Talk:Knepp Wildland

Reads like an advertisement
Too many uses of the Knepp commercial page as a source Stix1776 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Err.. I can't really see the problem, however I have adjusted one 'commercial' link and replaced it with a 3rd party one before replacing the visiting section. There are many many independent 3rd party sources used in the article. If you still have a problem with the page then I would request that you discuss your concerns here before replacing the banner. PeterEastern (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For instance, some of the sources that are cited are critical of rewilding, yet only the positive ideas remain on this article.
 * For instance, see bottom of CNN article cited


 * -- Stix1776 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted if someone (you?) added a 'Criticism' section if they felt that was helpful. To be clear, I responded in good faith to your comment above that too many sources were from Knepp's own resources and now there is a better mix. You now seem to be saying something else, which is actually about balance, so let's address that. PeterEastern (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added the section now. Feel free to add to it. Are you content now that it does not read like an advertisement? PeterEastern (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pioneering
The work 'pioneering' in the lead seems to be a point of contention. To be clear, the work 'pioneering' is defined as 'involving new ideas or methods'. Given that this was the first instance of a large scale intensive agricultural farm in lowland England doing anything remotely like this then I think it is be definition 'pioneering'. If there is any evidence that it was not the first, and was in fact following the lead of many others then it would not be pioneering. It is also clear from the definition of the term, that a pioneering project may be opposed and criticised, indeed I would say that it is almost always the case that a pioneering project has its detractors. I will add a section of 'firsts', which I have been preparing to add anyway, and when that it in place I intend to reinstate the 'pioneering' phrase in the lead unless evidence emerges that it was following in a pattern of other farms doing the same. 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Fyi, I am now going to add the word 'pioneering' back in the lead, citing this FT article which states that Knepp is 'home to the UK’s largest lowland rewilding project'. That, along with all the firsts that I have now added to the body of the article justifies the claim of 'pioneering' in my view. I respectfully request that before removing the word (if you still disagree with it) that you demonstrate evidence here that the project is not pioneering and that there are in fact multiple precedents in England for this sort of project. PeterEastern (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Knepp rewilding project idea came directly from the Oostvaardersplassen. It being a direct copy shows that it's not pioneering. If you'd like to write, "first rewilding project of its kind in England", that's a much more honest statement. I'm trying to keep from the overly positive language that existed in this page when his wife wrote it. Stix1776 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Having looked into the definition of the word pioneering, I do note that although word is often used in the way I am using it 'involving accomplishments or activities that have not been done before, or developing or using new methods or techniques' (pioneering) and 'involving new ideas or methods' (Google, Oxford Languages etc), it is often frequently used to mean 'something that has not been done before' (Collins Dictionary), 'being the first to do or use a particular new idea' (Cambridge Dictionary) etc. As such it would be safer to avoid it use without qualification. I will consider this and add something that I think is more appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have qualified the work pioneering in the articles as follows: 'pioneering English lowland rewilding project' which I think works. PeterEastern (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This still seems disingenuous, as this sort of thing has been done before. No source calls this "pioneering", and I'm unhappy about the editorialising nature of it. Why not just call it "first of its kind in England" which is literally the case. The author may have positive feelings about Knepp rewilding, but they should be kept off of Wikipedia. Stix1776 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. Given that we agree that it is the first rewilding project of its kind in England (ie the first English lowland rewilding project), and given that the ecology of lowland England is different from the ecology at Oostvaardersplassen and given that the word pioneering (even in its tighter definition) means 'doing something that has not been done before' then I think my wording is fine because rewilding has indeed never been applied to this situation before. I also think that my wording it more succinct than that wording you are proposing. I am going to reinstate the lead and see if you will then let this issue rest. PeterEastern (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree this is tedious. Sorry I'm new to Wikipedia. I finally found the Wikipedia policy that states to be careful with words specifically like "pioneering". MOS:PUFFERY. You're using an abridged dictionary to verify your claims about the word. Here's the Longman dictionary on the word: "introducing new and *better* methods or ideas for the first time" [my emphasis]. You are welcome to bring this to a dispute, but considering that Wikipedia policy is clear about this, I'm sure about how a dispute will end and I'm rather considerate to bother the admins. I'm really strongly against using the unsourced language that the the owner of the project used about her business.Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:PUFFERY is not relevant because pioneering as a tightly defined word (unlike the vague terms warned against in Puffery: 'legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary').Please don't remove content based on Puffery. We do seem to agree that it is 'new' (ie your suggestion that it is the 'first rewilding project of its kind in England'. As such why do you say that the term pioneering not appropriate? I will try some other words in the lead whilst awaiting your response. PeterEastern (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The page at MOS:PUFFERY literally refers to the word "pioneering" as one of the "words to watch". It seems unnecessary to have this debate at this point as the Wikipedia Manual of Style agrees with my perspective. I think your addition to facts about the subject, rather than unsourced opinions, are good additions to the header.Stix1776 (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

New 'Controversy' section
I am planning to create a section titled 'Controversy' to lay out the views of notable people/organisation expressed in support of or against rewilding in Britain. For now I will include articles that don't specifically mention Knepp which may in time actually better fit into a 'Controversy' section in the Rewilding Britain article. PeterEastern (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now created the section and populated with some initial critical views. PeterEastern (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this addition, and I apologize that I failed to thank you when I was busy with other things. If it's OK with you, I might change a couple of these. The the conservative blog and the issue of an escaped beaver might be better exchanged with something a bit more academic. Although thank you for your previous effort on doing this.Stix1776 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Go for it, however I would like use to keep some of the more emotional critics of rewilding that come from prominent places to highlight that some opposition to rewilding is less rational and reasoned than other criticism. PeterEastern (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to add Map frame
I'm trying to add a map frame swhoing the three blocks as well as the overall boundary. It isn't working at the moment. In the mean time I am storing the code here. PeterEastern (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Mapframe now works. PeterEastern (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Overuse of unreliable unverified sources
I got a copy of Isabella Tree's Wilding: the return of nature to a British farm. It includes a bibliography, but all the times she's sourced in this article, it's her perspective in the book which isn't backed up by footnotes. More than half of the citations are from her book or the Knepp.co.uk website. According to WP:USING, "[r]eferences from the subject, or those close to the subject, are also examples of auxiliary sources" and "they should only be used with caution and extreme care". I looked for some of Tree's assertions about improved biodiversity and I couldn't find them outside of her book. I'm tempted to add a Unreliable source tag to this, but I await feedback from other editors. Stix1776 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * But it also says: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge and that is what I have used it for. For example:
 * In 2001 the 370 acres (150 ha) Repton park around the old castle was seeded with a grass and local wild meadow seeds
 * By the end of the year all the internal fences had been removed from the park and deer from Petworth House had been introduced
 * In 2003 the project received addition funding from the Countryside Stewardship Scheme to extend the park restoration to all of the Middle Block and also the Northern Block
 * Would you agree that these first three uses made of the source meet the this criteria? Personally I think all the others are acceptable as well. Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of the claims supported by her book are incorrect? Note that the article refers to many high quality secondary and tertiary sources for the more subjective claims.
 * -- PeterEastern (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may start by quoting WP:PRIMARY, it states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them".
 * By large passage, I would mean this

"In 2009 Ravens nested at Knepp, for the first time in hundreds of years;[15] 13 out of a total of 18 UK bat species were recorded that summer[16] along with 15 ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority’ species (4 bats and 11 birds) and 60 invertebrate species of conservation importance and 76 additional species of moths.[17] By March 2009 a 9-mile long perimeter fence around the Southern Block had been completed and 53 Longhorn Cattle were introduced to the area.[18] followed shortly afterwards by 23 Exmoor Ponies, 20 Tamworth pigs and 42 Fallow deer.[19] Purple Emperor Butterflies were spotted for the first time at Knepp that year.[20] (by 2015 Knepp would have the largest breeding colony of Purple Emperors in the country).[21]

.... By 2011 there were some eleven singing male turtle doves at Knepp.[23] In 2016 saw first pair of breeding falcons.[24] The same year work was carried out on the River Adur within the project boundaries to remove the artificial banks and allow the river to flood the surrounding meadows in a more natural way.[25] In 2012 the Environment Agency removed the largest weir and disabled the rest.[26] and within a year Sea Trout were spotted migrating up the river.[27]

In 2016 a Black Stork, one of the rarest of birds in Western Europe was spotted.[28] and 441 species of moth are recorded.[29] Between 2015 and 2016 experts recorded 62 species of bee and 30 species of wasp, including 7 bee and 4 wasp species of national conservation importance.[30]"
 * To answer your question, I'd rather the reference come from an independent secondary source, but those lines are not necessary contentious. Publishing positive statements from the the commercial website and the wife of the owner seem clearly to go againstWP:COISOURCE.
 * I really don't think the burden of proof needs to be with the editor questioning potentially unreliable material. Aren't poorly sourced statements either corrected or removed? Thanks for listening. Stix1776 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I note that caution should be used when basing 'large passages' are based on on primary sources. However, can you tell me which claims in the passage you quote are not 'straightforward, descriptive statements of facts' (that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge)? PeterEastern (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to verify Tree's claims with independent, secondary sources. Can you please respond to my claims of a conflict of interest for that source.
 * In regards to the text I posted about, one claim could be verified, since Tree references Goulson's book  Bee Quest. However, I don't have access to that book so I can't provide the reference. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I also may point out that your quote “A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward... " is not from the page WP:USING I'm quoting, so I'd argue that it's not relevant to the discussion regarding auxiliary sources. Sorry again to be the high school teacher. Stix1776 (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was quoting from WP:PRIMARY PeterEastern (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be nice and avoid a dispute or NPOV tag, so I added a Primary tag. I don't enjoy critiquing the edits you worked hard on. Can you refer to the conflict of interest I've mentioned multiple times in this thread please. Stix1776 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

trimmed OT content
Although extracted from focused RS, the following trimmed content appears OT with respect to the actual page subject (Knepp Wildland):

86.172.7.148 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)