- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Akbelen Forest
- ... that Akbelen Forest is being cut down to make way for a coal mine? Source: https://www.limak.com.tr/files/YK_Enerji_PublicAnnouncement_ENG.pdf "The General Directorate of Forestry who regularly assesses the economic potential of the Akbelen Forest that falls within the licensed-mining area of YK Enerji, defines the area as ‘plantation with economic function’ subject to cut with its 93% industrial plantation, and 7% non-wood forest product, similar to many areas in the country."
Created by CT55555 (talk). Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk) at 12:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Akbelen Forest; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- As explained below, there needs to be unambiguous soucing in the article that the forest is being cut down to make way for a mine (and that this isn't just the protesters' POV). - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems: - The article probably needs a bit of tidying up: why are there three separate sections about the mine issue, and only two sentences about the forest itself? Cerattepe is an example for a similar incident that could be mirrored here. It's also in need of an update: did the parliamentary session convene after all? Has the forest been cut down by now?
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Interestingly, in the article there is no explicit statement that the forest is being cut down to make way for a coal mine. I'm aware the sources will support this statement but it needs to be explicitly articulated and cited in the article itself as a statement of fact (and not just as the protesters' opinion).
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - Again this needs a bit of an update: is it still being cut down, has it been stopped somehow, or has it been completed?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
GGT (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have amended the source above with a quote to show that the company is cutting down the forest to make way for their mine (everyone agrees that is true). To be neutral I will also add to the article their statement that it is mostly plantation forest and that they will restore the ecosystem once mining is complete. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have taken action on all critiques:
- Have merged sections and paragraphs and make them into a more logical order
- Have added investigate reporting that is explicit about the motivation for the mine
- Have refined the See Also section
- Have updated to note 60% of the forrest was removed. The update is not full, I was not able to establish how the debate in parliament went. This leaves my solution to the problems imperfect, but I think an article being a work in progress and not including events from the past two weeks is OK. I'll keep searching and improving as I can. CT55555(talk) 15:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hook should possibly be in the past tense now....Larataguera (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Larataguera: I think not because as far as I know the remaining part of the forest is still liable to be cut down if/when the mine expands further.
Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Larataguera is correct. The cutting appears to have stopped. So indeed it was cut down. Past tense. CT55555(talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose it's a little ambiguous, since past tense does make it sound like the whole forest has been cut. Although present tense is awkward since it's not presently being cut. (And future cutting isn't certain). Maybe "Most of Akbelen forest has been cut .."? I'm sorry to bring this up when the review was already completed. I hope a simple solution can be found without need for a whole new review. Larataguera (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a request for "in the news" - the forest is being cut down over a period of months or years. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- ...unless there is no further cutting. WP:CRYSTAL
- This is not a request for "in the news" - the forest is being cut down over a period of months or years. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose it's a little ambiguous, since past tense does make it sound like the whole forest has been cut. Although present tense is awkward since it's not presently being cut. (And future cutting isn't certain). Maybe "Most of Akbelen forest has been cut .."? I'm sorry to bring this up when the review was already completed. I hope a simple solution can be found without need for a whole new review. Larataguera (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Larataguera is correct. The cutting appears to have stopped. So indeed it was cut down. Past tense. CT55555(talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of what has happened is that despite protests, the courts permitted the cutting. It happened over a period of weeks. It has ceased. Police barriers prevented access, but drone footage enabled the observation that it is about 60% cleared. Could more happen in future? Who knows. i.e. the cutting has stopped, past tense is correct. CT55555(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take the opposite view here. Are there any sources that explicitly state that the cutting has finished or is this our own deduction? The two more recent sources in the article (Balkan Insider, 8 August, this one from later in August) both refer to the process in the present tense. Therefore the present tense seems more appropriate until we have definitive reporting that the cutting has indeed stopped. That's why I approved the hook. --GGT (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have left a source before. [1] says "Chainsaw teams that arrived to start felling trees a week ago have now finished their work" on July 31. Larataguera (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take the opposite view here. Are there any sources that explicitly state that the cutting has finished or is this our own deduction? The two more recent sources in the article (Balkan Insider, 8 August, this one from later in August) both refer to the process in the present tense. Therefore the present tense seems more appropriate until we have definitive reporting that the cutting has indeed stopped. That's why I approved the hook. --GGT (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- My reading of what has happened is that despite protests, the courts permitted the cutting. It happened over a period of weeks. It has ceased. Police barriers prevented access, but drone footage enabled the observation that it is about 60% cleared. Could more happen in future? Who knows. i.e. the cutting has stopped, past tense is correct. CT55555(talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Larataguera, CT55555, GGT, and Chidgk1: What is the status of this nomination? Does the verb tense in the original hook need to change? Or are we still debating the facts? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I reviewed recent articles (and there isn't a lot of news in the past week), and I don't think there's currently any cutting. But I also think it's a minor point, so I wouldn't like to hold up the nomination over it. I see Chidgk1's point about ongoing deforestation over a period of months or years. There is some recent coverage that discusses the cutting as if it were ongoing: The Guardian
It is difficult to know how many trees have been destroyed so far...
. So if there is no consensus to rephrase for past tense, I withdraw my concern. Larataguera (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC) - I also reviewed everything I could. I have a slight preference that I presented above, but I think we are splitting hairs. This is a multi year issue. We could debate if it is still ongoing or not (is it ongoing if the guys with the chainsaws took a 3 hour break? A 3 day break? A three week break?) I don't object to it going up as currently written. CT55555(talk) 13:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)