Talk:Congressional panel concludes Gulf War Syndrome a legitimate condition
Add topic  |
Revision 735795 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Very good! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 735795 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Very good! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Not new
[edit]The piece by BU Today to promote the contributions of one of Boston University's contributions seems to be a poor excuse to consider this as news. The report was delivered to Congress on November 17. --SVTCobra 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I am really tempted to tag this as {{stale}} --SVTCobra 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering that this has been fought over for the past 17 years and it only was decided on one month ago this is hardly considered stale news Soapy (talk)
- By your standards perhaps, but by the polices we are currently following it is stale. The Spanish Inquisition is news if you view it on a geologic time scale. --SVTCobra 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but this is ongoing, Gulf War Syndrome still effects hundreds of thousands of veterans and this ruling is very pertinent to today. The Spanish Inquisition however has no (or very little) relevance to actions taken today. If we want to just let extremely important news go unreported on this website that's fine, or we can understand that just because this is a month late in coming out that doesn't mean that it isn't completely fine to publish it late because of how important the news is.Soapy (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The decision of the panel is not ongoing, it was made about 3 weeks ago. You chose to make this article about the decision of the panel and not the ongoing aspects of Gulf War Syndrome. --SVTCobra 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is indeed a little stale, and I considered adding that tag as well, but since the article creator was able to find a newly published source, and since Wikinews hadn't yet published an article on this important topic (weee, runon sentence!), I decided to let it slide, since it doesn't technically violate policy. Definitely a weak excuse on my part, but I like to see us publish major news whenever possible, so I used a technical loophole (the new source) to assuage my conscience;). Gopher65talk 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The decision of the panel is not ongoing, it was made about 3 weeks ago. You chose to make this article about the decision of the panel and not the ongoing aspects of Gulf War Syndrome. --SVTCobra 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but this is ongoing, Gulf War Syndrome still effects hundreds of thousands of veterans and this ruling is very pertinent to today. The Spanish Inquisition however has no (or very little) relevance to actions taken today. If we want to just let extremely important news go unreported on this website that's fine, or we can understand that just because this is a month late in coming out that doesn't mean that it isn't completely fine to publish it late because of how important the news is.Soapy (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)