User talk:WeatherWriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Primary source inline" template at 2024 in climate change

I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."

However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.

Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the sources, but add a secondary source. Linking to primary sources is perfectly acceptable, but the articles quality would be improved by adding an additional secondary source. Basically something to show the primary source topic is actually notable enough for the article. On various weather articles, there has been discussions on what is/is not primary sources and to me, something like the WMO quote, which is the entire section, is sourced entirely by WMO. Basically, the tags are for adding/finding additional sources, not removing the primary source. Hopefully that explains why I added the templates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Basically instead of (CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be (CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we don't need to prove something is notable/important/reliable in the content itself, or the footnote itself. But in cases in which there may be some question, I'll give it a whirl. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, we sort of do. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources (bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In the "Climate change in 20xx" articles, almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link. I source the content to the scientific articles, of course, since they're the ultimate source. It shouldn't be difficult to find the articles that pointed me to the (primary) scientific articles. I think it's largely an unnecessary extra step in almost all cases, but if you point out specific items of concern to you, I intend to look into them; so far, there have been only two. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you think it is unnecessary, then that is fine. Personally, if I was reviewing 2024 in climate change for a GAN or FAC, the four things I tagged would be places I would have issues with. I believe you that you find the scientific articles via news sources. Like I said, I am not saying you should stop that. But if it is a primary/self-published case study/report, you should cite the case study/report as well as at least one news article. I will give a specific example from the 2024 article below:

2024 in climate change#Summaries – "19 March: "The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces." —Prof. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, in State of the Climate 2023.

Why is Celeste Saulo notable? Why is that quote notable for climate change in 2024? Who said it is a summary of climate change in 2024? It may seem dumb/too technical, but that is why that second clause WP:SPS (bolded above) exists. Right now, that section is a quote from WMO about climate change, sourced by WMO. I.e., WMO quote sourced by WMO. That is the exact same thing as taking a quote from Greta Thunberg and citing only the tweet posted by Thunberg. No context, no reasoning, no actual evidence to support why that is notable. That is what I mean.

Look at the first point in the "2024 in climate change#Measurements and statistics" section. 5 February: a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposed adding a "Category 6" to the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale to adequately convey storms' risk to the public, the researchers noting a number of storms have already achieved that intensity.

That wikilinks to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which explains that it is a peer-reviewed journal, meaning not published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of Wisconsin–Madison, which are the author affiliates. The WMO quote is published by WMO. No citation says why that is notable for the article or why that statement matters. A wikipedia editor just saying it matters/adding it with only a source from the quoter is borderline original research. That is why secondary sources are needed for primary/self-published sources.

To add on to that, a better example is the May 8 point by Ember. Why is Embers report important? If the answer is "Well it related to climate change", then that is original research. A secondary source is needed to say why it is important. Hopefully that explains my full reasoning on why the templates were added. Personally, as it stands now, I would delete all four of those points as no supporting evidence says they (they being the specific reports/case studies) are important to climate change in 2024, except the self-publishing organizations themselves. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• @RCraig09: brief summary which should solve all questions if I interpret it correctly: You stated, "almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link." If that is true, then someone else says that the report is important; "someone else" being whatever general news source you found mentioning it. All I am asking is that if it is a self-published source, meaning if the author affiliation is the same as the website and/or publisher, then also tag along the news source citation. If it is from a peer-reviewed journal, no additional sources is needed. I think that summarizes all the points into a neat "too-long, didn't read" format. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

1997 Jarrell tornado image

Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didn’t know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)