Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 17 March 2022

Biography: Musicians / Science and Academia Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles