Overleg:Bjørn Lomborg

"Lomborg schreef in 2001, toen hij nog een Assistent-Professor was in de Statistiek aan de Arhus Universiteit, het omstreden boek De sceptische milieu-activist (The Skeptical Environmentalist), waarin hij stelt dat milieu-activisten hun claims altijd overschatten." Is het okee om te zeggen dat hij in dit boek op basis van statistiek aantoont dat... of is dat NPOV?

Wat was de bekende quote over statistiek ook alweer? Lies, damn lies and statistics.... dus je zou het wel duidelijk moeten formuleren. Ik zou zeker het woord aantonen niet gebruiken, hij stelt iets dat niet onomstreden is. ..op basis van statistiek stelt hij in dit boek dat.. misschien? «Niels» zeg het eens.. 15 sep 2006 22:44 (CEST)

Links

WHY SO FEW EXTERNAL LINKS? The article is very short, and maybe that is the best solution when the person is so controversial. But then the readers should be allowed to seek additional information in the section `External links`. How come that there are only two links there, and that they are both official Lomborg-links? If the article should be balanced, there should be links both to sites supportive of Lomborg and sites where the criticism against Lomborg is formulated. Kåre Fog 62.198.212.142 24 apr 2011 17:22 (CEST)

Ofcourse, readers are allowed to seek additional information. Google or other search engines can be used freely for this. ;-) It's policy on the Dutch Wikipedia to mention only a few relevant(!) external links in the articles, see here (in Dutch). RONN (overleg) 24 apr 2011 17:33 (CEST)

I have followed your link. It says that one should not bring too many external links, and not too few. In this case, I definitely think you have too few. In relation to Lomborg, I certainly think that you could refer to a few external links that are critical of Lomborg. That would be very, very relevant. And, in addition, it would give some kind of neutrality by referring to both sides. 62.198.212.142 26 apr 2011 22:50 (CEST)