Talk:Non-Nuclear Futures: Difference between revisions
m clean up, rm "needs-infobox" from WP banner, article has an infobox using AWB |
→Book contents described as reality: new section |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|importance= |
|importance= |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Book contents described as reality == |
|||
The article doesn't seem to distinguish between what's in the book (the authors' opinions) and empirical reality (Wikipedia has many other fairly accurate, non-POV pages on nuclear power and environmentalism). For instance, the idea that centralized power generation requires "costly transmission and distribution systems" (which implies that "soft" alternatives do not)" is a claim about reality. On any other Wikipedia page, such a claim could be challenged and removed if found to be unsupported, or balanced by alternative evidence if it were genuinely controversial. However, on a book-description page, one can simply say "Lovins' claim is in the book, and the refutation is not". It seems like a way of ignoring the non-POV rules. |
|||
Perhaps this article could at least have a criticism section. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/184.70.186.150|184.70.186.150]] ([[User talk:184.70.186.150|talk]]) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:31, 24 October 2016
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Books Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Energy Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Book contents described as reality
The article doesn't seem to distinguish between what's in the book (the authors' opinions) and empirical reality (Wikipedia has many other fairly accurate, non-POV pages on nuclear power and environmentalism). For instance, the idea that centralized power generation requires "costly transmission and distribution systems" (which implies that "soft" alternatives do not)" is a claim about reality. On any other Wikipedia page, such a claim could be challenged and removed if found to be unsupported, or balanced by alternative evidence if it were genuinely controversial. However, on a book-description page, one can simply say "Lovins' claim is in the book, and the refutation is not". It seems like a way of ignoring the non-POV rules.
Perhaps this article could at least have a criticism section. 184.70.186.150 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)