Talk:Southern Company

Please edit this...

It seems like half of the page is straight copy/paste from the website of southern co. The other half is from a enviromentilist website.

someone write something non-objective to either side.

Jmon366 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1st and 3rd biggest CO2 emitting coal plant

I'm removing this as it has no reference. It is both obvious and irrelevant that a coal power plant emits carbon dioxide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.79.211 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If the allegation is true, and if it is verifiable, then in my opinion it should be included in the article. CO₂ sequestering and/or other methods (such as those under development by Wow Energies) are becoming viable options, and so it does not go without saying that having the 1^st and 3^rd biggest CO₂ emitters is necessarily a given, in my opinion. --Art Smart (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush Inauguration Contribution Discussion

Rather than continue a good faith revert exchange, I propose a discussion as to whether a line about SO's place as one of 53 companies that contributed the maximum legal amount to President G. W. Bush's 2nd inauguration belongs in this article in the History section. That the contribution was made is well established and not disputed.

Remove

I do not think that the line and its three references is appropriate per the guidelines of WP:NOTE, specifically WP:UNDUE as described here

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

A single, legal campaign contribution following a campaign in which Bush raised $367,227,801 and which was one of 53 equal maximum donations from a variety of firms and individuals is hardly worthy of mention in the History section of an article on a 60+ year old company. Given that the History section is so short and lacks coverage in many significant areas I propose the line be removed from the article or at the very least moved to a new section titled Politics or similar which would discuss the role of the company in local, state, and federal politics such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the relevance of such a donation be put in contex. Linepm (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Retain

I support Linepm's suggestion that the text in question be "moved to a new section titled Politics or similar which would discuss the role of the company in local, state, and federal politics such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the relevance of such a donation be put in contex." I would love to see all of SO's political and quasi-political contributions included in the article. The Board of SO felt the need to contribute to the Bush inaugural in an amount equal to the very maximum allowed. In so doing, they obviously had no qualms whatsoever about that contribution being made known to the general public, so I'm surprised 3.5 years later that any third party would try to hide that fact, even when acting in good faith (which I am confident is the case). I say retain the text, moving it to a special section if need be, and expand the article with other contributions and/or philanthropy. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Art, thank you for your civil and constructive rebuttal. May I suggest a new section as below which should hopefully address both our views, I have some additional comments that follow:

Political activity

Southern Company and its employees have long been major contributors to state and national campaigns. In recent years the company has supported Republican candidates predominantly, such as contributing the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush., but has supported both Republicans and Democratic candidates throughout its history. Per the company's Political Contribution Policy, Southern Company refrains from making corporate contributions directly to state and local candidates, state and local political parties, and state and local political committees, though corporate funds may be used to make contributions to 527 organizations. Such 527 donations are published on the company's website.

The references were intentionally chosen as follows. First, the FEC database is a neutral, non-politically motivated source. I could not figure out how to do a search by company (corporate funds) only, I'm sure it is available and when you or I find it, it should certainly be added. Second, only one reference is needed for the Bush campaign contribution; the referenced USA Today article provides links to other articles on the same topic. Third, the company's own Policy and 527 disclosure is of key importance to the subject of this article section and should be included. A listing of contributions would not be appropriate to the body of the article, such a list would be most appropriate for an external link under WP guidelines which I feel certain we would agree to follow. Again, best wishes and thank you for your participation in crafting a neutral article. Linepm (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, but I didn't see the above discussion until after I made changes to the Environment section. The above suggested language by Linepm may work, but I'd prefer something a bit more succinct. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, your change looks good to me. Thank you for a honest, good, through discussion. Linepm (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Environment

Speaking of WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE, it appears clear to me that the Environment section may be a whitewash. See this for verifiable counterpoint. I intend to add balance to this section later this evening, but I wanted first to offer others more familiar with SO a chance to voice their opinions on the matter.

Also, self-disclosure might be appropriate among us editors of this article. I am both a customer of TXU and Reliant Energy, so I'm sure I get some of my power from SO. However, I have no employment or stock interests in SO.

I call upon all other editors of this article to likewise self-disclose any/all interests in SO. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a Southern Company employee but own SO stock; good point.Linepm (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends upon how much stock. Enough to create a conflict of interest would be too much, in my opinion. --Art Smart (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not enough to worry about my next meal coming from the dividends. Your point is well taken and I have reviewed WP:COI for my future benefit and reviewed my previous edits on this subject. I was aware of the potential for COI and tried to make sure to cite specific reasons for my changes and proposals in edit summaries and the talk page for that exact reason (as directed by WP:COI guidelines); I should have clearly stated that I am a stock owner (regardless of small amount) up front, thank you for encouraging me to be a better editor.Linepm (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a first stab at adding balance to this section. Disinterested editors (i.e., those lacking any significant conflict of interest) are welcome to wordsmith. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the blockquote tags to make them bullet points, but I'm not sure that formatting was what was originally intended. Please adjust formatting, as well as providing a verifiable source for the bullet items. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)