Talk:Cypripedium calceolus

message: The question of whether this article should make mention of the presence of Lady's Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) has raised its head. As a result of two emails to the OTRS system, one from an police officer representing the West Yorkshire police wildlife crime unit, and one from a member of the public who works for Kew Gardens, the mention of this species has been removed from this article (and the Cypripedium calceolus article). I do not feel that this is correct, and so am initiating a discussion here to attempt to establish an agreed way forward.  
===Background===
First, some background about me and my editing interests, I guess. I've been an editor since 2005, am fairly experienced as an editor, but by choice, not an admin. One of my primary interests is to expand Wikipedia's content regarding important sites in Britain for biodiversity, and the species and habitat present at them. I've written a large number of articles on such sites, created & expanded a number of lists of these sites, and bit by bit am creating species articles where these are missing. 
===Just to remind ourselves why we're here...===
I think it will help focus this discussion if I just state why I think we're here, doing what we're doing. We're here to bring the "sum total of human knowledge" together in an online encyclopedia. We are all influenced in out behaviour by lots of other concerns, but when making editing decisions we need to keep our core purpose clear in our mind. "Sum total" doesn't mean everything there is to know, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, as stated in WP:NOT. We apply criteria such as notability & verifiability to decide what to include and exclude. I'm going to use films as an analogy in this discussion - we wouldn't want to include articles about every film ever made. We want to include articles about those which are notable, and we use some sensible tests to decide which are notable (critical acclaim, awards, amount grossed, influence, career launching films etc). For an ideal film article, we would describe the film (including its plot), and we would include all the information which has resulted in that film being regarded as notable.
===Biodiversity sites===
 
For sites of biodiversity importance, we again have to apply some notability tests to decide what goes in. [The location]  easily passes, given the large numbers of conservation designations bestowed on it. Given that we agree it belongs here, what do we then include ... well, we include the reasons for its notability, and foremost among these (in a British context) is the presence of Lady's Slipper. We wouldn't forget to mention Ben Hur's eight oscars in the Ben Hur article. 
So far, so straightforward. What then happens if there are objections to some of this content? Anyone can come along & remove sections they don't like, and this has happened on at least one occasion to this article in the past. However, if they choose to do that, they have to recognise that the wiki process can undo their change, and go further than that if they are not willing to discuss the issue (on the previous occasion, we had to repeatedly block an IP which was deleting info). In this case, objectors have used a different route, OTRS, and that's led to this discussion. As I understand it, the process for dealing with a contested edit as a result of an OTRS is just the same as for any other contested edit.
My reasons for arguing for reinsertion of the information are outlined above. I also feel that sourcing of the info is important, so I propose that if/when it is reinserted we ensure that sources are given. Probably best if I now let others give their views and we'll take it from there. 
SP-KP 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ..that's because I got sidetracked partway through the sentence. Sorry, it doesn't parse; my fault. Let me try again. It is not necessary that the article on [location] mention every single endangered species that is found there. Yes, it is relevant that endangered species are found there. But is it necessary to mention each and every one? I hold that it is not. DS 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I've been busy. I am not an expert on this site. I do agree that this is among the notable botanical facts; however, it is not the only one, and therefore it does not need to be mentioned. DS 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "There is a footpath which passes nearby, but this does not give the right to stop and observe, merely to pass." On that basis the Upper Wharfedale Field Society, members of Yorkshire naturalist's Union or other association and any or the botanist, naturalist or casual interested observer/walker would never get out to observe the beauty of the nature that is. Without these people, which you scientists depend on, would not have a job. Native flora and wildlife are not just for the preserve of science, but also for the public. 82.37.251.76 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of information about Lady's Slipper orchid at this site

message: For sites of biodiversity importance, we again have to apply some notability tests to decide what goes in. [The location]  easily passes, given the large numbers of conservation designations bestowed on it. Given that we agree it belongs here, what do we then include ... well, we include the reasons for its notability, and foremost among these (in a British context) is the presence of Lady's Slipper. We wouldn't forget to mention Ben Hur's eight oscars in the Ben Hur article. 
So far, so straightforward. What then happens if there are objections to some of this content? Anyone can come along & remove sections they don't like, and this has happened on at least one occasion to this article in the past. However, if they choose to do that, they have to recognise that the wiki process can undo their change, and go further than that if they are not willing to discuss the issue (on the previous occasion, we had to repeatedly block an IP which was deleting info). In this case, objectors have used a different route, OTRS, and that's led to this discussion. As I understand it, the process for dealing with a contested edit as a result of an OTRS is just the same as for any other contested edit.
My reasons for arguing for reinsertion of the information are outlined above. I also feel that sourcing of the info is important, so I propose that if/when it is reinserted we ensure that sources are given. Probably best if I now let others give their views and we'll take it from there. 
SP-KP 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ..that's because I got sidetracked partway through the sentence. Sorry, it doesn't parse; my fault. Let me try again. It is not necessary that the article on [location] mention every single endangered species that is found there. Yes, it is relevant that endangered species are found there. But is it necessary to mention each and every one? I hold that it is not. DS 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I've been busy. I am not an expert on this site. I do agree that this is among the notable botanical facts; however, it is not the only one, and therefore it does not need to be mentioned. DS 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "There is a footpath which passes nearby, but this does not give the right to stop and observe, merely to pass." On that basis the Upper Wharfedale Field Society, members of Yorkshire naturalist's Union or other association and any or the botanist, naturalist or casual interested observer/walker would never get out to observe the beauty of the nature that is. Without these people, which you scientists depend on, would not have a job. Native flora and wildlife are not just for the preserve of science, but also for the public. 82.37.251.76 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Biodiversity sites

message: As the question above remains unresolved, it would be useful to know whether anyone intends to make any further contribution to the discussion. Thanks. SP-KP 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any further comments anyone? 

message: This discussion over identifying the location of Lady’s slipper has gotten in the way of recognising the importance of [the location] as a habitat for a range of woodland flora that is characteristic of upland ancient woodland on limestone. The description for the wood is thus desultory, with little information other than has been gleaned from the citation for the SSSI.
I guessed years ago where the last Lady’s slipper might generally be as there aren’t many choices left for limestone woodland in Yorkshire. I’ve been walking [the location] for some years, and while I did hare off a path or two in a forlorn search, I soon gave up trying to pinpoint it as the realisation sunk in that I would come across it caged and “guarded by a special botanical branch of the SAS who have a license to kill and nuke your home town should you even ask where the site is” (text on Lady’s slipper from Lady's slipper on Wildflowers of the British Isles and its worth reading the views there about this secrecy thing). This pretty much put me off.
It’s become an industry, perpetuating this schoolboy “hush-hush” secrecy, and for some like Peter Marren in his book Britain’s Rare Flowers “The fun lay in the detective work, the anticipation and the sense of discovery. Actually seeing it in the flesh was a bit of an anticlimax”.
Well, I did the detective thing last year, looking for a rare woodland lily that has only three native locations left in Britain, and while I found a couple of clumps, I was totally underwhelmed by the woodland location itself, which has been mucked about while the lily has struggled to hang on. This is the despair of a woodland wildflower enthusiast in Britain. I can see this lily in profusion in fabulous woodland in Continental Europe, and it’s the same with its North American cousin. In fact, my first contact with Lady’s slipper was its American cousin when I stumbled over a large woodland edge clump while walking in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Its not even a species of concern there.
It is important in Britain to understand the natural habitat conditions for woodland wildflowers because we have so little woodland coverage, especially of ancient woodland with native tree species, and we impose so many expectations on that remnant woodland for things such as butterflies etc that we lose sight of the precariousness of our immobile woodland flora. Thus while I have no interest in seeing “THE” Lady’s slipper, it is important to recognise that the habitat conditions of parts of [the location] could be ideal for the orchid, a valuable lesson in itself.
Moreover, if the recovery program continues to be successful, then I will look forward to the day that Lady’s slipper is reintroduced in the all right spots in [the location] so that we can all enjoy it freely. We should also consider promoting the re-wooding of more of our upland limestone landscape with native tree species so that the potential range for reintroduction of Lady’s slipper is eventually increased, and which will also provide a greater safeguard for its future.
--Self willed (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It’s the ecology…….! 

message: I've read the above discussions with interest.  As I see it, there is nothing in current Wikipedia policies or guidelines to justify removal of the info about the Lady's-slipper, but removal is necessary to safeguard the plant. I've suggested a new guideline,Wikipedia:sensitive wildlife locations, and I'm requesting comments for it.Jimi 66 (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new guideline for sensitive wildlife policy on Wikipedia 

message: The information about this one lone plant could have been divulged anywhere on the Web.  In truth it was divulged with the original book publication.  Years ago, Americans used to make fun of the British mock secrecy, where people could walk past a building every day but not be allowed to say it exists.  So what is this belief doing here?
There are many sites on the Web that do not subscribe to this security-through-obscurity approach.  Maybe mentioning the Wayback Machine will get this comment formally censored.  Probably posting a demonstration link like  will.  I see that there is no discussion of the "selective deletions" performed at Grass Wood, Wharfedale at that article's talk page, presumably because any discussion there of the fact that content had been deleted would interfere with the point of the deletion.
This is why I opposed the shift from the GFDL to Creative Commons licensing - I feared this kind of Kafkaesque censorship was the core motive behind the switch, because the old GFDL prohibited this kind of shenanigan.
If Wikipedia can't even bring itself to allow historical versions giving information about the rough location of one flower, how on Earth am I supposed to believe it's free and open about the war in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, or any other topic with significance to anyone beyond a handful of fanciers who really think one last lone flower really makes a difference in terms of local extinction of an orchid on an island?  This is a precedent that shows just how far this site has fallen.  Wnt (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is NOT about fake secrecy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cypripedium calceolus. 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/20101223120919/http://yorkshiredales.org.uk/lady_s_slipper_cypripedium_calceolus_sap-3.pdf to http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/lady_s_slipper_cypripedium_calceolus_sap-3.pdf
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) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified