Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quoted authority for the opinion, in 2008, was "Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which says "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article...""

"Volokh Conspiracy" is, of course, no longer "self-published" by Professor Volokh. Further, if it is "used" it will be used for material about the opinions of Dr. Adler, not factual information about Dr. Tyson. The objection to its use here, still less to the weight it lends to the subject's notability, is unfounded.Andyvphil (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• neutral/weak oppose - So it's been couple of weeks and some more has been written about the matter. My expectation is that all the shoes have now dropped and we have pretty much all the material that we are going to get. This places us in a much better situation for evaluating the WP:weight issue than we were in late September.

Surveying the available material, I see a bunch more conservative opinion pieces that basically just repeat the original accusations, and a few left-of-center outlets have chimed in commenting dismissively that the right side of the blogosphere is excited about it . No mainstream non-opinion piece has bothered to cover the matter so, it's tempting to just dismiss it all as another food fight.

That said, the misquote was made repeatedly, is well-documented, and the Hayden Planetarium (and Mental Floss too, if that matters) thought the quote was important enough to prominently feature it as one of the important Tyson quotes. Since it has been shown to be false there may be some value in making that clear on these pages. Tyson himself has admitted the misquote and apologized for it, so the facts are not really in doubt. In sum, I think it is a tough judgment call whether to include it or not - good arguments have been provided on both sides and anyone who thinks this is an easy call one way or the other needs to check their biases. My take is that it fails WP:WEIGHT but barely - I haven't seen any WP:RS that indicates this is important in the overall scope of Tyson's career, but I can understand why some editors think that it is. I have no real objection to a brief NPOV entry on the matter, and have floated a few examples myself in the interest of compromise and consensus building. I would encourage those who are working towards a compromise in this regard to continue, but I am not optimistic about the likelihood of that happening so my participation will be limited. My !vote remains oppose, mainly because after a month I'm not seeing any specific language that I would support gain any progress towards consensus. If something emerges, I'll support it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose After reading the source, it seems very obvious that this is some tabloidy clickbait stuff intended to create controversy over some minor incidents where Tyson misremembers something. It does not seem worthy of inclusion in the article, especially because it would be undue to do so. It seems to make claims about his character when maliciousness was clearly not intended. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The topic appears to be tabloidy and I am doubtful that it should be included on this page. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments sub-section arbitrarily insterted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second comments sub-section arbitrarily insterted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• After much consideration, I support inclusion of perhaps one paragraph discussing this incident. As Dr. Tyson has now addressed the incident himself, refusing to let any mention of the incident into this article is a bit embarrassing for the project. The wording should be carefully crafted, neutrally-worded, and nothing more than a simple summary of the incident. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• noticeSomeone interested in the campaign to keep this material out of Wikipedia may be interested in this.[10] Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Third comments section arbitrarily inserted

• Oppose. I've had a good long think about this and I think the issue comes down to how we treat gaffes. They can and do happen to anyone in public life. There probably isn't a public figure with a biography in Wikipedia who hasn't made a gaffe at some point. The question is what level of significance (WP:WEIGHT) should we give to a gaffe? I would look to two factors for guidance. First, how widely covered is it by reliable sources (notability)? In this case it seems to have had low notability relative to other gaffes - it has only been covered for a short period of time by a limited number of mostly partisan sources, several of disputable reliability. It's significant that no indisputably reliable mainstream media source appears to have picked up the story. This is certainly not equivalent to "I am not a witch" or "legitimate rape". Second, what impact has it had on their career (biographical significance)? Don't forget that we are trying to cover the most significant events in a person's life. BLPs aren't meant to be a blow-by-blow account of everything that someone has said and done. If a gaffe has a genuine and major impact on a person's career (as it did for Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin), then obviously it should be covered. In this case, there is no evidence that I know of that it has had any impact at all on Tyson's career. It's not impossible that it might have such an impact in future, but it's far too early to tell. So in short, this particular gaffe doesn't seem to have achieved a wide or long-lasting degree of coverage and there's no evidence that it has any long-lasting significance. These factors should militate against including it. Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• comment Given the contentious nature of this RfC, I am asking that only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC when the time period is up. --Obsidi (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The current tally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idea tally

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

Against inclusion

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

For inclusion

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure by aprock

First of all, closure by a non-admin is highly unwise in this situation. Discussion has been going on surrounding this issue for about a month on this, by admins and non-admins alike, with Jimbo chiming in as well, and closure really should be done so that all parties are satisfied with the process and can take no issue with the procedure and the involved closer. Having a non-admin close a discussion will be criticized. A highly unwise move and one which will do little to ease tensions surrounding this issue. This will only lead to challenges of the closing.

Second of all, the RfC asked for opinions regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE ONLY. This editor closed this RfC and including BLP issues in his reason. That is inappropriate. Although BLP issues were discussed in the RfC, the basis of the RFC had nothing to do with BLP issues. This is an important distiction, because if an RfC is closed on BLP reasons, that would tend to preclude mention of the issue anywhere else in the encyclopedia.

Third of all, reasoning for the closure was basically not presented. To paraphrase, the closing statement given is 'Contentious, BLP, default no include' without giving any context, reasoning, examples, citations, other examples, or any details of the case at hand. That is not "reasoning" that is simply saying, "contentious", then citing policy and then saying "no". We have spent a month debating this issue, and for it to be closed with a terse two sentences is highly unsatisfactory, insulting, and lame to the extreme.

This has all the feel of a WP:SUPERVOTE Marteau (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I specific asked "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC" for a reason. Given the closer himself says it is a "contentious issue" and WP:CLOSURE says "requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear"... "Where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure." I consider myself involved, so I ask that aprock self-reverts the closure. Also I thought that we had a few days left on this RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• It was a bad close, that failed to weigh any arguments, and simply substituted the view of the closer for the weight of the actual arguments made. If no one else does, I am going to revert the close very shortly. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  I have undone the close as ill-timed, as the RFC is still active, The other concerns with regards to the editor who closed its reasoning (or lack thereof) are valid as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Anyone closing this will be painting a bulls-eye in their forehead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I !voted for a include above, but do not disagree with the closure reasoning. This is a contentious BLP matter, and in such matters the default is do not include unless there is clear consensus for inclusion. We may disagree with the reasoning of the people who !voted opposite of us, but there is no way the above discussion would get closed as a clear "keep". Its a pretty obvious "no-consensus", which does default to "don't include" especially for BLP. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE WP:NOCONSENSUS both directly address this situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is based on policy not just number of votes, this is not a democracy. The closure has been reverted for other reasons, lets wait for the actual closure before we can say there is no consensus. --Obsidi (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I was also surprised to see this closed by a non-admin. That said, there are only about 600 of them and perhaps they are too busy to deal with this level of minutia. In any case, I don't see anything in the RFC documentation that requires an admin to close discussion, only a "non-involved editor" which the closing editor appears to be. My understanding is that the reasoning is more important than the authority of the closing editor. If you disagree with the reasoning I am sure that there is an appeal process, and my understanding is that this page is not the place for it. i'd encourage you to pursue the appeal process if you think it is worth pursuing.

Failing that, remember that consensus can change and if one of the efforts below to craft a brief NPOV entry pans out we can reach a new consensus to include it. The RFC should not be a barrier to future consensus building. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If it had been a lengthy, well-reasoned close, I would have had no problem with it. For an RFC of this size to be closed in such a cursory manner, and while comments were on-going, is less than ideal, so I reopened it. If an editor (admin or not) wants to actually weigh the opposing arguments (including citing what exactly the "BLP concerns" are, and which sources are not reliable ones, I have no problem letting such a close stand. But simply saying, basically, "BLP concerns, no consensus, no inclusion" is not valid. BLP is not a club or a wedge to keep material we just don't like out of an article, after all, and without further reasoning a close that doesn't cite what the "BLP concerns" are. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that choose to add just don't like as if that is the basis of much of what has been debated here. Doesn’t have the ring of assuming good faith. Just a thought. Objective3000 (talk)

I am very open to an explanation of how inclusion constitutes a "BLP violation." All I've seen thus far is claims that it does, sans any evidence. One is left with the conclusion that it's a matter of preference, not policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The close was well reasoned per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, idon'tlikeit is your reason for revert of the close, sorry you don't like it. There were few if any recent comments. Indeed, most recently, we see the well founded basis for the close established again below, with no possible way that any of the three specific proposals for inclusion can currently be adopted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, claiming a "BLP violation", does not a BLP violation make. No one has ever actually pointed out anything in any of the proposals that is problematic for BLP purposes. And BLPREQUESTRESTORE also was not intended as a club to keep out material people don't like. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No. You are obviously INVOLVED, so you have no basis on which to reopen the discussion, and the very direct purpose of BLPREQUESTRESTORE is to keep material out sans consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This debate has been underway for four weeks, has spawned an RfC, an AfD, an AfD appeal, and a few trips to notice boards, including one block and three attempted blocks, and the withdrawal from editing by an admin. Are you actually claiming that “No one has ever actually pointed out anything in any of the proposals that is problematic for BLP purposes”? To use your line, just saying that doesn’t make it so. There have been an enormous number of BLP arguments. You didn’t bother responding to any of them. You just claim that all the arguments are incorrect. I’d say you were VERY involved and should not have reopened. Objective3000 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been 30 days, for that reason alone the closure can be reverted. The other statements may be valid depending on the final close, hopefully whoever closes it will make an explicit well reasoned policy based close. --Obsidi (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No. It has been held over and over again that the 30 days is not required for a valid close. (in fact it's been stated above that it's been open for a month, so the 30 days is so what) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The proper avenue for disputing an RfC is to take it to review. The appropriate place for reviewing this close would be ANI. aprock (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: ANI notice. aprock (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a side here, but I have to say it doesn't seem like we're approaching consensus for the RfC, are we? Now that I can actually see the closure rationale, I feel like the fact that there's no consensus should be addressed if the RfC is to be closed at this point. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)