Talk:Plant-based diet

Paper in Nature Communications
@C.J. Griffin, @Bon courage, @Loupgrru

This paper was removed from the article as a primary source. However, the article has a "Sustainability" section which already cites a similar paper published in July sourced to this. A scan through that section and we can see other papers published in similar journals such as published in Nature Sustainability.

I would point out that the study that was removed was published in Nature Communications. The other paper was published in Nature Food. Nature Communications is widely cited on Wikipedia (over 5000 articles are citing this journal), I have not seen anyone challenge the status of the journal as it still seems to be ok for this sort of thing.

My understanding was that primary sources should not be used if they are making biomedical claims but these papers seem to be about sustainability and the environment. I have never added any papers on sustainability to Wikipedia before so this may be my own misunderstanding. Some clarification on this would be useful, cheers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors are wary of primary sources for science, and although WP:SCIRS is not a WP:PAG, it enjoys fairly wide consensus. Is there not WP:SECONDARY content on these matters? Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest rewriting the paragraph for tone, to something like this:
 * A 2023 study published in Nature Communications found that replacing half of the beef, chicken, dairy and pork products consumed by the global population with plant-based alternatives could, reduce the amount of land used by agriculture, reduce deforestation, restore biodiversity, and reduce GHG emissions from agriculture by 31% by 2050. However, the report notes that a growing population and rising affluence are projected to increase demand for animal products which could have negative impacts on the environment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the rewrite above. As I stated in my second edit summary, I believe the source satisfies WP:PRIMARY. Given how widely the journal is cited on Wikipedia, I would say this strengthens the case for inclusion here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a slight modification to the above. Please review. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)