Talk:Akbelen Forest

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Akbelen Forest appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Akbelen Forest is being cut down to make way for a coal mine?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Akbelen Forest.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... 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."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon

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.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@CT55555: has also edited - is it OK now? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the prompt responses. This is good to go now. --GGT (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook should possibly be in the past tense now....Larataguera (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...unless there is no further cutting. WP:CRYSTAL

Larataguera (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Secondary source for company response please[edit]

The paragraph beginning, YK Energy said the Yeniköy and Kemerköy power plants are strategically important for Turkey... is sourced directly to a statement from the company. I think the company response should be sourced to a secondary news outlet, because they would (hopefully) fact-check the company's claims. I understand that this is an attempt to provide balanced POV, but if journalists aren't repeating the company's claims, then neither should we. If no secondary source can be found, I would like to remove this paragraph. Larataguera (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure. Not disagreeing with you, but not certain or agreeing either. It is attributed. That said, I suspect that state-aligned media will share what the company said, if anyone can assess Turkish-language sources. Of course the independence of that is also very open to challenge. Hoping others will comment. CT55555(talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "are strategically important for Turkey" as highly dubious. It may be possible to fact check the statement that "Yeniköy and Kemerköy power plants supply most of the electricity in the South Aegean part of the country" which sounds plausible Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source [2] says "The Akbelen Forest ... is an old and natural red pine forest", contradicting the company's claim that it is "plantation forest". This is why we don't cite company press releases. Larataguera (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source is wrong as the pines are not red pines but Turkish pines. They have incorrectly translated the name of the tree. But unfortunately I don't have a reliable source to say how natural the forest is so I accept your deletion of that claim. However I am putting back in their claim that "that they will restore the ecosystem once mining is complete and that the company has planted millions of trees countrywide". as we need to keep a neutral point of view. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that their claim that "as the power stations are providing baseload power they could not be replaced by renewable energy." is irrelevant because Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant just along the coast is due to start up very soon. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we can have NPOV without citing company shill. (In fact that's what NPOV means!) For example, this from the AP[3] : "The governor’s office said the area would be 'rehabilitated' by planting 130,000 saplings." That's a reasonable thing to include without repeating unverifiable statements about how many trees this company has planted, taken from a press release we already know to contain other dubious claims. Larataguera (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or CT55555's edit just now [4] giving the president's response as reported in a secondary source. There's plenty of other stuff without using primary sources. Larataguera (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source - have added Chidgk1 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]