Talk:Eden Project

message: Tean Kernow  If you want to put something questioning the validity of the biospheres on this page thats fine, but it should be a balanced paragraph that gives both side of the argument.  I would suggest something along the lines of "although the Eden project has arguably been good for Cornish tourism, some have questioned the validity of the project's ecological basis" and then back it up with a good reference from a news report or something, not links to discussion boards with one sided comments on them.  This is the only real way to get your point across, as otherwise people will continually remove your links as biased, and readers will not realise that there might be more to be said on the topic (i.e the Eden Project may have a downside)- Mammal4 21Apr06 
Your note is welcome. However, as such other views do indeed exist at verifiable sources,how is it that Wikipedia has not included them? The Wikipedia page reads like promotional literature produced by the entity itself. If Wikipedia were truly a bastion of objectivity you would balance up your own work and also desist from censoring well substantiated contributions.
To truthful unspun futures.
Team Kernow  
:Wikipedia is a work in progress and as such many articles are not completed, and may not have all the information in them.  It is our job as editors both to improve these articles and add content, but also to police them and ensure that they stay neutral and balanced.  As the Eden project article was mostly written when I got to it, I have been doing the latter.  This is not, as you claim, censoring to information – I have no interest in putting across a biased point of view, and I would gain nothing from it.   I have given you the benefit of the doubt here over the last few months  that you might have a genuine point to make about the ecological impact of the Eden project, however a few things lead me to believe that you are not interested in making an unbiased contribution to Wikipedia 1. Despite claiming that there are verifiable sources to back up your point you fail provide us with these. The links that you have given are, as Steinsky and I have pointed out, not really suitable – I have explained before the sort of thing that we are looking for (an article in the Cornishman would be enough). If you could find some valid references then believe me I would fight your corner on this for them to be included.  I have looked myself for the information to back up these claims and have pulled a blank.  If you need help in understanding what  suitable references are then take a look here and here 2. You only contribute (sporadically) to this one article, and repeatedly go over the same information without improving what you’ve written, which suggests to me that you have an axe to grind.  I would like to hope I am wrong on this.  It is not up to me  to prove your points, if you want to prove that you are a legitimate author and not a trollthen try added some more balanced material – I am happy to offer any reasonable help you might need with the workings of wikipedia but I won’t put up with axe grinding Mammal4 10:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've yet to name any such reliable sources.  We'll believe you when you come up with the goods. Joe D (t) 20:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced please - both sides of the argument

message: This page doesn't read like an encyclopaedia, more like promototional literature: in particular, the 'Environmental issues' para jars, with the conversational 'our planet' references and preachy tone, plus use of adjectives like 'dazzling' to describe the plants.  I'm going to have a go at improving this section, but coming to the debate afresh, have to agree with Team Kernow's comment above. Cobwall 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Besides, I always saw Eden Project as a giantic PR-machine that even reaches into the German TV. Nothing but praising. A personal visit showed that it didn't keep all its promises. Leave alone the traffic and counter jam.--Peter Eisenburger 18:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs rewriting: style too PR-ish

message: Close-up photos of tropical flowers don't really add anything to this article. They could be anywhere. Ninquerinquar 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos at the bottom

message: The picture gallery really should be moved to wikimedia commons. Does anyone have any objections? --Benjaminevans82 20:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done - Tldtld (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Gallery

message: === On the negative side ===
This is the first I've heard of this project. Hoping all who work on it appreciate a fresh perspective, here are my observations.
* A Main Problem- the Introduction in particular is confusing about what this entire project is meant to acheive. It lists the biospheres as mostly a "tourist attraction", but no reason about why it is one.  
 
* WHY is it there?  To nurture and provide food in a northern climate? There are botanical gardens world-wide, including one in Washington, D.C. with greenhouses and tours for children.  There's nothing new about geodesic domes. Do people live there? Is it really primarily a research project, then? And, what is the reason for having musicians play there? 
* In the section called, "Criticism": in that section there's one sentence criticising the project with four references. However, right after, the author employs POV by dismissing them without reference.
You're right, this entry could be a lot better, and one day when I have the time I hope to make it so, and answer your questions (I work there, in case you're wondering). As for the Criticism section, you will notice that none of the FOUR references actually contains any criticism, they are simply neutral news items. This is because the previous sentence was almost certainly written by TeamKernow or someone connected with them (see the exchange at the top of the page). They are notorious in these parts for their obsessive antagonism to Eden, and have consistently failed to come up with any references to back up their claims that were written by anybody other than themselves. I added the next sentence myself, and have now added a reference.Rocheman (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I know it's difficult to put forward an article when you have personal experience with the topic, (especially if it is positive). I hope you took no offense; I just wanted to give you an idea of how the article appears to someone who has absolutely no idea what the article is about, thus, the importance of a good, tight intro- draw people in, and get them interested in it, whether good or bad. To be honest, the thing that kept me reading was the photos. Had they not been awesome, I wouldn't have gotten past the start of the article. When you get the time, I suggest:
1- What the project hopes to acheive; why it was built
2- If it IS acheiving those goals, falling short, maybe a little utopian, or maybe not hopeful enough?
3- I surfed in, having some slight edit in an article with a musician who played there.  Why would they be performing there?  Should be mentioned. I think it was KT Tunstall, I'm not sure. 
4- Do people live there?  Why work there?  Any perks?
5- Who are these detractors you mentioned and why would someone want to negatively assault what is supposed to be a group project (the Wikipedia? Right?) IOW, why would they not agree with your assessment that it is a positive rather than a negative thing?  
Just my 2cents- hopefully, it'll help your copyediting of this. --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First impressions 

message: This is the first I've heard of this project. Hoping all who work on it appreciate a fresh perspective, here are my observations.
* A Main Problem- the Introduction in particular is confusing about what this entire project is meant to acheive. It lists the biospheres as mostly a "tourist attraction", but no reason about why it is one.  
 
* WHY is it there?  To nurture and provide food in a northern climate? There are botanical gardens world-wide, including one in Washington, D.C. with greenhouses and tours for children.  There's nothing new about geodesic domes. Do people live there? Is it really primarily a research project, then? And, what is the reason for having musicians play there? 
* In the section called, "Criticism": in that section there's one sentence criticising the project with four references. However, right after, the author employs POV by dismissing them without reference.
You're right, this entry could be a lot better, and one day when I have the time I hope to make it so, and answer your questions (I work there, in case you're wondering). As for the Criticism section, you will notice that none of the FOUR references actually contains any criticism, they are simply neutral news items. This is because the previous sentence was almost certainly written by TeamKernow or someone connected with them (see the exchange at the top of the page). They are notorious in these parts for their obsessive antagonism to Eden, and have consistently failed to come up with any references to back up their claims that were written by anybody other than themselves. I added the next sentence myself, and have now added a reference.Rocheman (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I know it's difficult to put forward an article when you have personal experience with the topic, (especially if it is positive). I hope you took no offense; I just wanted to give you an idea of how the article appears to someone who has absolutely no idea what the article is about, thus, the importance of a good, tight intro- draw people in, and get them interested in it, whether good or bad. To be honest, the thing that kept me reading was the photos. Had they not been awesome, I wouldn't have gotten past the start of the article. When you get the time, I suggest:
1- What the project hopes to acheive; why it was built
2- If it IS acheiving those goals, falling short, maybe a little utopian, or maybe not hopeful enough?
3- I surfed in, having some slight edit in an article with a musician who played there.  Why would they be performing there?  Should be mentioned. I think it was KT Tunstall, I'm not sure. 
4- Do people live there?  Why work there?  Any perks?
5- Who are these detractors you mentioned and why would someone want to negatively assault what is supposed to be a group project (the Wikipedia? Right?) IOW, why would they not agree with your assessment that it is a positive rather than a negative thing?  
Just my 2cents- hopefully, it'll help your copyediting of this. --leahtwosaints (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the negative side 

message: The photography that has been employed here is fantastic! It gives a great general idea of the article might be about.--leahtwosaints (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive impressions 

message: The article neds to be consistent through out and as Acres are no longer used in the uk as a measurement of land size then it should be metric thoughout the whole article. Articles should stick to consitency throughout such as rail in the uk being primarily marked in miles as that is the only measuremnt that can be legally used. In this case a metric measuremnt is only legally usable for measuring land area. The switching from metric back to imperial when talking about other areas of measuremnt is confusing and incosistent. The artcile should refer to metric as the primary measurement and have imperial as the secondary measurement.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mention acres but you converted everything else. What is wrong with feet and miles? The convert template means that acres can easily be represented as hectares. This article has imperial units established as the primary unit of measure. This is nothing to do with legality and everything to do with convention for the majority of UK articles. I don't see the need to change every single unit of measure. Let's see what others have to say. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feet are used in a paragraph where in the same paragraph hecareas are used first. This is inconsistent as Metirc and imperial are being mixed in the same section and can easily cause confusion. Hectares and meters are easier to understand by people born after 1985 and by the majoirty of vewers to the page as it is internationally renowned. Acres should not be used as it is not used in offical documentation of area size in the UK. The same primary units should be used through out the articles when the first mention of area is metric. When in the smae paragraph it jumps to imperial this is ionconsistent, confusing and poor style. Metirc should be used primariuly with imperial as the secondary as it starts in metric and the final measuremnt is also in metric. The article is confusing and needs stadardising to metric, for consitency and ease of access, to the wider the reading public on the english language wiki (India, Canada, Australia etc.). This is due to the world renownded status of the Eden Project.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, no more discussion has occured, I shall implement the metric system as primary. I have attempted discussion and given reasons with no-counter arguments or continued disagrement being given.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric 

message: There needs to be some fact checking or qualification behind the claim or world's largest greenhouse. For example, this http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=16400+Huntersville+Concord+Road+Huntersville,+NC+28078&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.856075,114.169922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=16400+Huntersville-Concord+Rd,+Huntersville,+Mecklenburg,+North+Carolina+28078&ll=35.418328,-80.776012&spn=0.014479,0.027874&t=h&z=16 is a much larger greenhouse by a factor of about 10 and they don't claim world's largest title. The only source that I see for claiming world's largest is the Eden Project itself and they have an incentive to inflate their standing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.164.53 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Almería has the largest greenhouse complex in the world at 50,000 acres. Here it can be seen from space: http://www.interempresas.net/Agriculture/Articles/33424-The-plastic-a-partner-of-weight-for-agriculture.html 98.203.242.147 (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: World's Largest

message: In reference to a picture near the end of the article: someone should check, but I have a strong feeling the sculpture of a horse made from "driftwood" is in fact made of bronze.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.84.167 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse Sculpture

message: I don't know much about architecture but "inspired by the moon" doesn't cut itNinja Auditor (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Architectural Style

message: I removed this section as all the links on it were either dead or did not support it or give valid evidence. It could be replaced if valid evidence were given. Links below. Serpren (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eden Project. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120712023922/http://www.edenproject.com:80/whats-it-all-about/behind-the-scenes/about-us/our-story to http://www.edenproject.com/whats-it-all-about/behind-the-scenes/about-us/our-story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226181304/http://www.edenproject.com:80/about/3200.html to http://www.edenproject.com/about/3200.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Eden Project. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617025855/http://www.thegreencenter.net/pdf/dome1985.pdf to http://www.thegreencenter.net/pdf/dome1985.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edenproject.com/whats-it-all-about/behind-the-scenes/about-us/our-story
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edenproject.com/about/3200.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080606144820/http://sessions.edenproject.com/ to http://sessions.edenproject.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified