Talk:Bhopal disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The article is mainly true

The Bhopal Gas Disaster is a story starting in the 1960s and still going on, that is around 50 years. It is impossible to describe all details in this website and answer all the questions below.

Before writing my book "The Bhopal Saga - causes and consequences of the world's largest industrial diaster", I studied more than 200 references. In this book, I have systematized all known facts between the 1960s and 2003, and I have tried to be as neutral as possible. As far as I can see, the contents of this article is according to the facts.

If you want more details, start with downloading my essay "Chemical industry and public health - Bhopal as an example". It covers the history from 1960s to 2000.

However, I have edit the page a bit, changed some texts, changed the order of the paragraphs.

About the amount of MIC in the tank: the figures varies from 36 to 61. I think 42 tonnes is the most probably amount (Source: Varadarajan, S.e.a., Report on scientific studies on the factors related to Bhopal Toxic Gas Leakage. 1985, Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research: New Delhi.)

Ingrid Eckerman 78.82.189.199 (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.189.199 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very flawed article

This article does not meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, there is no clear description of the actual event the article purports to discuss: 1)What exactly occured, in in what sequence? 2)What was the immediate response of the factory staff? 3)What happened with the civilian population in the immediate aftermath of the explosion (or leak?) 4)Was there ever a consensus as to what happened and why? If so (the article suggests there is) who came to that conclusion?

The article begins with a very cursory description of the accident, which barely if at all deals with the questions posed above. Surely the information exists to produce a much more detailed timeline of the explosion: Before, During, and After (possible section heads).216.162.196.10 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 I incline to agree with the above user. This article does not focus on the disaster itself but strays wildly from the subject at times. Deeper research should be done by Wikipedia to focus on the actual disaster and its causes.

[edit] How many tonnes?

Someone needs to get their facts straightened out. =/ In the first para, it's stated that 40 tonnes of MIC gas was leaked. Then in the 2nd para, it says 43 tonnes of MIC gas was released. However, in this site:

Clicky

It says, "It is presumed that between 20 and 30 tonnes of MIC were released during the hour that the leak took place." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.139.224 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The person obviously means an an approximate amount of 40 tonnes.-Theclassicalman 70.79.215.78 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contents matching the title

It seemed to me that this article and the discussion was more like online trial of Union Carbide, providing little information on the details of the disaster itself. IMHO, article on "Bhopal disaster" should write about the disaster and criminal details of Union Carbide responsibility should be discussed under "Bhopal disaster - Union Carbide responsibility". I tried to improve this by adding a nest egg for the info on actual details and timeline of this magnificent and instructive disaster.

[edit] Point of View

This article is horribly biased. It ignores basically all views of Union Carbide and dismiss them basically as corporate propoganda. The editing was obviously done from a non-neutral point of view and only neutral sources should be used on an article like this. The neutral view is just as ugly for Union Carbide, however.

I agree with the user above. The background section reads like a Greenpeace pamphlet. It doesn't mention any of the numerous warnings that Union Carbide made to the plant. It doesn't mention that Union Carbide was not the controlling owner, the Government of India had control. It doesn't mention that Union Carbide was not allowed to hire their own employees, or make changes to the plant. Many warnings and breaches of the agreement were ignored by the Indian Government, and the Indian Government refused to release funds, refused to accept Union Carbide's help in immediate medical aid and money before motions for a lawsuit had even begun. Union Carbide suffered greatly from this risky venture, and certainly must bear some blame, but a great deal of the severity, and perhaps the likely cause of the incident was the Indian Government. This needs to be discussed. Saying things like it was preventable is conjecture, and the current article is full of it. Again, there is plenty of blame to go around, but blaming the minority owner over the majority owner seems blatantly biased. Nmjw 17:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I am unaware of the claims you made above. Can you give some credible sources for your claims? --Incman|वार्ता 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Incman. Here in India, everybody knows that it was UCIL to blame for, not the Govt. of India. Do you think that, in a working democracy(and that too, in India), the government can cheat the people and get away with it? All claims of UC are ignored because they are indeed corporate propaganda. How else do you explain Warren Anderson not appearing before the courts of India, if his company is indeed innocent? And why would he go into a luxurious life of hiding after the incident? And, about the Indian government operating the plant, who told you that big fat lie? Can you quote ANY credible source? If the Indian government is indeed to be blamed for, why didn't the UCIL file countersuits in Indian courts against the govt., to prove its innocence? And can you explain the tardy compensation that was paid to the survivors? What would they have paid had this happened in the US? The arguments raised by Nmjw do not seem at all credible, so removing the POV tag. Instead, the unsourced tag can remain. The article needs citations for better credibility. rohith 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Also added the Unbalanced tag, that would better address the concern of the user who added the POV tag. rohith 16:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: Union Carbide's Bhopal.com site states that

The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), an Indian company in which Union Carbide Corporation held just over half the stock.

So much for allegations that the plant was being operated by the government. Removing the unbalanced tag, thus. rohith 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


It would not matter if Union Carbide owned over half of the stock if it was not involved in day to day operations. Stock owners are protected by anything that happens to their company. It is called the Corporate Veil. Plus 60 percent of the people living outside of the UCIL factory were illegal and if the government had done their job and moved them, this disaster would have had 60 percent less fatalities and injuries.

The above statement is no excuse. The disaster happened, and 1 disaster is 1 disaster too many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.202.56 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Union Carbide Corporation owned 50.9% of UCIL, and did indeed retain day to day control over its management. This was in fact part of of Union Carbide's stated policy for its subsidiaries, and is attested by numerous Carbide documents obtained via the discovery process in US courts.
The factory was sited very near the city, instead of in the designated industrial zone. There were objections, but the Madhya Pradesh government's eagerness to oblige Carbide overrode them. In any case, thousands of deaths occurred in areas like the railway station (19th century) and the Chowk (built hundreds of years earlier). This debate shows that there is either a great deal of ignorance or a great deal of partisanship around the issue, or probably both.

[edit] 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)

DOW has now accepted responsibility, according to Reuters. -Wikibob | Talk 11:14, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
No. In a bulletin less than an hour later: [[1]]
TroelsArvin 12:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that was an elaborate hoax, it sure caught me! -Wikibob | Talk 12:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

According to all the 200 references I have read, the most likely reason to the leakage is that two workers cleaned the lines without using a slip bind. There is no evidence for sabotage, and UC also at one point admitteted there isn't. I Eckerman [2]

What are "slip-bind water isolation plates"? Bastie 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________________

BTW, In India the even is commonly referred to as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. When people talk about Unio Carbide and Bhopal, they call it the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, not the Bhopal Disaster. CAn you undo the name change?

[edit] Title notes

Moved this from Bhopal Disaster to Bhopal disaster to meet Manual of Style conventions. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 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)


[edit] Dow Chemical Co accepts full responsibility

- Proof? - rernst 14:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Former content was:

According to Reuters [3], on the 3rd December 2004, Dow Chemical Co, in a major policy reversal, accepted full responsibility for the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India; a company spokesman, Jude Finisterra, was quoted as saying:
"Today I am very, very happy to announce that today, for the first time Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe; this is a momentous occasion. We have a $12 billion plan to finally at long last fully compensate the victims including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site. We have resolved to liquidate Union Carbide, this nightmare for the world and this headache for Dow and use the $12 billion to provide more than $500 per victim, which is all that they've seen."
This story is untrue, BBC released a statement later on 3 December 2004 that the statements are false and that there is no $12 billion dollar deal.

[edit] Worst disaster in the history of the world?

The case is definitely very severe, but do we have a source on it being the world's worst?

No, it is not the worst disaster in wold history. For that you would probably want to be looking at rivers flooding in china over the last couple centuries, or, depending on whether you want to call them "disasters" or not, WWI and II.

As far as I understand, it is the world's largest INDUSTRIAL disaster - that depends on how you define Tjernobyl. I Eckerman [4]

[edit] Cite, please

The section "Overview of the disaster" mentions eleven "contributing factors", all of which are apparently officially denied by Union Carbide, in favor of a "disgruntled employee" scenario. What is the source for the list of contributing factors mentioned? - 24 November 2005

[edit] Witness Accounts

Moved "Witness Accounts" here for possible copyvio. This is apparently from [5]. That page says, "No part of this site should be used in any other media without prior permission."

We should consider whether

  • A) We should use this text

>> (answer): No, firstly I did not take the text from "newindpress.com", but from blog archive of Bishwanath Ghosh [6]. Secondly, I already have the explicit permission from Bishwanath Ghosh himself to use his publication on Bhopal tragedy in Wikipedia (can be reached via bishwanath_g@yahoo.com)

  • B) Such eyewitness accounts are appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

>> (answer): All information we have originates from human observation. If there is consensus among several observations of the same thing, meta narratives can be created to summarize and generalize the observations from detached viewpoint. Such meta narratives are supposed to be free from the influence of the original observer, but they too are composed by the same humans as the original observers; usually the closer to the original observation, the better. Still, I think that the neutral answer to the question whether eyewitness accounts are appropriate would be that they cannot stand in place of the encyclopedic meta narration ("objective description"), but they can serve the role of a "textual picture", as long as they are true and representative. If you have a reason to believe that the eyewitness account by Mr. Ghosh is misleading, say so. Before inserting this eyewitness account, the article didn't answer the question what the disaster was really like for the victims or what made it different from e.g. Chernobyl disaster apart from the difference in name. By inserting the witness account, I did not remedy the need for encyclopedic description, I only augmented the information value of the article. I welcome you or anyone else to make the encyclopedic description, rather than just pressing delete button over my contribution.

(my sig after text)

-- Writtenonsand 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) >> (answered by Kokot Kokotisko)

[edit] Death Toll?

How come the number of people killed is not listed on this page? That's a pretty important detail. LearningKnight 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The death toll I found seems accurate but I'm not sure if it is consistent with the other articles on wikipedia.raptor 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is very confusing on this score. First it says that about 3000 people died but maybe as many as 15000; the next paragraph says between 2500 and 5000 were killed; the next paragraph says the accident led to 20000 deaths.... It may well be that all of these numbers are somehow meaningful, but some clarification is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.83.135 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers on this page are very confusing. Also, in the "History and after effects" section, it says "Approximately 20,000 to this date are believed to have died as a result; on average, roughly one person dies every day from the effects." I'm wondering who did the math on that. My calculations say that approximately 8508 days have passed since Dec. 3, 1984, so that's impossible. Obviously the average is going to change over a period of time anyway, so I don't see how that statement is helpful to anyone. Terlynn4 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DowEthics.com

Hello, I am doing a project on Bhopal as an engineering failure for my Engineering Design class.

When I went to dowethics.com and clicked on the link for bhopal.com it popped up a window that tried to launch a denial of service attack on bhopal.com. I am unsure as of the legality of this action, but I thought that it should be brought to people's attention. Should a disclaimer be put next to the link?

HuckbeinMK3 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)HuckbeinMK3

OK... I am kind of new to editing so I hope I am doing everything right. Anyway is it just me or does this artical SERIOUSLY need to be brought into line with the NPOV policy? The thing reads like it was written by someone from "International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal". Also enough with the quotes from those people... The fact that one group (not to mention one with an agenda) seems to be regarded as the only reliable source for this artical is disturbing... I have come to expect more from Wikipedia :( Duncan St. Ives 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Section "Anti-Capitalist and Eco-Socialist Analysis"

I am removing the entire section "Anti-Capitalist and Eco-Socialist Analysis" as having no place in this article. It is not merely the fact some "American academic, psychoanalyst and eco-socialist" has no reason to be presented to the reader as any kind of authority on this matter; but this/his kind of propagandistic interpretation is profoundly at odds with the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hi There (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC). Forgot to sign, sorry! Hi There 03:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but the title of the article 'Bhopal disaster' is rather ambiguous - what would happen if another disaster struck? Would it be named "Bhopal disaster II"? Perhaps appending a year to the title would be better? Sfacets 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the name is fine. When there's another world-class disaster in the small town of Bhopal, we can change it then. --Chetvorno 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This tragedy is better known as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. That would be a better name for this article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do not see what you two are getting so excited about. I agree with Chetvorno, in that when and if another disaster happens, we can rename it. I highly doubt that another disaster will befall Bhopal. So seriously, it's not a big deal. -Kish225

[edit] POV

Following Duncan St. Ives' comment, there continues to be a lot of content on this page directly culled from the ICJB's website, and it has been edited into a sort of call-and-response, much directly pulled from the http://bhopal.net/bhopal.con/ The seemingly weak credibility of this site makes it a poor footnote, especially in the amount that it is used throughout the article: some of the content is out of date, and all is strongly POV. I feel like the ICJB's criticism should be kept primarily in the "Criticisms" section, instead of having them running throughout the article. Jemather 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of negative media

there has been little reference to the contributing factors to the negative publicity that this recieved other than the obvious......loss of life Reference should be made to the subsequent Chernobyl which once again highlighted the importance of industrial negligence.

Just a thought —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.236.227.222 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] This is absurdly POV

Now look. I'm scarcely on the side of Union Carbide/Dow with regard to their failure to provide appropriate remediation for this disaster, but you have to be kidding me if you think this article is anything but a biased screed against UCC. This article is so biased it reads like something from a Greenpeace press release. When I read this it had the feel of a Loose Change-type conspiracy theory.

Some serious, serious work needs to go into this for it to have any credibility.137.14.10.22 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see problems with POV in this article at this time. I have seen plenty of articles on Wikipedia with POV issues, and this is not one of them. Please cite an example. - Cyborg Ninja 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

137.14.10.22 - Making a general claim is useless unless you can substantiate yourself. If the article is absurd to you, please make an effort to counter your position with actual documented research. It may feel false to you, however your accusation just as easily makes me believe you may work for or represent UCC. I myself generally believe the article, if for no other reason that its dissenters such as you give no alternative evidence. 69.113.166.150 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)mjm

I'm going to put a general comment here about POV - a similar thing happened on another topic. Somebody from an anonymous account just cruised by and put a NPOV tag on it with some fairly vague, rude comments. Personally, I think that's about as useful as a broken umbrella. If anyone thinks any article has problems, THEN EDIT IT PROPERLY!!! Cruising around W.P. unloading on articles like some bad art critic is useless and a waste of everybody's time. If you are incapable of editing a topic, then at least have the decency to say why, what and how....Jjdon (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tags bother me. A lot. So, I went digging a bit. 137.14.10.22 has quite a few contributions, because it is a generic IP for the US Air force. Many complaints of vandalism on their talk page, too - for some reason the signature link doesn't work - search for 137.14.10.22. I think it's safe to say they are to be taken with a grain of salt. This is all in their history, of course. 24.240.17.81 put the NPOV tag in the article, and also is the one who sprinkled "citation needed" all over it. Very few contributions there, too. I'd say this article is being bombed more than there's really anything wrong with it. Read, from the NPOV page:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

I say delete the tag - I'll do it myself after awhile, unless anyone has anything useful to say in it's defense. Jjdon (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History and after-effects section

At present, the History and after-effects headline breaks the flow of text. According to the page's history, this section actually once contained quite a lot of material that 122.167.181.239 deleted (I did not find any explanation for this deletion). We should either put this material back, or (if it is incorrect, POV or whatever) remove the headline. As a non-expert on Bhopal, I would appreciate some advice here. --82.208.2.226 10:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References: WP:RS?

This article draws very heavily on this site: http://bhopal.net/bhopal.con/faq.html. It seems to be a parody site of the official http://bhopal.com/. I read the FAQ there, and it doesn't list any sources. I am of the opinion that this site fails WP:RS, and references to it should be removed. Comments? --Rifleman 82 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that this complaint has surfaced on numerous occasions, I've gone ahead to clean it up. I'm dumping it here for reference, if anyone wants to salvage it. --Rifleman 82 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

* In the words of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, “poorly trained personnel, rapid turnover, leaking valves, shoddy gauges and inadequate water spray protection were all identified as representing “a higher potential for a serious incident or more serious consequences if an incident should occur”".[1]

  • 11 of the 30 “major hazards” documented in a 1982 review occurred in the MIC and phosgene units.[1]
  • An employee was killed in 1981 by a phosgene leak.[1]
  • Soon after, 25 workers were injured after a pump seal failed.[1]
  • A previous leak of MIC had affected local communities outside the plant.[1]
  • The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal suggests that “leaks were so frequent that the safety siren was turned off”.[1]
The Carbide-sponsored Arthur D Little investigation has come under fire from the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, who are highly critical of paying a law firm “on a commercial wage to provide pseudo-scientific backing to [Carbide’s] utterly derided sabotage fairytale”. The Campaign also contends that proper safety procedures “would have anyway made employee sabotage impossible”.[1] The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal asserts that “Carbide has never publicly named the alleged saboteur because it would invite a libel suit in which the facts of the disaster would have to be revealed”.[1] Countering this claim, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal believes that “the isolation valve close to the water washing operation was closed but not leak proof”. These valves were “notoriously leaky”. This allowed pressure to increase, forcing water past the unprotected valve from which it “filled up to a height and then fell down into the open jumper line” before moving past the pressure valve that the company “admitted was leaking and into the tank”. The water got past the original process safety system via the jumper line.[1] In opposition to these statements, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal notes that the company’s plant in Institute, West Virginia, “recorded several intrusions of water in 1984”. Instead, the Campaign believes that the Bhopal system was not designed to prevent such a leak in order “to save money” to the tune of “about $8 million according to Carbide’s 1973 capital budget plan”.[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifleman 82 (talk • contribs) 02:26, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good work

i know that this isnt relly to help the page but i wanted to say my school teacher used this page to teach my class about the bhopal disaster. So you must be doing a good job working on this page keep, it up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.112.130 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is still overly POV!

The entire first section is POV and needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.237.184.99 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen deficiency

The section on health effects contained a statement that since MIC and many of the byproduct gases were heavier than air, oxygen deficiency may have contributed to the adverse health effects of gas exposure. A simple calculation, made using conservative estimations and approximations, shows this was highly unlikely. A square 1 km on each side and 2 m deep contains 2 x 106 m3 of air or 4.2 x 105 m3 of oxygen. Reducing the oxygen concentration to 15%, the level where oxygen deficiency becomes noticeable, would have required approximately 8 x 105 m3 of gases other than oxygen. If all the "diluent" gas had been carbon dioxide, this would have required almost 1,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide. (see gas laws) If 40 tonnes of MIC (mw 57) had been converted into CO2, this would have produced about 62 tonnes of CO2, less than 5% of what would be needed for oxygen deficiency to be a significant health factor. Any materials with a molecular weight higher than carbon dioxide would have required even more to lower the oxygen concentration to a point where it would be a problem. Someone had put in a link to Lake Nyos where a massive carbon dioxide eruption killed many people by asphyxiation. This eruption involved an estimated 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Silverchemist (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chernobyl link in See also section

An editor has removed the internal link to the Chernobyl disaster twice. I have restored the link twice but did not place it there in the first place. I have no particular dog in this but a link to the Chernobyl disaster in the "see also" section seems entirely reasonable and appropriate for this article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how. Aside from operator error, that incident has nothing in common with this one. That's why I keep removing it-- it is not relevant. Links to other gas-related disasters would be far more salient. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find a wikipedia policy for use of "See also" sections, but in my experience using reference materials I find that a "See also" section tends to have pretty broad latitude for directing a reader who's research has brought them to one article, toward articles that may also have some interest. Somebody probably ought to write a policy WP:SeeAlso, clarifying what degree of connectedness is suitable for inclusion and exclusion. But for now, lets just go with a consensus of editors. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well dad gum it, there it is. WP:SEEALSO suggests adding text explaining the relevance if it may be unclear.