Talk:Black-throated finch

Page views for this page over the last year
finch Detailed traffic statistics

NPOV- decline

The Black Throated Finch is currently a hot political topic in Australia. One of the main objections to the Carmichael Mine development is that it poses a threat to this species. There is no evidence that the population is in decline yet citation needed tags have been repeatedly deleted along with article problem tags and current Queensland goverment references in favour of older, less evidence based articles in order to support the political agenda served by stating that the population is in decline which is stated three times in this article. sensational yellow journalism articles should not replace peer reviewed research and citations from peer reviewed research should not be deleted in favour of news articles. statements from NGOs who do not support their statements with verifiable research should be regarded as suspicious especially when their opinions conflict with peer reviewed articles or articles published in reputable ornithology journals.

please do not remove the problem tags until the issue has been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.21.145 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, yeah it is so non-threatened that is why it has a recovery plan. This (official government plan) says southern subspecies has disappeared from 80% of its former range and halved its population. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read the reference and there is no evidence to support those claims. the recovery plan was also written by an NGO(BTF Recovery Team) opposed to the Carmichael Mine. it specifically listed some possible causes for its supposed decline which were omitted in the edits to the article and deleted from the article when i posted them, specifically, hybridisation. the article also confuses the northern and southern subspecies. references i posted which were authored by the federal government were also deleted in which it specifically mentions that no study has been undertaken regarding its range or population. it further reiterates that the only existing population estimate is of low reliability no less than 5 times. an editor also felt the need to revert updates to references to keep obsolete government pages instead of up to date current advice on the subject from the same department, reverting to archived 10 year old stub-type summary articles. those articles give this reference as their source, stating unequivocally that the decline is fact, as opposed to of 'low reliability', a drastic misinterpretation of the source. In the advice to the Minister, no evidence was submitted to support admission as a threatened species but it was approved on the basis of suspicion, "suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a very severe, severe or substantial reduction in numbers." 49.198.21.145 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference given on the federal government website for Ley, A.J. & S.M. Cook (2001). The Black-throated Finch Poephila cincta in New South Wales. Australian Bird Watcher. 19:115-20

is http://www.birdlife.org.au/afo/index.php/afo/article/view/126/116 (sign-up required but free to access the entire article. Australian Bird Watcher was renamed to Australian Field Ornithology since publication.) 

the abstract for the article states that no sightings were recorded. the article however states that five sightings were recorded but the authors were unable to verify them by personally observing them. "During the on-ground searches 152 Black-throated Finch survey record sheets were completed (116 in the Inverell-Ashford district, 23 in the Tenterfield district and 13 near Boggabilla), but no Black-throated Finches were recorded." " during the search weekend some participants who live in the area expressed the opinion that finches in general were less abundant than they have been at other times. One or more finch species were recorded at only 41 of 116 survey locations around Inverell-Ashford and there were no large flocks. Perhaps more finches would be recorded, and the possibility of seeing the target species might be enhanced, during searches at a different time of year or under different environmental conditions. " the areas surveyed were not required to be systematically targeted or distributed in any way and no discussion or information is given regarding clustering or distribution of observers. observers were required to perform their observations over a minimum period of 20 minutes. "Ten search teams from the Birds Australia-Northern New South Wales Group were allocated an area to survey within the wider Inverell-Ashford district. Teams were asked to survey selected points for 20 minutes or more. Survey points were to be selected by the teams guided by, but not restricted by, guidelines giving characteristics of the habitat that might be favoured by the Finch. "

Cook gives a reference to the book, The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. the 2010 edition gives an estimate of <10 000 on page 416. https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Action_Plan_for_Australian_Birds_201.html?id=s6MVsg0pnGIC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Poephila%20cincta&f=false but this section recursively reference back to Cook and the federal government website as references which means that there is no reference for this figure as author A says they got their information from author B but author B says they got it from author A.

I'm not seeing any evidence of population decline, just a bunch of people without references. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Except that the secondary sources report that the southern subspecies is extinct in NSW and has declined by 80% of its range and presumptively 50% of its population. For you to go ferreting around primary sources and conclude otherwise is OR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The current claims right now are not anything wild, just that the population is declining. Population decline is supported by the currently cited sources, as well as IUCN, and the Handbook of Birds of the World, both of which are reliable secondary sources. The governmental sources appear to be reliable secondary sources as well, and also support the decline. I think saying that the population of the species is declining is very well supported by sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Captain Eek and Casliber are spot on, excellent sources support the claims. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Handbook of Birds of the World is a tertiary source WP:Tertiary.

"all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference."

WP:TERTIARY"Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.[h] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Category:Wikipedia and Category:WikiProject Wikipedia articles)."

the Red List is also a tertiary resource. if you had bothered to read the source and apply WP:citation citation guidelines you would have noticed that both tertiary resources you posted have the sole contributor, Stephen Garnett. if you had checked the citations, you would have noticed that he references himself three times and only another Tertiary source. According to Wikipedia policy, they may be, "helpful in evaluating due weight." the weight appears to be low as he has not been able to cite a single independent secondary source but rather recursively references his own personal opinion on the matter.This statement is supported by these secondary sources. As does this primary resource referred to within http://www.birdlife.org.au/afo/index.php/afo/article/view/126/116 . The primary resource performs as a secondary source in the discussion where a researcher analyses Garnetts work and interprets it as an expert however she cites a tertiary source by Garnett leaving us with only one source which is a matter of opinion and does not have any reliable secondary source to support the claims Garnett makes in the available primary or tertiary sources he provides to support the notion that the population is in decline.

"Population Information

Top Population abundance No reliable estimates of the size of the Black-throated Finch (southern) population are available. The population has been estimated at 20 000 breeding birds (based on area of occupancy and available data on densities of populations), but this estimate is considered to be of low reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000). The subspecies is considered to be locally common at some sites around Townsville and Charters Towers (BTF Recovery Team 2004; Garnett & Crowley 2000).

No reliable information is available on the existence, number, or size of subpopulations of the Black-throated Finch (southern). The subspecies is thought to occur as a single, contiguous population, but this estimate is considered to be of low reliability, due to uncertainty about the number of subpopulations and/or the extent of genetic separation (Garnett & Crowley 2000)."

The black finch recovery plan was created under the assumption that the population is in decline and does not give a reliable source for this statement. as such, when mentioning that the population is in decline, it operates as a tertiary source, presenting it as an axiom rather than discussing it. If you believe you have identified synthesis or analysis to suggest that they have reasonably interpreted primary sources rather than merely restating population decline as WP:VERIFYfact please post it here.

"Over the last 20 years it is estimated that there has been a contraction in the extent of

occurrence of the species by approximately 80 percent of its former extent (comparing Blakers et al. 1984 with Barratt et al. 2003). At the same time the area of occupation and, presumably, the population size has also declined. Circumstantial evidence points to an overall decline of

more than 50 percent in the population of this species in the past ten years."

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f164f090-6c72-4e29-a91b-0037b82f4250/files/p-cincta.pdf

As i have stated multiple times, reliable secondary sources should not be deleted in favor of tertiary resources. Tertiary resources are not to be used as the final reference point. please familiarise yourselves with the wikipedia citation guidelines as i have outlined as your assessments contravene wikipedia citation guidelines.User:Sabine's Sunbird User:CaptainEek Verify references (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A multitude of factors potentially impact on birds, but at the continental scale habitat loss by land clearance is the most significant. Over the last 20 years in Australia, around 10 million ha of native vegetation (an area half the size of Victoria) have been cleared, much of it mature woodland and forest. Most of the recent clearing has occurred in south-east Queensland, with the greatest reduction in bird species in areas of greatest,

recent clearance.

Numerous reports have analysed Australia’s native vegetation condition and extent since 2011. The precise figures—for example, relating to clearing, conversion and regrowth—differ depending on the data and methodology used; however, the overarching picture remains consistent. Rates of clearing have generally decreased in Australia since a peak in 2006, and have stabilised in most states since 2011. However, in Queensland, clearing increased during the period 2011–14.

The rate of reclearing (i.e. clearing of forest cover that has regrown on previously cleared land) has also remained relatively stable since 2011 (DoE 2015).

For most years, the level of tree clearing in Queensland is greater than the combined total for all other states and territories. The main cause of clearing is for pasture (Figure LAN28a). About 75 per cent of clearing takes place on freehold land (Figure LAN28b), even though this only accounts for 31 per cent of the landscape (Evans 2016).

so I found these references to use to support the current position of the article which can be used to further expand the "Distribution and habitat" subheading to further explain population decline. The vast majority of bird surveys conducted on the finch were done close to urban centres, in rural pastoral areas which explains their data. At the time the bird was listed as threatened without fulfilling any of the legislated requirements except 'suspicion' south-east Queensland(a large part of its range) was experiencing rapid deforestation and continues to do so. When they compare maps of sightings from previous years, they're comparing observations made in forests 20 years ago to observations made in pastures today. the population estimates are based on this data. I mistook ornithology for a science where statistical and covariant analysis would be performed on large data sets. The IUCN listing confirms that it was just historical panic, listing it as, 'least concern,' expecting its still very large range into human-unpopulated Cape York Peninsula to further shrink north as land clearance continues inferring that its population will fall as less people in populated areas will see them however moving its conservation status back to LC.

I would still argue that the population decline is a qualitative measure of low reliability not based on any analysed direct evidence and the article should reflect that by not stating it as fact."...according to IUCN criteria it is suspected of being in population decline..." Verify references (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sooo, you've just written above about record rates of land clearing in Queensland. it lives in woodlands...and the woodlands have continued to be cleared....and the places searched (that were woodland and are now pasture) it isn't found...and you're trying to make a case that there hasn't been a decline? That if you remove habitat and it evidently has not adapted to pasture and hence disappeared...then what? Obviously it has declined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the IUCN source is tertiary, but tertiary sources may used in assesing due weight. As I see it, every source we have right now either says the species is declining, locally extinct, or data defecient. No source is claiming that its population is booming or that its range is majorly expanding. Sometimes the sources in a situation like this are less than ideal (although I think the sources here are much better than in a lot of bird articles). Saying that the speices is declining still appears well supported by existingsources, and we're not making any wild claims like that its going extinct. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I am willing to dispute that the IUCN or HANZAB are tertiary sources, has anyone has ever questioned that before? cygnis insignis 19:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis I still think that HANZAB is definitely a secondary source. And to be honest, I still think that IUCN might be a secondary source. But I'm not certain, and Verify references made me question if I knew the right definition of a tertiary source, which is why I agreed for argument's sake that the IUCN was. After some more thought, I'm of the belief that they are secondary sources and that I just second-guessed my self in response to Verify references. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, IUCN is a poor source in summary, that is a tertiary element in the source, but the entry sometimes contains cited and extensive details of info relevant to its status (which makes you wonder how they arrived at that status). And there is nothing wrong with authors citing themselves, they are employed by the state and authorised to provide scientific information and they are not operating in an academic vacuum (they are extremely communicative, collaborative and critical [in Australia]). Extinction is just maths in most cases, half the things I write about are doomed without intervention, we are living in a mass extinction event. cygnis insignis 20:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think its population is declining and i agree with you on that alone. I would argue that the IUCN redlist does not require the level of evidence expected of an academic work or wikipedia although i concede that people are interested in its conservation status so i see no need to remove it so long as its stated that population decline comes from that source and is in accordance with the criteria of the redlist. The IUCN redlist does not require high quality data. the purpose is not to serve as an academic journal but as a conservation tool to raise awareness and prioritise resources it says that in the criteria of which i posted a direct quote on the IUCN redlist wiki page.

A tertiary source is a summary of available data that does not make new synthesis, analysis or present remarkably new ideas. I tend to think of them as coffee table books or factsheets if it reads like one then its probably tertiary the purpose of such works is to inform and provide a general overview. the purpose of the ranking of secondary>tertiary>primary sources is that in a secondary source an expert has analysed the data and shown how they came to their conclusions, usually using an industry standard model or presenting a new modelling paradigm which is then up for academic debate where other academics can critique their modelling, data gathering or conclusions. if they receive a valid criticism then they tend to publish a retraction. its this process of continual improvement that makes secondary sources so valuable. tertiary sources are also good for very broad subjects so long as you also tie secondary sources to them to make them more specific. quite often I will read tertiary sources that agree with what my assumptions but when i check the references they're just some random passing statement in the citation or sometimes it's even the opposite of what is cited. how I would classify, The State of Australia’s Birds 2003, would be on a case by case citation basis. in the example below I would interpret that as a being from a tertiary source because they dont provide very much in detail in regards to their analysis of population decline among woodland species, there's no analysis of the reliability of data or comparison across their dataset and its a qualitative assertion.

In the case of the finch the secondary sources state that pastoralism is a likely cause but the focus of those works isnt pastoralism so they dont go into it in detail. We can reference 'The State of Australia’s Birds 2003' and 'State of the Environment: Vegetation Land (2016)' with those secondary sources with a paragraph something like, "Pastoralism has been blamed as a likely factor in the suspected decline of the finch.[all the sources that state this] between 1983 and 2003, "around 10 million ha of native vegetation (an area half the size of Victoria) [was] cleared [in Australia]." This has correlated with a decrease in sightings of many woodland birds.[The State of Australia’s Birds 2003] south-east Queensland continues to experience the most rapid rate of land clearance of any area in Australia.[State of the Environment: Vegetation Land (2016)]" the caveat to this is that it could be seen to unbalance the article or place undue weight on the forestry industry, as an attempt to draw focus from the Carmichael coal mine. I would encourage an exploration of any cited factors.

and as an adendum, primary sources can also be great references but you really need to be sure about the interpretation and it needs to be simple or backed up by secondary sources. an example of using a primary source would be to examine the data in a research report directly or make a novel or complex interpretation. an example of using a primary source in such a way would be to look at research paper, of which the discussion and conclusion is secondary and they've stated that according to their interpretation, Rofecoxib does not cause heart failure but they excluded patients from the final data who died of heart failure during the trial, quoting it and confirming that it does actually say that. In that case there are loads of secondary sources to support it which can be cited at the same time. where it becomes dangerous to cite primary sources would be, this letter by Thomas Jefferson. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl231.php it's written in such a humorous candour that it would be confusing for someone who didnt know that Napoleon was a strong supporter of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who advocated leaving children in the forest until they're 7 in his, Emile, or On Education so they might quote, "Our post-revolutionary youth are born under happier stars than you and I were. They acquire all learning in their mothers' womb, and bring it into the world ready-made. The information of books is no longer necessary; and all knowledge which is not innate, is in contempt, or neglect at least." to support the notion that Jefferson was opposed to Plato's theories on education and in favour of Rousseau. which is why its important to look deeper to cite something like this.

I decide whether to include information in an article by evaluating what people are likely to be exposed to in other readily available sources. Generally I tend to focus on defusing moral panic or defamation.These are some of the top news articles i get when i search for the black throated finch. these are mostly Tertiary resources in regards to the facts presented but are secondary resources when they quote statements from people. they provide a general overview of the situation but label the finch as endangered, that it needs to be relocated and overly inflate the issue. one article states, "Adani has provided a map showing an area 10 times the size of the mine, a rehabilitation area where the endangered bird can be relocated. Conversation groups are against moving the species, which Mr Gleeson says is ‘a national scandal’." the guardian quotes, '“That just blows me away … we’re trusting this plan to stop this species going extinct.” so I guess my point is that people are worried about the bird but it's yellow journalism from what most people consider to be quality news sources. and this is based on those figures of a population of <20 000 then <10 000, its threatenned status under australian legislation which hasnt been updated to reflect the redlist and the assumption that the bird was only reported to exist in the exact site of the mine. Verify references (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So to clarify: you're alright with using the word decline, but you just want to provide in text explanation of the sources? Are there any other words/pasaages you take issue with? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

spot on. I also think it would be appropriate for there to be a section on the Carmichael mine controversy and it could contain information about it, citing news sources and that it was incorrectly described as being listed as endangered. Verify references (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Who said it was 'listed as endangered'? Are you maintaining a position that HANZAB is a tertiary source? The ABC is quoting somebody and that is yellow journalism? You are able to tag the article, and write a sentence or two, is there a reason you can't add the proposed edit or compose it here for discussion (with whatever you deem to be a proper source)? cygnis insignis 10:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And most importantly, do you understand there is one entry on two populations at the IUCN and everywhere else? That one is okay for now, and another is 'threatened with extinction'? cygnis insignis 11:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

the google books blurb describes the HANZAB reference as, "The Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, known as HANZAB, is the pre-eminent scientific reference on birds in the region..." It is a reference book like an encyclopedia or dictionary. its not intended to be a scientific journal or present new ideas or perform any critical analysis. I am unfamiliar with this entry in the IUCN redlist to which you refer. searching the IUCN web page I can only find three species containing the name, 'Poephila' all of which are listed least concern. I am unsure of whether or not the southern subspecies has been confirmed to be a different species. although it is mentioned in passing, there's very little information on this so i encourage inquiry into the topic of the two apparent, largely undiscussed in available literature, subspecies. I believe in the last post i made i referred to . I was giving these as examples of news articles in which the bird has been described as being threatened with extinction in order to generate moral panic regarding the bird. I was giving these as examples of why I felt the article to previously be unbalanced. They were not cited in the article but I was pointing to incorrect information presented in readily available sources to the public. again i must reiterate that I firmly encourage any inquiry into the three mentioned subspecies, Poephila cincta vinotincta, Poephila cincta cincta and Poephila cincta but I was unable to find any reliable analysis of these subspecies.

news articles describe the northern population to be threatened with extinction if the mine is constructed but it is the supposed southern subspecies, previously identified in the region of intense land clearance that is presumed extinct. The issues facing the southern subspecies has been conflated with an issue facing the northern subspecies. The southern subspecies has never been identified in that particular region so I would argue that those two articles i just mentioned are indeed yellow journalism. Verify references (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

to further illustrate what I mean by supposed subspecies and confirmed identification, I would point to this newspaper article, research paper and proposal. usually when there is reasonable suspicion of divergence someone publishes on the topic. My criticism of recent research in regards to the finch is that there isn't such evidence but I acknowledge that the purpose of the papers was to promote conservation and investigation and therefor consider it responsible but it shouldn't be misinterpreted as confirmation. Verify references (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References