Talk:Worldwide energy supply

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original research?[edit]

I used data published by institutions such as the International Energy Agency - they did the original research, I didn't. Rwbest (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it was you who failed to add proper references to the statements. Just prove it. The Banner talk 20:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is easy. Rwbest (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then give the sources... The Banner talk 09:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sir, this discussion is not dormant. I am still waiting for the proper sources. The Banner talk 11:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, Worldwide energy supply is attributable to reliable, published sources. If you still doubt that, give a NEW argument why. Else, stop putting the OR template again and again. Rwbest (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it still is WP:OR and you still fail to give proper sources. Find-the-info-yourself-sources are not proper sources. The Banner talk 17:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to the point The Banner. If you really suspect OR in the article, then point out what and where. Else stop your pointless irritating action. Rwbest (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know quite well what the problem is, no need to go into denial and remove the maintenance templates time and time again. The Banner talk 11:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs additional citations?[edit]

As I wrote on your talkpage, I used Wiki Markup to improve citations. And I asked you to tell me how to improve the article further, if necessary. So I ask it again. IMHO the references are proper now. Rwbest (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between technically correct references (as you did) and having enough independent sources to back up your claims. The article is still for large parts unsourced and it still reads as your interpretation. The Banner talk 07:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The sources are independent and used by governments and the Worldbank. "The article is still for large parts unsourced and it still reads as your interpretation." That's your POV. Please explain. Rwbest (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still refuse to give proper sources stating that Fact D can be found in Source E on Page F supporting Article-Statement G. Instead you give notes and vague sources that you need to read completely and then you have to figure out what you have used. That smells like Original Research... The Banner talk 10:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Energy facts can be verified on the IEA statistics search reference, one page per country. That is not vague but proper. Rwbest (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Data sources are given but it seems that you don't understand. Please go to Reference 3. There you are invited to select Country/region, Topic (Balances) and Year (2013). Click on Search and you see on one page all data: Production, Imports, Exports, Final consumption. Rwbest (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you do not understand that you have to give references to the exact place where you can check, not a do=it-yourself-approach. As you state above "one page per country" that point to that page for every county. The Banner talk 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Individual references for each country should be given, if possible. Not doing so is the equivalent of citing a book but refusing to cite page numbers, where information is found on specific pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you want me to replace Reference 3 by about 40 references, one per country. That would make verification not much easier than using Reference 3 and selecting the country. Rwbest (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we want each individual and exact link, not do-it-yourself links. so yes, we prefer the 40 links. The Banner talk 19:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do. WP:BURDEN tells you to "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 3 points to a huge digital database with user-friendly search fields. That is absolutely not equivalent to searching in a paper book and not knowing page numbers. It is more like searching in a paper book that has one page per country in alphabetical order - then you don't need page numbers, yet I would prefer the digital book. 40 links would make a long list of nearly equal references differing only in country name. Would the verification demand of WP really force me to do that? Rwbest (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you object against giving exact (and many) references? The Banner talk 07:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a scientist I don't object against giving exact references. of course not. But in this case of many data about many countries the problem arises how to do that. I've looked at Citing multiple pages of the same source in WP:Citing_sources#Web_page but found no satisfactory option. All make many in-line citations and long reference lists which can be avoided by giving one reference, as I did. World_energy_consumption and List_of_countries_by_total_primary_energy_consumption_and_production for instance have also long country lists and do the same. Rwbest (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The long list of sources IS the desired option. At this time, it still smells like Original Research and your unwillingness to provide exact (and many) sources only furthers that impression. The Banner talk 18:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that contain long tables of something by country, and provide few sources. Please show me one article that follows the desired option. I can't find one. Rwbest (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuses, excuses, excuses, but no sources. The Banner talk 08:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hurry, you have a long to-do-list, putting maintenance templates on all articles where the desired citing option is ignored. Rwbest (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice when you start fixing this article instead of frustrating the discussion by pointing elsewhere. The Banner talk 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the sourcing/original research issues are still not solved, I have again restored the maintenance templates. The Banner talk 08:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided not to make long lists of references to pages of the same source, simply because nobody does that AFAIK in WP. I asked you to point out an article to me where such long lists are given, but you didn't. If you can find one and give me the title then I'll reconsider my decision. If not I consider the sourcing issue solved. Rwbest (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of rivers in County Clare, for instance. And as colleague recently pointed out to you: WP:BURDEN tells you to "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." But your excuses are nice, but cut no wood. The Banner talk 09:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to go on with comparing. You wrote the same article with the same dodgy referencing-style for the Dutch Wikipedia. And there the article was removed as being an essay and possible WP:OR and your repeated attempts to get the article back in, failed on the same points again and again. The Banner talk 09:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the Dutch WP was polluted by nasty suspicions about my intentions and the sudden removal of the article was criticised by several people, as you know.
List of rivers in County Clare refers indeed to many pages of the same source, thanks. But if you use one of these references you get page 1. To see the desired page you have to find it yourself. I found it easier to type [Contr] F and the river name, also a do-it-yourself action. So the long list of references don't make verification easier and page numbers are not needed. I don't change my decision. Many authors don't use the desired citing option anyway. Rwbest (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still you have to give references as precise as possible. Certainly when people are asking for the precise references. The Banner talk 09:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination in October 2016: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not and you know that. The Banner talk 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, and do not censor this page by removing my comments. The Banner talk 10:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment implies that I'm lying. That is an unfounded and unacceptable accusation. I think it is better to erase your comment. Rwbest (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, a mistaken believe is not lying. The Banner talk 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but irrelevant. I don't believe, I ascertain that "The citations are adequately addressed ...". Your comment "It is not and you know that" is equivalent to "You lie". Lying is: saying something knowing that is not true. Your comment is unacceptable. Rwbest (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no other arguments than personal attacks and accusations? What a pity! The Banner talk 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Despite frantic efforts of the original author to remove any templates, the article still reads like original Research. Main reason for that is lack of sourcing and in adequate sources (what I call Do-It-Yourself-sources, where you have to start searching the document for the right info). Or just plain unsuitable sources like resilience. The Banner talk 09:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"resilience" occurs only in reference 10. Why is that unsuitable? Rwbest (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not back up the statement it is supposed to back up. The Banner talk 14:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you you didn't read the source. It states "under average Southern European irradiation, the mean EROI of the most common PV technology (polycrystalline Si) is about 11-12." Rwbest (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are partly right, I looked here to the wrong page of this advocacy website. The Banner talk 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuels[edit]

And again a statement is backed up by a "search it yourself"-type of source. (The first attempt of sourcing did not back up the info at all). Good sourcing requires exact info on where to find the source of the statement. Page numbers are essential when using multi page reports. The Banner talk 10:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you aim at "non-commercial solid biofuel in developing countries", then again, you didn't read the source, Ref.5. The statement is easy to find. Rwbest (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good sourcing requires exact info on where to find the source of the statement. Page numbers are essential when using multi page reports. And that is what you fail in nearly every time. The Banner talk 10:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Rwbest (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you plain refuse to give proper sources? The Banner talk 16:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough that the statement is attributable to a reliable source.[edit]

Ehm, no. A source should be backed up by a source that gives the desired information. And that means giving the information straight away, not that you have to start searching and researching to get that info on the table. Do-it-yourself-sources are just not good enough. The Banner talk 10:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The source must exist, be published and support the material clearly and directly. Readers can check that, but it may take some time, depending on their ability to search, read and understand a technical source. Verifiability does not require that ALL readers (can) do that. Rwbest (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to invest time and effort to find the details in a source, than that source is not a good source and a better one is needed. The Banner talk 13:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV, not supported by WP:VER. Rwbest (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, a source is there to back up a statement. Your do-it-yourself-soiurces to not back up the statements. The Banner talk 14:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:VER and WP:OR: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. Your do-it-yourself sources do NOT give "the material clearly and directly". The Banner talk 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I have filed a case here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Worldwide energy supply. The Banner talk 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend[edit]

In Worldwide_energy_supply#Trend the sources does not back up what there is stated. In fact, you have to compare or look up things yourself, making it6 WP:OR. "Sources" like that are not suitable, as the sources must back up the claims. The Banner talk 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing a worn-out record. I don't listen anymore. Rwbest (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you admitting that you do not have the proper sources needed. The Banner talk 10:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Ref. 7 gives a list of articles, not the specific one that is used as the source.

Ref. 11 doesn't work. Koos van den beukel (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook until 2040[edit]

Is it possible to rework the sources so that it gives a real references to the facts? Now it is a classic: search-it-yourself source. And in fact useless. The Banner talk 13:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide_energy_supply#IEA_scenarios[edit]

The info added to Worldwide_energy_supply#IEA_scenarios gives far more security than the sources do. In fact, the text does not correctly represent the sources. The Banner talk 11:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

privilege "low carbon" and not "renewables"[edit]

It is an error not to focus in "low carbon electricity" and to only mention "renewables" in estimates of electric production in the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consumption". For instance, in the table: "final consumption in most using countries and per person", or in the table "Countries consuming most (85%) in Europe.", the only mention of "% renewables" in electricity makes a much better result for Germany than France, though an German emits two times more CO2 than a French. I suggest to replace "of which renewables" by "of which low carbon": This is a better estimate vs the important problem of CO2 emissions. 2A04:CEC0:1110:7FB5:46A:FB05:B47A:B5D5 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worldwide_energy_supply&oldid=1206082042"