Talk:The Federalist (website)

Notability

It has been referenced by several news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and MSNBC, and political websites, such as The Hill, and Real Clear Politics.

References

Take a look at these sources. I don't think these passing mentions, one interview, and one reprint at RealClearPolitics are enough to assert notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly engaging in political retaliation. But that's o.k., because through your despicable acts, millions of people are learning about how corrupt Wikipedia is, and the outlet you are targeting is getting invaluable positive publicity!2604:2000:9063:9F00:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What's going on here? The Federalist is referenced almost daily in a number of media sources, National Review among them. They share a number of writers as well. A deletion request? This is starting to look like someone's vendetta. Knock it off.DesScorp (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Work by authors at The Federalist have also been at the core of articles at The Daily Beast and The Washington Post . These are not just passing mentions so that would seem to cover most of the requirements of notability, but there are more if that doesn't suffice: Washington Post "In an interview published online on Wednesday, Paul said The Post’s story was “full of inaccuracies,” calling it a “hit job." again The Federalist forms a core part of the story. Slate, "Paul, meanwhile, can convince his audience of the moment that he has never been inconsistent, and never been duped. He responded to the lengthy Washington Post exegesis in a friendly conversation with the Federalist, a year-old conservative news site. He was not asked to respond to any point-by-point questions about his plan. “Do you believe you’ve changed your mind about the proper policy approach in this arena,” asked his interviewer, “or is this just a matter of people not making a distinction about the threats involved?” . There are quite a few others but these show 2nd party sources referencing The Federalist, again pointing to notability. In short I think the request for deletion should be denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshkuru (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

References

No one disputes that the Federalist has a lot of readers, and that it's stories have been cited by major news. The problem is that the links above say essentially nothing about the Federalist itself, that we could put in the article. A few hours ago this came out [1] which at least talks a little bit about the Federalist. It potentially gives us: (1) oft-cited TheFederalist.com (2) TheFederalist.com accused a popular scientist of making up quotes (3) we're considering it for deletion and (4) Federalist has been featured in mainstream media such as MSNBC and CNN. Which is circular and thin, but it's better than any other source I've seen. Only the Media Matters' Blog-page talks more directly about the Federalist. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's notable enough that this attempt to delete the Wikipedia entry has created a little firestorm within the blogosphere. WBcoleman (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"No one disputes that the Federalist has a lot of readers, and that it's stories have been cited by major news." If this is true then Wikipedia should have the article. That it's difficult to find much information is beside the point. Andyvphil (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the editor world, I think my biggest source of frustration and confusion is over the nitpicking at secondary sources. First, there is the criticism of the secondary sources themselves and whether they are noteworthy or not. Second, there is the "passing mention" versus "in-depth coverage" argument. The pro-delete commentary in the AFD debate is making the case that not enough established / notable / reliable sources have done some kind of expose' on The Federalist.com defining its purpose, staff, and other background information. But in all fairness and honesty, does such an expose' exist for any web magazine, political or otherwise? For example, take Wired.com, which hosts technology blogs following its split from Wired Magazine . I have yet to find any kind of revealing, in-depth news coverage that explains who and what Wired.com is. I have, however, found secondary sources talking about Wired.com and significant stories Wired.com has published, much in the same way that secondary sources have been found talking about or mentioning The Federalist.com and its contributing writers/editors and major stories, without necessarily doing an in-depth profile of the e-magazine itself.Mlcorcoran (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

References

A contentious article is rough on everyone, but it's particularly rough for a new editor. I had about a hundred edits and hours of reading policy when I first tried jumping into a heated article. I didn't stay there long, and it almost put me off editing completely. This article is a rough place to get started.

Wikipedia uses the word "Notability" in a strange way, and the word is notorious for confusing new editors. We aren't allowed to write our opinions into articles, and we're not allowed to have opinions on how important something is. What we think doesn't matter. A musician at #100 on the Billboard charts is Notable because The World established a Billboard chart to Take Note of them, and because a paragraph about the musician here and there in the media gives us outside material from which to build an article. Establishing Notability doesn't require "in-depth" coverage, but it does take multiple sources talking about the article-subject in a nontrivial way. See Notability#General_notability_guideline. A Youtube channel with more fans than the musician is not notable, no matter how important we think it is. There's no Billboard chart for youtubers, and Reliable Sources generally never talk about youtubers. We can't just make up our own Original Research to fill an article. At the time the AfD was initiated there was a shocking absence of sources saying anything about Thefederalist. Now we do have Reliable Sources saying things about Thefederalist, now we can build an article with them.

Regarding Wired_(website), I agree it is a low quality article. However other (crummy) stuff exists isn't a good reason to make a poor article here. We have lots of editor attention here, so the goal is to use that attention to make a good quality article.

By the way, I easily found good sources for Wired_(website) and added them to the Talk page. Hopefully someone will take an interest in improving that article. Note what I did *not* include in the list. I did not include blogs unless they satisfied WP:NEWSBLOG. I didn't include cases that mentioned "Wired.com has a story on X", which proceeded to talk strictly about X. That is a passing mention with no usable content. I didn't include cases where CNN or others carried a copy of an entire Wired.com story. The fact that CNN and others republish or link Wired.com stories may make Wired.com "important", but that has no connection to our definition of "Notability". It's discussion about the subject that we need. Alsee (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, of all the back-and-forth I've followed both on this Talk page and in the heated AfD debate, your post has been by far the most constructive and informative to a new editor. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcorcoran (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Title / Rename article?

Why is this page titled "thefederalist.com"? That doesn't seem to be in line with the standard formatting for website names. The Huffington Post article is titled "The Huffington Post", not "huffingtonpost.com". The article for FiveThirtyEight is titled "FiveThirtyEight" not "fivethirtyeight.com". The current formatting does not seem to be in keeping with accepted standards. Is there a reason that it is this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.20.48.228 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest "The Federalist (website)" as a better alternative. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If it survives AFD, yes, "The Federalist (website)" is more appropriate. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Better yet "The Federalist". We don't use parenthetical dabs when not needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist is currently a redirect to Federalist Papers, so I perhaps The Federalist (website) is appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, because several articles refers to Hamilton's The Federalist. See [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And of course, as even an Englishman with little knowledge of American history knows, the Federalist Papers were originally, and until comparatively recently, known simply as The Federalist. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support My preference would be The Federalist (magazine) - like Slate (magazine). Lightbreather (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it a magazine? It seems to be more of an opinion blog that a magazine. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an online magazine published by professional journalists in the Washington, D.C. political arena. It does have several editorial articles and op-ed pieces about pop-culture and world events. It also publishes interviews with politicians and public figures. Mlcorcoran (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed to "The Federalist (magazine)" or "The Federalist (website)" to jive with names of similar news website articles, like Slate or Salon? Kelly ^hi! 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already suggested at #Title above. But pages should not be moved if they are currently at AfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Lord, time for me to get my glasses checked. Kelly ^hi! 14:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not punish climate change skeptics

No more donations from me until this is settled. I believe you are targeting conservative opinion to push a climate-change agenda. Sad. Although I contribute money often during your fund drives, I will no longer do so if you keep up this type of behavior. You should leave your personal political opinions out of this website. 74.118.32.5 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Speed

I don't think there is any such "targeting"; we are conducting a survey to decide is this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatant attempt at political censorship, using all the tools that the usual Wiki-cliques employ when they want to gang up on those they don't like. I am neither a fan of "The Federalist" nor an opponent, but they are a longstanding right-wing voice. To even suggest otherwise is blatantly disingenuous, period. Moynihanian (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the notability of the subject which best belongs at the AFD but "longstanding"? According to this article, and all the sources I've seen mentioned, the website is 13 months old. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

User Cwobeel is a proud member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, whose motto reflects "a desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result." Here he is defending a survey intended to decide whether to delete an article about a website with which Wiki editors obviously disagree. And the after that there'll be another survey about whether to delete the article called "Irony."71.164.104.47 (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No knowledge will be lost as the meager content in this article can be easily merged onto one of the website founder's bios in Wikipedia, Ben Domenech. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The user is "inclusionist" when he agrees with the content, and a stereotypical promoter of Wiki-censorship when he encounters ideas and organizations to which he objects. Given that Wikipedia has no authentic standards, this sort of thing happens here on a regular basis -- and the world knows it, which is why Wikipedia gets little respect or participation from serious people. Moynihanian (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Moynihanian: I don't object to anything, as Wikipedia is not censored. But we have certain policies by which we abide by, such as WP:WEBCRIT, which applies here. If you don't like these policies, you can participate in conversations to improve them. Complaining about me, without merit, does not help. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In my considerable, multi-year editing experience and observation here, there isn't a single rule, policy, or principle that Wikipedia follows across the board. How can it be otherwise, when Wikipedia is based directly on the idea that reality is whatever a group of "editors" declares it to be? Moynihanian (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of independent secondary sources

The article lacks independent reliable secondary sources about The Federalist, hence the third-party tag. These sources do exist, some have been discussed at the AFD. Please leave the tag until such sources have been added. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the template {{pp-protected}} to the top of the article. Someone forgot to add it.--Auric talk 00:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done except that I used the more specific {{pp-dispute}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a functional equivalent. Says nothing about disabling editing. Andyvphil (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked for current uses of {{pp-protected}} on a fully-prot page to see what the difference might be; there's one on New York Institute of Technology. That doesn't say anything about disabling editing either - I observe two differences between {{pp-protected}} and {{pp-dispute}}: the mouseover tooltip on the lock icon ("This article is protected until ..." vs "This article is protected until ... due to editing disputes") and the categorisation (Category:Wikipedia protected pages vs Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute). It is surely better to reflect the actual reason for protection than to show no reason at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've encountered fully protected pages many times, and I've never before seen it not mentioned that editing is disabled until such-and-such a time. Wtf? Andyvphil (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To editor Andyvphil: As is normal on fully protected pages, there is a padlock symbol at the upper right-hand side of the article. Point your mouse at it and it tells you the expiry date of the protection. Just the same as all the fully protected articles I've encountered. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, maybe my experience with fully protected articles goes back further than yours, but is not of recent enough vintage to include such a discreet notification to a potential editor that a backstage struggle is going on. The corresponding template, at least as I recall, used to say in plaintext visible without hovering that editing of the article had been suspended. I don't think that this is an improvement. Andyvphil (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Most protection templates produce the padlock icon, and this is how the majority are used. Some can produce the box-type message as an alternative to the padlock; {{pp-dispute}} is one of those, so I have removed the |small=yes parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Particularly since the attempt to delete this article is getting attention outside of Wikipedia the box will be much more informative for some visitors than the padlock. Andyvphil (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Please could ALL users of this talkpage read the talk-page header which I have just added (near the top of the page). Please pay particular attention to the bits about assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. It would also be helpful to everyone if editors here could provide meaningful edit summaries when commenting. Your cooperation is appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request in the abstract. The reality is quite different, given Wikipedia's history of wildly inconsistent application of rules, principles, and policies that are (at best) honored in the breach, to be overridden and ignored at will by roving flashmobs of like-minded cliques. All of this is a direct result of this website's core belief that "facts" are whatever the majority of "editors," knowledgeable or (all too frequently) otherwise, declare them to be. In such an environment, it is inevitable that the editing of anything other than uncontroversial reference material will rapidly devolve into the sort of Wikilawyering, Wikicensorship, and Wikihypocrisy that have become this site's hallmarks worldwide. Moynihanian (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for discussion of your perception of Wikipedis's shortcomings. If you have constructive policy proposals then please make them at the Village Pump - Policy. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for your Wikicensorship, Wikilawyering, and general wagon circling. Every time I pop in here, someone reconfirms my views about Wikipedia and why it is so justifiably the butt of jokes worldwide. Moynihanian (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't censored you at all - don't lie. If you have any constructive suggestions as to how to improve Wikipedia, they are more likely to succeed if you make them at the appropriate place, and in a less twattish manner. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but when you rendered my comments invisible you censored them. I am on record with the "constructive suggestions" you claim to want, along with my belief that Wikipedia is institutionally incapable of reforming itself. The only way Wikipedia will ever change itself will be under threat of oblivion. There will be no such threat, given its role as a useful almanac of uncontroversial material that no one (yet) has bothered to monkey with. However, the minute any controversy arises, Wikipedia becomes unable to handle it, because Wikipedia quite literally does not believe in fact or truth. This makes every last bit of information here negotiable, which is why no serious academic institution allows Wikipedia to be cited as a source, and why authorities in a wide variety of subject areas quite rationally avoid Wikipedia like the plague it is. Moynihanian (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To editor Moynihanian: I never "rendered your comments invisible", please stop telling lies about me. Another editor did "hat" your comments, but they were still visible to anyone who knows how to use a mouse. You mention that "no serious academic institution allows Wikipedia to be cited as a source" - Wikipedia itself does not allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source! Please feel free to avoid Wikipedia like the plague - as you clearly don't believe it can be improved, why are you here? Not to improve the article, not to contribute to the AfD - why are you here? DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, he's here to express his frustration with the cancer that ravages Wikipedia. He's wrong, of course, to connect that with Wikipedia's unsuitability for citation. But his frustration and anger is completely understandable, and I share it.

The arrogant vandalization of his comments by hiding them is just that, and since you seem to find it unobjectionable I think that justifies, post hoc, his use of the inclusive "you". Andyvphil (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that my latest criticism is inspired by this petty yet all-too-common "Federalist" fustercluck, I think it's perfectly logical and quite appropriate to write what I've written, right here. And Andyvphil, thanks. Moynihanian (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

“This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.”

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users

• Assume good faith

• Avoid personal attacks

“This page is not a forum for discussion of your perception of Wikipedis's shortcomings.”

“I haven't censored you at all - don't lie.”

All of the above consists of your (User:DuncanHill) dishonest and improper attempts to censor anyone who disagrees with you and your Marxist comrades, as you retaliate against them and against The Federalist. That makes you the liar.

This is a talk page. Hence, one may engage in “general discussion of the article’s subject,” as well as of one’s “perception of Wikipedis's [sic] shortcomings.”

Every time I’ve seen that “This is not a forum” line, it was posted by one of WP’s Marxist enforcers, to try and silence dissent.

Speaking of which, which one of your comrades made some of User: Moynihanian’s comments invisible, and why have they not been restored? I know how to use a mouse but can't find them, which of course was the point.2604:2000:9063:9F00:F4C4:E64B:61B1:60B4 (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Sorry if some of these are duplicated here or in the article. It's just two lists of sources.

About The Federalist

• Brinker, Luke (2014-04-02). "Introducing The Federalist, A New Web Magazine For Anti-LGBT Conservatives". mediamatters.org (Blog). Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
• Cherlin, Reid (2014-01-07). "The HuffPo-ization of the Right". Politico. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
• Corbin, David; Parks, Matthew (2014-08-09). "Memo to House Republicans readying to sue Obama: Read The Federalist". World News Group. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
• Lane, Moe (2014-09-26). "The Federalist has officially arrived: the Left is trying to delete its Wikipedia entry" (Diary). Town Hall Media. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
• Strachan, Owen (2013-09-18). "Introducing The Federalist, a New Long-form Culture Site". patheos.com (Blog/Press release?). Patheos. Retrieved 2014-09-27.

Cites the magazine and its writer(s)

• Corneliussen, Steven T. (2014-09-20). "Neil deGrasse Tyson accused of "the science of smug condescension"". scitation.aip.org Physics Today. AIP Publishing. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
• "Cosmically Dishonest". Weekly Standard. 20 (3). Clarity media Group. Retrieved 2014-09-27.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The only article from the list above that discusses The Federalist in a significant way is the Media Matters article. A highly critical piece, that I am certain it will be considered too partisan for inclusion. Patheos is a blog, and Red State is not an RS. The HuffPo article barely mentions the site in one short sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like The Federalist, I simply think it's time for it to have an article - but I'm sure as heck not gonna argue about it. Lightbreather (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a good chance the article will survive the AFD process, in which case we will need to find sources. So far, the only one that discusses the website is Media Matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, the David Covin piece above is about The Federalist (read Hamilton's The Federalist papers), not this website :) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a bad on my part. I found those on my phone while I was watching a podcast. So much for multitasking! Lightbreather (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Corbin piece is reprinted from The Federalist website. So it does provide indication of the need here, on Wikipedia, for an article on the website that an inquiring reader of the piece can consult to learn more than he could by merely going to the site itself. Andyvphil (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Huckabee Report on Fox dated 27 September 2014 interviewed Ben Domenech and for less than a minute displayed in block letters at the bottom of the screen,

Ben Domenech

Publisher, The Federalist

This is not WP:GNG evidence, but rather is evidence that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large as per the nutshell of WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What was the report about? About The federalist website? if not, then the source could be used at Ben Domenech. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was about neither the website nor Domenech.  I wasn't paying much attention, and when I tried to find out from the web today, there is nothing yet posted about the report.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Query about the "recruitment" tag

Where's the documentation of this assertion? Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the tag is disruptive and should be removed. Kelly ^hi! 10:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the very first link in the "media mentions" box near the top. It goes to the Federalist website, and in the comments below the story you will see attempts to recruit people to influence Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Influence Wikipedia to do what? Add sources? Kelly ^hi! 10:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the comments there. Don't misrepresent them here. DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Heated rhetoric aside, it's just an assertion of notability, which is hardly a controversial viewpoint. Kelly ^hi! 10:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• To editor Kelly: - given your participation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#comments_about_.21voters_at_an_AfD you are already well aware of the sites that canvassing has been happening at. If you have anything constructive to add to the deletion debate, please do so there (I have no opinion either way as to whether or not the article should be kept). If you have anything constructive to add to the article, please make an edit request on this page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree a WP:MEAT argument can be made about the AFD. However, I see no indication that anyone has been encouraged to make any POV edits to this article. I am open to evidence indicating that I am wrong. If used, the template should be at the AFD page, not here. Kelly ^hi! 11:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, as there are no indication of such behavior here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Relatively few fans of the "Federalist" website (myself not being one of them, incidentally) have come here. Why? Because Wikipedia's reputation as a high school-level swamp where integrity comes to die is well established. Moynihanian (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Two editors

Neither Kelly (talk · contribs) nor Moynihanian (talk · contribs) have made any contribution so far to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put editors' names in section headers.  There should be more about this at WP:TPG.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So you think, although of course we disagree on what a "contribution" might be. Which is perfectly okay, because I would never try to tell someone what to think. Yet nor, unlike you Mr. Hill, would I exercise Wikicensorship, Wikilawyering, and Wikiwagoncircling as you've done with some of my comments. Moynihanian (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So? Kelly ^hi! 06:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 September 2014

This entry currently states that one instance of The Federalist being "mentioned" by another source was "a blog reprint at Real Clear Politics." This is inaccurate in two ways. First, Real Clear Politics has reprinted numerous articles (not just "a blog reprint") from The Federalist. Recent examples include:

- Lewis Andrews, "The Pension Crisis Could Reinvigorate Society," http://www.realclearpolicy.com/2014/09/27/the_pension_crisis_could_reinvigorate_society_22248.html (9/27/2014) - Leon Wolf, "Did Southern Culture Kill NASCAR Driver?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/08/14/did_southern_culture_kill_nascar_driver_338968.html (8/14/2014) - Mollie Hemingway, "What is the Peace We Seek in Iraq?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/08/13/what_is_the_peace_we_seek_in_iraq_338943.html (8/13/2014) - Angelo Codevilla, "How To Mind America's Business," http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/08/05/how_to_mind_america039s_business_338338.html (8/8/2014) - Brandon Finnigan, "The Curious Case of Charlie Crist," http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/08/04/the_curious_case_of_charlie_crist_338096.html (8/4/2014) - David Harsanyi, "Seriously, What Is John Kerry Doing?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/07/29/seriously_what_is_john_kerry_doing_337871.html (7/29/2014)

Second, Real Clear Politics regularly includes links to The Federalist (in the company of such sources as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, Bloomberg News, The Hill, The American Interest, etc.). As of this writing, the main page of Real Clear Politics features 4 articles from The Federalist, listed here:

- Heather Wilhelm, "Emma Watson & Feminist Conundrums," http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/25/emma-watson-and-the-chamber-of-feminist-conundrums/ (RCP, Sunday, 9/28/2014) - Mollie Hemingway, "Neil Tyson: Just Trust Me, OK?" http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/27/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-trust-me-on-those-things-i-said-ok/ (RCP Morning Edition, Sunday, 9/28/2014) - Joy Pullman, "Ten Things Parents Hate About Common Core," http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/24/top-ten-things-parents-hate-about-common-core/ (RCP Morning Update, Saturday, 9/27/2014) - the above-mentioned reprint on Real Clear Policy, "The Pension Crisis Could Reinvigorate Society"

All this in addition to article from The Daily Caller accusing Wikipedia of "targeting" The Federalist for deletion (http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/26/the-federalist-targeted-for-wikipedia-deletion-after-criticizing-neil-degrasse-tyson/), a controversy that has begun to attract media attention from institutions including The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/neil-degrasse-tyson-admits-he-botched-bush-quote/) but which is absent from the Wikipedia page in its current form.

Hannaharendt (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to see an AFD and a dispute in Wikipedia to be used as claims for notability. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics is accepting contributions from The Federalist website, but we don't have information published in reliable sources about the website. That is at the core of WP:WEBCRIT. If the contributors are notable (and they very well may be), these sources can be used in their articles. But without secondary sources that discuss and cover the website content, the website is not notable for Wikipedia to have their own article. See for example The Daily Caller for an article on a similar website that is notable per WP:WEBCRIT.- Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We do, in fact "have information published in reliable sources about the website". That you can continue to deny this after it has been pointed out numerous times is a quite remarkable exhibition of That Which Can Not Be Named. And it is not "an AFD and a dispute in Wikipedia" that has bolstered the website's notability, but the derision those things have deservedly attracted outside WikiLaLaLand that has done so. Andyvphil (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @Hannaharendt: Sorry, but before this request can be enacted you need to be clearer about what exactly you want, and you need to find a consensus to make the edit. Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for more details. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Only source about The Federalist

I found a single source that describes this website/online magazine. Here is a summary of that source:

Media Matters for America published an article on April 2014, titled Introducing The Federalist, A New Web Magazine For Anti-LGBT Conservatives in which they describe The Federalist, as an outlet for “often-rabid anti-LGBT talking points”, that has received plaudits from conservative groups known for their anti-LGBT advocacy. The article describes how the website is touted by its founder as a publication "that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment”, and how this position leads The Federalist to reject basic protections for LGBT people. They quote several writers, including Mollie Hemingway, who referred to straight marriage as "natural marriage," explaining that "the penis and vagina parts are actually key to this entire shebang. See: human history”, and Rachel Lu, who argued that LGBT rights legislation, "normalize[s] homosexuality and transgendered behavior”. Andrew Walker, another writer, wrote that Jesus would not support marriage equality, and counseled pro-LGBT rights Christians to repent by saying that “no sin is wider than Christ's mercy if one will only repent and believe.” The article concludes that “[i]t takes an especially warped worldview to constantly cast an historically marginalized group in the latter role, with their oppressors so often heralded as ‘heroes’ and ‘martyrs’.”

References

I will not add this to the stub, given the AFD status, and the fact that there is no other information available on this website sourced to WP:RS to develop an article at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't have 50 occurrences of your name at the AfD I would be compelled by AGF to assume you weren't participating. But of course that's not true, which makes your determined ignorance hard to explain. But only if I AGF, of course.

The Politico article gets 13 mentions at the AfD[3] at the moment, including this one, by me: "[WP:GNG]: 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' E.g., the Politico article on right wing news sites ('main topic') gives non-trivial attention to The Federalist and constitutes 'significant coverage' of the topic of the article proposed for deletion." And, of course, articles solely on the topic of the website, or of a collection of websites of which it is one, are by no means necessary to establish the subject's notability. Significant coverage of the reporting on the website, such as on the series revealing Neil deGrasse Tyson's proclivity to invent falsehoods or on the related idiotic attempt to delete this article, also work to establish [WP:N]. As do any "plaudits from conservative groups known for their anti-LGBT advocacy." Andyvphil (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the Politico article at all? If you haven't, this is the entire "significant coverage" of The Federalist website in that two-page, 1700-words article:

As Ben Domenech, who co-founded RedState and, more recently, a new conservative site called the Federalist, pointed out to me, it’s “kind of the same way there was a proliferation of folks on the left starting up places” [...] Smaller, more targeted sites like the Washington Free Beacon and Domenech’s Federalist seek to go deep on the issues and sway the conversation in Washington. [...] The only thing that I think is hurtful to the movement is if you didn’t have that kind of variety,” Domenech of the Federalist told me. [4]

Significant coverage indeed - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You left off (why? your usual carelessness? (I can provide examples)),

...during the Bush era, he said, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina showed that partisan media’s failure to question its own leadership can lead to a collective lurch into the political wilderness. The remedy is an array of sites playing complementary roles—a “weaponized” hit piece here, a clicky slideshow there, anti-Obama video snippets nearly everywhere...

...while in the comparatively bookish pages of the Federalist, a writer was taking time to explain “What Madison Meant By Self-Governance,” the second installment in a three-part series.

...and your contention is that this material in an article on a phenomenon in which The Federalist is, so far as I can tell, no less important than any other magazine mentioned, is "a trivial mention"??? Andyvphil (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you fighting with yourself here? No one is stopping you from doing the work, summarizing that article and adding it? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my correcting some of your many errors is a non sequitur. Andyvphil (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do the bloody work. That is what we are here for, not just argue incessantly. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In an article published in Politico Magazine, titled “The HuffPo-ization of the Right”, Reid Cherlin describes a number of right wing websites and online publications, including The Daily Caller, Weekly Standard, Breibart, and The Blaze. Carlin reefers to more targeted sites like the Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist as "seek[ing] to go deep on the issues and sway the conversation in Washington." In the article, Cherlin mentions that conservatives appreciate the new range of right-wing outlets, and includes Domenech’s assertion that “[t]he only thing that I think is hurtful to the movement is if you didn’t have that kind of variety”. The article reports these right-wing outlets’ focus is on hardening opposition to President Barack Obama, with a view beyond the end of his second term, which Domenech compares with the proliferation of liberal outlets at a similar point during President George W. Bush’s tenure.

References

This article is about The Federalist, and your contribution to it should focus on what the HufPo said about it in the context of the other magazines, rather than be an unfocused recitation of the HufPo article. Even were you attempting that, the Daily Caller etc are the old guard, not the subject of the article, and are unduly prominent in your treatment of it. That said, what you're attempting would be a good addition to the page, so I encourage you to do that. Just make it a bit better. And I encourage you to do Media Matters complaint too. Andyvphil (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So where, if anywhere, is this "work" or anything derived from it published by Wikipedia? Andyvphil (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal via OR

AQFK removed this under the rational of OR. Now you may not like this, but edit summaries which are simply not true do not help the situation. Arzel (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Something similar happened here. I agree it is disruptive. Kelly ^hi! 13:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I did explain explain my reasoning here which I will repeat: None of these sources actually says that the Federalist has been mentioned in several articles. That's an original conclusion not stated in any of these sources.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing that it was mentioned in several articles? That seems to me pedantic and more than a little tendentious. Kelly ^hi! 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that this claim fails verification. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see your position but I disagree - I think the cited reliable sources serve as adequate verification for the statement. Kelly ^hi! 13:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "conclusion". There is no "original conclusion" or "claim" it is a straight report. There is no original research of any sort whatsoever. The line says media including...(x,y,z, etc) debated or discussed the Federalist's allegations. This is immediately followed by the refs of x,y,z media orgs debating or discussing the Federalist's allegations, explicitly mentioning the Federalist. This is the proper way of addressing it.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is not WP:OR, then can you provide the exact quote from these sources which directly states that the Federalist's allegations were picked-up, debated, or discussed in a variety of national media including Physics Today, the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog, Weekly Standard, Daily Beast, the Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and the Tampa Tribune among others? You can't because it's not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If we were to follow A Quest for Knowledge's theory we could not say the Federalist was "mentioned in several articles" we would have to say something like: "In September the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy column discussed the Federalist's accusations. (ref)" "Also in September the Daily Caller discussed the Federalist's accusations (ref)." "Also in September Physics Today addressed the Federalist's accusations. (ref)" "Also in the Tampa Tribune... (ref)" "Also in x...(ref)" "Also in y...(ref)" "Also in z...(ref)"

This is absurd, and not supported by policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw man. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply listing sites is not OR per WP:NOTOR under section "Compiling facts and information" where it says: "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." Marteau (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read that quote again, Marteau: "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." So, what this is saying is that you're allowed to organize an article (such as in sections, paragraphs) but you're not allowed to present unpublished conclusions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most perfect examples of Wikilawyering in order to produce a desired result I have ever seen. Calling the sentence "Its allegations were picked-up, debated, or discussed in a variety of national media" a "conclusion" is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond it's intention. A conclusion is a judgement resulting from a process involving reasoning. That it was "picked-up, debated, or discussed" is bare fact; it does not require "reasoning" to say it's true, but only simple reading comprehension. Marteau (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with AQFK's contribution history, and I don't recall him ever engaging in "wikilawyering". Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you "recall" anyone whose POV you agreed with ever engaging in "wikilawyering"? And did you say anything at the time? Andyvphil (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with much of AQFK's contributions, which are quite impressive, and don't recall any prior examples of "wikilawyering" That makes this instance all the more puzzling, because it is clearly "wikilawyering".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Preserving over-long list of "including" ... "and others"

Preserving this over-long list of "including" ... "and others." Keep the most WP:V, WP:RS - UNDUE to list every place that discussed this.

Its allegations were picked-up, debated, or discussed in a variety of national media including Physics Today, the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog, Weekly Standard, Daily Beast, the Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and the Tampa Tribune among others.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:COATRACK claim about a living person

That a meaningless story about a meaningless event takes up over half of the article is a pretty clear indication that this is justa WP:COATRACK to carry on BLP content about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I balanced what was there and put it in perspective. I agree that the event was pretty meaningless but the dispute over whether The Federalist is article worthy or not - which looked like some to be some sort of cover-up (which it wasn't) - is what pushed it over the edge into notability, IMO. Still, if people start adding more than what's in it right now, at least on these two matters, I think that will most definitely be undue. I hope I helped. Lightbreather (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how it is notable. Has it won awards? Has it been recognized for excellence by independent third-party sources? Has it achieved anything besides being a clearinghouse for right-wing propaganda? Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG, could we please tone down the rhetoric. If that is your requirement, then there is a lot on WP that you need to start deleting. Arzel (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The point that you seem to have missed is that it creates and manufactures controversies. That's really the only purpose of this site. And it does so as a propaganda mill for conservative organizations. In other words, what I said is factual, not "rhetoric". Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If something merely "creates and manufactures controversies," and is a "propaganda mill for ... organizations," and therefore shlould not soil Wikipedia's breakfast cloth, then why haven't you pushed to wipe out, say, the Wikipedia entry for the "Think Progress" website? This wouldn't be just one more example of the Wikihypocrisy rampant on Wikipedia, right? Moynihanian (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the Federalist make NdGT make up a quote about GWB in order to try and make GWB look stupid? It didn't create anything, quit blaming others for his mistake. Arzel (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Their attacks on Tyson are part of a larger campaign against science and secularism. I am now convinced more than ever that conservatism is one of the greatest threats to civilization. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's awesome that you have opinions, but this one has bugger-all to do with the.federalist as a COATRACK. Which it is not, although the article does need to be watched for excess attention to this (Tyson quote fabrications) topic. Kerani (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm no fan of The Federalist, but I think it meets, albeit barely, WP:ORGIN. Lightbreather (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It needs to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web), which it doesn't. It doesn't meet any of our notability guidelines, actually. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a stub. To say that this section takes up "half the article" is meaningless in that context. This article is about an online magazine. It is absurd to leave out the most notable and well referenced activity of this entity to date, hence it is not "undue". There in absolutely nothing contentious in the addition that I added. Please state what you find to be "contentious" about a living person in the edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Strike that. This section has grown fast. My initial edit was three spare lines showing the mere existence of a debate. Now it's some sort of timeline, that's inline with one editors desire that we not just say "various media organizations" but I don't believe this is an improvement. I believe that this now looks very large and coatrack-y, and more about Tyson than the magazine. One by one Lightbreather's edits were generally (particularly spelling, citation, etc.) an improvement but the overall impact the mass of edits is to expand the section beyond what is minimally necessary or advisable. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What's notable about this website (other than the fact that it's a propaganda mill)? What has it achieved? Where are the independent sources? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't raised the same objections to "Think Progress" or similar liberal raisers of controversy or disseminators of propaganda. Yours is a Wikihypocritical quest for Wikicensorship, and (another) great example of why Wikipedia is distrusted worldwide. Moynihanian (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Media Matters for America reference was written well before the Tyson controversy and devotes 19 paragraphs to analyzing this websites opposition to LGBT rights. That's significant coverage which can be used to expand our content describing what the website is all about, above and beyond the Tyson stuff. Viriditas, I am sure that you are acting in good faith, but the way you are framing your opposition may well lead reasonable people to conclude that you want to get rid of the article simply because you despise their ideology. That is an most unfortunate perception to create. I recommend against such comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious! Since when has MMFA been acceptable to use as a RS on Wikipedia? Only when it supports an argument for creating an article on a non-notable source, it seems. Again, hilarious! Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see it already. Once this content is added, I can see the shouts of "WP:UNDUE!!", "not an RS!!", "COATRACK!!". - Cwobeel (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gimme a break. There has been no definitive consensus that Media Matters for America is an unreliable source. It is of course a partisan and opinionated source, but widely (though not universally) respected and widely cited by indisputably reliable sources. I am not aware of widespread concerns about overt factual errors in their work. Here is a fairly recent discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Using Media Matters in a BLP as a reference saying that a person is a right winger would not be appropriate. But using it as a reference stating that a website focuses on opposing LGBT issues such as A, B and C seems entirely appropriate to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And in your summary of the Politico story, Cwobeel, you failed to mention the section called "What the Right Reads", which lists the five most widely read articles on The Federalist, published before the Tyson controversy. You also omitted a couple of other descriptive sentences from that article. That is exactly the sort of discussion of website content in a reliable source that helps establish notability. That should also be used to expand the content of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel is a careless editor, but the absence of "What the Right Reads" may not be his fault. I'm not seeing it either, though Google shows it when you search for it, including in the snippet. But the link goes to the url where I don't see it. Puzzling. Andyvphil (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazing how you can always insert a snarky comment. Never miss a good opportunity to try and piss me off, uh? Bring it on, I am not taking the bait. Hi Andyvphil, FYI, the "What The Right Reads" is a pullout on the right sidebar on the first page of the article [5]. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as part of the story

One of the main Reliable Source things discussed about Thefederalist is that it was nominated for deletion here. It's painfully circular, but it is what it is. Reliable Sources have made Wikipedia part of the story. If it were any site other than Wikipedia we would potentially source or quote from that site on the issue. We can and do cite Primary sources as making Reliable Source statements about themselves. I have no concrete proposal here yet, but it seems that we could include a cite or quote of Wikipedia policy or something. Perhaps something that indicates what sort of sourcing was needed (and was lacking), or perhaps even better something about how the process is often used to add sources and expand the article. Alsee (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Rich Lowry piece in Politico from the press mention box at the top of the page discusses the Wikipedia controversy on page 2. The Washington Examiner and Daily Caller could probably also be used as sources in this context. Kelly ^hi! 09:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you followed my meaning. At this point I don't know what the section is going to look like when it settles down. I'm saying that if there's a non-trival mention of a Wikipedia controversy, that we should probably treat Wikipedia the same way we would treat Encyclopedia Britannica. Imagine all the stories were re-written to say Encyclopedia Britannica. (Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Neil degrasse Tyson doesn't mention the quote stuff at all. Encyclopedia Britannica does not have an article on Thefederalist, at all. So we're presuming the current controversy was aimed at them.) If we had any non-trivial mention of an Encyclopedia Britannica controversy I think we would certainly have some link or quote to relevant Encyclopedia Britannica's policies. Alsee (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're asking for how should an article on this website deal with the fact of the controversy surrounding its proposed deletion? How about (adding proper sourcing):

[Source X] and [Source Y], in their coverage of [federalist/Tyson hoopla] that Wikepedia coverage of this was contentious. [reference X &Y] Among the Wikipedia-related issues noted were a con-current discussion of deleting the WP article on the.federalist, due to a WP contributor's assessment of the website's lack of notoriety [reference WP notoriety policy]. After consideration of WP's policies on reliable sources [reference WP reliable sources policy] the WP community determined that the article was to be kept [reference archived AfD discussion.]Kerani (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Two notes - firstly, I know the decision to keep has not been made yet, but if the call is to delete, there won't be an article to put this in. Secondly, I agree this is circular, but I also think WP needs to note this, in order to give a complete & accurate picture.Kerani (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a discussion parallel to this one going on at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies. Kelly ^hi! 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Logo

I removed the logo from the infobox because it was the logo for a different web site, Federalist.com, which had been using that logo as early as 1998 -- see http://web.archive.org/web/19981111191626/http://www.federalist.com/. By contrast, the web site discussed in this article, Thefederalist.com, was not established until 2013 (and it uses a different logo). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Editing is currently going on which may be approaching an edit war. To head this off, I would like to suggest we discuss how much weight needs to be given to the federalist/WP/Tyson kerfuffle, relative to the rest of the article. I suggest that this should be no more than half the length of the rest whole of the article as it now stands.Kerani (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (edited 2 Oct 19:51)Kerani (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT requires that all significant viewpoints are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". There IS only one viewpoint so far. No reliable sources defending Tyson have been brought forward. WP:WEIGHT address relative coverage between viewpoints, not overall length of coverage. Marteau (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

2nd sentence not true. I reported on Tyson defending Tyson at more length than Kerani wanted, evidently, because he attempted to reduce it to its former misleading unintelligibility, which I reverted. Andyvphil (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true (in the real world where some things are true, as opposed to Wikipedia, where truth is just an option to be decided by editorial persistence and flashmob alliances) that Tyson has defended Tyson. He did so on his Facebook page, where he admitted the misquotation while minimizing its significance and attacking his tormentors at The Federalist. Moynihanian (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that the Federalist's coverage of Neil deGrasse Tyson be just one bulleted item in a list of noted articles / topics. Other topics covered by the site to include in said list: their articles on climate change skepticism; evaluating different political candidates based on their stances on libertarian / limited-government issues; the Hobby Lobby case regarding the Affordable Care Act and its birth control mandate; and varying POV's on conservative-minded motherhood and feminism. The list need not be all-inclusive, but expansive enough to demonstrate the range of the web-magazine's scope. Mlcorcoran (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition, but it's not a substitute for the section on Tyson. Marteau is right about what WP:WEIGHT really says, and your proposal for topic equality does not accord with that guideline. Andyvphil (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It really helps if you actually read the essays rather than rely on a guess at what they contain based on the name of the policy shortcut. WP:NOTFORUM deserves to be most notorious for inspiring such misguided wikilawyering (it has NOTHING to do with remaining on-topic on talk pages, contrary to the misguided impressions of so many of those who "cite", or at least name it). Here is what WP:UNDUE actually says: "An article... 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." (emphasis added) So if you want Tyson/Wikipedia to be no more than half the article all you need to do is locate enough sources not devoted to Tyson/Wikipedia so that the Tyson/Wikipedia sources number more than half. Right now, however, only four of the fourteen sources are not in the T/W category, and the sources not yet employed that I am aware of are all T/W.

Do not take this as an invitation to game the system. Andyvphil (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, you're correct, I misread WP:BALASPS as being a part of WP:WEIGHT. An article about a magazine or website should be about that magazine/site, and not overly focused on a particular incident that the magazine/site reported on. There is no need to repeat every anti-Tyson claim made by the Federalist. The outside RS are not focusing on the anon politician quote nor on the judge/cocaine story - they are talking about the Bush quote. Also, excessive quotes are not encyclopedic. Finally - I'm trying to get a compromise piece here - I think there's a lot of room to criticize Tyson - more than you put in and far more than WP community has shown willingness to agree with.Kerani (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"[T]hey are talking [solely] about the Bush quote" is simply untrue. Some mention other aspects of the story than the Bush fabrication, some don't, but the story in The Federalist is about a pattern of behavior. To fail to mention that is to misrepresent it (albeit not as badly as this article did before I took a crack at it; something along the lines of "an incident of misquotation', iirc. Sheesh.). I recall Adler, I think, mentioning the judge story, even if only I think to dismiss it as less important (which it is).

The Rich "Al Sharpton is Right" Lowry piece is surprisingly good. He and some others pick up on how amazing it is that Tyson even thought it possible that Bush was pushing us vs them religion when he was actually being derided for pushing the "Religion of Peace" line. But maybe Tyson doesn't know anyone without full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome who could put him straight. And I'm not seeing much on his appallingly literal and nonsensical interpretation of Isiah 40 as being a grab for credit for naming Betelgeuse, hundreds of years later. He repeats that crap in his apology(!), but you really have to be dim and/or really ignorant to interpret the Bible's poetical "naming" as being picking designations for the purposes of astronomy. How could he listen to Bush and not understand that the astronauts were "named" too, without in any sense implying that it wasn't her parents who named McAuliffe "Sharon Christa"? But all this can wait until I run across, or read again, a piece inspired by the The Federalist articles that makes these points clearly. For now (except when you deleted it) the information is there so that a careful, knowledgeable, reader can draw his own conclusions without the necessity of my pointing. The POV-obtunded dullards are hopeless anyway. No point in writing for them. Andyvphil (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is there are no other sources describing this website. I have summarized the Media Matters of America article about their rabid anti-LGBT positions, you are welcome to add it if you want. It is at Talk:Thefederalist.com#Only_source_about_The_Federalist. The Politico article content about the website is summarized there as well (although I missed a couple of mentions as someone alterted me of that fact). - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "problem". Neither the Politico piece about a "wave" of right-wing newszines nor the "Media Matters"'s LGBT guy whining on about how the writers at "The Federalist" don't share his views is necessary to this article. Andyvphil (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, finally we have your cards on the table, thank you for sharing. In your opinion, none of the two only sources that describe this website are good for this article. Beautiful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason you are such a bad editor is that you are such a careless reader. I did not say that the two sources are "not good" for this article. I said they were not "necessary to" this article. It should exist even were they not to. Andyvphil (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What about this? Does it fall also on your "whining" category? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

According to an article in Physics today, the Discovery Institute, a political organization that defends the theory of intelligent design, has been echoing The Federalist attacks on Tyson. They also mention Robert Tracinski, a writer for the website who linked his criticism of Tyson using “standard right-wing climate-war assertions” about global-warming, global cooling and the controversy they call “Climategate”.

References

Tyson has shot his credibility to tatters and everyone he's fought is going to publicize it. Some of them are morons IMHO (e.g., anyone associated with "intelligent design"), some of them are on the right side of history (those opposed to warmist alarmism). What does that have to do with some LGBT activist complaining that Mollie Hemingway derides his delusions of normalcy? Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, and they're climate denialists too! That calls for Wiki-doubleplusgoodcensorship! Moynihanian (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, and why is it that if you really believe there is merit to have an article on this website are you not editing the article with the available sources? There are a few here already formatted ready to go into the article, like the one above. What is stopping you? What's the problem, uh? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've Quit Editing Articles because, until and unless Wikipedia has a collective come-to-Jesus talk about what a fact is, there's no point in playing along with the charade. But I do feel free to pop into this or that talk page to point out what's happening, and now Wiki-typical and Wiki-hypocritical it all is. Moynihanian (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're basically asking to be blocked with statements like that, but I sincerely hope you won't be because I find you highly amusing, and admittedly kinda fun. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia Was Real there wouldn't be an argument. No one would be trying to Wiki-censor mention of TheFederalist from an "encyclopedia" otherwise chock full of promotionalism. If Wikipedia did decide to omit mention of TheFederalist, it'd do so as part of a broad and consistent review of how it treats all political websites. But that would require Wikipedia to have, at its core, the requirement that facts, and logic based on facts, be at the center of this enterprise. Once that went away (or in the case of Wikipedia, was never here to begin with), all material on Wikipedia because a matter not of reliability or consistent standards applied, but of shifting alliances among "editors," many of whom wouldn't recognize a "fact" if it slapped them in the face. Moynihanian (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Care to point me to a single independent source that demonstrates the notability of the federalist? You can't, of course. You and others have already defeated and refuted your own argument for the existence of this article, noting that it is only notable for attacking Tyson. In that case, I'm going to implement a solution, but you're not going to like it. In any case, stop with the infantile "wikicensor" arguments, as that kind of nonsense is taken straight out of the Heartland and Discovery strategy book. You wouldn't want people to think you were part of an organized, coordinated attack on a BLP, would you? Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, play your Wikicensorship, Wikilawyering, Wikihypocrite, Wikiwagoncircling, and Wikipowerplaying. In the absence of recognition of facts, it's what you do here. It's why Wikipedia is thoroughly disrespected, and for good reason, worldwide. But enjoy your political playpen. It's what Wikipedia is, always has been, and always will be. Have fun, and make sure to round up a Wikiflashmob to back you up. Moynihanian (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You can stop with the personal attacks now. After all, your edit history shows that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia.[6] I think we have to ask serious questions about people whose only purpose is to promote attacks on BLPs. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Wikirules only apply to those who don't see as you do. Personal attacks, lack of assumption of good faith, and rampant violation of every (alleged) rule, principle, and standard is perfectly fine -- as long as YOU do it, right? How Wikitypical! Moynihanian (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Moynihanian, I presume you are very upset, but that's no excuse to abuse exclamation points. I believe you require the help of a cunning linguist. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Tyson Issue based on WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK

Recently an editor removed all mention of the Tyson issue, on BLP grounds and coat rack grounds. These are my reasons for rejecting that rationale and reverting the edit. 1) Inclusion of the Tyson controversy is not a coat rack issue, because the RfC objection to it's inclusion in the Tyson article, as specified in the RfC question, is based on undue weight WITHIN THAT ARTICLE. That RfC does not propose banning coverage of the issue throughout the encyclopedia, but only within that article. Having this material in another article does not cause undue weight to the Tyson article, so no one can logically call having the material here a coat rack issue. 2) While BLP issues were up in the air previously, since Tyson has addressed the issue publicly several times, that argument no longer holds regarding the properly sourced information I am going to put back. Marteau (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: is the notability of the blog connected to its attacks on Tyson? Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the issue has enhanced the blog's notability, I don't believe it's nobility hinges on the issue. Marteau (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. I've removed it. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On what grounds? Marteau (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Marteau's revert. The BLP complaints have become downright silly since Tyson addressed the issue himself. I wonder if many editors realize that they have created a Streisand effect with the constant battle to remove the material all over the encyclopedia. Kelly ^hi! 09:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Normal practice at this point for those wishing to include this material is to hold an RfC. Given the objections some editors have raised, the material can be included only via consensus for inclusion as determined via RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are saying an RfC is required for EVERYTHING related to the Tyson quotes issue? For every cited fact in those paragraphs? On what basis? Marteau (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is not a BLP issue, arguments of I Don't Like It are quite spurious. The core WP policies of V, RS, and Weight are the guiding principles, and these discussion about this article and this event only continue to confirm to perception that some editors are doing whatever they can to make sure that NdGT's quote fabrication never be included and that this article be deleted as punishment for The Federalist even bringing it up. You may disagree, but the optics are clear. Arzel (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, state your case regarding BLP and coat racking. I have stated mine, you should state yours before you simply go and revert what should properly be discussed. Marteau (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity is that your idea of BRD? Say something, not answer a question, and then go off and delete again? Marteau (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Having not succeeded at AfD, gutting the article is the next best thing. Evidently. Andyvphil (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you never WP:AGF? S806 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Bedcause AGF is a rebuttable presumption, and because I'm not a moron. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly... You have obviously never read WP:TPNO. Perhaps it's time you gave that a look-over. S806 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about keeping with the standards of Wikipedia. The Tyson article should not be in here based on WP:NOTNP. Think about it this way, in 5 years, would this Tyson mention still be relevant and worth being in the article? S806 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes I think it would be. In fact I think this whole dust-up is likely the thing that have really launched the site into the conservative media. It rhetorically "made their bones". The magazine should thank god every day for the efforts here to AfD it and probably have a "Wikipedia Day" each year in celebration. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah. A storm in the right-wing blogosphere cup. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As usual, your amazing inability to follow along with any argument is showing. Here's Capitalismojo's point: This article isn't about "the right-wing blogosphere", so it's alleged insignificance in that context is irrelevant. It's about The Federalist magazine, and Sean Davis' takedown of Neil deGrasse Tyson and the attempt by Wikipedia (Redacted) to keep that story out of Wikipedia has gotten The Federalist considerable attention in "the right-wing blogosphere" (NRO, Weekly Standard, Daily Caller, etc., etc.). (Redacted) like to pretend that only their preferred sources of information exist, but in the real world that's not true, and Domenich, and Davis, and everyone associated with the magazine, and the magazine itself, have received a considerable boost from the maggots' efforts. The Federalist has even said as much. So, naturally, in any article on the The Federalist this rocket-assist to their takeoff should receive considerable attention. But the blind maggots remain oblivious to how counter to their own wishes the results of their determined efforts will be. Keep it up, guys. The Federalst thanks you. Literally, it has. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The "maggots"? Who are the "maggots"? Why don't have some tea instead of being so angry all of the time? It is getting tiresome, not to speak of disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

With so little other material presented about the nominal topic, the detailed coverage of NDGT here constitutes a pretty clear WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK. Please let the RFC at the bio page run its course before trying to insert the material anywhere where it might plausibly fit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is disturbing. Despite calls for "keep" and outrage about the nomination, and despite material being posted here that describe the website, no one is making any efforts to improve the article during the AFD, besides inserting the obvious COATRACK. What does that tell us? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted). "Editors" who failed to delete the article at AfD come here to delete mention of the material that resulted in their failure at AfD, add nothing, and then complain that the editors adding material are failing to overcome (Redacted) determined efforts to keep it out. Amazing. Andyvphil (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section. It was so obviously WP:UNDUE that I really can't understand how other editors are pushing for its inclusion. The section itself was about three or more times the size of what little content is there about the site. At this point an RfC is definitely necessary and as per WP:BLP please do not re-insert. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no BLP issues. Nor have you even attempted to identify any. In the absence of which it makes sense to treat (Redacted). Andyvphil (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil if you believe there is no WP:BLP issue here that's fine, we can disagree. I'd be very careful about accusing other editors of being "disruptive vandal(s)" though. See WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Gaba ^(talk) 17:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaba We can't meaningfully disagree if you don't offer an argument. Absent an argument for them here your content deletes can be appropriately reverted with edit comment "rv". Andyvphil (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You must not have been reading this discussion, or any discussion. S806 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil the argument was given in my first comment. In case you have troubles reading and/or comprehending simple english, here it is again, slowly and summarized: "obviously WP:UNDUE"[7]. Let me know if it's too much for you to handle. And yes, apparently you must have missed the dozens of threads about this both here and in Tyson's article. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted), "Obviously" doesn't qualify as an argument. You didn't knows that? Well, now you do. And if you want to know what WP:UNDUE really means, (Redacted), you might try actually reading it, or you could just look up the page where I explain it to Kerani. (HINT: UNDUE and WEIGHT are both shortcuts to the same paragraph of NPOV.) Now, he said he understood, but I understand (Redacted). Andyvphil (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely mea culpa for trying to engage with an editor as yourself. I apologize to other editors for this inane exchange polluting the TP. Andyvphil if you take anything from this, take this: calling other editors "disruptive vandal(s)" is a WP:PA and a breach of WP:CIVIL and could very well get you blocked. I'm done trying to discuss anything with you. Have a nice day. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

1. The Tyson incident is a substantial portion of available Reliable Source discussion of Thefederalist. Trying to exclude it is improper.
2. This is not an article on Tyson, nor on the incident itself. Including more than a general overview, or detailed attack on Tyson, is improper.

The deletionists don't get what they want. The expansionists don't get what they want. The goal is a modest sized general&neutral overview that makes everyone unhappy. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a false "balance", similar to cutting the baby in half to share it. I see no reason in policy or good sense for a "compromise" that is a de-facto partial victory for POV-pushers trying to conceal any non-hagiographic content on Tyson. I fear that what you call a "general overview" is one that fails to describe the content of that attack, the follow-on to that attack, the response to that attack, etc. in sufficient detail for a Wikipedia reader to understand the subject. There is already sufficient published content on this subject so that an adequate and contextualized description of the controversy so far ought to appear somewhere in Wikipedia. If, as you say, "[t]he Tyson incident is a substantial portion of available Reliable Source discussion of Thefederalist", then, so long as that is true, I think the place for it is here. If this article grows to sufficient length a content fork might become appropriate, but that is not currently a problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, where do you suggest it find a home? Andyvphil (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, while I agree that this material needs to be included and that context is essential, I strongly disagree that we need a blow-by-blow description of claims and counter-claims. Keep a mention of the multiple misquotes/mis-attributions, keep mention of the 'prepared nature of the talks/comments, and keep mention of the most significant of these and how it was used (ie, "we have a problem with science illiteracy in this country and our president is a prime example, here I use this quote by the president to substantiate my claim".) Leave out "attacks, follow-ons, counter-follow-ons" etc. These details are not appropriate to an entry on this website, and imo are not even appropriate to an article on Tyson. IMO as it is now achieves appropriate weight and balance. Kerani (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil a fork was already tried on the Tyson incident and it died in AFD. Secondly I note your primary concern is finding a "home" for your desired content, as opposed to concern for how to best build this article. I'll say again, this incident is relevant part of this article. I invite reasonable discussion on what that would look like. But if this turns into a choice between POV-push hitjob vs POV-push deletion then the choice is easy. Most of our articles are incomplete with a completion date of "eventually", but none of our articles should be hitjobs. Alsee (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't propose a fork. If and when it is needed, consensus may have changed. The point about my "desired content" is that it should be on, and easily findable on, Wikipedia. I plead guilty to being more interested in remedying Wikipedia's content gaps than in its exact organization. What's wrong with that? Andyvphil (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Alsee I think that is a good compromise.Kerani (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 03 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to The Federalist (website). However, there does not appear to be consensus for a merge. Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Thefederalist.com → The Federalist (website) – Now that the deletion efforts are done with, the page title ought to be improved as already discussed on this page. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a specific convention for the title of articles about news and commentary ebsites, but the standard seems to be using self-identification, not web addresses. In this case, that would be Federalist or The Federalist, but the former is ambiguous and the latter primarily means the Federalist Papers. As such, the suggestion above to move this article to The Federalist (website) seems to be the best option. It's certainly better than using a web URL. 64.134.185.48 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Rename to The Federalist (website), and merge and redirect to Ben Domenech#The Federalist The Afd ended in keep, and the closer suggested a merge discussion could happen here. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to "The Federalist (website)". Oppose merge and redirect; instead, improve this article using the sources identified in the unsuccessful deletion debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Move and redirect of the current page to the new page. Appears to be the logical choice. Can't imagine there will be much opposition to this. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Ben Domenech page. S806 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support rename and oppose merge. The use of ".com" in an article title may cause confusion. The AfD determined that the website meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, and there is no reason to think that more people will search for a founder's BLP than for this article, and that is the primary argument which would be needed to support a "merge". (Ben Domenech gets all of 40 page views per day (Sep 2014), Thefederalist.com gets currently well over 500 page views per day. ) Collect (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Give it 10 days and it will go back to 50-80 page views: [8]. And don't forget that our own views also count, lol. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a merge and redirect, people looking for the website will reach the content in the section about the website on Domenech's article. I am sure you knew that already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rename and merge as per Cwobeel. DocumentError (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. Trying to sneak through a merge after consensus was overwhelmingly clear about it being kept as is feels like dirty pool to me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:ATD-M, and understand how discussions work before making accusations. S806 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that, thanks. I stand by my general comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist is an active enterprise. I see no reason to think the article on it is "unlikely to be expanded". Andyvphil (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rename and not merge. The need for renaming is obvious, and widely supported. Let's work through that and deal with merging later, so as not to confuse the issue. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and MERGE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION - The Federalist section on Ben Domenech's page should be stubbed down to maybe two or three sentences, with a link to this article. Alsee (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support rename and oppose merge. Apparently this website has multiple founders, so merging it to the page of one particular founder would be inappropriate. JS (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect/merge. As it stands right now, the article is a small blurb about somebody's project, with a current/active NPOV section that obliterates the purpose of the Wikipedia entry (information about the subject). Insertion of this Stub on the article Ben Domenech will both prevent deletion of the subject and retain all its (influx) current data. - 76.89.136.191 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect/merge. It seems plain that the article is barely a stub; it would be better off incorporated into its founder's article. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. Agree with Alsee's suggestion above that the content about the website in the Domenech article be brought to this one. Kelly ^hi! 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. I haven't seen any involvement by Domenech in the Tyson issue at all, it's all Sean Davis. Putting the The Federalist material in Domenech's article is an attempted two-step deletion as it will soon be argued by the same people who want the merge that it shouldn't be there or should be made microscopic. "Obvious [WP:UNDUE], blah, blah, blah..." Andyvphil (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral on rename. Oppose merge at this time. We just passed an RFC to keep the article, and while merging is consistent with the RFC result I'm not seeing anything close to a consensus to merge. There's also the issue of where to merge it: there are two co-founders and it's not clear which one would be the better choice. Putting the material in both is sub-optimal, so my call would be to leave the stub and try to expand it. If a year from now it's still a stub I'd consider a merge. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral on rename. Oppose merge. Whether the article is renamed or not, it will still have to go on the disambiguation page, so I see no clear advantage either way. As for the merge, I think Mr. Swordfish has the right of it - not clear that it belongs on either or both of the founder's pages. Give it a bit, wait to see if the water clears.Kerani (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and oppose merge The name is not the WP:COMMONNAME in any of the refs. The most notable (and well ref'd) parts of this organization don't mention the potential merge target. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• redirect and merge -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment I have no opinion on the move, but I'm wondering about the rationale of having no redirect. Seems to me if someone is searching for thefederalist.com they should wind up on this article, wherever it may end up. Am I missing something? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that a redirect to the new page would be the natural course of action. I don't think it needs to be specified, but I did add that to my support. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment To those suggesting a merge (essentially a delete), we just had an AfD, and this RfC is specifically to renaming of this page. If you want to try and merge/delete this page, then start a new RfC, but it is not proper to hi-jack this RfC. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A merge isn't a delete, and has never been a delete. Evidence [9] S806 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A Distinction without a difference. Regardless, this is not a merge RfC. Start a new RfC if you want to merge. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:ATD-M. Also, this is the place to discuss this. I oppose move and suggest merge and redirect. Not sure how I can be more clear. S806 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears pretty clear that a move is in order here. Can we close this up and complete it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protected edit request on 3 October 2014

Please correct the access date in reference 1. It should be iso format to match the others, and in any case had a leading zero (which is why I noticed it in the first place). Please change from "02 October 2014" to "2014-10-02". Mirokado (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Done I've also converted another bare reference to use {{cite web}}, and removed the {{notability}} tag seeing as the recent AfD discussion was closed as keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough response. --Mirokado (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2014

• Deleted Edit Request template based on VMS Mosaic's stated withdraw of edit request. No need to bother an admin with it. Alsee (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove the coatrack template given that the AfD failed and that it is clear that the coat rack argument was dismissed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC) VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As one of the participants in the AFD who !voted keep, my vote was based upon it following Wiki policies going forward. The COATRACK argument was "dismissed" (to the extent that it was) because we shouldn't assume that non-compliant material would necessarily remain. i.e. Whether the article' subject is sufficiently notable is orthogonal to attempts to use it as a COATRACK or a venue for a POV FORK. The article was somewhat of a moving target as it was edit warred during the AFD process with the (alleged) COATRACK material coming and going, but the present version was only inserted in the last day of the AFD.

Had the material in question been part of the AFD I would have certainly voted otherwise. But it wasn't. The material, at least to my eyes, is a clear POVFORK and COATRACK. Implying that the AFD reault is an endorsement of COATRACKing and POVFORKing is a giant logical leap. Leave the header and let the discussion continue about whether to include the material. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I withdraw the edit request given that it has opposition. However, I don't see how it is possible to move forward if the outcome of the AfD is discounted in this way. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the result is being "discounted". The article stays. Although merging would be compatible with the result of the AFD, that would happen only if it receives consensus and I find that highly unlikely. So we have a stand-alone article here at least for the foreseeable future. That's the result. AFD done.

Moving forward, we need to reach consensus on the article's content. There's an RFC about the NDGT misquotes over at his bio page and the cautious thing is to let that run its course before jamming it into whatever other article it might plausibly fit into. I don't understand the rush. I think we'll eventually get it right, but if we wait another week or two the decision will become easier. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tyson acknowledged that he had conflated one Bush quote with another, half-remembered, to make the point that it was Arabs, not Yahweh, who had named the stars."

This is pushy language, seems specially massaged to make it sound like Tyson was somehow right in some way, which he obviously wasn't. We should keep an encyclopedic tone: "Tyson acknowledged that he had misremembered a quote from another Bush speech, and stated that he had only wanted to make a point about past achievements in the Islamic world." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the most [refactored]], as opposed to merely lazy, thing that Tyson has been revealed to have done was to listen to Bush's Biblical quotation and write a note to himself (which in the event he was too lazy to locate) to the effect, apparently, that Bush had clowned himself by taking credit for star names that were actually Arabic. So, since I wrote the words you complain about, it should be obvious that they are not intended to make Tyson seem in any way correct. I would be in favor of making this clearer by quoting someone to the effect that attributing to Isaiah the intent to take credit for star charts drawn up a millennia after Isaiah's death is profoundly stupid, but I was in a hurry to replace a vacancy on the page and an appropriate source didn't spring to mind. In any case, I am adamantly opposed to the change you propose, since it removes all specifics, leaving a tasteless gruel, and I don't see anything particularly "encyclopedic" about bad writing. The bit about Yahweh is directly from Tyson's acknowledgement of error on Facebook, btw, where he still shows no inkling of how [refactored]] his interpretation of Bush's Biblical quotation is. Andyvphil (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil - even though you think you were clear in what you think you said, I think there is value in listening to what others tell you they get from how you phrase your message. Factchecker says that he got the impression that Tyson was being given an out by the words used, and opposed that phrasing on those terms. Factchecker's on your side, you name-calling knucklehead, and if you'd pay more attention to getting people to appreciate your pov instead of getting your way, you'd get further along in getting people to appreciate your values and your pov.Kerani (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And I opposed his phrasing on different grounds than that it expressed a POV different than mine. Nor do I yet see anything in the words I wrote that implies Tyson isn't much to blame for his mistake. But if you can show me that, I'll propose a fix. Andyvphil (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil - don't ask me to show it to you, ask Factchecker.Kerani (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, when you urged me to "listen", I thought you were implying you had done what I had not, and had actually "heard" something you might be able to communicate to me. My bad. Andyvphil (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying the quote was "half-remembered" gives too much credit, and the prose about "it was Arabs, not Yahweh" is just so painfully opaque and context-free that it borders on nonsensical. It is a million miles from being encyclopedic. Not sure why that is hard to see. Try reading it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you know who Yahweh is (and that can be blue-linked), it seems perfectly clear to me. Tyson said it just like that, and I don't see why we should assume Wikipedia readers are less well informed than those who read his Facebook postings. I haven't got a clue as to what aspect of the word "encyclopedic" you imagine it violates. Unlike, "stated that he had only wanted to make a point about past achievements in the Islamic world" which is unencyclopedic because Tyson didn't say any such thing. Andyvphil (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice - Do you think this section would benefit from a (non-Federalist) quote, dating post-Tyson apology, which notes that Tyson's explanation does not cover the lack of appropriate reference? Or is that leading the reader?Kerani (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP and it applies also to this page. I have refactored certain words here. Stay on topic which is 'improvements to this article, not our own opinions on the subject. Andyvphil, can make your argument without calling the subject names, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Worse things have been said about "The Federalist" without you objecting. Goose/Gander. Andyvphil (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)!

The Federalist is not a person, and BLP would not apply unless someone was making a comment about one of the writers or the founders, in which case I would have refactored as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They might be small enough that WP:BLPGROUP applies, but also maybe not. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but I have not seen any foul language used, have you? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that Tyson is a liar could be a BLP vio, depending on where is said, who said it, and the proof offered; saying that it is profoundly stupid for him to take the quotation from Isaiah as a attempt to steal credit for naming stars from the Arabs, not as some later vague misremembering but as something he wrote a note to himself about, is simply accurate opinion, not libel. Nor a BLP vio. I strongly suggest you leave this paragraph alone. Andyvphil (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section for Tyson misattribute issue

Current version -

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several articles alleging that physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson had misrepresented as actual quotes, in multiple repeated presentations, a fake newspaper headline, a fake quote from a member of Congress, and an alleged claim by President George W. Bush that it was his God, not Islam's, that had named the stars.[7][8] The Daily Beast, Tampa Tribune, and other news outlets also covered the story in editorials.[9][10] Tyson acknowledged that he had conflated one Bush quote with another, half-remembered, to make the point that it was Arabs, not Yahweh, who had named the stars.[11] The Federalist, news sources and commentators also took note of debates on Wikipedia as to whether this issue should be included on Tyson's article and whether the article about The Federalist website should be deleted.[12][13][14][5][6]

My proposal (includes one new source, others (obviously) to be added later) -

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several source criticism articles concerning physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, alleging that Tyson had committed scientific misconduct by repeatedly including in his prepared presentation material quotes which were either mis-attributed, altered, or could not be independently verified. The most significant of these accusations concerned a 2003 quote by President George W. Bush, which Tyson had repeatedly used to illustrate scientific illiteracy.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13049/11-badass-neil-degrasse-tyson-quotes Davis cited information supporting the claim that Tyson had mis-attributed the timeframe, source and intent of the original quote and called on Tyson to apologize. The Federalist was joined by The Tampa Tribune, Salon, and the Washington Examiner, among others, in discussing the misuse of the Bush quote. Articles at the Federalist and elsewhere went on to cover debates on Wikipedia as to whether this issue should be included on Tyson's article and whether the article about The Federalist website should be deleted. Tyson eventually acknowledged that he had mis-remembered the Bush quote and stated that he would apologize in an appropriate venue.

Kerani (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

References

As written, it would constitute over half of the article and tacitly imply that this is the only thing thefederalist.com is notable for. Something more like:

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several critical articles concerning physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, alleging that Tyson had mis-quoted President George W. Bush. Tyson acknowledged that he had mis-remembered the Bush quote and apologized.

would be more in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that proposal. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we want to avoid undue length here. I think that while (earlier) attempts to include notes on every step of the controversy would be unproductive, it would also be sub-optimal to cut the mention down too far. I think that three additional things need to be noted: 1) The Federalist noted multiple, repeated dubious quotes by Tyson 2) The Federalist noted Tyson had made the Bush quote part of Tyson's narrative about science literacy and 3) (most significantly) the controversy included Wikipedia and the Federalist article. I think all three of these are important (and notable) parts of the event (with 2, for now, getting the least attention).Kerani (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Mr. Swordfish's proposal. I don't agree with all of Kerani's. (1) is redundant as it's covered by Mr. Swordfish's wording. (2) is unnecessary - this article is supposed to be about the website, not Tyson. (3) is possibly OK if it can be established that the Wikipedia angle really was a significant element of the controversy - and I don't count Thefederalist.com's own rantings as evidence of significance. Above all, I would say that WP:WEIGHT is the most important issue here. This article shouldn't and mustn't be a WP:COATRACK for making allegations against Tyson. Prioryman (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also - I think it's not unreasonable to think that the main section will get larger when the protection lock is lifted. This will help balance weight.Kerani (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything we can add to that, where sources are saying more about thefederalist? Alsee (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Salon, The Week, and The Daily Beast characterized the issue as an attack on global warming proponents in general. Kelly ^hi! 07:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that subtext is pretty obvious by now. Prioryman (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Raw Story also provide a different angle:

"For the most part conservatives were fine with Tyson when he stuck to talking about space and black holes and other otherworldly stuff. But this past year he stuck his toe into the climate change non-debate and you would have thought he wanted to sex up a Duggar daughter, such was the umbrage. And so it came to pass that Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist with Ben Domenech, came up with what he believes is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s gotcha moment. [...] The whole point is that Davis is trying to diminish and discredit Tyson, a popular scientist and public intellectual, before he starts to expand his influence and does damage to those who have a vested interest in dismissing climate science..."^[10]

— TPX 09:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to take the angle that, if only those nasty conservative bloggers hadn't questioned what Tyson said, then this nasty smear would not be on Tyson's record. Which is...unsupportable. Tyson himself (to his credit) has acknowledged the error in source confirmation. It wasn't climate change deniers who forced Tyson in front of a camera and threatened him with decapitation if Tyson didn't make false accusations against Bush re: science illiteracy & religious bigotry. This is a Tyson own goal, and it's really, really weak tea to claim that the motivations of the fact-checkers outweigh the accuracy of the quote.Kerani (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Raw Story tidbit is emphatically non-notable and rather silly opinion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am persuaded by Prioryman that point #2 (how Tyson misused the quote) is more about Tyson than the.Federalist and am willing to drop that point from inclusion by this article. I strongly disagree that the multiple and serial source verification violations by Tyson were covered in Mr. Swordfish's language - the multiple items Mr Swordfish referenced were 'articles by the.Federalist' not 'errors by Tyson'. I think that 2-3 properly chosen words can convey this point accurately without unduely weighing down the article.Kerani (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Far be it from us to weigh down this article, given its exhausting length, with enough detail for a reader to get an inkling as to what The Federalist articles were demonstrating... er, "alleging"... and why they got the reaction they did. Hey, Tyson, speaking off the cuff, got the date wrong for Bush's attack on Islam and triumphalist affirmation of the One True God -- what's the big deal about that? Hey, he apologized (or has promised to), this article's not about Tyson, why bring his name up?

I'm not remembering this allegation of "scientific misconduct", however. It doesn't sound likely - Tyson's talks aren't science. Neither did "The Federalist" engage in source criticism ("...The Danish word “kildekritik” like the Norwegian word “kildekritikk” and the Swedish word “källkritik” derived from the German “Quellenkritik”...") -- it's not a Scandanavian or German academic publication, and what it was criticizing was not Tyson's sources but his track record. Andyvphil (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a great deal of the press coverage has resulted from writers on this site making fun of Tyson for saying dumb stuff and being blinded by his ideology and desire to lash out at Republicans. It is this article, and not Tyson's BLP, that is exactly the correct place for extended material about this incident. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It does not belong at Tyson's article per WP:BLP, and neither here for the same reasons. See WP:POVFORK in addition to WP:COATRACK - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding each of the policies you just cited. There are no BLP issues prohibiting the inclusion of the material anywhere on Wikipedia. It is simply a matter of encyclopedic tone and proper weight that the Tyson article not be bogged down with extended material about this incident, because it's not really all that biographically significant, nor is the federalist's own commentary on the matter especially notable such that it should be discussed at length in a BLP about the target of the criticism, rather than the proponent. You cite POVFORK but that isn't really relevant. Nor is it a plausible citation to COATRACK; this dustup with Tyson is rather central to TheFederalist's notability. Actually, a big long section on this incident at Tyson's BLP would raise coatrack concerns. But here it's directly on-topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the coatrack issue is very real. As the WP:COATRACK page says at the top, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." Absent the Tyson controversy, there are only 58 words (!) in this article. It's barely even a sub-stub. If you have a situation where coverage of a side topic far exceeds that of the main topic, that's the very definition of a coatrack. It might be different if the main section of this article was more substantial but I'm struck by the fact that despite several weeks of controversy nobody seems to have found much more to say about this website other than the Tyson controversy. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The magazine was already discussed in a couple articles, but that is beside the point. Your understanding of the COATRACK essay is obtunded. As it says, "...A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability."([WP:WINAC]) So far the attention received for undressing Tyson is the main source of outside attention to the magazine, though not the only one. IAW [WP:UNDUE], the fraction of this article that should be devoted to its contribution to the Tyson revelations should be "in proportion to [it's] prominence... in the published, reliable sources." By that measure it is too small, but we can fix that. Andyvphil (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with an astronaut's trip to the moon is absolutely fallacious. A moon walk is a hugely significant historical event, covered in numerous high-quality sources over an extended period of time. In contrast, any objective observer would deem l'affaire Tyson a very limited controversy in terms of both time and coverage; essentially a one-week controversy, principally covered in various unreliable sources (i.e. blogs), with very limited coverage from second- or third-tier reliable sources. Major media outlets have almost entirely ignored the issue. I'm not aware of there having been any further developments, so it can't be said that this is an ongoing controversy. In short, this is an issue of at best very low notability - at best, maybe notable enough to mention briefly.

Let's be clear. This is supposed to be an article about Thefederalist.com. It is not an article about Tyson. Attempting to turn it into an article about Tyson is very clearly coatracking. Although WP:POVFORK does not strictly apply in the case of an existing article, its spirit would certainly be violated if editors who had failed to insert their preferred form of words into the main Tyson article sought to insert it here. Any coverage of the Tyson controversy here should be limited to Thefederalist's role in the affair and the consequences for Thefederalist. I'll have a go at suggesting a form of words later today when I've had a chance to think about it. Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's clear up a couple things. The article subject is notable enough for an article, material on the Tyson fracas is central to the subject's notability, and there is plenty of RS material on it. There won't be an issue unless the article becomes too long for Wikipedia, and that won't be for many, many kilobytes. There is not a WP policy saying "only dumb conservatives would enjoy reading this, so we should keep this article very short".

Also, any fair and encyclopedic reflection of this debate is going to have profoundly unflattering implications for Tyson, so his fans should make peace with that sooner rather than later.

Prioryman, it is impossible to take seriously your suggestion that material reflecting this incident is somehow off-topic. Your reading of POVFORK is also entirely unsupported by the actual substance of that policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to Prioryman's suggestion. After all we will need to reach a compromise that we can all live with. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On WP there is no need to compromise for the sake of non-policy-based complaints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How long have you been in WP? Compromise is always an option in content disputes, if you have not noticed. WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My way or the highway may work in other venues, but it does not work here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read that policy again, carefully this time, you'll see that the words "legitimate" and "while following Wikipedia policies" confirm that I am, of course, right. And you can easily check for yourself how long I've been editing WP. (Spoiler: a lot longer than you.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern, and it addresses policies that editors here have raised. You can think you are right as much as I and others can think the same, hence the need for compromise. As for your editcountitis, thank you for your contributions to the pedia, but it has no bearing on this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Merely name-dropping a policy has no effect, because policies mean something and WP is not a democracy when it comes to deciding what those policies are.

And you're the one who brought up the length of my . . . tenure. Thus your comment on "editcountitis" — which I've never heard of before, perhaps because I make no attempt to pad my edit history with pages of trivial or bot-generated edits — seems rather silly indeed, not to mention irrelevant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at this page, there is a substantial number of editors that disagree on how to (or if at all) report on the Tyson incident. In these cases, there is no place for an argument of "I am right". We will need to follow WP:DR, and reach consensus on a way forward, and for that we will need to compromise and find a middle ground. DR in wikipedia 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaints lacking any grounding in policy will not have any more effect in DR than they do here. Complaints that are grounded in policy are relatively easy to articulate, and will make themselves obvious. The complaint stated above by Prioryman is not grounded in policy. And no matter how much you might wish that it were so, WP's social policies never provide a way to bypass its content policies. That's Wikipedia 100. You're clearly not ready for 101. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can easily argue the same against your position, but I would not waste my time. Clearly there is no consensus and we will need to find it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. You can't make the argument so you're not going to try. Because there's no argument to be made. Such posturing has zero weight on WP and does not guide the writing of articles. Take it to the boards if you feel otherwise. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call it hogwash all you want, but that does not change the fact that material that was removed from Tyson's article as a WP:BLP violation, can magically re-appear here in contradiction of the same policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You can spew hogwash all you want, but it won't make a non-existent "BLP violation" magically materialize where none actually exists. Or if one existed, you could say what it is. But there isn't one. So you can't say what it is. Again, such meaningless posturing has no effect on WP, and at this point your comments are an abuse of this talk page because all you're doing is saying "nuh uh"... over and over again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you just want to have the last word ... but basically the material was removed from the Tyson article due to BLP and UNDUE violations, and need to be removed from here per the same plus COATRACK and POVFORK. Alternatively, we can try an find a compromise, to which you also object. So what's next? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Reception section

There is very little material in 3rd party sources that describe this website, and I have posted there what I have found. If anyone can find anything else, please add. But please don't remove content. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You threatened to add a bunch of negative stuff if this article was not deleted, why am I not surprised? Arzel (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not a reliable source for this type of information, and is not a noted source of this content. Why should it stay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was once of the major pieces cited by editors voting keep in the deletion discussion as significant coverage of The Federalist. If we're not going to use it, then perhaps we should revisit the deletion discussion as those keeps would be invalid. Gamaliel (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. You'll recall that I voted delete, as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be negative for you, but for anti-LGBT conservatives, it is a blessing. We have just a very small number of sources that describe The Federalist, and this is one of them. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to push a POV about The Federalist. It's not a source that describes it, it's a non-noteworthy criticism. Has anyone else noted this criticism? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's especially encyclopedic to include guilt-by-association criticisms from partisan editorials of the form "X likes Y, and look how awful X is" (in an article about Y). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is as encyclopedic as any other material on the article. Their anti-LGBT position is well noted, and they are proud of it. [11] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking material that notes LGBT positions that Federalist has taken, as I already made very very explicit to you and it's really quite annoying that you're making a point of pretending I said something else, please see the definition of STRAW MAN and other dishonest argumentation techniques. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the concerns I brought up in the AfD debate was that although there are a few independent sources, there are none which portray The Federalist in a non-negative light. Perhaps the only way to avoid the NPOV issue in view of this limitation is to change the title of the "Reception" section to "Criticism". I also think this section can be pared down quite a bit - the criticisms can be summarized much more succinctly, and doing so might help simplify this talk page debate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Positive" or "negative" is in the eyes of the beholder. The anti-LGBT position, for example, is something that they are proud of, devoting an entire section of their website to that issue. If we have an article on this website, we have to use what we have, and despite many editors weighing in on the AFD, no one has made any significant effort to expand the article with what has been reported. I spent hours looking for material, which I have added. If more material surfaces later, it can be added then as many have argued. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Criticism" sections should be avoided in articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it is hard to avoid having such a section in an article about an entity that is solely notable for being criticized. I would say this article already has a "criticism" section, and the whole NPOV issue is that it isn't called that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this was its state before the AFD: [12] ... and the keep votes in the AfD were referencing a number of articles, all of which have been used in the current version. As we can't reopen the AFD now, we have to live with what we have. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the POV tag, as it's not really a "reception" section but rather a series of hit pieces, one of which is not even a reliable or noteworthy one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about it during the AFD: You canlt have it both ways, one way saying that The Federalist is notable for an article, and another way saying that the only sources that describe the website are not usable. The AFD was conclusive: the website is notable because there are sources that describe it, so we report what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation in "Neil deGrasse Tyson articles and Wikipedia controversy" section.

Per WP:BLP, I've removed the first sentence[13] because it was sourced to thefederalist.com, which is clearly not a reliable source for this content. Yes, I realize that the section now makes less sense without this sentence, but whoever wrote it shouldn't have used non-reliable sources in the first place. The material can be restored, perhaps modified, based on what reliable sources actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think we can and should use the direct link for attribution purposes, but I've readded it using existing sources that are clearly reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So much for notability

It is amazing that after a highly contested AFD, there is nothing to expand this article. So much for notability. I'd like to see some of those that advocated for keep, to see if they can find some material for this stub. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is amazing that an editor who advertises in his user space he's an inclusionist is so interested in deleting an article that meets notability guidelines. The publication has been in business barely a year. As time goes on, more opportunities for content will continue to emerge as The Federalist grows and ages. There's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is such a notable website, why in hell there is nothing written about it? There are many websites that started a year ago and they are not in Wikipedia, for a very good reason. Regarding your comment about inclusionism, read the goals of the project m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians#Goals. It is not what you think. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at The Daily Caller. It was started on Jan 2010 , and survived a speedy deletion,[14]. A year later, by January 2011 [15] it had enough sources to meet WP:WEBCRIT. We are a year into The Federalist’s life and what do we have? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What do we have? We have a stub article. There are numerous stub articles in Wikipedia. The following is from WP:PSA: "When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it...Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to improve it."

This article stub is precisely in the place where other editors will be able to expand it and improve upon it. Which is exactly what Wikipedia is about. Because, of course, there still is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As a delete voter, this article is fine in its current state and, once some of this hand-wringing ends, will be able to be expanded using a lot of different sources that will invariably crop up. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be, either. There are plenty of other articles that have been kept that have no sources talking about it whatsoever, this isn't one of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Saturday night, Cwobeel's got a partisan axe to grind and he's real surprised no one else wants to play. Shocked, shocked. This idiot doesn't understand WP policy, merely sees it as a tool for attacking conservatives. OH, NOTE ALSO SMART GUY, the article was LOCKED UNTIL LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO — in no small part due to your histrionics and anti-policy editing crusades. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attack is noted. Please cool it, discuss the edit and not the editor is the way to go. Being angry at me only reflects poorly on you. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Guess what? You're both the same color and do the same things. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have never attacked an editor. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE ALSO that there was no actual edit to discuss — since this was merely a childish partisan rant by a relentlessly axe-grinding editor who's just mad that his dumb AFD failed and now wants to argue vacuously over the result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, there's always this [16] (and a history of others), but who's counting? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am counting, and that was not a personal attack. In any case, this discussion is not going anywhere useful besides being a playground for personal attacks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It started off as an inappropriate and silly rant by you, and at no point did it have anything to do with an actual policy objection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Physics Today article

This was removed with an edit summary that includes this" the information doesn't talk about Federalist except in passing:

According to an article in Physics Today, the Discovery Institute, a political organization that defends the theory of intelligent design, has been echoing The Federalist attacks on Neil deGrasse Tyson. They mention Robert Tracinski, a writer for the website who linked his criticism of Tyson in an article under the headline "Neil deGrasse Tyson and the science of smug condescension" by using "standard right-wing climate-war assertions" about global-warming, global cooling and the controversy they call "Climategate", and refers to the criticism as a political attack.

References

This is what the source says:

In September, several attacks have appeared at a year-old political website called The Federalist, published by Benjamin Domenech, a senior fellow at an institution known particularly in the climate wars: the Heartland Institute. Domenech has appeared on national TV. The site has been cited at CNN.com, The Hill, RealClearPolitics, and at least six times at the Wall Street Journal, which has also published at least three brief online commentaries from The Federalist’s writers. [...] Another piece appeared under the headline “Neil deGrasse Tyson and the science of smug condescension.” The Federalist identifies the author, Robert Tracinski, as having been “published in dozens of newspapers, from the Chicago Tribune to the San Francisco Chronicle” and “featured on many radio and television shows, from Rush Limbaugh to ‘The O’Reilly Factor.’” Tracinski declares that the Davis attacks’ “common denominator” is Tyson’s alleged “tendency to construct stories that make Tyson—and, by extension, his fans in the audience—seem smart and sophisticated, while making his straw man opponents, particularly politicians on the right, look bumbling and ignorant.” Tracinski's piece eventually links the criticisms to standard right-wing climate-wars assertions concerning the global-warming hiatus, global-cooling worries expressed in past decades, and stolen email messages in the controversy that Tracinski and others call “Climategate.” [...] The intelligent-design-defending Discovery Institute, another political organization cited in major media, has been echoing The Federalist’s attacks. One online posting invoked tweets in support of Davis’s campaign from Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, and from Ann Coulter, the conservative TV pundit. Another, also praising Davis’s campaign, called Tyson “a political propagandist for a particular secular agenda, not an objective observer of science.” Yet another mostly just quoted Davis.

These are three paragraphs in an article consisting of eight paragraphs, hardly not in passing, and clearly the centerpiece of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That section is about the Discovery Institute. The message you and the article is trying to make is quite clear. The Discovery Institute has echoed The Federalist, thus the Federalist promotes Intelligent Design. This is clearly a WP:COATRACK paragraph. Arzel (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you misunderstand. The Physics Today article has plenty to say about the Federalist. Unfortunately the information included in this wikipedia edit is about the Discovery Institute. That is not appropriate to this article because it is peripheral to the Physics Today article and to this wikipedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading the same text and the same article than me? Assuming you are, I can't understand how can you reach these conclusions. The article is focused on The Federalist's attacks on Tyson, which they call "political" and provides the context for their assertions. If you have a better way to summarize that article, by all means do it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the point is moot per the comment in the next section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't recall the exact policy but as mentioned above I believe that this guilt-by-asscotiation stuff is to be avoided. The bulk of that material isn't actually about The Federalist. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the stuff about the Discovery Institute, and left the other pertinent material. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Obsidi:, please discuss your rationale for removing this [17]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at all the comments up above, there is FAR from consensus to include this. To me it seems to be both WP:UNDUE as on off hand comment by one source. And takes even that somewhat out of context because it doesn't include the line before it: "Tracinski declares that the Davis attacks’ “common denominator” is Tyson’s alleged “tendency to construct stories that make Tyson—and, by extension, his fans in the audience—seem smart and sophisticated, while making his straw man opponents, particularly politicians on the right, look bumbling and ignorant.”" It clearly is intended to attack the federalist in a not-NPOV. --Obsidi (talk ) 17:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. If there is no consensus to include material from this source, there is no consensus either to include the other material. No double standards, please. Removed entire section until consensus is achieved. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. There is consensus to include the other material. Or if you feel there isn't, please go initiate a long series of admin complaints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is consensus, does not make it so. Just look at the article history. As for your continuous personal attacks, including making spurious claims about my editing, please note that I don't give a fuck you don't appreciate my contributions, which BTW are the only substantial contributions to this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is a lack of consensus, or propping up BS non-policy arguments, does not give you a leg to stand on. I, also, give zero fucks about what you think, because you are a terrible editor who is dedicated to screwing up WP via absurd partisanship that makes it look bad to outsiders.

"Which BTW are the only substantial contributions" -- just lol, just LOL, after all your desperate attempts to whitewash (hey, that's a word that rarely gets used accurately on WP!) this article, then the lockdown which ensued largely as a result of your ridiculous partisan efforts, and your continued deletion of material that reflects poorly on Tyson, are the only reasons the article is so short. You might as well pour a bucket of water on somebody's head and then say "HEY BRO Y R U SO WET?" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP - ARBCOM

I removed the Tyson material. Please note that WP:BLP applies here, and that there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in place for this matter. DO NOT include here, until the discussion in completed on the Tyson page. 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." Do not WP:COATRACK this matter into WP until discussion is resolved. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, there is not a WP:BLP concern for things sourced by a WP:BLPSELFPUB. Nor do I have to wait for an unrelated discussion to finish before stopping your deletion. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read WP:SELFPUB, point 2. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very serious, the quote by Neil Tyson is about Neil Tyson, he can say what he did himself. It does not involve 3rd parties to say what he did. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the material that you reverted to. It speaks about Sean Davis wrote a series of articles at the site accusing noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson of fabricating quotes. How is that SELFPUB? That material was removed from the Tyson article due to violations of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in this regard. You need consensus to add any disputed material in a BLP or related to a BLP, which applies in this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also attributed and linked to the federalist article accusing him. The federalist is the source and cited, it also cites to a WP:NEWSBLOG (as it says " If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")). This is attributed material explaining who did the accusation, it doesn't say the accusation is true. The only line that does say it is true is properly cited to a WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions about this material, it's clear this revert was inappropriate. BLP issues should be discussed on the talk page, not the subject of revert wars. Consensus should be developed before it is restored. Note that BLP issues are not subject to the three revert rule. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In a conversation that Obsidi opened on my Talk page here, I suggested that we wait until the RfC on the Tyson talk page is resolved. There is WP:NODEADLINE, hopefully everybody can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I take WP:BLP issues very seriously. That's why when he did remove the material and claimed it was a WP:BLP issue, I asked him what his WP:BLP issue was on his talk page[18]. He did not provide me with any reason for the WP:BLP issue (or at least any reason I believe to be an valid WP:BLP concern) so I reverted what I still believed to be a disruptive edit falsely claiming WP:BLP issues. Here is what the administrator User:Sphilbrick said about a similar claimed WP:BLP related removal to Neil Tyson's page by User:Cwobeel: "I think it is disruptive, you ought to self-revert and apologize. There are good faith debates on the value of some proposed references, there is a good faith debate on the weight this incident deserves, but to make a removal on BLP grounds evinces astoundingly bad judgement." until consensus is found for inclusion I don't think a single revert AFTER asking why there was a WP:BLP concern and not receiving a specific answer is wrong. A single revert isn't "getting into an edit war" (normally it is WP:BRD). It was put back and I plan to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, to stop (what I believe to be) an improper WP:BLP claim. --Obsidi (talk ) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. Thank you Jytdog for letting him know I talked to you on your talk page, I do appreciate that. --Obsidi (talk ) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What, precisely, is the BLP violation that is being asserted at this article? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog provided a reason in his comment here. If a consensus of editors find that reason to be spurious, then the material can be restored. Until then, there is no hurry to restore the material when an editor has brought BLP concerns to this page in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted content. It is factual and well sourced. Jytdog may have "invoked BLP," but there is no credible basis for doing so, nor has Jytdog provided any. I can assert the moon is made of green cheese, but that is not the basis for a serious argument. None of the facts in the restored material are in dispute, and the Tyson controversy has contributed significantly to the subject publication's present notability/notoriety. From my perspective, this is a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no BLP or NPOV violation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Should nae have done that, while discussions are pending. suggest you self-revert but you will of course do as you please. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, please assume good faith, do your best to reduce your combative tone, and let us consolidate this discussion in a single place, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Federalist (website), where we are most likely to get more informed discussion participants involved. You could start by providing, in detail and with specificity, a description of what your good faith objection to including this content in The Federalist (website) is -- because from your statement above, it is far from clear, and seems only to be "BLP - ARBCOM!" In any event, I will be happy to discuss this further on the BLP/Noticeboard page linked above, and I will do my best to maintain an open mind regarding any arguments and or elucidations of BLP and guidelines you or others may provide. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As discussion is ongoing in how to treat this material, which pertains to a living person, then BLP requires keeping it out until the matter is settled through dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP policy-violating content in that material. Nobody making the BLP complaints is even bothering to specify what the violation is. Kelly ^hi! 11:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. False. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All discussion participants are respectfully requested to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Federalist (website), where we can involve more knowledgeable editors in this ongoing discussion, and so that we consolidate the discussion in a single location. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, you are the one who is edit warring per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the specific BLP violation you are claiming? Kelly ^hi! 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(E/c)The violation that is stated is that it gives undue weight to information about a living person, which read BLP is a violation of BLP. It's absurd to claim that an organization claim to notability is giving undue weight to a part of a living persons life, and then repeat what it has given undue weight to. (I am out of time and may be able to return later)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, I've reverted twice, and so have you. Are we both edit-warring? The "revert and deny" gamesmanship, and the unsupported assertions of BLP violations, are the reasons I have chosen to enter this discussion; such conduct violates my sense of fair play. BTW, no one has yet made a credible statement of what the BLP violation regarding The Federalist article actually is. Please join the consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Federalist (website); perhaps you can articulate what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, you edit warred against policy with your first revert. That is not how to deal with any open policy compliant/editing discussion let alone with BLP material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kelly, you are respectfully requested to move the discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#The Federalist (website) for the reasons stated above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to poorly sourced or unsourced contentious claims. Is the claim that Tyson misquoted Bush poorly sourced or unsourced? Is the claim that he misquoted Bush contentious? At this point, with Tyson stating he misquoted Bush, it is hard to accept that as an argument against mentioning that claim here. BLP absolutely allows mentioning living persons in other articles, so that sort of argument fails here. "Undue weight about a living person" is not something which is a policy-based argument at this point. Collect (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone here was under notice already that BLP and discretionary sanctions are in effect for this subject matter. I am expecting admin judgement/action today on the edit warring to restore the contested content to the article. Gamaliel made the same warning. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, enough with the silly warnings already. Nobody has ever made a case, much less gotten any consensus, that there is the least amount of BLP violation with the material. Kelly ^hi! 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Without all the warnings, we might actually have to talk about BLP policy and its application to this article. Perish the thought. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The warnings are not silly. WP policy and sanctions are not silly. The WP admin machinery doesn't move as fast as the blogosphere, but it moves. Discussion is and has been underway at BLPN. I encourage everyone to take part and try to hear one another. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say WP policy was silly. The warnings being issued pursuant to a blatant abuse of policy are silly. Your BLP case will go nowhere because you have no case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

please AGF. if you honestly believe I am acting in bad faith please bring me to ANI for being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of bad faith, just bad judgment. And, I am content to let you flail around while your spurious admin complaint goes nowhere, because that takes less effort on my part and it's a problem you created in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I see; at least I have that going for me. :) You continue to make comments on contributors, not content, which speaks for itself. In any case I will continue to work toward improving WP. So far, with one exception, things are going as I expected with the issues on this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page now has 29 sections and a variety of old discussions. I would like to archive those that haven't been talked about in 10 days. I post here to make sure there in consensus for that. --Obsidi (talk ) 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I set up auto-archiving on the page but feel free to jump-start the process with the old discussions. Kelly ^hi! 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that didn't notice that you had set it up just a few minutes before I posted. --Obsidi (talk ) 13:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

proposed NPOV edit

In September 2014, columnist Sean Davis wrote a series of articles for ''The Federalist'' accusing [[Neil deGrasse Tyson]] of misquoting [[George W. Bush]] in speeches.<ref name=Jackson140916 /><ref name=physicsToday>{{cite web|url=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070|title=Neil deGrasse Tyson accused of "the science of smug condescension"|accessdate=October 2, 2014}}</ref> The charges were mentioned in a number of news outlets, and resulted in an apology from Mr. Tyson.<ref name=Jackson140916>{{cite web |last=Jackson |first=Tom |date=September 16, 2014 |title=Neil deGrasse Tyson, serial fabulist |url=http://tbo.com/news/blogs/the-right-stuff/neil-degrasse-tyson-serial-fabulist-20140916/ |publisher=Tampa Tribune |accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref name=Mak140919>{{cite news |last=Mak |first=Time |date=September 19, 2014 |title=The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html |publisher=The Daily Beast |location= |accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref> <ref name=Tyson140929>{{cite web |last=deGrasse Tyson |first=Neil |authorlink1=Neil deGrasse Tyson |date=September 29, 2014 |title=Partial Anatomy of My Public Talks |url=https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/partial-anatomy-of-my-public-talks/10152360009440869 |website=[[Facebook]] |accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref>

Is proposed as a terse and accurate account of the claims and admissions. Collect (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

it is not accurate. the federalist and other blogs made accusations of fabrication and other matters, which went far beyond simple "misquoting". Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the reliable sources discussing the incident use the term "misquote" or something similar. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist columnist accused Tyson of fabricating quotes, which implies intentionally misquoting the quoted source, but I would support this compromise to end this debate and restore the factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content -- which was previously deleted based on unsupported claims of BLP violations. A less generous compromise would simply quote the leading source and use its choice of words, "fabricate." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how "fabricate" implies intentional misquoting. It just implies that the speaker is indifferent as to whether the quote is even remotely accurate. Quote the full-bore language by The Federalist — it's an article about The Federalist, after all — but make sure it is unmistakeably attributed to both author and publication so nobody gets confused. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, "to fabricate" is a transitive verb, but like so much else is subject to interpretation. Webster's online includes "to fake; forge (a document, signature, etc.)" as one of its four definitions; that strongly implies intent to this lawyer, but your mileage may vary. I am equally content directly quoting The Federalist article, or paraphrasing/characterizing it as a "misquote"; I am not going to "over-lawyer" this last quibble and accept either word choice if that ends this debate over alleged, but unsupported BLP violations in The Federalist article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as the article uses a loaded term like "fabricated" there are WP:BLP implications. Merely declaring that there are none does not make it so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The elephant in the room: Wikipedia should not be used as an echo chamber for a political attack made by The Federalist against Tyson or anyone else for that matter. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fun fact: "echo chamber" is a term used by dumb progressives to imply that anybody repeating news or ideas that are unflattering to progressives should not be listened to. Thus I find it both amusing and bemusing that you would deploy such rhetoric here. Good day, sir. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, at your suggestion, I have replaced "fabricated" with "misquoted."

In his Facebook apology for the Bush misquote, Tyson himself specifically refers to the allegations of "fabricating" made against him (see Facebook page linked in article footnote). Minus his caveats and qualifications, I quote the operative part of Tyson's apology:

"My bad. 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."

"Columbia" refers to the 2003 space shuttle accident that killed one Israeli and six American astronauts. Tyson "mis-remembered" the Bush quote in the context of the 9/11 attacks, and repeatedly cast it as an ignorant attempt by Bush to contrast "us" (Americans) from "them" (Muslims) in Tyson's public speeches, when in fact the Bush quote was a poetic reference to the Book of Isaiah, and intended as comfort to the families of the dead astronauts. Tyson made the disparaging comments about Bush on several documented occasions, and refused to acknowledge his error for several weeks while he got roasted online for misquoting and characterizing Bush as religiously insensitive and ignorant of the fact the Muslim astronomers were actually responsible for most of the present names of modern stars. Bush's actual quote, delivered at a Columbia memorial:

"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 put his foot in it, and he's fortunate not to have taken more heat than he did. But smart people do dumb things every day, and IMHO that deserves a proportionate mention in the NDGT article -- but I will leave the pending RfC argument to other editors. Calling The Federalist's columns on the subject a "political attack" is a red herring; the criticism of Tyson was mostly accurate, and even NDGT has apologized for quoting Bush out of context (while omitting any references to his prior characterizations of Bush as ignorant of science and history). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)