Talk:Bhopal disaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Funkyj (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 2 December 2004 (take UC's word for it? I don't think so). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is this title really the best possible? Two reasons: it is not a tragedy in the classic sense of the term, but only in the popular (mis)conception of the meaning and it does promote a POV. There are those who might not characterize this as a tragedy, and since it's not really accurate anyway, I think it should be moved to Bhopal disaster or something. Unless it really is what the incident is frequently referred to as, which I don't think is true. Tokerboy 01:06 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

"Bhopal Disaster" would probably be better, though I think the above complaint comes about 30 years too late. For better or worse, "tragedy" now means "sad event" to most people. Tempshill 18:37, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Nice work you're doing on this article, Tempshill. While you're at it, I think you should definitely move it across to Bhopal Disaster (7600 hits on Google) from Bhopal Tragedy (only 2600). Just in case you needed a push... Hjr 19:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agrees. Wherever the blame lies, it is no doubt an industrial disaster, and should be categorised as such. chance 04:30, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
"Be bold", they said. So I was. Page moved. User:Hajor 04:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Accident/Act of sabotage

Wiki/BBC say Bhopal was an accident but the Union Carbide website says it was an act of sabotage. Which is true?

Holden 27

Hmmm, who am I more incline to believe? The giant corporation who has a huge stake in disclaiming responsibility or a reputable independent news organization? Funkyj 20:04, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)