Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE

In regards to the issue of him supposedly fabricating quotes. The only discussion I would like to have is on it's weight and if it is really important enough to include in this article. A simple up or down vote will do, but please do not derail this RFC into other subjects. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose As the Weekly Standard itself observes: " After Davis reported this falsehood, not a single mainstream outlet picked up on the story..." http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cosmically-dishonest_805319.html Not one mainstream outlet thought this was important enough to cover. So why would we include it here? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And the issue has been picked up in today's Washinton Post. That seems plenty mainstream. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Volkl Conspiracy is a blog hosted by the Washington Post. It's not the Washington Post. The blog contributors vary, but I would not describe Jonathan Adler as "mainstream". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Volkl Conspiracy" can be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia as per WP:NEWSBLOG which reads: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process" Marteau (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue on the table is weight, not reliability. As this issue gets picked up by more outlets, it becomes more noteworthy. IMHO, it was clearly not sufficiently notable when originally added last week. Now it has garnered more attention and may meet notability requirements. My opinion is that we were premature in adding the material, and that in a month or so it will become much clearer just how notable the whole issue is. A go-slow approach is the right one here. We are not in the news business and there's no bonus for being first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr swordfish (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy is a blog with no editorial oversight. As per WP:NEWSBLOG it's only attributable as the opinion of the author. That does not appear to have much weight under Undue Weight policy. Alsee (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy is highly regarded, has a good reputation and an extensive track record. Because it has not yet been vetted for reliability on Wikipedia does not mean we can simply say it is an unacceptable source. It needs to go to RfQ. As it was published under the name of the blog, it will almost certainly undergo a RfQ regarding it's reliability as "Volokh Conspiracy" and not the individual author (the blog has different authors at different times). Marteau (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

...it has not yet been vetted for reliability... Yes, it has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29 "Resolved: Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP." - Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

neutral/weak support - two things have changed since my original vote: the article has been edited to comply with BLP, and more sources have weighed in on the matter thus increasing its notability. Folks, this is a moving target and covering breaking news is not what we are here to do. Let's move slowly and deliberately rather than trying to do a play-by-play of the latest happenings in the blogosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr swordfish (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - it's been a few more news cycles and not one mainstream news source has picked up the story. After Adler's blog post on the Volokh Conspiracy I'm sure the WaPo newsroom is aware of it, but they took a pass. As did every other newspaper other than the Tampa Bay editorial page. Apologies for the waffling, but when facts change I change my opinion. If it becomes more widely reported I'll change my mind again but for now I don't see how it meets notability/weight. Other shoes may drop later, and if they do I'll reconsider again. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• weakly oppose for now Its undue currently. That could change quickly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • neutral/weak support based on the improved sources, but if included, WP:WEIGHT dictates coverage should be very short. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The context of the quote and the point being made are sufficient for inclusion. The fact that he apparently has done this many times shows a pattern which cannot be ignored. Arzel (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be basing your inclusion criteria on your personal feelings about what the subject should do, and that wikipedia should WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikipedia isn't here to do that, our inclusion criteria is one of due weight. Second Quantization (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you come up with righting great wrongs. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Arzel, if we look at the context of the source, we find non-mainstream blogs connected to conservative, climate change denial, whose authors have an agenda. There is simply no good reason to include this material. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the conservatives made him make up quotes about GWB. Stop with the Red Herring. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support It is emerging NdGT does this "fake quote" act in a serial fashion and does to so smear, insult and demean groups and individuals with which he disagrees. The sloppiness of some of these assertions is egregious because it is not hard to come up with a real quote of a congressman or newspaper headline saying something stupid or scurrilous. The fact Tyson is a scientist makes it worse. He uses these faux quotes to prove points in a pseudo-scientific manner. He should be held to a higher account, therefore, than a comedian or a lecturer whose work is not as grounded in facts and solid research. There is a plethora of material on this page praising and lauding his work: these acts of false quotes call into question the rigor his research, his honesty and veracity on all matters on which he advocates and his general integrity as a scientist and authority on complex subjects. There is a page dedicated to "bushisms", which are merely malapropisms and misspeech: Tyson's statements are deliberate, rehearsed, repeated many times and used in the service of pushing an agenda. Certainly this is important material. 108.33.46.98 (talk)

Out of process RfC Not only is it phrased in a very POV manner, it includes direct argumentation per se, and is clearly an attempt to short-circuit the ongoing discussions on this talk page. Nor do RfCs ever seek "up or down votes" as they are a discussion where policy issues count for far more than accusations that unnamed editors are somehow seeking to include opinions which are disliked by other editors. See WP:NPOV to see just why elimination of criticism of a person is just as bad as stressing positive fluff about a person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: I completely agreeon both points. I'd like to shut this RfC down and restart it with a neutral wording. Collect (or anyone really) suggest a neutral wording? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not need to be shut down, IMO. Everyone who have chimed in has discussed it and not simply upped it or downed it. And everyone so far seems to be aware of the issues, despite the loaded question. The question could be rephrased, though, by simply editing it, not shutting it down entirely. Marteau (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is messy and fractured. This is too difficult to understand what is going on for people who might be looking at it. Hence why I just wanted one place with plenty of input on a specific aspect. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Not only is it phrased in a very POV manner", what? The RfC by Zero Serenity is completely neutral, what are you talking about? Where do you see a POV in there? Gaba ^(talk) 15:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

'Add: apparently Collect was referring to the original RfC which showed the editor's vote. Gaba ^(talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't when I wrote it. Since I am mentioned by name in the articles we refer to (not reference specifically), I'm unfortunately very much involved in this whole riff of shenanigans. I mentioned my position since it is somewhat obvious now, but might not have been to people jumping in now. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support including it. I don't get the issue of UNDUE here. It isn't going in the lede or the top of the article. But it's a relevant piece of information. Anectdotally, when I posted about this on Facebook, I got numerous replies saying things like "In my view, NdG is a national treasure and you can often tell by who's going out of their way to discredit someone whether they fear that someone." He has a legion of fans who see him as a valid source of information, and if he has a record of making things up to "prove" a point, it's more than relevant. Again, no one is even talking about making a section called "Tyson's complicated relationship with the truth", or anything of that sort. That would arguably be too much. But trying to exclude any mention of it whatsoever strikes me as a pretty POV move. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, I believe that it's significant enough for inclusion - particularly now that Bush's aides/speechwriters/press folks have commented on the controversy, including Ari Fleischer, Matthew Scully, John McConnell, Michael Gerson, and David Frum. Kelly ^hi! 15:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I arrived here via Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014. It is way to early to be holding this RfC. I suggest that it is put on ice for a month after that time it will be possible to see if this story has any legs. After that it is likely that an RfC will become irrelevant (one way or the other). -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Tyson, in addition to being a scientist, is a professional speaker and educator. Including well-documented information about his including in his lectures, on repeated occasions, incorrect, inflammatory material about a then current President directly pertains to his performance in his profession and the quality and content of a product he sells in public and for which he is known. Should Wikipedia go on and on and on about this matter? No, THAT would be undue weight. Including one paragraph? That is absolutely not undue weight. Marteau (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain – Events surrounding this process have caused me to question the very credibility of this process and I'll not lend my name in support of anything surrounding it. Marteau (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose so far it is a non-notable commentary that begun in an obscure media site (thefederalist.com) and was picked up with even more obscure sites/blogs. If it gets wider coverage in reliable sources, it could be added then. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Support In light of the story having been picked up by TWP and TDB I'm changing my vote. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Back to oppose, the WP is a blog and TDB a single article comment on the issue. No further RS s have picked up on this. Gaba ^(talk) 18:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• It has been picked up by The Week - see the link in the 'Resources' section. Kelly ^hi! 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Contrary to the remarks immediately above this has been picked up by major mainstream RS the Washinton Post, The Daily Beast (formerly Newsweek), The Tampa Tribune, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Free Beacon, and others in addition to the (supposedly obscure) legal website. This suggests that this is not undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. This is thus far a relatively insignificant story pushed by a fringe attack blog, and people from the attack blog have themselves complained that this story has not received sufficient mainstream coverage. While there seems to be abundant commentary on this issue, there is insufficient neutral, factual coverage of this from RSes to even say for sure what exactly the issue is. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If you don't think The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post are reliable enough to cite (as well as the commentaries from Bush officials on the matter), you must be either non-neutral about this topic yourself or completely off sight. And it's even sadder that this is coming from an admin. -- Veggies (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything sad about being cautious when BLPs are involved. No harm is done if we wait for higher quality sources, but harm can be done if we rush to put inadequate sources in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it the first time, The Volokh Conspiracy is NOT the same thing as the Washington Post - the VC is a collaborative blog that is hosted on the WAPO site, but it is not a WP:NEWSBLOG as the WAPO has no editorial control over it and it is not subject to the same level of fact checking as their normal news operation. Also, WP:AGF. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really wish to weigh in on the larger 'controversy' here, but WP:NEWSBLOG concerns verifiability, as does your concern about fact checking. But isn't the issue here whether or not the article in the VC (along with others, like the DB article) establish that it is notable? The reference to WP:NEWSBLOG seems like a red herring (and, in any event, I'm really not convinced that blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy aren't exactly what was intended by WP:NEWSBLOG -- certainly the policy doesn't establish a bright line criterion relating to editorial oversight standards... but this is neither here nor there).PStrait (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reading through the articles in question, I find there are allegations of impropriety that should be acknowledged. In particular, Volokh is a serious voice and should be given weight. While there may be a reasonable explanation for all this, it does appear that NdGT made politically charged attacks that aren't substantiated by the record. As one of the nation's pre-eminent scientists, this sort of behavior is hardly beneath notice. Hopefully NdGT will respond to these stories and we can find out his side of it. Ronnotel (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose for all the material except the stuff on GWB. Per several editors above, the stuff on what GW Bush said or didnt say has elicited commentary from numerous noteworthy sources and, as such, i think it passes WP:UNDUE and i SUPPORT its inclusion. The rest, jury duty, possible quote fabrication, etc, i dont think has reached the point of having sufficient relevance to the subject to warrant inclusion just yet. If the story picks up, ill likely change my view. Bonewah (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support A few sentences surely wouldnt unbalance the article and it does seem noteworthy at this point. WeldNeck (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support because it is now RS and notable enough that any biographer should mention it, even if it is not yet lining bird cages in twenty media markets. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The WaPo (Adler) article is rather the icing on the cake for anyone insisting that "only right-wing sites have noted the problems". And it is not libelous in any way about Tyson to note this problem. Collect (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. A borderline case. I would comment that "The Volkl Conspiracy" does not fall under WP:NEWSBLOG as it's not subject to editorial control, but similar to the posts on the unfortunately named PostEverything. If this showed up in "Right Turn" or one of their actual newsblogs, this would be a different story. a13ean (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Now clear this is only going to be in fringe sources and not picked up by broader RS. a13ean (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your point about Volkl not being editorially controlled by the Post is valid. That would leave the Volkl's reliability to stand or fall on it's own reputation. It is generally held in high regard. While it has a reputation for taking a usually libertarian stance, it also has a reputation for accuracy and sobriety without resorting to the kind of hyperbole common on other opinion columns. Being authored variously by over fifteen law professors, I am confident that any seeking of concensus regarding it's reliability would end in it's favor. Marteau (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have tremendous respect for Eugene Volokh and I have cited the VC in Wikipedia articles, but I have always treated it as a self-published source by "experts" in the field, with all the usual cautions of using SPS's. e.g. "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I was originally in favor of inclusion, but the more that I've thought about, the more I believe that it is WP:UNDUE weight. There are literally thousands and thousands of articles about this topic. Not every little tidbit should be in the article. If this was something important, then you would see a lot more sources covering. The fact that this has gotten very little attention by reliable sources is a strong indication of its importance. Aside from the WP:UNDUE, I'm concerned about the sourcing. The two sources being cited appear to be opinion pieces, not straight news reporting. WP:BLP says to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". I don't see how this meets the tough sourcing requirements set forth by BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, with modification This should be mentioned as part of a larger critical narrative described by the National Review (“what Tyson and his acolytes have ended up doing is blurring the lines between politics, scholarship, and culture—thereby damaging all three") and the Weekly Standard. There is no need to isolate the critique in a single incident. Shii (tock) 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would Wikipedia promote the singular, and some might say, unbalanced POV of the National Review, by framing this issue in terms of their opposition to Tyson? Your argument for support is a direct violation of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a person (who spends their life public speaking) ad-libs and butchers / miss-remembers / inverts a quote, apparently one time; no significant coverage in major sources. That's not a pattern, that's 100% attack. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the refs are about a pattern not a single event. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you watch the video, you'll see Tyson refer to his laptop computer while "quoting" Bush. This was no "ad lib" or "misremember". And it was a regular routine in his speeches, not a "one time" thing. Marteau (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose New sources mentioned in the above commentary are indeed generally accepted reliable sources. But, the refs are largely from opinion columns (op-eds). These are not reliable sources as to fact even if the containing news publications are. It is WP:UNDUE to accuse someone of being a “serial fabulist” based on such weak evidence in a WP:BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This RfC isn't about calling someone a "serial fabulist". It is concerning whether the widely reported issue should be included in the article. Now that there is a straight news account in Physics Today about the controversy it seems clear that this issue of reliable sources is moot. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to documenting every radical piece of speculation posted on childish biased blogs every time someone has a bone to pick with a celebrity. The controversy exists in a fringe section of the blogosphere and one notable source parroting the block (Volokh Conspiracy). Take any celebrity and we can find angry hostile blog articles trashing them...even ones that are mentioned by a few newspapers and columns. Still no weight as of yet. Perhaps in the days/weeks to come. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not so much. See Physics Today, academic publisher, straight news about the controversy. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable (though questionably reliable, as the Washington Post article is editorial) sources are just citing unreliable sources, which does not make the reliable sources reliable. If a genuinely reliable source published their own reactions and research instead of citing, verbatim, large chunks of the unreliable sources, then maybe it would have more weight. Lingnik (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the stupider of positions. No source could possibly be reliable, then—even if reported on by a reliable publication. The truth is all sources are unreliable initially until they've gone through the presumed scrutiny of a journalistic vetting. If not, I have to ask whether (had Wikipedia existed back then) you would oppose the disclosures of the Watergate scandals because they came from a shadowy figure in a parking garage. -- Veggies (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• First, WP:CIVIL. Second, I won't conflate the present issue of the WP posting an editorial blog in support of another editorial which uses the absence of evidence and unverified claims as its principal argument, with the investigative journalism of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Finally, I feel your argument relies on the assumption that no source can be reliable, which I believe to be untrue. The Federalist could have been a reliable source if they had couched it in stated facts and questions left unanswered by the subject instead of mixed personal attacks, genuine inconsistencies (grams), and "because Tyson hasn't cited a source in his (informal) talks, and we can't find a source, he must be lying". My argument relies on the assumption that the Federalist is unreliable, and not fit for blind reprinting. WP:NEWSBLOG's litmus test for WP:RELIABLE points to the source's editorial/column following a fact-checking process, which I think you label as the "presumed scrutiny of a journalistic vetting." Evidence of meeting this does not appear present in either the the Federalist's columns, nor in the Post's blog. Thus, WP:WEIGHT is undue. Lingnik (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• You must not have read what I wrote. Let's say The Federalist is not an RS (and I agree with that). If another news organization takes an unreliable source, investigates its claims, and publishes its own conclusions, it does not, by the fact of having been inspired by an unreliable source, make its conclusions unreliable. NEWSBLOG's litmus test is not exclusively the organization's fact-checking policies. If the blog is written by professionals, leeway is given over whether to use it as a source or not. -- Veggies (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a blog. If this issue needs analysis and attention at this point in time, see WP:NOTNEWS and pointers to a sister project there. Gryllida (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Coment:Sorry, I don't see how NOTNEWS applies here. This is not a breaking story or an exclusive article on the issue. You'll need to elaborate your disagreement. -- Veggies (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - there are additional reliable sources who have done their own research on the issue and not simply referred to the Federalist article...Robert Draper of The New York Times has written "from my research Tyson has hallucinated this post-9/11 Bush verbiage"[1] while Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC news, has written "I covered Bush then. Never heard him say it."[2] Kelly ^hi! 07:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it wont be long before those guys write something more 'official' than a tweet. I hope that when that happens the editors here that oppose due to the fact that 'its just blogs reporting this' will change their minds. Bonewah (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support With modification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8C00:C7F:3C7D:3DCD:7FDE:66D9 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but... I am only here for the RFC and don't know anything about the quote thing. The critical question is not whether the matter gets included, but how. It would have to be suitably supported with adequate citations, in suitable context, but without synthesis, and most certainly without even discussing judgement, let alone passing judgement. At present there is no question of including it except in passing, but depending on how the issue grows publicly, it might justify a section on its own. But not until it justifies a section or any extended discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I just don't see the point of this. The guy misremembered who said what once, so what. Happens to everyone. It's an utterly trivial piece of information, drummed up as a controversy by American politicos with too much time on their hands. For inclusion in the article, this would need to be an repeated offense picked up by something more substantial than conspiracy blogs, even if such blogs are published by the Washington Post. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyson did not "misremember" "once"... it was multiple times over several years. Furthermore, it was not an issue of him "misremembering"... in the video (which remains linked on his Hayden Planetarium blog) he refers to his laptop computer during his "misremembering" and furthermore draws a conclusion that Bush was trying to cause religious division BASED on this incorrect quote. Marteau (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You refer to the Volokh Conspiracy blog as a "conspiracy blog". I think it needs to be clarified that the "conspiracy" here refers to the fact that the blog consists of over fifteen law professors who contribute to or have contributed to the blog and are therefore "conspiring". THEY are why the blog is called "The Volokh Conspiricy"... not because they discuss conspiracy theories . Marteau (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the Volokh site, having followed it closely for years, back when it was a stand-alone blog and now that it is part of the Washington Post. The choice of the word "conspiracy" was a bit of an inside joke; the site in no way should be characterized as a conspiracy site. It is a highly respected law blog, including many highly respected contributors, many of whom have argued before the Supreme Court.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have also been an avid reader of the Volokh Conspiracy for at least a decade, and I echo your comments. That said, having read many many posts there on topics from cabbages to kings I think I can say with confidence that a topic being discussed there does not automatically make it rise to the level of notability or weight for inclusion here. If something is making the rounds of blogosphere gossip it is likely that one of the ~15 VC contributors will write a post about it. Our bar is (or should be) higher than that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments sub-section arbitrarily insterted

• Strong oppose. Clearly not notable; if we covered every time someone blogged about their ideological opponents, our pages would be unreadable. None of the sources remotely approach the bar that would be necessary to say that the quote or Jackson's mention of it in his blog have any relevance to what makes Tyson noteworthy. Remember WP:NOTNEWS ; even being mentioned in a reputable source is not sufficient, because what we need is a reputable source stating that this is significant to Tyson's overarching story. Genuine scandals have such sources in abundance. Without that, placing it in his article implicitly makes the argument that Jackson's arguments have significance in terms of Tyson's overall public image and persona, which is not attested to by any source that can reasonably be considered reliable on the question. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What about his being called a slanderer? I'll have to review the other reliable sources to say what other adjectives are being applied to him, but isn't the content of his charater and the nature of how he speaks to groups in public relevant to his 'overarching story'? Are we to just limit coverage in his article to his "overall public image and persona" as you phrase it? Because these accusations go beyond his career and his "public persona" and address who he is as a man, and what could be more pertinent to a man's "overarching story"? How can we justify including such facts as he was captain of his high school wrestling team, but exclude his being accused of slandering a current President? How is him being a wrestler part of his "overarching story" but this is not? Because if a man has in fact slanderd, repeatedly, another man in public, and therefore could be labeled a 'slanderer', how can that not be considered part of his "overarching story" and how can how a man conducts himself in public not be considered biographic?Marteau (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As examples of the reliability of some of the major sources cited here; if you read articles in The Federalist, Weekly Standard, and National Review linked to by this page, you will see Wikipedia editors compared to text-burners, Pravda, jihadists systemically murdering and beheading Christians, Jews, and Muslims, Aristotelian acolytes that placed Galileo under house arrest, and the persecutions of Christians and crucification of Christ. If these sources are accurate, don’t you feel that we should turn our attention to finding which of the editors on this page are beheading people? Are these really considered reliable sources? Objective3000 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist is the site which used the "jihadist" word and the "Pravda" word and the rest of that nonsense that follows and I agree The Federalist has issues with hyperbole and context. From what I have seen of it lately, I can no longer consider them a reliable source. Howeve, The Weekly Standard and the National Review's status as reliable sources stands, in my opinion, and in the opinion of Wikipedia concensus in general. Not to mention the other sources involved in this issue. Marteau (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing. Let's keep it civil and on-topic.

Furthermore, your statement, "don’t you feel that we should turn our attention to finding which of the editors on this page are beheading people?" is wilfully misrepresenting The Federalist's implication and words, which made it clear the behedings were occuring in Iraq. Using this talk page as an opportunity to do schtick comedy is inappropriate. Marteau (talk) It's been an entire day since you apologized for claiming that I willfully misrepresented something on a completely different subject.:) It may have been schtick, but The Federalist published the comparison of WP editors to jihadists beheading people -- not me. I’m sorry if my use of humor offended you. But, humor has been used in debate for centuries. Even in arguments before the Supreme Court. Objective3000 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I did not apologize for claiming you misrepresented something. You DID misrepresent something, and I'm glad you corrected it in the article in question. I apologized for my tone. Perhaps you could apologize for stalking me in return. Marteau (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I misrepresented nothing before or now. And stalking? That's an odd accusation. Read what you wrote on my Talk Page and my polite responses to your personal attacks. You really need to read WP:CIV. If you want to continue this, I suggest going back to my Talk Page instead of disturbing the converstation here. I apologize to the other editors if my comment was the cause of this disruption. Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Marteau accused me of willful misrepresentation and inappropriate behavior, and then undid my response to these accusations. If this is allowed under WP rules, I’m beginning to think The Federalist has a point.Objective3000 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC) As per WP:TALK "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page(accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." I deleted everything from Objective3000 saying, "It's been an entire day since you apologized for claiming that I willfully misrepresented something on a completely different subject.:)" on. Objective3000's defense for including a joke in this page (that comedy has been used in debate for centuries) followed his off-topic lead in and was also deleted. Another editor restored it, saying "Deleting comments on an article talk page is a NO-NO!" That is not always the case. I delete this as per WP:TALKO which says under the "Off-Topic posts subsection" which says. "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." and "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." So deletion and sometimes moving material which does not contribute to the improvement of the article can in fact be deleted. That said, I will not delete it again and leave it to other non-involved editors to decide if they want this to remain. Marteau (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) That's OK. I'll read all about this discussion in the next issue of The Federalist.Objective3000 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Perhaps. Nonetheless, deleting things from talk pages which do not contribute to the betterment of an article is not uncommon and falls within the guidelines. Marteau (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Comment on talk page deletions: Here's the policy vebatim: "If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above" What Objective said was not gibberish, FORUM talk about deGrasse Tyson, a test edit, an ad hominem, a legal or physical threat, an exposition of personal details, or an impersonation of an admin or other editor. Those are the only reasons for deleting commentary from an article talk page (and even then, I would be extremely frugal with redaction). Your attempts to cover up what was a clear and evident violation of both talk page guidelines and the natural right of free expression are pathetic. -- Veggies (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I acted to remove a discussion which did, in fact, contain ad hominems despite your saying it did not. While I'm at it, let me add trolling to the categorization as well, which is also grounds for deletion of talk page additions. The thread in question served absolutely no purpose towards contributing to the development of the article, and deletion of such material is common on Wikipedia. And by the way, when you said in your first sentence "Here's the policy" you should have said "Here's the guidelines" which is what they actually are. Marteau (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Since you're going to keep commenting, I'm going to expand this collapse-box so the discussion can be public. "...did, in fact, contain ad hominems..." [Citation needed]. The only thing I can construe as a personal attack (though an inconsequentially weak one) is you accusing Objective of stalking. "...let me add trolling to the categorization as well..." It may be a bit off-topic, but what Objective wrote was not trolling by a long shot. "...thread in question served absolutely no purpose towards contributing..." If you do say so yourself. "...deletion of such material is common..." Deletion of a marginally off-topic tangent on an article talk page is certainly not common. I can't remember the last time someone unilaterally deleted someone else's comments. -- Veggies (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I am not going to get into a point-by-point explaination to you on these, because I have no need to prove anything to you. I will just demonstrate two examples of people's comments not being collapsed but deleted in talk pages, just so that interested observers know I did nothing unheard of. My choices are from articles suffering from much vandalism, and are easy and quick pickings which is why I chose them as examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomophobia&diff=533195173&oldid=533195014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Holocaust&diff=618186144&oldid=618184089 Marteau (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the collapse. I am constantly amazed at the well-thought procedures and rules of WP. Continuing:

OK, we’ve agreed that The Federalist is shaky as a RS. Let’s look at the other two:

The Weekly Standard appears to simply use The Federalist article for the claims relevant to this page, and then adds a lot of insults. Quotes from the Weekly Standard article: “he’s hawking something liberal America desperately wants: the sense of satisfaction that comes from pretending you’re smarter than others, without actually thinking too hard.” “Perhaps not surprisingly, Tyson is an obnoxious atheist….“ “baseless attacks on faith and climate-change credulity.”

The National Review also appears to depend on The Federalist article for the claims relevant to this page, and then adds a lot of insults, including a ref to this:. “he is the fetish and totem of the extraordinarily puffed-up “nerd” culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States. One part insecure hipsterism, one part unwarranted condescension, the two defining characteristics of self-professed nerds are (a) the belief that one can discover all of the secrets of human experience through differential equations and (b) the unlovely tendency to presume themselves to be smarter than everybody else in the world.”

These articles reek of bias, and go back to one source. The source that compared Wikipedia editors to jihadists beheading people. Obviously, there are other refs here. But, some sources, right/left/up or down, make no attempt at balance. Objective3000 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" are not required to be unbiased or balanced and cannot be disqualified as reliable simply because they show a bias. As pointed out in WP:BIASED "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Additionaly, both sources make statements above and beyond what they quote from The Federalist and they dont' all "go back to one source"; they make indepedent statements without qualifying and they stand alone. For example the Weekly Standard says, "But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true.". That statement stands alone and is the assertion of The Weekly Standard. Statements such as that most certainly are citeable. Marteau (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course biased sources can be the best possible sources of different viewpoints (when it’s their viewpoints and not their interpretations of others’). But, not of facts. Objective3000 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIASED does indeed address the citation of viewpoints and not facts. However, I can find no policy or guidelines which disqualifis the citation of concrete fact (i.e. not related to viewpoints) from biased sources. If you can find one I'd appreciate it, because otherwise, these sources meet the reliablity standards as codified in policy and guideline. Marteau (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not of facts? That would disqualify pretty much every source there has ever been. I guarantee that no matter what the source, there is a a set of people that feel that source is biased. What matters is not whether the source is biased, but if it is reliable. I.e. does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Existence of bias may speak to reliability, but it doesnt preclude it.Bonewah (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have to at least pretend to be factual. Comparing this page to the crucifixion of Christ goes beyond what we normally think of as hyperbole. Objective3000 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true. You and I have already disqualified the site that made that comparison. The Federalist. Marteau (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Canvass ALERT [3] [4] - The original source website linked directly to our talk page, twice, wanting his content inserted. He's doing everything he can to gin up controversy and thus far has spectacularly failed outside the blogosphere. His biggest catch so far is volokh-conspiracy, and that's still a blog with no editorial oversight.

Oppose - We pick up the story when the news does. He wants to pick a beef with Wikipedia, but we follow the news, we don't lead. If he has a beef with the news ignoring this story then he can take up the issue with them. (edit) Undue Weight Policy mandates significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. As a blogosphere story it's not even allowed in. Alsee (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral, still advise waiting. - VERY thin on weight for a bio inclusion. Still severely troubled by the original source WP:Canvassing our talk pages demanding inclusion. We should have a guideline to actively oppose that. I still think this is a tempest in a sewerpot, but I see Physics Today covering it. Just about everything else we have is Blog, if anything goes in it should be centered around Physics Today coverage as, by far, our best quality source. Alsee (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support -- The honchos at The Washington Post have had a day to toss Jonathan H. Adler's piece, and have refrained from doing do. One may therefore surmise that they approve of it.--Froglich (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the relationship between the VC and the WAPO. The VC has complete editorial control of what is posted there. The WAPO cannot remove or change an individual post, it's an all-or-nothing deal. One can't imply approval from the fact that the WAPO have honored their agreement to cede complete editorial control to the blog writers. The VC is editorially independent of the WAPO - their areement is one of distribution and advertizing revenue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes it a simple blog, according to policy. . And policy says blogs "are largely not acceptable." That does not ban them but leaves wiggle room which I personally give them given their reputation, but in all honesty, a libertarian blog criticizing Tyson stands about a snowballs chance of getting the thumbs up in an RfC, making it look to me like Volokh is not going to survive being a cite. Marteau (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If "non-expert" new-aggregation blogs like The Huffington Post -- and that odious propaganda mill Media Matters -- are kosher as reference sources at Wikipedia, then Volokh absolutely passes muster given that its entire roster of writers consists of working legal professors (and a smattering of lawyers), many of considerable notability. When this article comes off admin-only status, I will support WAPO/Volokh as RS.--Froglich (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The VC was self-published for abut a dozen years from 2002 to 2013. As of this January, Eugene Volokh entered into a distribution and advertizing revenue sharing arrangement with the WAPO, and a key point of the agreement was that the VC stay editorially independent. My take is that it was a self-published source until January of this year, and the relationship with the WAPO doesn't change that in any substantial way so it remains a self-published source. Moreover, since Eugene Volokh doesn't exercise editorial control over his co-contributors, their contributions should be evaluated as self-published and evaluated as RS or not based on the individual contributor, not on the overall VC. There are guidelines for citing self-published sources, and I have cited the VC without any qualms when it falls within those guidelines. I don't think there's much more to discuss about the VC's status as a RS - it's self-published by experts in a certain field and should be treated as such. It's definitely not == WAPO. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I "understand the relationship" perfectly, and it is this: Volokh wouldn't be on WAPO in the first place if WAPO didn't generally like what the have to say. (The WAPO has recently been on a blogger collaboration binge, as they yield better stories than journalism school graduates and their ethical track-record is a known commodity. E.g., see also WAPO's recent association with The Agitator's Radley Balko. --Froglich (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Making in an error in a talk is worth chatting about in a blog, or internet discussion board. But it's hardly worth mentioning in a news article, let alone an encyclopedic entry. It seems a bit manufactured. The other criticisms are even more trivial. Using mock headlines to make a joke, for example. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Considering the number of YouTube videos being used as WP:Primary sources and the personal blogs (like how to rock your baby), it seems quite incredulous to argue over the VC as a Blog within the WaPo. Additionally, in relation to WP:WEIGHT if YouTube is all that is required to establish weight then it is even more incredulous to claim undue in this instance. Large sections of this article are almost completely editors view of what is important via YouTube. If editors were so inclined, they should clean up the already many violations of existing RS and weight policies. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube videos, by themselves, are not automatically reliable sources (see WP:NOYT). For the "Our God" video the fact that Tyson links to the video is enough to consider it reliable for citing what he said and how he said it. Marteau (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says what he said in the video is notable? It seems to be a common occurrence that some editor thinks it is important, yet there are no secondary sources to verify it is. Here he said something which cannot be verified as being true and it is being disregarded because the source reporting on it is "biased", yet there is a ton of information in this article that doesn't even have a source that would meet the weight requirement being leveled in this argument. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Who says what he said in the video is notable?" Wikipedia editors, ultimately are the judge of that, and that's what were're doing in this RfQ and this talk page. And you're right, this issue of the "Our God" speeches and the reactions to it is being held to a higher standard for inclusion than anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for increased scrutiny, but the most important one is that it is derogatory information about a living person. And yes, people are arguing that sources should not be used because they are "biased". They are wrong. Mere bias is not a valid reason for saying a source is not a RS, and any RfC which denied a source RS status for simply being biased would be a travesty. Marteau (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - If this was significant it would have been widely reported in reliable sources. Don;t include per WP:V and WP:UNDUE - Cwobeel (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This is a significant part of Tyson's message, and it is factually incorrect. Roger (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is just another trivial episode in the American Kulturkampf of The Right Wing vs. Everything Science. We did not cover the original quotes in either this article nor in George W. Bush, and I don't see why we should include it now, especially not based on lousy sourcing. Also see WP:NOTNEWS. Does anyone here think this is still relevant in 5 years time? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A history of lying will always be relevant.--Froglich (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no "history of lying". You can character assassinate anyone by simply reviewing every word they ever said or wrote. It's an ancient technique for discrediting a person. Did you know that according to an April 2013 article in Advanced Materials & Processes, Tyson was wrong when he tweeted that Thor's Hammer "weighs as much as a herd of 300 billion elephants." Actually, Marvel said it weighs 42.3 lb. Was Tyson lying? Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a pretty inflamatory remark. If anything the left should be upset by the careless making up of facts to support that meme because it works against your meme. The worst part is that many of the points that NGT makes about the misuse/misunderstanding of numbers and facts I have always found reasuring. Too bad this has made it difficult to believe if any of them are actually true, why so many defend this is quite astounding. Arzel (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What part are you referring to that inflames (you)? And which meme are you referring to? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This story has not being picked up by standard mainstream sources, but does appear amongst blogs with an ideological skew and some local media. As such it fails WP:WEIGHT. I also suggest people read WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia bases coverage on the amount of coverage and that which is of lasting coverage. As it stands, the coverage is very small compared to other aspects of Neil deGrasse Tyson Some have been basing their conclusions on their own personal interpretations of the incident, which falls afoul of WP:BLP and standard policies. Second Quantization (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - there is a new source out today, this one from The Week.[5] Kelly ^hi! 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:UNDUE. This is not being picked up by mainstream sources.Casprings (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the content. It has been discussed in numerous reliable sources and warrants recognition. As a side, it is absurd to suggest people must prove that Bush didn't say the quote in question. That is a logical fallacy that I am surprised so many people here would be making. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I happen to think that some of the charges are true and some are false, but that is not relevant here. I should say that the RfC's wording saying that all that is required is "up or down" is not good. The way it is presented matters, not silly vote counting. Without an actual statement to include or not, I vote oppose. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support If Tyson had sources for his quotations, someone would have found them by now. Also, Massimo Pigliucci did a brilliant takedown of Tyson's ignorance of philosophy in the Huffington Post, and that really needs to be inserted into this article as well.--TMD (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Pigliucci Huffington article. Interesting reading, although I think Neil acquitted himself well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTBATTLE. It's clear that this content is only included in the article as a means of politically attacking Neil. The quote was virtually unnoticed when it was made and is certainly not important enough to warrant being part of his biographical encyclopedia article. This article needs a good trimming as it is, and this would be one of the first parts I would cut. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The content currently in the article pertaining to this issue was added by me (save some minor tweaking and removals). I take issue with your saying it was added "as a means of politically attacking Neil", because as the one who added it, I can tell you that that was not my motive. I don't give a flying flip about politics... what I DO care about is how people held up as icons conduct themselves and the example they set. There are, to be sure, those who ARE politically blindly motivated by politics here and elsewhere and are in attack mode, just as there are those here and elsewhere who are defending him solely based on his politics. But just because the jackasses are out and raising a racket does not mean that everyone who thinks Tyson was out-of-line is a jackass. My edits in this case were not politically motivated, but motived by a belief that well-documented instances of how a man conducts himself in his professional life, how a man refers to other people in the course of his professional public presentations, and the quality and content of those presentations is most certainly pertinent to his overarching life story and belongs in his biography. If the fact that he was a wrestler belongs here, a well documented and well publicized instance of him repeatedly and without basis saying a president made a religiously motivated and divisive statement certainly belongs in his biography. You may disagree, but ascribing my addition to attack politics is incorrect and unwarranted. Marteau (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"well documented and well publicized instance of him repeatedly and without basis saying a president made a religiously motivated and divisive statement...." Well, according to the Wikipedia article Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War, there are quite a few excellent sources saying Bush did just that. Objective3000 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"...without basis". I used those words, which you quoted, precisely and purposely. Those words are important, and go right to the heart of the matter here and the are the very basis for the criticism Tyson is receiving. The issue is that Tyson, in this particular instance, criticized Bush "without basis". Criticism of Bush made WITH basis, by others, regarding the run-up to the Iraq War are absolutely irrelevant and have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand and your citing them here in no way refutes anything I just said, as you seem to imply. Marteau (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Tyson got the quote wrong. A quote suggesting that the President made religious comments that were divisive. But, on other occasions, on the same subject, in the same time period, it is well-documented that Bush made religious comments that were divisive. Basically saying that God told him to kill a lot of people of another religion. Bush made comments to the same effect as those claimed by Tyson. So, what is all this gnashing of teeth about? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Fake but accurate?[6] Kelly ^hi! 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Second comments sub-section arbitrarily insterted

• Support, after looking at the mounds of sources that discuss the Tyson inaccurate quoting of former President G.W. Bush, as well as coverage in non-bias sources, there appears to be weight in this subject. That being said any content should be neutrally worded, and well referenced per BLP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, Soliciting swarming of a page should never be rewarded. Additionally, this is being done as part of an effort to discredit an opponent by well coordinated conservative sites. But even if we ignore that, the fact remains that this quote is only significant because the original commentator WANTED it to be and solicited sufficient media attention to make it notable. Prior to attempts by the Federalist to modify wikipedia, no reliable source mentioned the article at all, then Heartland Institute commentators coordinated attempts to discredit Wikipedia for not acting. If it MUST be included, then the context of WHY it was included should be added as well. Mystic55 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"as part of an effort to discredit an opponent by well coordinated conservative sites" whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The motivation is not important. Seriously guys. Chemical Ace (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The charge of mis-attributing sources is a significant one for both people of science and public speakers, both of which Tyson acts as. Since the allegations of multiple and serial use of such errors was published in the.Federalist.com, there has been an edit war on WP, the allegations and the edit war has been picked up by multiple RS media sites, an editor actively opposing inclusion has initiated a AfD on the.Federalist.com, and Tyson has acknowledged the most significant of the charges. If it wasn't significant before, it is now - and should be included to give a complete picture of Tyson and his impact on science and the USA.Kerani (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• this is a joke right? completely undue -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support a brief mention. It's not like the quote fabrication would be a major part of the article, as it has been in Carl Cameron for the past ten years. Appalling hypocrisy, double-think and what-you-may-call-it, in my view. You oughta be ashamed. Andreas JN466 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Carl Cameron page (never heard of him until now, and I've never worked on his wikipedia entry), I see that the incident you refer to is sourced to the New York Times and USA Today. If and when this incident gains that sort of coverage it will almost certainly go into the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. This article at present is laudatory from beginning to end, and you are perfectly happy to have neutral and positive content cited to YouTube, Vimeo, Ebony, Stephen Colbert, The Alcalde, The Daily Kos, Hayden Planetarium and IMDB. But when it comes to sourcing 20 words of non-flattering content in this 3,700-word hagiography, you baulk at using the Volokh Conspiracy, hosted at the Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The National Review, The Tampa Tribune, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and the Washington Examiner? Shall we strip out all positive content then that doesn't meet your sourcing threshold? Andreas JN466 17:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never contributed to this article and am here for the Request for Comment. Someone asked my opinion on this matter and I'm providing it. I have not expressed any opinion on the rest of the article and likely won't. If you think there are things in the article that are either not adequately sourced or are given undue weight, bring it up elsewhere on the talk page. If you think it is laudatory give examples and suggest alternate wording to make it more neutral. You might be surprised how many editors who oppose this inclusion will go along. But you need to be specific.

I do think you may have a point in that violations of the biographies of living persons policy are much more likely to be flagged when the material is negative than when otherwise. But I don't think that's specific to this article. If you want to clean up any perceived WP:BLP violations on this page, bring it up on elsewhere the talk page.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a BLP or Undue violation to have 20 words of critical comment in an overwhelmingly positive 3,700-word BLP, and that there is no policy in Wikipedia theory or practice that says that negative content must first make the New York Times or USA Today before being admitted, as you are implying. (However, it is quite likely a BLP violation to focus two-thirds or even 25% of a biography on a ten-year-old incident.) EOD. Andreas JN466 20:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has implied that you must make the NYTimes or USA Today for anything. But, there must be sources that are better than we see here. It is certainly not a BLP vio for 25% of a biography to relate to a subject ten years past. There are articles on child actors where 90% of the article are devoted to decades old material. If you want to know the rules, they are available to everyone. Objective3000 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT The Week, Physics Today and Tampa Tribune are as far as I can tell non-partisan unbiased reliable sources. That alone should make this not a problem of undue weight to include something (at least something small). But even if that was not enough, “reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective”, that means we must also include in the test for balance the The Weekly Standard , National Review , The Daily Caller , The Washington Examiner and the The Daily Beast at the very least (clearly RS’s), and maybe even Christian Post. Volokh Conspiracy is a highly respected award winning blog, with many of the individuals having argued before the Supreme Court, and Jonathan_H._Adler himself is highly respected and frequently cited in major media, even so the Volokh Conspiracy would NOT be appropriate to cite for a fact in a WP:BLP, but it may still (because of its well respected nature of the publication and individual publishing), provide some evidence that this is not a very tiny minority view (ie not WP:FRINGE), as it says in WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherent", and Jonathan_H._Adler is one such prominent adherent. The only question before us is does the article “fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources”. Reliable sources includes biased sources. There is a CLEAR significant viewpoint among reliable sources (assuming you include biased reliable sources), at least 7 WP:RS have stated that it is important event. Even significant minority viewpoints (assuming they are not WP:FRINGE or unsourced), should be included with proper weight and this is FAR from WP:FRINGE.--97.65.104.162 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT 97.65.104.162 has said it well. Ditto. Andyvphil (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Thought I had commented on this already, but I guess not. We are talking about the accusation that Tyson took quotes of a president of the united states out of context to make them look bad, an accusation that if true would go to a person's "overarching story". We have 3 non-biased WP:RS, and 7 total WP:RS commenting on its notability. We have a WP:SELFSOURCE as clear proof that an error was made, and that he felt it important enough to issue an apology. It deserves a mention in the story. --Obsidi (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Neil deGrasse Tyson responded to it directly because it became a big enough issue to warrant it, regardless of how small it might have been at the start. News stories can evolve, and that would appear to be the case here. It should be referenced in a neutral way, but absolutely should be referenced. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, object to improper RfC. The quotes should not be included because they are not notable other than the fact that certain political blogs have tried to manufacture outrage. The RfC is improper because the question is not neutral, nor is it clear exactly what we are being asked to support or oppose. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Note further coverage in Politico. Rich Lowry, October 1 2014, The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson. With some unflattering comments ("bullheaded gracelessness") about the nature of discussions on this page. Andreas JN466 09:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, Rich Lowry, noted conservative and climate change denier. Like I said, this is full court press. Heartland and Discovery are loving this. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Salon [7] ... not noted conservatives, not noted climate change deniers. The fact just is, Tyson misquoted Bush, and the various conservatives' complaints on that point have merit. Salon, unlike Wikipedia, is happy to acknowledge that. You can agree with someone on a particular point of fact without buying everything else they may believe. Andreas JN466 07:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, written responsibly. The events were discussed on NPR today. Preventing inclusion of factual events that make national news provides ammunition to those who claim that Wikipedia editors are suppressing evidence. Wikipedia credibility is at stake. JeanLucMargot (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The only problem with your argument is, well your entire argument: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Ever. Wikipedia's credibility is not at stake, what's at stake is the ability of external lobby groups to alter perception and change Wikipedia. That the mainstream media reports on nonsense 24/7 in no way compels us to include that nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• He said "The events were discussed on NPR today" and that it made "national news." That is a significant viewpoint from a reliable source that this is an important topic, which means it would be WP:UNDUE NOT to include it. (Also please WP:DONTBITE)--Obsidi (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's no evidence the events were discussed in a significant manner on NPR. I show no documented record of this alleged news report, so it sounds like it was mentioned in passing, meaning it has no lasting encyclopedic value. Second, the entire argument made by JeanLucMargo proposes that verifibility demands inclusion, which is manifestly false per Wikipedia's house policies. Just because partisan lobby groups are working hard to spread this meme, doesn't mean we have to help them. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The material fails every measurable encyclopedic standard of inclusion we use on Wikipedia. Both the Heartland and Discovery Institutes have been working tirelessly to attack Tyson, and this incident is only their latest salvo. According to one of their bloggers, Tyson misquoted Bush. There is no significance to this event and it hasn't changed anything about Tyson or his career. When we look closer at this incident, we find that Tyson and his show Cosmos have been under constant attack from the conservative right since it first aired; because these groups are incapable of attacking the science, they are relegated to attacking the man. Their goal is to construct an ad hominem that says, "You can't trust Tyson on science because he misquoted George Bush!" This is nothing but a manufactured controversy, and it is important to note that this isn't the first time they've done this, as they've been at it for several months, with both climate change deniers and creationists taking turns. Heartland's goal is to get people to doubt climate science, and Discovery's is to get people to doubt evolution. These are the true Merchants of Doubt, and here we see them in all their glory. If that's not an exercise in pure character assassination at the behest of Heartland and Discovery, I don't know what is. That's the real topic of significance, and it needs to be framed appropriately. Wikipedia must not be used as a conduit for the politics of personal destruction waged by climate change deniers and creationists. They're not going to go down without a fight; they will attack every last scientist who defends climate change and evolution, and they will continue this inquisition until they get their way. The line has to be drawn here or the virus of ignorance will spread to other areas of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is hardly just "according to one of their bloggers," Tyson himself admitted he misquoted bush. Even Salon (hardly a crazy right-wing source) said "Obviously, this is not just a minor factual quibble... Tyson has rightly taken a lot of grief... It’s an embarrassing admission for a man who just this year became a mainstream progressive hero in the aftermath of his successful “Cosmos” reboot. At the same time, it’s hard to complain that Tyson is getting a raw deal, or that he’s unfairly being maligned by right-wing journalists champing at the bit to defame a liberal icon. (They certainly are, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong.) In truth, Tyson actually kind of deserves the dressing down." [8]. Now clearly WE shouldn't post such silliness as "You can't trust Tyson on science because he misquoted George Bush!" (A clear ad hominem attack), but that doesn't mean the rest isn't significant. As to the rest of your comments on the Heartland and Discovery, this is not a battle and this is not a forum to talk about the other things you think Heartland and Discovery are doing and how bad they are. --Obsidi (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• That Heartland and Discovery are behind the character assassination on Tyson is not only directly relevant, it is the only aspect of this entire story that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. That is to say, it is encyclopedic to cover the continuing, sustained attacks on scientists by climate change deniers and creationists. It is not, however, encyclopedic to mention that these same groups claimed Tyson misquoted Bush. That is irrelevant and undue. Furthermore, I am concerned that accounts like yours that have the majority of their contributions dedicated to pushing a POV on a BLP talk page are problematic. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I say below as well, I don't think this should be a case of either-or. I don't want to repeat myself too much, so instead I will ask for clarification, are you arguing that the motivation of someone who makes a claim can disqualify it from being noteworthy here? For instance, if reports about the Bush or Obama administration were found to have originated by people who are not neutral and had a history of making negative claims about them, these stories should be disqualified, no matter whether the claims prove to be true or carried by other sources later on as the stories grow? Chester Lunt (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, if many reliable sources say he frequently fabricates quotes, if no one has proven his quotes were actually accurate (which someone certainly would already have done if they were), and if one of the main activities of the subject is being a public speaker, then the content should definitely be added. Also as per 97.65.104.162's comment. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Then, according to your argument, it should not be added. Tyson has not "frequently fabricated" quotes in an inaccurate manner. He simply misquoted where Bush said something. The partisan groups attempting to character assassinate Tyson for daring to promote evolution on Cosmos and criticizing religion, have poured over every word he has ever said in public lectures. I guarantee you, that if anyone reviewed everything you've ever said or done, they are going to find a hell of a lot of errors and misquotes. That has no bearing on his profession nor his capacity as a science communicator. In fact, the quotes have nothing to do with science! So your argument is easily disproved. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be "everyone makes lots of misquotes so let's not include the ones made by this guy". But the question I think we should ask is do reliable sources give weight to his misquotes? And are the misquotes notable? The answer to both questions is "yes", and specially if they were misquotes of the president of the US with the clear aim of discrediting his political person/party/views, made not in a pub while drinking beer, but publicly for thousands to millions of people. How is that not notable? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "misquotes" are not notable from an encyclopedic perspective because 1) they did not alter or change the content of Tyson's message, and 2) reliable sources have not given any weight to these "misquotes", and 3) this campaign against Tyson is being waged by the Heartland and Discovery Institutes in retaliation for Tyson's promotion of evolution and climate change science and in response to his critique of religion and creationism, and 4) this manufactured controversy is an attempt to character assassinate Tyson as a result, and 5) verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We must compare and contrast who is saying what and why, and determine the encyclopedic relevance beyond the 24/7 news cycle where if it bleeds, it leads, and 6) when you do this, you discover a partisan campaign directed against Tyson, that began months before any claim of quote "fabrication" was made. This has included unsubstantiated attacks on Tyson by Charles C. W. Cooke, writer at National Review, Ben Domenech of the Heartland Institute, Jay W. Richards of the Discovery Institute, and James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute, among many others. These are not "random" attacks. This is a coordinated, targeted campaign against Tyson by the conservative right-wing noise machine. Using The Federalist blog as a front, they have to date, published 20 separate attacks on Tyson since January 16,[9] and of course much more when you take into account the National Review and other publications. This has absolutely nothing to do with fabricating quotes. This is an exercise in the politics of personal destruction because Tyson dared to promote evolution and climate change science, the two issues that the Discovery and Heartland Institute have staked their entire reputations and careers on denying. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As to the claim "reliable sources have not given any weight to these "misquotes" ", You really claim that The Week, Physics Today, Tampa Tribune, The Weekly Standard , National Review , The Daily Caller , The Washington Examiner, The Daily Beast, Politico, Salon, New York Post are ALL not reliable sources? Rejecting any claim that they are not neutral, unbiased, or objective (Reliable sources are not required to be see WP:BIASED). What in your mind is a reliable source? If it isn't in the NYT's it doesn't count? Many of these sources have repeatedly been upheld as reliable sources throughout WP. --Obsidi (talk ) 00:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There could very well be a targeted campaign, as well as unsubstantiated attacks. I don't however think that this is a case of either or, where the article must mention one or the other. Just because Neil deGrasse Tyson has critics - even enthusiastic critics, who you may feel are in it for totally the wrong reasons, in the end this has turned out to not be an unsubstantiated claim. It even warranted an apology from Neil deGrasse Tyson himself, and the facts in question have been confirmed from sources that fall well outside the label of "conservative blog." Issues don't have to be initially raised by people who are completely neutral, and often they aren't, because it would be those who are critical who have the motivation to find them. Chester Lunt (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the misattribution of the quote to Bush, however trivial, is, um, notable. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDUE is not about whether farts in hurricanes have received ginned up press coverage far in excess of their actual value. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. " The most widely held academic views of this so "incident" are non-existent. It is held by a tiny, although, extremely vocal, minority. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "academic views" of this "incident" are irrelevant. The real question under WP:UNDUE is what are the "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Academic view points are not necessary reliable sources and there are reliable sources that are not academics. So yes, something that in your words "ginned up press coverage" if covered as a significant viewpoint among reliable sources would qualify for inclusion. And remember reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. --108.51.47.176 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • No, my IP friend, you are wrong. We do NOT present the views of the lunatic fringe as equivalent to the academic mainstream just because they shout louder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I suggest you re-read the section you cited. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." The key here is "the body of reliable sources on the subject". You may think they are the "lunatic fringe" but that doesn't make them so. The question is are they reliable sources, and the answer to that question is a clear yes (MANY of them have been held as reliable throughout WP and multiple occasions). You have not given ANY reason to believe they are not reliable sources other then they are biased, but they are not required to be unbiased (please read WP:BIASED). The question isn't if they "shout louder" it is if they are a reliable source, and if so, is the viewpoint expressed a significant viewpoint. In this case the answer to that question is clearly yes. --Obsidi (talk ) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
          • What do you know, i re-read it and it still says: " For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." and still links to WP:NOTNEWS which still says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." " Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." and it also still links to Wikipedia:Recentism which still says "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Now that is a much better argument then you first gave (still not right but better!). Your first argument about them being "lunatic fringe" is just not valid, as you have presented no reason to believe they are not a reliable source. This second argument is that they are reliable sources, but that it is just "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The question here is this just "trivia", or otherwise unimportant details? Examples of trivia it gives are "every match played, goal scored or hand shaken." These kinds of details are clearly unimportant to the "overall" view of the subject, even to those reporting it. Sure the paper might publish a story about the recent sports team's match, but that isn't usually seen as important to the overall story of the sports team even by the publisher of the match. This story is far different then that. It is clear that the reliable sources that are publishing on this topic think that it is VERY important to the overall story of Neil Tyson. Now I understand that YOU don't think its important to the overall story of Neil Tyson, but that is irrelevant. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The only thing that WP cares about is how reliable sources describe the story, not how you the individual editor feel the importance of the story is. Can you point to reliable sources which don't think the story is important? Because we got a lot that do think it is important so far. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
              • It IS the argument I first gave and the rabid blogosphere obsessed with this nothingness IS the lunatic fringe , particularly when compared to of any mainstream cultural, social or even political analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
                • You are free to have the opinion that they are "lunatic fringe", but without reliable sources backing that up, it is irrelevant to Wikipedia or a question of WP:WEIGHT. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • We have it right there is policy WP:SPS, but "The fringe-like quality of the blogosphere," and The original right wing nut is of considerable antiquity, dating at least to the 60s, well before the blogosphere emerged to fan the fringes" Now, your turn. provide source that indicate the blogosphere is representative of the mainstream academic views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • No doubt WP:SPS such as blogs are not WP:RS, but WP:NEWSBLOGS are different, they are not self published. We have 14 WP:RS commenting on the importance of this which are not WP:SPS (not counting the federalist as it is too new to be considered reliable yet). --Obsidi (talk ) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
                      • and the point is whether they represent any major and lasting portion of the reliable sources view of the subject. They dont. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
                        • I don't understand the reference to WP:BALASPS, that isn't in that policy at all, instead it says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."--Obsidi (talk ) 13:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
                          • Yes, it IS in fact policy. Scroll up the page -it is part of NPOV and clearly states that: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." which is the situation with this fart in a hurricane. It is of no lasting signifcance or import outside of the fringe blogosphere. The reliable sources will not be covering this or give it another thought in a few weeks time, and neither should we. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This controversy has been widely covered in both right and left wing news sources. And Wiki itself has also been mentioned in it, mainly the removal of the content in question, so well done for garnering us ever more bad publicity. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tyson claimed Bush said "the God who named the stars," when really Bush said "the God who names the stars." As scandals go, this is self-parody. The article already covers Tyson's relationship with Bush, who appointed Tyson to the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry and the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. Glycerinester (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another example of an editor who hasn't bothered to understand the incident. Do you think there are dozens of articles focused on whether Tyson used the word "named" instead of "names"? This is literally the first time I've even heard that assertion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm happy to reconsider and change my position if (a) quality sources consider Neil deGrasse Tyson's faulty recollection to be notable some months from now (b) a description of his error is limited to a couple of sentences. — TPX 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If the incident were about a "faulty recollection", I would support removal. That is not close to an accurate summary of the event. I hope the closing admin weights this comment appropriately, as it shows lack of familiarity ith the incident. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, I'm not sure hoping all over the comments by users here as you are doing is wise. Summarising peoples opinions as "an editor who hasn't bothered to understand the incident" or earlier stated "desperately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article" (to name two examples) doesn't move this discussion forward. I don't think it's fair to characterise people's opinions this way.

There is no evidence that Tyson knowingly fabricated the quote, only the speculation of a blogger. Two different points of view. How can you characterise a point of view as "not close to an accurate summary of the event"? --Shabidoo | Talk 15:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Now maybe he accidently flipped 9/11 and the challenger disaster, if that's all it was I would forget about it. But this quote was used to attack Bush (the president of the united states) and show what an idiot he was and how he was trying to distance muslims. There is NOTHING in the speech about the challenger disaster by bush that even REMOTELY resembles an attempt to distance muslims. So this isn't JUST about flipping two instances of speeches, but inventing in whole cloth the context of bush attacking muslims with it. How do we know it happened? Because Tyson himself said as much "And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia." So this is more then just simply switching two events around, it ALSO added the part about distancing muslims without anything in the Columbia disaster speech being about that. --Obsidi (talk ) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson's inference that Bush was distancing Muslims stems directly from his faulty recollection of what was said and when. I say inference because, clearly, his judgement was not formed on a solid basis (eg. a recording or verbatim transcript of Bush's precise remarks). And since there is not a scrap of evidence that he did this on purpose (ie. deliberate quote fabrication as opposed to human error) my vote is perfectly valid. — TPX 09:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral Please disregard my comment – I didn't read through all the articles properly. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I really cannot see how this be worth mentioning in this article. It's so small – the only thing that has actually happened is that he referenced the wrong event. To me it's like adding a 'Jennifer Aniston cuts off hair' paragraph to her page - sure, a few sites sites picked up on it but it really wasn't worth mentioning. As TPX says, I would also be happy to reconsider (see the above comment for more) Rayna Jaymes (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I can't see how this could be worthy of inclusion because he made a mistake. I would definitely understand if there were good sources saying he has actually made quotes up but at the moment it's just a few sites trying to spin this mistake into controversy. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think thats a fair assessment of what happened. The claim is that Tyson used a quote from a different context to make Bush seem to be anti muslim, when, in fact, the quote came from a speech that had nothing to do with Islam. That is a bit more than 'referencing the wrong event' Bonewah (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a blog-driven gossip rag. for pete's sake, people. the internet is not real life. we are meant to provide enduring, reliable information to the public. this is nothing like scientific fraud that would lead to a paper being retracted. real world, this is not a tornado, although all the hysteria of the blogosphere would have you think so (eyeballs eyeballs!!). the only vortex here should be this Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose adding this stuff. Legobot asked me to comment. This is an encyclopedia and must contain accepted knowledge as published in high-quality sources, not tittle-tattle in iffy ones. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious support of adding a couple lines about the well-sourced, clearly notable information. If it were only The Federalist talking about it, the oppose group might have a point, but the story got significant coverage from a variety of areas, and clearly deserves a mention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  "significant coverage"? Are you certain? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, i am. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  Mmmm, don;t think so. A couple of articles in conservative media (Breitbart, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner) and a single post on a blog hosted at WaPo, is not "significant coverage". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  You'd be right, but we also have Salon, The Week, and the Tampa Tribune to point to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the Tampa Tribune piece? If this is approved by the editorial board, IMO TBO should be removed from reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I did. Whether I like it has no bearing on the situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to good editorial judgement, in particular for BLPs? How quick these go out of the window in content disputes? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good editorial judgement tells me that a noteworthy criticism covered in multiple reliable sources and addressed specifically by the person criticized deserves a short mention in the article. Tell me, is using MMfA for content "good editorial judgement?" Again, if it were The Federalist alone, I'd likely agree with you. It's not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: 1) No persuasive argument has been made that it is due, true or not, and as it involves statements about a living person, WP:BLP applies, and it is the proposer's burden to persuade. 2) Its mention is generally found in opinion pieces, which are not RS for this per WP:NEWSORG (as for Tyson's statement, that statement does not make it due, especially since Tyson's own argument is that it is being blown out of all proportion solely due to malice, 'a lawyers trick'). 3) The definition of neutrality is that it is due, and as it has not been shown to be due, it is by definition not neutral. WP:BALASPS 4) Websites say things about people, so what? 5) No published biography of NDGT has been produced that would support that this episode is due (see WP:NOR). It has not been shown that other similar biographical material is generally due for biographies. Proposers have failed to carry their burden. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lack of significant coverage in conventional media (as opposed to hyperpartisan sources), so is WP:UNDUE, especially for a WP:BLP. Is this something I would expect to read about in an encyclopedia article 20 or 100 years from now about the life of Tyson? I don't think so. Yobol (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is definitely a lack of coverage on this issue. Although it has appeared in a couple of sources outside the Federalist, it's barely made a ripple in the most reliable sources. If this were an actual issue, it would have been picked up in many secondary reliable sources, not just in the conservative media (which aren't reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Therefore, per WP:BALASPS, the material is WP:UNDUE and does not belong in this article. Ca2james (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• After much consideration, I support inclusion of perhaps one paragraph discussing this incident. As Dr. Tyson has now addressed the incident himself, refusing to let any mention of the incident into this article is a bit embarrassing for the project. The wording should be carefully crafted, neutrally-worded, and nothing more than a simple summary of the incident. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The current tally

22 support, 20 oppose. --Froglich (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I count 24 30 in support or weak support at the moment ((1) Gaijin42 2)Arzel 3)108.33.46.98 4)Lisa 5)Kelly 6)Marteau 7)Capitalismojo 8)Ronnotel 9)Bonewah 10)WeldNeck 11)SEWilco 12)Collect 13)Shii 14)2601:8:8C00:C7F:3C7D:3DCD:7FDE:66D9 15)JonRichfield 16)Froglich 17)Roger 18)Nidhiki05 19)TMD 20)RightCowLeftCoast 21)Kerani 22)Andreas 23)97.65.104.162 24)Obsidi 25)Andyvphil 26) Chester Lunt 27) JeanLucMargot 28)GreyWinterOwl 29)Maproom 30)Darkness Shines ), and 25 opposed --Obsidi (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't count the IP addresses (they could be drive-by editors). But even 24 to 20 is pretty firmly within a margin of error. I would consider this current tally a tie. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

From WP:IPHUMAN, "As current policy stands, unregistered users have the same rights as registered users to participate in the writing of Wikipedia." we should WP:AGF for the IP's. Even IP's without much of an edit history may just be on a dynamic IP ISP. --Obsidi (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tally, but this is not a vote "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See WP:CLOSE and WP:CONSENSUS for details."

What I see is a fairly clear lack of consensus thus far. That may change if more sources pick up the story or the Option Summary below pans out. We're only eight days into the RFC, the story is still developing, and there's no reason for us to be in a hurry. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there is no deadline. In time, the rabid partisans on both sides will drop away. Kelly ^hi! 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On behalf of rabid partisans on both sides, I can't foresee consensus on this issue. Perhaps we should aim for compromise. Also, I don't see why non-inclusion is the default position until consensus is reached i.e. never. I know compromise is a dirty word, but consensus just won't happen.Chemical Ace (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why non-inclusion is the default position until consensus is reached ... The policy is here. As for why, imagine the results if inclusion was the default. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the policy says, exactly, is: "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Just so we're clear on the concept. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. You got me. It doesn't necessarily mean the objection was valid. The quote can never be included, time to move on. :) Cheers guys. Chemical Ace (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not a vote, but no one said that we should close this RfC now or that the support inclusion side should win because they have 46 more votes currently. I would say that consensus remains unclear or contentious, but that just means if we needed to close that we needed to get an uninvolved administrator to decide. I would say the WP:SELFSOURCE, has changed the situation, prior to the self source the RfC was split 18/18, of the editors after that it has been 68 in favor 3 against. For now I think leaving it open is the better way to go and maybe a better consensus will develop (like the compromise Chemical Ace is talking about), or maybe the WP:SELFSOURCE has changed the situation enough that new editors will support more then oppose.--Obsidi (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The primary argument for removal and the actual act of removal has been on the rational of a BLP violation. Now that NdGT has acknowledged and appologized for the incident, I don't see how that is a rational argument to make. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-inclusion is a gross disservice to whatever credibility the encyclopedia has. The guy told a made-up story for years, can't back it up, hasn't indicated he intends to stop claiming it, and certainly hasn't ventured anything resembling an apology. -- If Tyson were an editor here, he'd be sacked for personal attacks and lying.--Froglich (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears you missed this discussion further down the page. I know this story is a moving target, but if you're going to participate you should probably keep up with developments as they occur. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, certainly; just because I knew the guy was a rotter before he even had a page here in no way means I won't receive grief for missing a thread by ten hours on the disorganized mess which comprises this TP. Smugs gotta smug.--Froglich (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that at this time it's still contentious/no strong agreement on weight. I also agree with the above notes that 1) NdGT has agreed that the misattribution happened and 2) that in light of that, BLP does not apply, so weight should be the only issue. Holding and waiting for more developments is not a bad idea.Kerani (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And if consensus is not found or is for exclusion in the Tyson article due to weight and not BLP, putting this issue in a fork would be appropriate. Arguments claiming undue weight for inclusion of fabrication issues cannot be sustained when the issues are in a dedicated fabrication issues article. Marteau (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What would be the difference between such an article and the last WP:POVFORK that was snow-deleted in about 24 hours? I think you'd need to justify why forking is appropriate. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a POV fork would be a bad idea and counter to Wikipedia's norms. Bonewah (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The RfC does not address the merits of the fabrication issue, per se, or the includability of it elsewhere in the encyclopedia. The RfC cites only concerns about weight issues regarding the fabrication allegations within THIS article (from the RfC : "The only discussion I would like to have is on it's weight and if it is really important enough to include in this article"). The text of the WP:WEIGHT policy demonstrates a similar situation. It uses as an example the Earth article, which does not include any mention at all of Flat Earth concepts, because mentining anything at all about Flat Earth concepts would be to give it undue weight (which is the basis of the current RfC). The illustrated solution to undue weight, in this instance, was not to ban all mention throughout the encyclopedia of 'Flat Earth' ideas, but was to fork to a dedicated 'Flat Earth' article. Likewise, the solution to RfC based issues regarding undue weight claims within the Tyson article would be to remove it from the Tyson article, not ban it throughout the encyclopedia. The RfC says exactly that: "in this article". If BLP issues are not a factor, one cannot say that mentioning Tyson fabrication allegations in a dedicated fabrication allegations is undue weight, and a dedicated article would be appropriate. Marteau (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. Maybe it will make more sense to the admin who closes the AFD discussion than it does to me. There appears to be no consensus that it has enough notability to include here, so I fail to see how a consensus will form that it has sufficient notability to have a stand-alone article. Or are you planning to use the loophole that when consensus on AFD is not reached the default is to keep? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I take exception to the categorization of my proposed handling of the RfC weight issue as a "loophole". It is a direct addressing of the concerns raised by the RfC, and an assertion that addressing weight issues in this article does not indicate the need for an encylopedia-wide ban on covering the issue. Marteau (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, it should be noted that the previous fork was deleted due to notability, BLP and reliable sources issues. Things have changed since then. Should this RfC cause exclusion, a fork to directly address the finding of the RfC can and should be initiated. Marteau (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Marteau, You're not helping. I am one of the few Neutral votes in the RfC. When you take that sort of approach I question whether there's any point even trying to negotiate what a reasonable inclusion would look like. This does not remotely warrant it's own article. Alsee (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Alsee I'm glad you're beginning to question the wisdom of participating in this disgrace. Marteau (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a disgrace. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it all works out at the end. This is the magic of this project, given time and eyeballs, all gets squared eventually. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Marteau, I never questioned participating in these procedures. I highly value and respect Wikipedia procedures for dispute resolution and consensus building. I see this as a marginal case where non-inclusion and brief-inclusion are both reasonable. I see inclusion in the form of a major or malicious attack piece as improper. Your previous statement led me to strongly question your willingness to participate in good faith compromise, the statement where you declared an intent to repeat a failed pov-fork if you don't get your way. My faith in reaching a reasonable outcome on this page is renewed by your decision to abstain from this process, and your decision retire from topics which you view as a battleground. Alsee (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad. Ciao. Marteau (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Idea tally

Since RfC's are not meant to be votes, but rather to help solicit viewpoints towards building consensus (based on strength of arguments), I looked through the comments above to try and find common arguments used by both sides. I totally admit this is imperfect work, but here is what I came up with:

Against inclusion

• Has not been covered by a mainstream outlet (12)
• Sources are not reliable or notable enough (8)
• Politically motivated (8)
• Began on a small blog (4)
• Public speakers make errors all the time, this is not significant (3)
• Interference from canvassing (2)
• Objections to RfC process (2)
• Beyond this particular instance, accusations of a pattern of activity are not supported (1)
• Lack of factual coverage (1)
• Wikipedia should not be treated as a news site (1)
• Original quotes not covered, no reason to cover now (1)
• If included, there must be context of how it became a bigger issue (1)

For inclusion

• There is now enough coverage to warrant mention, including news sources, and prominent figures such as Tyson himself (14)
• Should be at least mentioned (7)
• Pattern of activity (6)
• As a prominent scientist he should be held to a higher standard (2)
• Neil deGrasse Tyson is a prominent scientist and this provides context on him (2)
• Tyson's statement is shown to be false (2)

Someone can feel free to edit this if they feel a characterization is unfair or if it is totally useless. Now for some of my opinion: I feel some of the arguments on both sides are not too compelling. For instance, I am not sure that him being a prominent scientist means he should be held to a higher standard, and to argue from this incident that there is a bigger pattern seems to be going too far. Some arguments against inclusion stem around process issues, such as the RfC or that there was canvassing (ie, we should not reward canvassing). I agree with that, but the importance of the "vote tally" is meant to be minimal - the strength of the ideas matter. It shouldn't be rewarded, nor should it get in the way of facts.

Finally, the arguments that this began on a "small blog" or amongst those with political motivations is true, but in this case that is not where it stayed. It was picked up by more sources, some of which are indeed past the generally established bar for being deemed notable and reliable (per Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Resources). It even was directly responded to by Tyson himself, which shows he feels it is notable too. And to the central contention of it all - he was found to be in error and admitted it. This story could be quite different under different circumstances - what if Bush really did say what was claimed as was claimed, what if Tyson never responded, what if it remained on just a single blog. But those are hypotheticals. I think in the case we have here, it definitely warrants a mention that is written in a responsible and neutral way. Chester Lunt (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of tallying the votes, tallying the reasons for the votes, and since this issue is so contentious this RFC could be closed by an uninvolved editor when it ends.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Resources

Here is a first stab at a list of some relevant sources. Note that several do not qualify as reliable sources in some cases are not sure but my guess is that they are not. I've included them in the list those interested in seeing what is being said about this incident.

Note: the table below represents the opinions of several Wikipedia editors who may or may not be familiar with how we evaluate sources for reliability. Furthermore, their asseessments of sources may or may not accurately represent the linked source discussions. Please do not interpret this table as reliable or factual.

Source	Status as RS (although not necessarily for contentious information on a BLP)	Discussion of RS status	Article	Added by (use four tildes if inserting it yourself)
The Daily Beast	Y	here	[10]
FrontPage Mag	Y	here	[11]
haydenplanetarium.org	Y	Possibly not for everything, but presumably for this	[12]
Tampa Tribune	Y Editorial - see below	(Presumptive, not seeing any dissent)	[13]
Washington Free Beacon	Y	(Presumptive, has editorial board see [14])	[15]
Hot air	Y	(Presumptive, has editorial board see [16])	[17]
Liberty Unyielding	Y	(has an editor-in-chief and senior editor, but no real editorial board see http://libertyunyielding.com/about/)	[18]
thedailybanter.com	Y	(appears to mostly be a blog)	[19]
The Weekly Standard	Y Editorial - see below	here	[20]
original list is above, add new ones below
Physics Today	Y addresses the Federalist accusations of Tyson, but does not say anything about Bush or misquotes.	[21]	[22]	added in comment to this section: Markus Pössel (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Volokh Conspiracy	self-edited blog, published by washingtonpost.com without their editorial oversight, honored by ABA Journal	here	[23] [24]	near top of RfC: Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The Week	Y Opinion piece - see below	(Presumptive, UK Newspaper)	[25]
National Review	Y Editorial - see below	here, and here	[26][27][28]
Christian Post	Y Editorial or opinion piece - see below	published paper with editorial board see [29]	[30][31]
Facebook	Y	WP:SELFSOURCE	[32]	Alsee (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Caller	Y Editorial - see below	here	[33]	Kelly hi! 08:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner	Y - does talk about TheFederalist.com accusing Neil Tyson of "making up quotes"	Presumed, weekly magazine - Editorial or opinion column - see below	[34]	Kelly hi! 08:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
National Catholic Register	Y Editorial or opinion - see below	80 year old biweekly paper with editorial board	[35]	Kelly hi! 10:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Politico	Y Opinion piece by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review	WELL established RS see this among various others	[36]	Marteau (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
New York Post	Y Shorter version of Rich Lowry piece above, syndicated?	Presumed	[37]	Kelly hi! 06:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Salon	Y	Presumed	[38]	Kelly hi! 13:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2014 September 19‎

I added a column and a couple of items which have been mentioned. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Re Physics Today they are " the flagship publication of the American Institute of Physics, is the most influential and closely followed physics magazine in the world. With authoritative features, full news coverage and analysis, and fresh perspectives on technological advances and ground-breaking research, Physics Today informs readers about science and its role in society." Just FYI Capitalismojo (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Tampa paper is clearly a political opinion editorial. Those tend to go all over the place. It's different from a news article covering the topic. It think his editorial is enough to prove that the opinion exists, but not enough to prove it is notable enough to mention out of all the many, many things that could be said in this encyclopedia article. Even if it were in a news article I'd prefer something a little less regional in its coverage in order to demonstrate national or international traction on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the "discussion" comprising the "checkmark" links on that chart is 5- to 7-year-old partisan tripe. Circa the present, responsible editors are not obligated to do anything other than laugh at it.--Froglich (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

even if they were ALL reliable, it would still be WP:UNDUE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

When multiple mainstream media sources begin writing about a public intellectual making up quotes it is noteworthy, even if some are op-ed pieces. Opinion pieces are often the main source of criticism in BLPs and are reliable for the opinion of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is WP:UNDUE or not is a subjective opinion, and is an issue I am guessing we will eventuall have to formally vote on in an RFC. I will just add that Tyson is known for giving lectures and for his role in educating and instructing. Reliable sources saying that in his role as a public, paid speaker, he manufactures quotes should not have a very high bar to clear regarding notability. Lecturing about things which are false goes towards his credibility and the quality of his lectures and can be considered unprofessional and unscholarly, particulary from a speaker who is also a scientist. Tyson positions himself as and is in fact a paid speaker and communicator, this issue is in fact a big deal when applied to a paid lecturer, and is includable even if no further sources than we have now chime in on the issue. Marteau (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's also a Physics Today report on the controversy: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070 - as part of their "Science and the Media" section in their daily edition. A brief description of the current controversy taken from that would probably be a good thing to put the current paragraph about the GWB quotation into perspective. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this anywhere near a "controversy" yet. In any case, this article doesn't actually mention the quote but is more of a catalogue of writers in the blogosphere and a couple newspapers attacking Tyson in general. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's approaching that point, as Bush's former aides are weighing in on the topic. Kelly ^hi! 15:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

haydenplanetarium.org is also the source used in WikiQuote as the source for the God-stars Bush quote. There seems little doubt that Tyson said that Bush said it. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would echo my comment above that "The Volkl Conspiracy" does not fall under NEWSBLOG, because it is only hosted by WaPo and not subject to editorial control like their many other NEWSBLOGs. It's a RS for the opinion expressed by the author only. News pieces in Physics Today, like the one mentioned above, are RS. a13ean (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The jury is still out on Volkl. Or rather, it has not even been conveined. The fact that the Volkl Conspiracy is independent does not, of course, disqualify it. Being independent, will have to rely on it's own reputation and not that of the Post in what will certanly be a soon forthcoming RfC regarding its reliability or otherwise. Given that it's reputation is weighty and highly respected I predict it's reliability won't be an issue. but that is, of course, to be determined. Marteau (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Marteau, the Volokh blog is respected for their legal commentary. Some of their non-legal blog behaviour is gruesomely close to FoxNews. --Shabidoo | Talk 09:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 10:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I said their "behaviour". Blog behaviour. The comparison of their non-legal blog behaviour with Fox News...would be the banter on the show Fox and Friends. I would hope no one ever uses program banter as a source except to document Fox News as a News Network. Same with MSNBC's banter. Or any banter for that matter. --Shabidoo | Talk 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Fox news is not reliable for everything. As with just about everything WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, when it comes to science and medical content, newspapers in general are not reliable and we look to different sources. Sources are rarely reliable for everything. Second Quantization (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the Volokh Conspiracy is not a newsblog, and the reference is not the Washington Post. So the table above is quite incorrect. I'm hesitant to edit someone else's text on the talk page, so I request that someone update it. Or give me the green light to update it - not sure what the policy is in that regard.

As we've already discussed above, the VC is a self-published source that may be used as a RS by folowing those guidelines. And since the proprietor, Eugene Volokh, does not exercise editorial control over his co-bloggers each individual contributor would need to be evaluated individually. It's a mixed bag, with some contributors (EV, Orin Kerr) above reproach and others not so much (won't name names here, sorry). See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/about/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/21/in-brazil-you-can-always-find-the-amazon-in-america-the-amazon-finds-you-2/ for details about the VC-WAPO relationship. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The National Review Online picked up the story link. It also, unhappily, also repeats Davis' wikipedia spaz-out. Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart as well [39] Bonewah (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish et al, please update the table to reflect the current info. I added the WaPost entry based on the linked comment and the immediately following comment that it was NewsBlog. The table is a summary, so can't be expected to hold more than the basic info thus be more liberal in your editing than with someone's text. The table was labeled as being created incomplete, so fill in the details. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy as a RS: I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29 Resolved: Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this predated the agreement with the WaPo. I'm not sure how much this changes things. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone missed it in the other thread, there's a new source today from The Week[40]. This one seems to be written from the left side of the political spectrum and calls on Tyson to apologize. Can we add this to the table above? I'm terrible at Wikiformatting. Kelly ^hi! 13:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the table. Thanks for the head's up.

I don't know that there's much new here - note that The Week themselves have not presented any original reporting, they're just repeating what was posted at thefederalist.com. The two relevant passages are "Tyson has allegedly been caught embellishing anecdotes." (emphasis mine) and "Tyson needs to check carefully, in the future, that the quotes in his anecdotes are factual and not a figment of his imagination. And he should apologize to those who he has misquoted." Note that they are quite careful in their language and do not directly say that he has misquoted anyone or has made up anything up. This is the UK and their libel laws mean that accusations are usually done via implication rather than direct accusation, so damning by implication is as strong as we're likely to get. Still, while this is a RS for the fact that the federalist has made these accusations, it's not a RS that they are true. It does move the needle on the notability meter, but I don't think by very much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right about the phrasing - on Twitter the author said he was "hedging" on that because he couldn't prove a negative.[41] Kelly ^hi! 14:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think The Week HAS presented "original reporting" here. They are saying that his alleged fabrication of lecture material have caused climate deniers to point out that if Tyson is fabricating information in one realm, "Perhaps he's lying about that (climate change)as well.". I am not aware of any other source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are damaging his message or his credibility. This is directly pertinent to his "overarching story" as another editor pharased it earlier, and adds weight to the argument that mention of these incidents is worthy of inclusion. Marteau (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose if by "orignial reporting" you mean restating what some people are posting in the blogosphere, then yes they have - their article does provide a reliable source to confirm the fact that non-RS bloggers are saying certain things. If you mean independently verifying facts or otherwise coming up with new information then not so much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It is more than a "restating" of what some people are posting. It is a reliable source saying these allegations are causing some to question Tyson's reliability. That has been obviously implied by many sources and assumed by many, but has not explicity said by any I am aware of. That is, in fact, significant and not simply a "restating" as you call it. The lack of such an explicit linkage between the allegations and "what makes him noteworthy" has been used as a basis by editors for advocating exclusion of this issue. And where does The Week say this effect is limited to "non-RS bloggers" as you say? The Week said no such thing. They did say that this is "A much bigger problem" which indicates they think it's no trivial mattter Marteau (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

From the article:

"...climate deniers have latched on to this controversy to make a case against climate change."

That's about it. No specifics as to who is making the case, where they are making it, or what, exactly, they are saying. Agree that we don't know at this point whether the folks they are talking about are RS or not, but the only ones they specifically mention are non-RS. If we put this in the article it would cry out for a tag. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Many climate sceptics are nuts. If they are arguing that Tyson's concession he got this wrong has any relevance to Tyson's views on climate change, well, they deserve to be mocked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"That's about it"? You say that as if it minimizes what this source is saying and the linkage this source is providing. We now have a source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are having an effect on his overarching story and what makes him notable (which includes his career as a speaker and provider of opinion and fact). That's a big issue regarding it's includability here. The lack of such a thing has been used as a basis for non-inclusion, and this source addresses that criticism. Because he does not go into details does not negate his statment which as a reliable source (unlike Wikipedia editors), he is not required to provide.[User:Marteau|Marteau]] (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"We now have a source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are having an effect on his overarching story ..." Really? Where does the article say that? I understand that the people fanning the flames of this "controversy" desperately want it to have an effect, but so far from what I've seen the effect is minimal if even detectable. That may change as things develop, but for now we need to rely on what the RS sources actually say, not what we might wish for them to say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"having an effect" was a poor choice of words. "directly related to" is better, and correct. Marteau (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't know that there's much new here" - I was not aware that an RS was useful only for their original content. We can't use an RS which states that the sky is blue, because that's not original? We can't use an RS with a well-known JFK quote because that's not original? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Did someone say we can't use it as an RS? I'm not seeing that opinion expressed anywhere above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, five of the sources in this list also reported on Obama saluting with a coffee cup in his hand. (Actually, it was probably tea, so they didn’t even get that right.) Five so far – this was only two days ago. I don't think anyone thinks this is something we should add to WP, or would consider carefully crafting a table like this to "prove" its notability. And, it's about the POTUS, not some popular science guy I never heard of. Problem is with these blogs, they publish even the tiniest insignificant items if it denigrates someone they dislike, and this echoes throughout the blogosphere until the next item pops up. Instead of Wikipedia becoming a part of the echo chamber, perhaps the text should be removed and the subject revisited in six months to see if anyone remembers it. Objective3000 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything the President eats, wears, says, or does is remarked upon. That fact is supremely irrelevant to this discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost none of the key refs under discussion here are blogs. The blog that is most discussed here is published on the Washington Post site. It most certainly did not comment on the president's salute. The National Review is not in any way a blog. It also did not comment on the president's coffee. The magazine Physics Today is not a blog and did not comment on the president. The Daily Beast is not a blog. Its small paragraph on the president's coffee pointed at a CNN article. The Week is a news magazine not a blog. It did not comment on the president's coffee. The Tampa Tribune is a newspaper, it has less than 90 words on the president's coffee salute. The Federalist (which started this entire discussion) has been talked about here as a "blog", it is not. It is a subscriber-based conservative opinion web magazine with professional paid staff. It has not commented on the president's coffee. This is a long way to say that the statement that this is all about an echo chamber of unreliable blogs is inaccurate. It would be best to stick to the subject under discussion rather than diverting discussion to the president's activities. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Additional article today from The Christian Post here - could someone add that to the table? Kelly ^hi! 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Their line, "At the time of this publication (yesterday), Tyson's Wikipedia entry still did not include references to Tyson misquoting Bush." makes their being considered a RS here impossible, in my opinion. The argument could be made that, although our article does include Tyson saying it, and and the Tampa paper saying it was slander, there is no text here saying it was a misquote. But I think that defense would be astretch. That would be playing games with words and context which goes towards unreliability. Marteau (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Added to the table. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder, from WP:V: WP:RS

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Tampa Tribune pieces fall under this classification and should be treated as such. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean WP:RS. -- Veggies (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Additional ref from The Daily Caller, though the main topic is the AFD of The Federalist page.[42] Kelly ^hi! 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Article about the controversy from The Washington Examiner.[43] Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Two obviously partisan sources. Are there any reliable sources available or is this just a storm in a teapot on the right? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed it further up the page, but per WP:BIASED, partisan sources may still be considered reliable. Kelly ^hi! 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorials as sources on BLP

One editor has attempted to mark reliable sources that could be considered as editorials as unsuitable for a BLP - I have not seen that policy and would welcome a discussion/link. Kelly ^hi! 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually , yes you have seen this policy because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you in multiple forums, you are just refusing to acknowledge it. For the record, here it is again:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Both are at WP:RS. Please read that policy and act accordingly. I am now going to restore the table to reflect whether each citation can be used in this article of a WP:BLP. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

None of the material being sourced is contentious. Even Tyson has acknowledged that it's true, as documented in multiple sources. Now please stop modifying work that has been compiled by others without consensus to do so. Kelly ^hi! 12:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the checkmarks I edited the table to reflect whether the source is usable here i.e. as a source for a WP:BLP because that's what we are dealing with at the present time. I understand that many of them are WP:RS for other issues, but that is not relevant to the current discussion. If you disagree, please discuss here rather than edit warring on the table. In particular, Physics Today gets a red check because it doesn't include the words "Bush" or "quote". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that proviso anywhere in WP:BLP. Kelly ^hi! 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BLP

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP...; or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

Editorial and opinion columns are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What contentious material are you referring to? Kelly ^hi! 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My attempts to edit the checkmarks to indicate what is usable for this matter as a WP:BLP were reverted, so I simply marked with text all the opinion or editorial items. After doing so, basically all that is left is Tyson's facebook posts. There's not a single straight news article treating the matter other than The Daily Beast and it merely reports on the accusations of thefederalist.com. The Physics today article doesn't even contain the words "Bush" or "misquote", so I don't see it as a source for anything other than the fact that thefederalist.com is making accusations. The others are opinion or editorial pieces which can't be relied on for statements of fact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That may be your opinion but I disagree. The information proposed to be cited to these sources is not contentious - even Tyson himself admits the quote and characterization of Bush were incorrect. So I'm just not seeing the BLP concern here. Can you specify? Kelly ^hi! 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to establish facts for the article. Opinion and editorial pieces can't be relied on to establish facts. We don't have much to go on to establish facts. Maybe the facebook posts are enough for the facts, and maybe all those opinion pieces are enough to establish weight, but to my eyes the sourcing looks pretty thin once you start evaluating it according to Wikipedia standards for a WP:BLP. Reasonable people may differ, which is why the material is contentious. Pretending that it isn't doesn't make it so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist, the source for all of this, does a lot more than say Tyson misquoted Bush. It goes on rants in, by my count, thirteen articles lambasting Tyson’s religion (or lack thereof), politics, integrity, acumen and scientific knowledge; and ascribes many scurrilous motivations to Tyson bereft of any evidence. There exist obvious BLP problems. Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Editorials, such as the one from Rich Lowry, editor of National Review at Politico Magazine may be a good source for the article on Rich Lowry, but not for this article. This is a BLP and such sources are not acceptable. Can you image having an editorial by Rachel Maddow brought to an article as source for Sara Palin? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting example - Public image of Sarah Palin contains numerous statements sourced to her political opponents. Kelly ^hi! 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For questions of WP:WEIGHT we do not need the WP:RS to establish facts. All that must be true is that it is a WP:RS that has talked about the importance of the subject. The facts as to if he was mistaken can be verified from the WP:SELFSOURCE (which is perfectly fine to use in a WP:BLP), and what bush said can be verified from a variety of sources. Other facts should not be included in the article. If you want to downgrade some of the sources to yellow as biased/opinion, that would be ok, that just means we need to be careful to remove any POV from any facts we cite from it (see WP:BIASED). For instance the most recent politico piece refers to the quotes as evasive and condescending, we should not include that without a "Rich Lowery says" kind of qualification. Split the facts (what Tyson said) from the opinion in the article and it is perfectly fine to use as a WP:RS --Obsidi (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. Editorials such as this are not useful for BLPs and attribution does not remove the problem either. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in BLP policy that prohibits citing opinion pieces. This is duly reflected in the fact that such pieces are commonly cited in Wikipedia biographies (!). According to WP:NEWSORG, When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Rich Lowry has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine and a host of other reputable publications. He's a significant voice by any standard. Andreas JN466 16:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Rich Lowry is an expert on Tyson and an expert on quote fabrication? --Shabidoo | Talk 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lowry is a prominent commentator on US politics, and the presidency in particular. Tyson commented on the statements of a past president of the United States: Lowry is an expert in that field whose opinions and perspectives are sought by the country's foremost press publications. Lowry is no expert on astrophysics, but to the extent that Tyson commented on politics, Lowry – and not Tyson – is the expert in that field. Andreas JN466 00:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think not. While I certainly respect Lowry as an intelligent person, which nobody who has read or listened to him will doubt, he unfortunately has a long history of climate change denial and his polemics against Tyson aren't relevant or significant. He represents the National Review, who began attacking Tyson in July, prior to this latest attack. When you look at the history of attacks on Tyson in context, you discover that the National Review, along with the Heartland Institute and the Discovery Institute, have been promulgating this manufactured controversy because Tyson dared to promote evolution and exclude creationism from Cosmos. He also defended climate change science and criticized religion on Cosmos. The conservative right is apoplectic because many school districts are considering using the Cosmos show in their classrooms. It is the position of the conservative right that evolution and climate change science are political topics, but the rest of the world does not share their view. Because they are unable to directly criticize the positions that Tyson takes on the show, the conservative right are forced to attack him as a person. Because Lowry is helping to further the attacks of these special interest groups, I can't see how his opinion is relevant to this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I good example of what an ad hominem is. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To get hypothetical, I could imagine citing Rachel Maddow for the claim that Rachel Maddow was critical of Sarah Palin, and could imagine citing Sarah Palin for her response (in the above hypothetical). In many cases it could be inappropriate to cite these people, but in limited cases it could very well be valid. The same goes for here - in the limited context, I think you could cite Rich Lowry or thefederalist.com, to establish that a claim was made, and could cite Tyson directly for his response. I think this falls under the self-source guidlines outlined in WP:SELFSOURCE. Whether these are the best available sources that can be used is another matter. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Countless BLPs, even high-profile ones like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, are full of opinions. Opinion pieces from reliable sources are perfectly acceptable for citing uncontested facts, and for citing properly attributed opinions. "Neil Tyson misquoted George W. Bush" is a fact. "Neil Tyson is a serial fabulist" would be an improperly attributed opinion asserted as fact and could not be included here. "John Smith of The Daily Newspaper said that Tyson is a serial fabulist" is a properly attributed opinion and inclusion would be determined by editorial consensus. Kelly ^hi! 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• How can the National Review, the NYPost and Politico be considered three resources when the NYPost and Politico cites are an opinion column by the editor of the National Review? If a columnist has a column in 100 papers, is that 100 sources? Objective3000 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  As far as I know, Rich Lowry didn't write about Tyson at National Review. The Politico and Post pieces are similar, but not identical - looks like the Politico version is the longer one because it talks about the controversy occurring here at Wikipedia. I suppose an editor could choose whichever source they wanted for their cite. Kelly ^hi! 11:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  It's largely irrelevant considering how newspaper columns work. The Lowry piece was syndicated as an opinion piece in many American newspapers. Best practice is to avoid using polemical op/eds in BLP articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations COATRACKed?

I've noticed that the allegations seem to have migrated from this article to Thefederalist.com. As it stands, the latter article appears to be operating as a WP:COATRACK to provide a home for the allegations. If the allegations aren't notable enough for inclusion here, I can't see how they could be notable enough to be forked off to another article. We may have a situation where partisans are using Thefederalist.com as a home for claims that have been removed from this article - effectively a WP:POVFORK situation. I don't think that's going to be viable or acceptable in terms of WP:POV or WP:BLP. Prioryman (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason someone has not added the fabrication allegations to this article recently is that it is locked down, and was locked down just after an editor deleted mention of the allegations. Also, it is locked down due to edit warring, not BLP issues or notability issues. Claims do not appear in this article because that's the way the article was before it was locked down, again, for edit warring, not because of BLP issues or notability issues. Claiming people are adding this information to the Federalist article are “partisans” is not assuming good faith. Marteau (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The notability of the allegations is still an open question. The fact that they dont appear here is in no way an indication that the issue is resolved. Bonewah (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason? You don't think failure to reach consensus for inclusion (yet) is a valid reason? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral party here, but just looking at things, assuming that Thefederalist.com is not deleted (it looks like a no-consensus at the moment even among established and presumably non-canvassed editors), this event likely has more weight in an article about Thefederalist (which seems to be of marginal notability) than one about deGrasse Tyson, since at the moment Tyson seems much more well-known than The Federalist, and this event seems to make up a significant fraction of the the independent coverage of this site.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I said, "The only reason someone has not added the fabrication allegations to this article recently is that it is locked down" and that is, indeed, true. My point is, that it's non-appearence in this article was not the result of a process. The process is still going on. It's non appearance here is due to the fact that it was locked down minutes after the allegations were deleted. A simple matter of timing, not process. Furthermore, WP:COATRACK is not policy, it is not even a guideline. It is an essay. I agree with it's aim, but it's application here is inappropriate in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this issue, but it's patently obvious from the deletion discussion that there is a hell of a lot of political campaigning going on here, on both sides (though not to the same extent by both) - hence my reference to partisans. Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your right. Mea culpa. I'll strike that out. I have pointed out the partisanship evident in these issues myself. Marteau (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I agree, but there are also those who see an article somewhere that says "look at what is going on in Wikipedia" and they join the discussion (for better or worse) as a result. I think Wikipedia has to be able to both deal with the Meat Puppets, while encouraging, or at least not discouraging those who are sincere in their interest. Not finding fault with your approach or your comments here, just saying that, unhappily, we are judged based on how we deal with the difficult subjects, not the infinitely more numerous ones where everything in Wikipedia works as intended. Bonewah (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think not. We've seen enough of these "campaigns" on Wikipedia to know that most of them are coordinated offsite in a covert manner, usually to denigrate and attack a BLP. I think it is highly unlikely that all of these user accounts are just dropping by to see what is going on. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory is both odd and a broad violation of WP:AGF. I suggest striking that statement. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as Viriditas isn't attacking anyone personally, I don't see much of a problem with their remark, and as a conspiracy theory, it's not far-fetched, at least not in general. In addition, the contributions at the Federalist AfD certainly suggest off-site coordination by SPAs. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The only point I'd disagree with Viriditas on is that I don't think it's being coordinated covertly - it all seems quite overt to me. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot going on behind the scenes. Don't forget about the relationship between Heartland and the Discovery Institute,[44] and how Discovery started going bananas after Cosmos was rebooted.[45] In April, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute attacked Tyson in the Federalist.[46] This is all part of the same campaign (the wedge strategy) with all the same players. Add the current Colorado High School censorship controversy to the mix, which has the hands of Koch's Americans for Prosperity group all over it, and you can see a full-court press attempt by the conservative right in play. There's no need for us to go after ISIS, we've got them right here at home in the states. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So you noticed TheFederalist's evil attack, but you still want the site's existence Wiki-censored away. I tell ya, this is like shooting Wikifish in a Wikibarrel. Moynihanian (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Cosmos produced and aired by Fox? Kelly ^hi! 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fox's entertainment division is beholden to mainstream entertainment ratings. Fox News division is beholden to a hyperpartisan strategy. There's a well established history of them operating in strikingly contradictory directions. Alsee (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the comments in this thread have gotten way off topic. The talk space is strictly for improving the article and not for discussing politics. TStein(talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! I guess I should have read the rest of the last threads before making a comment just about this one. If I made a comment about every off topic section I'd do nothing else. TStein (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability Standard Misused (Again) By Wikilawyers This isn't exactly a surprise, given the only tangential relationship between Wikipedia and facts, let alone its own (purported) rules, standards, and principles. But hell, why not point out (just for grins) that the notability standard applies only to whether or not a person or topic is important enough to write about at all. The standard specifically and quite explicity does NOT apply to article content. But the Wikicensors and Wikilawyers here (and throughout Wikipedia) routinely cite the standard while ignoring its content. And then you wonder why serious people don't take you too seriously. Moynihanian (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE in order to recognize your glaring error. It most certainly applies to article content. Also, I can't help but note your reliance on the term "Wikicensor", as it harkens back to the wedge strategy used by creationists. You folks have done enough damage and it's time for you to exit stage left. Look at how dangerous conservatives have made the world. If you hadn't tried to remove evolution from the school books in Texas and fought science with your bibles, it's possible the Ebola outbreak could have been prevented. Instead we have Texas leading the world in ignorance, and sending people suffering from Ebola home with antibiotics. Please keep your ignorance to yourself. We've had enough of it. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? Using such a broad brush to paint those you apparently despise says much more about you than anything else. I suggest you stop the inflammatory language. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Texas is arguably the center of conservative power and one of the most conservative states in the Bible Belt. Its campaign against science (that is, any science that isn't devoted to petrochemical extraction), its defense of creationism, and its battle against secularism are well known. Seems highly relevant to note the real world consequences of this kind of philosophy, and it's highly relevant, as these ideas form the basis of the ideological campaign against Tyson. Is there something wrong with despising the virus of ignorance? I sure hope you won't treat it with antibiotics like Texas did. When rational people are confronted with ideas that don't work, they discard them, they don't embrace them even more than before. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone needs to get off their soapbox, this page is not the place for it. Bonewah (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia would it be "standing on a soapbox" to point out a glaring and obvious violation of your own (alleged) "standards" in your editing. Carry on, then. This contratemps is trivial, but it's still quite blatant. I like those "small" examples, because in my experience, those who cheat on the little things can't be trusted on the big things either. It's especially amusing to see myself characterized as an evil, anti-scientific Texas creationist (tm?) for noticing all this. I wish I could bronze a comment, 'cause I'd definitely bronze that. Moynihanian (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Moynihanian (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, which is why lying about the fact that the only reason the Federalist cared about Tyson's quote is because they're funded as a propoganda front organization coordinated with several other political front organizations, some of which have managed to buy their way into the umbrella standard of reliable sources solely by whining about a lack of objectivity in the 'liberal' media until they are brought in with no editorial standards or journalistic integrity whatsoever is a little thing that I think leads to the big thing that this whole thing is a lot of BS, but if we absolutely MUST include it then we can site the fact that it was a CONSERVATIVE blog that started the query, because to do anything less whatsoever is a lie. A little lie, but a very important one. Mystic55 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One person's BS is another person's belief. I agree it's trivial (and have written as much above), but it's such a pure case of everything wrong with Wikipedia that I decided to hop in. My full views about Wikipedia and facts are on my talk page. Yes, it should be included, along with the obvious fact that TheFederalist is a conservative site. But then, there are no facts here, obvious or otherwise, only agreement among "editors" about what will be presented as quasi-factual. Maybe TheFederalist should be called a Martian website. If enough "editors" agree, then a Martian website it will be! Moynihanian (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would it necessarilly be needed to state that it was a conservative blog, when the relevent claim here has been shown to be factual (and Neil deGrasse Tyson has admitted as such?) Chester Lunt (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't include what his horoscope was on September 11, 2001, what his favorite color is, what he had for breakfast yesterday or why he got sick when he ate that spoiled food 2 years ago; these too are factual. Because it is not notable. EXCEPT of course, that it IS notable because a conservative website decided to MAKE it noticeable and make a big wikipedia bashing campaign about it. Mystic55 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is funny! Here you are, talking about "notable," when Wikipedia's so-called "standard" on "notability" explicitly states that it does not apply to the content of articles. This reminds me of my favorite scene in my fave cheesy cable TV movie, "The Devil's Advocate," in which Al Pacino, playing the devil, leers into the camera and says, "Vanity -- it's my favorite sin." My favorite Wiki-sin is all the Wikilawyering that surrounds the willful failure to actually read the so-called "standard" about "notability," or (more likely) the willful failure to abide by it, given that -- in the end -- words means whatever the latest Wikiflashmob decides they mean at any given moment. Moynihanian (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What he had for breakfast or what his favorite color are are irrelevant to his overarching story and do not belong in his biography. His professional conduct is different. He is a professional speaker and the fact he felt compelled to apologize to a former president due to his professional conduct is pertinent to his overarching story. That it started as a “manufactured controversy” may or may not be true. But the fact of the matter is, it developed into a REAL controversy. Editors seem to be fascinated by the motives of who started this issue. Why it got started and by who, and whether they hate Tyson or not is irrelevant to the fact that the controversy became very real and the subject of much discussion by real people in the real world. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some who believe this began as a “manufactured controversy” are proposing that the way to address it is to ignore it, or to not mention anything at all of what happened leading up to and including Tyson's apologies. I believe in information, not darkness. I believe in shining light onto nasty situations, not blacking it out. The way to deal with this is to include mitigating and contextual information. Information written by reliable sources and supporters of Tyson to give it proper weight. Not to try silencing your opponent, but shining the light of truth on your opponents. Wikipedia can be that light of truth, by dealing with the raw facts, not hyperbole, not distortions, but facts. But blacking out coverage in this matter is a manufactured silence almost as bad as a manufactured controversy. Marteau (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is ever "the light of truth," it's by mistake. Moynihanian (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Had a few edit conflicts with Marteau, but in response to the earlier points - sure, they tried to gain attention - as anyone presumably does when they write a blog, or article, or cover a news story. Someone could write an article about your examples too - his horoscope, his breakfast yesterday, even indeed his breakfast today (scandalous!) Probably, those would not be picked up by bigger publications, and probably they would not get a response from Neil deGrasse Tyson. There's numerous reasons to why not, yet what really matters to Wikipedia is that it hasn't (yet) happened. Meanwhile, we do have a case here where something has become notable, after being raised - sure - initially in a blog. Yet it was picked up by others, due in large part because what was found was that Tyson inaccurately quoted/contextualized the statements of another prominent figure (a former President).

We can flip this around a bit: you or I could give a speech at a function and inaccurately quote a prominent figure, and it is quite possible that it wouldn't get a single article or even blog entry. It is natural though that more people take notice when Neil deGrasse Tyson gives a speech, and that is what happened. So I think, we could talk about hypotheticals all day, or delve into why some stories become bigger than others, but in the context of discussion for this article, I'm not sure that the initial motivation is essential to be mentioned, given the events that followed. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, but Wikipedia's so-called "standard" on notability quite explicitly and specifically states that it does not apply to the content of an article. But hey, we're in a fact-free zone! Who cares about what words mean, when anyone and their 15 closest virtual friends, i.e. cronies in bathrobes, can ignore anything at their will? Moynihanian (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making things unclear with my word choice (I didn't intend to reference a specific policy). What I meant to get at is, his hypotheticals are unlikely to have warranted coverage in media outlets, but what matters is that this non-hypothetical incident has warranted coverage, and a response from Neil deGrasse Tyson directly, and therefore is worthy of inclusion in the article. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What coverage? Where? The echo chamber of the self-citing conservative blogosphere is not a valid example of media coverage. However, there is one aspect of this story that has been covered reliably, and all of you have failed to identify it. I have, and I will surprise you very shortly with what I found. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, your rules (such as they are) don't allow original research. Not that anyone ever followed an inconvenient rule on this site! Moynihanian (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some examples of the coverage above, including the most recently added source - Salon[47], which is far from a part of any "conservative echo chamber." While acknowledging the central fact (that Tyson was incorrect in his assertion, and that he has admitted so), it criticizes those who would take this a leap further and use it to otherwise impugn him as a scientist (to roughly paraphrase). Chester Lunt (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on importance: I am not following these debates very closely, but as someone interested in view stats (I am a co-writer of the WP:TOP25 and Signpost weekly Traffic Report </plug>), I found it interesting that the views of the Tyson article haven't been impacted in any noticeable way by this controversy. It chugs along at about 4K views per day.[48] (We'd still see a jump regardless of whether the article has covered the controversy, people look to see if its there.) The only evidence of attention comes with the stats of Thefederalist.com, understandably a much less popular article, but its' counts jumped to the ~2500 per day range (from the ~100 range) for 9-26 and 9-27[49]; they have since dropped below 1,000 per day. This is a very small controversy in the scheme of life. No doubt we want to get it right, but we shouldn't think some battle for the soul of left-right American politics is at issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Give it a week to 10 days it will go back to the low hundreds. That's the nature of storms in a teacup. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the WP:COATRACKed content from the federalist page, left a note about the Arbcom discretionary sanctions (Talk:The_Federalist_(website)#BLP_-_ARBCOM) and put the discretionary sanctions tag on the Talk page, while this is going on. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just checked views at the Thefederalist.com and now The Federalist (website); they have dropped to about 200/day and below, it seems most traffic is being generated by the talk page, the internet has moved on to other dramas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

He thinks he's a pig on XD tonight

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/518519134943203329

Well this is Tyson and an easy to check fact, so he's wrong. Is his voice on the Disney (not XD) channel notable? Hcobb (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG this is super important stuff. It deserves a stand-alone article. The-great-tyson-pig-disney-quote-controversey. Don't delete anything or Entertainment-tonight will run a piece on how wikipedia is censoring Tyson-movie-quote fabrication allegations. --Shabidoo | Talk 06:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2014

(English: Neil of Grasse Tyson) 108.181.73.227 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That's not his name... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another way of think about this

Everyone here seems to be operating under the belief that including some mention of this material is "bad" for, or an "attack" on Tyson, but there is another way of thinking about it. By excluding metnion of this affair, we are in effect hiding Tyson's response. If, for instance, someone comes across the original Federalist article, how would they go about finding Tyson's reply? How would they know to look for a paragraph in the middle of this one particular facebook post? One really common way to get the straight story on this sort of this is Wikipedia, but we are going out of our way to deny our readers the ability to find out the whole story. Lets say, for instance, that a few years down the road some 16 year old kid sees Tyson speak, and goes to Facebook or a message board or something saying like "Tyson is really great, and i want to be like him when i grow up". Now lets imagine (and i know this is far fetched *snick*) that on this board or Facebook, there is someone who wants to be an ass because they get off on being an ass, so they post a link to the federalist article and are all like "Tyson is a liar and wont own up to his mistakes" and so on. I think in this circumstance its fairly reasonable for the afore mentioned kid to come here to try and find out the truth. Thats fairly likely because this is one of the top sources of information in the world. But, if we exclude any mention of this deal, that kid would be unable to learn that Tyson doesnt work from notes or prepared speeches. That the misquote is accidental and that, yes, he did get the quote wrong but that he did the right thing in admitting it and apologizing. All of that reflects well on Tyson, not poorly. Heck, if you guys want to include mention of the belief that this is all a great right wing conspiracy, lets talk about edits, but in suppressing all mention of this incident, you are actually helping Heartland, The Federalist, and everyone who wants the world to think that Wikipedia is left biased. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Concern Troll sounds really concerned. Glycerinester (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If your opposed, fine, but dont call me a troll. Bonewah (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"...Tyson doesnt work from notes or prepared speeches." -- Actually, he does repeat prepared speeches, and used the invented Bush "quote" (and even more egregious misinterpretation of the Biblical usage of "names") in exactly the same way many times. What he said on Facebook seems to be intentionally misleading on this point. Andyvphil (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil has the right of it here - at least as far as Tyson's "misquote" being anything but an off-the-cuff remark. I would say with malice aforethought but I am not The Shadow who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.Kerani (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling it "invented" doesn't make it invented. Speculating as to why it might be fabricated doesn't offer evidence that it was fabricated. Without a shred of evidence or a clear history of wilful manipulation of quotes...any claim that the quote was made up is guesswork. That it is made up or fabricated is not an obvious conclusion. That's pretty heavy stuff to put into a BLP based on conjecture and supposition. --Shabidoo | Talk 10:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, failure of verification makes "invented" a very likely supposition. The.federalist attempted (to a greater or lesser degree of success, depending on ones political stance) to provide clear evidence of a history of manipulations of quotes. That the Bush quote did NOT say what Tyson originally claimed it did is NOT guesswork - it has been alleged by multiple sources, confirmed by Tyson, and and is not subject to debate at this point. It is not conjecture nor supposition.Kerani (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We should not exclude this information to spite The Federalist, et al, but we should also not include it because we are worried what The Federalist, et al think about Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This has more to do with making information available to those you need it. My point in mentioning Heartland et al, is that this sort of thing doesnt just go away because we choose to exclude it. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Who the fuck needs to know this??? and 2) we dont need to be participants in the preservation of such crap.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Again, someone unfamiliar with this affair who wants to find out all the facts. Just because we dont say anything about it doesnt make it go away. 2) Does such crap include Tyson's response? Thats my point here. Bonewah (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bonewah, do you have access to any good biographical indexes? The reason I ask is if you review them and look at how biographies work, you won't find trivia like this anywhere. You can get access from Wikimedia to the Oxford Bibliographies if you request it. I can point you to other indexes as well. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Im no stranger to BLPs, i know how this works. WP:NOTPAPER and all that. If you think his response is trivial, then, what can i say, we are back to the undue weight question. Ive already said that i feel Tyson's response tips the undue weight question in favor of inclusion, but i totally understand why people dont necessarily agree with that view. Im just trying to get people to think past the 'This is an attack on Tyson' mentality and understand that, attack or not, Tyson's response is important. Bonewah (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the concept of biographies, and how they exist external to Wikipedia. NOTPAPER doesn't give us carte blanche to insert trivia, it's just a reminder that we can allow for more depth and coverage. Is that the case here? And, how does Tyson's response on his Facebook page even come into play here? Again, find a good, solid FA or GA biography that has trivia like this. You won't. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For an alternate view to some who question "who needs to know this" - I've found this interesting information. I think how people handle their mistakes is interesting - it's been asserted that nobody is perfect, everyone misspeaks, and this is true. But not everyone has such a big platform, so that when they are critical of a president (who he actually dealt with personally), it provokes a response from others and eventually comes back to provoke a response from said person with a big platform. Not everyone has an article on them in Wikipedia. That's the case here, where we are talking about an undoubtedly notable person, who made comments about another undoubtedly notable person, which proved to be inaccurate, got some flak, and then warranted a response. Everyone makes mistakes, even acclaimed scientists. You can take from it what you will, but I think it is interesting.

Maybe you don't find it as interesting as I do, and I couldn't fault you for that. There is a great deal on Wikipedia which doesn't interest me very much either right now. Yet while I might not delve too deeply into articles about - for instance - the modern line of Ford pickups, it is very plausible that someone would, so I am glad Wikipedia contains information about them and would never argue against it. Maybe, that Tyson's experience with Sagan helped show him the type of man he wanted to be, isn't interesting to some people. Yet it is very plausible that it would interest someone who wants to gain some context and insight into Tyson.

None of this is to say nothing can be trivial, absolutely things can be trivial. I would guess at some point, someone asked Tyson for the time and he incorrectly answered either due to a slow/fast watch or a misreading. It is no coincidence that there are no articles at all about this, that he has never addressed this issue on facebook with an apology, that his critics were never lambasted by Salon for reading too much into his misstating the time. But something doesn't need to be life or death information, in order for it to not be trivial and included.

Biographies of living people are held to a high standard - as it says in a nutshell: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." This is partly due to laws about slander and libel. There are strong warnings in WP:BLP against repeating rumors and gossip, or using negative tones so as to make it an attack page. This is not to be construed as to mean there can never be negative things said. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There is no dispute about there being an error made, as Tyson has confirmed it and apologized. It is in no way a rumor or gossip, it is not disputed by Tyson or by the critics who urge it should not be overstated. It would be improper to use the incident in a way that is framed as an attack, but seems exactly like the sort of information which can help give a greater context to him if it is presented in a neutral and responsible way (for which there have been some good suggestions above). Chester Lunt (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this an important or significant aspect of Tyson's life? Note, it isn't. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that the article should lead off with "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysisist who became involved in a quote controversy in 2014." Nor should the article lead off with "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysisist who won a gold medal with the University of Texas dance team at a national tournament in the International Latin Ballroom style." Or "who collaborated with Goldsmith as the narrator on the documentary 400 Years of the Telescope, which premiered on PBS in April 2009." Or "who delivered a lecture entitled Skepticism, which related directly with the convention's theme of The Democratization of Information: Power, Peril, and Promise." Or "who during the interview 'Called by the Universe: A conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson' in 2009 said: 'I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care.'"

I could go on choosing other parts of this article, which - to be clear - I am not in any way arguing should not be included in the article itself. But they are not appropriate in the first sentence, or even really appropriate in a prominent placement in the first few paragraphs. Yet they help to build a context for him as a person, and there is room for this information within the body of the article, presented in a reasonable, neutral - and verifiable - way.

Truly, I think you ask the wrong question here. The most important, essential things to someone's life should naturally be prominent. But not everything in a biography is something that would fit onto a top 10 or even top 25 list of the things you must know about a person. If we were discussing what should be included in a list of top 25 things for people, for a wiki version of "sparknotes," I'm sure we'd be having a different discussion. Or even if this were all about, should it be included in the first couple paragraphs. But to argue there is no place here at all for the story is something very different entirely. Chester Lunt (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, in 2012 the mis-used quote was #9 on a list of "Badass NdGT quotes." While I don't think Mental Floss is a signficant tracker of...well, much of anything, it is something of a sign of what people at the time thought was important. Kerani (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

An alternative/additional consideration: the discussion of this incident could (should?) reference scientific misconduct, politicization of science or source criticism, and quite possibly all three. Tyson's role as a prominent science communicator (as opposed to a political figure who is advocating policy) changes, I think, how this incident is thought about (at least for me it does.)Kerani (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Quit being logical.:) While I think this makes sense -- the can of worms that would be opened would keep this discussion alive (and unpleasant) until half of us died of old age. Objective3000 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh. You say that like it's a bad thing. (Really, I'm kicking myself for not formally bringing up source criticism before - it's a specific problem with science literature & communication - making sure your supporting documents actually say what you claim they say.)Kerani (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the other half being the coordinated effort by some to discredit scientists because they, well, believe in science. Look at the attacks on Tyson before this incident by the same 'sources' criticizing him for his lack of belief in deities and how that invalidates his theories. This is one of the herd of elephants that you may bring out. Mayhaps correctly. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, heh - I'll leave alone the "coordinated effort" by some, and simply point to believing in science being the problem. (If they were being attacked for practicing science, that would be something else. But Tyson is no more a life scientist than I am an astrophysicist, and so I think his pov on evolution is as relevant as mine on the Big Bang. It's good to have opinions. Everyone should try it. If they don't have any of their own, I have plenty and will be glad to share with any who ask.) And while this is largely completely outside the scope of the article - science depends on asking questions regardless of what answers you may get.Kerani (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Another way of looking at this. We could always blame Bush for appointing him lol Chemical Ace (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Hagiography

hagiography /ˌhæɡiˈɒɡrəfi/ ...when referring to modern, non-ecclesiastical works, the term hagiography is often used as a pejorative reference to biographies and histories whose authors are perceived to be uncritical or reverential to their subject. Hagiography This is what I wrote. This is what I meant. Leave it alone. Andyvphil (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ideolizing biography". This is a terrible header. It shows bad faith to the authors who have participated in writing it, it makes a sweeping negative claim about the article as a whole and is totally POV. It also sets a pretty negative tone for discussion...and if you read this section you see its mostly full of snark. --Shabidoo | Talk 08:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence: "...unable to complete his Ph.D. because his thesis committee voted to dissolve itself." What the source actually says is, "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him." I don't see anything about "voting". The local claque's allergic reaction to the truth apparently didn't begin with The Federalist. Andyvphil (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this [50] edit, which re-hides the significance of the thesis committee's dissolution as stated clearly in the source and restores a claim about an unexplained "vote" that is a complete fabrication. Objective seems outraged that any truths he feels are negative about Tyson might slip into the article (Viriditas thinks it shows Tyson's mettle, but never mind) and seems too lazy to supply an alternative that fixes the falsehood I'd already pointed out here. Or maybe he was just too lazy to read this section, which he's contributed to, before restoring this bit of hagiography? Or... what is the third alternative that would allow me to continue to AGF? Memory failure? Andyvphil (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not completing your PH.D. thesis is not "flunking". And this is not an example of "hagiography". And your edit is a violation of WG:AGF and WP:CIV. Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that's not flunking at all and it's irresponsible for that writer to call it such, all the more so since that's a campus publication and they should know the difference. We shouldn't let the poor wording of a single source force us to make an inaccurate claim in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel Since Tyson himself says they kicked him out, I don't think the source is misrepresenting anything (see my comment just below). However, we don't think this is so important that it must be covered either, and as Cwobeel said at the bottom, he did get his PHD later from somewhere else, so if we do include this it should be in the proper context. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I nowhere said you should fail to provide context. Tyson's attempt to get a PhD from Texas was a failure. The idea that this is of no importance in his biography is indefensible. Here's another quote from our source, btw: " Astronomy professor Craig Wheeler remembers Tyson: “Research was not his strength. He was never going to solve any major scientific problems. But I knew he was going to do something big, because he had charisma." Seems like a sound evaluation. Tyson can gen up funding to pay for Hayden's new research wing, but his personal contribution to scientific knowledge is pretty minimal.[51] Andyvphil (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone saying that it is of no importance? Sure, we can discuss it, but we shouldn't call it "flunking" or a "failure" in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel said it was of no importance, unless you think it is possible for it to have importance but still be "irrelevant." What it should be called is: he "washed out" of the PhD program. The MS he got by getting an adequate GPA on coursework, but that's not academically adequate to qualify for a PhD and Tyson was kicked because his advisors decided he wasn't cutting it. Andyvphil (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The source article indeed does say he was essentially flunked. He did finish the thesis, but the committee did not let it proceed. Later in the article they quote him more on this point"I don’t hold a grudge, and I don’t blame the department for kicking me out. I might have done the same thing in their position"

However, in the larger context of the article and quotes, Tyson is alleging this to be an instance of racism. We need to present this neutrally, we shouldn't take the racism claim at face value (although we could repeat the claim), but we also shouldn't be presenting it as if he was not academically up to par.

NPR picked up the Alcade story as well and went with this as their summary "There are very, very few African-American astrophysics PhDs," Tyson told Alcalde, an alumni magazine for the University of Texas, Austin, where he studied for a time during graduate school. "That's for a reason. I was doing something people of my skin color were not supposed to do. So people who believed in me, like Sagan, were important" [52] which was in turn picked up by policy mic [53]Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tyson is alleging this to be an instance of racism..." Not the washing out, he doesn't. Andyvphil (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

His thesis committee certainly seems to have thought "he was not academically up to par." If a racist thesis committee prevented him from getting his PhD for another 5 years, that would certainly deserve mention. Andyvphil (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know what his thesis committee thought about the matter? Please, let's leave our personal conclusions off the talk page and certainly out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I know what they thought? Well, obviously they thought he was wonderful, just like you do. That's why they kicked him, right? Andyvphil (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article also says that "After UT, Tyson transferred to Columbia, where he earned his PhD in 1988", so the PhD issue at UT-Austin is irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"The PhD issue at UT-Austin is irrelevant." No, not really - it is not at all typical that PhD students who have failed so spectacularly to earn a degree at on institution go on to transfer and successfully earn a degree at another institution. Tyson spend a signficant amount of his academic career at UT-A, and this is worthy of notation. It should not be given excess weight, but should be noted. Kerani (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Failed so spectacularly"? He didn't finish a degree, he finished it somewhere else, at a more prestigious institution. Let's keep this in perspective people. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That he was after failing able to gain admission to a more prestigious institution (assuming that's true of the ranking of their astro programs) is itself interesting. Was that special treatment, and did he continue to get it? If not, what is the explanation. Andyvphil (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful. This smacks of overt racism. It may not be. Just can't figure out what else this could mean. Perhaps you could explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'Failure to finish a degree' as an undergrad is absolutely not the same thing as failure to complete post-doc studies. People transfer from one institution to another for BS/BA degrees all the time, it is not of any note. Starting a post-doc</strike graduate degree or professional degree (such as PhD, MD, DVM, etc) at one place and shifting to another is not typical and needs explanation. Transferring because the previous institution had problems with ones research ability is even more significant. I'm not saying that this is equivalent to repeatedly failing to advance to 10th grade, but "just finishing it else where" is inaccurately reducing this incident.Kerani (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. First of all, you seem to be confused about the difference between a Ph.D. program and a post-doctoral program. The distinction should be glaringly obvious from the titles (a post-doctoral program happens after one obtains a doctorate), but you refer to a "post-doc degree" and conflate the two. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that Tyson failed to complete his "post-doc studies" when the issue at hand is in fact his doctoral work. Finally, you assert that it is atypical to change institutions during graduate work and that doing so requires some sort of explanation. I'd like to know the basis on which you assert this. Speaking from experience, it is not particularly uncommon for graduate students to change advisors, programs, or even institutions during their work toward a Ph.D. I think it might be helpful to spend a few minutes looking into the topic, or (better yet) talking to someone who actually knows something about it, before making dogmatic pronouncements and asserting that Tyson owes you a explanation for his post-graduate career path. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MastCell - you are free to think of me what you like, but to claim that changing institutions is in anyway analogous to changing advisors within a department indicates that your own perspective on this is significantly flawed. You are correct that I typed 'post doc' when I should have used 'graduate' - but that is as far as it goes. Tyson does not owe me any explanation. This article is not being written by Tyson. It is being written from a neutral pov about the incidents in this person's life. Finally - in this particular incident, we are not talking about Tyson's "post graduate career path" - we are talking about the work that he did in order to earn his graduate degree in the first place. As to "what basis this claim is made" - go make your appeals to authority elsewhere. If you are interested in actual lit on the subject, check out these works: http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2004/another-view-of-the-masters-degree-switching-institutions-on-the-way-to-a-phd, and http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/DataSources_2010_03.pdf.Kerani (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You still seem quite confused. Let's be clear. Tyson's "post-graduate career path" is "the work that he did in order to earn his graduate degree". These are two ways of saying the same thing. You seem to think they are two different things. It's clear to me that your errors here are not typographical, but rather spring from your misunderstanding or ignorance of how post-graduate education works. Separately, the source you cite ([54]) indicates that nearly half of history Ph.D.'s switch institutions during their post-graduate training. In other words, it directly contradicts your assertion that such switches are highly atypical. Can you clarify your interpretation of this source? MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly highly atypical for individuals who fail to make adequate progress on their thesis and are therefor kicked from a PhD program to go on to become prominent "scientists". Are you denying this? Seriously? Andyvphil (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson completed his master's thesis. All the article says is that "his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee". It does not appear to discuss how much progress towards completing it he did or did not make. Speculating about other details as editors are doing here is irresponsible. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the article also says, "Tyson wasn’t making progress on his dissertation, and professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers." And, "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him.." So your assertion that the article "does not appear to discuss how much progress towards completing [his dissertation] he did or did not make." is simply false. Andyvphil (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed that sentence, thank you for providing evidence for that particular assertion. I have yet to see evidence backing up some of the other irresponsible comments here, however. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made no "irresponsible comments", but if I've said something you think that and want to see any evidence I've omitted, just ask. As to "lazy", which someone inappropriately redacted from one of my comments, that is the point of the first The Federalist article: Davis agrees (as do I) that newspapers and politicians are innumerate, but Tyson [redacted- not a forum for your negative opinions about tyson] Andyvphil (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You've made a ton of irresponsible comments, with this one above another example. There is no evidence Tyson "fabricated" anything. He may have misquoted someone, but that does not imply fabrication. The Federalist operatives are attacking Tyson for reasons that have nothing to do with his misquote. This is obvious to the most basic, unicellular organism. Stop pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy, just what are you on about? History is replete with successful individuals who performed poorly in institutional settings. In fact, there is a strong argument in the literature that suggests failure is partly responsible for later success. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Failure to complete your dissertation predicts success as an astrophysicist? This "literature" I have to see. Cite, please. Andyvphil (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the source says anything abour "fail[ing] to make adequate progress on their thesis and are therefor[e] [being] kicked from a PhD program" - that seems to be your interpretation. And what's a "scientist" as opposed to a scientist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See my answer to Gamaliel, immediately above. And a scientist is someone for whom it is not true that “Research [is] not his strength. He [is] never going to solve any major scientific problems." A "scientist", on the other hand, is a [redacted] planetarium director who proclaims "“The lab beckons,” ... “Right now the public stuff takes up most of my time. But I want to get back to more research.", but who in fact has never done much research and is well past the age where that can be expected to change. Andyvphil (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're long past the point where you need to be continually reminded that this page is not a forum to degenerate the subject of the article. You can raise the point that the article should discuss his relative achievements or lack thereof in research without resorting to such language. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're long past the point of pretending that there is much chance of the article addressing the merits of Tyson having achieved the position of, as I believe Adler called it, America's most prominent scientist. See Objective's revert, which you ought to have reverted rather than leaving it to me to do so. Anyway, it would odd for me to make the case that "the article should discuss his relative achievements or lack thereof in research" without my pointing to the evidence that there's reasons to think it's in question. I was not very familiar with Tyson (I'd seen a couple of YouTubed videos, I believe) before seeing a mention of the attempt on Wikipedia to delete [theFederalist.com], but I've discovered all sorts of reasons since to think [redatcted - not a forum for your personal negative opinons on Tyson] If Stephan Schulz didn't want me to expand on that point, he shouldn't have asked. Andyvphil (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, the "reasons" you claim you have uncovered that show Tyson is [redacted] probably belong on The Federalist blog, along with all the other climate change deniers, creationists, and what can only be described as "serial fabulists". You'll fit right in. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy, please don't make me take administrative action, it's Friday and I'd like to relax over the weekend, but if you continue to use this talk page as an excuse to pontificate about your negative opinion about Tyson, I will. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"What is really so “mysterious” is why Tyson finds it so difficult to confess error and pretends that Bush’s 2003 remarks were only just-now discovered... Sean Davis had pointed to this quote as a potential source from the beginning. Yet if this is the source of the quote, then nearly everything else Tyson claimed about it and its significance is false (as is the account of the quote’s provenance he gave last night)... [Tyson] regularly repeated a false account in order to cast aspersions on another public figure. The only proper thing to do is recant and apologize. That is what a person of integrity does."[55] Note the quotes around “mysterious”. It is of course not mysterious at all. The evidence is that Tyson is not "a person of integrity" and your peculiar notion that we are obliged to leave that unmentioned on this page is without any foundation in policy. It should inform our editing decisions, and it is perfectly proper for me to bring it to the attention of such editors as might prefer not to write hagiography. Andyvphil (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This hagiography meme is nothing but disruptive. WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:TPG --Shabidoo | Talk 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein failed to make progress toward his PhD and did not acheive it until much later, after he gained noteriety. That did not make him a failure as a scientist. Objective3000 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

He dropped out of his early schooling at 15 years old, and he failed the entrance exams the first time to collage (passed math, but filed botany, zoology and language) but studied some more and entered a year latter. After graduating he decided to work in the patent office for a while first. Other then that I am unaware of what you are talking about "failed to make progress toward his PhD". He was awarded his PHD when he was 26 (after working in the patent office for 2 years) on his first try with his dissertation entitled, "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions.". --Obsidi (talk ) 02:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected request

wikilink “Type Ia supernovae” to Type Ia supernova - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Salon weighs in on incident

Now Salon has written about the dust-up. I think that put this into the realm of about 13 RS sources on this, not counting NdGT's statements. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? That source is three days old and we've discussed it various places. NOTNEWS, not relevant, and not significant. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My point is: How many RS refs talking about this before it becomes "significant"? Ordinarily, it would be one or two... we are over a dozen. At this point policy seems to demand its appropriate inclusion. It is not controversial material (NdGT has admitted the error). It is well ref'd. It has appeared in multiple reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying, they won't give up. Chemical Ace (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather large number of violations. Objective3000 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that there are literally thousands and thousands of sources on this topic (a Google News Search gives over 10,000 results[56]), I would say that a few hundred sources wouldn't be unreasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You did a Google news search on a very well known person's name. Not on the topic we are discussing. Of course there are a lot of hits. Objective3000 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument put forth by AQFK has two critical flaws. First, I presume AQFK is familiar with Google result counts are a meaningless metric, so one cannot conclude, with any certainty, that there are 11,000 hits. Second, and more important, even if there are a large number of hits, there is nothing in policy or guidelines instructing editors that several hundred references are needed. Ever. The suggestion is, to be blunt, absurd. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I'm not sure that I follow. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the topic we're discussing.

No one is suggesting that this entire article be removed. Of course Tyson is well-known. What is under discussion is an incident. Almost none of the hits you supplied are relevant. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Objective3000: My point is that Capitalismojo was suggesting that 13 sources was a lot, when in fact, it's a drop in the bucket. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It's not a perfect metric, but it is an objective metric. If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears. (Actually, I can think of several more, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say the results will be similar.) And yes, of course, there is such a policy. It's called WP:WEIGHT. Why do you think so many editors are objecting to covering something so insignificant? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily on either side here, but the request for "a few hundred" reliable sources seems downright insane to me. There are only 94 references in the entire article. Here's a sentence, chosen at random from the article: "He was 18th author on a paper with Brian Schmidt, a future winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, in the study of the measurement of distances to Type II Supernovae and the Hubble constant." I would challenge you to find even a dozen reliable sources for this statement, let alone hundreds. Shall we remove that sentence from the article on weight grounds? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with WEIGHT. Your suggestion that WEIGHT implies that several hundred references are needed to cover an aspect of a subject with a few thousand references is, as I said, absurd. (I disagree that it is insane, that's too much :) My guess is that less than one per cent of our material would meet that standard.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Philbrick:What I am pointing out is that 13 sources is tiny fraction of sources on this topic. BTW, you did not answer my question: What objective criteria would you recommend using instead? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You proposed it when asked for what would be a reasonable number of sources as a criterion for inclusion. Maybe it's a small fraction of the number of articles that say "Neil deGrasse Tyson" in them, but that seems fairly meaningless. If you honestly believe that 13 sources is too few, then should we remove anything with, say 20 or fewer reliable sources for it? Can you give 13 reliable sources for the statement I chose, at random, from the article - that he was 18th author on a paper with a Nobel Prize winner? How about for the names of his children? Honestly, be reasonable here. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, more than many of the other pieces of information in the article, such as the section on his spiritual beliefs. Kelly ^hi! 15:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: I'm not familiar nor have a researched his children or that paper. But I am familiar with his role in getting Pluto reclassified as a dwarf planet, and I was able find about a hundred using the reliable sources search engine. Unfortunately, 100 is apparently the maximum number Google custom search engines allow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So then you would agree that we should remove the names of his children and the statement about his being 18th author on that paper, and any other statement for which less than 100 reliable sources can be found? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Is it your opinion that we should remove all information which does not have hundreds of references? I would be with you if the argument was, clearly this is a less important bit of information than, say, the fact he is an astrophysicist - it would be utterly inappropriate to include in the first sentence or first paragraphs even. It would be inappropriate to place this in such a prominent place. But to argue that it has no place at all, because it doesn't have hundreds of references - even though the factuality of it is not in any doubt - seems to be opening up quite a pandoras box to me. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Id say that 13 sources is a fair number relative to Tyson's overall fame. Except for the fact that most of those 13 sources arent really reliable that is. Really we have maybe 3 actually reliable sources and like 10 blogs. Bonewah (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we have at least 12 RS, non-blog refs available (Go to "Resources" above to review). Many are columns or editorials, some are straight news. Not blogs. (I'd count Volokh Conspiracy as RS but I remove it from this count as a blog although it is at WaPo.) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm generally neutral on this, but I'm interested in getting this pinned down so that people aren't moving goalposts. Bonewah - what would be your "cutoff" number of reliable sources covering this for it to merit a 2-sentence mention in the article? Stipulating that your point is taken that there are only 3 (seems in dispute but that's fine) - would 5 sources be enough? If we find other statements covered by only 3 or fewer reliable sources, would those also merit removal? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding goalposts - correct me if I am wrong, but a significant reason that multiple sources are required according to WP:BLP is essentially, in order to get it right in a higher stakes environment. If something is disputed and cannot be verified, we have to be careful not to make unsupported (potentially libelous) claims. It gives the example of an alleged affair by a politician, where you would cite newspapers where the claim is made, while presenting it as a claim (not simply fact, and also presenting the denial if there was one). In this case, it doesn't seem so applicable (at this phase) - we do have multiple sources here, but even more than that, we have all the sources we need to remove doubt about the factual nature of the story: this is not about allegations, it is about a documented event where the person involved, far from denying it, has acknowledged error personally. The concerns that lead to there being a higher bar for biographies of living people seem to be answered here easily. That still leaves the "editorial decision-making" about how prominent we should present this information. It seems clear, it should not be the most prominent thing in the article or even amongst the top. But it also seems clear, there should be a place for it. Chester Lunt (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I don't have any immediate thoughts on how to create an objective metric. I am quite sure that this is the wrong forum for that discussion.

If we are going to play a numbers game, we should be more careful about not mixing apples and oranges. When AQFK says that Google News has 11K hits(ignoring for the moment that it is an estimate, not a count), that isn't 11K distinct publications, but 11K articles. When someone says 13 sources have discussed the Bush incident, that is 13 separate publications It is innumeracy to talk about 13 as a ratio to the thousands. Either count distinct publications in both numerator and denominator, or count total articles in both, don't mix them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Chester Lunt:'s point. That's what adds to the Kafkaesque quality of this discussion. Many time, there are conflicting sources, and when that happens, it is appropriate to ensure that we have a fair number of sources to make sure we get it right. In this instance, I don't believe there are any disputes, except about minor details. Everyone agrees Tyson made a negative claim about Bush's statement, arguing that he was being divisive and ignorant. Everyone (including Tyson) agrees, he got several aspects of the story wrong, and the main point of the anecdote was quite wrong. There is no dispute about the facts—the only issue is weight.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:I dont have a hard and fast cutoff number, its relative to the overall fame or noteworthiness of the subject (Tyson, in this case). Ive already said that this information should be included due to the fact that Tyson responded to it, but i wanted to remind everyone that the general feeling was that not all of the sources that mentioned this incident were really considered reliable, even by those that felt the information should be included. Bonewah (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another week, and not a single broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable news network (FOX, CNN, MSNBC), international news agency (AP, UPI, Reuters), or major newspaper has felt this worthy of mention. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the information in this article sourced to major news networks? Should we remove information that is not? Kelly ^hi! 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography, not a news article. So, yes there are many refs that are not news sources. But, this incident is being characterized as news, indeed a scandal by the original source. One would expect major news sources – particular given the care used in adding derogatory items in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Many who have called it news are doing so in order to invoke WP:NOTNEWS--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To compare this to another recent blunder, Sarah Palin's misstatement that the White House was at "1400 Pennsylvania Avenue" is the subject of literally hundreds of news articles, some of them from major networks and news agencies. 13 sources does not seem to be a particularly significant number, especially when most of them are right wing blogs. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Palin was a vice presidential candidate for the United States who has since maintained a fairly high profile. I think it's fair to say that she's a bit higher profile than deGrasse Tyson. There are a number of other statements included in this article that are not meeting such a high bar - I imagine there are plenty of statements in the article that don't even have coverage in 3 reliable sources. If you want to just count sources then you need to give a reasonable yardstick that can be applied more or less uniformly. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. What is the uniform standard? Personally, I'm trying to apply the standard I've seen employed at other articles. To respond to your objection about Palin's profile, I would say as the US' most famous scientist he may have a somewhat high profile himself, but let's compare a less high profile figure. Obscure Congressman Curt Clawson made a gaffe this summer that was the subject of almost as many news articles as Palin's gaffe, yet the editors on that article and at the BLP noticeboard deemed it not noteworthy enough for inclusion. If Clawson's gaffe - the subject of many more news articles than Tyson's gaffe despite his relative obscurity compared to Tyson - is not in the encyclopedia, then in my opinion Tyson's should not be either. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's certainly a reasonable standpoint to take. I'd have to see the details of the BLP noticeboard's reasoning, but if it is indeed an apt comparison then I'm fine with that being the current interpretation of the policy. Certainly Tyson is himself more notable than Clawson, so if there was even more coverage of the Clawson event and it was still undue weight, then this event would definitely be undue weight as well. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Where was the determination made in that case? If it was strictly here (Talk:Curt_Clawson) then it appears to have elicited much less input than this discussion. I think there could be a valid case for inclusion there, even though I wouldn't rate this incident and that one on the same scale (is this really a case of just a gaffe?) Chester Lunt (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel Comparing Tyson to Palin or Clawson or anyone else is always going to be apples to oranges. The relevant comparison is to other details about Tyson. The basic details of his life and career are probably sourcable to hundreds if not thousands of sources. Some very high quality, but many probably low quality (blogs, pop magazines etc). However once you get past the basics, I believe many of the details are likely sourced only to one or few sources (and more importantly , only ABLE to be sourced to one or few sources.) What is the objective standard that is keeping those details in, but this out. (For example, his statements on Peta, sourced only to Peta, The content on Penny4Nasa sourced only them, his various media appearances, being the 18th author on a paper, sourced to the primary of the paper, the unsourced latin dance team medal, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, those comparisons are irrelevant. Standard biographical detail present in every biography cannot be compared to scandals and gaffes which may or may not be worthy of inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I admit I don't know a whole lot about the Curt Clawson situation (just having heard about it now), but after looking through Talk:Curt Clawson, there is quite an enlightening discussion there with some familiar faces to this talk page. Just to venture an opinion here, I think there might be a better case for inclusion of that gaffe into his page, than Palin's gaffe into her page, because in a sense her public persona is one that involves gaffes to some degree (imagine discussing all gaffes of Joe Biden in the body of his article.) You might cite a particular gaffe, towards supporting the claim that gaffes are a part of his public persona (or for Palin as well).

In the case of this article, I don't think it is really a gaffe per se, in the same sense as those other two things are gaffes. For instance, "Death Panel" is a famous term coined by Palin which was widely criticized as being inaccurate. That has a whole article on it. It wasn't a gaffe, it was a claim that was widely disputed.

I'm not suggesting this is how we handle Tyson's claim (with a whole article). Certainly we shouldn't. Nor would I suggest that we should (as some have suggested) use Tyson's claim to build a case that he has a history of doing this sort of thing. In this case I think a small mention could be quite appropriate. Chester Lunt (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Insurance companies have been doing death panel nonsense as much as they can get away with it for decades. Palin merely opposes that the government would now assume that role and since the government would be unlikely to regulate itself well, the oversight would be oversighted. As far as the issue of this little misquote by Tyson that was made by Bush, who cares? We're not a tabloid....it has no business being in this article.--MONGO 18:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The easy answer would be that clearly Tyson cares as he responded. And if there is one take away from all this, I think it might very well be that people care. However, whether everyone cares or not has never (to my knowledge) been a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but this isn't a rumor or gossip. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, it's also a question of article length, as that affects whether weight given to an incident is due or not. Curt Clawson's BLP is 248 words long (prose size as measured by the Page Size tool); this present article's prose size is 3,344 words. There's absolutely no question that Clawson's gaffe would be covered if his bio were over 3,000 words long; given that it's less than a tenth of that size, it's more debatable (though I would lean towards inclusion of a one-sentence statement even in that case, given how widely the gaffe was reported).

I once wrote an essay, WP:ADAM, about Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency to let biographies become an assortment of unflattering minor details while no one bothers to actually write what the person is notable for. This Wikipedia biography is not one of those cases. It's long, well-tended, providing a clear impression of what the subject is notable for, and giving a full account of his many achievements. I think in this case there is room for a short reference to some valid criticism that Tyson received. In the context of the overall biography, it's not undue.

I note and sympathise with Viriditas' concerns that this seems to be an effort to discredit Tyson, driven by a political faction who may resent Tyson for views he's expressed on climate change and so forth, but regardless of the source or motivation of these criticisms, Tyson himself acknowledged that the critics had a point (as did Salon later on). Right from the beginning, this – combined with the length of the biography – moved this past the tipping point for inclusion for me. Andreas JN466 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be driven by a desire to discredit Tyson for political reasons, but that does not make this a unique situation. A lot of criticisms, valid and vapid, spawn from political maneuvering, doesnt really change anything. There is nothing in Wikipedia that says that only those criticisms that are born of a pure heart are worthy of inclusion. To my mind, the subject of his critics motivations are only relevant in so far as we might make mention of it if we decide to note this affair. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I am fine with including it if we mention that it was started because of a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Context is key. It is a controversy because American Conservatives made it one. Want to include it? Fine. Explain WHY or don't include it at all. Without the conservative sources stirring this up, Tyson would never have responded to it and it would never have initiated this discussion. Mystic55 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Without the conservative sources stirring this up" the fact that Tyson repeatedly mis-referenced a quote by a government official and claimed that the quote said something that it did not would never have come to light, Tyson would have gone on mis-using the quote, and we never would have have this discussion about checking your sources and your assumptions. Sounds to me that Tyson, the wider scientific community, and WP owe "the conservative sources" a firm 'thank you' and a bit more charity of motive in the future. A note to that effect in the article would not go amiss, either, methinks.Kerani (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mystic55: (ec)Do you really believe that if no conservative had raised this issue that Tyson could smear a president of the United States with a false allegation about religious divisiveness and no liberal or centrist would ever challenge him on it?. If true, that's rather sad.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? I should owe a debt of gratitude to sources deliberately manufacturing a controversy because he opposes Anthrogenic global warming? How about WP: Soapbox? And as for rather 'sad', I note the fact that only conservative sources really seem UPSET about this. If this is indeed the dire controversy it has been manufactured to be, where are the reliable sources not only mentioning the controversy but actively criticizing him for it? Salon might have covered the controversy, but they're just mentioning it exists. What is rather 'sad' is attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack anyone who disagrees with their carefully manufactured world view. Is that what we are reduced to? Not only can conservatives make up controversy out of thin air, but now we also have to thank them for doing it?Mystic55 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, this isnt the place for it. WP:BATTLE Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. WP:BATTLE WP:UNDUE, WP: SOAPBOX And let me add something else. If we really, TRULY, owe a debt of gratitude to these noble pioneers of truth, these bastions of nobility only thinking of the accurate honest record of history, then all the MORE reason to include the fact that they are both conservative and desiring to highlight this fact because of an attack on their beloved fellow conservative president. Let us pay these wondrous heroes of virtue their due and mention the fact in the article. If they did us a service, why HIDE the fact that they are conservative? Mystic55 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with noting (with RS) that the.Federalist is a conservative-slant publication. Nor do I have a problem with noting that this was the first attention given to this fairly obvious citation failure in any news source, conservative or liberal or otherwise. Kerani (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is of course a consideration, but I don't recall that being the primary consideration for those opposed to inclusion. Clawson was just one of many possible examples of a shift I've seen on Wikipedia towards exclusion of such things by invoking BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. If that is the general trend, or possibly even consensus, then it should apply to Tyson as well. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP is no longer the key issue (as long as it is properly written for inclusion) as the accusation has been acknowledged by Tyson. The question of UNDUE is well addressed by Andreas above. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to apply. This is a two month discussion among a variety of media entities. It is not "breaking news", or "diary", or "routine reporting", or a minor "who's who" event. I'm not sure what part of "not news" I'd hang opposition to inclusion onto. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Two months? Barely a couple of weeks at this point. "A variety of media entities"? That brings us back to User:Objective3000's original point, the lack of mainstream media coverage. If hundreds of articles can be ignored as WP:NOTNEWS, then taking the position that 13 blogs, one Daily Beast article, and no major news coverage is also NOTNEWS is a reasonable one. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I see that as of tomorrow it will be one month. That does not mitigate my NOTNEWS points. This does not fall into any NOTNEWS bucket. It is not "breaking news" It is not "routine reporting". It is not "diary". It is not "who's who". [User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "lack of mainstream coverage", I'd direct attention to the "Resources" section above on the talk page. We have such refs as Politico, Salon, NY Post, Tampa Tribune, Daily Caller, The Week, National Review, Washington Examiner, Weekly Standard, Physics Today, among others. I believe that is sufficient for a mention. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I accepted on good faith that there were 13 reliable sources. Upon close inspection, most of these sources are opinion pieces, not straight news reports. So, the actual number of good, solid sources appears to approach one or zero. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED, they're just fine for citations of fact, although any opinions must be cited and attributed as such. Kelly ^hi! 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm putting this in bold because it appears you didn't notice it the last dozen times it has been pointed out to you:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

This is from WP:RS WP:BIASED does not say what you claim it says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that's your interpretation, but I disagree. I wouldn't use them to cite disputed facts, but for uncontestable ones, for instance Tyson's mischaracterization of Bush's statements, they're fine. Kelly ^hi! 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont think there is any question about the facts of this case any more once Tyson acknowledged the error. There is still the question of undue weight, but i dont think blogs are in any way forbidden from counting towards an undue weight analysis. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is right - the context you are using a source matters greatly (I think to some degree, no matter what the source). Again, the high standards for BLP's is partly because of libel/slander laws. Unlike an article on Saturn which might include inaccuracies, subjects of BLP's could potentially seek legal action. So when facts are disputed, you need to find multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is not a dispute of the facts.

But there also seems to be a misunderstanding of the policy in WP:UNDUE. The example is given of the flat earth theory, and how it would be giving undue weight to it to include a direct mention in the article on Earth. It gives a certain false equivalency to include such a discredited theory side by side with ones that are proven. Is that the case here, by including a mention of this incident? Given that its factual nature is not disputed, and that Tyson acknowledged and apologized, I don't see how this would be comparable to the flat earth example.

In the broader sense, beyond that policy, you don't want to give undue importance to certain facts over others. You wouldn't lead off the article saying Tyson is a dancer, even though he is a dancer, or that he is a father, even though he is also that. There are editorial choices to make about where to place things, and the importance to why they are well known is certainly a huge factor. It would be inappropriate to include this incident into a prominent place, but to argue that there is no place at all within the body of this article is too far a leap for me. Chester Lunt (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We have seen some classic "moving the goalposts". The discussion was about whether there was any mainstream coverage (other than blogs). When presented with evidence that there is enormous mainstream coverage, the issue suddenly becomes "we can't use it because it's opinion". Well, actually, we can use opinion, carefully. There is straight news reporting in the refs. There are opinion columns in the refs. There is even selfpub (Tyson's) in the refs. Each has its appropriate place. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no “moving goalposts”. Time moves on, and still not a single broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable news network (FOX, CNN, MSNBC), international news agency (AP, UPI, Reuters), or major newspaper has felt this worthy of mention. Objective3000 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove information in this article that doesn't use those types of sources? Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Objective3000 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good question: certainly this isn't the standard outlined in guidelines, but is it your view that we should apply it to this article and remove everything not cited in the sources you describe? Chester Lunt (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I answered this the last time he asked it. This is a biography, not a news article. So, yes there are many refs that are not news sources. But, this incident is being characterized as news, indeed a scandal by the original source. One would expect major news sources – particular given the care used in adding derogatory items in a BLP. We're just going in circles. Objective3000 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you have stated it before. Wouldn't this deal more with deciding how to present the incident, rather than whether to present it? Maybe thefederalist would present it one way (certainly they did), but as an encylopedia we have different aims. Per WP:BLP, we must be careful not to make it an attack article with the wrong tone or emphasis. But that doesn't mean we can't cover things viewed as "negative." We just should not be using things like derogatory terms, insults, etc - instead we are bound to cover it in a neutral way. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the end, it all comes down to the rationale for including an item. What is the reason for this inclusion in a BLP? The reason given by the originator of the claim (which published thirteen articles on the subject), and most of its echoes, is that it “proves” Tyson is a “serial fabulist”, and therefore, we can ignore his arguments in favor of climate change and evolution. Only, there is absolutely zero evidence that he is a “serial fabulist”. He got a quote wrong, and repeated that one misqoute. If that’s the criteria for derogatory statements in a BLP, glad I’m not in Wikipedia. Thought that was in the realm of gossip columns. And, some of the editors that wish to include this also wish to denigrate his academic credentials because he did not get his PhD at one school, but transferred to a more respected school and achieved it there. STOP THE PRESSES! (Einstein also had some initial, like difficulties, in obtaining his PhD, not included in his article. And that's not a BLP) Seriously, many of the sources were attacking Tyson before this for not believing in and respecting their deities. And many people here have said that we should include because WP would look bad because of the attacks against Wikipedia. (That’s really sad.)

Two comments on the attacks. First, this is playing the ref. In sports, coaches make very strong complaints to the refs that their rulings are biased against them (particularly in away games) in an attempt, often successful, to get them to rule in their favor in later tight situations to prove non-bias. That is, they try to force bias. Second, some of these attacks have been so over-the-top as to make the comments nonsensical. For example, the originator’s comments that Wikipedia editors that wish to exclude this silliness as being the equivalent of beheading jihadists and the crucifiers of Christ. (Amazing that they avoided Godwin’s Law.) Further, naming WP editors in a public blog and accusing them of unpleasant things for merely expressing opinions based on WP !rules. Will WP actually fall for this? If so, every time one of these blogs wishes to raise its visibility, it will start attacking WP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A few things here: it was not just a misquote. What he ended up apologizing for was, well, to quote him precisely: "And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia." It wasn't so much that he was just a few words off, but that the meaning was made very different because of those few words, which prompted him to apologize.

As for the rationale - it is easy to imagine why a blog generally viewed to be conservative, would be critical of a public figure generally viewed to be liberal (and who in this case, was criticizing a conservative public figure). They have their motives, and they also have their conclusions. Yet it does not follow that because they first made the claim, they can dictate the way we must present it here. Do the facts support their broad conclusions? I haven't seen any evidence that he is a "serial fabulist," and this incident is not proof of it. As for the potential of forcing bias, that certainly is something to be wary of. But to use your referee analogy, imagine a coach makes a very strong, over the top complaint. The refs look at it, find that there is merit to it. But they feel pressured, and in order to send a message against pressuring the referees, they rule against the coach despite the facts.

I'm sure this sometimes happens in sports too, even though you would like to think referees would not be swayed either way. Wikipedia is different from sports obviously in many ways, one is that there is the benefit of time. I remember the sad case a couple years ago where a no-hitter was lost due to a bad call with 2 outs in the 9th. The umpire apologized for the bad call later, as the evidence was conclusive that he was wrong, but that doesn't change the outcome of the game. When it comes to getting Wikipedia right though, we have time to get it right.

So to return to the question of rationale for inclusion: we aren't bound by the same rationale used by the claim originators. Why should an encylopedia like Wikipedia mention this incident? Because it is well documented with reputable sources, involves a claim about a prominent figure (former president) that was shown to be inaccurate, which later was apologized for by Neil deGrasse Tyson. There's no dispute about the facts, and presenting the facts helps provide context on Neil deGrasse Tyson (presuming it is presented in a neutral, responsible way). Chester Lunt (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With no evidence that this misquote was purposely fabricated, it's an oops. And, I hardly think it damaged a retired president's reputation or job prospects.:) Objective3000 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of evidence would you be looking for that it was "purposely fabricated"? We aren't mind readers here.... --17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say "originator" do you mean Sean Davis?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would it have to have been purposely fabricated in order to be included? Chester Lunt (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You started out well with In the end, it all comes down to the rationale for including an item. but what followed was a mismash of OR, and not very well done OR, because it is replete with non sequiturs. Plus straw men (no one here has argued this incident deserves including because Tyson is a serial fabulist). Chester Lunt has already made the point that your simplistic sumarization needs work, but that's not all that is wrong with your post. But the opening sentence was good. Maybe you can try again and follow it with say, a discussion of the actual rationale rather than an invented one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Never before seen so many snarks on one page. Objective3000 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please address the content, and avoid the aspersions. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Responding to empty insults is pointless -- and that's all that you provided. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can assure you there was no snark intended in any of my comments here. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't seen snark in your edits. I just didn't respond as I thought the question had been answered so many times before and didn't see the point in more repetition. Frankly, I simply cannot imagine any reason to include a goofed quote in a BLP, particularly considering the vast number of times this guy has spoken. Objective3000 (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some editors don't deem it personally important is moot. Policy suggests that we include events that have significant coverage. All agree that this has received significant coverage (Salon, Politico, etc...) We have sufficient refs. There is no BLP issue (its not controversial because the subject has acknowledged it). A spare tightly written description will avoid undue issues in a large bio. I see no policy based reason not to include. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just wrong. In fact, BLP policy suggests exclusion, not inclusion. Please read it. I'm curious, how did you get the opposite impression? When in doubt, we exclude. And as far as your "significant coverage" argument goes, that's been debunked several times. The conservative, right wing echo chamber, starting with the Federalist Heartland-front blog, and moving to other conservative opinion pieces and blogs, is not in any way "significant coverage". Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no longer a WP:BLP problem as we have a WP:SELFSOURCE verifying the information. Once a fact has been verified in a source reliable for WP:BLP (such as a WP:SELFSOURCE), then the WP:BLP concerns go away for that fact. Now if additional facts unsupported by the WP:SELFSOURCE are added, you can complain about those, but that hasn't been proposed yet. The only thing we have left to decide is WP:WEIGHT. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please give it a break and find something else to do with your time. A Facebook posting is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:SELFSOURCE, in which Neil Tyson's confirmed Facebook posts are perfectly reliable sources as to a not self-serving claim about himself. It says explicitly: "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."--Obsidi (talk ) 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi, there is no connection to having a BLP policy problem with content and what the SELFSOURCE guideline says about how to identify a reliable source. You're also running afoul of the "verifiability guarantees inclusion" error. It doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP raises the bar on the reliability of the source to protect against potential liable being incorporated into a WP page. When a subject says something about themselves (assuming it can be verified it is actually that person saying it, and that it is not self-serving), it removes any problem of the reliability of the fact. There is a whole section in the WP:BLP page dedicated to telling you this: WP:BLPSELFPUB which links to "Further information: WP:SELFPUB" which again says "This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." A self source is a perfectly reliable source for a BLP page (in this case it is the only really reliable source as to the fact that he actually made a mistake rather then just the accusation occurred). Now as to the second part about "verifiability guarantees inclusion", that is true, just because the WP:BLPSELFPUB is verifiable does not guarantees inclusion. Verifiability DOES remove BLP concerns (assuming it is written in a WP:NPOV), and all we are left with is standard WP:WEIGHT issues. It shouldn't be included if only one reliable source talks about something in an off hand manner (not important) or even if many talk about it but due so in a way that the RS believes is not relevant to the overall story of the subject. But the question is "What do the reliable sources think the importance of this to the overall story of the subject?" Not what you, or I, think the importance of the fact is but only what the WP:RS think. In this case every reliable source on the subject (which does include biased sources which are reliable sources), clearly thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson. That means it should be included (with proper size, a single paragraph at most). --Obsidi (talk ) 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources have argued this is important as a part of his life? None that I know about. Please present them here for review. And while you're at it, it would help if you familiarize yourself with a few GA/FA biographical articles. You'll find that they don't contain this level of irrelevant trivia. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of it as irrelevant trivia. There are currently 14 WP:RS talking about the importance of this to Neil Tyson.

1) [57] 2) [58] 3) [59] 4) [60] 5) [61] 6) [62] 7) [63] 8) [64] 9) [65] 10) [66] 11) [67] 12) [68] 13) [69] 14) [70] --Obsidi (talk ) 00:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Quantity over quality? You're either not understanding the discussion or you are intentionally moving the goalposts. You claimed that "every reliable source on the subject...clearly thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson." I then responded, "which reliable sources have argued this is important as a part of his life?" You responded to my request for clarification with a link dump. That does not help nor answer the question. If you believe that one of these sources makes the case that this trivial misquote was "important to the overall story of Neil Tyson", then choose one up above so I can comment on it. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You said "Please present them here for review." and so I did. Each of the linked sources claim that it is important to the story of Neil Tyson, and each one is a reliable source. You are free to start from the first if you wish to disagree. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how talk page discussions work. We discuss things one at a time, often using a single example as the basis for arguments. Since the onus is on you to demonstrate that at least one of these sources "thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson", please choose one that supports your argument so that I may best address it. If you can't do that, then you must forfeit the argument. We simply don't have time to do your research for you. If you feel strongly that your argument is correct, then you must choose at least one of the sources you list above (preferably the best one) that substantiates your argument. If you still don't understand, then you may want to review WP:TALK. I very much doubt that all of these sources support your argument, and since you are the claimant, the onus is on you to prove that they do. Get to it. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say not to discuss them one at a time, as I said, you can start with the first link I included which was [71]. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The first link is an opinion piece by conservative sports columnist Tom Jackson that duplicates the claims made by The Federalist and reproduces them on his blog. Not notable, not relevant, and not even remotely supporting the case that "it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson". You can't even make an argument that Jackson's opinion is notable for this article, because it isn't. Please cross that opinion piece off your list. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Tom Jackson was the author, but it was a piece published on the The Tampa Tribune. Yes it talks about the claims made by the The Federalist, while also clearly showing that it is considered an important topic relevant to the overall story of Neil Tyson calling it in his own words "vicious, gratuitous slander." Do you disagree that it clearly shows that to the author of the article that is "important to the overall story of Neil Tyson"? I know you don't think its important, but the author of the article written in a WP:RS clearly does think it is. So the question is 1) Is this a reliable source? You gave no reason for believing it is not (other then calling it a blog, but this is from a published source with a editorial board, which makes it not a blog as WP defines that word in WP:BLOGS, and instead should be considered a WP:NEWSBLOG.) 2) Does the article think it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson, and in this case the article clearly makes that point. --Obsidi (talk ) 02:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a good reliable source for this biography article. While it is certainly current, it is not neutral and repeats the attacks made by Davis. I also don't see how it makes the case that the misquote is relevant. More importantly, I should point out that the good sports columnist is an admitted, out of the closet climate change denier.[72][73][74] This is guy who writes, "But just as you don’t have to have played in the NFL to present an authoritative opinion about who has emerged as the best quarterback to lead the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, or have served in the White House to analyze responsibly what's going on there, neither is an advanced degree in climate science necessary to ascertain that the verdict about humankind's effect on global temperatures is far from settled." I should point out that Jackson's paper, The Tampa Tribune, appears to have some kind of close relationship with the Heartland Institute, as they seem to publish an unusual number of Heartland commentary and "expert" opinions in place of actual scientific facts.[75] While it is generally agreed that "weird" Florida is an outlier when it comes to the rest of the United States, this kind of open, outright shilling for lobby groups is unprecedented and tells me the source is not reliable for this or any other article. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not required to be neutral to be a WP:RS (see WP:BIASED). The whole point is that it “repeats the attacks made by davis” clearly it thinks the issue is important which is why it bears repeating! This “misquote” (in your words, I would say it is far more then that), is relevant to the overall story of Neil Tyson according to the article. You are not even disputing this so far. An ad hominem attack on the author’s other views is irrelevant. The fact that 47 of the 2,990,000 google hits on their site include the word “The Hartland Institute” (ie they asked someone from the heartland institute what their view on the subject was) is not even evidence of systematic bias of the publication (which even if biased wouldn't matter, see WP:BIASED). By that standard the NYT’s has a LOT of systematic bias’es that would make it an unreliable source (which clearly it isn’t unreliable). [76]. Only if they stated facts that were not true then that would cast into doubt their reliability (not being biased). --Obsidi (talk ) 00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously consider this disgusting rant in a blog from a sports columnist calling the director of the Hayden Planetarium "a little, little man" a serious ref? Is that what an encyclopedia should use as a reliable source? And that's the first pick of all your refs? I've had enough of this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Its clearly an opinion piece, and for many of the things included could not be sourced as facts about Neil Tyson (such as the part about "little, little man" or it being "vicious, gratuitous slander"), but that doesn't mean it isn't a WP:RS, its still a WP:NEWSBLOG and properly attributed could be included in the article if supported by proper WP:WEIGHT (such as "Tom Jackson thinks..."). As such it can be used to support that there is a significant viewpoint among WP:RS on the importance of this subject, which is important for a question of WP:WEIGHT. --Obsidi (talk ) 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I can't see how this source can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Further it does not support your claim that this is a "significant viewpoint" at all, it actually supports the claim that it's a minority viewpoint promoted by climate change denial and creationist groups attempting to attack Tyson. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This source was actually up on this page as the original source, cited all by itself (with approrate attribution) for a long time (I was not the one that added it). No admin removed it through protection, which they could have (and did for another part), if it wasn't a WP:RS. Why don't you think it is a WP:RS as a WP:NEWSBLOG? "Significant viewpoint" is shown by multiple WP:RS agreeing that it is important, I don't claim a single source can demonstrate a "Significant viewpoint" exists, but multiple WP:RS can. --Obsidi (talk ) 11:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sources like this have claimed Obama is the AntiChrist. The majority of the article is a copy of the Federalist article, which nobody thinks is a RS, with some ad homs thrown in like "a little, little man." It's a disgusting rant and should not be used as a source anywhere in an encyclopedia, much less in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What you do mean "sources like this"? This is the The Tampa Tribune which is a daily published newspaper sense 1895. If you can point to a link in which the The Tampa Tribune claims factually that Obama is the Anti-Christ, I will strike the source. To say that some other organization accused Obama of being the Anti-Christ, does not in any way harm the reliability of the The Tampa Tribune. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not the Tampa Tribune. It's a conservative columnist who is using a polemical opinion piece to repeat claims made by The Federalist, an unreliable source. Further, the columnist is an admitted climate change denier. It has no place here. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiritual views sourced only to YouTube

I cut some information on his views about spirituality and race that were sourced only to YouTube, which is not a reliable source. Looking through the article, we will probably have to cut quite a bit of information that is poorly sourced to YouTube or to self-published sites, and are not backed up by major mainstream news organizations. Kelly ^hi! 11:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Restored with original video sources in addition to or in replace of the YT videos. Some YouTube links restored as they are to videos in official YT channels, allowed under WP:RSE. In future, may I suggest that you not make such huge removals as it makes it more difficult to fix. Objective3000 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources are certainly usable, within some specific constraints, per WP:SELFPUB - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The quote pulled from YouTube is a violation of WP:OR. There is no RS to establish that quote as notable in the least. I find this highly ironic given that both of you are fighting against the inclusion of material actually sourced to RS's. Arzel (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography. These are interviews by respected sources of the subject of the biography talking about himself. Objective3000 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, see WP:SELFPUB. Providing it meets that criteria, we are good. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. Who says that this quote is notable? You are in violation of original research. Arzel (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the information Kelly removed is notable and relevant on the subject of science and religion.[77] While you might personally believe this material is not notable, I think most people do. Furthermore, I think we know the real reason Kelly removed this. It's because it says, "Tyson has argued that many great historical scientists' belief in intelligent design limited their scientific inquiries, to the detriment of the advance of scientific knowledge." Frankly, that is considered an uncontroversial statement in the civilized world. I've just about had it with the climate science deniers and creationists waging war on this article. It's time to lock this puppy down. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You said it right there, "I think", ergo original research. I can watch the same video and put in what "I think" people think is important and put it in there and it would be the same problem. I thought I told you that I am not a creationist, so that argument has no weight against the point I made. Furthermore I noted that this stuff was problematic long ago. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand. This is a biography of a scientist who is a well-known speaker and often speaks on the issues related to clashes between science and religion. Why wouldn’t his biography include his own words on the subject? Indeed, didn’t this entire discussion start because of a quote related to the intersection of science and religion? Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to his overall story. Viriditas said: "While you might personally believe this material is not notable, I think most people do." It doesn't matter what Viriditas or any other editor here things is notable enough, what matters are do reliable sources think it is important. A youtube video of him saying it is enough to verify that it is accurate, but it is not enough, by itself, to suggest that it is important without reliable sources. Even if Viriditas think that "most people do" think it is important, what "most people" think isn't important, only reliable sources.--Obsidi (talk ) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You folk seem to be getting hung up on YouTube. YT is not the source. It is simply the medium. The sources to these YT videos are: PBS, Tyson's own blog at The Hayden Planetarium, the University of Buffalo, The Science Network, The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Center for Inquiry Objective3000 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Its true that University of Buffalo, The Science Network, and The Howard Hughes Medical Institute hosted speeches/interviews with him. That is relevant for his notability. But a specific answer given is not noteable just because he gave it while during a speech at the University of Buffalo, or in response to an audience comment at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Now if there was some kind of story written by a WP:RS about the response, or what he said during the speech that could totally make it important enough to include. As is, we don't have sources for that, and we should start to pare back these extra parts that haven't been commented on by WP:RS as WP:UNDUE. (Tyson's own blog, cant make it noteable, needs some other 3rd party WP:RS). --Obsidi (talk ) 19:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand the difference between a biography and a news event. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would think this does not belong in a biography. Many of those awful blogs that some editors claim are RS make mention of his religious beliefs, in a derogatory manner. Why shouldn't his own personal statements on the subject, elicited in interviews with reliable sources, be included? If it's unimportant, why did PBS (a real network) and these other sources ask the questions in interviews? We finally have something from an actual network, and that isn't enough? Objective3000 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add, biographies contain info like wife’s name, kids’ names, parents’ names and vocations, grade school attended, other personal stuff. You are not likely to find these in the NYTimes. That’s because it’s a biography, not an article about a news event. Personal info belongs in bios and, though it should be verifiable, it need not be proved notable by a third party RS. Objective3000 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

An opinion of a blog about his religious beliefs would be VERY unlikely to be included (for multiple reasons, probably not a RS as it is a blog, probably not significant, potentially liable depending on how derogatory it was). PBS is a reliable source, but they cant possibly know what his answer will be before he gives it. As such it cannot possibly indicate that the answer to the question is important until after he gives his answer. If PBS writes a story about how he answered a question or does something to indicate that the answer is important, that would be relevant. Neil Tyson can't make an answer important, only reliable sources commenting on the answer can do so.

As to the second, yes there are some things (like birth date), that are not important to reliable sources, but are included in basically all bio's (see MOS:BIO for some). Are you really trying to say this comment is the kind of thing included in every bio? If not then it needs some justification from a WP:RS as to its importance. --Obsidi (talk ) 21:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The obvious justification is that it keeps coming up, in source after source, attack blogs, interviews, his own blog, speeches, it is a continuing theme with Tyson. If you look at the WP articles on Carl Sagan and Isaac Newton two of Tyson's listed influences, you will extensive sections on religious views. This is hardly unusual in a bio. Objective3000 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well feel free to reference RS commenting on the quote or other thing you wish to include and I wont have a problem with it. (if it is just attack blogs, it might not be important enough as they might not be RS, blogs without publishing or editorial boards are not RS usually). Also if you look at the pages about Carl Sagan and Isaac Newton, you will see their views are documented in reliable sources, as such the problem I am talking about does not apply. Maybe we should just bring this to the NPOV noticeboard (weight issues fall under NPOV), I bet this kind of thing crops up in a variety of articles, where you have a televised interview by a RS but without RS stories about the answer. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't have videos of Newton. The sources are listed and reliable. And, what source is more reliable on a person's views more than the person? Go right ahead and take it to whatever board you want. Waste of time. Objective3000 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not a question of WP:VERIFIABILITY clearly they are his views. Its a question of WP:WEIGHT, how important is this view of his to the overall story of Neil Tyson, and we cant answer that without a WP:RS commenting on it. --Obsidi (talk ) 22:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're appealing to the "verifiability guarantees inclusion" error again. Again, see WP:ONUS. We don't have to "answer" it or include a link to Facebook. We've already discussed this extensively. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually you got it exactly backwards, I am arguing that it SHOULDN'T be included as there are no WP:RS talking about the Tyson's answer, so you argument for WP:ONUS is actually in my favor (although also a specious and incorrect argument as this is about WP:WEIGHT not WP:BLP as everyone concedes it is verifiable). This has NOTHING to do with Facebook (it has to do with a youtube video and no other WP:RS talking about it). --Obsidi (talk ) 00:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS about Tyson's remarks on science and religion, and I believe we already have some in the article. Please do some research. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't talking about those, its talking about the ones that link to a youtube video and no other WP:RS has mentioned. --Obsidi (talk )00:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but this is simply not an honest characterization of the situation. It is not a YouTube video. It is many videos that happen to be on YouTube that originated with reliable sources. Vastly more reliable than the sources that editors are trying to use to add denigrating content. You simply do not understand that this is NOT an article about a news story. Religious views are extremely common in bios. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, it doesn't matter that content is sourced to YouTube. What matters is the type of source on YouTube. I see people still have a problem with this distinction. In other words, "don't use YouTube" is supposed to mean "don't cite some guy on the Internet". Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been referred to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here:[78] --Obsidi (talk ) 05:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I said as much there, but to repeat what was also said here, it doesn't matter where the video is hosted if it shows the primary source saying something in plain English. No analysis needed. Trying to figure out what Richard Dawkins has to do with it requires more analysis than I had time for, so replaced him with "University of Buffalo" in the lead-up to the quote, and removed a picture of an interview we don't mention from the edge of the quote. Not sure about your screen size, but that ruined it (which doesn't matter as much as the irrelevance). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion on NPOVN and came and read the relevant section. I fail to see what all the hubbub is about. What Tyson said there is consistent with other views expressed in the section. He is agnostic - meaning he doesn't know if there is a god or not - (and he explicitly says that he doesn't care much) and this quote is just a reason why belief in a benevolent god doesn't make sense to him. What is at stake in this argument? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The claims should be sourced to secondary reliable sources - not to any YouTube video of whatever provenance as long as such other sources exist. IMHO, the sentence at issue is not a credo of any sort, but rather what he felt was an amusing view about religion. Simple solution. Collect (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean by “whatever provenance”. It is on the University of Buffalo YouTube channel. As for secondary source, it is in Atheism for Dummies here. Your opinion about the quote doesn’t matter. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

yes indeed it is. that should lay this to rest. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

what is at stake here?

really, gang, I don't understand what is at stake. why does it matter to folks if the quote is in or out? please explain. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just that WP should not be deciding what is important. It leads to original research. The now included source is a nice addition to establish weight. Arzel (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry but that is not an answer to the question. on the face of it, the quote is pretty innocuous, at least to me. from my perspective, either the editors working on this article have become so bitter and entrenched that they are spending scads of pixels fighting over something stupid, or there is something actually at stake. your answer leads me to believe it is the former. unless, that is, you can articulate some reason why the quote itself matters. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the quote appears to say essentially nothing about his actual personal beliefs at all -- it seems rather in the normal course of trying to make a joke during the course of a serious talk as much as anything. The specific term "beneficent God" is specifically and primarily Qu'ranic in origin. The God of Israel is described as wrathful and easily angered. The Christian God is not described as "beneficent" to the world in the New Testament, but only as forgiving those who ask to be forgiven, which is a far cry from "beneficent" in general. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't include any WP:OR.:) rgds, Objective3000 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR would refer to contents of any edit to an article. It does not apply to my comments above, which refers to the general use of "beneficent" by any religion, any more than my showing Google counts would be. I trust you will reread that policy. (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.))Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a joke. Objective3000 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I am not saying the quote matters. I just noticed some time ago that there was quite a bit of this article sourced only to YouTube. This implied that WP editors were taking the role of reporters and reporting what they think was important from the YouTube videos. I was never personally judging the importance, or lack of importance of that quote. Personally, I do think it is better without the quote in blockquote form. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that removing the blockquote was an improvement. Objective3000 (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, so there was a bad trend on this page of sourcing things from youtube, and this became a kind of stake in the ground over that. i understand that, that is a bad trend. happily the "dummies" provided an orthogonal way out of this dispute. whew! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

terse NPOV proposal

In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)". Columnists and bloggers noted that Tyson misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven Columbia astronauts, ("In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.") Tyson on Sep 26, 2014, defended his use of the quotation on Facebook: "I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere -- surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged." and then on Sep 27 he emended his position stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote."

Appears to me to be a neutral statement of fact, avoids accusations of any political nature, and fits in one terse paragraph. Collect (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - this seems to be a good summary in NPOV language. Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - overly verbose and thus UNDUE. One short sentence is all we need. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• support Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way, way too long. He got a quote wrong. It never hit any major news outlet, despite incredible efforts (13 articles) by thefederalist to elevate it. It is certainly not, as indicated by the length in relation to the article, a major part of this man's life. I don't see that any mention is useful in a biography. People who spend a major part of their lives in public speaking make all kinds of errors. But, unlike some people, Tyson has no history of inventing a multitude of quotes or facts. Undue weight.Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Never any hit major news outlet except Salon, Politico, New York Post, National Review, etc..., yes? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I would support Collects version. (even if I think its not quite accurate that he was accused of just "misquoting", I can accept that as compromise) --Obsidi (talk ) 16:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Ten sentences are ten sentences too many. None of this needs to be in the article. --Shabidoo | Talk 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shabidoo. None of this is significant enough to be mentioned in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Tyson gives a lot of public talks, tells this story frequently, and says that he is going to continue to use the quote. The quote seems to be important to Tyson's message, and this account emphasizes Tyson's own position, so it is fair to him. Just add the appropriate references. Roger (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Trivia, no indication of significance or longevity. Tyson misquoted Bush, so what? Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

• • Cwobeel, would you be willing to propose said one short sentence ? Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Something like this may work. It provides a short description of the issue, and provides necessary context for our readers: - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

      In September 2014, a series of articles in the conservative website The Federalist accused Tyson of misquoting former U.S. President George W. Bush in some of Tyson's public speeches. Tyson later apologized on his Facebook page for mistakenly dating a quote from Bush on a different occasion and in a different context. According to an article in Physics Today, these accusations and a number of other pieces in The Federalist, were political attacks against Tyson, related to right-wing climate-wars assertions and rejection of secularism.

References

• Comment. Cwobeel's offering takes a silly anti-conservative tone. We are going to cite Physics Today for a political opinion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why not? It is the only non-partisan source weighing on this issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Not bad, but i think your summary of events doesnt really make it clear that the core objection is that Tyson painted bush as anti Muslim when the quotes in question dont support that. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

        I'd support this language without the political attacks line, which doesn't seem supportable. Two sentences is proper weight here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

        • Too much detail and not that relevant. The sources are provided, readers can dig deeper if they want.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, so sourcing a physics journal for the political opinion that it was a partisan smear attack was just the right level of detail, but pointing out the actual facts of Tyson having screwed up so stupidly is unnecessary detail? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Um -- injecting political matters into what should be a simple statement of facts seems, to me, to be a poor way to handle this. Intuitively, that proposal is extraordinarily POV where we ought to be seeking a totally neutral wording of what actually occurred. Collect (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the first part isn't quite accurate for what the federalist actually accused him of (maybe incorrectly). The last line is not NPOV. --Obsidi (talk ) 16:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What the Federalist accused Tyson for is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is was an obvious political attack by a conservative website. If we are to ever include anything about this issue, it needs to provide the necessary context, which is the real elephant in the room. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that Tyson went around making political attacks that turned out to be super dumb. You are saying that Tyson's wrong-ass political attacks are irrelevant, but conservatives pointing out their wrongness should not be discussed here except via silly partisan condemnation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Physics Today is the only non-partisan source we have, and should carry the weight it deserves. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that what the Federalist accused Tyson of is irrelevant. Its the spark that started all of this, and, lets not forget, its what Tyson acknowledged and apologized for. I cant understand how that doesnt qualify as 'necessary context'. Bonewah (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I will conditionally support this (or very similar) compromise language, even though I am not in love with the final sentence. But I want to see some buy-in from a majority of "pro-deletion" editors. I have no interest in re-litigating this issue in days, weeks or months. I want a stable compromise that everyone is equally unhappy to accept. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I think the Physics Today line is not appropriate, I'd say it doesn't reflect the majority of sources. Otherwise fine. I'm largely fine with the other proposal just above Cwobeel's as well. The more brief the better. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. None of this belongs in Tyson's article. Not every silly thing anyone has ever said about a famous person in a blog belongs on that person's WP bio. Not even if they said it a lot. As for discussing it in the the Federalist article, fine, because it's the only thing that website is remotely notable for. However, if the allegations are discussed explicitly there it should be made clear that they are without merit. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate the effort, but these are fringe sources promoted by polemical opinion pieces with no indication of encyclopedic significance or longevity. If these attacks on Tyson are notable, then we should see serious coverage outside the fringe conservative blogosphere. We really don't see that. Yes, PT covered it in passing, by verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. NOTNEWS, COATRACK, UNDUE, and other issues come into play as well. I can't think of a single GA or FA biography that includes this level of trivia, not can I find a single offline encyclopedia article that mentions such a trivial aspect. We need to look a who is making these claims, the type of sources that publish them, and the POV pushing by Wikipedia editors defending it. When one does that, one is forced to conclude these claims don't rise to the level of notability. Tyson misquoted Bush, so what? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The phrase "out of context" is inaccurate, and I don't think anyone described the quote/misquote that way. Roger (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

alternative text

In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific undertanding, including an accusation that Tyson regularly misquoted former U.S. President George W. Bush in one of Tyson's standard educational talks. In October 2014 Tyson described one of his standard talks, described how he had been taking a quotation from President Bush out of context in that talk, and apologized to the former president for having done so.

References

My druthers would be not to mention this at all but there will be no end to this if we don't compromise, as others have said. i could live with the version above. it is accurate and puts things in a larger context somewhat. It feels kind of ... whitewash-y ... to limit the description of the onslaught to just "a misquote accusation" - I recognize that the description is limited in good faith (not to hide anything) to avoid BLP sensitivities, but if we are going to say what happened, let's say it. hence the above. and better to use an independent source for the accusations rather than the source of the attacks. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The above gives the misimpression that the accusations are notable and/or deserve to be taken seriously. By WP:DUE this stuff doesn't belong in the article at all. So, let people complain. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fringe sources promoting a minority viewpoint about Tyson and attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to include their crackpot theory that Tyson is a "serial fabulist" are not acceptable. "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." The mainstream media has ignored this fringe theory while the lunatic fringe blogosphere went nuts with it, going so far as to claim that because Tyson misquoted Bush, climate change was a fraud, evolution was a lie, and God was coming back real soon to smite the atheists who dared question the inbred ignorance the radical right. Finally, these fringe theories were repeated ad nauseum by polemical opinion editorials pumping up the redneck echo chamber. Meanwhile, there remains no indication of any mainstream attention, significance or longevity. Per FRINGE, it can't be added. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As a less-than-perfect compromise to resolve this on-wiki controversy. Contrary to the assertion above, there is nothing "fringe" about the available sources that document Dr. Tyson's problematic quoting of Bush out of context, using the misquote to hold Bush up as an exemplar of religious and scientific ignorance, doing it in public speeches over a period of years, and eventually acknowledging the problem and apologizing for it. If you don't believe the truth of the matter, please read Tyson's own apology. Hell, there's video of Bush's misquoted 2003 Columbia speech and several of Tyson's own speeches where he disparages Bush based on the misquote. Does anyone still doubt the truth of this? We may not like the partisan affiliation of several of the sources, but focusing on the "right-wing echo chamber conspiracy" does nothing to dispel the truth of the underlying allegations, now admitted: Tyson screwed up. Let's find a suitable compromise, and be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtylawyer: I actually don't doubt that Tyson screwed up. Can you point to some non-fringe sources though? I mean independent non-partisan sources, not youtube. I can't find any. And citing the conservative blogosphere opens up a whole different can of worms, because they made many, many, more outrageous accusations against Tyson, which then have to be addressed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

alternative text 2

Following a conversation with Jytdog on my talk page, I decided to propose the following modification of his proposal. The point is to avoid mention of the non-notable (and baseless) political attacks against Tyson while retaining mention of his error and apology.

In 2014, Tyson was accused of misquoting former U.S. President George W. Bush in one of his standard educational talks, and later apologized for mistakenly taking the quotation out of context.

References

This was the discussion I had with Jytdog:

just curious - please watch this video of tyson's standard talk on the hayden planetarium website here - just 4 minutes. now read tyson's apology: here.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, that's pretty embarrassing for him. However, I think you may be forgetting the enormous number of ridiculously vitriolic attacks that were coming out of conservative media, the overwhelming majority of which were about completely silly minutiae which - except in that case - were irrelevant to the point he was making in his talks. They also accused him of fabricating quotes, not just taking that Bush quote out of context. That may explain why his response was more than just an admission of guilt. I wouldn't object to mentioning this particular situation in the the Federalist article, and in fact I wrote 3 sentences on it there, which were deleted. If you're going to mention the whole "controversy," it's necessary to clarify that nonsense is nonsense, and the subject doesn't have enough weight to merit the lengthy block of text required to do that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't think you understand where i am coming from. i have been arguing against including anything. you are singing to the choir. but i am really asking - did you watch it? Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes. It's pretty ugly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

yes. honestly, until i watched that, i thought the attacks were all just a bunch of ugly political shit-slinging. but this was dead on, and the talk was apparently not a one-off, but a talk tyson gave a lot of times. ugly i checked out the other charges that the bloggers were making, and 99% of it is just ugly and twisted. but they clean busted him on this, and my sense of fairness says Wikipedia can't bury that. tyson apologized for that and the rest he has (rightly) blown off. so if you face the ugly on both sides... well, you end up where you end up. i ended up with my recommendation - be honest on both sides. shit slinging, got one thing dead-on right, tyson apologized for that one thing. you don't have to agree. but i wanted you to understand. thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

--Sammy1339 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - This version of the proposed compromise text omits virtually all of the required context to indicate why this is even worth mentioning. I agree with Jytdog's comment above in the alternative proposal: if we are going to mention it at all, we need to provide some measure of detail and context. Otherwise, it will simply become a magnet for future vandal/POV edits because it omits any sense of detail and real meaning. Let's do the minimum context required, and I, for one, will keep it on my watch list and defend the compromise text from future POV-pushers. Let's be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Although I believe no mention is warranted, I will support this if no one attempts to augment it. Objective3000 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)