Talk:2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Internation reactions directed at Brazil fires vs all Amazon fires

Re this diff - there is clearly a large focus on the international reaction to Bolsonaro's policies/attitude towards the fires in Brazil's part of the Amazon - what Bolsonaro could actually control if he had his gov't take the right steps. No one is blaming Bolsonaro for all of the fires in the Amazon, and moreso the international reaction to the fires are the general concern that all fires in all countries in the Amazon basin need to be addressed. It is not appropriate, with how this article is structued, to take the attention to Bolsonaro out of the section dedicated to the fires only in Brazil. --Masem (t) 23:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we bring this conversation down to the section below? —Partytemple (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI: The Intercept at Noticeboard

The content below was removed from this article because a user said that The Intercept was not a reliable resource for scientific statements.

• The Amazon River basin, which is about the size of Australia, is covered in a dense vegetation including 400 billion trees. The dense moisture-filled forest "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" on the planet; it stores carbon that is centuries old, and "deflects and consumes an unknown but significant amount of solar heat."
• The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest. Since the 1970s, Brazil has cut and burned about 20 percent of the forest representing 300,000 square miles (776,996 km²)—which is larger than Texas.
• In recent years, "land-grabbers" (grileiros) have been illegally cutting deep into the forest in "Brazil's Indigenous territories and other protected forests throughout the Amazon". Since the October election, they have been cutting in the land of the previously isolated Apurinã in Amazonas, where the the "world's largest standing tracts of unbroken rainforest" are found.

References

The issue was discussed at the Noticeboard with comments such as, "It's a reliable source. As WP:BIAS points out, bias and reliability are two separate things. Wikipedia articles must by NPOV, while sources must be RS. In fact all reporting is biased, since media must choose which stories to cover and what aspects to highlight." Newslinger said that , The Intercept's long-form journalism tends to be of high quality, and "Rainforest on Fire" is no exception. of their investigative reporting is their 2016 series "Code of Silence", which documented corruption within the Chicago Police Department that led to a $2 million settlement for two whistleblowers, whose experiences were described in great detail. The Intercept's editorial policies state that they "strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting". The policies "recognize that writers have a point of view", but also list procedures for soliciting responses from subjects, attributing sources, correcting errors, and publishing updates. Biased, but generally reliable for news topics."

I will be adding this content to the article.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind: the 20% oxygen claim has been disproven by scientists and we have noted that in footnotes in regards to Macron's statement. Please do no repeat this particularly from the Intercept- a lot of media is regurgiating the bad data. --Masem (t) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As the "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" claim has been thoroughly debunked by other reliable sources in the last few days, I've added an update to my original comment at WP:RSN § The Intercept. Taking articles from Snopes (RSP entry), National Geographic, PBS NewsHour, and The Conversation into account, we should use editorial discretion to exclude the 20% claim. Note that even Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry), both highly respected news agencies, made the same mistake. I have no issues with the remainder of the article from The Intercept. — Newslinger talk 06:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the footnotes NewslingerMasem. I had found it too which was why I did not re-insert the entire quote, but I was glad you clarified that.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fake News section deleted

I had a section on the fake news surrounding this issue. It got deleted by Masem who appended some of it to the Brazil (!!!) section. I think it should be a separate section within "Reactions", since clearly when the New York Times discusses celebrities or President Macron of France, they mean foreigners, not Brazil. Agence France Presse even ran a fact-check on the fake photos. Here are some supporting links:

• As Amazon Fires Spread, So Do the Misleading Photos
• fake amazon rainforest fire photos are misinforming on-social-media
• Macron in fake news row: Backlash as French leader tweets 16-year-old 'Amazon' picture
• Amazon fires: How celebrities are spreading misinformation
• Agence France Presse "fact check".
• El Comercio (Peru) guide to spotting "lying" Amazonia fire photos
• Mother Jones (magazine): "most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes," including those by Emanuel Macron, President of France.
• O Globo (largest newspaper/media company in Brazil): "Fato ou Fake?"
• In his message for the Amazon, Macron uses an old photo ... at least 16 years old. "Une certaine forme de désinformation"
• "He noted in passing that President Macron posted "fake photos"."

Cheers to all XavierItzm (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is not fake news... It is people like Macron using old photos of fires in the Amazon in their social media posts. That is more likely due to ignorance than they to as off fake news. It is discussed in the timeline in that the viral spread of news came from social media postings using the wrong old photos. --Masem (t) 12:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Fake news" has become a loaded term in the last few years with specific political implications. Using an old photo hardly qualifies under the "new" definition of "fake news". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yay! User Ahecht says "an old photo hardly qualifies" and ignores that articles such as the NYT and AFP are not talking about "an old photo". Mother Jones specifically says "most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes." This sort of response is the old tried and true argument on Wikipedia: say some ridiculous thing which is not what the argument is all about. XavierItzm (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And then Mother Jones goes on to explain the origin of most of those images either being older fires , or fires from elsewhere like California. The photos are not Photoshopped or doctored, they are real photos. Just mistakenly labeled by politicians and celebs as being from 2019 fires. That's not "fake". --Masem (t) 17:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, "fake news" has become a general term for disinformation. If the photos are misleading or intended to deceive to promote a political agenda, it can be considered fake news. But I also agree that just the photos themselves aren't enough to qualify for fake news. Maybe we could rename it to "fake photos" or something. —Partytemple (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What about all the false claims that there's a record number of fires in the Brazillian rainforest in 2019, when the actual numbers are within recent historical trends and significantly lower than those in 2010, 2007 and 2002-2005? That this is even an international news story borders on being fake news just in how it's been sensationalized beyond what the facts support. Ceran (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of these article postulate that these celebs used the more "dramatic" photos as a type of scare tactic, but there's no factual evidence that was the case. Like Macron and "20% oxygen" these all seem to be a matter of being misinformed (themselves or staff) when selecting the images for social media. --Masem (t) 20:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction: "fake photos" would probably be more confusing and misleading, since the photos aren't exactly doctored but are simply misrepresenting the fires. I think "Media Coverage" is alright.—Partytemple (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Gotta love all the backwards bending and WP:OR going on here. Above you have five citations of WP:RS that use the term "fake", plus others with the words "misleading", "disinformation," and "lying". But oh, no, what the Reliablee Sources say doesn't matter. What really matters are editor's feelings or personal insights:

• This was just celebrities and politicos "being misinformed."
• And this certainly cannot be "fake" even though the WP:RS literally call it, because, well, ""fake" is what I say it is, and not what the WP:RS call it."

Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A key point is that you need to actually read the articles and not go by headlines - headlines themselves are not considered reliable sources because they are rarely written by the article writer and geared towards drawing readership. The details explained by most of these articles may use the work fake, but all cases they point out are people using wrong pictures. Now, is there is a mis-information campaign going? It wouldn't be from the news, which have generally been careful about what pictures are used, and it would be inappropriate to say that about social media without reliable sources actually claiming that. So no, this is just being aware of what is actually happening and not just reading at a glance. --Masem (t) 22:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah, please read the articles, which you are evidently choosing to ignore. For example, Mother Jones. Text, not title, just to show the kind of absurd arguments being laid by some around here:

There are very real fires burning in the Amazon and they do deserve more coverage, but there’s a big problem with this viral campaign: Most of the photos claiming to show the fires are fakes.

Emphasis added to show people are not being straightforward. XavierItzm (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit proposal: Merge "International responses" w/ "International actions"

The current organization of the sections means there is a distinct reaction toward Bolsonaro/Brazilian fires and the rest of the Amazon and world. We should merge the two sections, because this distinction is not apparent. World leaders and the media have always referred to this issue as the "Amazon fires" (and other variants) and an "international crisis," meaning the Amazon in general and all the countries involved in this. Many people are aware that the bulk of the Amazon reside in Brazil, hence Bolsonaro receives the most attention and criticism, so it's natural that most media outlets and world leaders talk about Bolsonaro. It's confusing if we divide international responses with international reactions when there is no strong distinction. —Partytemple (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is a clear distinction in the international reactions between the fires overall (trying to send aid and awareness), and those in Brazil (strong criticism of Bolsonaro's actions that led to it). It would be 100% inappropriate to merge as to make Bolsonaro appear responsible for ALL the amazon fires. --Masem (t) 02:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the politicians are blaming Bolsonaro for all of the fires, but that the issue of helping with firefighting should include all fires within the Amazon, not just Brazil. So it would make sense if we merge the section together, because the politicians and the media are referring to this as one topic (the Amazon wildfires). The Bolivian government has their own response to the fires, but world leaders haven't responded specifically to President Morales. The WP article should reflect how this issue is portrayed currently, until there is clearer responses to other Amazonian countries. —Partytemple (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct, the larger international response to help the fires is not only for Brazil, but Bolivia and the other affected countries. But that's presently only the G7 summit. And no, no world leaders have really responded directly to the Bolivia fires only, or the Peru ones, etc. If they are talking about the fires, it is either the entire bulk of the rainforest (and general concern about how to stop them), or specifically aimed at the state of the Brazil gov't to why the out-of-control Brazil fires are troublesome and Bolsonaro's policies that account for them. That's a very discrete separation that is easy to make, even from the bulk of sources. That's why the international reaction directed specifically at Brazil should be segregated from the general "we have to save the rainforest" comments. --Masem (t) 03:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also the issue of chronology. The references added prior to c. August 24, regarding the international response, were specifically directed at the wildfires in Brazil. The international media did not pick up the story of the fires in Bolivia and Paraguay until later. The fires in Peru are not related to the Amazon rainforest. If you are going to refer to the international response to the Amazon rainforest fires in general not in Brazil, you need to find the articles that actually mention Bolivia and Paraguay or any other country that has had fires in the Amazon rainforest. The response to Brazil was intense because of the dramatic shift in policies in 2019.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The media is treating the fires in Peru in the same terms as Brazil and Bolivia. The international response (in terms of G7 and the Brazilian countries summit) are part of that. That's why the specific response related to Bolsanaro needs to be kept separate. --Masem (t) 13:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing reliable sources through rapid deletion of content

Masem Eleven reliable sources and related content were removed in one edit. This not only removed content that the editor considered extraneous but it resulted in 11 red ref error notices in the rest of the article. Please confirm that any full RS that is removed is not cited elsewhere.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Masum should have at least moved the citations to avoid the red ref error notices.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources that are reused will be rescued by a bot in a short time. I was planning on letting the bot rescue those, and then go through from the history to transfer the rest that were not saved. --Masem (t) 15:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm waiting for User:AnomieBOT to process its ongoing queue that auto-rescues named references, and then I can look through the others removed that were not named/reused and move them to the text, if they need to be there. There's way too much repetitive citations already on this page already, so pruning is necessary too. --Masem (t) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you do that. I would appreciate it if you would take the extra time to avoid this. I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time filling in complete references including authors names, dates, name="", to prevent loss through deadurls. I also like to have the exact dates of publications to put references in chronological order. Most of the RS that you deleted were my contributions. When they are deleted, other editor add them again with fewer fields. Please take the time to do avoid the error messages. I am an inclusionist and you are a deletionist. We need both for a good articles. When I delete a quantity of text, I usually bring the content to the talk page so the editors know what has been removed. I appreciate the tremendous amount of time you have volunteered to improve this article. Your research and knowledge have added a lot. Thank you for that.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you are tending to cite things that have already been cited elsewhere in the article. We're trying to summarize, so we don't need to point to all the possible references, but the ones that are most reliable and cover what is being said. And because we are en.wiki, we also prefer to use English based sources that cover the same details that may be in foreign ones (But this is not always possible, and this is nothing against otherwise using foreign sources for unique information as long as they are reliable and we can assure what a translation says). --Masem (t) 16:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I just did this all manually, having only needed to move maybe 3-4 non-named or single use references to appropriate spots. Two references were non-English ones duplicating what we already had from reliable English sources. The rest was all the named ones. --Masem (t) 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Masem for manually restoring the following references that you accidentally deleted while removing content: BBC_20190821, theintercept_Zaitchik_20190706, euronews_Paraguassu_20190820, BBC_20190828, NYT_Andreoni_20190821, NOAD_20190815, NASA_20190816, VOX_Irfan_20190820, bbc-mercosur-France-Ireland, CNN_John_20190826, CBC_20190826, Peru_20190823Oceanflynn (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Atmospheric rivers

Masem You deleted this:

The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest. with this summary: "this point about the water is alreay discussed -- and given that the Intercept repeated the 20% oxygen claim, lets not use it for obtuse science facts." Please note that the UN IPCC December report used

an NASA image of atmospheric rivers. So not an "obtuse science fact" There are two Wikipedia articles devoted to the topic: atmospheric rivers, which refers to the global phenomenon, and flying river, which specifically focuses on the Amazon Basin. The section in which I had included this focused on the significance of the Amazon in global environment. In regards to the reliability of The Intercept article which was co-published with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, that is not in question. As already noted here on the talk page, numerous main stream media outlets made the same error of "the 20% oxygen claim". By the way, this National Geographic article "Why the Amazon doesn’t really produce 20% of the world’s oxygen", cited varying statistics for the "net [oxygen] effect of the Amazon" from 9% to "around zero".

References

The Amazon's role source of oxygen is challenged. Its role in terms of water transfer from one are to another is not.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's stated in the first section "The flora also generates significant quantities of water vapor through transpiration which travel large distances to other parts of South America and contribute to the precipitation in these areas." sourced to the FAO. But for how MUCH water, that should be coming from a scientific source. Also will be adding a scientific paper I just found. --Masem (t) 17:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your contributions. This does not however, exclude the addition of the atmospheric river concept. Linking to existing articles improves Wikipedia.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You might enjoy this one Masem. It is "Antonio Donato Nobre's TED Talk: The magic of the Amazon: A river that flows invisibly all around us. Nobre "is a senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research."

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that he has published papers too. The one thing again to keep in mind is that the focus of this article is on the fires; it is important to scientifically establish why the forest burning down is a concern, but we're not writing the thesis on that here. A fuller discussion should be at Amazon rainforest or potentially a wholly separate article. --Masem (t) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree Masem that another article would be useful. I have begun to add content to the article on Brazil and plan on adding to related articles. Brazil had made significant changes and introduced impressive technologies to monitor deforestation and fires.

By 2013, Brazil's "dramatic policy-driven reduction in Amazon Basin deforestation" was a "global exception in terms of forest change", according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) Science journal. From 2003 to 2011, compared to all other countries in the world, Brazil had the "largest decline in annual forest loss", as indicated in the study using high-resolution satellite maps showing global forest cover changes. The annual loss of forest cover decreased from a 2003/2004 record high of more than 40,000 square kilometres (4,000×10^³ hectares) to a 2010/2011 low of under 20,000 square kilometres (2,000×10^³ hectares), reversing widespread deforestation from the 1970s to 2003.

References

The role of that atmospheric rivers is hugely significant and explains concerns the international community have about deforestation and fires, which are inextricably linked, in the Amazon.

Thanks for all your contributions.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, there's plenty of other articles for more scientific details. We want this one on the 2019 events to give enough that a person doesn't have to read the other articles to understand how all the parts work together but have that option if they want. So for example, we could go into a lot more detail on INPE, but to this article it is important they had tools for monitoring deforestation, improved tools more recently, and one is used to estimate daily fires while the other for less-frequent estimates of acres lost; this establishes where these numbers are coming from, and INPE's role relative to Brazil's response. But on INPE's page or a page about Deforestation in Brazil, more details would certainly be good. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone in Brasília is trying to edit the talk page?

189.72.137.74 made a highly politically biased comment on the issue earlier on. Since the location of their IP address was a bit suspicious, I'll just inform you about it. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 13:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We Brazilians cannot opine on the article? --201.27.64.240 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can add comments that are towards article improvement, but what won't be accepted are commented that are slanderous or the like towards named persons or that are insultingly gross about the situation. The deleted commented was attributing animals killed in the fires as being "barbequed" by Bolsonaro -- which, no. --Masem (t) 14:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Copying Bolsonaro‘s words and poking fun at other countries is not allowed. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)