JzG - I reverted your edit that eliminated the statement about forestry projects and the citation from the Environmental Defense Fund - I don’t see anything in WP:RS that would exclude articles from this group being cited in Wikipedia articles. That policy suggests caution when using references from advocacy groups, but does not exclude their inclusion in articles per se. The Environmental Defense Fund article in Wikipedia describes is as a highly reputable organization. Note that the main climate change article, an FA article that is heavily monitored and frequently edited, has included a reference from the Natural Resources Defence Council, a similar organization, for a few years now. The statement this reference is supporting is a factual statement that is also described in other sources. IMO it belongs in the article. LMK is you would prefer a different source for this statement. Dtetta (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- EDF are not a reliable source. They are a pressure group. The fact that other pressure groups are also cited is not a justification here. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am following the conversation. This is the sentence in question, right?:
Forestry projects currently have the highest level of growth.
- It does seem to be a rather broad, strong statement. Perhaps it could be either narrowed down (what exactly is it referring to), or an additional or more reliable source used to back this up? EMsmile (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by a “strong” statement. IMO this is a factual statement that is supported by more than one source (current citations 62 and 63). Disagree that the EDF/Engie Impact report does not meet the definition for a reliable source. Dtetta (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Guy - if you look at the section of WP policy you reference, you will see the statement:” comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case.” This is the comparison I am making. Dtetta (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is also an August 2022 Ecosystem Marketplace report that describes 2020-2021 trends for several categories. Forest and land use show the greatest increase. Would folks prefer I use that (it’s behind a quasi paywall - which is why it was not my preferred reference), and just state that for the 2020-2021 period this category showed the largest increase? Dtetta (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- See below. Regardless of how much one might agree with it (and it does seem facially plausible), this is a self-published document by an activist group, so not usable as a source for a statement of fact. I looked for alternate sources and found a couple of predatory journals and a lot of UN and other credible sources stating this as an aspiration not as a fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- @JzG: I'm inclined to agree with you that pressure groups are not reliable sources, however I'm curious as to where this is stated in policies and/or guidelines. Is this stated somewhere other than WP:SPS? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have special guidance on all the different kinds of partisan source not to use, I guess, by name, but this is a self-published document by partisans, so it seems clear to me that it fails RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the definitions of "self-published" and "partisan" need to be clarified in our policies? Do we consider International Energy Agency publications to be self-published, and if not why not? The EDF is a charitable organization which by law must be non-partisan, so on what basis would we decide whether it's partisan? Sorry if I'm sounding dense here but we have ongoing debates about source quality across the entire field of climate change mitigation, and I'd like to be able to explain the concepts more clearly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Pinging JzG. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
