in a neutral way. The article has two main problems right now, as I see it. First, although there may rightly be reference to controversial feelings about TVA, an encyclopedia article shouldn't be a place to argue positions, and it seems to me the article right now does cross the line into argumentation. Second, much of the history section is too reliant on verbatim quotes from the TVA Web site; it needs wider sourcing.

RickDC is exactly correct. Let's keep private agenda POV out of this encyclopedia. Rjensen 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And only public agenda in? RJII 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damn dams

Look folks, I don't know where you're from, but I know people whose grandmama and pa were flooded out by the TVA as part of its scheme to straighten out certain "backards" parts of the United States, i.e. Appalachia.

This article sounds like an ad for the agency, which wastes lots of money, and stole a bunch of land. I'm not denying that the TVA does good things, but its a hell of a lot more controversial than you'd think after reading this teensy piece.

Difficulties come from farmers' mistrust? Perhaps there's some difficulty in flooding out whole towns and taking peoples land. I'm not joking. --Defenestrate 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Well if you could relise what the farmers, miners and loggers before 1920 had done to the land in the first place then you would see this in a different light. they had destroyed vast amounts of land through poor farming techniques and the mining had cleared land and the raw metels that they didnt need were left on spoil heaps, which when rained upon seped into the soils and river poisening any organic matter that it came into contact with. so as you can see the people of this time had really screwed the land over so it was in the best interests of the land and people(they were losing money constantly) for the TVA to step in.

[edit] Simpler language

"the agency is still extant" -> "the agency still exists"?

[edit] Statist

POV - 'government owned means of production' is by no means an exclusively socialist concept. Nationalisation of (say) coinage far pre-dates socilism. It would be more accurate to describe it as Statist.

I disagree. I think the TVA pretty much fits the textbook definition of a socialist entity, and in fact I've seen it described as such in actual textbooks. Statist just seems like a neutered term designed to avoid controversy among people who equate socialism with the bad guys in the Rambo movies. --167.230.38.115 19:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The article sounds like an advertisement because that last half of it is copied and pasted from the TVA website.

[edit] In need of major work

This article needs major work. The flow and logic of the writing is awkward and painful to read. So much is missing, yet the article rambles on and on. I began an attempt to clean it up, but could only manage the opening part. Egads! Pfly 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I came here looking for links to the various TVA dams, reservoirs, and other projects, and found no such links. That would be a nice addition. It seems that many of the TVA projects don't have pages on wikipedia at all. If I get the chance and inspiration, I'll try to add some, Pfly 05:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here as a reader, and I would add that there is too much written (and specifically too much detail) before the Contents section. I don't think the criticism about maintenance, for example, belongs in what should be a just-the-basic-facts opening section of the article. emw 05:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it legal?

Hi, I am doing a reseach project on the TVA Act of 1933. I am curious as to how it is legal that the TVA, a federal goverment agency that pays no income taxes is allowed to sell power to millions of people and put smaller companies out of busniess. Any help would be appreciated.

It is my understanding that the TVA legislation treats power as a public utility rather than a service provided by any company. Usually utility companies have government sanctioned monopolies; having multiple utility companies would be impractical (imagine having 20 different companies either running their own power/water/cable lines, or all maintaining one set of power/water/cable lines and the blame game that would ensue). I hope this helps, but keep in mind that talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not to explain things about the subject. Thanks! /Blaxthos 18:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy - EPA

There is no mention of the controversy of the FDA's virtual immunity from the EPA in regards to air pollution. In fact, the word "pollution" doesn't show up in the article at all. While I am no expert on the issue, it is often mentioned in the media and is currently the subject of a Federal Lawsuit ([North Carolina vs. TVA])

Along with the other issues mention (readability, references, etc.) how can we lure "experts" on the subject to contribute? Arx Fortis 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

will you put more pictures on this page

[edit] fish?

What was the enviromental impact? did it stop any fish runs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC).