Talk:Dartmoor Preservation Association

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

RoadRunnerCwll (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Re: COI

Not sure if I should write here or not, but I wrote the present article. The previous article consisted of six sentences, had multiple issues, may not have met WP's general notability guidelines and needed citations for verification. The final sentence was "In recent years Bainbridge has been highly critical of the dumbing-down and more pro-establishment stance of the DPA.[citation needed]". As a member, and then trustee, of the organisation, I thought the article needed improvement. I presented some facts about the DPA's recent activities. I tried to do this from a NPOV standpoint but only others can judge that. The previous article clearly did the DPA no favours. The present article shows what is happening today. It is true that DPA dose not march out during military live firing exercises and that seems to upset someone. Times are changed. As said in the article, the DPA CEO is now invited to planning meetings and has a direct effect on some planning decisions.

The editor of the article pointed out NPOV and COI considerations and was happy to accept what you see, although he/she kindly re-organised the lead-in to break some of it into Background, and it looks better. He/she also suggested a section headed "Criticism of Dartmoor Preservation Association". My problem was not finding anything to reference. I am sure there has been criticism, especially by individuals whose building plans have been rejected etc. and probably in the past by the military for interrupting their activities - but how can it be verified? I have yet to visit a local paper for past letters - that might yield something - although it would probably be old - nothing found yet on their websites.. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoadRunnerCwll: That's fine. We're quite concerned these days about people using Wikipedia for promotion, but you've made your connection clear, so as long as you stick to the rules, you'll be OK. As an aside, if you're considering editing the article further, Wikipedia:Recentism is an interesting and relevant read.

Regarding criticism of the DPA, I too have been looking, on and off, for any: like you I haven't found anything significant. I guess that if there is anything, it occurred in the period before digital publishing and since it's still copyrighted, it's languishing in paper copies (newspapers, magazines etc). In view of the difficulty of finding this material, it's probably not worth spending much time on searches – if it had been significant, someone would have referred back to it in the past 10 years or so. —SMALL JIM 15:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: I hope this format works ... Thanks for that. I have read the Wikipedia:Recentism article. As this DPA article covers events back to 1862 and 1873 (Afforestaion and Miltary use) and has a photo of a book page from 1890, and describes events thereafter, I am going to claim a measure of "article balance"! I was considering editing the article where it covers the Annual Report, as that section could be updated each year. Also I would monitor for weblinks disappearing. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maintenance would obviously be very welcome, as would updates – as long as there is something significant to report. For instance I assume that the recent Widecombe mast issue was particularly significant, but in retrospect I would be inclined to remove the Annual Report section and maybe a couple of the others. The link to the website should be sufficient for this routine information. We have to remember to restrict article content to what would be expected to be found in an encyclopaedia, which, huge though it is, Wikipedia still is. Anyone else reading have an opinion on this? —SMALL JIM 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: You are right, I have deleted the Annual Report - it will save updating it. I was a bit anxious as it is my first "big" deletion but the page looks alright afterwards. What else would you delete? .RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RoadRunnerCwll: You neatly excised that section – I'm sure that was the right thing to do. Now, I may have omitted to mention that Wikipedia has an almost limitless number of rules and guidelines, but you have asked, so here are some more to consider ;-) If you read our neutral point of view policy page and then Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, you should note that the "Since 2000" section and its subsections contain quite a few elements that could still be considered to be unduly promotional and/or not encyclopedic. Here are some examples:

"... it acts as a critical friend to [DNPA] ..." – that would be OK if it was a quote from a third-party source, otherwise it sounds self-serving.
The section "House of Lords reception" doesn't say what the lobbying was about – is it worth inclusion?
"The Garden is a free, outdoor classroom and quiet place where..." – this sounds more like a guidebook
Re. the power cables: "Their removal will be welcomed by all those who enjoy the natural beauty of this wonderful moorland landscape." – hmm!

It can be a challenging exercise to write really neutrally about a subject that one is involved with. I hope this helps and you'll stick with it. Best wishes, —SMALL JIM 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: Thanks again. I will get back to this after the weekend - busy few days ahead, incl. some hard conservation work as a volunteer for the National Park with a heavy-duty brush cutter! I will read those links as well. Regards, RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smalljim: I have looked through neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch but I must confess to not learning them by heart! I have made the changes that you suggest. I will peruse the article again for slight strayings from policy. I would like to retain the sections under "Since 2,000" since they spell out recent activities as compared to members marching out into military exercises!RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC) RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RoadRunnerCwll. I hope the weather was OK on the moor last weekend! I recently came across the May 2000 ed. of DPA News which was mostly about Sylvia Sayer (after her death that January), so I may have a go at expanding the article on her. —SMALL JIM 11:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation of Dartmoor or nature conservation?

This has just changed from conservation to "nature conservation" by bot User:JJMC89 bot III. I'm reluctant to reverse a change - instead I will just say it is wrong in my opinion. The DPA was about preservation of *Dartmoor* - many of its early campaigns in the nineteenth century were to protect the archaeology not nature. DartmoorDave (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, refer to the first paragraph on the page: "Firstly, commoners' rights were being eroded through army use, including the firing of live artillery shells, and piecemeal enclosure of land around the margins.[2]:p.100 Secondly, there was increasing public interest in Dartmoor's scenery, archaeology, history and wildlife[3]:p.7"

If you refer to the Constitution, it includes:  The protection and preservation of public access to and on Dartmoor subject to the ancient rights of commoners;  The preservation in the public interest of the Dartmoor Commons and for this purpose to assist and co-operate with the commoners and any organisation in achieving this object;  The study of and the recording and publication of information upon the antiquities, history and natural history of Dartmoor; and  The study, in co-operation with other bodies, of future trends on Dartmoor and the putting forward of ideas to ensure their development along lines in harmony with the above objects.

If you refer back through the Blog https://www.dartmoorpreservation.co.uk/category/blog/page/4/, you will see that most of the conservation field work is to preserve access to the archaeology. The DPA “Conservation” web page, https://www.dartmoorpreservation.co.uk/category/conserving-dartmoor/ gives an idea of the main long-running projects, although there are projects not listed here that can be garnered usually by looking at the Events Calendar – although this is currently blank due to the Covid-19 situation. https://www.dartmoorpreservation.co.uk/google-calendar/. The events are also published in the Events and Walks leaflet that accompanies the 4-monthly newsletter sent to members: Dartmoor Matters.

Nature is an important activity, but not the primary aim or objective – there are many other bodies that have Dartmoor’s nature at heart and the DPA works in partnership with several of them, as shown on the DPA web page “Working with other bodies” https://www.dartmoorpreservation.co.uk/working-with-other-organisations/ :  Aqua  BTCV – British Trust of Conservation Volunteers  Butterfly Conservation  Campaign for National Parks  Council for the Protection of Rural England  Countryside Access Group for Dartmoor  Countryside Agency  Dartmoor Commoners’ Council  Dartmoor National Park Authority  Dartmoor Partnership  DEFRA  Devon Conservation Forum  Devon County Council  Duchy of Cornwall  English Heritage  Exeter University  Exmoor Society  Marjon  MOSAIC  National Trust  Natural England  Open Spaces Society  Plantlife UK  Plymouth University  Ramblers’ Association  RSPB

RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above comment, with which I entirely agree, I have now reversed this change - it is clearly wrong. My apols if I have not followed the right procedures - I'm a very infrequent editor on Wikipedia, my contributions being almost entirely occasional and restricted to Dartmoor DartmoorDave (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this just automates back to the original wrong setting. I'm not sure how to fight with a "bot". Someone with more Wikipedia experience needs to stop it. DartmoorDave (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I give up! It appears the category of "Conservation in the UK" has itself been deleted any everything within that is now being move to this Nature Cosnervation that is totally inappriate here. I guess that menas DPA can no longr be categorised as "conservation" - someone else can sort this mess out! DartmoorDave (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]