Misplaced Pages

Talk:Radiological warfare: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:07, 7 May 2006 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits Assess article← Previous edit Revision as of 08:23, 21 January 2007 edit undoLiam Skoda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,367 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:


Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it?? Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it??
:No it doesn't. ] 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fictional Sources == == Fictional Sources ==


Revision as of 08:23, 21 January 2007

WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

WTF! "radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives."

Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it??

No it doesn't. cyclosarin 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Sources

This article seems to draw heavily from fictional sources for its information on the uses of radiological warfare. This seems to lead to much speculation and lack of actual fact. I suggest removing the paragraphs based on fictional works and rewriting them with actual cited scientific research.

Also, the last paragraph seems to be complete speculation. Its suggestion of ethical human mass killings is obviously not pertinent to the article; to say the least. I believe this paragraph should be removed entirely. Please comment.

Removed Fictional Sources

I have removed the parts of this article referencing or pertaining to the aforementioned fictional sources. This article is still in need to some sound research. It should be expanded to include referenced sources and verifiable information.

Big gap

Why isn't Cohen's neutron bomb mentioned here?

Category:
Talk:Radiological warfare: Difference between revisions Add topic