Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 30 July 2007

Energy NA‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. 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 NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Like a press release

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Benderson2 and Mikeanegus

The reason why this page keeps getting reverted is twofold.

Primarily, it reads like a press release and that's not what Misplaced Pages is for. Details are good, but they need to concentrate on facts, not supposition or 'future plans'.

Secondly, Misplaced Pages 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)

Why do you delete most of the article before you set your "unencyclopedic box"? Do you fear that other readers could read the article and think that it is worth writing about it -- like at the German version of the article that is rated as "good article"?!? This behaviour is really unencyclopedic vandalism.

Primarily, the article talks about an organisation and about the results of two studies by a famous research institute. It talks about the potential of the usage of proven technologies. Did you ever read it before deleting it? If you think that the article is to long ("to many details"), that might be a reason to shorten it, but not to delete the whole article.

Secondly, you can complain if I write something with POV, but you can't forbit me to write something NPOV about TREC just because I am involed in it. If you find a passage in the article that is not NPOV then it is your job to make it NPOV, not to delete the whole article. By the way, Mikeanegus seems to know something about the topic but I'm sure that he's not directly involved in TREC.

If you have a problem with the article, then help to improve it or write down your critisism about TREC in the "critisism passage", but deleting it is not an option. Benderson2 11:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know how press releases by TREC and press articles about TREC look like, please have a look at:

• Guardian Unlimited, 2006-11-27, "How mirrors can light up the world"
• United Press International, 2006-10-27, “Sun cheaper than Oil”
• Solarserver.de, 2006-10-16, German Politicians claim: “Clean Power from the Deserts”

Benderson2 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that I was NOT the one who cut it down. I've been reverting to changes that other users deemed necessary. As well, read the rules and understand them. Much of the content serves to promote the subject, not give facts about it. And that's clearly not allowed.

So, I suggest this...have a close look at it, cut out the chaff, and I'll look at it again. If it doesn't fit the guidelines, I will bring it to the admins to make their own choices. I do not want in any way to get into an edit war with you. I just don't want Misplaced Pages to turn into a media showcase for people's employment or pet projects. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One example of what I am talking about: "best solar power technology"...according to who? Where is the cite for that? A wikipedia article can't make claims like that and still be considered NPOV. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your asking for a cite? Read the text! It is talking about the results of the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP. 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. If you know it better - tell me a better solar power technology for providing secure capacity. If that's the best "POV"-passage you found, please bring it to the admins (lol). By the way: To shorten the article I deleted the "aims" passage. Benderson2 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a project the German state pays several hundret thousand Euros for a "pet project"? Official supporters of the concept are e.g. Greenpeace International, the German Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War and social responsibility (IPPNW), the German Physical Society (DPG) and the German advisory council on global change (WBGU). You can download the complete list of the supporters worldwide at http://www.trecers.net/downloads/TRECsupporters.pdf (PDF, 40 kb).

A list with news about TREC (in the Guardian Newspaper, BBC Radio 4, The Scotsman, Jordan Times, United Press International and the Solarserver) you can find here http://www.trecers.net/news.html

Do you already think that TREC is not important enough to write an article about it? Or do you just have a problem with parts of the article you think they are POV? Then you should replace the unencyclopedic box with a neutrality box and we'll have a look at the text. Kind regards Benderson2 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I note again that I did not add the tag or make ANY edits to the article. I would appreciate you stopping accusing me of such, and stop assuming I am your enemy. Look at the article history to see who did what.

There still are uncited claims that are stated as fact and those art disputable. For example, the whole section under The Situation accepts Peak Oil as fact, without noting any of the criticisms of the concept (see Peak_Oil#Criticism). Before you react strongly claiming that I don't believe in Peak Oil, I don't actually have an opinion on the matter, but in all fairness, your opinion on the matter should not come into the editing of this article. NPOV applies everywhere in the article, not just where it meshes with popular opinion. I would love to see more people come in and share the efforts in editing this article because, quite simply, it needs a lot of NPOV work. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you wrongly, but the unencyclopedic box matched exactly to your comments. The article is just a translation of the german version which has been rated as ok and a vote led to the "good article" status (wich could not be reached if strong POV-passages were in it). Most of the text (not the situation passage you mentioned) describes the results of the studies and the studies have conclusions -- not uncited Points of View. But if you (or anybody else) think you could improve the neutrality of the article by editing some phrases; just do it. But just deleting most of the article like the IP did is, in my opinion, the wrong way to get a better article. Do you agree? Benderson2 22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kickstart70, still there? Benderson2 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...have an infant daughter and a newborn system administration business. The reason why the box matches my comment is because I restored it after it was removed. I didn't add it. In any case, my criticisms are valid even if I don't have time or inclination to do the edits I speak of (and check my history if you'd like to see how few edits I'm doing these days). FWIW, if I was the person who originally was not happy with the status of the article I would not have removed as much as was removed. To address two of your points...even if this came from the German article and was translated to English and the original was marked good, that doesn't invalidate the criticisms. German WP is a separate project from English WP and their rules and guidelines are different. As well, for points like I made about calling things 'best' without offering a citation clearly showing this is the opinion of an external expert, that clearly does violate the NPOV guidelines here. --Kickstart70-T-C 02:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The German rules about POV are the same like at the English Misplaced Pages 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)

Continued POV and uncited statements

Some examples:

• it's certain that by the middle of the 21st century, humanity will have used up a majority of the fossil fuel resources (uncited, according to who?)
• although such a reduction is essential to contain the threat of Global Warming (uncited, according to who?)
• The best solar power technology for providing secure power output (uncited, according to who?)

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)

Note: Benderson2 is what is termed a COI SPA: a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

• NA-Class energy pages
• NA-importance energy pages