Talk:Deregulation of the Texas electricity market
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Tags
The two tags both are about the same thing: the somewhat advertizement-like phrasing of the text. I'm not absolutely sure that it's not NPOV, however I'm suspiscious that it might not me (I haven't throughly read it). 68.39.174.238 05:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
==
I agree, this page sounds like it was written by the CEO of TXU or Reliant Energy. To inject a bit of reality, I included the "Quick Look: Success or Failure" section which tells what is actually happening to consumer rates. Texas electric rates really are skyrocketing, nearly doubling since the day deregulation was enacted four years ago. However, I've tried to list both the positive and negative results so far. Let me know which part of this section is not correct. jjdreese, 2 August 2006
==
this "article" is an advertisement for deregulation of energy. it provides no meaningful sources, and as far as i can tell (not being a resident of texas), some of the article is patently false, and it repeatedly downplays the consequences of california's deregulation, blaming it on any scapegoat they possibly can, without addressing the flaws in deregulation. also, the map of the US with the color-coded states has no legend, so i can't tell what yellow, grey, and purple states indicate. aonicc 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
==
Well, I do live in Texas and let me tell you, the "40% savings" we were promised turned into an 85% increase with no roof in sight. Electrical deregulation is a sham. This article is so biased towards deregulation that I don't know how to fix it without essentially rewriting the entire thing. Although I didn't write the original article, I did add the "Quick Look: Success or Failure" section to help balance it out. Feel free to suggest changes. jjdreese 09:09, 10 August 2006
[edit] Tags again
Given the comments of the people above and a less hurried rereading, I've changed the tags to {{totallydisputed}} as I am not willing to trust either the neutrality OR factuality of this articel. I've also removed a (IMAO) biased "Summary". I may be able to do more work on this later on. The image I've requested deletion for as it's a copyright violation from a history of copyright violations. 68.39.174.238 02:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ah HAH!
Evidently the notorious bias was a result of a blatant text-dump from " http://www.rppi.org/ps281central.html "/" http://www.rppi.org/ps281.pdf ". Judging by [1] I don't think it's a very reliable source and so have removed everything from it that I could find. 68.39.174.238 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
