Talk:University of Oxford Botanic Garden

bench picture

Errr....Really is there any prrof that this is the actual bench refrenced in the books and even if it is, is it really apt to have a picture of some random vandalism on the bench which could have been done by anyone. Personally i feel that unless a wee sigh is put up by the council or a note posted by the Philip Pullman, then this bit of the article should be deleted. -- 82.46.237.197 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now a sculpture of Philip Pullman's daemons marking this spot, which Philip Pullman himself endorsed / announced.

https://www.obga.ox.ac.uk/daemon-sculpture-lower-garden

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17688384.gray-matter-philip-pullman-unveils-deamon-sculpture-oxford-botanic-garden/ Oxford Botanic Garden & Arboretum (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, that spoiler...argh.67.129.203.32 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article in the times mentions the bench - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article1035658.ece?token=null&offset=24&page=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.239.170 (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Oxford Botanic Garden & Arboretum:

Earlier today, the article was expanded with some 30,000+ characters of text and subsequently reverted by a different editor due to concerns of the first editor's connection to the subject. The text of the revised entry is here for consideration.

I have not gone through the changes with a fine-tooth comb, but the key changes appear to be:

• Noting the 400th anniversary in the lead.
• Adding the Deputy Director to the lead.
• Expanding the 'Foundation' section of the history by five paragraphs and sourced to the organisation's website. While the organisation's website is fine as a source, the text appears to have been copied from the source which doesn't fit with Wikipedia's requirements around copyright. If the editor adding the text in question is affiliation with the organisation, it likely they have permission to reuse the content, but maybe not in a way which releases it under an open licence.
• A new section titled 'Science and Research', sourced to the official website again. In principle this would be a helpful section to have, however the text is very close to the source. While there are some edits for brevity and voice, it is close enough to the source to pose copyright issues with close paraphrasing.

If the text is to be reintroduced to the article, it would need to be modified to avoid the copyright issues. I would also recommend using {{requested edit}} to seek community input rather than editing the article directly. It would also be worth breaking the changes down into smaller chunks to make them easier for the community to check over. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Richard Nevell,

The text is our own, and so can be re-used. The main concern from our standing is that reverting the page results in incorrect information in all areas. We understand the need for community input to ensure non-bias, and feel this should be an ongoing process using the text we have provided. There are no copyright issues, as I wrote the text for the website myself, and as an educational institution there are no issues with reusing the content we publish publicly. As the Digital Content Officer for OBGA, and creator of this content, I also expressly give my permission for this text to be used.

It is better to modify the text over time than to have misinformation on the page during this process, especially considering the department's educational and scientific focus. I have provided a base for this, with the correct naming of the glasshouses, positions (now Director, rather than Horti Praefectus), correct reflection of collections using updated botanical names (reflected in changes of the APG IV), and ensuring the scientific aims are up to date. As this is simply stating factual information, the rewording of such is a minor issue.

Please would the edit therefore be reinstated, and we can go from there with ensuring modification of text where required, because at present the article is not accurate.

I am also separately aware of the need for an 'individual' rather than 'organisational' account, and am looking actioning so the editing account is named as such. Oxford Botanic Garden & Arboretum (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell @AngusWOOF,

Please can we also consider the damage that can be done by trying to incorporate 'updates' from my edits into the current incorrect page. Now stating Simon Hiscock as the Horti Praefectus is factually incorrect, and is simply a result of trying to bring some new information in to the old format of the page. The organisation's webpage is cited as the source in order to show to wiki editors that such things are now changed, just like as visitors on site would see the changes in the glasshouse names, and names of the plants in person and on the visitor leaflet and map. Oxford Botanic Garden & Arboretum (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I've re-added the correction about Prof. Hiscock. Oddly the sources previously used don't mention Horti Praefectus so I'm not sure where that came from. I've also taken the mention of Timothy Walker out of the lead. I think it makes sense to mention the current director in the lead, but maybe past directors are better included in the body of the article; it seems like the kind of thing that works well in a history section.

I appreciate it's frustrating to have the work undone, especially with the time put into pulling the information together. Perhaps we could start with addressing inaccuracies - I assume there may be more - and then move on to looking at the proposed additional text? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

How can I demonstrate that nearly everything on the page needs updating due to inaccuracies, and I have addressed them? Even having now two directors (Simon Hiscock, and Deputy Director Chris Thorogood) is incredibly important as the Garden has not had this structure nor a position for Head of Science before, which is why Chris Thorogood should be named in the header section, and why a Science and Research section was added. I can give reasons for every one of my changes but this would be exhaustive.

-

The Science and Research section cited published journals, with research published as recently as this year, proving its accuracy.

-

Even the small changes in the Glasshouses section and Layout of the Garden section (such as names of Garden sections) can even be doubly verified by photos from visitor's reviews: https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x4876c6b29e292543%3A0x561e52e8d4b04f75!3m1!7e115!5sGoogle%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&hl=en&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipPm9jVybS4mYAKLStutVkVV0bHdXI_lL7HHvQik&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibi6qPkvP5AhWBilwKHT7hDsoQ9fkHKAR6BAgBEGQ

I don't know how to demonstrate the change in living collections (plants) that I have given without photographing names of plants, or giving a virtual tour. However, as naming the plants on site is not an issue of copyright or bias, these changes should be accepted as they are factually correct.

-

The Danby Gate (not Gateway) is so named in other sources https://www.sandersofoxford.com/shop/product/the-danby-gate-1632/ https://www.cabinet.ox.ac.uk/danby-gate-oxford-1632-3-portal-between-two-worlds

-

The History section changes were made with information from primary sources. These sources were on display at the Bodleian's Roots to Seeds exhibition https://visit.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/event/roots-to-seeds https://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/archivesandmanuscripts/2021/07/15/relaunching-the-oxford-botanic-garden/ The extra information is beneficial to telling the story of the Garden's founding and development over its 400 year history. This information is significant as it is the oldest botanic garden in the UK.

-

The initial takedown was due to my connection to the subject. In this case this is a strength as I have written about the site as it presently stands, and the current page does not accurately represent the site.

The second reason given was copyright. I have stated that the text is open for use, has indeed been used in other places as well, and as the author I have given my permission.

The final reason is substantive changes, with a request to break down into chunks. I have broken down the changes above.

-

Wikipedia states that good faith should be assumed. Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I can go paragraph by paragraph if I have to. Please accept the changes and allow the community to use it as a base. VictoriaWebb1621 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like the biggest issue revolves around copyright. We've had situations like this before, and there are solutions. It makes sense to reuse the text, but for Wikipedia's purposes we need to be able to evidence that the original source material is under a compatible license. That means either adding a note to the organisation's website saying that the text is available under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence and then adding appropriate attribution to the Wikipedia article (the process is outlined here) or emailing the Volunteer Response Team to explain the situation. If you're able to edit the organisation's website, the first one would be much quicker and simpler. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I contacted the volunteer team and they namely spoke of consensus and dispute. 'An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.' Wikipedia:Consensus. Therefore, I would like to outline our discussion:

You dispute that the text can be re-used. As the author, I have stated that it can. https://obga.web.ox.ac.uk/wikipedia I am also seeking information on adding an open license.

I dispute that the current page is factually incorrect.

-

To reach a consensus, can we agree that the larger issue is that the page is not factually correct, and that it is of greater benefit to have up to date information on there?

Furthermore, rewording sentences such as the following serves no real purpose:

'Citrus plants have been grown at the Botanic Garden since the 1600s, including lemons, limes, oranges, mandarins, grapefruits and citrons.' to 'The Botanic Garden has grown Citrus plants since the 1600s. These include limes, lemons, mandarins, oranges, citrons and grapefruits'. VictoriaWebb1621 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Harcourt Arboretum

Is there a way we can merge the Oxford Botanic Garden page with the Harcourt Arboretum page as well. The two sites have since become 'Oxford Botanic Garden and Arboretum' given how much time has lapsed since these pages have been reviewed. VictoriaWebb1621 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's entirely possible, it depends whether the arboretum is independently notable. Typically once notability is established that doesn't change, but it may make sense to treat the topic in its entirety here. At the very least, I'm sure it would be worth doing more signposting between the page. This might be a matter for a wider discussion involving more people, perhaps a Request for Comment - they're designed to invite comment on a topic from the Wikimedia community. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will add signposting in due course as suggested. VictoriaWebb1621 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)