Talk:Cypripedium calceolus

Deleting material

An anon editor is deleting material from this page, without edit comments to explain why. I'm leaving this note on the article's talk page to encourage him/her to provide some reasoning. SP-KP 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the IP wants to keep the precise location secret. It has occured many times in the past that plant-collectors dig up wild orchids to plant them in their own garden or sell them. --BerndH 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think is the motive. However, this location is well-known and published elsewhere, and we don't censor Wikipedia. SP-KP 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I really have strong reservations about the information regarding the location of the last surviving native Lady's Slipper Orchid left in the British Isles. The edit summary given for the reinstatement of the location implies that due to the successful conservation programme, the locality of the plant is not required to be kept secret. In my opinion this a severe misjudgement.

The over collection of this plant was the principle factor in its decline during the 19th century. Unfortunately, although illegal, plant theft is still commonplace in the British Isles. In 2001 the Bog Orchid (one of the most endangered orchids in Europe) became extinct in south east England following the theft of the last remaining plant in Norfolk. Given that this orchid remains locally abundant and much easier to find in north western parts of the UK, the motive for this theft may have been in part due to it being the last plant in that county. I would argue that the status of the Lady Slipper Orchid at Wharfedale as the last native plant in the UK is likely to make it a specific target for theft even though cultivated plants have been introduced at previous sites.

The removal of part of the (not native) Lady's Slipper Orchid at Silverdale in Lancashire in 2005 was well publicised. Recently, Lady Orchids (nationally scarce) were dug up from the Yockletts Bank reserve in East Kent. In January of this year, virtually an entire colony of the rare and declining Meadow Clary at the Plantlife reserve at Ranscombe was dug up. Therefore, given that plant theft is still a regular activity, and the Wharfedale Lady's Slipper Orchid's status as the last native plant in the UK I would dispute the reason given in the edit summary for the reinstatement of the information. I would also argue that the above statement that the locality of the the Wharfedale Lady's Slipper is well known is misleading (certainly prior to when it was revealed on Wikipedia) although this issue has been discussed on another talk page. --GkgAlf (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'm also not sure how location information really is relevant to an encyclopedia, since most of the reasons for having it strike me as falling under WP:NOT#TRAVEL and other such policies. Kingdon (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I'm here merely to edit an encyclopedia, I'm not going to engage with GkgAlf's comments above as they don't seem to have anything to do with Wikipedia's purpose or policies, but appear more to do with his/her opinions on conservation matters (apologies if I'm misreading). Kingdon's point is interesting, and I hadn't thought about this before. Maybe the inclusion of the information in this article isn't appropriate in that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the presence of the plant in Wharfedale. I'd be inclined to support the removal of the information from this article on those grounds therefore, while reinstating it in the article about the location, assuming that there aren't any other relevant policies which suggest we shouldn't list it there either. SP-KP (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. The point I was attempting to make is that the status of the Lady's Slipper Orchid at Wharfedale is still far from secure and I felt that the edit summary did not justify the re-instatement of the information regarding the plant's locality. Of course you may have had other reasons for re-instating the information.

I am both a contributor to articles on sites of biological interest on Wikipedia and sympathetic to the purpose of conservation. Perhaps it is impossible to be both with regards to this issue. However, I accept that Wikipedia is not censored, and given that you have a source for the locality of the Lady's Slipper Orchid then I can see no reason that is outlined in any of the Wikipedia guidelines that should prevent you from adding the information to the relevant article.--GkgAlf (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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 plant's British location, 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) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All reliable sources on this matter avoid giving the location. Reliable sources on the location explain in depth the scientific importance of the site without mentioning the plant at all, or even hinting that it is there. I couldn't find mention of the only source that apparently mentions the site. I have left in mention of this source, though would welcome more details - publisher, publication date, page number for the mention, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 11:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to oblige - it was privately published in c.2001, and the mention of this species (and others) is on page 36, in section 15E, the entry for the location in Wharfedale. As to whether it qualifies as a WP:RS, all I can say is that I've been to many of the other sites listed in the book and successfully found many of the plants listed, so it's reliable in that sense (and of course, we know from the discussions here that it's reliable for Cypripedium). Colin Twist (with Paul Hill) has also published a site guide for butterflies and dragonflies, which went to a second edition. SP-KP (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. From my own investigations, and what you have said above, the book is not a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_source#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. I have looked through the history of this incident and note that you are very keen to get this information out into the public domain. While I understand your desire to share information, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for it. We only summarise information that has been previously published by reliable sources, and we take care with sensitive information that the source is particularly robust. With very sensitive information, such as this one, we would expect to have more than one very high quality source before publishing it.

When there has been a removal by the OTRS team, then the process given here - Wikipedia:OTRS#Dispute_resolution is useful to follow. Getting consensus to overturn an edit by the OTRS team makes sense, and when there is no consensus it is inappropriate to go ahead and overturn the edit. I note that you started a discussion and consensus was clearly against you, yet you went ahead and made the edit anyway. It is important to follow consensus on Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation of your recent edits. Unless I've misread what you've written above, you appear to have formed the view that I am on some sort of single-minded mission to "out" the location of this species. That's not an accurate representation of my position. If you take a look at a more representative selection of my contributions to Wikipedia over the 4+ years during which I've been an editor here, you'll see that I have added similar information to very many articles. So if I'm on a single-minded mission to do anything, it's to add interesting information about all of Britain's rare biota to Wikipedia, not just this species. If I understand you correctly, very many of my edits on this subject are inappropriate. That's a very strong claim to make; if that's what you're saying I think you need to provide some pretty robust resaoning.

I disagree with your reading of Wikipedia:Reliable_source#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29: its stated justification is "Anyone can ... pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published ... books largely not acceptable", but it then goes on to say that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Based on your knowledge of Colin Twist, can you tell me why you feel he doesn't fall into that category?

I also think your comment that "With very sensitive information, such as this one, we would expect to have more than one very high quality source before publishing it" is a misreading of the position; if there was uncertainty around the accuracy of the information then, yes, we'd expect to have more than one source; but the accuracy of this information isn't contentious. There isn't, as far as I'm aware, equivalent guidance on the sensitivity of biological information, is there? Isn't that why the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations was initiated? Apologies if I've overlooked it.

I don't recognise your account of events following the OTRS removal; I need to look back at the edit histories of the various articles to confirm this but I do not believe I have made any edits against consensus. And anyway, from the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations it looks as though the real community consensus is actually going in the opposite direction from the outcome of the localised discussion on this page (as is often the case when positions are discussed with a wider community of editors than just those interested in a single article). However, as consensus hasn't been established one way or the other yet, I don't intend to make any more edits to either this article or the article about the locality until the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations (and or any subsequent one at WP:Oversight) conclude.

Finally, and again, I apologise if I'm misreading you here, but comments, to an editor with my level of experience, like "While I understand your desire to share information, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for it." and "It is important to follow consensus on Wikipedia" come across as quite condescending, and aren't really in line with the culture of respect for others that we strive for here. It's fine to speak like this to an inexperienced editor who has yet to learn the ropes, but to phrase things like this in a discussion with a peer doesn't feel acceptable to me (but as I said, maybe I'm misreading you).

SP-KP (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel your motives are wrong, or that you are a bad editor, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I feel that you are doing this as you feel it is appropriate for this information to be available to the general public, and that you feel the information is worthwhile. However, the source is not reliable, and there are issues regarding publishing the information. There have been complaints to Wikipedia regarding us publishing the information. You opened a discussion regarding reinserting that specific information. Three other editors joined in that discussion and said that it would be inappropriate to reinsert the information. You reinserted the information anyway.

After discussion with an oversighter I am doing a Selective deletion of the articles. For clarity, the oversighter, FloNight, felt that this matter did not fit in with the WP:Oversight criteria, and that Selective deletion would be a more appropriate option, though wasn't entirely sure that was needed. As there has been some attention paid to this issue, I feel I would rather play it safe and remove all mention of the location until the matter can be more fully decided. My actions can be undone, and I will ask others to overlook what I have done, especially as this is the first time I have done a selective deletion. SilkTork *^YES! 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entire discussion on this plant at the location article, but will restore it here. SilkTork *^YES! 17:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with previous WP discussions about when self-published works can be considered reliable sources, but having looked at the relevant policy I'd say that the book discussed seems on the face of it to be a marginal case, with some room for argument on both sides. Is the author an 'established expert in the field'? No, I don't think anyone would say he is. For instance, I've never seen his work cited in another work on botany. Google Scholar doesn't throw up a single result for him, about plants, animals or anything else. Has his work 'in the relevant field' been published by 'reliable third-party publications'? He doesn't seem to have published anything else on wild plants, but had previously co-authored two books on insects which were issued by established, though not scholarly, publishers. Is entomology similar enough to botany to count as a 'relevant field'? And can a non-scholarly publisher be considered a 'reliable third-party' here? I don't know if there are any precedents on WP for answering these questions, and I'm not sure what the common sense answers would be either.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Abductive suggests on the Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations page that works such as Colin Twist's book might not be acceptable on the grounds that they are primary sources. The WP article on primary sources - which is not a policy article and thus quite separate from WP:PSTS - suggests that in science a primary source may be defined as a a 'report of original findings or ideas' and 'the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories'. Colin Twist's book would seem to come into this category as it is presumably based on his own visits to the sites concerned. Is this a valid application of WP:PSTS? Again, I'm not sure of what precedents have been set on WP here.Jimi 66 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of information about Lady's Slipper orchid at this site

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)

• The best thing is not to include too much detail on the location [ ], at least for now. Giving full co-ordinates seems like a poor idea. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could explain why you believe that. Thanks SP-KP 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's a fragile population that is very vulnerable; having a large number of visitors could possibly render this plant extinct within the British Isles, either incidentally or as a result of less-than-scrupulous collectors. Wikipedia is supposed to document, not influence. I know about the observer effect, but I'd rather not see this article say "[Location] used to contain the last-known population of Cyprididium Whateveritscalled in the British Isles, until poachers, guided by the Wikipedia article, tried to steal them but accidentally killed them" or some such. It is not relevant to the article on [Location] that it mention every single endangered species which is found there. Okay? DS 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply more fully to your points about threats/impacts etc in due course, but can you expand on your comment that "It is not relevant to the article on [location] that it mention every single endangered species which is found there."? I've read & re-read that several times and I can't figure out what you mean. Why is a notable fact about the subject of an article not a relevant piece of information for inclusion in that subject's article? SP-KP 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

..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)

Thanks for that, that makes sense now. To help me be clear on where our areas of difference are, I think we're in agreement that the presence of Cypripedium here is a notable fact about the site - would you agree? I'd even go as far as saying that it's the most notable botanical fact about the site, would you? And we both agree that the site itself is worthy of an article, whether or not we mention the orchid, is that correct too? The difference of opinion is only about whether the orchid's presence here should be included in the article, am I right? SP-KP 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd concur that Cypripedium's presence is interesting, but not that it's the Most Notable Botanical Fact. I'd agree that the site itself is worthy of an article. DS 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you expand on that a little? To me, what makes this the most notable botanical fact is that it is the only extant site for this species in Britain and has been for years, resulting in significant conservation attention, whereas the other species present, though some are rare, are not under a comparable degree of threat. Can you say why you don't feel the same way? Are there other botanical facts which are more notable, which I've missed? Can we agree at least that this is among the most notable botanical facts, even if is not the most notable, or do you think it is rather non-notable; if so why? SP-KP 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this subject seems to have ground to a halt. I therefore propose to restore the article to its pre-OTRS-edit state. I'll wait a few days to give others the chance to contribute further before doing so however. SP-KP 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for that. I think we're both clear on the issue - now we need to decide how we resolve this disagreement. What are your thoughts on how we should do that? SP-KP 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• The word "sensitively" springs to mind. There's no pressing need to make it easy for people to find the place or to know what treasures are there. We should not go much further than the British wildlife conservation sites in discussing location and actual populations, I think. But I don't have time for a lengthy debate now as I am in the middle of planning a large office relocation this weekend. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - what I meant was what specific mechanisms can we bring to bear in helping us to make our decision. All we have so far are just my opinions, your opinions, and DS's opinions, and we're not really making progress. We have a comprehensive framework here at Wikipedia for enabling decisions to be made on more than just diverging opinions - I was wondering what, within that framework, you felt would be of most use in enabling us to arrive at an agreement. Your comment about time is noted and, as a result, I won't push this too fast - there's no rush, it's more important that we end up doing what's correct. SP-KP 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may chip in here folks, and apologies I do not do this correctly as it is my first time. Firstly I would raise the question of your source for the information regarding the orchid location. This information is not given in any of the official designation descriptions for the site and is therefore not "officially" out there in any form that I am aware of. The location is on private land, and apart from those who had permission to visit only those people who have visited the site illegally, trespassing, would have knowledge of the location. This suggests that the information was obtained illegally by trespass? How does this tie in with wikipedia rules on sources of information, as well as the rights of the landowner who owns the land and the orchid?

Secondly, posting the location of the orchid on Wikipedia is directly endangering the orchid. I am one of the official pollinators of the orchid, and noticed for the first time in 2006 the almost constant presence of several people were sitting on a hillside opposite watching the site. This is the first time this has ever happened, and when questioned some of these watchers quoted Wikipedia as their source Every year, several people try to access the site directly, which is of course on private land. During the summer of 2006 there was a surge in visitor traffic and attempted access to the site. Some of those questioned who volunteered where they got the site location from said it was from Wikipedia. Apart from obvious risk to the plant from poaching, extra traffic causes erosion and compaction on a very sensitive and fragile site, directly endangering the plant and its future. It is therefore unequivocal that posting the site location on Wikipedia is encouraging illegal activity (trespass and damage to a European protected species) and is having a direct and harmful effect on the plant and its immediate environment, a plant which is a Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species, a Schedule 8 plant under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended), a European protected species under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &) Regulations, a Habitats & Species Directive II and IV Species, a Bern species and a Red Data Book "Critically Endangered" Species.Eden black

Thanks for that contribution, Eden. Regarding your point that the site may not be included in any official sources - do you mean statutory? If so, I agree. The information has however been in the public domain in plenty of other ways for very many years - for example, if I put my mind to it, I could probably think of a few dozen botanists who I know who know the location and would have no worries about passing details on to other botanists. In terms of published sources, there are a number of site guides used by botanists in Britain; I obtained the info initially from Colin Twist's "Rare plants in Great Britain, a Site Guide", and as I've suggested above, if we decide to re-include the information, that (and/or other guides) should be given as a source. Can you clarify whether the people sitting on the hillside opposite the site are trespassing? Twist's guide seems to suggest that this is not the case. To help us with our decision, it would be useful if you could also give some extra info (quantitative data if possible, even if vague, would help) to give us an idea what you mean by a surge in 2006 and what you mean by "almost constant presence". Could you also explain a more fully how this is endangering the orchid as that isn't totally clear (to me at least) from what you've written above? Thanks SP-KP 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean statutory, for very obvious reasons! Yes of course the location of the site has been known, but generally only to a small number of botanists, a very small clique who keep it amongst themselves, and arguably it is that similar group who would use any site guides (incidentally, how specific is the site info in Colin Twist's book?). The public at large and general countryside users would not be aware of such information... unless posted on the Web of course, and I think a completely different group of "mildly-interested-naturalists" are now being encouraged/facilitated to try and access the site!

As far as the observers go, yes I believe they are trespassing. There is a footpath which passes nearby, but this does not give the right to stop and observe, merely to pass. The land adjacent is open access land, but restrictions placed on open access land remove the right of access for certain restricted activities and people undertaking those activities are therefore trespassing. Such activities include, under Schedule 2,(q) "in relation to any lawful activities which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect- (i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity (ii) of obstructing that activity, or (iii) of disruption that activity" The presence of people watching the site through binoculars and scopes certainly intimidates, deters and disrupts normal lawful site activity which by its very nature is intended to be clandestine.

Additionally, anybody taking photographs for commercial purposes, or on any organised walk or tour, would also be breaking access restrictions and be trespassing.

People observing the site, apart from trespassing as outlined above, are not of course directly endangering the orchid. They are however indirectly endangering it by raising the profile of the site, and make obvious to those who pass by on a nearby footpath that there is something going on, further increasing general public awareness of the site and increasing the risk of those attempting to access the site... I cannot tell if your questioning here is intended to be provocative or merely analytical? As far as specific numbers go for trespassers to the actual site, I would have to speak to the wardens first and am not sure I could release specific figures, may be able to give a percentage though. Eden black 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My questions are not intended to be provocative - just an attempt to help us arrive at an well-informed decision on what is not a straightforward issue. To answer yours, Colin Twist's book gives a short site account, but other than saying that the orchids are on a slope/bank, and giving a list of associated species, no more specific directions to the plant are given. If I can also respond to one other thing ... you are definitely misrepresenting (not intentionally, I'm sure) the size of the group of people who know about the species at this site - I am based a couple of hundred miles aware and the few dozen botanists I can think of who know about it and would have no problem telling others are all in this part of the country. Multiply that up by similar numbers in other parts of the country, and you have far more than just a "very small clique". I can only assume you just aren't aware how well known the site is. Thanks for clarifying the position with the footpath. Anything you have regarding recent visitor volume changes would be helpful. SP-KP 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"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)

SP-KP 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any further comments anyone?

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)

I would not say it is unresolved, there seems to be a consensus against restoring the link. To back up some of my earlier points, I have done a rough analysis of figures and there has been an approximately 8% in people "observing but not entering" the site and a 125% increase in people illegally entering the site in 2006 compared to 2005. Eden black 12:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eden, so you're saying that a comparatively large number of people visited but didn't enter in both years, and that a minimum of 4 people entered the site in 2005, and a minimum of 9 in 2006. That gives some useful data to help interpret your earlier comments - a small but possibly statistically insignificant (we'd need to know the numbers) increase in the numbers visiting but not entering, accompanied by a clear increase in the numbers entering last year, although equally clearly entry into the site is not a new phenomenon either. Out of interest, how obvious on site is the intention of the site owners that people should not enter - e.g. are there keep out signs, fences etc? SP-KP 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Gareth:

Dear SP-KP, This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in this way. My name is Gareth, and I have been following this debate with interest. I am not connected to anyone else here, nor am I connected to the conservation of the species in the UK; and for your background I consider myself as merely an active naturalist/wildlife enthusiast etc, as you may do yourself? I see that a few people (I think) have been involved in the discussion you instigated, although it is sometimes hard to tell who is saying what as the page to me is a little unstructured. So far the stream of opinion has been against the view you hold. And like the others, I do not agree with your conclusions either. My reasons are as follows.

Conservation Strategy:

You mention that you do not intend to be provocative in the approach you adopt to this issue. It is my opinion that you are being provocative to the people that devote vast amounts of time to the conservation of this species in the UK (Im sure a few are volunteers too). For better or for worse the conservation strategy for this species has always been to protect the exact location of the remaining wild population. News leaks and always will. People with enough drive to find out about the location of the plant will no doubt find out.

However, the information was, as far as Im aware, not easily accessible on the internet until you posted details in your Wikipedia articles (which then gets copied onto other websites). With your bold statement here I believe you are making a decision that the conservation strategy is for the worse, and it is better that the Committee in charge of the species conservation in the UK ditch this part of their current strategy (that has been successful for many years). You may not have considered your actions in this light, I don’t know. You may believe that it is better that the information is freely available on such a public forum. Fortunately we live in a society where you have the freedom and ability to express your knowledge, beliefs and opinions to a wide audience.

But when you do decide to do what you have done in these two articles you are being provocative to the people who actually devote their time to protecting this species, simply by ignoring the obvious conservation strategy in place for this species to date. And with that you get the responses as above, and no doubt in the emails you (or Wikipedia?) received. If you really want to influence the conservation strategy for this species would it not be better to speak directly with the Committee in charge of it?

Information in the Public Domain:

The information on this species has to a limited extent been public knowledge. I can think of three means by which I have come across the site details in the last 10 years (excluding your articles). One of these is Colin Twist’s book. This is a private publication and has never been widely available, although I agree it has no doubt made the location of the species less of a secret. It will not and does not reach an audience that Wikipedia does. A google search on “Cyp. calc. Britain” brings your article as third in the list. I personally do not believe because information has leaked out on the species in the past, that is grounds for further disseminating such information, for the reasons I have already given. It is one thing letting your fellow botanist friends know about the species, another publishing detailed information on what has become one of the biggest internet sites around.

Sum total of Human Knowledge:

Your reasoning for wanting to provide details of this species at its last remaining site is the ethos that Wikipedia should be a place to gather the sum total of human knowledge. A laudable aim, and I wish you all the best in helping to achieve it. I will no doubt continue to find interest from this site when I search the internet. I do not however agree that the aim you express is a more pressing aim than that of the strategy to protect the species, a strategy you are compromising. This is what I believe you are saying if you do continue to promote such information. I also do not even believe that the overall Wikipedia aim is compromised by not releasing such information. i.e.

(1) we, the users of the site don’t need to know everything about a site/habitat/species, (2) even if it is notable, it is not the only notable feature of what is an impressive wildlife site, and there are plenty of other notable features about [the location] that are not documented here, (3) information on Cyp. calc. can happily (in relation to the aim) be documented on its own page with notes such as restricted to one Yorkshire site, kept secret for reasons of its conservation.

If I were in your shoes as an editor of pages here, I would weigh up the two aims and come to a different conclusion to you. I don’t know how the procedures at Wikipedia work, but it sounds like if you want you can re-instate the information at any time, and unless someone convinces you otherwise you will do. I hope that what every other person involved in this debate has said, has at least made you think twice about providing this information. I would say that if you really feel strongly about expressing the information why not get involved at the sharp end of the plants conservation and contact the Committee? If you really want to know the nature of the private signs on the wood, and the levels of pressure, is that not a better avenue to explore?

Final observations from me:

Despite what I have written here, I am generally in favour of dissemination of information on wildlife for people to enjoy. But that needs to be done with thought to the conservation measures for each species/habitats, effects on third parties etc, otherwise the rarest may not be around tomorrow for the next load of keen wildlife enthusiasts. I know from reading the news that the Committee in charge of the species conservation is trying to provide public sites to view the species as part of the recovery programme, but that is taking time.

I am also in favour of your aims of access to information, but Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, and you need to also consider the consequences to others and to wildlife of your actions. Thanks, and apologies for the length, Gareth.

Response from User:SP-KP:

Thanks Gareth, that is a useful contribution, and it is good that this discussion is attracting more contributors, and in particular that it is now attracting contributors without a vested interest in the decision under discussion - only in that way can we start to make some progress, I feel. Just to satisfy you in respect of your implied concern, that I am posting this information here because I disagree with the conservation strategy, that is not the case. I don't have an opinion on the conservation strategy. I do have opinions on the dissemination of biodiversity information, however, and that is what was behind my original edits, and the proposal that the information is reinstated. You mention Wikipedia processes - just to explain, although I can at any time add the information back in, any other editor can at any time take it back out again. Because that leads to what we call "edit wars", the established principle here is to take discussion out to the talk page in an attempt to resolve the issues, hence the exchange above.

I'm not optimistic at present about our ability to resolve the difference of opinion. My reason for saying that is that contributors do not seem to be focussing on what, in the context of what we're doing here (I refer back to my initial paragraphs at the top of the page) are the core issues. Instead people are bringing in issues that don't really have anything to do with Wikipedia content, policies, principles etc. I fully appreciate that in our capacities as individuals, people who are editors have views on a wide range of issues unconnected with what we do here, such as conservation strategies. However, bringing those opinions into the discussion and letting them cloud our decisions, doesn't seem to me to be very helpful.

Please therefore can I ask that all the editors who have contributed above post a rationale which supports their viewpoint which is based solely on issues of direct relevance to Wikipedia? SP-KP 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You are implying everything posted here so far is irrelevant. we cannot consider "core purpose" in isolation of other "clouding issues" especially as Wikipedia is causing/contributing to those issuesEden black 10:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Eden, no, that's not what I'm saying. There is some material above which is pertinent to the decision, but much of it is not, I'm afraid - I think your lack of experience of how we make decisions here is probably what's leading you to think otherwise. Your comment "we cannot consider 'core purpose' in isolation of other 'clouding issues'" is presented as a statement of fact, whereas I assume you meant to present it as an opinion? If it's an opinion, then you're perfectly entitled to it, but you need to present it in terms relevant to Wikipedia, otherwise we can't really use it to help guide our decision. It may be possible to find guidance within Wikipedia which supports the general point you're making (which as I understand it - correct me if this is wtong - is that the possible impact of the information we add should influence whether we add it) but it is certainly possible to find guidance which does not say that. There may well be some specific examples where views like yours have gained consensus amongst editors but in general this isn't the case based on my experience. If you could find examples which support the editing decision that you're asking us to make (or even just similar decisions), that would help move things forward. SP-KP 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC

It’s the ecology…….!

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 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)

Proposed new guideline for sensitive wildlife policy on Wikipedia

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)

Wikipedia is NOT about fake secrecy

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 [1] 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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)