Talk:The Pollinator Pathway

Restored cited content

This edit [1] took away cited content, including the city grant, and replaced it with some prose that looked suspiciously like foundation-ese. The article, like every other on Wikipedia, needs to stay neutral point of view and backed by reliable sources. The article is a little confused right now because it doesn't know if it's about The Pollinator Pathway initiative, or the actual street pathways. This can be addressed by adding additional cited information about the organization. At this point I have not added it until more can be found out about the initiative, in particular whether it is a non-profit or some other type of organization; all that is apparent yet is that Bergmann has been granted a trademark for the name, and has set up a web page listing some collaborators. — Brianhe (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit again introduced problematic phrasing like "rethinks the relationship between ... landscapes" which does not read like plain English. It also deleted valuable wikilinks. Please, let's not introduce this phrasing again. — Brianhe (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think WP:OBVIOUS is the main guideline to look at, as well as WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOTADVERT. Don't write like a marketing shill. Don't write in obscure language that leaves the reader scratching their head. State the obvious in plain English. What is the Pollinator Pathway? In simple, direct language, no obscurantism and no beating around the bush. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! The Pollinator Pathway is an art, design, planning and science project. It isn't a pollination management project. Nor is it precisely an ecological corridor. Its objective is to "rethink the relationship between urban, agricultural and wilderness" and is stated by the artist. It is more like a formal civic design project, if that helps. Many of the new edits are simply not correct, such as the text about segments (the project is a mile long, nor did it apply to just a small piece). Unless that's something Wikipedia has a strong history of indicating, I don't see why stating funding is important. It is also not run by volunteers (nor, again, is that particularly relevant to the project). The segment text is also based on an article that itself is not factual, which is an understandably problematic feedback loop. Further reading that doesn't actually relate to the project (pollinator management orgs, the book with a similar name, along with what other people's discussions are of the project) also seems irrelevant to the actual project. Museum exhibitions about the project are extension of the project, not 'related exhibitions' and have been stated as such by the artist. Habitat for pollinators as a "mission" makes it sound like the project is a nonprofit dedicated to pollinator management. It is not, it is an art, design and science project. Wasn't my intention to make this complicated. If the page could be deleted or turned into a stub instead, that'd be much easier. Wikibits1 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all thanks for coming to collaborate. Addressing your last point first, because it reflects a severe misunderstanding if why Wikipedia even exists, this article isn't going away. One doesn't simply delete a well sourced Wikipedia article because its "much easier" than improving it. You sould read WP:YOURSELF where it says "you cannot just get [an article] deleted because you are not happy with it."

You should also read the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. There is literally not a sentence in the article (after the lede) without one or more good citations. Saying "they are wrong" isn't the way to change things. Bringing in better sources is.

And by the way (I brought this up earlier) how do we know whether or not TPP is a nonprofit? Is it even a registered corporation? Looks like one individual's trademark, with others reacting to it as they please. Do you have other sources, or is this assertion based on your firsthand knowledge?—Brianhe (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article should be an accurate reflection of what it says in independent, third party sources. It's not a rehash of pollinatorpathway.com. You can say what you like on your web site. This is not your web site. What would be the point of Wikipedia if all we did was copy-paste PR materials from the subjects' official websites? As far as the tone and the facts, I don't see any differences between what this article says and what the cited sources say. If the independent sources are giving an incorrect impression, the place to correct that is at pollinatorpathway.com, or else contact the media sources and ask them to correct their article. This Wikipedia article is not a soapbox or personal web page that the subject may control to suit their own message. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifying comments, and for the reading material, both of you. I wrote on Brianhe's Talk page to explain that I was a newbie user. I'll do so again here– my apologies for not having known my way around and raising your editing ire. Not my intention. But I feel you're being pretty unwelcoming to a new user. Both instances of big edits were written by people familiar with the project (one a curator and one in landscape architecture) and were not 'marketing shill' from the website, and seeing the text be repeatedly deleted was frustrating. I understand that you didn't like how either was written but it was an effort to describe the project clearly. I (again) was a new user and didn't know how to use the reference function yet, so I can see why that would seem like marketing-speak if there were no references to help contextualize it. I now understand more about the kind of writing that's appropriate for Wikipedia. So, can I make a rewrite that will make some distinctions clear?

Because my point wasn't to say 'you're wrong and I don't like it', it was to say that improving your edits isn't really an option with some of these starting points. For example, 'Pollination management' as a category: there's ample, verifiable evidence that this is an art, design, ecology hybrid. It simply doesn't belong in a management category. If a pony is described as a dog, it would be challenging to 'improve' on it by adding in new sources– and it would take forever to get from a dog to a pony. The capitalization of the PP is another example. It is most definitely the artist's wishes that it remain capitalized in all instances (it is on the site). I'm sure you can find a source out there, somewhere in the universe, that has it in lower case, but the vast majority capitalize it. So what do we do here? Is that up to you to decide? Since it is a formal project, has clearly been stated by the artist, and the vast majority of websites capitalize it, it seems to me it should be capitalized. Art is understood under the name the artist gives it– it would be like you deciding that Van Gogh's Starry Night was now "starry night", then telling me I can prove that it isn't.

Here are a few more points:

-Since the PP is an art, design, and ecology hybrid, and these are public design projects, etc I don't think a mission statement is appropriate. That's not on you to decide what its mission is. Since there is no mission statement, and the artist has stated that its purpose is to "rethink the relationship..." and you've dismissed that as marketing speak.. how about we delete it?

-I'd like to suggest removing both the book reference and the park reference in further reading. The art tradition that this project comes from is not the same as the book (Gordon Matta Clark's Odd Lots or the Center for Land Use Interpretation might be more appropriate references), and it is confusing. I think the writing on this page should stay on task. Just because something has the word pollinator in it, doesn't make it appropriate for this page. Neither the reference to the book or the park are about the project or an example of further reading about the project. (Neither, for that matter, is my reference to Matta Clark or CLUI, in my opinion, but I thought it would be helpful to add).

Wikibits1 (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I re-read the Wikipedia Manual Of Style on the use of the further reading section and agree with you that the two works on other projects do not belong in that specific section. Have moved them to references to projects under way in other cities. However, I object to a blanket condemnation of including other projects in this article. I think Dennis made it pretty clear above that this isn't just a rehash of what TPP has written about itself. One of the great things Wikipedia can bring to the world is a connection between things that don't have obvious interrelations, or maybe even interrelations that the projects themselves are unaware of. Making connections and pointing out the similar thinking between creators of separate works is valuable. As far as your proposal to make a rewrite, I tend to think that's not appropriate given your apparent conflict of interest here. A better way forward would be to propose specific changes on the talkpage, as described in the COI comments left on your userpage. If collaboration in this style is frustrating or confusing for you maybe Wikipedia isn't the right place to write about the project. Specifically, drastic edits, deletions and rewrites are just a fact of life in the bold-revert-discuss cycle that is the norm (if you haven't read that essay, please do). It is for better or for worse the process by which things happen here. — Brianhe (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brianhe. I disagree with you about your statement that a page that relates to a piece of social art needs to have references to a wide variety of subjects. Here are five other examples, pulled at random, about a person's work that don't seem to feel the similar compulsion to describe other projects that relate to it. The last four have relationship to this work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflowers_(Van_Gogh_series) There are no references to other people's paintings of sunflowers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theaster_Gates No mention of other artists who work on similar work, or other projects, though he is part of a wide movement (that the PP also has relationship with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Matta-Clark No references to other people's work that doesn't relate to Matta Clark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Jetty All writing relates to the piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Row_Houses This could have many, many references to everything on the planet that relates to development, art, social practice, or social sculpture, all of which it is famous for. Or other cities. It doesn't, though, because the writers are on topic and are respecting the fact that this is someone's work.

I'm trying to neutrally educate you and share what I can about the project, since I'm getting the sense that you may not have a background in art history. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, please stop suggesting I'm trying to rehash the website. I've explained that I was a new user, have been educated about language, and have thanked you.

I'm happy to make suggestions on this page, although I note that you have not been doing so yourself. I'd like to make these edits: The Pollinator Pathway is a participatory art, design, and ecology project founded by the artist and designer Sarah Bergmann. The Pollinator Pathway merges formal design, ecology, urban planning and art with public projects that unite two existing green spaces with a corridor of gardens that support native pollinators like bees. It is considered a social sculpture, and it works with partners to make new Pollinator Pathways following the project's requirements for ecology, connectivity and design.

Social Sculpture and partnership reference: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/06/23/in-culture-news-new-shabazz-palaces-new-art-and-cultural-center-in-pioneer-square-and-a-new-pollinator-pathway Wikibits1 (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Before we go further, I do have an education from what's considered a good liberal arts school and have studied under Jack Dollhausen. But credentials don't make the Wikipedian, good sources do, and since you brought up the fact I'm not discussing proposed changes here, it's because I have no conflict of interest in the project. Can you say the same? The COI guidelines are clear about expectations from such editors. Why fight it? — Brianhe (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Brianhe, that's fantastic, and Dolhhausen's work is great. My point isn't to question credentials, it is that I have tried to explain a few times that this project comes from a different art historical background. That's citable, but if someone doesn't have a background in art, it can be hard to explain. I thought it might be because you don't have that background that I wasn't being understood. I've given you a source for the change I just proposed. I think it is a great change, and it is subtle and even uses much of your original language. I'm trying to be helpful. I would like to refer you to two other articles, around assuming good faith and not biting newcomers. Wikipedias says: "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

The other says "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as unexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." That was me when my writing was deleted. Work with me a little, okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Wikibits1 (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think Dennis and I have been fairly non-bitey here, and I have even gone so far as to have someone pre-read several of my comments before posting, to make sure I'm not coming across as unintentionally snarkish. You should see what happens to folks who think their local, never-written-about bike club should appear alongside the Hells Angels. Anyway, the article has never been deleted, just edited, sometimes a lot, and that's OK. I think I'll take a wikibreak from it for a bit and see what other new ideas are brought up here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On including related subjects

On the question of whether it's a good idea to mention related pollination organizations or projects in this article, there's a few points worth considering. First, articles like Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) aren't necessarily the best guides, because there are thousands of flawed articles on Wikipedia. It's a work in progress. If you want to proceed by example, then the best approach is to look at the example of Featured articles. For example, Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus) is a Featured Article and it does indeed compare and contrast with several other paintings. Although, while we're at it, Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) does mention Paul Gaughuin in the intro, and it includes a derivative work by Isaac Israëls, and mentions Van Gogh's non-sunflower painting, Irises. I believe if you look at any Featured Article, you'll see background and context. Not just what the subject is, but what it is not, where it comes from and what it relates to. You can't explain flammability without explaining inflammability. The guideline Wikipedia:Summary style says that we should expect a certain amount of redundancy among articles, rather than drawing firm boundaries around each article and limiting what may be mentioned, we should give readers summaries of related topics, and then link to them so they can click through for a fuller treatment.

We should be clear, however, as to what the sources tell us the Pollinator Pathway has in common with related projects, and how it differs. If magazines and newspapers say it's an ecological corridor, then we call it an ecological corridor. If Bergmann has published a response to those magazines and newspapers saying they are in error, then we can write "Bergmann objects to the Tribune's characterization of her project..." The important thing here is that this article is not Bergmann's platform for correcting the record. That dialog takes place elsewhere and Wikipedia summarizes from the sidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of terms and capitalization

Recommend that we use The Pollinator Pathway to refer to the project as a whole, Pollinator Pathway with caps and without "the" for a reference to the trademark, and pollinator pathway in lowercase to refer to constructed entities such as the Columbia Street pollinator pathway. Thoughts? — Brianhe (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New category?

In the discussion above an objection was raised to including this in Category:Pollination management. There are several organizations in that category, including this one, dedicated to pollinators, maybe something like "Pollinator habitat organizations" would be suitable? This feels clunky; maybe someone has a better idea. — Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't an indication that this project is a "pollinator habitat organization" or that it manages pollinators. There ample proof that this is an art, design, and ecology hybrid. Here are a couple of articles that reference that. http://www.seattlemet.com/home-and-garden/articles/the-botany-of-urban-desire-may-2014 and http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/sarah-bergmann/Content?oid=14839609Wikibits1 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain that in plain English, please? What exactly is an "art, design and ecology hybrid"? We have a definition that says "Pollination management is the label for horticultural practices that accomplish or enhance pollination of a crop, to improve yield or quality, by understanding of the particular crop's pollination needs, and by knowledgeable management of pollenizers, pollinators, and pollination conditions." The Stranger article said, "The Pollinator Pathway is a microcosmic urban solution to the global megaproblem of pollinator decline, particularly colony collapse in honeybees, which help provide most of our nongrain foods." Is the Stranger wrong that this is intended to address the lack of pollinators for food crops, among others? Because pollination management is exactly that, isn't it? Seattle Met said the Pathway's intent is to "attract the pollinators that had long since fled or struggled in cities—birds, bats, bees, butterflies, moths—and reintegrate them". How is "atracting" and "reintigrating" pollinators different than "managing" them? Seems pretty obvious to me the work is to " to handle or direct [the pollinators] with a degree of skill", which is the Webster's definition of "manage".

It's clear that the various organizations here (Canadian Pollination Initiative, North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, Pollinator Partnership, Seeds of Diversity, and The Pollinator Pathway) are not identical in their approaches, but it does serve the interests of an encyclopedia reader, who wants a broad introduction to a topic, to consider these related initiatives within the same category and under the same parent article, Pollination management. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)