Talk:BrightSource Energy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Blogspot.com[edit]

WP articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, see WP:RS. So I have removed text which is based on blogspot.com as this is not a reliable source. Johnfos (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Rather than declaring that blogspot.com is not a reliable source, I would appreciate if you could take the time to read the articles cited. I think you will see that each article is in turn supported by reliable sources. Cleantech Investing in Israel is the leading source of information on this narrow topic - Israel's cleantech industry - and I am not sure it is fair to declare it unreliable just because it is blogspot.com rather than .com If any of the individual articles or facts (BrightSource's construction of a solar development center in the Negev, and its expansion plans in Nevada and Arizona), seem unreliable, please let me know. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and doing my best to make a positive contribution. Thank you. Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshapira (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathon. Welcome to wikipedia. Appreciate that you are trying to make a positive contribution. Did you read WP:RS? I think you should also read WP:Verifiability, which says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

Hope this helps... Johnfos (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, I understand your - and Wikipedia's - concern regarding blogs. The larger concern, however, seems to be ensuring that each contribution is verifiable and supported by reliable sources. In this case, the facts that BrightSource has established a solar development center in the Negev and is planning to build solar plants in Nevada and Arizona are verifiable and supported by the company's web site, various newspaper reports, etc. - as you can see by reading the actual posts on Cleantech Investing in Israel. To remove these important facts from the BrightSource article, which I originally created, would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers trying to learn about the company and its activities. Again, if you feel that any of the information in the article is unverifiable, please let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshapira (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathon. I've asked for someone from the WP:3O "Third opinion" desk to have a look at this issue, and provide some guidance, and they should report back here in due course... Johnfos (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Thanks for listing this discussion for a third opinion. From reading the discussion and looking at the sources, I offer the following opinion on the discussion. While blogs are not automatically deemed unreliable, they must be judged on their editorial policy and reputation for fact checking. In general, blogs should not be used if these are not easily found and agreed upon. In this particular case, there is a claim that the blog articles are based on reliable sources. In that case, then the original reliable sources should be used. For example, in this ref, there is a link to this news report. The actual news report should be used as a reference. Using an intermediary source as a reference is not appropriate when the original source can be identified. Using the blog to reference its sources gives the impression of promoting the blog at the expense of citing the original sources, and should be avoided. Only when the original is unavailable should the blog be cited, and in such a case, it should be clearly described as an intermediary source as per WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some news[edit]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23404932/exclusive-john-woolard-steps-down-ceo-brightsource-energy
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/12/16/the-death-blow-for-palen-california-rejects-brightsource-energys-palen-plans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.132 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BrightSource Energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703181624/http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/Release5-14-08.pdf to http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/Release5-14-08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BrightSource Energy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BrightSource Energy. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]