Talk:Heidelberg Appeal

message: Biased entry. Final paragraph tries to dismiss the Appeal by singling out one of four thousand signatories. Also irreveant to the subject is the mention of the 1997 Call To Action. There is no apparent link between the two appeals, and simply appears to be an attempt to show who has the most nobel prize winners signed to it in an attempt to dismiss the Appeal.
--Orzetto 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One notable signer of the Heidelberg Appeal was the late Linus Pauling, then the world's only living recipient of two Nobel Prizes (for chemistry and for peace). At the time the Appeal was circulated, Pauling had become associated with a controversial nutritional theory that advocated massive daily consumption of vitamin C. Although his earlier work is widely praised, his theories regarding vitamin C have been almost universally dismissed as pseudoscience. It appears, therefore, that (1) even Nobel laureates sometimes practice pseudoscience, and (2) even the practitioners of pseudoscience believe they are against it.
I don't see why this attempts to dismiss the appeal (read the last sentence). I will re-insert this back into the article, first giving others a chance to object... William M. Connolley 08:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

message: This article is about the Heidelberg Appeal.  It would be nice if it actually contained information about it then arguments as to what it says.  Please work to include information about the subject and not debate the topic.Mantion 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: The article sez:
: although the paragraph, :We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity. is clearly intended to hint at the problem of climate change
Is it? It doesn't seem like it to me William M. Connolley 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with new quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Heidelberg Appeal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014201129/http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385372.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385372.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I am speechless. This article is a total climate denial pamphlet that is almost completely without sources and changed this famous propaganda piece, constructed by some of the fiercest merchants of doubt, to a appeal for better science. In fact, it was a means to attack science, pushed by peaple like Singer, conservative think tanks of the denial industry and tobbaco industry, to push the sound science narrative (i.e. industry funded anti-science is good, peer-reviewed environmental science is bad). I will delete nearly everything of this (this cannot be saved, as it is pure propaganda from the same organisations) and write a short stub, based on real science. I am no one ho deletes whole articles, but here it is the only solution. Andol (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly every word in this article is wrong!