--- Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hi,
Did you read what I wrote on the Talk page of this article ? Didier made a NPOV summary of the long POV text of Athyvement, then Athyvement reverted Didier's text into his own text. So I just put Didier's text back.
So, I didn't remove any information. And I think that, if some controversial information are given, the source has to be provided.
Yann
Good evening Yann,
Problem is : where do the controversies really lie ? :-(((
When you remove a whole paragraph, because you say it is controversial, could you at least state which point (or points) exactly "is" controversial, so others could help finding facts supporting or refuting the claim ?
Do you reject the fact the crab was fished ? Or the location it was taken ? Or the fact the crab was picked up for analysis by ecologists ? Or the fact Criirad did the analysis ? Or the contamination level of 600 Bq found in the crab ? Or the amount of radioactivity in some drinking water sources in France ? Or the official maximum level of radioactivity allowed in food by french law ? Or the fact there is no place on Earth without at least a bit of natural radioactivity ? Or ....what ?
I agree it is not written the right way, but if you just remove the text without saying which fact appears false to you, how are we supposed to know where to look for answers ? I left you a list some hours ago. Please, comment Yann :-) ant
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com