Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky

His views on climate change
An editor User:K8M8S8 added a section about Gorodnitsky's views on climate change, which is supposedly sourced from one of Gorodnitsky's own publications. Per WP:TWITTER, self-published primary sources are indeed permissible to support claims about the author themselves. The edit was removed by User:Hob Gadling with an edit summary of "irrelevant. Primary source for WP:FRINGE opinion. Inclusion is WP:OR". The section is relevant to the article and does not appear to be original research. However as I cannot read Russian and would guess that Hob does not, either, I'll make no claims as to the verifiability. MarshallKe (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The original editor has since rewritten the section based on secondary sources, which I cannot scrutinize because again I don't read Russian. MarshallKe (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not select pieces from a person's direct output that we think are interesting. We let secondary sources do that. WP:OR says, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * How that "care" works is explained in other rules, for example, WP:FRINGE. Gorodnitsky doubts that human activities are responsible for climate change and sees natural causes for the global warming trend is a fringe opinion and must be balanced by mainstream responses. Now, there is such a response, although the word "criticize" is a bit lame. I used to see what the Russian source is about, and improved the article a bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF, self-published sources that otherwise would not meet RS requirements are reliable sources for claims about themselves. This invalidates any primary source, self-published, or original research arguments for self-claims. Also, your application of FRINGE is mistaken. We are describing someone's beliefs. Yes, other academics' opinions on Gorodnitsky's beliefs are relevant and should be documented in this article, but to argue that FRINGE demands this is either a worrying lack of comprehension of FRINGE or an intentional abuse of it. Gorodnitsky is a climate change skeptic, and that is a mainstream fact. To remove this claim from the article because it didn't come with criticism is disruptive editing. Nobody here is endorsing or condemning Gorodnitsky's beliefs. We are simply describing what he believes. MarshallKe (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE says:
 * When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views.
 * Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame.
 * The pseudoscientific status of climate change denial is pretty clear from the sources cited in our article about it.
 * Anything else you want to have explained to you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE also has to say something about it: We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
 * Letting that ignorant but popular opinion stand without adding the mainstream view would unduly legitimize it. I have been doing exactly this for quite a while. Ask at WP:FTN if you don't believe that this is how it is done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the one who needs things explained to you. The only thing we are writing about is the fact that Gorodnitsky is a climate change skeptic. We are not writing the page for climate change denial. The fact that Gorodnitsky is a climate change skeptic is the mainstream view. If someone came along and said he's not a climate change skeptic, then that would be the fringe viewpoint. We are not describing climate change skepticism here, we are describing Gorodnitsky. MarshallKe (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * > Letting that ignorant but popular opinion stand without adding the mainstream view would unduly legitimize it.
 * This is just pure POV editing. You are saying that we should delete a well-sourced, neutrally worded, factual claim in order to further your point of view. MarshallKe (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are the one who needs things explained to you. I already knew that you hold that weird belief that from the snooty tone in your last reply.
 * You are about thirty years behind in current scientific developments. Climate change skeptics have been extinct for quite a while. Only deniers like this guy, laymen ignorant of the science, can hold that position by talking baseless bullshit.
 * That is not "my point of view", it is the scientific consensus. I already told you to read the denial article.
 * I also already quoted WP:FRINGEBLP: Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame. You chose to ignore that, but it does not matter. You are simply wrong. Can we stop this? You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your entire reply is a disruptive, bad faith assumption. Ignoring all the ad hominem and swinging at imaginary enemies you're doing, and focusing solely on the one decent argument, FRINGEBLP - this guideline is for protecting the subject of the article from being attacked unduly for beliefs that aren't relevant to their fame. If FRINGEBLP were to be applied to this article, it would be to remove the entire "Views on climate change" section, especially the criticism part. I don't think you would want that.
 * By the way, I like the article as it stands. We're just debating application of policy in theory at this point. MarshallKe (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's debate application of policy in theory.
 * I don't think you would want that. Actually, I would. The first thing I did here was to delete the whole "Views on climate change" section. The first two contributions to this thread talk about that very deletion and its reintroduction with a much better source. The guidelines and I don't care whether the section is there, but if it is there, it needs to be balanced by the consensus view among scientists.
 * There are four possibilities:
 * Delete the section. This is fine.
 * Include Gorodnitsky's opinion without refutation. - Unacceptable because of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
 * Include Gorodnitsky's opinion with mainstream source with a refutation of Gorodnitsky's views that specifically addresses Gorodnitsky. This is fine.
 * Include Gorodnitsky's opinion with mainstream source with a refutation of Gorodnitsky's views that does not mention Gorodnitsky. Unacceptable because of WP:SYNTH.
 * It is great that you are OK with #3. But if no knowledgeable person had commented specifically on Gorodnitsky's opinion in a reliable source, then #1 would be the only viable option. Someone who demands #2 in that case, or in any other case, would be in favor of violating the guidelines named. I have seen several BLP articles where #1 was implemented because climate change denial is so widespread (those dozens of free-market think tanks which all employ or quote the same handful of contrarian scientists spent a lot of effort to make it so) and scientists do not always bother to refute every single Republican politian's misconceptions. They are always about the same misconceptions anyway because most of them do not think for themselves, they just echo what the free-market think tanks say and what a certain group of journalists repeat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OR is indeed a concern when using a primary source. ABOUTSELF is for non-self-serving basic information, not to promote inaccurate claims.  By FRINGE and PSCI, statements like that the cause is natural should not be presented as such and the analysis of a secondary independent source, if it exists, may make the coverage DUE.  It would also be a little strong to link to the relevant climate change denial article as part of the statement without sources supporting that explicitly, but this would be an accurate description if including the material.  The suggestion that since notability is for other reasons there should be no problem to include the claim without secondary sources and analysis has no support in policy.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That can be mentioned, but only very briefly. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)