# Talk:Carbon accounting

Thanks for doing that Onegreatjoke! Dtetta (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

JzG - I reverted your deletion of the paragraph on voluntary and regulatory program convergence. The reason for this as for a reversion of a similar deletion edit you made to the Carbon offsets and credit article. See 
this talk page discussion. Like with that situation, the statements in this paragraph are from a reliable source and are consistent with WP:RS policy. These are not statements that represent scientific assessments, but merely describe programs. So I do not believe the peer review standard is relevant in this situation Dtetta (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that EWG are not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
You mean EDF, correct? That is the source that is cited for that paragraph. Dtetta (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've undone this edit which added a section titled "Controversies".  The editor, Vital75116, has made edits only to this article, all of which have mentioned the company Greenly.  It seems likely they have a connection with Greenly.  I'll leave a note on their talk page explaining the COI policy.
Dtetta, can you take a look at the reverted edit and see if there is any material there that you think should be in the article?  It seems possible that the content was pulled together in an attempt to find a legitimate way to add material that mentioned Greenly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree with your removal but I do wonder if a section heading called "controversies" would be more useful for our readers than the current two sections called "Effectiveness", "Limitations" which are less clear as section headings, for layperson readers. I think I argued for a section heading called "controversies" in the past, maybe 2 years ago but I can't remember what came out of that discussion. I note that Dtetta hasn't edited on Wikipedia for a while now (over a year), which is a pity. I hope Dtetta will come back. EMsmile (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've again restored a reference carelessly removed by JzG so that the referencing errors left behind are fixed. 
Note that WP:SPS refers to material self-published by an individual. If we considered material published by an organization to be self-published, then all material would be self-published.
JzG claims this is "X says Y, source, X saying Y" but the fact is that the EDF is describing actions by the ICAO; that a list of other companies have implemneted offseting projects; that and the quantitative cumulative effect of those efforts. This isn't a self-published source, nor is it a primary source and I think the reference should stay.
I certainly don't see any concensus here for removing the source, but if the source is to be removed, it should be removed *and* the uses of that source cleaned up. Simply reverting the removal re-introduces referencing errors to the article, and that's disruptive. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This is an advocacy group, not a reliable source. It is not "disruptive" to remove unreliable sources. In fact, removing unreliable sources accounts for a large amount of the work I have done here (see my user page).
SPS exceptions centre around ABOUTSELF. This is not ABOUTSELF. It is an activist group's self-=published report used as a source for statements of fact.
Thank you for clarifying that your problem was not so much the source, but the referencing. I can fix that. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
You used the formula X says Y, source: X saying Y. Here, it's "Z did something, source: EDF saying Z did something".
Groups are never sources; publications are. I don't see anything at WP:RSP that says the edf.org is not a reliable source -- is this something you've decided all by yourself?
On the other hand, in the GA-version of this article which was extensively peer-reviewed, the EDF references are present. Why do you think your individual opinion overrides that well-established consensus? I'm worried that you're using your bias rather than policy to justify the removal of the material.
Removing problematic sources isn't disruptive in itself, but doing so in a careless way and repeatedly making poor edits and re-introducing errors to article absolutely is disruptive, and that's what you've done here. -- mikeblas (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Pinging Dtetta, who added the EDF reference first in this edit, then refined it in this edit, probably with a bunch of work in between. But also both before the Good Article review. I want to be sure they're aware of this conversation and are able to participate. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)