Portal talk:Current events/2011 April 6

This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Time

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles

Years

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

Lists

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

History: Contemporary

	History portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
	This page is supported by the Contemporary History Task Force.

Untitled[edit]

In regard

The United States Senate defeated a measure that would have banned the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations began being applied early this year effects emitters such as power plants and oil refineries. (Reuters) (New York Times)

The anon wants to change "emitters" to "polluters", and add a reference to the Clear Air Act (United States), and to add a note about climate change mitigation. "Polluters" does not appear anywhere in the articles, and the Clear Air Act and climate change mitigation are only in a quotes from the Obama administration, not news articles in the journalistic voice.

It appears I did make a mistake, in that "polluters" is in the Reuters article (so I'll restore that, shortly), but there's also an interesting quote there: " ... one of Obama's top strategies to show the world the United States is fighting climate change." Notice it does not say that it's a strategy in having the United States fight climate change, only that it's a strategy to show the world. Not the same thing. If we could link Politics of global warming (United States) somehow in the tagline, that would be good, but Climate change mitigation? No. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In NYT: " ... attempts to address global warming." is the same as Climate change mitigation attempt. (First sentence.)[edit]

In NYT:

" ... attempts to address global warming." is the same as Climate change mitigation attempt. (First sentence.)

The White House welcomed the Senate votes in a statement, saying, “The administration is encouraged by the Senate’s actions today to defend the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.”

on first page ... Clean Air Act (United States)

99.109.127.28 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The White House is not a reliable source. If you can find a way to attribute "Clean air act" and "Climate change mitigation]] to the White House, and still have the item make sense, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does the White House have to do with this? The Supreme Court of the United States decided the United States Environmental Protection Agency is to enforce the Clean Air Act (United States) with greenhouse gases as air pollution a few years ago (2009?). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the sources provided.

It's clear that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases as air pollution, but it doesn't mean they are air pollution. And the only reference to the Clean Air Act (United States) in the references is in a statement by the Obama administration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was 2007 Supreme Court (just saw in The New Republic April 2011). There is a U.S. states law suit going before the Supreme Court now, per NPR radio. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is, in part: Smoke Signals: Will the EPA cave to Republican pressure? by Bradford Plumer April 7, 2011 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/6/senate-fails-to-curb-epa-s-climate-authority/ Washington Times (??)

But for now, the sides have been unable to coalesce around a single plan, and so Mr. Obama retains the ability to go ahead with regulating greenhouse gases using the authority he already has under the Clean Air Act.

The Regulation is the Clean Air Act of the U.S. Or this clearly makes it obvious, from Bloomberg.com ... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/epa-s-greenhouse-gas-rules-targeted-for-limits-in-u-s-house-senate-votes.html

It would be helpful to the wp readers to know which regulation it is, otherwise it seems new and out of nowhere; Clean Air Act should be included in the news item! 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Climate change mitigation, Arthur you did not address why you blocked that ... In the NYT article, the first sentence, not from the White House (reliable or not) is

The Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s program to regulate greenhouse gases, defeating four bills that would have limited the agency’s attempts to address global warming.

"... attempts to address global warming" does equate to "Climate change mitigation attempt", does it not Mr. Rubin? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... attempts to address global warming" equates more to "attempt to appear to mitigate climate change". And the clean air act (United States) is not a regulation; the regulations in question are authorized by the clean air act (at least, according to the Washington Times, which has not yet been credited). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; address is a vague word, and Mitigation generally means progress on a problem, in contrast with resolved which could mean the problem was solved or "went away" or moot. How about "... attempts to address Climate change mitigation"? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how about "... regulating under the Clean Air Act (United States) ..." 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems acceptable, provided that you add an actual reference that mentions the clean air act, other than as an assertion by the Obama administration. The first two do not have such material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the already provided additional references and/or your own suggestions? 99.19.40.44 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Times article looks good for the "clean air act", or at least "regulations under the Clean Air Act". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Bloomberg.com instead? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rubin might have something against Michael Bloomberg and related business because of the n:Bloomberg and Clinton create green alliance ... ? 99.190.85.25 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shows a potential bias of Mr. Bloomberg, which may or may not affect Bloomberg.com. On the other hand, the Washington Times is known to be a conservative paper, so its acknowledgment of the situation improves balance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "conservative", since the Washington Times was founded by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon? 99.109.126.249 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No Moonies listed there. Are you saying you personally find Sun Myung Moon "conservative"? 99.119.131.205 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying the Washington Times is known to be conservative. I have no opinion about Sun Myung Moon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Known is strong language do you mean say called or said to be ... ? Do we at least agree, that Conservativism is not equal to Conservation (not in general, not for all anyway)? 99.181.156.137 (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean known. But I agree that conservativism is not conservationism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and done. 99.181.139.42 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding Politics of global warming since there is only one atmosphere for every living thing on Earth, not just Politics of global warming (United States)?[edit]

What about adding Politics of global warming since there is only one atmosphere for every living thing on Earth, not just Politics of global warming (United States)? 99.181.133.240 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To what article or line would this be relevant to? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Air pollution?[edit]

Add Air pollution? 99.181.143.101 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about polluters? 99.56.123.165 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just Pollution, as air pollution becomes water pollution becomes land pollution within biosphere ... basicly Earth+Sun+Moon system is closed. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

basically 99.190.84.66 (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]