Talk:Biosphere reserve
UNESCO prose change
I calmed down some of the hyper-PR language which UNESCO habitually uses. Their prose has a Pollyanna-ish quality. Almost all these sites existed before the network was formed, and some before UNESCO existed, so their use of terms like 'created' is a public relations fantasy. Just because it's a non-profit public body doesn't mean we should accept their self-congratulatory prose as given. And they talk of 'goals', which is another puff-up term. Aims is what they have. Their website is noticeably short on results. I take it there's still logging, poaching and all the usual sins going on in most places. I'm just making the point that there's a difference between what governments, agencies &c. claim, and what happens in fact. These are reasons why I preferred to use less dramatic language. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)