Talk:The Federalist (website)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

proposed NPOV edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia."

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

"In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today."

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

On the contrary, this was a trivial, non-event, whose importance was ginned up the climate change denial and creationist collaboration, promoting a conservative meme through the right wing noise machine, until the echo chamber resonated within itself. Thus, the manufactured controversy was complete. Sadly, the mainstream media ignored it. Oh sure, the usual suspects covered it in their opinion columns, and amplified the noise made by Heartland's Federalist front blog, but anyone paying attention saw this for what it really was: nonsense. And we should insert this nonsense here, why? Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You really think its one giant Conspiracy theory? That Neil Tyson is just the innocent victim of these evil cabal of conservatives out to get him when he did everything right? That the evil Heartland Institute is behind everything? --Obsidi (talk ) 22:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not a conspiracy theory, but a sad reality. There is a well funded and organized echo chamber out there drumming up "outrage" and made up "controversies" and Wikipedia should not be part of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys, characterizing this controversy as a conspiracy of "creationists" and "climate-deniers" is a non-starter -- unless Tyson was part of the conspiracy. No one made Tyson misquote Bush for six or seven years in his public speeches, disparaging him by using the ex-president as purported example of scientific and religious ignorance, on a false basis. There are plenty of political kooks out there, but attempting to characterize The Tampa Tribune as right-wing is just plain nuts (I grew up in Florida, reading the Trib -- it's always been a moderate paper that endorsed more Democrats than Republicans), or trying to paint The Federalist as anything other than a mainstream conservative vehicle, with a frosting of libertarianism, is also a reach. Some of us read HuffPo, RCP, Salon, the NYT, the Washington Post, National Review, the Nation, and the New Republic online on a daily basis, and we know the difference. I suggest everyone dial back such unsubstantiated conspiracry theories that I expect to read in blog comments, not Wikipedia BLP talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to stay away from this mess today so I can get some work done, but I couldn't let this one pass. First, if we're going to use sources like The Daily Beast and Physics Today as justification that this incident belongs in this article, then we have to report what they actually say, and the sources are clear about the origin of this Tyson attack. If you want to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory" then you are dismissing two of the only RSes we have about this matter. Second, I live in Tampa and if you say that the Tampa Tribune is not conservative and does not consistently endorse conservative candidates then you must be unfamiliar with it or you are confusing it with the Tampa Bay Times. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument. Most newspapers endorse Democrats, does that make them all liberal and biased? Arzel (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no argument regarding the Tribune in my comment, I was merely making a point of fact. Unless you are disputing that fact, your comment has no relevance to mine. Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't live in Florida and don't have an opinion about that newspaper. Perhaps you should tell Viriditas to tone it down though with the accusatory conspiracy theories though. It is getting old. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The only conspiracy theory I see on this page is your implication that there is such a thing as the "liberal media", which is probably the single greatest conspiracy theory offered by right wing conservatives. After all, media scholars have studied this for decades and have found that the media is predominantly center-right conservative, not liberal. But, let's look at facts, not conservative conspiracy theories. Who publishes The Federalist? Ben Domenech, senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change." And who has been talking about climate change on television this past year? Neil deGrasse Tyson. And how does Heartland attempt to debunk climate science? By, according to Bob Ward, "playing up controversy and uncertainty to undermine confidence in well-established scientific findings", in this case climate change, as well as evolution in collaboration with the Discovery Institute, whose attacks on Tyson The Federalist gleefully published on their site. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is what Heartland Institute has been doing for years. According to climate scientists, Heartland's "attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options." The cherry picking of a misquote from Tyson in order to attack his credibility on science is what they do best and they've done it dozens of times before. The documented fact that Heartland and Discovery have combined their attacks is not a conspiracy at all. It's right there on The Federalist website. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One has to wonder if you have done any actual research into these issues. State of the Media (Pew research) does surveys every year and they unequivically point out that liberals out number conservatives by an over-whelming percentage. Not sure what scholars you talking about, but it is probably the same ones that are feeding you this Discovery BS. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, how is a survey by Pew equivalent to the dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles by media scholars that have concluded through rigorous study that the concept of a "liberal media" is a myth perpetuated by conservative groups? Do you really believe a survey is the same as a journal article? And as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, there is no "BS" here, this is a real collaboration.[1] Both Heartland and The Federalist have published work by the Discovery Institute attacking Tyson. For example, The Federalist published a piece by Jay W. Richards of the Discovery Institute attacking Tyson's representation of religion as seen on the television show Cosmos.[2] This was followed by another Federalist piece, an article by James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute attacking Tyson's representation of climate change in Cosmos as "global warming alarmism". Just after that, Heartland published a two-part series on their website by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute about the "mythical consensus on global warming alarmism".[3] So it seems, Arzel, that you are misinformed. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all the Pew Research is probably the most respected non-partisan polling organization in the country. Second, are you are really claiming that even academia (itself fairly liberal on average [4]) is unified in saying there is no such thing as liberal media bias? That's just crazy. Let me link to a few (of many) such academic articles

[5] [6]. To say they dont exist, is just wrong. (Also I suggest you read [http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841 this]. Now the heartland is an influential organization, but you give it far to much credit. Yes, it constantly publishing things about the "mythical consensus on global warming alarmism" (its up to everyone to examine the evidence for themselves). But it isn't behind every story about any left leaning person. And you are continuing to say that it is without any evidence of it whatsoever. --Obsidi (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you speak to him yourself? I'm not his mother. Gamaliel (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

He does not listen, and I assumed (incorrectly) that in your role of Admin and same political ideology you might be willing to tell him to tone it down. He may listen to you. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, Gamaliel, for saying so, as I have no idea how old you are, but my memory of Florida politics and Tampa area newspapers is apparently a little longer than yours. And, yes, I know the difference between The Tampa Tribune and the Tampa Bay Times (the former St. Petersburg Times). Intimately. I read the Trib on a daily basis from the early 1970s until 1983, when I began to read The Gainesville Sun daily for reasons which you can easily surmise. We apparently have a different sense of the left-right spectrum in newspapers; the only consistently conservative major paper in the state of Florida over the last 40 years is The Florida Times-Union (discounting The Naples Daily News as not major). The Tampa Bay Times is not moderate by any standard understanding of that term; it has been consistently the most liberal major newspaper in the state of Florida for the last 40+ years. The Trib could only be characterized as "right-wing" in comparison to the Times; moderately conservative, perhaps, but not right-wing. The Trib endorsed Robert King High (D) for governor in 1966, Reuben Askew (D) in 1970 and 1974, Bob Graham (D) in 1978 and 1982, Bob Martinez (R, Tampa mayor) in 1986, Lawton Chiles (D) in 1990 and 1994, and Jeb Bush (R) in 2002. The Trib endorsed Bob Graham (D) for U.S. Senate in 1986, and Buddy McKay (D) in 1988. Yes, the Trib has moved slightly rightward in the last 20 years as the Tampa area became more Republican, but it was not until the mid-1990s that the Trib began to endorse Republicans for major office on a regular basis. Notably, the Trib refused to endorse George W. Bush for reelection in 2004, and as recently as 2010, the Trib endorsed Alex Sink (D) for governor. Bottom line: I know a little somethin-somethin about Florida newspapers; before I became a lawyer, I was formerly employed in a capacity in which it was my job to know. It's never safe to assume anything about people you "meet" on Wikipedia. 'Nuff said. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory of the Tribune goes back further than mine, to be sure, but I suspect my memory goes back further than you think. I suspect you are unaware of the recent right-ward march of the Tribune and you definitely overplay its supposed moderation. The Tribune endorsed Romney, McCain, Bush, and Rick Scott, so its endorsement of Reuben Askew, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles decades ago isn't particularly relevant, and as a Floridian you know those Democrats are conservative ones whose popularity was bipartisan. So you can't paint the Trib as Pravda on the Hillsborough River, and the same thing with the Times, whose milquetoast moderation is hardly "liberal", since one of their most notable acts was to fire their Pulitzer winning cartoonist for being too "liberal". That radical firebrand is now working for a newspaper in that hotbed of liberalism, Tennessee. Gamaliel (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, the Trib endorsed Alex Sink in 2010 (see bottom of list of endorsements). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In 2006, the paper marketed itself as a conservative news source,[7][8] and more recently describes its own editorials as "more moderate to conservative" than other regional newspapers.[9] And at least 80% of its op-ed columnists are listed as conservative.[10] There's a time to forfeit your argument and admit your're wrong, and that time has come. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1@02:47: "The Trib could only be characterized as 'right-wing' in comparison to the Times; moderately conservative, perhaps, but not right-wing."

Viriditas@04:59: "In 2006, the paper marketed itself as a conservative news source, and more recently describes its own editorials as 'more moderate to conservative' than other regional newspapers."

Sorry, Viriditas, but I'm not seeing any inconsistency with my qualified statement above and the Trib's self-description. Like I suggested on my talk page, there's an anger that affects your ability to view matters such as this through objective eyes -- and apparently causes you to overreach. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed, Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Pete Times) is super liberal. Tribune is just filling the market niche. In any event, why the hell does it matter what you think about the political leaning, if any, of a newspaper's editorial board/etc.? Do you think that WP policy elevates you to a position of second-guessing its editorial voice, or determining that because it is not of the correct political persuasion, it should not be used as a source? Nope nope nope nope nope. Sit down, sir. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Super liberal"? It's clear you've never read it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your spidey sense is real bad. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, Gamaliel, it's a compliment in certain circles. "Super Liberals!" Fat old white guy journalists in white 60-40 blend button-down shirts with half sleeves, polyester neckties, and red capes, who drive 20-year-old used boxy-but-good Volvos. Even liberals need super heroes, right? LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that an example of conservative humor? No wonder people listen to Dennis Miller as a sleep aid. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• oppose The proposed text does not accurately convey the content of The Federalist 's articles, nor the reaction, nor recount the notice given to the attempt by Tyson's defenders to delete this article and keep content they dislike out of Wikipedia. Some editors have offered to take half a loaf, or less, and then defend this deletionist victory against all comers. That is a mistake. Andyvphil (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• do not use "fabricate" as BLP and WP:RS issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment While I don't oppose this on principle, in practice there are a number of issues which need to be resolved. The first half of the second sentence ("The charges were mentioned in a number of news outlets") appears to contain original research and the second half "resulted in an apology from Mr. Tyson" is sourced to a Facebook post, a self-published source which violates criteria #2 of WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) We do original research on Wikipedia. The statement "The charges were mentioned in a number of news outlets" is indeed the product of such original research. That's fine. Please review WP:OR.

(b) It's Tyson's Facebook page. Who's the third party? Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD in regard to the facebook post and WP:OR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted material

Several paragraphs have been deleted from the article, with various edit summaries. I am posting these here for discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for inclusion - Cwobeel (talk)

---

An article in The Fiscal Times, posted by Yahoo News, about a Ta-Nehisi Coates' piece on race relations in the US making the case for reparations, references Mollie Hemingway’s article in The Federalist, in which she criticizes Coates' piece for "sweeping generalizations, laughable straw men, claims that were both major and unsubstantiated, and numerous holes", while according to The Fiscal Times, failing to identify any of the specific issues in the article.

References

Comments

• I'm in favor of leaving this out. It's not about The Federalist, it's about the piece on race reparations. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is about an article in The Federalist [11]], reviewed and sourced by a secondary RS (The Atlantic). These are the type of sources we need in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, you're misrepresenting the source. The article is about Race in the United States, and mentions The Federalist talking about Coates's piece. It's not about The Federalist at all, and we most certainly do not need these sorts of sources in the article, as they provide no illumination to the subject. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's poorly written. You have to go to the articles themselves to make any sense of what that paragraph says. I find nothing compelling about it at all. Leave it out. Marteau (talk) 22:15, 24 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.

Paragraph 2

According to an article at Seeking Alpha written by professor of economics and finance Mark Perry, The Federalist is mistaken in their presentation of food inflation in which they claim "food inflation has blown away wage growth" since the end of the Great Recession. Perry asserts that although some food groups might have gone up, over the last five years "consumer prices, food prices and hourly earnings have all increased at almost exactly the same rate", and defines The Federalist claims as "outrageous".

References

Comments

• I'm in favor of including this, as Perry is a noteworthy economics expert. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Include. Marteau (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's okay to include, but Perry is definitely in the minority in his opinion on this. If it's included you should include that he is in the minority with a few different sources. There are articles in American Thinker [12], Time [13], Fortune [14]. Even the USDA has information out which (while not completely validating the Federalist position, definitely disagrees with Perry).[15]. Can't find the link at the moment, but folks like Ed Prescott (who has a bit more credibility than Perry), have also come out with opinions similar to that in the Federalist. Onel5969 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Federalist is saying that food inflation is affecting wage growth, and that is not what the USDA is saying (they refer to the CPI, not to wage growth). - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry Cwobeel, that's NOT what the Federalist is saying. They are saying that food prices are increasing at a greater rate than average income: "the prices of stuff they buy are growing a lot more quickly than the wages they use to buy that stuff"; "The chart above shows the rapid disparity between food price growth and wage growth" (and since average income is declining, that's a pretty safe statement). And that is precisely what the USDA report says. And your comment doesn't address the other issues I raised above.Onel5969 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • • • Are you reading the same article than me? [16] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Great Recession, not Great Depression. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Not sure which article you're reading, Cwobeel... I took the quotes from the article that is linked to the Federalist.com. The USDA report also shows that food inflation is outpacing wage growth, which I linked above. The link you reference above is about a statistic which has nothing to do with what is being discussed in the federalist.com piece - different set of parameters. And thanks, Arzel, you're absolutely correct, don't think I said Depression, but if I did, I stand corrected. Onel5969 (talk)
                • I read that article again, and could not find that assertion. In any case, the USDA is not the subject of this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • My understanding that consensus is not a vote. Including this passage without also including that Perry's opinion is in the minority, along with other citations, is clearly giving WP:UNDUE to a minority opinion.Onel5969 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • Including something about "Perry's opinion is in the minority" would be WP:OR, unless there is a source that rebuts Perry in the context of his analysis of The Federalist. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
                      • Then it clearly should not be included, since it is a minority opinion, and therefore would constitute WP:UNDUE. Onel5969 (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for inclusion - Cwobeel (talk)

---

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

References

Comments

• I'm in favor of leaving this out, as it's not about The Federalist but about the controversy. It belongs in the NGT article, but editors won't allow this information in there, so we're stuck for the moment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We are not violating BLP with this information, so it is different from the NGT article. What we are reporting here is information sourced to the Physics Today in which they describe attacks on Tyson as being politically motivated in defense of "right-wing climate-war assertions". Surely this is of value to our readers to understand what are The Federalist editorial positions. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • We weren't violating BLP in the NGT article either, but no matter. The claim by Physics Today is simply that the Discovery Institute is repeating the attacks, and provides a theory as to why. That's a claim about the Discovery Institute, not about The Federalist, and provides no value about understanding The Federalist but rather the position of Physics Today regarding general attacks on Tyson, of which many are cited. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Leave it out. What does the Discovery Institute's position on intelligent design have to do with the Federalist? Seems a tad gratuitious. Also, there is no mention of the Tyson issue in the article currently. Having the encyclopedia include a reaction to those articles, when this article does not mention it at all (any more) would be strange. Marteau (talk) 22:06, 24 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.

New sources

• I came across this article today, and saw you were looking for more sources, and I have no idea how to use wikipedia, so I thought I'd leave a link to what ought to be a good source for general information here and you can make use of it if it helps . 98.117.194.68 (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyson redux

I have just added a sentence regarding their series of articles on the Tyson quote issue.

Mention of these articles and its includability here was discussed on these talk pages prior to and during the RfC at the Tyson article. Many editors said that, while the RfC was open and while the Tyson quote issue was under dispute, including any mention of the issue on The Federalist's article would be against process. That RfC has, of course, since been closed.

The result of that RfC was "no concensus" and the result was that mention of this issue is currently precluded from the Tyson article. The closer's rationale was not based on any BLP issues (which would have prevented inclusion of this anywhere on the encyclopedia) but on the basis that the notability of this issue for Tyson had not been established, and that it had not been ascertained "whether this coverage is of the kind of depth and quantity that will make it a part of the lasting mainstream image of this personality."

Because the results of that RfC and the rationale for exclusion from the Tyson article was notability for Tyson, and not notability in general, it has no bearing on the notability of these articles for The Federalist and inclusion is not precluded here. This is not a BLP issue, which would preclude inclusion anywhere. For the Federalist, it cannot be denied that these articles are one of the most prominent things they have published, and if anything can be said to be notable about what The Federalist has done, these articles qualify. Marteau (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur. However, since the veracity of the Federalist articles has since been verified, I would like to see that included in the article as well. Onel5969 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Federalist called it "fabrication" which Tyson has not admitted to nor have any reliable sources termed it "fabrication" to my knowledge. It may be a case of false memory, as pointed out by some of his defenders. If it was false memory and Tyson believed 100% in the factuality of his quotes, that would not be "fabrication" but a mistake. Marteau (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I hear you. Just thought that everyone realized that "false memory" was just a pc euphemism for lying. Onel5969 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. If you want this included, per [previous RFC, you need to establish that there is consensus for inclusion per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:You're talking about the "Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE"[17] initiated by ZeroSerenety, right? Marteau (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ZeroSerenity requested comment only on weight, not BLP, issues. True, the non-admin closing this (who was, to be honest, not up to the task) tossed in a "WP:BLP" tag but said absolutely nothing about his reasoning or what, exactly, the BLP issue was. The only thing he did talk about in his closure was weight issues (as was asked in the RfC). Then, because the closure was so contentious and really not well explained at all, an admin confirmed the closure and thankfully included adequate closing rationale. His only reasoning, however, was weight, and did not mention any BLP issues. I have no doubt you and others will contest tooth and nail any inclusion of anything having to do with this issue anyplace in any form based on that non-admin tossing in a "WP:BLP" tag, so at my first opportunity I'll go ahead and move forward and seek clarification (if that can be done, not sure, new to this) or whatever other remedies are appropriate in addressing this issue. Marteau (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, as per WP:CLOSE I have asked for clarification from the closer, Aprock, as to what exactly he meant by "BLP". He does not seem to be active currently so if he does not respond in a couple days, I'll take it to WP:AN. Marteau (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Cwobeel, after having read the relevant guidelines and policies, and the RfC in question, I believe you are misinterpreting and misapplying WP:BLP in this case, and I'm going to go ahead and put my edit back.

First off, you say:

..you need to establish that there is consensus for inclusion per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE does not say that. It says "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Beside the fact that this is a completely different article in a completely different context serving a completely different purpose, the version I am inserting into this article is significantly different.

Furthermore, the RfC for the Tyson article was a question of whether the material should be included "in this article" (to quote Zero Serenity, the initiator). The RfC was not asking about inclusion anywhere else, and neither of the closers addressed its inclusion anywhere else. Applying that RfC to this article is inappropriate.

Reading, reading again, and re-reading the non-admin's closure, it seems clear the BLP issue he was referring to was an issue of undue weight as it applies "in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career". This is not Tyson's bio, and although weight is always an issue which must be considered, applying finding about weight issues in the Tyson articles here is comparing apples to oranges. Weight must be determined on an article by article (or case by case) basis. The weight issues in the Tyson article are almost completely different than weight issues which we must mind here.

Although I disagree with the admin who closed's finding of "no consensus", his rationale regarding weight issues and notability issues were explained, and I can respect his decision. However, one cannot say that those weight or notability issues apply outside of the article to which they were alleged. Arguments regarding weight and notability as it pertains to the Tyson article are completely inapplicable to any issues of weight or notability as it may pertain to this article.

I do, however, agree that WP:BLP is not just a biography thing, and applies to this article. It is for that reason that I have crafted my edit to adhere to the tenets of BLP, namely NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. The tone is appropriate, this is not gossip, it is well sourced, and I believe it completely adheres to WP:BLP. I am interested in your opinion as to how, exactly, this edit of mine violates WP:BLP.

It is for these reasons I am going to go ahead and re-instate my edit. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP applies to all contexts in which a living person is mentioned. Given the lengthy RFC and its closing, the burden is for you to seek consensus for inclusion. Also note WP:NEWBLPBAN. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You added it. I removed it, thus .... "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Once an editor makes a good faith objection to contentious BLP content, edit-warring to re-include the content goes against the standards of conduct outlined at WP:BLP. I say this without comment on this particular dispute. Personally, I think a legitimate case can be made for inclusion, but edit-warring to include the contentious BLP content is no way to win a content dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a single revert, hardly "edit-warring". I deal with stuff all the time which I consider offensive (either personally or politically), and always strive to remain neutral. I think I understand your above position, but do not agree with your characterization. Onel5969 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see to include it will require a lengthy explanation and in the context of this stub, as we can't just promote The Federalist's views on Tyson, as it will be WP:UNDUE. A website that published an article that created some very temporary waves in the partisan echo chamber of the right? Sure. But how is that notable in particular when the target is a LP? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A group edit-war is still an edit-war. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that you and Cwobeel are engaging in an edit war? Since the two of you have reverted the most? Onel5969 (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

All parties involved: Stop the edit warring NOW! This talk page is the place to work things out, and the constant flip-flopping changes to the article is completely wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR provides an exemption for the removal of contentious BLP content. This is no rule which provides an exemption for the reinsertion of contentious BLP content. Per WP:BLP, the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to restore the contentious BLP content, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, A Quest For Knowledge, that policy requires that the content be much more than simply "contentious", which is subjective as a word taken in isolation. It is hard to argue that the content is "libelous" or otherwise exempt from 3RR. Here's the policy language:

"Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

discussion on edit war
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From my side, I don't intend to make any edits until the discussion at BLP/N and here concludes one way or another. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC) First, this material does not fall under the category stated above by A Quest For Knowledge. Their link takes you to a discussion of edit warring, which, in the matter of blps take you to Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. The material included does not fit any of the 7 criteria listed. Looking at those criteria, the proper course of action would have been to report it the BLP noticeboard, not engaging in an edit-war. Second, Cullen328, I made a single revert, solely because the rationale stated by another editor simply didn't exist. My second revert was done for the ludicrous reason expressed by Quest that my single revert was "edit-warring". I really could care less about this subject. I care about Wikipedia and the perception that the site has very far-leaning bias, however. It's articles like this (and the similar argument on Neil D.'s page) which tend to support that argument. Third, I don't have a "side" I stated the two reasons for my reverts, neither of which have ideological overtones, but were simply due to Wikipedia matters. Onel5969 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC) You do not get to continue a tag teaming edit war because you disagree with someone telling you to stop participating in an edit war, Onel5969. That is not an exemption, and makes no sense whatsoever. So, just stop it, all of you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Did you bother to read what I wrote above, Cullen328? I explained it pretty succinctly. Your above comment shows a complete disregard of AGF. My first revert was because the prior editor cited a non-existent reason. What about that does not make sense? Then another editor makes the non-sensical claim that a single edit, which the rationale of which was clearly stated in the edit summary was edit-warring. I'd like you to point me to the page/article/section which says that a single edit, based on rational reasons is "edit-warring". To revert someone who states that they are reverting for non-existent edit-warring doesn't make sense to you? Hmmm. Onel5969 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Of course I read what you wrote above, and I also read the history of the article in recent days. The edit war started before you got involved, and then you stepped in and fired a shot. And then fired another shot when your first shot was pointed out. Hmmmmmm. Just stop edit warring, all four of you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I've explained my actions. Twice now. Since you seem to not understand the principle of AGF: "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." Onel5969 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I am thoroughly familiar with this AGF language, and nowhere ascribed bad faith to you. In good faith, you stumbled into a developing edit war, and in good faith, you helped escalate it. Now you know what's what. So, since you are clearly acting in good faith, you will no doubt avoid edit warring in the future. And all will be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Perhaps not... might I point out your comments: "then you stepped in and fired a shot. And then fired another shot when your first shot was pointed out." "You do not get to continue a tag teaming edit war because you disagree with someone telling you to stop participating in an edit war". Among several others, they tend to make your last comment inconsistent, since there you state that you "nowhere ascribed bad faith to you(me)". Now you know what's what, and perhaps in the future will not cast aspersions regarding good faith. 05:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I directed my initial observations at all participants in the edit warring. Edit warring often comes from unbridled enthusiasm rather than bad faith. You reacted as if I had singled you out, which I didn't, as I mentioned no one by name in my first comment. When you objected, I pointed out precisely how you had participated in the edit war. The record is clear in the article history and also right here on this talk page. Saying more won't change the established facts visible to any uninvolved editor. Just don't edit war again, and all will be well. Let's both move on now, and improve a few encyclopedia articles. That is, after all, the purpose of this project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC) And as I pointed out, your initial erroneous inclusion, and continued insistence on including me in your edit-warring comments show your continued lack of understanding of AGF. But I agree, let's move on. Onel5969 (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been on this page in a while, and I probably wont be active here because I'm busy trying to keep the WikiMediaFoundation from steamrolling bad ideas down our throats. However I'd like to reiterate my position. No POV warrior crap from either side.

1. This *is* one of the most notable things about The Federalist.
2. This article is not a place to try to tell people about about Tyson.

The solution makes everyone unhappy. The "inclusionists" get inclusion. The "exclusionists" get a very heavy hand in keeping it short and keeping the language unobjectionable. Then there's no BLP issue. Don't get into any of the messy context of the situation. There should be a REF or two, and anyone who's interested can follow REF(s) to get all the gory details. Alsee (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I really should have checked the latest edit before commenting, but I just checked it now. Nice and short, avoids messy stuff. The only thing I see that looks potentially contentious might be the word "fabricated"? Maybe the exclusionists could tweak the text to avoid that word? I didn't check the REFs selections, so I have no idea if the REF selections were contentious. Alsee (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alsee:I think you are looking at an old version of the page. The current version does not mention it at all due to Cwobell claiming "BLP" (discussion at the BLP board). But once that gets cleared up (which could take a while, as hes invoking every acronym possible except WP:THEKITCHENSINK, and that's probably coming up next) and we're good to go, I agree, the "fabricated" word needs particuar attention. Marteau (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I could agree to a minimal mention (in the Reception section), along the lines of Alsee's suggestion, for example:

In late 2014, The Federalist attracted media coverage when they published a series of articles about Neil deGrasse Tyson's mistaken attribution of quotes to George W. Bush.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Close. However, we would be using Wikipedia's voice to say it was a mistake. I happen to believe it was actually a mistake or a false memory... I don't think he intended to misquote. However, the possibility exists, be it remote, that it was an intentional misquote so we can't just say it was a "mistake" in our voice. How about

In late 2014, The Federalist attracted media coverage and criticism when they claimed Neil deGrasse Tyson misquoted George W. Bush intentionally.

Marteau (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:CLAIM, let alone using this page to further their views without any consideration for other viewpoints. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Stuartyeates came up with a good improvement over at BLP Noticeboard:

In late 2014, The Federalist gained attention and criticism when, in a series of articles, it described astrophysicist and educator Neil deGrasse Tyson's misquotes of George W. Bush as "fabricated".

That deals with "fabricated" much better than before. I didn't copy the REFs because washingtonpost technically fails WP:NEWSBLOG and I didn't look too closely at DailyBeast. Alsee (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That does not work for me, given your comment above This article is not a place to try to tell people about about Tyson. It also furthers the viewpoint of The Federalist without any consideration for other views, including Tyson's on the matter, and thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This may work:

In late 2014, The Federalist attracted media coverage and criticism when it published articles saying that Neil deGrasse Tyson misquoted George W. Bush in some of his public appearances

. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it. It's indisputable, it is NPOV, it is concise, it does not imply intent, it does not soapbox, it has proper weight, it does not use loaded words and it states the simple fact without going into unwarranted detail. Marteau (talk)

Great. Now, about sources, which ones do you suggest we use? I'd say we use three sources, one from right leaning media, one from left leaning media, and maybe salon.com? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Would this work? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In late 2014, The Federalist attracted media coverage and criticism when it published articles saying that Neil deGrasse Tyson misquoted George W. Bush in some of his public appearances.

References

Yes. I particularly like the Daily Beast's article... it covers all the bases nicely. Marteau (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you for your patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you. You can be a real mensch when you want to :) Marteau (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"attracted criticism" — WP articles aren't supposed to have "teaser" material like this; if there's notable criticism it should either be clearly stated, or not mentioned at all. Also, I don't know if it's the Beast piece by a named author that's being presented as sourcing for "attracted criticism" but if so that would seem to be a very biased, cherry-picked presentation of the source. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the compromise version we arrived at after a long debate. If you have any substantive proposal that addresses the concern expressed during that debate, you are welcome to make it known so that it can be discussed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Good text, but don't pile on 4 refs unless it's truly necessary. There's a guideline somewhere discouraging it. One or two ought to be enough. Alsee (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, the guideline you were thinking of is WP:CITEKILL.

"Reception"

Most of the first paragraph of the "Reception" section is actually commentary by a former Obama spokesman about other websites. Most of this material needs to be eliminated and that section reduced to commentary that is actually about the article subject. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We hardly have any sources on this website, and the Politico article is a reliable source in which this site and other conservative outlets are described. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have taken that as a license to say a bunch of axe-grinding stuff about other conservative websites while drawing a conclusion about the article subject that isn't even supported by the source. So, no. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant and well sourced. I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Online magazine? Website? Blog?

The lede describes the website as an "online magazine" (unsourced). If there are no sources that describe this website as an "online magazine", we should go with the generic term "website", o "blog". BTW, the Politico article refers to The Federalist as a "a new conservative site called the Federalist". - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They describe themselves as an online magazine. (So does Media Matters, although I'm not sure MMA is RS ) Capitalismojo (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

They do? I did not find an "about" page on their website. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller: "Conservative Website 'The Federalist'"
• The Washington Examiner: "The website"
• Media Maters: "Conservative web magazine"

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thefederalist.com : "The Federalist is a web magazine focused on culture, politics, and religion." Onel5969 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the citation provided shows it as well. Onel5969 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Source? I don't see anything about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"web magazine" it is, then. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we prefer the more specific and descriptive term? "Web site" is general. "Magazine" is more specific, and it is what they call themselves. They do publish in the ways and follow the patterns that typical of web magazines and I see no need to quibble about calling their site a magazine. Cwobeel, I'm sure you know what a web magazine is... are you really saying they are not a web magazine? Marteau (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks more like impossible-to-take-seriously Wikilawyering to me. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you have a chip on your shoulder the size of the Rock of Gibraltar. Marteau (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh, "chip on my shoulder", you mean like refusing to let a publication use its own innocuous words to describe what it is ("online magazine" vs. "website")? Demanding a source for the usage even though we don't require it for other similar sites like Politico, then also ignoring the fact he's already found one himself that matches the subject's preferred usage? How about leaving in a huff after encountering disagreement from a couple of other editors who dared to interfere with his ownership of the article? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Conservative"

Sure, obviously, but we've already got a whole sentence in the lead describing it as both "conservative" and "right-wing". This article is only like 100 words long. We don't need to repeat this information additional times in the lead. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Have it your way, do whatever you want with this article. Off my watchlist, thank god for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's soooooooooooo unreasonable to expect that you not beat on this article like a POV drum. I'm a mean, nasty, hurtful brute of a man. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly retaliatory WP deletion attempt

I went ahead and added a sentence on this, since we already had sources for it in the article, and it was significant enough that it generated coverage. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Generated coverage where? The Daily Caller and the examiner? Very notable indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I have no stomach for further researching anything to do with Tyson or the Federalist for a while. So I'll just ask rhetorically... was it really just The Daily Caller and The Examiner reporting on this? Because if so, that's not enough IMO. Marteau (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Marteau, I'm puzzled by this statement. The material is well-sourced and clearly quite relevant. On what basis would you argue it needs to be excluded? If nothing else, remember that a given source may ordinarily be used for statements about itself, and in this instance there's no identifiable third-party so I'm not seeing red flags. In any event there is at least one additional source for it already listed at the top of this talk page. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

When you break it down, the story here is, a couple of news outlets completely misunderstand the processes here, become hysterical about it, and start beating the drums "WIKIPEDIA IS TRYING TO DELETE THE FEDERALIST ARTICLE!!!!! zOMG!!!!". Total bullshit... the article was going nowhere, a couple editors here who were vastly outnumbered is not "Wikipedia", and I don't think a couple of instances of news agencies becoming hysterical without cause is notable or worthy of inclusion. If ever there were a "manufactured controversy" these guys screaming about how "Wikipedia" is trying to delete the article is it. Yes, it was embarassing. Yes, the timing of the AfD was hideous. But the reaction of those news agencies was misinformed, sensationalist, and lacking substance and their overreaction is non notable IMO. Marteau (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know man, from my perspective the nomination looked pretty clearly retaliatory, and I know I'm far from alone in this view, both on- and off-wiki, as you can see from the deletion discussion and the existence of RS published accounts about it. As a courtesy to me could you please rephrase your objection with explicit reference to WP policy? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to step back a bit, and for the moment cite WP:IRRELEVANT. What this is about is the actions of some Wikipedia editors, and the reaction to that from a couple minor media players. It is not directly about The Federalist. It is only tangentially relevant to The Federalist. You could say that even a indirect relevance is still relevance, but to me, the indirect relevance to The Federalist is weak, especially considering that these are a couple of minor players in the media we are talking about. There is an admittedly subjective threshold we all draw regarding how much relevance is required, and reasonable minds can disagree; all I'm saying is this does not meet my threshold. Marteau (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the content about the AfD it's trivial and weakly sourced.- MrX 15:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Only tangentially about The Federalist"? I'm afraid I shall need some time to digest that one. (Edit: are you sure you didn't mean to say it's only tangentially relevant to Wikipedia"? Also, your citation to WP:IRRELEVANT clearly fails spectacularly right on its face, would you mind striking it?) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(Note: Text in bold added after Factchecker's immediate reply below) The news sources were writing about how the The Federalist Wikipedia article was being treated. That is tangentially relevant to The Federalist web site. The machenations of editors here involving the Wikipedia article, and how those machenations are reported by the press, is absolutely WP:IRRELEVANT to The Federalist website. The word "website" is actually in the name of this Wikipedia article... how their Wikipedia article was handled here by editors and the press is only tangentially related to their website.Marteau (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (edit adding bold faced text Marteau (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) )

This is a frankly ridiculous position which you can barely articulate in English in the first place because it doesn't make sense. As should be clear, a publication's articles are its stock in trade; they are the things published that make it a "publication" in the first place. I'm going to sign this comment and then start a new subsection "WP:IRRELEVANT" in which I quote the entire WP:IRRELEVANT policy text and point out how utterly clear it is that your citation is improper. If you insist on opposing this inclusion, can we at least find a better policy to guide the discussion? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The text you want to add was about editors here wanting to delete the Wikipdia article about the Federalist. I thought it would have been clear that, therefore, referring to the "article" you would have understood I was referring to the Wikipedia article, and not The Federalist's "stock in trade". As you seem to have had a problem comprehending that, I have gone ahead and added Wikipedia in bold face to my paragraph just above. I hope this helps. Marteau (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:IRRELEVANT ("Irrelevant information")

A very active editor at this article has argued that articles published by "The Federalist" and RS's which are about the deletion of the WP article about "The Federalist" are irrelevant to "The Federalist". In his view, this includes RS's that have written about the incident and suggested it may have been originally motivated by a desire to retaliate against the publication for its politically charged criticism of Neil Degrasse Tyson.

The editor has cited the policy WP:IRRELEVANT.

The policy clearly does not apply to this scenario. Here is the entire text of the policy:

Information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed. For example, if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text as to why this is there, it should be removed. If the text does appear to belong in another article, it can and probably should be moved there.

This is not an article about tigers which has had information about light bulbs erroneously inserted, as should be clear. Hell, the policy even contemplates that information about light bulbs might belong in the article about tigers, if there is an adequate explanation!

If anyone wants to argue that this policy does apply here, please make your argument with explicit textual reference, and don't forget to sign your name to your post.

This section is only for determining the applicability of this policy, please don't reply in this subsection unless you are arguing about this policy. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Using the example you cited above, consider the 'tiger' to be 'The Federaist web site' and the 'light bulb' to be 'The Wikipedia article about The Federalist'. This article is about the tiger...the Federalist website. It's in the very title of the article: website. You are wanting to add information pertaining to how the 'lightbulb'... the Federalist's Wikipedia article was handeled here and was covered in the press. As I said above, the Federalist's Wikipedia article is only tangentially relevant to the Federalist website. And given that this tangential relevence is based on the hysterics of a couple of "B" list news operations, the relevance is so slight as to fall under WP:IRRELEVANT in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, using the same logic I assert that every single source that is critical of The Federalist is self-published by Adolf Hitler, and additionally constitutes spam, advertising, and unencyclopedic obscene material, and therefore we can't use any of it because it fails multiple policies spectacularly. Do you concur? Good stuff. Please remove it ASAP. /sarcasm Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your gracious, polite and gentlemanly ways, and the way you make everyone who comments on your proposals feel welcome and that their opinion is important, I simply cannot imagine why anyone else has not taken you up on your request to comment on this. Marteau (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, working with you is about as pleasant as a trip to the proctologist, and similar in more ways than one. You win. I, too, am out of here. Marteau (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, your argument is ridiculous; it's frankly the silliest interpretation of a non-policy that I've heard in all my years at WP, and that's saying a lot because I usually edit at controversial articles. You've got to have thick enough skin to abandon an obvious loser of an argument and move on. You had plenty of openings to do so; I even specifically pleaded with you to pivot to a policy argument that made sense. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What part of "you win" did you misunderstand? Add it to the article. Marteau (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't seriously be asserting that it's a failure of civility on my part to not accept this argument you've but forth. But that seems to be what you're doing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You've convinced me. No one else has agreed with my intepretation, and I withdraw my objections. Seeing as no one else has seen fit to chime in on this issue, go ahead and put it in the article. Marteau (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem sincere. Come on, can't you just admit that the analogy was not at all apt, and that it wasn't the least bit unreasonable of me to argue against it? Tigers and light bulbs, dude! It's not even close. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I just merged a bunch of content about The Federalist from the Ben_Domenech article. I skipped the food-paragraph below because it seems rather trivial. I'm putting it here in case anyone thinks it's worth salvaging:

According to an article by professor of economics and finance Mark Perry published at Seeking Alpha, The Federalist is mistaken in their presentation of food inflation in which they claim that “food inflation has blown away wage growth” since the end of the Great Recession. Perry asserts that although some food groups might have gone up, over the last five years “consumer prices, food prices and hourly earnings have all increased at almost exactly the same rate”, and defines their claims as “outrageous”.

References

Alsee (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edits. The changes to the paragraph regarding Domenech have already been discussed and a consensus reached, most of that material is not about The Federalist. The Media Matters article is from a far-left organization whose stated purpose is to simply attack right-wing organizations. It's inclusion without any other discussion regarding opposing views is a clear contradiction of the WP:NPOV guideline. Onel5969 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is this content suitable for inclusion?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Source is OK on balance of views below, with the usual caveats about attribution and correctly representing partisan sources; proposed text does not have consensus so an alternative form would be needed. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

This material was deleted under arguments of WP:COATRACK, and WP:POV. Are any of these concerns substantive to warrant non-inclusion?

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

References

Comments

• Support inclusion - It provides context to the appearance of The Federalistin the conservative media landscape, and refers to Ben Domenech, co-founder of The Federalist, who was interviewed for this piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment — It misrepresents the source and It is not about the Federalist, rather, it seems to be an effort to include exaggerated criticism about other websites in this article so that that exaggerated criticism is erroneously associated with the article subject. So no, it fails basic WP:V among other things. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• No inclusion - Seems to be the very definition of coatracking: attempts to introduce political commentary on an overall topic, within the article which should be about this website, and the comments are not about this website in particular. Onel5969 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the article? How can you say it does not describe this website? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's because I read the article that I can say that. More importantly, the part that was quoted in this article clearly indicates that. Perfect example of coatracking. And the personal attack is unwarranted. Did I ask you if you did not understand the meaning of coatracking? Oh, and I see that you just made an edit removing coatracking in the other direction, which I also agree with understand. Onel5969 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose above draft, at most support minimal inclusion, the quote above appears to give this single source from Politico undue weight. Now a briefer neutrally worded sentence attributed to the author of the source might be used to show the other's opinion of the subject, but a whole paragraph IMHO is UNDUE and excessive. This article's primary subject is not on the subject of the Politico source, but the author's opinion of the non-liberal media in the United States at large. The author of the Politico piece is a former Obama Administration White House Spokesperson ( "Reid Cherlin is a writer in New York and a former White House spokesman in the Obama administration" ); therefore, the source should be seen as Onel5969 suggest as an attack piece on the non-liberal media by a former Obama Administration staffer.
  FYI, I found my way here due to a RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Meh It seems overly verbose and coatracky but...there are few refs that mention the Federalist itself as a media org. Perhaps if it were trimmed? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is related to Wikipedia articles, not to publications in reliable media outlets, books, or other media. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your suggested prose is coatracking, so I think he meant to say that your suggested prose is coatracking. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - it's not informative, certainly not encyclopedic, wordy and irrelevant. Atsme☯^Consult 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• support inclusion it's informative, certainly encyclopedic and absolutely relevant in placing the subject in historical context as an encyclopedia article should do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• The source is usable, but the text needs to be reigned in. Too much Coat is being pulled in. It's retelling the point of the article as a whole. When this article faced the opposite-partisan-aligned Tyson issue I also supported inclusion&trimming to avoid POV coatracking. Alsee (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Treaded discussion

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.

The Federalist Blog

Does anyone know if there is a connection between federalistblog.us and thefederalist.com or are they unconnected? Ranze (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I am not currently in a location where I can access my account, so I have to go by my IP address. I apologize for this. I primarily see a lack of neutrality in the "Reception" section, where there are no negative view posted, only positive ones. At some point, every organization will be criticized, and seems unfair to leave such viewpoints out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.225.73 (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the descriptions were particularly positive or negative, but describing the site's characterisitcs and influence. That said, having a lack of negative evaluations does not by itself make an article POV, as it may simply suggest lack of criticism. I don't think negative evaluations are bing deliberately left out. If you can find reputable sources providing constructive and relevant critiques of the publication you should certainly add it. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Having a lack of negative evaluations in this article almost certainly does make it POV. There have been entire discussions which have included specific articles critical of the Federalist that have been summarily removed from the talk section. There are plenty of critical opinions of the Federalist, but biased editors refuse to allow any criticism on this page. Just off the top of my head, Federalist has made, and perpetuated, a number of unsubstantiated conspiracies involving Planned Parenthood. There is not a dearth of criticism with the Federalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.127.133.254 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The descriptions of Sean Davis' exposé of Tyson are all negative. No mention is made of Tyson's admission that Davis was correct. Further these same neutrality arguments can be made against Wikipedia's article on Neil deGrasse Tyson. The entire Tyson article is glowing and positive. Wikipedia is not neutral and should make no pretense of neutrality. HopDavid (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Federalist and Wikipedia

For this to be included it needs SECONDARY sources, not the Federalist itself. I would think that'd be pretty obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And of course these secondary sources need to be reliable, not the stuff listed in the box at the top of this page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any claims about third parties, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed per SPS. Please rebut this argument or else restore the content yourself. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There's 1 through 5 in WP:SELFPUB. You've addressed 2. The issue is 1. And seriously, if this is indeed something notable and a big deal then reliable secondary sources shouldn't be that hard to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources are not needed, there are reasons why there is a policy on SPS and one of them is that secondary sources aren't likely to cover every significant aspect of every topic.

Explain with English words how you think SPS would be violated by the inclusion. I see zero problems under any of the headings 1-5. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

English words were used. If you have trouble comprehending them, not my problem - see fifth entry here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have zero problems with English comprehension. You seem to have great difficulty communicating in English. Name-dropping a policy isn't a policy argument. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"There's 1 through 5 in WP:SELFPUB. You've addressed 2. The issue is 1. And seriously, if this is indeed something notable and a big deal then reliable secondary sources shouldn't be that hard to find.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Secondary sources are not needed, there are reasons why there is a policy on SPS and one of them is that secondary sources aren't likely to cover every significant aspect of every topic.

Explain with English words how you think SPS would be violated by the inclusion. I see zero problems under any of the headings 1-5." (emphasis added in reposting of comment) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As Volunteer Marek said, WP:ABOUTSELF #1: "unduly self-serving" sums it up pretty well. -- Irn (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It is unduly self-serving to provide a simple list of publications your authors have written for? That seems a pretty ridiculous claim. To say it is "self-serving" implies it is untrue or misleading in some way. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids being self-referential unless firmly justified. We're not going to put a blurb in every article every time some random individual tags it for a deletion discussion. The fact that the Federalist made a fuss about it doesn't mean it belongs in the article. This stupid and irrelevant trivia really does not warrant a place in an Encyclopedia article about the Federalist, and it doesn't warrant overcoming our general avoidance of being self-referential. Alsee (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it involved Wikipedia is irrelevant. The article is about a media organization, so this issue should be dealt with in the same way as other similar issues affecting a media organization would be dealt with. Media organizations often issue statements on issues affecting their status or output. So, if a media organization were being criticized by other media organizations or, in more serious cases, affected by censorship, or arrest of journalists, or threat of a governmental takeover, etc., then that media organization would be expected to respond to such issues, and their responses would be legitimate content. I think it is legitimate to present the opinions of The Federalist if those opinions were given as a response to issues that the Federalist believed were impacting on it (providing the issues themselves are content notable). In this case The Federalist seems to have opinionated that the deletion attempt was a direct response by Wikipedia editors to its reporting of issues related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. It doesn't matter if that opinion was accurate or not, but I think there needs to be some neutral sources present that either mention that The Federalist had made that assertion, or mention the article's AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking back at the Afd and its context, I think it safe to say the AfD was a politically motivated deletion attempt done in the context of the ongoing Neil deGrasse Tyson fake quotes controversy (the AfD was initiated just a few days after a RfC [18] was initiated with the intent to exclude mention of the fake quotes allegations, which had The Federalist as the source, from the Tyson article). But this is just internal Wikipedia drama unless some third party source writes about it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)