Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/4 January 2010

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

Genocide lawsuit

edit

Serbia sues Croatia for genocide before the International Court of Justice with historical account of the Holocaust.

  • Main article updated and expanded accordingly. This is important for several reasons, obviously such trials are important themselves but this is also important because Serbia decided to include the crimes committed by the Independent State of Croatia, puppet state of Nazi Germany, and Ustaše regime during the World War II, it is also important because both sides seek tens of billions of US dollars of war reparations, it is important because this is a new event, taking countries before the court while until now everything regarding Yugoslav Wars was taken before the ICTY that dealt with individuals, this could affect the EU neighbor policy which is probably why both sides keep claiming how they want the best neighbourly relations despite the lawsuit, it is also important because the Croatian lawsuit is now activated as well. I think it is enough reasons and they are all significant.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be meticulously neutral over this case, especially if it is going on the Main Page. We cannot say that Serbia has filed a case against Croatia without mentioning that Croatia had previously filed a case against Serbia. The article title in unsatisfactory in this respect: Croatian Genocide Case, apart from having bad capitalization, is also ambiguous (did the Croatians commit genocide or suffer it?). Croatia–Serbia genocide case would be more neutral (the order of countries is simply alphabetical). Physchim62 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia filed it in 1999 , it is a known fact by know I guess and I don't see it being put as "news" on Main Page. "Croatia filed a lawsuit" on a main page now is not the best idea. As for the title, I don't know, to my knowing it was made after Bosnian Genocide Case and is named Croatian because it happened on territory of Croatia not because it relates to Croatians. As for the question "did the Croatians commit genocide or suffer it?" - that is the whole point of the lawsuits and the International Court of Justice is the one that will give the answer not us.--Avala (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral blurb might be:
The court hasn't ruled if these World War II accounts are even admissible. Any such crimes aren't part of the actual charges anyway, so Avala's blurb is misleading. Physchim62's blurb sounds fine. But I'm not exactly sure what makes an international lawsuit "lengthy" or not. :)--Thewanderer (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The court hasn't ruled on much of anything (just that it has the jurisdiction) because they usually don't do that when lawsuits are filed but verdicts are made ;) It's the right of every party to include whatever they want in the lawsuit and then in some time when the verdict is made we will know what was found to be admissible and what was not. The ICJ is not a regular court, where for each evidence the court says it's OK or not, here the lawsuits are filed as a huge pile of papers and then all sides are given a chance to hold a speech in front of the judges and then they make a decision. There is no need to call it lengthy because each ICJ lawsuit is like that because of the specific nature of the proceedings.--Avala (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe it is too early to put this on ITN. Usually, trials go up when there is a verdict. --Tone 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true, we had Omar al-Bashir on, plus I said why this specific case is important even before the verdict.--Avala (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bashir was a special case because the conflict in Darfur is ongoing and he's the head of state in the present while this case is about something that happened around 15 years ago. Not to mention that WW2 events probably are not admissible. However, if they are acknowledged in a verdict, I will support then. Before, not. --Tone 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avala's proposed blurb is unacceptable to me because it only recounts the Serbian claims against Croatia, while not mentioning the Croatian claims against Serbia. As I mentioned above, we should be strictly neutral as to who is right and who is wrong, especially as it is well known that there were bastards on both sides, as well as a much larger number of innocent victims on both sides. This is not the trial of a person, it is a diplomatic dispute: we usually post dipolamtic disputes when there is a significant development. If NPoV can be maintained, I would support this story. Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I said that I don't see it necessary to mention a ten year old news on the main page, I made a second proposal that outlines that the case is ongoing. I hope it is a compromise solution that we are looking for and that it is satisfactory for you:

or if you really insist on mentioning Croatian lawsuit

I hope you agree to one these two. What do you say?--Avala (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say try removing the reference to the Holocaust, because it simply comes across as PoV pushing otherwise. Remember Godwin's law! Physchim62 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will not be newsworthy if we remove the reference on that because that is what makes it interesting. We are not saying that Croatia or Serbia is guilty (or Omar al-Bashir when we mention charges againt him), we are saying clear and square - Serbia filed a lawsuit for that and that and it is part of an ongoing process where Croatia also sued Serbia. There is no PoV in facts. And please don't mention the Godwin's law as this lawsuit didn't arise from the online discussion but from real events. Packing up Holocaust as another product of online bickering based on Godwin's law is not the best thing we can do as responsible and historically aware human beings. Holocaust is an indisputable fact, and in this case the ICJ is called to decide if it is related to the events from the 1990s. It's a completely different issue if we don't like the facts but reporting on them shouldn't be mixed with feelings. I gave three proposals so far and it's impossible you don't like any of them if you really want for this to be mentioned on the ITN, as you claim. Please choose one of the proposals and don't diminish the Holocaust by mentioning Godwin's law as Godwin's law is not something that relates to it but to online petty fights.--Avala (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind anyone can sue anyone for anything. The filing of a lawsuit, even in an international court, doesn't really mean anything -- it's the result that counts (although in the case of the ICJ, even the result doesn't necessarily have a real impact). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but we have a precedent on reporting on it. Oh and the ICJ very much counts, especially if one side is told to pay billions of dollars to the other side.--Avala (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mwalcoff, don't we normally just post the results of cases? - Dumelow (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK since we can't come to an agreement what text should go up will an admin please decide and put one of the versions or something fourth up on the main page as we seem to agree that this is newsworthy (just can't agree on the text and the time is flowing)? Thank you.--Avala (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. We only ever feature the results of court cases. If and when someone is found guilty of genocide, I'll support. Merely starting legal proceedings is not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is big politics. Of course any considerations which we should apply to criminal charges being pressed against indivduals should be disregarded with respect to a case such as this one. I certainly think we ought to present this as soon as possible and there appears to be a consensus to do so. __meco (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modest Genius, thanks for "reading" through the discussion and all of the explanations why this case is important even as the case not just for the result and on the precedent to include lawsuits and not only results on the MP. I mean it really feels nice that after going through an effort of discussing one thing into detail, somebody else comes and mentions that one thing with an obvious lack of knowledge of the previous discussion shown through the disregard and ignorance of those details. I really like when someone appreciates other peoples' hard work so much.--Avala (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being civil and assuming good faith. As it happens, I did read the full discussion above. I simply don't think we should have listed the Omar al-Bashir case either. Modest Genius talk 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Dubai

edit

Burj Dubai opens as the tallest building in the world after its initial opening date was postponed. [1] Arsonal (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following is moved from the original post at December 2 2009:

The Burj Dubai, the tallest man-made structure ever built, is to be completed in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. [2] --BorgQueen (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed to January 4. [3] Arsonal (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - TouLouse (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nirvana888 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --candle•wicke 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support theBOBbobato (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support HJMitchell You rang? 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post it already. 130.115.76.0 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best if we wait for the official opening ceremony later today. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree your majesty, we should wait till the official ceremony.--yousaf465 08:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are wondering, the opening ceremony begins at 20:00 local time (16:00 UTC). [4] Arsonal (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the official ceremony and support. M.K. (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support once it's officially open: this tory has already been delayed twice, so let's get it right when we do post it! Physchim62 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant event and I'd exclude info on postponement.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definately. One would think the height (818 m/2,684 ft) would be more important than the postponement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though it seems we have a naming issue. It's called Dubai on the Main Page and Khalifa in the article. Someone should look into this.--Avala (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler Mission Results

edit

Exoplanets: The first of the new Kepler mission results will be announced on January 4, 2010 at the American Astronomical Society meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C.[1] A presentation by William J. Borucki titled "Kepler Planet Detection Mission: Introduction and First Results", will be held from 8:30am-9:20am in the Marriott Ballroom.[2] According to Borucki's abstract, "During the first month of operation, the photometer detected transit-like signatures from over 100 stars. Careful examination of these events shows many of them to be false-positives such as background eclipsing binaries. However ground-based follow up observations confirm the discovery of exoplanets with sizes ranging from 0.6 Rj to 1.5Rj and orbital periods ranging from 3 to 9 days."[3] The meeting will also include several other presentations by the Kepler team throughout the day, including astrometric results:"The Kepler Mission was not designed to obtain high precision astrometric measurements, but the excellent design of the photometer enables such analysis." 86.147.42.244 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course need to wait until after the announcements to see what they are going to say, but at the very least expect this to be the biggest haul of planets announced in one day. 86.147.42.244 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a news briefing[4] at 10 a.m. PST (1 p.m. EST) with a live web feed[5] and the slides for the briefing will be available online.[6] 86.149.232.118 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ 215th AAS Meeting
  2. ^ Schedule of the 215th AAS Meeting
  3. ^ AAS Meeting Program and Block Schedule - click the itinerary builder to get to the abstracts - direct URL links don't work
  4. ^ Kepler News
  5. ^ Kepler News live web feed
  6. ^ Kepler News Slides
Oppose. We feature far too much stuff about space on ITN wihtout due regard to it s greater significance. HJMitchell You rang? 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is just a conference abstract. If any of the planets turn out to be particularly unusual, and when they are published in a peer reviewed journal, then we can feature one or more of them. Atm, this isn't good enough. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only 5 planets were announced, but one of them Kepler-7b is the least dense planet found yet. 86.145.191.48 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly interesting to us astronomers, but I don't think that's ITN material, and even if it was, we should wait for the journal article. In addition, the article won't be able to grow beyond a few sentences without more information being released. Modest Genius talk 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese winter storm

edit

See no reason this should not be posted if both European and American snow storms earlier were. Having experienced both EU and Chinese snowstorms this year I can say they had effects of similar proportions, or this one is actually bigger. People are trapped in trains, school is cancelled, 90% of flights delayed and cancelled etc. Colipon+(Talk) 05:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article (or an update) before we can post, but I'm leaning towards support based on your short description. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support when it is ready. --candle•wicke 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/4_January_2010&oldid=1257770829"