541
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Socialist Environmental Disasters (view source)
Revision as of 18:03, October 6, 2007
, 18:03, October 6, 2007Current intro paragraph
Allso worth noting is that there has been other studyes made from the subject afterwards, from which many don't agree with this one. For example [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.400.html here] is a study that estimates the death toll to be around 30 000 - 60 000 and the new study made by 52 scientists to Greenpeace sets the estimate to even higher[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_04_06_chernobyl.pdf]. This controversy is discussed in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4923220.stm this] article by BBC. So still today the estimates range from that 4000 - 9000 to all the way up to 100 000. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 07:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Allso worth noting is that there has been other studyes made from the subject afterwards, from which many don't agree with this one. For example [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.400.html here] is a study that estimates the death toll to be around 30 000 - 60 000 and the new study made by 52 scientists to Greenpeace sets the estimate to even higher[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_04_06_chernobyl.pdf]. This controversy is discussed in [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4923220.stm this] article by BBC. So still today the estimates range from that 4000 - 9000 to all the way up to 100 000. [[User:WillM|WillM]] 07:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
== Current intro paragraph ==
Rob, could you maybe expand a bit on your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialist_Environmental_Disasters&diff=310638&oldid=310567 edit] there? I know we at CP value conciseness, and I also know that we at CP don't dig leftist whatever, but... I fail to see the connections you seem to point at.
Three strong claims here that could really use sourcing or expansion:
*"caused by a lack of environmental regulation"
*"used and promoted environmental movements worldwide to subvert free market economics"
*[continued]"and human rights"
The first one should be easy enough, but it still wouldn't hurt to either be more specific or to point at a source. But the last two claims made me go "Wha-?" because they pretty much come out of nowhere (and then again leave into nowhere). I figure you're a smart guy and based those claims on good sources, so this is just a request to include them in the interest of the reader. Right now, the intro paragraph sounds a lot like an abstract or summary without the rest of the undoubtedly wow-ing article: It's concise and certainly gets a point across, but people can't help but feel that they're missing something. And since the points touched here aren't really picked up in the article, they're left wanting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:03, 6 October 2007 (EDT)