Talk:Nanoterrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm calling for a complete rewrite of this article, some of the articles have nothing to do with Nanoterrorism and the overall tone seems biased. The artical is not written from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.241.151 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) I'd second that...this really doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article...more a media scare story!87.74.25.235 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. The opening part is based on quotes and research dating back as far as 1996 (When the Grey Goo theory was first put forward). While the latter part is a non-encyclopedic overview of nanobot technology. Nanoterrorism *could* pose a threat hypothetically but none of what's on this page actually has any real life bearing and I don't know of any articles that can cite credible theories to that end (The Grey Goo theory is pretty soundly debunked these days and remains purely as an urban myth) --85.62.18.3 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow what a horrible violation of the wikipedia NPOV (dont know how to link to NPOV policy). Pretty humerous if you ask me. I will make bets on how long it takes for a rewrite of the page. My guess is 6 months to 1 year. Chrisdab 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

this article seems biased...and written by a person who have no clue about what he's writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] ==Rewrite==

This deserves a rewrite. it has a non-encyclopedia tone of voice. It also looks copied...

Agreed, go for it. Stanny (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anonymous users with lots of time on their hands...

Do these people actually think that their 'comment' matters? Are they just anonymous people that have nothing better to do than complain about something that could actually happen? Anyway, every story on terrorism I have encountered is somewhat biased if not in one way or another. That is pretty much the only way to write about it I suppose; but if you disagree with me, then please, I'd love you to give me an example of a neutral article on terrorism. And no this story isn't copied, it is verified, but, I'd love to hear your complaints about this, maybe if you hate it so much, then rewrite it. And just remember, if you leave your IP addresses up there, I can do anything with your computer (I graduated from MIT with honours in IT studies) Nikitas123 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

71.171.107.58 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed up article

I tried to clean up this article so that it doesn't sound so biased. However, I think it could be neutralised further.Rex Imperator (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite has absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject; it's just a quote from a 'History Channel broadcast'


[edit] Editing

If you want to rewrite it, try to relate it more to the subject, but since this has nothing to do with the actual problem, you may as well delete it. Anyway, I don't think it can be removed of any bias any further. 121.222.201.20 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)