Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Like a press release 2 Translation of German version 3 Benderson2 and Mikeanegus 4 Continued POV and uncited statements 4.1 Third Opinion 5 Policies, guidelines and tags 6 Cleanup 6.1 References 7 Edit warring and 3RR 8 External links 9 Proposal to remove all the 'citation needed' statements from the article 10 Sahara Wind Inc 11 Merge proposal

[edit] Like a press release

It's like someone posted a press release onto the page. Chad okere 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of German version

The text is a translation of the German version which is listed as "Good article". The Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia is for. Details are good, but they need to concentrate on facts, not supposition or 'future plans'.

Secondly, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Wikipedia 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)

Note 1: The COI SPA issue has been posted also on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Benderson2 and TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: Now archived in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Benderson2 and TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 12:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.

There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.

About the POV:

• To save electricity from photovoltaics is much more inefficient than saving heat for CSP plants for day/night operation. Please show me another solar power technologie that's better for providing secure capacity before telling that it's just POV!
• "Nach allgemeiner Auffassung" is translated in the article as "it's certain that", where it is more accurate to say "According to general opinion". OK, thats really my fault. If you find such expressions that can be written more neutral, then please do so. But I will not accept that someone deletes the article (or half of it) just to get rid of a concept he dislikes. Benderson2 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd

The article has been nominated for deletion: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation. — Athaenara ✉ 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies, guidelines and tags

Athaenara : Your very dirty tags looks like an advertisement. Be constructive, please. Why are you so destructiv and agresiv ? It's very strange. You makes pepople loosing their time - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 August 2007 — 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The following message was posted on my user talk page:

"Why are you putting very bad advertissments on the nice and informativ TREC article ? ~~"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) diff

If you read the article history page, you will see that other neutral point of view editors have also placed those tags. If you read the policies and guidelines (such as What Wikipedia is not, among others) which are linked in the maintenance templates in the article, and in the user warning against removing them which was placed on your user talk page, you will have a better understanding of their purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong : it was signed - BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That´s incredible : it's one of the more informativ article of all the free-encyclopedia and you are polluting it with your horrible advertissment-tags ! ~~ BigBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.24.93 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara, would you please specify, what do you think seems to be advertisement? Otherwise the box should be removed. TREC doesn't sell anything.
And if you think there should be more specific references (more than mentioning two studies and several articles) you're welcome to read those studies to make those references. But it seems to me that you're not really interested in improving the article...
"BigBrother" you must Sign in first befor you get a Username, but you can also sign with four "~" Benderson2 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara pollution (3 dirty tags)

Thanks Benderson. Athaenara dont have any argument. He doesnt know what CSP is...And he is polluting this article with 3 dirty TAGS. It's sad to see a so destructiv person - BigBrother 189.169.29.199 01:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:Civility policy. — Athaenara ✉ 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the What Wikipedia is not policy, maintenance templates are added to articles in this encyclopedia which are not in compliance with its Neutral point of view policy.

I added the coi2 and primarysources templates in July (here & here). Raymond arritt added the advert template in August (here). See also:

• other articles with the coi2 template
• other articles with the advert template
• other articles with the primarysources template

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's a policy here. Please read at least enough of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to understand how they apply to this article rather than engaging in personal attacks on other editors (see Civility and No personal attacks policies). — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking to with those comments, but I just want to say that I don't even disagree with the revert of the articleissues template, yet the suggestion that the use of it is somehow not pertinent & accurate baffles me a bit. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara : ok for personal attacks : you are right on this point. Joke : you have to put your 3 tags on this page because it's look likes an advertissment : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations - " The stated aims of the United Nations are to prevent war, to safeguard human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social and economic progress, improve living standards and fight diseases".[ Big Brother 189.169.25.151 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I added the {{cleanup}} tag to the article, as desperately needs a good copyedit. It is excessively wordy, uses undefined acronyms, and so on. Raymond Arritt 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

A user of the IP address 90.186.62.36—see 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC) edit—returned material which had been removed as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, removed citation needed tags, and undid revisions which had been done as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. (WikiProject Wikify also addresses cooperative editing goals.)

In the same edit, the user added citing sources format for some references.^{([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23])}

Because some may be useable as per verifiability policy, I have listed them here with {{reflist}} display format for review by neutral point of view editors. — Athaenara ✉ 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

90.186.46.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) changed (diff) the content of my post in violation of talk page guidelines. I have restored it. — Athaenara ✉ 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just updated two references (as in the article) so we can discuss them. It was well meant. 90.186.46.196 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added* both the List of HVDC projects and Solar Energy Generating Systems to the see also section. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. Question: what are "Summary of the TREC article" and "See linked articles" in citations 2, 4 & 18 above intended to convey as references? — Athaenara ✉ 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added* citation for March 2007 speech by Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (Germany) official. — Athaenara ✉ 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added* citation (non-PDF version) of Sigmar Gabriel speech which mentioned German Aerospace Center studies. The speech did not mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added three citations (not on above list) and removed duplicate links. — Athaenara ✉ 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added* citations for three German Aerospace Center ("DLR") Institute of Technical Thermodynamics studies. Note: none mention TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added inline format for citation of brief discussion in 2006 of two DLR reports on franzalt.com, the last of the refsection cleanup. IMPORTANT: Most of the article still duplicates TREC website content; it is fundamentally a press release. — Athaenara ✉ 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Added citation for June 2006 Yemen Times article. Note: nearly every citation suggested below by TREC's webmaster and marketing advisor, Benderson2, is affiliated with TREC and/or with the DLR (German Aerospace Center). These are not the reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject which are required (see Primarysources). — Athaenara ✉ 00:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Added UNEP citation for Prince Hassan bin Al Talal. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Added inline citations for TREC website, "TREC Development Group," German Club of Rome, Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation, German Advisory Council on Global Change. — Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Added citations (two days ago) for TREC participation in National Energy Research Center (NERC, Jordan) conferences in 2004 and 2005. — Athaenara ✉ 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Added citation for transcript (hosted on Solarserver Forum for Solar Energy website) of interview with Dr. Gerhard Knies on BBC Radio 4 The World Tonight. — Athaenara ✉ 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nearly every"

"Nearly every" is not correct. Not even half of the references I suggested is affiliated with TREC. Most are from third party peer reviews, UNEP, an official speech already accepted as source and so on. And the rest is ok as long as there are enough "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves ). You should read the article policies first before you refer on them.Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment about Benderson2's suggestions (which he posted at 10:04, 12:39, 12:42, 12:44, 14:10, 16:40, 24 August 2007 UTC) referred to the list as it was displayed at 00:07, 25 August 2007 UTC when I posted that I had added the Yemen Times citation. That list then included:

• 9 affiliated sources — DLR (4x), TREC (3x), Club of Rome (2x).
• 3 unaffiliated sources — Sigmar Gabriel; UNEP; Yemen Times.

Benderson2 changed the list several hours later. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

References suggested by Benderson2

• "TREC was founded in 2003 by" see http://www.trecers.net/downloads/ammanpaper_14102003.pdf (TREC founding paper). Uwe Möller is the Secretary General of The Club of Rome. The website of the German Association for The Club of Rome has a direct link to the website of TREC. -> http://www.clubofrome.de to External links
• "TREC has been involved in[citation needed] the conduct of two German Aerospace Center studies". Little hint: compare the members page of TREC with the scientific institutes listet under "Co-operation:" at the websites of the studies.
• "and Tunisia have shown an interest" Tunisia has begone negotiations with Italy for a HVDC connection for clean power transmission. I don't know if you find an article, but I know it from the the Italian embassy in Germany.
• "day when fossil fuels run out" see article Peak Oil and its references or just think about it: fossil fuels grow again slower than they are burned --> one day they are depleted.
• Benefits for "people in the Middle East and North Africa" and "If the renewable sources of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa were combined..." see summary and study TRANS-CSP or the peer reviewed main chapters of the white book you may find at the homepage of TREC.
• "Those two studies, commissioned by" see on top of http://www.dlr.de/tt/med-csp and http://www.dlr.de/tt/trans-csp or in the speech of Sigmar Gabriel.
• "ABB Siemens Europe-Middle East-North Africa connection is technically feasible" is documented on video by the Hannover Messe. Alternatively look at the peer review by the employee of ABB. Also the HVDC map used in the TRANS-CSP study is a picture from ABB.
• http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=958&p=health&a=1 may be a good reference for the water problems in Sana'a (also mentioning TREC and the high costs of pumping the water from the coast to Sana'a (but without writing that building new settlements would be much more expensive))
• Involvement of HRH Prince el Hassan bin Talal, president of The Club of Rome is mentioned here http://www.unep.org/champions/Winners/winners2007/talal.asp -> http://www.clubofrome.org to External links
• New: At http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/23/knies.biog/ you find many things about the foundation of TREC
• New: http://www.menarec.org/resources/Gabriel_MENAREC4+e.pdf Speech of Sigmar Gabriel: approving the Italy Tunisia HVDC Connection, EU-MENA-Connection technically feasable,...
• New: http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/infoFiles/articlePDFs/070807ArabCSPPowerEU.pdf

Benderson2 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and 3RR

• 90.186.62.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 90.187.154.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 90.186.46.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Three (so far) IP addresses are engaging in edit warring (see Edit war) and risking blocks for violations of the three-revert rule. — Athaenara ✉ 17:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some users complain about missing references and delete them (and half of the article) as soon as I add them. Thats Wikipedia:Vandalism! 90.186.46.196 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the citations you formatted are affiliated with the subject of the article. The policies which apply to this situation have been posted here and described more than once. Please read them. — Athaenara ✉ 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at IPCC notes and references. You can't write a good article about a report or a study without refering to it. If you want to read peer reviews about the studies to check their reliability, you may download this zip file. I'm sure you didn't read one of the references before your did your reverts! 90.186.46.196 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia 10 hours a day, 7 days per week. Neither a woman nor a job, poor boy!? Just getting ego-boosts by quoting the rules!? Or getting payed for your edits? But who would pay a penny for editing biographies of lousy unknown musicians... 90.186.40.137 08:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool down or your'll get blocked. Benderson2 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

“Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section.”

I followed the guideline above, which is in the references and citation section in WP:EL, when I removed duplicate links to websites which are inline citations from the external links section.

If editors such as 90.186.190.128 (diff) and Gugax451 (diff diff diff) disagree, it would be less disruptive if they seek dispute resolution (e.g. WP:3O or RFC) rather than repeatedly add duplicate links which, according to the guideline, should be removed. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the history of the article: It changed from a disputed article with poor references (due to Benderson2) to a stub with references as longs as the article itself (due to Athaenara). There is a lot of work to do, perhaps I'll find some time in the coming weeks. Tomorrow, I'll have a closer look at the guidelines you mentioned. Good night Gugax451 23:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My post in this section is specifically about external links.

As to your remarks on other aspects:

• It is inaccurate to term the present version a stub.
• The references look longer than they are because some include quotes.

Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article about an organization. It is not a soapbox for, or an extension of, that organization. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Athaenara, please have a look at Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link: "What should be linked: Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So would you please restore the external links to TREC, TREC-UK and the organisations involved in founding the TREC initiative? Gugax451 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that they are linked (1, 4, 5, 14). — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But not as "External links" as the guidelines specify. I'll correct this clear violation of the guidelines. Gugax451 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

“Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.” (WP:LINKSPAM). Gugax, have you read the suggestions for COI compliance? — Athaenara ✉ 01:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC) and 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I guessed from the beginning of your campaign against the article about TREC you obviously have a personal problem (yes, Athaenara, you've got a COI) with the TREC initiative. If you aren't able to understand the rules about external links (or if you don't want to understand them), just ask an admin. And Gugax, you could at least search at Google or in the studies of DLR for references before deleting whole paragraphs. Benderson2 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I put it up for Afd as per policy, not from personal motivations. Insinuations and accusations to the contrary are uncivil. No other editor has done more than I to improve this article which is, one must remember, an encyclopedia entry about an organization, not a soapbox for it or a fulfillment of the terms of your employment as the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor. — Athaenara ✉ 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. When those associated with the subject of an article start lecturing editors who are trying to carry out Wikipedia policies it invites negative attention to their behavior. No organization has a right to have an article about themselves in Wikipedia, or to dictate the terms under which they will be covered. There is still a case open at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about this article. From tone of the recent webmaster comments, that case has good reason to continue and be investigated further. The rule that reference links should not be duplicated in the External Links area has broad support in Wikipedia. Persistent re-addition of unneeded external links is what spammers do. EdJohnston 15:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove all the 'citation needed' statements from the article

I'd like to get rid of all the remaining statements in the article that are not supported by references. This is to help close out the entry over at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The webmaster of the TREC site, User:Benderson2, has been active in contributing to this article. Wikipedia is usually suspicious of anything that sounds like advertising or promotion, and Benderson2's activities led to the COI posting. Since he hasn't been active lately, and User:Athaenara has reduced the promotional aspects of the article, I think we are close to a resolution.

The remaining problem is the unreferenced statements. I propose that those be removed. If references are found later, of course, they can be restored. Please comment. I also added a note about this over at WP:COIN. EdJohnston 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they should simply be taken out. After being there for a long time, they were tagged six or more weeks ago. If there were independent reliable sources for them, it is reasonable to presume that they would have been added by now. — Athaenara ✉ 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sahara Wind Inc

The following paragraph was added in five edits by 196.217.36.69:

From the Sahara Wind Energy Development Project (www.saharawind.com) by Khalid Benhamou Managing Director of Sahara Wind Inc. and co-founder of TREC. Compared to Germany's 1900 hours of wind power production per year, a rather conservative average production figure in the Atlantic coastal Saharan region from Morocco to Senegal would be in the range of 3400 Full Load Hours due to the exceptional quality of the Trade Winds. To transfer the power from the region of Tarfaya, the northern part of this area, to the center of Germany for example, the length of a HVDC line would be 3500km (incl. 28km sea cable). For this case, the total costs of wind generated electricity from the Sahara desert delivered all the way to Germany are calculated to be 4-5 Eurocent/kWh. Thereof 0.5 Eurocent/kWh are due to the losses of 10% if done with a HVDC line of about 5 GW capacity. The local potential for capacity building and industrial synergies is also very appealing using newer energy technologies www.saharawind.com/dedicatedpapers.php.*

This paragraph is interesting, but none of the Khalid Benhamou papers listed here (the link* was removed in the 5th edit) confirm what is said in the paragraph.

This from the top of the No original research policy page should help clarify the objective situation:

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses

The mission here is to write a good encyclopedia article about TREC, not merely echo its own efforts on its website or the websites of its associates. — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose to merge Desertec into this article as these articles are about the same thing. Beagel (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who creared the Desertec article. Are you sure they are the same thing? I thought one was an organizatipon, while the other was a specific power plant proposal from that organization. If they are different, then please do not merge them. Both articles are pretty large in their own right anyway. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe Grundle2600 is correct on this. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Desertec article contains an entire paragraph about non-Desertec stuff, which duplicates information contained in the present article. (Note the three bullet points in Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#German_Aerospace Center .28DLR.29_studies, which are duplicated exactly). It might be more logical to have a paragraph about Desertec in the present article, and make Desertec be a redirect to it. So I favor doing the merge. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. In re duplication, all but one (the Robin McKie article) of the six references were copied directly from the TREC article. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)