70
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:World History Lecture Fourteen (view source)
Revision as of 22:12, May 7, 2009
, 22:12, May 7, 2009→Reversion explained
Too much editorializing and obscure details required reversion. A good lecture is straightforward and factual, hitting the key points. Editorialize or debate the obscure on the talk page, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
Too much editorializing and obscure details required reversion. A good lecture is straightforward and factual, hitting the key points. Editorialize or debate the obscure on the talk page, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
:I'll try to address my edits point by point so we can see if we can retain some of them.
:- About the members of the European Union, I'd agree that mentioning the micronations is unnecessary, we can leave that out. I think we should mention Iceland though. Even though the population is rather small, it is (or used to be) a very rich country, nr. 1 on last years Human Development Ranking. It is also very important strategically, think of the Keflavik NATO airbase. They are discussing joining the European Union since the economic crisis, so it is a very relevant country.
:- About the members of the Euro, Sweden does not use the euro, if you mention the UK and Denmark Sweden should also be mentioned.
:- About CAFTA, the way it is phrased now gives the impression CAFTA was an organization that already existed when the US joined it. It's better to make that clear. (Though I'd agree with not mentioning all member countries.) The sentence above it 'These agreements Latin American countries develop economic independence from foreign powers' is grammatically incorrect, it should include a verb.
:- About free trade, I think it is important to mention that different people have different reasons to oppose it. Both conservatives and Hugo Chávez disagree with free trade agreements, since Hugo Chávez obviously is not a conservative it is important to mention his reasons for opposing it.
:- About oil, in the sentence 'Today petroleum constitutes 40% of Americans’ overall energy consumption in the United States' the words 'in the United States' are redundant, it already says "Americans' overall energy consumption".
:- About Le Pen, well, this is probably the most controversial subject, but I don't think it's a good idea to leave out his antisemitism and Vichy ties. He called the Holocaust "a footnote in history", you can't leave that out. I think it's mistaken to consider Le Pen a conservative. He has a few conservative opinions (mostly on immigration and family values), but one or two conservative opinions do not make one a conservative. Not only would a real conservative never trivialize the Holocaust, but he is also a big supporter of welfare programs. Also the 2002 election was actually his best election result, it was the only time he managed to qualify for the second round. In any case, I can imagine it goes to far mentioning the entire debate about Le Pen in this lecture. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave him out all together and instead mention anti immigration politicians who are not antisemites from other European countries? The UK and the Netherlands would be good options, and I think Denmark also has some.
:Regards, [[User:JosephJackson|JosephJackson]] 18:12, 7 May 2009 (EDT)