![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It's like someone posted a press release onto the page. Chad okere 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The text is a translation of the German version which is listed as "Good article". The Wikipedia text also has been used to crate the website of TREC (not the other way round). If you have a problem with a passage in the article please discuss it here, but just deleting most of the text is no constructive work - that's vandalism. Benderson2 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason why this page keeps getting reverted is twofold.
Primarily, it reads like a press release and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Details are good, but they need to concentrate on facts, not supposition or 'future plans'.
Secondly, Wikipedia works on the foundation of Neutral Point Of View. Since you are both directly involved in the subject of the article, you are extremely unlikely to be able to maintain that NPOV.
I suggest at this point you both step away from the article and work on other ways to promote it. This is not the place for this sort of thing. -- Kickstart70- T- C 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Benderson2 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The German rules about POV are the same like at the English Wikipedia and as I've written: The text doesn't claim that CSP is the best solar power technology. It claims that it is "The best solar power technology for providing secure capacity" because: "Excess heat from additional collectors can be stored in tanks of molten salt and then be used to power the steam turbines during the night, or when there is a peak in demand. In order to ensure uninterrupted service during overcast periods or bad weather, the turbines can also be powered by oil, natural gas or biomass fuels." That is not POV, that's a proven and logical fact and part of the study: Photovoltaik is declared as "fluctuating energy source" while CSP can provide secure power. If thats the only point you can mention, I'll delete the Neutrality-Box in the next couple of days. Benderson2 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Some examples:
The page still reads like a press release. The primary editor appears to be intimately involved in the subject material thereby having apparent difficulty keeping to WP:NPOV principles. Clearly this page has the potential to be 'good', but some emotional disassociation needs to happen. -- Kickstart70- T- C 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone requested a Third Opinion?
I am going to attempt to sum up both sides' view on the article.
Kickstart70 is arguing that there are many instances of biased statements, primarily due to a conflict of interest. Areas are just assumed to be facts and are uncited, despite there being considerable controversies regarding a number.
Benderson2 is arguing that the facts stated are a result of significant scientific research, which are clearly cited as otherwise the German wiki article on the same subject would not be as well regarded.
Firstly, I would like to point out many of the criticisms of the same article on the Wiki:
Ist mir zu POV.Eine Technologie hat nie nur Vorteile. - To me, it is too POV. The technology only has advantages.
Der Artikel ist imme noch eine POV-Katastrophe - The article is still a POV-catastrophe.
Es gibt viele ... NPOVs. - There are many NPOVs.
Using the German Wiki as an argument clearly suggests that the article is not at brilliant. Benderson, you have claimed that the articles are sourced by posting two sentences from the same article. Wikipedia is not about fact, but about Verifiability and as such 'proven and logical fact' cannot just be assumed from the article but must be proven with verifiable sources.
Solution
This article does list many of the advantages of the company and technologies mentioned. However, if many these statements are properly sourced then this would not be a problem. As such, however, much of the article just assumes some scientific ideas are proven. There are also a number of sentences that are either POV and should be removed, or just read in an overtly positive light and should be toned down a little to remove the connotation.
I would also recommend that this article is Copy-Editted, or preferably compared to the German again, at some stage because the translation from German is a little clumsy at times, which admittedly is a disadvantage when translating any text. Many of these make the article sound more POV than it actually is, for example "Nach allgemeiner Auffassung" is translated in the article as "it's certain that", where it is more accurate to say "According to general opinion".
I agree that the article also lingers on the positive, however, that is by itself no reason to take positive things out the article. It is the responsibility of those who want it included to write something for the article.
I would also like to remind Benderson2 of WP:COI which suggests that writing on something you are so heavily involved in is frowned upon as it can create arguments based on opinion rather than 'the good of the wiki'
If you have any comments on this consensus, I will try to answer them. Thankyou! Hydrostatics 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.
There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.
About the POV:
The article has been nominated for deletion: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation. — Athaenara ✉ 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara : Your very dirty tags looks like an advertisement. Be constructive, please. Why are you so destructiv and agresiv ? It's very strange. You makes pepople loosing their time - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 August 2007 — 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Why are you putting very bad advertissments on the nice and informativ TREC article ? ~~"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) diff
Wrong : it was signed - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara, would you please specify, what do you think seems to be advertisement? Otherwise the box should be removed. TREC doesn't sell anything.
And if you think there should be more specific references (more than mentioning two studies and several articles) you're welcome to read those studies to make those references. But it seems to me that you're not really interested in improving the article...
"BigBrother" you must Sign in first befor you get a Username, but you can also sign with four "~"
Benderson2
23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara pollution (3 dirty tags)
Thanks Benderson. Athaenara dont have any argument. He doesnt know what CSP is...And he is polluting this article with 3 dirty TAGS. It's sad to see a so destructiv person - BigBrother 189.169.29.199 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As per the What Wikipedia is not policy, maintenance templates are added to articles in this encyclopedia which are not in compliance with its Neutral point of view policy.
I added the coi2 and primarysources templates in July ( here & here). Raymond arritt added the advert template in August ( here). See also:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's a policy here. Please read at least enough of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to understand how they apply to this article rather than engaging in personal attacks on other editors (see Civility and No personal attacks policies). — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{cleanup}} tag to the article, as desperately needs a good copyedit. It is excessively wordy, uses undefined acronyms, and so on. Raymond Arritt 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A user of the IP address 90.186.62.36—see 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) edit—returned material which had been removed as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, removed citation needed tags, and undid revisions which had been done as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. ( WikiProject Wikify also addresses cooperative editing goals.)
In the same edit, the user added citing sources format for some references.( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23])
Because some may be useable as per verifiability policy, I have listed them here with {{ reflist}} display format for review by neutral point of view editors. — Athaenara ✉ 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* both the List of HVDC projects and Solar Energy Generating Systems to the see also section. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Question: what are "Summary of the TREC article" and "See linked articles" in citations 2, 4 & 18 above intended to convey as references? — Athaenara ✉ 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citation for March 2007 speech by Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (Germany) official. — Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citation (non- PDF version) of Sigmar Gabriel speech which mentioned German Aerospace Center studies. The speech did not mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added three citations (not on above list) and removed duplicate links. — Athaenara ✉ 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citations for three German Aerospace Center ("DLR") Institute of Technical Thermodynamics studies. Note: none mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added inline format for citation of brief discussion in 2006 of two DLR reports on franzalt.com, the last of the refsection cleanup. IMPORTANT: Most of the article still duplicates TREC website content; it is fundamentally a press release. — Athaenara ✉ 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added citation for June 2006 Yemen Times article. Note: nearly every citation suggested below by TREC's webmaster and marketing advisor, Benderson2, is affiliated with TREC and/or with the DLR (German Aerospace Center). These are not the reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject which are required (see Primarysources). — Athaenara ✉ 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Added UNEP citation for Prince Hassan bin Al Talal. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Added inline citations for TREC website, "TREC Development Group," German Club of Rome, Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation, German Advisory Council on Global Change. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Added citations (two days ago) for TREC participation in National Energy Research Center (NERC, Jordan) conferences in 2004 and 2005. — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Added citation for transcript (hosted on Solarserver Forum for Solar Energy website) of interview with Dr. Gerhard Knies on BBC Radio 4 The World Tonight. — Athaenara ✉ 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Nearly every" is not correct. Not even half of the references I suggested is affiliated with TREC. Most are from third party peer reviews, UNEP, an official speech already accepted as source and so on. And the rest is ok as long as there are enough "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves ). You should read the article policies first before you refer on them. Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Three (so far) IP addresses are engaging in edit warring (see Edit war) and risking blocks for violations of the three-revert rule. — Athaenara ✉ 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Editing wikipedia 10 hours a day, 7 days per week. Neither a woman nor a job, poor boy!? Just getting ego-boosts by quoting the rules!? Or getting payed for your edits? But who would pay a penny for editing biographies of lousy unknown musicians... 90.186.40.137 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It's like someone posted a press release onto the page. Chad okere 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The text is a translation of the German version which is listed as "Good article". The Wikipedia text also has been used to crate the website of TREC (not the other way round). If you have a problem with a passage in the article please discuss it here, but just deleting most of the text is no constructive work - that's vandalism. Benderson2 09:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason why this page keeps getting reverted is twofold.
Primarily, it reads like a press release and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Details are good, but they need to concentrate on facts, not supposition or 'future plans'.
Secondly, Wikipedia works on the foundation of Neutral Point Of View. Since you are both directly involved in the subject of the article, you are extremely unlikely to be able to maintain that NPOV.
I suggest at this point you both step away from the article and work on other ways to promote it. This is not the place for this sort of thing. -- Kickstart70- T- C 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Benderson2 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The German rules about POV are the same like at the English Wikipedia and as I've written: The text doesn't claim that CSP is the best solar power technology. It claims that it is "The best solar power technology for providing secure capacity" because: "Excess heat from additional collectors can be stored in tanks of molten salt and then be used to power the steam turbines during the night, or when there is a peak in demand. In order to ensure uninterrupted service during overcast periods or bad weather, the turbines can also be powered by oil, natural gas or biomass fuels." That is not POV, that's a proven and logical fact and part of the study: Photovoltaik is declared as "fluctuating energy source" while CSP can provide secure power. If thats the only point you can mention, I'll delete the Neutrality-Box in the next couple of days. Benderson2 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Some examples:
The page still reads like a press release. The primary editor appears to be intimately involved in the subject material thereby having apparent difficulty keeping to WP:NPOV principles. Clearly this page has the potential to be 'good', but some emotional disassociation needs to happen. -- Kickstart70- T- C 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone requested a Third Opinion?
I am going to attempt to sum up both sides' view on the article.
Kickstart70 is arguing that there are many instances of biased statements, primarily due to a conflict of interest. Areas are just assumed to be facts and are uncited, despite there being considerable controversies regarding a number.
Benderson2 is arguing that the facts stated are a result of significant scientific research, which are clearly cited as otherwise the German wiki article on the same subject would not be as well regarded.
Firstly, I would like to point out many of the criticisms of the same article on the Wiki:
Ist mir zu POV.Eine Technologie hat nie nur Vorteile. - To me, it is too POV. The technology only has advantages.
Der Artikel ist imme noch eine POV-Katastrophe - The article is still a POV-catastrophe.
Es gibt viele ... NPOVs. - There are many NPOVs.
Using the German Wiki as an argument clearly suggests that the article is not at brilliant. Benderson, you have claimed that the articles are sourced by posting two sentences from the same article. Wikipedia is not about fact, but about Verifiability and as such 'proven and logical fact' cannot just be assumed from the article but must be proven with verifiable sources.
Solution
This article does list many of the advantages of the company and technologies mentioned. However, if many these statements are properly sourced then this would not be a problem. As such, however, much of the article just assumes some scientific ideas are proven. There are also a number of sentences that are either POV and should be removed, or just read in an overtly positive light and should be toned down a little to remove the connotation.
I would also recommend that this article is Copy-Editted, or preferably compared to the German again, at some stage because the translation from German is a little clumsy at times, which admittedly is a disadvantage when translating any text. Many of these make the article sound more POV than it actually is, for example "Nach allgemeiner Auffassung" is translated in the article as "it's certain that", where it is more accurate to say "According to general opinion".
I agree that the article also lingers on the positive, however, that is by itself no reason to take positive things out the article. It is the responsibility of those who want it included to write something for the article.
I would also like to remind Benderson2 of WP:COI which suggests that writing on something you are so heavily involved in is frowned upon as it can create arguments based on opinion rather than 'the good of the wiki'
If you have any comments on this consensus, I will try to answer them. Thankyou! Hydrostatics 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.
There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.
About the POV:
The article has been nominated for deletion: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation. — Athaenara ✉ 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara : Your very dirty tags looks like an advertisement. Be constructive, please. Why are you so destructiv and agresiv ? It's very strange. You makes pepople loosing their time - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 August 2007 — 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Why are you putting very bad advertissments on the nice and informativ TREC article ? ~~"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) diff
Wrong : it was signed - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara, would you please specify, what do you think seems to be advertisement? Otherwise the box should be removed. TREC doesn't sell anything.
And if you think there should be more specific references (more than mentioning two studies and several articles) you're welcome to read those studies to make those references. But it seems to me that you're not really interested in improving the article...
"BigBrother" you must Sign in first befor you get a Username, but you can also sign with four "~"
Benderson2
23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara pollution (3 dirty tags)
Thanks Benderson. Athaenara dont have any argument. He doesnt know what CSP is...And he is polluting this article with 3 dirty TAGS. It's sad to see a so destructiv person - BigBrother 189.169.29.199 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As per the What Wikipedia is not policy, maintenance templates are added to articles in this encyclopedia which are not in compliance with its Neutral point of view policy.
I added the coi2 and primarysources templates in July ( here & here). Raymond arritt added the advert template in August ( here). See also:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's a policy here. Please read at least enough of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to understand how they apply to this article rather than engaging in personal attacks on other editors (see Civility and No personal attacks policies). — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{cleanup}} tag to the article, as desperately needs a good copyedit. It is excessively wordy, uses undefined acronyms, and so on. Raymond Arritt 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A user of the IP address 90.186.62.36—see 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) edit—returned material which had been removed as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, removed citation needed tags, and undid revisions which had been done as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. ( WikiProject Wikify also addresses cooperative editing goals.)
In the same edit, the user added citing sources format for some references.( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23])
Because some may be useable as per verifiability policy, I have listed them here with {{ reflist}} display format for review by neutral point of view editors. — Athaenara ✉ 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* both the List of HVDC projects and Solar Energy Generating Systems to the see also section. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Question: what are "Summary of the TREC article" and "See linked articles" in citations 2, 4 & 18 above intended to convey as references? — Athaenara ✉ 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citation for March 2007 speech by Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (Germany) official. — Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citation (non- PDF version) of Sigmar Gabriel speech which mentioned German Aerospace Center studies. The speech did not mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added three citations (not on above list) and removed duplicate links. — Athaenara ✉ 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added* citations for three German Aerospace Center ("DLR") Institute of Technical Thermodynamics studies. Note: none mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added inline format for citation of brief discussion in 2006 of two DLR reports on franzalt.com, the last of the refsection cleanup. IMPORTANT: Most of the article still duplicates TREC website content; it is fundamentally a press release. — Athaenara ✉ 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Added citation for June 2006 Yemen Times article. Note: nearly every citation suggested below by TREC's webmaster and marketing advisor, Benderson2, is affiliated with TREC and/or with the DLR (German Aerospace Center). These are not the reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject which are required (see Primarysources). — Athaenara ✉ 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Added UNEP citation for Prince Hassan bin Al Talal. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Added inline citations for TREC website, "TREC Development Group," German Club of Rome, Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation, German Advisory Council on Global Change. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Added citations (two days ago) for TREC participation in National Energy Research Center (NERC, Jordan) conferences in 2004 and 2005. — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Added citation for transcript (hosted on Solarserver Forum for Solar Energy website) of interview with Dr. Gerhard Knies on BBC Radio 4 The World Tonight. — Athaenara ✉ 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Nearly every" is not correct. Not even half of the references I suggested is affiliated with TREC. Most are from third party peer reviews, UNEP, an official speech already accepted as source and so on. And the rest is ok as long as there are enough "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves ). You should read the article policies first before you refer on them. Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Three (so far) IP addresses are engaging in edit warring (see Edit war) and risking blocks for violations of the three-revert rule. — Athaenara ✉ 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Editing wikipedia 10 hours a day, 7 days per week. Neither a woman nor a job, poor boy!? Just getting ego-boosts by quoting the rules!? Or getting payed for your edits? But who would pay a penny for editing biographies of lousy unknown musicians... 90.186.40.137 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)