[Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

[James Salsman]

Geoff,

The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests
that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with
further editing on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tim Starling wrote:

>... http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/
> cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could
> presumably cite when you write about these topics. On
> your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting
> annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source,
> which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary
> sources directly?

There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and
secondary sources here.

http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/
is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not
peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears
in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract
is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory
literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but
the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature
review summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint
has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and
includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in it.