Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nuclear target structures"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
::Yikes! Please don't tell on me to Karajou! Only joking... I haven't made any changes to this article - I merely pointed out that it doesn't make much sense with it's present wording and formatting, and suggested changes that would make it clearer and more coherent. I wasn't lying when I said I was interested in this subject and I would be happy to help improve this article. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)
 
::Yikes! Please don't tell on me to Karajou! Only joking... I haven't made any changes to this article - I merely pointed out that it doesn't make much sense with it's present wording and formatting, and suggested changes that would make it clearer and more coherent. I wasn't lying when I said I was interested in this subject and I would be happy to help improve this article. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)
 +
 +
:::By the way, I'm sure [[TheAmericanRedoubt]] can answer for himself. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 16:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 15:16, 16 January 2015

I've read through this article a number times and I'm baffled by it! TAR - here's a few questions and observations...

1. Why use the word 'structure'? Wouldn't calling it 'Nuclear target protocols' or 'Nuclear weapons targeting' make the purpose of the article clearer?

2. Your description of primary, secondary and tertiary is pretty clear but then you've added another section '____ the Nuclear-Weapon State: A Likely Nuclear Target Structure' with poor formatting. I'm sure this could be merged with the previous section to make a more coherent article.

3. What is your reason of including the Randy Newman lyric quote? Maybe you could expand your reasoning here?

4. Your two references to [1] were excellent but then there are a great deal of links to external 'prepper/survivalist sites'.

I'm also interested in this subject and if you would like, I'd be happy to collaborate to make this article far more readable and clearer.

EJamesW 15:14, 16 January 2015 (EST)

EJ, you can take your little digs at The American Redoubt's work. I would encourage him just to ignore you and to tell Karajou if you begin to try to make multiple minor changes to the article like WSchact did. VargasMilan 15:51, 16 January 2015 (EST)
Yikes! Please don't tell on me to Karajou! Only joking... I haven't made any changes to this article - I merely pointed out that it doesn't make much sense with it's present wording and formatting, and suggested changes that would make it clearer and more coherent. I wasn't lying when I said I was interested in this subject and I would be happy to help improve this article. EJamesW 16:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)
By the way, I'm sure TheAmericanRedoubt can answer for himself. EJamesW 16:16, 16 January 2015 (EST)