Talk:Nocton Dairies controversy

Initial

Another planning application is likely to be submitted soon. The facebook group continues to grow in size. Media interest may be low at the moment but I would not be surprised if it spiked again as the story unfolds. This issue may have an impact on the historical record because it could mean a substantial shift in the way cows are farmed in the UK. Good point about Wikipedia not being an outlet for campaign groups. But at the same time when something historical is happening, take a great example like the American Civil Right Movement, isn't a tool like Wikipedia great for informing people about meaningful developments as they happen? OliverCopsey (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Am trying to edit this page - but can't find the preview button - basically the Telegraph report that the plans have already been submitted is incorrect. I would like to enter the following: Despite an inaccurate report in The Telegraph that Nocton Dairies had resubmitted their plans as yet no further application has been made and Peter Wills has stated the company's intention to resubmit in September 2010. Deborah

References

Proposal to move

Considering the new planning application (November 2010), I propose that this page is moved to Nocton Dairies controversy as the controversy is likely to continue well into 2011. Please see the linked background above to the AfD discussion as to why it was moved away from Nocton Dairies. Any alternative suggestions or objections? Fæ (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could just put it back to Nocton Dairies where it was.... :) Chris (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated several times in the AfD, "Nocton Dairies" are not a notable organization (in particular it is a plan for a Dairy, does not physically exist and may never exist), such an article would fail to meet the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. The content of this article is the controversy itself which is notable and more than just a single event or current news item, hence the proposed article title still includes the word "controversy". Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

POV name

Nocton Dairies is the name of the company, but do we need the word "controversy" in the article title? Seems highly POV. Whilst I accept there is a debate to be had over the construction of the mega dairy - not in favour myself - and that the article should reflect the different points of view, surely the tile just needs to be the name of the company? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trident13. Many proposed developments around the world face opposition, but that doesn't mean that the name of the article should have "controversy" in it. The article name should be "Nocton Dairies", the lead paragraph should be a nuetrally phrased description, and the controversy/opposition should be documented in a section devoted to that topic. Guy Macon 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is not actually about the company and information about the company setup and administration is not relevant. The title should reflect the point that it is about the planning controversy. By all means propose a rename but please take care to review the existing (successful) rename discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocton Dairies before rushing to do this. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the added info. I read the discussion and did some notability reseatch of my own, and came to the conclusion that a page about the organization would be rightfully deleted for being non-notable, but the controversy about this development is notable. I retract my previous opinion bsed upon this new information. Again thanks for the info. Guy Macon 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Significant re-write and removing sourced material

I have reverted these changes as they appear to remove several valid sources. I would support any improvement ensuring all viewpoints are represented in the article, however removing current material in this way needs discussion and the normal approach for expanding alternative views is to add material to the text rather than replacing current text already supported by valid sources. Fæ (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fæ Apologies if this has been done incorrectly - the rationale was to try and present an update of the situation and remove some bias where negative press articles have been used as sources rather than eg the planning application itself. Some sources seemed extremely tenuous as well. Here is the rationale.

1. The planning reference has not been removed but shortened as it is long winded with the whole application description in the title which surely does not add anything in that form? it is very hard to read. Is the point of the reference not that it provides a short explanation and a link? Please correct me if wrong.
2. The second planning reference has been added in using the same format

   Y 1&2: Yes, I would agree that these changes improve the references rather than deleting material. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

3. The BBC report entitled 'super dairy cow numbers to be cut' seems a strange source to use when in fact the planning application itself would be a better source. I could not understand why that source had been used when I considered the best source was the planning application itself? Again happy to stand corrected.

   N The principle to apply is that articles should attempt to include all points of view (see NPOV). The reports on the BBC website (this is the one in question) are highly influential in creating and representing public opinion. I agree that the most accurate source should have the most weight but I would disagree in removing the BBC as a source. If such a site is inaccurate, then it is fair to point this out in the article and footnote an accurate source in balance. Fæ (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

4. The Guardian article by Juliet Jowett appeared to be a strange source for saying this would be the largest dairy farm in western europe. It seems very subjective used in this manner. If this is to be said, can a better source not be provided? If not, I do not see where the fact has originally beenh derived from. if it is to be used I feel the text should say that the media has reported it would be the largest.

   N [1] I agree that qualifying the text would be acceptable where the comparative facts that a journalist is using have no obvious verifiable source. Again, if a more credible source is found, this does not automatically mean that a citation such as the Guardian needs to be removed as it has distinct value to the article in representing the public understanding of events. This may not be a clear if the report was pure editorial... Fæ (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

5. I beleive Nocton Dairies was originally formed to submit a 8000 cow application but it is not now and there fore the tense of the statement has been changed as the company was origanlly formed for this prupose rather than currently for that purpose

   Y That's right, sounds like a sensible change. It should be noted that the balance of an article should not be overly weighted to current events so the background of why the company was originally formed is also just as material as what is newsworthy this year (see RECENT). Fæ (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

6. the original application was withdrawn by the applicants while the application was still being considered becuase envornmental concerns from the consultees could not be met - this was their statement. Therefore the text has been adjusted to make this clear as it adds materially to the information in the article.

   Y Thanks for the explanation. Fæ (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Regarding the sources cited for the withdrawal of the aplication, the old sources (The Observer, The Times and The Independent) appear to focus on protests, objections and organic milk, and not on the withdrawal of the application, therefore some additional text was added in regarding the protests to attach the Observer and Times references to, and a new source was provided for the application withdrawal, from the BBC. I could not see any existing text that the Independent article on organic milk could be a source for so removed it. Apologies if this was wrong, but I cannot see why this article is being quoted as a source? Very tenuous.

   N If you mean this article, then I disagree as it has two paragraphs specifically about Nocton and adds reasonable context. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

8. A new application has been made and so this information has been added in and the text changed accordingly. It no longer seemed to add any value to retain the comment that the applicants said they would resubmit if they could address the problems as they have, so I removed that comment and source, but I accept that is my personal view and again apologies if this was wrong - it seemed obsolete now.

   Y Obviously the time-line of events needs to be explained but revising statements about planned events to reporting facts after they happened is perfectly normal. Fæ (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

9. A summary of the new plans and a source has been added, according to what the applicants said.

   Y Adding new sourced factual content is not an issue. Fæ (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

10. Under 'reaction', I have shortened a couple of references simply in the interests of tidying them up as they repeat the text in the article.

    Y No problem so long as the context is not lost. Fæ (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

11. As this article is about a controversy with two opposing sides, considerably more sourced facts have been added to this section as lots has happened since this article was last updated with time-sensitive information that is now no longer correct. This includes information about the numbers of people opposing the dairy in the various campaigns, industry information that was publicised on dairy cow systems, how the applicants justified their plans and the arguments lodged against them. This has resulted in quite a rewrite to make it work together but much of the text is the same within this.

    Y Cool, that is a good goal but be aware that for articles with a history of contention or lobbying, major re-writes may involve the sort of detailed discussion and justification as seen here. For such topics it is often worth explaining your rewrite plans and pointing to suggested new sources a day or two before starting the re-write. Fæ (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion I feel my updates have been carried out in good faith to add more objectivity and facts to the controversey as the debate has expanded. I beleive the resulting content has been improved throughout, the sources have been attached to more appropriate parts of the text, and a couple have been removed that I can find no basis for including. I hope you willreview the amendements having read this and see what I was trying to do. please let me know what you think. pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteboat (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done A lot to go through, I'll check it over in the next day or so as I'm tied up with a GA review elsewhere. Fæ (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, comments above. I'm happy to back off and assume continued good faith if you can take on board the comments about deleting what seem to me to be valid sources. This does not avoid potential future discussion and challenges should anyone else have issues with the neutrality or balance of the changes you are making. Fæ (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)