Talk:Rampisham Down

External link

I have removed the recent addition of an external link to "rampishamdown.com" as it appears to be produced - either directly or indirectly - by the organisation that wishes to develop the solar farm, and as such is not a neutral resource. This means it cannot be included according to the allowable links in WP:ELYES, and it fails points 2 and 19 of WP:ELNO. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The link is for a site, regardless of who has produced it, to showcase scientific studies which are factual in nature and therefore must be classed as neutral. Please can you explain to me how this is not the case. Also I note that news articles have been added, am I OK to add further news articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.253.164.5 (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The site is not neutral. It presents information in a way that only supports the proposed solar park, while ignoring other viewpoints. It does this via the language it uses and the way the information is presented. The home page reads like a public relations announcement. The ecological study page highlights words and phrases that emphasise a particular point of view. This is not how neutral science is normally presented. There is no peer review of the research. Wikipedia only allows external links that meet certain criteria, and this link fails them, as indicated above. Regarding your question about adding news articles, the answer is that of course news articles may be added to the article as references to support statements made in the article, but this does not mean that they should be used to skew the article so that it presents a particular point of view. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia, in particular the second one, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". If you have connections to the rampishamdown.com website or the solar park, please also read about having a conflict of interest. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Solar Power Portal being used as a source

The article in Solar Power Portal is biased and cannot be considered to be a neutral source of information on the Rampisham Down Solar Farm; it therefore does not meet the standards required to be cited in wikipedia. If you read the "about" page for Solar Portal you will see they are a trade journal for the solar industry and do not present unbiased reporting of controversial proposals such as Rampisham Down.

The article states that British Solar Renewables published the results of an ecological study. This is untrue; BSR has not published the results. The website RampishamDown.com has stated that the results will be published in November 2015

Bearing in mind that there will be a public inquiry in 2016, into the planning permission granted for the Solar Farm at Rampisham Down, it is essential that wikipedia provides balanced verifiable information on the matter and avoids being drawn in to the public relations campaigns run by either side. Doctor T Gonzo (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have felt uneasy about this cit for a while but had not found sufficient reason to remove it. The lack of any availability of the 'published' document was worrying. Now UserDoctor T Gonzo has put his finger on it. Solar Power Portal does not seem to be neutral or may not fact check their contributions adequately. Their publisher Solar Media further says it has a vision to be a 'media platform for the solar industry and become indispensable as a promotional partner' http://www.solarmedia.co.uk/about. SovalValtos (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:SovalValtos. Will you reconsider the suitability of this reference now please PaleCloudedWhite ? Doctor T Gonzo (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Like SovalValtos, I have had reservations about the use of the Solar Power Portal as a source, for reasons of neutrality. However, the particular news article being used does not read like a promotional piece, and as it states that it had contacted Dorset Wildlife Trust for a comment, as well as quoting Sir Ghillean Prance, I decided that it couldn't have made these things up and so I didn't object to it being used as a source. There are several questions raised. Which ecological study is being referred to? - it seems there may have been more than one. Doctor T Gonzo, on what information do you base your assertion that the results have not been published? Again, there may be more than one study. It is true that Solar Media states that its vision is to be a "media platform for the solar industry and become indispensable as a promotional partner", but it also states that its aim "is to deliver transparency to the solar and renewables markets worldwide by the provision of unbiased, relevant and high-quality information". It is definitely true that Sir Ghillean Prance made generally supportive comments about the proposed development - there is a video of him at the RampishamDown.com website - though it may not be the case that his comments are referring to any particular study, which is what the Solar Power Portal article states. Further scrutiny makes me wonder if the portal is simply repeating information fed to it by British Solar Renewables, which obviously is not sufficiently rigorous. I shall remove the disputed paragraph as its reliability is being questioned, however I think it would be sensible to seek further comment, so I shall raise the question of this source's reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PaleCloudedWhite. The study referred to by Solar Portal appears to be this one http://www.britishsolarrenewables.com/news/2015/03/18/bsr-commission-ground-breaking-ecology-research-and-commit-to-25-years-of-monitoring/. On 1st July Solar Portal reported that the study had been commissioned in February http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/british_solar_renewables_25mw_rampisham_project_called_in_1891 then a week later they reported that the study had been published, although British Solar Renewables had not put out a press release to this effect. The report has not appeared on BSR's website or Rampishamdown.com. Professor Ghillean Prance is not a neutral player in this issue - he appeared on behalf of British Solar Renewables at the planning committee hearing and has made a number of remarks which indicate he is acting as a consultant for British Solar Renewables.Doctor T Gonzo (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Solar Power Portal seems to be a one man band as far as writing is concerned, with the same person being the editor, who blogs on social media. [[1]] This might explain less than ideal independent fact checking. The 'news article being used does not read like a promotional piece' cuts both ways; it could just mean that it is competent promotion rather than not being such.SovalValtos (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rampisham Down. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-jYBvTwQqiEJ:jncc.defra.gov.uk/Docs/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-26-LowlandDryAcidGrass.doc+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk with https://web.archive.org/web/20170131195420/http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Docs/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-26-LowlandDryAcidGrass.doc on http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Docs/UKBAP_BAPHabitats-26-LowlandDryAcidGrass.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)