Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

epic rap battles

Is it worth mentioning the parody rap featuring Neil and Isaac Newton ? It's had done media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.142.100 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

no Secondplanet (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely no. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not here anyway. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

it's not the real him anyways. NathanWubs (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

However if you were looking at media or fictional representations of Neil Degrasse Tyson that would be appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Predicting the 2008 Presidential race

In the Views section there is a short paragraph about an op-ed Tyson wrote in the New York Times in 2008 that seems to have no relevance to his "views" and doesn't seem to me to be pertinent to his Wikipedia page. How does it improve our knowledge of him, his work, his views to suddenly point to an article he wrote eight years ago in which he employs calculations that show who would have won an election on a given date that is not election day? In fact, in the piece he specifically wroite: "This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does."

Further, it certainly doesn't say anything about his support of the current president nor does it say that he particularly supported one candidate or the other. In fact, the end of article points out that more than anything, he is positing that the Democratic primary system may benefit from looking at the numbers using this then-new method: "And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?"

I propose that this sentence be removed as it is irrelevant to the larger article. 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Axis42 8/23/14

You claim the text in question does not have any relevance to his views. But then you say about the reference that "he is positing" things, and you make it clear that the reference clearly DOES deal with at least one of his points of view and that he feels that certain things would be beneficial to the electoral system. If the text here does not reflect that fact, perhaps it should be updated and not just removed. Marteau (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it does state a view of his. I actually had this thought in the shower just after posting the above. The paragraph, as written now, doesn't actually state that view though. So, if we think it should be included (which I still don't but in the interest of being comprehensive, I guess), how about we re-word as:

"On June 6, 2008, after the conclusion of the Democratic presidential primaries, Tyson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in which he presented the results from "a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls," that he claimed is, "a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary." His results showed that if the general election were held on the day after the conclusion of the Democratic Presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain but McCain would beat Barack Obama. This, he noted, "... does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does."Axis42 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Update to Cosmos note

Since Cosmos finished airing a few months ago, I thought it appropriate to put "began hosting" in the past tense, but it was quickly reverted. As far as I know there is no announcement that the series is going to continue; is there some other reason that it's inappropriate? Eowynjedi (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoping to add a subsection on his views about Race

I've drafted a subsection about Tyson's views on race and how it has and still does affect his public persona. Since this is the first very substantive edit I've made to an article and it's Biography of a Living Person, I wanted to make sure I am doing it right, before I post. The draft is on my sandbox. Any comments or suggestions are welcome there or on this page. Thanks. Axis42 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to Axis42's Sandbox[1] for anyone who would like to review it.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

George W Bush misquote

Twice today there has been an addition to this page about claims regarding Tyson misquoting public figures including members of Congress and George W. Bush. The first time it happened, an anonymous user did it, citing only a series of articles on The Federalist, all written by the same author. Dawn Bard quickly removed the changes saying, "I really think this is undue weight, no to mention OR/synth, reverting per BRD." Tonight Marteau re-inserted just a couple of sentences about a supposed misquote of George W. Bush by Tyson. The citation again used an article on The Federalist by the same author. I don't doubt the intentions of Marteau who I see is a seasoned editor. However, I am not convinced that this is an actual issue of concern nor am I sure that it actually happened. I could not find any reference to this being an issue outside of articles on The Federalist by the same author (all of which claim lack of evidence as proof) and posts on a variety of right-wing sites linking to the original Federalist posts. I am admittedly a new editor, but this feels like an attempt to gin up a controversy where one doesn't exist. Tyson's misquote and it being spread on the Internet is one thing, if it can be proven incorrect with citations. But the series of articles by the same author claiming a controversy where none seems to exist is pretty clearly OR, IMO. Axis42 (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dawn Bard's valid complaint of original research was not aimed at The Federalist author. It was aimed at the anonymous editor here whose edits did seem to include some original research. WP:OR is something only a Wikipedia editor can be accused of... it is by definition not something an outside journalist can be accused of, in the way Wikipedia uses the term and in the way Dawn Bard was using it. I was therefore careful to just include cited material and not sythesize or do OR. These words of Tyson's belong in the "Politics" section of his article because he was clearly mocking Bush's presumed idiocy, and has gone so far as to include the YouTube video of him saying it on his blog on the Hayden Planetarium website ( http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/watch/2008/06/19/george-bush-and-star-names ) where he is a director, thus making it more than just a trivial, passing statement. In addition, these words of Tyson's are being quoted many times on the internet, usually in the context of mocking Bush. It is true that one cannot prove a negative (one cannot prove that Bush did not say it) but I have cited The Federalist in saying that no evidence exists and that is not "original research" as the term is used on Wikipedia. Perhaps that phrasing can be tweaked, but the source does say no evidince exists that Bush said it. But these words of Tyson's, directly quoting Bush, and being as inflammatory as it is, and being that he has it on his Hayden Planitarium blog, and being that Tyson's actions are being widely quoted, should remain and not just simply be removed. Marteau (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this: Tyson quoted Bush once, and the quote may or may not have been accurate. Do I have this right? If so, I fail to see how this in any way, shape, or form manages to rise to the level of being something that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement of Tyson's has for the past several years been widely quoted, and appears on a number of political blogs. It appears on WikiQuote. It is on his Hayden Planetarium blog where he serves as director. It does go towards his political views, which is why I put it under the "Views... Politics" section. Tyson stands up in public, resoundingly and proudly mocks an ex-president, blogs it on his professional blog. That is a political view. He says Bush purposely intended to highlight a division between "we" and "they" (Muslims) by saying a ludicrous thing, namely, that his God named the stars. That's a highly inflammatory public statement. There are already 1431 words under the "Views" section . The "Views" section has a sub-section about him doing a PSA for PETA. His views on Black History Month. Six paragraphs on his spiritual views. So yes, two sentences about him laying into Bush in public and with gusto belongs in the encyclopedia in the "Views...Politics" section. That's what the "Views" section is for... to document his "Views". Marteau (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification Marteau. I obviously misunderstood the meaning of OR. However, the statement and claim under discussion (and indeed all of the statements previously removed that were in the same vein) is relying on an attribution to a single source which appears to be a columnist at an outlet that I would not consider to be a reliable source per WP:RS because not all majority and specific minority voices are represented in it (specifically, Tyson's). As JoelWhy said, I don't see how this warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. If there is a policy you can point me to that explains why all information about/actions by a person should be included on his/her page, I would appreciate it, as a new editor). More importantly, it seems that since this page is subject to WP:BLP, the source of a claim that its subject is "fabricating quotes" must be much more reliable than a columnist in one publication the subject fabricated quotes. Is that not a potentially libelous statement?Axis42 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" are not required to be unbiased. 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." I am not proposing that Wikipedia say Tyson "fabricated" a quote which is unnecessarly inflammatory and implies a motive which is not ours to imply. I am proposing Wikipedia say no evidence for the quote exists, which is cited, and which is true. No evidence of Bush saying those words which Tyson so proudly held up for mockery has been presented. Marteau (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. So how about we say, "Tyson has claimed that following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, president George W. Bush said “Our God is the God who named the stars,” in order to “distinguish we from they (Muslims)”. The accuracy of his quote is questioned by a writer for TheFederalist.com" with appropriate citations to both the hayden blog and the federalist article? Axis42 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your effort to remain impartial, non-partisan and seeking compromise is admirable and refreshing. However, I have, as they say "seen this movie before" and no version of this event will be allowed into the article. I'm moving on. Marteau (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Marteau - your use of passive voice was confusing here! When I first read it, I assumed it meant "no version" would be allowed by you, but reading through everything again, I take it that you mean that no version will be allowed by other, pro-Tyson editors, and thus that you're giving up hope. I just wanted to clarify that. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Clarification. Based on my experience, it was my thinking that WP:NOTHERE editors would not allow any version of this event to remain in the encyclopedia and not being a masochist or a fool I was not going to waste my time with this. Marteau (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This has now made it into the Washington Post. [2]. Is it notable enough now? 202.56.13.99 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As a scientist and educator, I am bothered to no end by what Tyson has done in his talks. In fact, we have been "fact checking" his fabrications for some time now at Shodor in classes teaching students that you cannot believe most of what is "quoted" on the web or in "science for the public" lectures by so many science "popularists." While genius is still the art of cleverly disguising one's sources (don't remember where I got that from!) doing this on a repeated basis when so many REAL examples of math stupidity from ACTUAL headlines and articles could have been used by Tyson is just lazy. I am all for including a reference to this, which is rapidly becoming a controversy among scientists and science educators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpanoff (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So why are these 3 cases different? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Lehrer#Plagiarism_and_quote_fabrication_scandal & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fabrication_scandal & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass#Scandal_breaks 216.201.162.194 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They are different because (1) they are well-researched and well-sourced and (2) they had significant impacts on the careers of the people in question. While The Federalist does point out several misquotes and misstatements that seem to reveal Tyson having a questionable relationship to the truth, the question is whether this rises to the level of notability and reliable sourcing. People who want this information here and now may complain that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but, in fact, this is being kept off because Wikipedia is deeply conservative in the non-political meaning of the word: Things that do not cut it, policy- or guidelines-wise, are kept off, especially when they are controversial. Those complaining about the fact that the mini-scandal isn't yet reflected here don't understand how Wikipedia works, even if they might be correct about the motives of those working to keep it off. (However, assuming good faith means that this should not be the angle at which they attack this.)

Whether Tyson's words are lies is in some sense a judgment call, since he does not have the same standards as Wikipedia: He can say things without providing sources. It's hard to prove a negative, and, even if you could on these pages, that would be original research. That might sound maddening when someone as respected as Tyson can go unchallenged in Wikipedia, but the simple fact is that Wikipedia is not the place in which to challenge him; it is a place to document the challenge if and when it rises to the level of notability.

In summary, just give this time. This topic is starting to be covered on other media, and might eventually rise to a significance level that will be less ignorable. But unless it costs Tyson his career, comparisons to Blair and Glass are unfounded, and until it becomes a significant part of Tyson's life story, this is not the place for it. Calbaer (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Federalist links are now considered WP:COI

And here is my arguement. My goodness this article is crazy childish. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

[Redacting the posting of personal information] Phil Kerpen (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not discussing this with you anymore. Attempting to "shame" me on other websites will definitely not get change here on Wikipedia. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF when you WP:EW and when you make a tweet like that. To get AGF again I suggest you stop edit warring and also delete that tweet. The last thing I suggest is that you read the policies that you have cited yourself. . NathanWubs (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about COI, but that looks like a blog to me. I don't see any WP:RS dealing with this. -- Irn (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The COi is basically the smear campaign that the site is trying to organize against Neil. With also attacking wikipedia for not letting their pov be blatantly inserted in the article. NathanWubs (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "smear" campaign if the accusations are accurate. It is not Wikipedia editors' job to shield public figures they like from valid accusations of fabrication that are made in legitimate periodicals. If you don't like The Federalist, then you'd better prepare to scrub the site of all references to political news journals, from The Nation, to Mother Jones, to the Huffington Post, to National Review, and the Weekly Standard. Better you should focus on making sure the language reporting Tyson's fabrications is even-handed and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.171.207 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If a smear campaign means breaking the story while only presenting facts I suppose you would be correct.173.172.162.54 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Facts" would be quite a stretch even under the most generous interpretation of the word. The fact that the author is terrible at fact-checking and has a massive hateboner for Mr. Tyson certainly doesn't help.

Please give an example of one fact that is incorrect. 173.172.162.54 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The author apparently sucks at any research beyond the most cursory Google search. He spends time complaining about FARK.com users, but if he had bothered to read the thread he linked, they found the source of the quote. The author's whole schtick is that paraphrasing=lying and trying to hamfistedly assert that science is a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.234.234 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But that is lying if you are showing it as a quote in a slide right? Still waiting for an example.173.172.162.54 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Breaking the story is not the job of wikipedia. If this becomes an enduring part of Tyson's reputation (as measured by seeing it in multiple reliable sources over a sustained period of time) then it will be appropriate for his article. Until then, its just "gotcha". Telling a funny anecdote with fudgy details to make a joke/point is not a controversy, its what public speakers do. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone what WP:RS is. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple question: Did Tyson, in fact, misquote George W. Bush in order to attack him? Why the constant refrain that this 'appeared only in The Federalist, written by the same author'? That sounds an awful like like the Source Fallacy; 'no need to address the facts of the matter because of who said it, not an approved authority or source of information'. If, in fact, Tyson fabricated/misquoted Bush in order to launch an attack on him, this should be easily demonstrable.

1) "in order to launch an attack" is certainly an opinion, and therefore the source of that opinion is very relevant. 2) It doesn't matter if we can demonstrate it happened or not, many things happen in many people lives, we don't write each of them into every persons biography. We write the ones that are of lasting notability. When clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" we write about it, because it comes up repeatedly, over decades, in newspaper articles, tv shows etc. So far only a handful of blogs have commented on this, and for a few days. Its a flash in the pan (for now). If a month from now, the NyTimes, Time, Newsweek, or someone is writing about this controversy, get back to us. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is no report about Tyson's fabrications being allowed? Why are Wikipedia editors assuming there is no interest in this, when obviously there is a lot of interest in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.64.151 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because a reliable source on the subject cannot be found. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "reliable source". Is the video of NdGT giving the erroneous quote and a highly misleading interpretation not an adequately reliable source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_jG5kKfacY Smithkl42 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if the source was reliable (which is dubious at best) it's still (at this point) a non-issue. The article is childish and the writer is unapologetically biased...it's been reposted on several extreme-right websites and no one else of any note has taken this story up. If someone investigates this properly and publishes it as a source that we can use and the allegations prove true and notable...then it should be published in his article. Until then there is no reason to document someone on the fringe accusing him of a couple quote fabrications. --Shabidoo | Talk 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am amused by the sheer chutzpah of fact-stabbers who assume that no one else is capable of Googling. It took me all of five seconds to find a non-Federalist, non-"extreme-right" (are you sure you're not "unapologetically biased"? I think maybe you are...) source containing a link to the actual video of Tyson's speech in question. Tyson's serial fabulism may not yet approach Clintonesque levels at present, but it is definitely noteworthy when said lying involves a President.--Froglich (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's so then a reliable and well written source will be published in the coming days. I am just as interested as you are to discover if these claims are true or not and if they were explicitly fabricated or mistakes. I hope they aren't but if they are and a source appears then it should be included in his article. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In the text the following is wrong with the sources. Source 1 in that post does not exist. at least not when I copy the link. Source 2 is the federalist source which is not RS. Source 3 is a government source which probably makes it RS. 4. is Patheos which is also not RS last time I checked, as once again its a blog. Youtube can sometimes be used as a valid source, but it cannot be used to support WP:OR. Which you are now trying to do Froglich. I do not care if he made the mistake yes or no. What I care is it being backed by reliable sources. What also care about is if it will be notable. At the moment I am leaning towards no. Its only neil mis-quoting something which people do all the time. He only has to admit, I made a mistake and boom crisis over no one will care. But I think the fact will be that no mainstream media will care about this in the first place. But I will be delighted to see not just in the coming days, but in the coming weeks what reliable notable sources from the people that will want this in the article can bring forward. (( I will be more then willing to accept patheos if someone could guide me to the relevant RS discussion Same goes to the Federalist..)NathanWubs (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There's now an article in the daily beast. "A third post by Davis then took apart an anecdote Tyson told about George W. Bush, showing it to be false." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/the-right-s-war-on-neil-degrasse-tyson.html 173.172.162.54 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fark.com

I want to latch onto this one point made by an anon earlier: "but if he had bothered to read the thread he linked, they found the source of the quote." Can anybody verify this? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find what he was referring to. The only similar quote was found by Sean Davis' federalist article when Bush was giving a speech about the Columbia shuttle disaster. 173.172.162.54 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "star", the only thing was this: http://www.fark.com/comments/8416552/93029852#c93029852 which links to a blog with two short Bush quotes and then goes on with its own text, which certainly doesn't mention star names. It's also near the end of the discussion, which reduces the chance that it existed at the time that anyone was reading it. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources and the WP:BIASED guidelines.

Complaints have been made about a source being "unapologetically biased" and that "extreme right-wing" sites have reposted the sources, and that only right-wing sites are talking about this. The implication is that such a bias disqualifies the source. This is misguided. Wikipedia allows biased sources as pointed out in WP:BIASED where it says, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". I mention this because I have added two sources (The Weekly Standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cosmically-dishonest_805319.html and the Tampa Tribune http://tbo.com/news/blogs/the-right-stuff/neil-degrasse-tyson-serial-fabulist-20140916/ ) where both writers are obviously biased and I'm sure some of you will take offense to the tone of the writers. However, a source's motives and tone of voice are irrelevant to whether or not they can be considered reliable sources. We, as Wikipedia editors, are required to keep our writing and our encyclopedia unbiased. Our sources are not. Marteau (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources that you add are ones which simply parrot the original blog post and they make even further ridiculous claims (the second one is yet another blog). Peer review? The weekly standard claims his views don't stand up to peer review? A blog entry is not peer review. The blog points out and backs up one inconsistency in Tysons quotes. That doesn't even approach peer review. That's one man noticing an inconsistency and then claiming Tyson is a quote fabricating factory. He doesn't back up his other claims of misquoting and he does nothing to support his claim that these quotes were wilfully manipulative and fabricated. Regardless of tone and intent...none of these sources would be acceptable for any topic on any article. --Shabidoo | Talk 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hung up on the marketing of these journalist's writings as "blogs" when they are in every sense of the term, functionally newspaper columns written by newspaper columnists. WP:NEWSBLOG states "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." The Tampa Bay citation is by a professional journalist and his work is citable under this guideline. Regarding The Weekly Standard, they claim independently Bush never said the line in question without "parroting" anyone else's work or citing any "blogs"... this particular point of contention is in this case attributable to the masthead itself is not attributed to any individual author and thus relies on the name and reputation of the magazine itself for it's veracity. Marteau (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

These sources could be the New Yorker or an academic journal and they would still not suffice. None of the sources so far shown demonstrate their claim that Tyson is a manipulative quote fabricator...blog or newspaper or not. One inconsistency demonstrated in a quote does not justify their claim. It would be better to wait for a source that properly demonstrates this claim. --Shabidoo | Talk 16:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the linked articles, here is more than "One inconsistency". Look for "360 degrees", "jury" (the weight of a dime is 2.268 grams, making the versions of the story over that weight more dubious than the judge-juror interaction), which are two of the events mentioned in The Daily Beast. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as an aside: What I find as troubling as the apparent fabrication is Tyson's equating of "Arab" with "Muslim." Seems he hasn't heard that Arab Christians exist in this world. His casually coming off as if he's an expert theologian is also pretty sad ("they are the same god!"). Whatever. 99.163.248.206 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is generally accepted by theologicians that Muslims and Christians both worship the God of Abraham. Pope John Paul II said: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection,” in a speech to Muslims in Morocco in 1985. Of course, there are people that claim Catholics and Born-Again Christians worship different gods. In any case, you appear to be pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Time for an RfC?

Don't you think it's time to get outside eyes involved here? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

On looking at the content following a highlight at the BLP board, I find the paragraph, ignoring whether or not we can include it, riddled with POV and Weight issues. I have proposed a reduced and amended version below. SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In speeches Tyson has quoted then-President George W. Bush as saying, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)".[59] Several Journalists [62][63] have disputed that the quote exists.

I don't think from the sources I've read anything more can be included. And from how little can be included I'm not certain this warrants its own paragraph, is there any section this would fit better in? SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not as if this issue is starving for attention from editors. There are plenty of eyes involved here. I have to assume you want to seek out further eyes because you simply are dissatisfied with what the current sets of eyes are seeing. Marteau (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Marteau, I wanted to seek out further eyes because it seemed to me that no one was listening to your cogent points. But thanks for the AGF. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lisa I apologize for being snarky towards you. That was uncalled for. Marteau (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've recently made three edits to the paragraph and I'll ask Marteau to not blanket-revert without discussing.

1- an article in www.weeklystandard.com by an apparently anonymus writer "The Scrapbook" is not a WP:RS.

2- The article in thefederalist.com that originated this was missing and I added it.

3- Saying "The most similar matching quote.." is blatant WP:OR unless we can source it to some article where precisely that is said.

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard "Scrapbook" is a regular feature of the magazine which is dedicated to highligting what the magazine consideres particularly noteworthy actions of the political left, and is never accompanied with a by-line. It is a product of the Weekly Standard's editorial board and is considered the voice of the magazine itself and not one author. It's reliability is based upon and depends upon the reputation of the magazine itself and not the reputation of any individual journalist. Saying it is not "reliable" is in effect saying the Weekly Standard itself is not a reliable source which is not the concensus of Wikipedia editors throughout the years. Marteau (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside whether TWS is a WP:RS or not, the statement "No evidence exists of Bush saying that" is by no means supported by the article used as a source. Second, that article, as the rest of the articles quoted in the section, are all echoes of the original piece in Thefederalist.com which is the one that should remain, if it is decided that enything about this "incident" should remain. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaba I don't think we should "leave aside" the issue of TSW being WP:RS. You keep removing it as a source. It is a respected publication and is widely used here as a reliable source. The Weekly Standard says regarding this incident that "nothing about this anecdote is true". They say that independently of their discussion of the Federalist and it stands alone... it is their assertion which, although it coincides with The Federalist's opinion, it is not simply an "echo". Marteau (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The story's broken out of the right-wing news ghetto: Daily Beast: "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson" (The article is slanted, naturally, but it just states as fact that Tyson's quote of GWB has been shown to be false. Which, c'mon, it totally has.) A vote may not be necessary. Pretty soon people won't be able to convince themselves they can still hide the story.

Possible compromise: How about we just add [Category: Serial Fabulists] to the page? OH I WENT THERE -- Narsil (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an RfC yet. I've seen quite a few references to Tyson's many gaffes in recent days, so it seems to be an unfolding story, and there is no need to rush. That said, we are taking it very slowly, and I see only one of the many gaffes in this article at the moment. Some outlets are picking up on the Wikipedia aspect of the story [Why Is Wikipedia Deleting All References To Neil Tyson’s Fabrication?], which unfortunately missed the point of the quote in the update section.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the fact that some sites are taking potshots at the way this is handled is not offered as an argument to rush, but we should get it right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This morning, I did not think an RfC was needed. I'm not so sure any more. This is becoming embarassing. The involvment of editors beyond those with an interest in this article, but with a concern for the interests of the encyclopedia in general may be warranted. Today, we have editors here who are advocating that ANY mention of this be COMPLETELY removed. That it does not even deserve so much as one paragraph, and should be moved out of "Views... Politics". My POV and my opinion, but this event is damaging Wikipedia and it's reputation. When the book is written about an alleged Wikipedia bias, this has all the makings of being in ChapterOone. Again, my POV and my opinion, but if this article were to be locked down at a moment where no mention of this event in place, THEN we will get our wish and see mention of it in the big time media with the likes of the Wall Street Journal and perhaps even some of the big name liberal sources. Marteau (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

An RfC would be warranted if this drags on for many days without resolution. While you might be discouraged that there has been some back and forth, I see only a couple days of discussion and one section. Hundreds of articles go through multiple sections and many days of debate, often then reaching a conclusion, thought sometimes not. I think a RfC is premature. For example, has anyone yet completed a summary of the gaffes that should be considered? I see discussion of the Bush quote, but nothing about the made up headline or the confusion between mean and median. Nothing about the 360 degree comment, which was either made up, or more likely liberal paraphrase of someone's comment. Has anyone attempted to compile the source that are discussing the Bush quote, or any of the others? If some of that legwork is done, it might make it clearer whether this is a minor issue not deserving of much coverage, or a bigger deal worth covering in more detail. "this has all the makings of being in ChapterOone". Let's not over-react. The book has been written, and there are many examples which dwarf this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The weight question

After sleeping on it, this still remains a huge problem with this entire discourse. So let me check through the bullet list of what is here.

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (This is not true)
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (I guess this could be true)
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. (I do believe this is true)

Similarly, I don't think this particular incident is of such note in the article along side his other major accomplishments, deeds and events. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that this issue does not pass the notability test, at least not yet. Perhaps it will at some point, but what I see is a blogger trying to attract attention and attempting to use Wikipedia as a "peg" to attract such attention. Not everything posted on every blog every week is of sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Until this material gains more widespread notoriety I think we're on solid ground leaving it out. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a small matter of terminology; Notability is an article creation criteria, the word you are looking for is weight. Second Quantization (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• It seems undue to me if it's based on a singular source especially since the website is also relatively new (it appears to have launched last year) and does not have established reliability. Neil deGrasse Tyson would be expected to appear in a wide variety of sources since he is an established figure if there is a major controversy. We can wait and then weight new sources which emerge if this attracts wider attention from more reliable sources. Also see WP:NOTNEWS, Second Quantization (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that this is "based on a singular source" is not correct. Notice the number of reliable sources in support. It isn't even the case that we have to weigh competing claims. I've only found one source so far that supports Tyson, and they don't even allege he is correct, they just think it is overblown. The next source that says Tyson was right and Bush wrong will be the first one I've seen. Have you seen any?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have very limited sourcing at the moment in relatively minor papers, Second Quantization (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What's important is that the "relatively major papers" you desperately wish you could rely upon right now aren't touching this because they know Tyson is BSing.--Froglich (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Or they simply aren't aware of it because it's not a major news story. Second Quantization (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over edits

Just for informational purposes, some sites picking up on the Wikipedia handing:

• Wikipedia editor deletes all evidence of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quote fabrication
• TIL: Wikipedia Scrubbing All References To Neil Tyson's Fabrication

• Why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil Tyson’s quote fabrications?
• Why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil deGrasse Tyson’s fabrication?
• Dear atheists, why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil Tyson’s quote fabrications?
• Why Is Wikipedia Deleting All References To Neil Tyson’s Fabrication?

There are more.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

None of these sites pass WP:RS. Why should we care? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this entire episode is becoming an embarassment to the encyclopedia and is becoming national news. Marteau (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears in some blogging places and you think that qualifies as national news. That certainly is a low bar, Second Quantization (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Second Quantization Mention of this edit war appeared in the Weekly Standard where it says, "Wikipedia editors have rigorously deleted anything less than flattering from Tyson’s bio". That is not a "low bar". http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cosmically-dishonest_805319.html Marteau (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not American so I don't generally read obscure American opinion sites, the wikipedia article on the Weekly standard says "The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine". That doesn't sound like a neutral reliable news source by any standard, Second Quantization (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We should care because if many sites are writing that we are mishandling an article, we would like to be in a position of having a solid response. At the moment we don't, other than the weak, "it sometimes take time to get it right". Which is true, but we ought to work on getting it right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

One partial response is that the claim is misleading. While there have been some edits of one quote, it is in the article at the moment, so it is not correct to assert that all references have been removed or scrubbed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true. However when or if this article gets locked down in the future (and I betting it will), my fear is that it will be minutes after all references to the episode have been removed. I would hope any admin choosing to lock it down is particularly careful. Marteau (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The article does look like it is being mishandled. If Tyson has been fabricating quotes, then that needs to be in the WP article.--TMD (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is now become blown all out of proportion on two levels. 1. The inclusion of a blogger and his unsuppoerted and exagerated claims. 2. Like minded sources claiming foul despite normal editing behaviour on wikipedia. I'm half expecting to see some blog publish: 3. A full out conspiracy orchestrated by Tyson himself to rewrite history by bribing wikipedia editors. --Shabidoo | Talk 20:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe three levels, if we count your contribution. Which claims by the blogger are unsupported and exaggerated and make it in the article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The blogger points out that the Bush quote cannot be found. From this he leaps to the conclusion that Tyson is a manipulative fabrication machine. The other two examples of quote fabrication are dubious and they are not supported. Again. One quote cannot be substantiated and two quotes may be incorrect...therefore Tyson has wilfully manipulated and fabricated quotes to further his agenda. Exagerated claim...parroted by a few more blogs and agencies. Non-notable. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The supposed quote of Bush cannot be found, because that is not what he said. If we were, say, talking about a quote of mine, the fact that you cannot find it may simply mean that you haven't looked in the right place, but there is no way that President Bush actually uttered a quote that Tyson heard, but no one else can track down. We know what Tyson referred to, because Bush did say, "The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today". We don;t need to take the word of some blogger, it is documented here. In other words, we do know what Bush said, and it isn't what Tyson claimed, unless you want to assert that Bush spoke at a public ceremony, and made a different comment about the creator naming the stars. If you can find that, I owe you an apology, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that if he actually said that when Tyson claimed he said it, someone would have found it by now. Tyson did manipulate the quote, to make a point that has nothing to do with the point Bush was making. (Or perhaps it wasn't Tyson, but some underling working for him.) We don't have to take the blogger's word for what Tyson said, it was videotaped. Have you watched the video? Do you think the video was photoshopped? --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You said:

From this he leaps to the conclusion that Tyson is a manipulative fabrication machine.

I specifically asked for claims that are in the article. This is not in the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You said:

This is not in the article.

That's because I paraphrased. This was in the article:

I’m beginning to think this Neil deGrasse Tyson fellow is a serial fabricator of quotes.

That is hyperbole of a rotten kind. The quote may be incorrect...therefore Tyson willingly fabricates many quotes. That is an extreme conclusion to make because the original quote can't be found or the quote is incorrect.

You said:

I'll bet dollars to donuts that if he actually said that when Tyson claimed he said it, someone would have found it by now..

Total speculation. Just like the article.

From the article:

Now we have evidence of Tyson fabricating a quote in order to make George W. Bush look dumb.

..

Total speculation. As A quest for knowledge said...that's a pretty heavy claim from a dubious source. Why would we publish speculation and exaggerated conclusions from a dubious, unashamedly biased blog?

Non-issue. No weight. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you going on about the "serial fabricator of quotes"? It isn't in the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/ It's at the top of the page. Take a close look. --Shabidoo | Talk 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we are intercommunicating. Of course it is in the blog article. But it isn't in the Wikipedia article (though I think it may havce been briefly, not sure.) Why are you trying to challenge a statement that isn't in this article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is locked Philbrick. Between you and me you are the only one who cacn make changes. The two quotes by the journalist clearly insinuate that Tyson has fabricated the quote. --Shabidoo | Talk 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I am involved, so it would not be appropriate for me to make substantive changes, now that it is locked. (I did add a deadlink template to a dead link)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, they do insinuate Tyson fabricated the quote. But it is clear that it is only THEIR opinion and no one else's. It certainly is not the encylopedia's opinion, per se...the encylopedia itself is implying no such thing. Our encyclopedia is not stating he fabricated anything. The quoted journalists are, and simply disagreeing with them is no basis for removing a properly cited quote about the matter. That would be OR and POV. Marteau (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would we care about the speculation of a blogger and two journalists who parroted him? This is what the majority of users have been saying. Undue weight.--Shabidoo | Talk 00:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I could understand an argument to remove one of the quotes due to a weight issue. But to propose removal of ALL quotes and ALL references is a different matter would be an overcorrection. To answer your question "why would we care"... this issue deserves inclusion because it is a credible, cited, documented instance of a internationally renowned public speaker proudly mocking and quoting an incorrect quotation about a president. And doing it repeatedly. And leaving it on his Hayden Planitarium blog even now when I would bet his agent knows about this issue even if Tyson himself does not You have made it clear that you don't think that is worthy of so much as a paragraph here. I, and others disagree, and I suppose this will have to eventually come to a request for comments and a seeking of concensus. Marteau (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can people please avoid controversies amongst unreliable sources. It is of no interest here. The topic lacks due weight. We can wait for sources which are more reliable to bring up the issue (The federalist is only 1 year old, and does not appear to have an established reputation), and then discuss it at that point. We should weight for sources of sufficient weight before adding it. For example, the piece in the same section is sourced to the NYT. Second Quantization (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/cosmically-dishonest_805319.html as a source. The Weekly Standard is a well-established reliable source. Marteau (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to allege unreliable sources, make your case. The quote attributed to Tyson is both contained prominently on the Hayden Planetarium site, as well as clearly stated in the video hosted by the same site. The Tampa Tribune is preemptively an RS. If you want to start a debate as RSN to get it declared not reliable, be my guest, but you need to do that before declaring it is not an RS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If the Federalist were the only one making the claim, and did so without supporting evidence, I would be with you in calling for and supporting the removal. But the claim is supported by multiple independent sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources are only talking about this in the context of it being a Wikipedia controversy. That does not make it notable for an article on Neil deGrasse Tyson; the fact that we are discussing it here at length on the talk page does not change the fact that it is not noteworthy enough to be included in his article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My selection of items wasn't a random sample of articles about the incident, it was a deliberate selection of sources talking about the Wikipedia aspect. So of course these sources talk about it being a Wikipedia controversy, that's how they were selected. There are many sources talking about the incident itself, without mentioning Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, the topic does not have sufficient weight since its appearing in relatively minor sources. I think people are trying to make wikipedia the focus of a controversy by sticking undue attacks into a BLP. The federalist is a lower tier source than those such as say the NYT or the Guardian. We should wait for sources of a higher impact before making the addition, instead of the barrel scrapping that is occurring. That the more reliable sources discuss Benjamin Domenech of the Federalist as engaging in attacks against Tyson: (Physics Today) is also very problematic. You want us to host the attacks. Second Quantization (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bush/ Tyson quote incident

The incident involving Tyson and Bush was inserted and removed a few times on the 17th, but has been reasonably stable until someone just removed it a few minutes ago. Let's discuss if you think the sourcing is weak, but I see a quote sourced to the Hayden Planetarium, where Tyson is director. No one has questioned the authenticity of the quote by Tyson, as distinct from the claim that Tyson incorrect quotes Bush. The Hayden Planetarium is hardly a weak source. While a blogger is always a question, the claims are all sourced to good sources, so unless someone makes a compelling case that someone has doctored video or hacked the planetarium site, removal on the grounds that they are weak sources isn't valid. We can debate WEIGHT issues, but let's debate them, not preemptively assume an answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but so far users JoelWhy, Calbaer, ZeroSerenity, myself, Nathanwubs, Gaijin42, Axis42, Mr. Swordfish, Second Quantization and TRPod have all leaned towards or outright said this is a non-issue and/or is non-notable and/or not weighty enough as it stands. Philbrick...how would you defend the "weight" of Tysons alleged quote fabrication? --Shabidoo | Talk 01:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the count of editors, it is the weight of the argument. Has a single editor said that the quote wasn't uttered by Tyson? If it is granted that a very notable figure publicly made fun of the President of the United States, can you explain why this is a non-issue? It was not a throw-away comment said in some casual way, it is part of his prepared remarks, used in multiple occasions, and memorialized on the website of the Hayden Planetarium. It has been discussed by many, including many reliable sources. The burden is on you to explain why this highly discussed event, involving two highly notable individuals, is a non-issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a WP:WEIGHT issue, and I say this as a pretty well known "right wing nut job" on the wiki. However, I will say that the story is gaining momentum and being discussed in more reliable sources, and If that pattern continues, I certainly would not be surprised if my !vote changes in the next few days. Many notable people say snarky things about other notable people, we don't cover them in their respective biographies, unless it becomes part of their persistent reputation and is covered by more than just the "Oh snap!" sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if this was some minor issue, one of the recent Biden gaffe arising from letting his tongue get ahead of his brain, and speaking off the cuff in a way he often needs to retract, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. However, this incident is no off-the-cuff remark. It has been used multiple times, and it is setup in a very orchestrated way. The fact that it is featured on the Planetarium website suggests that someone is actually proud of it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually watched the video? This is not some minor point. He takes four minutes, sets up the audience, invokes personal photos of the 9/11 disaster (which turns out to have nothing to do with what Bush said), makes a point of checking his computer to make sure he is getting his quote right, and accuses the President of the united States of being clueless about Muslims, all as part of a presentation on how clueless people are about science. Now, I happen to think many people, including many members of Congress are clueless about science, but there's a lot of low-hanging fruit out there if you want to make the point. To use an emotional speech used in honor of our seven fallen astronauts to try to make the President look like a doofus would be bad enough if it were true, but Tyson gets his dates wrong, his quotes wrong, his location wrong, and makes a point that is totally not supported by the evidence. This is a man going on tour trying to talk about how to get things right, and he is getting so many things wrong. I am happy to see that no one is actually trying to defend the quote, the attempt is "simply" to minimize it as if it were unimportant, which it would be if it were some marginally notable person talking about some nobody. Bush make enough gaffes, if someone wants to use one in a speech, there's a lot to choose from, no need to make stuff up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, it was a douchy thing for him to do when there were plenty of other anecdotes he could have told. But its the same thing Stewart, Letterman, Leno, SNL, Limbaugh and hundreds of others do. Twist things that makes someone they don't like look bad or to make a point. He was making a humorous lesson to a general non technical audience - fudging things to their level is par for the course. See any TED talk for more examples. We only cover these things when they become more than just the story of the week. If people are bringing this type of thing up in general articles about Tyson a month from now, it will be an entirely different ball of wax. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the clip of him going on about what a dullard and a bigot Bush purportedly is remains on his professional blog at the Hayden Planetarium web site, a scientific institution where he is director, gives weight towards including it in his "Views" section here. A desire for linkage between this issue and his person is invited by and demonstrated by the man himself. Marteau (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Several users have explained in several different ways, Sphilbrick, why this non-issue as it stands doesn't have weight. This is on top of the other multiple problems with this non story. I'm sure a lot of users would change their mind if and when things develop further as would I. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not need to become a major issue. His political view is that Bush II is a dope and a bigot. He has made that clear and it seems (to me) that he is proud of it. He blogged about it on his Hayden Planitarium site. He repeated his view multiple times in his lectures... last time was a week or so ago. It is clearly a political view which is widely quoted on the internet and the fact that he has so widely and so publicly demonstrated contempt for Bush is reason enough for it to be in his "Views... Politics". That it turns out that the basis for his contempt (at least in this instance) has become controversial in some circles is simply an additional reason for it's inclusion here, not the only reason. Marteau (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"It is clearly a political view". He's on record as saying republicans are more pro-science than democrats because they spend more money on science, so I'm curious what politics you think it is, Second Quantization (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am beginning to think putting mention of this in the "Views... Politics" section was incorrect, and that this issue belongs in the "Career" section. A scientist, Tyson also is a professional communicator and educator who spends much of his time performing lectures and speeches for various audiences. His renown as a speaker and educator is significant. I'm thinking this issue is more related to his conduct as a speaker and the content and quality of his lectures than it's relation to politics. Marteau (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, your counting and listing of editors who have, it your estimation, supported exclusion of this issue is a meaningless metric. It does not include editors reading this page who feel their POV has been adequately covered herer and do not feel compelled to chime in just to say "I agree!". It may include editors whose POV may have changed. When and if this becomes a more formal "Support" or "Oppose" thing, THEN it will be time to do a tally. Marteau (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that, for someone who is not notable for their political views, they do need to become a "major issue" to warrant any detail (beyond maybe a category at best). He's neither a politician nor primarily famous for his political work, so by default his political views (and comments related to them) deserve no more attention in the article than his favorite foods. Additionally, I agree with the people above that repeating what's basically the flavor-of-the-month rumor going around on blogs amounts to a BLP violation, since there's not really any indication yet that any of this is noteworthy to his overall story. For now, the appropriate thing to do is remove the entire section, then come back in a month or so and see if anyone is still talking about it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyson is notable for a number of things, one of which is for being an educator and a speaker. The incident in question is part of his lecture tour... he talks about it often as part of his speeches given and intended not only to entertain but to educate and enlighten. The fact that some of his lecture material appears to be incorrect is absolutely germane to what makes the man notable and pertinent to what he is notable for, which includes his significant efforts at reaching out and imparting his knowledge and opinions to people, opinions which, evidently, include political matters. The quality and the content of the information he provides as a public speaker and educator is absolutely relevant to who the man is and what the man does... it is not trivia such as his "favorite food" as you suggest. Perhaps this issue belongs under another heading, maybe about his career as a speaker... I'll give you that. But the information is pertinent to the man and his work, and should be included in his bio. But saying that information regarding the quality, content and purport of his speeches is irrelevant and should be removed is ludicrous. Marteau (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: The fact that professional comedians twist things to make a joke isn't an apt comparison. Tyson isn't on the standup tour, his day job is a science communicator. A major portion of his life is talking to groups for the purpose of education, and his theme is that many are clueless about science issues. That position carries with it a responsibility to get his facts right. We aren't talking about an athlete who makes a blunder about some science fact, or even a member of Congress who worries that Guam might tip over, he is talking about education issues. As such, this story, which fails on several levels, is notable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely a "non-incident" that begun as an article in a conservative quite obscure web-page and spreaded to a few other right-wing sites mostly. At this point I'd favour removing it from the article until (if) it becomes news WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant an inclusion.

It's funny that the person (S Davis) who authored the original piece has now published another one (mentioned above by Marteau) where he says:

• [UPDATE: Early this morning, in a discussion thread about whether references to Neil deGrasse Tyson's history of quote fabrication should be added to Tyson's Wikipedia page, an editor stated that "no version of this event will be allowed into the article."]

The editor who said that was precisely Marteau and he said it in the context that he thought this was a war not worth fighting (I'd say he has changed his mind since 2 days ago, seeing his involvement here). This line was used by Davis as a statement implying WP would not allow any mention of this into the article. Now, one can WP:AGF about Davis and presume he is just that incompetent and can't read basic English. I have my doubts. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it relevant that it started in a conservative site? Does that make it a "non-incident"? --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the site being quite obscure and the fact that the author of the original piece would fail a basic reading comprehension test make it a "non-issue", along with the fact that no major news outlet has picked up on this, at least yet. The site being conservative is just another piece of information. Gaba ^(talk) 13:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaba_p , I fail to see how a direct insult against the person who created this bit on thefederalist is in need of a direct or indirect insult against his reading and comprehension abilities....... 98.126.25.66 (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The most relevant adjective is obscure, although the fact that it is an ideologically driven site is also relevant. Agree that which side of the spectrum it comes from should not be relevant. Let's review:

• An obscure ideologically-driven blog makes some accusations that may or may not pan out
• One of its readers runs to Wikipedia to "tell the world about it"
• Wikipedia editors exercise their judgement that the material does not meet standards, especially for a BLP, and remove it
• The original author of the blog post cries censorship and attempts to give the story legs by making it a story about Wikipedia and censorship rather than about the material itself
• And here we are, basically forced from a public-relations standpoint to leave in material that by the usual standards should not be in the article.

My take is that every ideologically-driven smear campaign posted in the blogosphere - even in blogs much more widely read than the one that published this attack - does not automatically meet notability and weight requirements for inclusion. If they did, our articles would be so long as to be useless and unreadable. But we may have to leave this up for a few days until S Davis drops his "censorship" campaign. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We should never leave any bad content up just to satisfy highly biased outside attackers. This isn't Conservapedia, and anyone who demands it act as their mouthpiece for ignorant political attacks should be told to go away and leave the encyclopedia writing business to grown ups. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We should never leave any bad content up just to satisfy highly biased outside attackers. But it appears in this case that's exactly what we are doing. (BTW, my statement above was meant to be descriptive, not advocacy.) Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

By definition We should never leave bad content up period. To satisfy anyone. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My main problem with the article is that there is a political views section that is not really about his political views but attempts from partisan sources to make him look bad, for reasons that are unclear (seems like part of their long running attack on the science demonstrating climate change, as far as I can tell, though some have wondered if it's a racist thing along the lines of "how dare a black man act like he knows more than us white men"). Any political views section should contain an unbiased summary of his actual political views. As far as the supposed errors made go, I would think that it would be fair to use a reliable source from a non fringe non political hack job site to demonstrate the fact that there are conservatives attacking him and why, assuming it rises to high enough notability to even mention in this article at all. At this point I think it's WP:UNDUE weight to give any mention of it at all, though if mainstream news sources cover it in a nontrivial way I would change my mind. If it is mentioned it cannot be phrased in such a way as to be "ha ha ha, this guy said stuff that is wrong, what a loser, scientists/liberals/black men are dumb" which is essentially what the partisan voices who added the current section seem to be trying to say. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that this has nothing to do with his political views. Tyson is actually making a point of how the Islamic world used to be at the forefront of scientific discovery until Al-Ghazali. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that is an interesting point worth making. If he had simply made that point, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is he made it by suggesting that Bush was too dumb to know this. In fact, we have no idea whether Bush was aware of this or not, and I don't exactly know why we should care whether Bush knows this. It was Tyson who brought Bush into the story.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Actually, he does make this perfectly clear. I watched the entire 1 hour and 20 minute lecture earlier today and this is nothing more than an anecdote to begin a segment on how society's views can impede the progress of science, with Islamic world being the example given (the Jewish world being the counter example). So, he's not making a point about Bush, he's making a point about the lost opportunity of 1.3 billion people not contributing to the advancement of human knowledge. I strongly recommend that you (well, everyone) watch the entire speech. But if you don't have time to watch the entire thing, this particular segment starts at about 48:30 and ends at about 57:08. Here's the link to the whole speech.[3] You can skip ahead to 48:30, but again I recommend watching the whole thing. Your brain will thank you afterwards. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I have seen several pieces of his speech before, but had not watched the whole speech. I agree with you that it is well worth watching.

The horoscope test might be useful, if I run into a believer. The down pillow example was funny. The shot at the medical profession "one system" was odd, but no big deal. The way to do levitation is one I had seen before. I agree with his point about the 13th floor, not so much about the negative floor numbers. The point about scientists on money was interesting. I loved the periodic table color coding. Both jury duty stories fell flat for me. He is wrong in the schools below average anecdote, let's discuss that separately if you care. His assessment of the subprime lending fiasco is partially insightful, but mostly flawed. Not a big deal, though. His explanation of the rise and fall of the influence of the Islamic world in science was quite interesting. He should have obscured the license plate in his Intelligent Design slide. His intelligent design discussion was entertaining. His atheism comments were thought-provoking.

One of his comments, very relevant to this place, came early:

If an argument lasts more than five minutes, both sides are wrong.

I haven't challenged the notion that his goal in the George W. Bush anecdote, was to point out the number of stars with Arabic names. I get that he wouldn't be effective if he simply recited some dry facts; he is an effective and entertaining speaker, and he often used "hooks", in the same way DYK uses hooks, to make something more interesting. But in the same way a DYK hook, even if quite clever, is dropped if it cannot be verified, his Bush story fails the verification test. Note that it is not an accident that he invokes Bush's name. The segment title isn't "Names of the Stars", it is "George W. Bush". He gets an audience laugh before he says word one after the slide. His story isn't the story of the names of the stars, it is the story of a President of the United States so clueless he has no idea that so many stars have Arabic names. And to make that point, he invokes a make-up quote, invokes the emotion of the Twin Towers burning which has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's actual speech, claims Bush was distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims, when he was doing no such thing. Add to that the fact that Bush's actual quote wasn't some minor statement, but a highly emotional tribute to the fallen seven astronauts, and the whole incident is reprehensible. He ought to remove it from his stock speech, and apologize. I am happy to see that no one in this discussion has claimed (unless I missed it), that Tyson was right. The arguments are on different grounds.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I had initially though this belonged in his "Views... Politics" section but after some consideration and reading some of the opinions here, I am now thinking it belongs under "Career". Tyson, an educator, communicator and lecturer, is a big name and a big draw in the lecture circuit and it is a big part of his career. This issue is more pertenent to his paid lectures and speeches and is directly related to the quality and content of his speeches. Marteau (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I was intrigued by the allegation that one of the sources is a "quite obscure" web-page". I decided to check the Alexa rank (US if supplied, global if not US value supplied) of some of thr sources. I didn't bother to check the New York Times. I am not a regular user of Alexa, so if someone more familiar with it sees an error in my approach please correct me.

My understanding is that the Alexa rank is the ranking of the site in terms of popularity, with lower numbers being getter (so, for example Google.com is #1). I am not suggesting that popularity is the sole determinant of reliability. (Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy, we could shut down RSN and replace it with a link to Alexa.) However, when the allegation is that it is an obscure site, Alexa rank of traffic is a relevant metric.

I started though some of the early references used in this article, and recorded the Alexa rank:

• parlemagazine.com 9,423,175
• haydenplanetarium.org 175,871
• pbs.org 445
• texasexes.org 73,157
• arcsfoundation.org 8,694,285
• penny4nasa.org 1,822,665
• iop.org (The Astrophysical Journal) 40,649
• thefederalist.com 5,152

The numbers suggests that every reference I checked, other than NYT, Youtube and pbs.org, are more "obscure" than thefederalist.com, and in most cases, by a considerable margin. I haven't seen any challenges raised to any of these other references on the basis that they are too obscure to be used. My guess is that upwards of 90% of all references in Wikipedia are sourced to site with a higher Alexa rank than 5,000 and I trust no one is suggesting that we should be pruning those.

There may well be concerns about the site, but I suggest that "quite obscure" is not one of the issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First, Alexa is by no means a way to determine the "obscurity" of a site, which you of course already know. Second, if we were to use it as a ranking system we should be comparing sites that are related in the topic they cover. Comparing pbs.org with parlemagazine.com is not meaningful by any standard. Third, the mere fact that iop.org (40.649) ranks way lower than for example planet.infowars.com (383) tells you just how ludicrous this system ranking is for the purposes of WP WP:RSs notability evaluation. Fourth, thefederalist.com is indeed an obscure media site compared with the rest of the media sites one is accustomed to use as standard WP:RS; we can discuss about its reliability at WP:RSN is you'd like. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know why Alexa is "by no means" useful for judging obscurity,. I'm not suggesting it is perfect, but it seems useful. What are the major flaws as opposed to nitpicks which preclude it from being a perfect method?

"Comparing pbs.org with parlemagazine.com is not meaningful by any standard." Why not? I take from the rankings that pbs.org is a highly trafficked location, while parlemagazine.com is much less trafficked. What is wrong with that conclusion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You said:

Third, the mere fact that iop.org (40.649) ranks way lower than for example planet.infowars.com (383) tells you just how ludicrus this system ranking is for the purposes of WP WP:RSs evalutaion.

You may have missed that I wasn't suggesting that Alexa is helpful for Reliability. If that wasn't clear, I'll try again. If Alexa ranking were useful for RS, we would be linking a lot more YouTube videos. which would be ludicrous. I was trying to respond you your specific point about obscurity, which is almost orthogonal to RelativityReliability. Perhaps I would have been off just challenging the use of "obscurity" as an argument. Is that mentioned in any of the policies as a rationale for exclusion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've used "reliable" above as a synonym for "notable" in this context. "Notable" and "obscure", in the sense of sources usable in WP, are antonyms (BTW, I believe you meant "Reliability" and not "Relativity" above) or orthogonal if you'd like, since if no one's heard of an on-line source it can hardly be said to be notable; specially for sourcing contentious material on a WP:BLP where extreme caution should be exercised. In that sense Alexa is not useful at all given that, if we followed what it said, we could come to the conclusion that iop.org is far more "obscure" than i.e. planet.infowars.com and thus less "notable", which is indeed ludicrous. Furthermore, comparing sites that have nothing to do with each other only adds more noise to the equation. WP:ALEXA has some more on why Alexa's ranking should not be used to establish sources' notability. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliability is not a synonym for notable. The Onion' is notable, it isn't very reliable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There, fixed. Summing up: see WP:ALEXA, thefederalist.com is an obscure media site and Alexa is useless to evaluate its notability/obscureness. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You and I have a different opinion about the obscurity of the site, but the more important question, if I may be so blunt, is "So"? When we have to make the sometimes tough call about whether an article should exist, we examine the notability of the subject. Because that determination is so omnipresent, on occasion we see the phrase being used in other discussions, either about the including of an incident, or more rarely about a reference. That use is flawed. We use standards such as WEIGHT for incidents, we use standards such as RELIABILITY for sources. Using "obscurity" as a metric for a source would only be relevant if we were debating an article about the source, not the use of the source. My bad for exatending that discussion here. I should have taken it to your talk page, but I was facinated that you could call such a heavily trafficked site "oscure" and I was curious how you reached that conclusion. Unless you can find a policy reason for the relevance, I suggest that if you wish to discuss this further, we take it elsewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I never debated the use of that particular source, but the quality of it. Being an obscure site, thus not notable, reduces its quality. That was the extent of my comment on that source. As for the "heavily trafficked" argument, see WP:ALEXA.

As far as the bigger issue here goes, I favour, as I've stated before, the removal of this "incident" from the article since I don't see it as WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant its inclusion in a WP:BLP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No evidence exists that Bush said that <-- Failed verification

I see that Marteau added back the following statement in the Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Politics section:

• No evidence exists that Bush said that.[4][5]

As far as I can see neither source support this (which I had explained earlier). Marteau: please explain why/how you think either source backs the above sentence. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That line is quite aggressive and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If the topic is going to be covered at all (and I don't think it should, as it is WP:UNDUE weight to address random attacks from partisans that have no traction) we should not use language that has Wikipedia become the mouthpiece of a side. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not given undue weight -- there's no section-heading, no "Controversy", blah-blah. Just a non-boldfaced paragraph. As far as evidence goes, be aware of how logic works, in particular the negative-proof fallacy.--Froglich (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Weight is not the issue with the statement here, the failed verification status is. Marteau: please explain your reasoning and what makes you think any of those sources back that statement. Gaba ^(talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence is defined by Wikipedia as "anything presented in support of an assertion". The word "presented" is key. Until a fact is presented (in a public forum in this case) there IS no evidence. Facts may exist, but until someone takes those facts and presents them, evidence does not in fact exist. This is, as I have found in my research and I am sure you have found in yours, indeed the case. No blogger, journalist (respected or otherwise) or Tyson himself has presented a speech where Bush said what Tyson has claimed he said. No presentment = no evidence. However, it is true that neither source says that precisely but instead simply says some version of Bush never said it, or that Tyson is wrong, or that say his assertion is false. To me, at the time, that was the same thing as saying there is no evidence Bush said that, but I concede that is imprecise and I will support removing the term "evidence" from the article in favor of a phrase connoting their assertion that the statement is "false". Marteau (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marteau. Could you please present here a re-phrased statement supported by either or both sources so we can discuss a replacement for the current sentence? Gaba ^(talk) 18:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"In the last three days since a blogger has pointed out an inconsistency in the quote, no one has yet been able to find the original source of that quote or reconcile the differences between the quote cited by Tyson and a version available online. Based on this several bloggers have accused Tyson of blatant quote fabrication". We could reword it like this if this absolutely must be in the article. --Shabidoo | Talk 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Shabidoo you really do seem to be clinging to the term "blogger" and using it to disparage the citations. In addition, using it as you propose would be incorrect. The Weekly Standard is not a "blogger". Gaba_p I am not ignoring your request I am simply not being hasty and am letting the issue steep. Marteau (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No Marteau. That it's a blogger bothers me. What bothers me the most (and the far majority of editors here) is the undue weight. It's a non-issue. That's just ontop of the many many problems with this paragraph. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

When a professional speaker and communicator is accused of manufacturing quotes he uses during his lecture, that is a very big issue. For someone who is not a pop icon such an allegation is so serious as to result often in the death of a career and loss of credibility. It is a VERY big deal to be accused of for a lecturer, communicator and speaker, and your insistance that it is a "non-issue" to a man whose performs such roles is bizarre. Marteau (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Marteau...did you just call my opinion (and that of the majority of editors here) bizarre? Is that really how you feel? --Shabidoo | Talk 20:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Saying that the veracity, content and quality of a lecturers quotes is a "non-issue" to the biography of a professional speaker and a lecturer is bizarre to me. Marteau (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's disappointing. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the position of the speaker (NGT) and the person (GWB) that the quote is attributed to by said speaker, it is an issue. There is no need to defend Tyson here, in the end the truth will be his defense, if it exists. Arzel (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaba_p I propose the line about "evidence" be replaced by: "Sean Davis of thefederalist.com asserts the quote is "blatantly false"' The Weekly Standard says, 'nothing about this anecdote is true. " Marteau (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Marteau I propose that if any mention about this remains in the article (which is still under debate and I personally oppose) the second sentence should read:

• Sean Davis of thefederalist.com claimed the quote is "blatantly false"[6]. Basing on the article by Davis, Hemant Mehta called this "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence"[7] while Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "a vicious, gratuitous slander."[8]

Without attribution ("The Scrapbook" is not a proper attribution) and verging on being a non-WP:RS, the quote from The Weekly Standard should not be used in a WP:BLP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is attributable to the Weekly Standard itsef. The Weekly Standard 'Scrapbook' is effectively an editorial. Editorials in newspapers and magazines typically do not have an attribution to an individual, but speak for the periodical itself. This is a very common standard in the industry. As I said previously, "The Weekly Standard 'Scrapbook' is a regular feature of the magazine which is dedicated to highligting what the magazine consideres particularly noteworthy actions of the political left, and is never accompanied with a by-line. It is a product of the Weekly Standard's editorial board and is considered the voice of the magazine itself and not one author. It's reliability is based upon and depends upon the reputation of the magazine itself and not the reputation of any individual journalist. Saying it is not 'reliable' is in effect saying the Weekly Standard itself is not a reliable source which is not the concensus of Wikipedia editors throughout the years." Marteau (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the WP:RS guidelines, there is this sentence: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." The work in question here is a "published material" by the Weekly Standard, a reliable source as per concensus here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_54#Is_Weekly_Standard_a_Reliable_Source_for_Facts_in_a_BLP.3F Marteau (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on TWS being a WP:RS (a 4+ years old discussion with < 10 participants can hardly be said to establish WP consensus), I disagree on "The Scrapbook" being an appropriate attributable entity and I disagree that any mention of this belongs in WP at all. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 22:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinions properly ascribed as such are a specific category where editorial opinions may be used in a BLP. In the case at hand, the "Alexa rank" is useless, the only criterion is whether the source is sufficiently notable for editorial opinions - and at this point the argument "it is conservative, therefore can not be used" is risible. As is the claim that somehow only favoured sources may be used for editorial opinions. I also find the comment "we do not have proof Bush never said such a thing" to also fail - if no evidence is found that the quote properly reflects a findable statement of Bush, and a third party so states, that is sufficient for us to state "(third party) states that the quote is wrong" s that is what that source states. Collect (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh? Who said "it is conservative, therefore can not be used"? Also "if no evidence is found" <-- see WP:OR. We don't track down or produce evidence, we let WP:RS do that and comment on it. Gaba ^(talk) 14:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely a "non-incident" that begun as an article in a conservative quite obscure web-page and spreaded to a few other right-wing sites mostly seems pretty clear to most readers. Cheers. By the way, such argumentation does not fit proper use of article talk pages. Collect (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where in that sentence does it say "it is conservative, therefore can not be used"? Friendly advice: you might want to be very careful putting words in other editors' mouths. It's pretty easy to spot, it makes you look quite incompetent, and it could rightly put you at the end of a block/ban. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that people have been arguing about this quote for a week now, not a single person has produced any evidence that George W. Bush said in a speech after 9/11, "Our God is the God who named the stars." On the flip side, a number of influential and credible people have stated that zero evidence exists that the quote exists. For example, every 9/11 speechwriter for President Bush has said they have no memory of the president ever saying that line. [9] Those individuals are all quoted by name. Even if you think the website that contacted them is biased, it doesn't change the fact that the president's 9/11 speechwriters and his 9/11 press secretary have said on the record that no such speech or quote exists. Is Neil Tyson, who to date is the only person who claims to have witnessed this quote, more of an expert on the topic of presidential speeches than the people who actually write them?

Several WH correspondents for mainstream news outlets have also stated that the Bush quote does not exist. Robert Draper of the New York Times wrote that Tyson "hallucinated" the non-existent quote. [10] Terry Moran of ABC News, who covered the White House after 9/11, also said he has no memory of that quote being said by Bush. [11] Moran actually says that Bush regularly said the exact opposite of what Tyson claimed.

The Washington Post also weighed in this morning and noted that "no one can seem to find" any evidence of the quote being said by the president. [12]

So in addition to The Federalist, the Washington Post, Daily Beast, ABC News, New York Times, Weekly Standard, and National Review have also verified that no record of the quote exists anywhere.

But let's back up for a moment: for obvious reasons, the burden should not be on proving the quote doesn't exist. When a public figure makes an assertion, it is up to that person to prove that it is a fact. If you believe an event happened, it is up to you to demonstrate it happened. If you think that Bush actually said that quote, then provide the evidence. It is Kafka-esque to merely assume that the quote must exist because Neil Tyson said it exists. Quite simply: there is zero evidence to support Neil Tyson's assertion that Bush said in a speech shortly after 9/11, "Our God is the God who named the stars."

FactCheckerEsq (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)FactCheckerESQ

For what it's worth, The Federalist just used the exact phrase "...no evidence exists that Bush ever said..." http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/23/8-absurd-edit-justifications-by-wikipedias-neil-tyson-truthers/ I do, of course, realize that the reliability status of this site is disputed. Marteau (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Marteau the probability that Davis used that phrase with the premeditated intent that it be used here is 1000000%. The article you presented above is all the evidence necessary to discount thefederalist.com as a WP:RS from here to eternity. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and said in the RfC below that I have come to agree that thefederalist.com should not be considered a reliable source. Marteau (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree that "no evidence exists" to support Tyson's assertion, then produce the evidence that the quote exists. Why is it that no one here can produce a single URL supporting Tyson's assertion? It's not like presidential speeches are secret. Produce the evidence.

FactCheckerEsq (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)FactCheckerEsq

Our saying "No evidence exists" without a citation would be considered original research (WP:OR which is Wikipedia policy) and is prohibited. In order to say that, we need a reliable source that says that. I agree that it seems obvious, but drawing such a conclusion, no matter how obvious, is not ours to make. Marteau (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FactCheckerEsq, Please don't mark new comments as Minor edits: Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark_an_edit_as_a_minor_edit. This probably isn't the best place to jump into Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons are subject to the strictest and most complicated rules of Wikipedia. Attempting to argue the accusations against Tyson are True won't work here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Many people find it surprising, but trying to argue Truth on Wikipedia is useless at best. Note the comment from Marteau above. He's a lead proponent of having this material in the article, and even he's telling you that your argument conflicts with a core policy against Original Research. I hope you do join us in building a bigger better encyclopedia, I'm just saying that a contentious issue on a Biography of a living person is a really bad place to start. I'm commenting here rather than your userpage for the benefit of other people new to Wikipedia. Jump in, join us, I just strongly suggest not trying to do that in the middle of complicated policy analysis on someone's Biographical article. Alsee (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on: No evidence exists

• Change "No evidence exists that Bush said that." to "Sean Davis of thefederalist.com asserts Tyson butchered the quote."

We shouldn't be asserting that "No evidence exists" based upon the current sourcing.

The source says "Tyson butchered the quote." Alsee (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a valid inference to assume that if a recent president of the United States said something in a public forum someone would be able to find it easily and if they have not probably didn't happen. That said, I understand the objection and think the proposed rewording would be a good idea. I'd prefer to let someone else make the change, if a consensus agrees--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your request omits the Weekly Standard also saying "nothing about this anecdote is true." and thus is an incomplete representation of the state of the issue. There are complaints that The Federalist is not a reliable source (of which I do not agree, but those complaints are reason to also include The Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard is a reliable as per Wikipedia concensus). I propose the fix read: "Sean Davis of thefederalist.com asserts the quote is "blatantly false"' The Weekly Standard says, 'nothing about this anecdote is true. " along with the citations of course. Marteau (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We must follow the refs, thus Marteau's proposal seems best. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the edit request template as per:

• Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template.

I mentioned in a previous section (Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#No_evidence_exists_that_Bush_said_that_.3C--_Failed_verification) that the sentence fails verification and should at the very least be changed immediately or removed entirely (remember this is a WP:BLP). Saying "it is a valid inference to assume" does not override the fact that a source should reflect clearly whatever statement it is being used upon which does not happen in this case. The Weekly Standard saying "nothing about this anecdote is true" is absolutely not a source that can be used simply because it does not say what the statement says (leaving aside the WP:RS status of TWS which I challenge)

As I stated above, my proposal is:

• Sean Davis of thefederalist.com asserts the quote is "blatantly false".

which is similar to Alsee's initial proposal and to Marteau's proposal above but doesn't include TWS's article. Also note that the section currently includes two more comments on this issue which are properly sourced and attributed, unlike what happens with TWS statement, which is more than enough commentary on this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Marteau's proposal above - the community has deemed TWS a reliable source in the past. Kelly ^hi! 14:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I also concur with Marteau's proposal above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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"[13] while Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC news, has written "I covered Bush then. Never heard him say it."[14] 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)

• 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 [15] [16] - 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)

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.[17] 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?[18] Kelly ^hi! 06:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

'Negative Proof' logical fallacy

The blatant negative proof logical fallacy inherent in the comment rationale of this edit is a breathtaking assault upon reason. -- The onus of proof is upon those who make positive claims (e.g., "Prove to me that Bush said that!"), not their detractors. If the quote cannot be found, then it does not matter if there are no sources *at all*. The simple fact of the matter is that Tyson has (repeatedly) made an incendiary claim which has never be verified.--Froglich (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for 8 years and I don't think I've ever seen a sillier, more pointless debate than the one above. Tyson misquoted - and slandered, potentially - George W. Bush. So? If Mr Bush doesn't like it, there are remedies! THAT would warrant inclusion on this page, not some trumped-up "gotcha!" by some who obviously have an agenda here. My observation as a relatively neutral Canadian who is only dimly aware of who Tyson is (I've seen him host Nova and I know he was in the new version of Cosmos), is there seems to be an agenda here to vilify Tyson himself, for reasons which are not immediately obvious, even if one loves Mr. Bush. In fact, the attacks against him are bizarrely over the top.

But what for me is odd is it seems no one else here has bothered to find out what in fact Bush said, if anything. Some have identified the similar quote after the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster, but not much more than that. Those who attack Tyson are correct, as far as can be discerned: Bush didn't say the exact words Tyson quoted him as saying; When Bush said similar words, it was in an entirely different context than 9/11; Bush at that time made no mention of Muslims or Islam.

However, this notwithstanding, Bush in fact made an amazingly ignorant statement in 2003 (though, to be fair, it was much more likely his speechwriter - maybe fellow Canadian David Frum - who wrote the words) while eulogizing the seven dead astronauts and making an obvious nod to the Israeli astronaut who was among those who died (the first and only person from that country to fly in space). He in fact DID imply that the God of the Bible - he quoted Isaiah 40:26 from the Old Testament - named the stars, when in fact the vast majority of named stars were named by Arabic (mostly Muslim) astronomers.

Bush: "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. 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."

So, while Bush made no mention of Muslims or Arabs, he nevertheless insulted their legacy by giving credit elsewhere to their achievements. It's sorta like the insult many British felt when Hollywood gave credit to American sailors for cracking the Enigma code during WWII in the film U-571. While the film didn't directly denigrate the British by stating they didn't do it, by giving credit to others for what they achieved, they insulted them, much like Bush did in his statement.

I am quite sure that many Americans would feel insulted if, say, some British politician hailed the achievement of the British Empire in "saving" France by launching the Invasion of Normandy during the same war, while completely ignoring the rather substantial contribution (!) made by the Americans. In other words, the premise by some attacking Tyson that if Bush didn't directly insult Muslims/Arabs by naming them there was no "insult," is demonstrably false.

So, while it is correct that Tyson quoted words from Bush that he never said, Bush nevertheless, while innocent of DIRECTLY insulting Arabs and Muslims, nevertheless insulted them. It would, therefore, be more accurate to say that while Tyson misquoted Bush and the context in which he said similar words, Bush did give credit to others while ignoring the Arab/Muslim achievement.

As I pointed out, however, I seriously doubt Bush himself came up with the idea of quoting Isaiah, it was likely a speechwriter trying to best Reagan's "face of God" quote after the Challenger disaster, with a rather limp result. Canada Jack (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of logical fallacies, that rambling dissertation takes top honors for non sequitur. Quoting Canada Jack: "I've been on wikipedia for 8 years and I don't think I've ever seen a sillier, more pointless debate than the one above. Tyson misquoted - and slandered, potentially - George W. Bush. So?" -- So? It's notable when a public figure (as Tyson certainly is) repeatedly (this has been part of his lecture repertoire for years) slanders (your term) a former leader of the nation. As far as naming the stars goes, I'm everybody was naming stars. I.e., I'm sure the Chinese would very much like that everyone adopt their preferred names. But let's be honest here: the big-time naming of stars (and nebulae and galaxies) didn't begin until telescopes were pointed at the heavens -- and that happened in Europe, not Dar al Islam.--Froglich (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying one should deliberately misquote Isaiah - who is revered by Muslims as a prophet? That would be exceedingly strange - changing the words of a prophet in order not to offend a group which reveres him as a prophet! Hard to imagine any Muslim viewed citing Isaiah as an "insult." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of words from Canada Jack, some quite speculative, but the bottom line, to quote Canada Jack, it is correct that Tyson quoted words from Bush that he never said. That's the nub.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was a major edit made without consensus?

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.

---

When an article is fully protected, my understanding is that edits, other than trivial, must be agreed to with a consensus on the talk page. I see that a substantial portion of the Bush quote incident has been removed by MastCell. I do not see any discussion of the proposed edit. The edit summary suggests that it is an exception to the rule, because it is a BLP violation. It is not such thing. Stating that "No evidence exists that Bush said that.", which is sourced to a reliable source, is not a BLP violation. This is not a minor part of the issue - the current statement indicates what Tyson said, then has a minor hint that it has been challenged. That is not remotely the case. Bush speech historians have weighted in that he never said it. Searches of transcripts have been done and it hasn't been found. The speech that Bush made has been found, so we know what he said, and it doesn't match the point made by Tyson. If there is any BLP violation, it is a violation against Bush, as the current wording leaves the impression that only one source challenges the statement, and that statement doesn't even say it didn't happen. While "slander" is supposed to imply a falsehood, it is often used incorrectly. I call on Mastcell to revert the removal; there is no policy basis for the removal. There is plenty of debate about whether this incident deserves inclusion on weight arguments, but I do not recall that there is even a hint that someone thinks Tyson was right. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I requested that Mastcell revert the removal. Some discussion on Mastcell's talk page, but not making much progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume the rationale was to err on the side of WP:BRD and leave contentious material out of a BLP until consensus can be reached. a13ean (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Stating that "No evidence exists that Bush said that.", which is sourced to a reliable source", which WP:RS would that be Sphilbrick}?
• "Bush speech historians have weighted in that he never said it", on Twitter.
• "Searches of transcripts have been done and it hasn't been found.", WP:OR.
• "The speech that Bush made", Bush made many speeches. Which WP:RS said where that particular one was the one Tyson quoted?

I support MastCell, that was a good edit and should not be reverted. In fact, the entire mention looks like it's going to be removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We're three days into an RfC process which defaults to a thirty day process (which can be expanded or contracted depending on how it's going and the interest). I wouldn't be so sure. The quality and weight of the sources is only increasing. And if Tyson himself comments on this, all bets are off. Marteau (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But the sourcing is still close to zero. When we start having dozens or hundreds of reliable sources (and I'm looking for straight news stories, not opinion columns), then I might be willing to re-examine the issue. But for now, it's a slam dunk no. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Requiring "dozens or hundreds" of reliable sources before you "might" reconsider is of course your prerogative. I consider it an unreasonably high bar, but your bar is your bar. And some others I am sure would not reconsider it if there were thousands. Such is the nature of editing Wikipedia. Marteau (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not an unreasonably high bar. There are literally thousands and thousands of sources on this topic. Consider for example that a Google News search currently turns up a total of only 5 hits about the quote allegation.[19] Now, do a Google News Search on Tyson and Cosmos. You get back a whopping 761 sources.[20] Granted that this is not a perfect methodology, but it is an objective methodology. Bearing that in mind, per WP:WEIGHT, the article should have about 150 times more coverage given to Cosmos than the quote controversy. Yet, when I first came to this article,[21] there was 5 sentences devoted to the quote allegations and 4 sentences about Cosmos. That doesn't seem massively out of whack to you? If it takes hundreds of sources to get Cosmos into the article, it should take hundreds of sources to get the quote allegation in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Cosmos HAS hundreds of sources does not mean it TOOK hundreds of sources to get into the article... the logic does not follow. Personally, I would have allowed Cosmos into the article if, for some reason, there were only two reliable sources, and I would do so in the future in a similar situation. I'm sure I'm not alone. Marteau (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I said that incorrectly. What I meant is that Cosmos has received roughly 150 times more coverage that than the quote allegation. That means it should get (roughly) 150 times more coverage. Do you agree or disagree? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that is a faulty comparison. I would say that the Cosmos series should have it's own section, but that started in March of this year and has had much more time to be in the news. This, however, has received coverage much more recently. A more apt comparison would be to see in approximately 6 months if the quote fabrication has as much coverage as Cosmos has today. At least then they would be on similar time frames. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting a possible misquote is going to have the same lasting impact as the large amounts of coverage he got from the high-budget popular TV show Cosmos? Second Quantization (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything, simply pointing out a logical falicy. And let us be clear here. This is not a possible misquote. What he claimed Bush said, did not happen. He has repeated it several times. Don't fool yourself, you know that his legion of followers have scoured the internet for proof that Bush actually did say this. As it becomes more and more evident that no evidence exists their cries against this issue have only become louder. The longer that Tyson refuses to either provide proof of the statement or correct his statement only makes the problem worse. Your actions do him no service either. Arzel (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No. My standards for determining whether an event should be included are on a case by case basis and do not strictly involve comparisons of why other material was included or the sheer numbers of reliable sources. The amount of text devoted to an incident within an article DOES depend on other content, but the question of it's inclusion does not. And ratios comparing the number of citations of proposed additions with existing material certainly are not involved. My requirements for covering professional malfeasance, in particular, are not weighted as much towards coverage in the press as in other cases for inclusion. Cases of professional misconduct have an inherent weight to me. When there is professional misconduct, I may only require two sources, and may not personally require as much press coverage. For example, say a doctor was accused of botching an operation because he was drunk and killed the patient. A court finds him guilty and jails him. The only source is the ruling of the court, and perhaps ONE story about him going to jail. I'd include that, just based on that, just two sources, because this is a case of professional malfeasance, and the court ruling is an impeccable sorce. Now, the accusations in the Tyson issue involve his conduct as a professional speaker, a professional speaker who is accused of manufacturing quotes and slandering a president. Moreover, this is a professional speaker who holds logic and rationality up as his standard. If this were some other celebrity, my requirments for inclusion would need much more press coverage. But because he is a professional speaker and a scientist and holds himself up as a rationalist, documented and true instances of professional malfeasance in the course of his career get high weight in my judegement and require not as much press coverage. I fully am aware this may be contrary to others standards, probably even being considered a radical departure from Wikitradition. It is, however, the standard I use and the standard I will continue to use until I quit or am asked to leave. Marteau (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"My requirements for covering professional malfeasance, in particular, are not weighted as much towards coverage in the press as in other cases for inclusion." Well, Wikipedia standards are decided by coverage, so your out of luck on that one. If you want to argue we should abandon our basic criteria for inclusion and instead rely on your subjective opinions about what's really important, then argue at WP:WEIGHT about it. Second Quantization (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: The edit removed by Mastcell said, "No evidence exists that Bush said that." It was courced to two sites, one of which is probably not an RS, but the other one, the Weekly Standard is an RS. The edit also removed Hemant Mehta called this "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence" but that source looks like a blog, and probably should not be included.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick and as I pointed out 5 days ago here, both sources failed verification completely. That's leaving aside the unquestionable status of non-WP:RS of the principal source being used, ie: thefederalist.com. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

Sorry I missed that discussion. If I understand your query, you are unable to understand how the sentence No evidence exists that Bush said that. is supported by the source. The source says:

But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true. George W. Bush did make a remark that bears a resemblance to this, but it was two years later, in his speech following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a context that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Islam. “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today,” Bush said.

(emphasis added)

Frankly, the source is even stronger. They don't just contend that Bush didn't say it, they claim that nothing about the statement is true. They have identified the statement by Bush probably picked up by Tyson, which is not about Muslims.

Let me know if your quibble is with the exact wording, but it looks to me like it supports a stronger statement than was used. One possibility is to use the actual quote, if there is something about the existing sentence that is problematic.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick what you quoted above could be used, at most, to source something along the lines of

"The Scrapbook claimed in The Weekly Standard that "nothing about (the) anecdote is true".

but absolutely not the definitive statement No evidence exists that Bush said that, worst of all stated in WP's voice.

Proper attribution is extremely important in a BLP, specially when the person is being accused of lying. If attributing it to "The Scrapbook" sounds silly to you, that's because it is. There's no reason we should include an attack on a BLP just because someone wrote it down online. Notability isn't there and WP:RSs haven't covered the issue. The entire mention should be removed from the article as the majority !vote in the ongoing RfC appears to be pointing to. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that RS's have not covered the issue? The Weekly Standard has, the National Review has, the UK newspaper "The Week" has, the Tampa Tribune has.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't consider many of them out-of-the-question WP:RSs. They could be discussed in the context of what precisely they are saying since, as I proved above, TWS which is perhaps the main source being referenced does not support the original quote you keep insisting on restoring and which I strongly advise you don't. Also important is the fact that as far as I could tell all the sources that have chimed in on this refer back to the out-of-the-question not WP:RS thefederalist.com. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That sources refer back to the origin of this issue is natural. It brings the reader unfamiliar with the genesis of this issue up to speed. If the NY Times does an article on this issue, if they refer to The Federalist's coverage in the rehashing of the issues, will you protest that as well? I just am not sure why you feel that the fact that sources "refer back" to an unreliable source is important. Most of those sources make independent assertions on their own that are not dependent on The Federalist, and these independent assertions are citeable here. That their conclusions match the Federalist's on some issues (e.g. that Bush never said it) does nothing to degrade the assertions of the reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

But the fact is the NY times hasn't published an article about the issue. Neither has any major media site. The fact that only second-rate sources have commented on this and that they all refer back to the "investigation" by the S Davis character at thefederalist.com substracts even more weight to this non-incident. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the big deal? All because a website found a few errors, such as confusing "mean" with "average", or mis-attributing a quote. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is rude an disrespectful to jump into a conversation without doing at least some homework to become informed. Neither item you mention has been alleged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. You appear to have assumed he has done no homework, and I welcome a new voice. Also, one of his items was mentioned before and the second possibly was. I also think his WP:DROPTHESTICK ref is well put. This is rapidly becoming both repetitive and much ado about nothing. The editor appears to have come here in good faith to bring this to a conclusion. At this point, it appears that the only reason that this “issue” is still alive is because this TP is talking about it and the original source keeps “quoting” this TP. I added the scare quotes because the original source is attempting to publically bully WP editors by quoting snippets of this page, out of context, with WP editor handles, and ridiculing them. Now, in my humble opinion, THAT is a story that should be carried in the real press as it appears to be an attempt at stifling free speech. Just my opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

THAT is a story that should be carried in the real press ... Respectfully disagree. Nobody outside of the participants in this talk page and a few random blog readers gives a rat's ass about any of this. I know that's just my opinion, but I can't imagine any real journalist doing a story on a failed attempt to "work the refs" on wikipedia. Of course, if it does garner widespread coverage in mainstream media, we (i.e. wikipedia editors) will be there to document it with RS citations. (c:

Oh, WP:DROPTHESTICK for sure. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Schopenhauer said: “Journalists are like dogs, whenever anything moves they begin to bark.” It’s also known that when you tell a dog to be quiet, it often voices one last bark. Let us hear the last bark and close this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. A new voice, without a clue, is not an addition. Neither allegation has made as far as I know. He didn't confuse "mean" with "average" and no one who knows those terms would express it that way. He confused average with median, then confused it by correcting himself and saying he meant "mode" which isn't right either. You can look it up. Mis-attributing a quote means getting the person who said wrong. No one has alleged that any quote was said by anyone but Bush. Tyson got the quote wrong, the date wrong, the meaning wrong, as well as the source of the words, but no one mis-attributed it. You can look it up. What stick do you mean? This is a simple case of a mistake made by a notable person, covered by reliable sources. There only stick wielding is by those who throw alphabet soup at the wall, desperately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article. I agree that sticks should be dropped, although we may disagree about who is wielding them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Desparately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article"? I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say here S Philbrick. Could you clarify/expand? --Shabidoo | Talk

WP:DROPTHESTICK, are you kidding? Something like 14 different editors all think this incident deserves some mention, therefore a discussion about it is warranted. I see no reason why that conversation should stop simply because you personally feel it should. If the discussion bothers you, maybe you are the one who should disengage. Bonewah (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Advocating that we WP:DROPTHESTICK implies that the debate is over, and that we should stop discussing it. The debate is most certainly not over, neither literally or figuratively . Saying it is is, if not rude, then tactless and taunting. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our opinions, and that includes me. This massively long thread shows to me that it is time to drop it. Of course, if you want to keep wasting your time with this minutiae, be my guest. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Again with the taunts. If you are assuming these tactics benefit your cause, I would advise you to reconsider. Marteau (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Which "cause" is that? I think you are seeing shadows where there are none. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marteau: I am patiently waiting for an answer. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The word "cause", as I used the word, is a colloquialism commonly used in debates. It is that which someone advocates or defends in their argument. You advocate we WP:DROPTHESTICK, therefore WP:DROPTHESTICK was your "cause" in the debate. Marteau (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That, and nominating Thefederalist.com article for deletion could also lead one to reasonably assume you have a "cause" Marteau (talk) 19:21, 26 September 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.

This article needs help...

Addition of two links that are already known and fully discussed

Good news: this article made the news. Bad news: it made it for all the wrong reasons- edit warring. Just wanted to bring this to everybody's attention so that an intelligent discussion can occur about how to fix the problems with this article ASAP. I'm no expert on this topic (I don't even know what he does for a living), but sometimes an outside view point can help with controversial topics. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/ Luthien22 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC) I don't mean to sound snarky, but you're about a week late to the party. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC) User:ZeroSerenity This page isn't in my expertise- I just saw this article pop up in my facebook feed. That being said, would this article by the Friendly Atheist about the issue be any help to you guys, or did somebody already find it? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/if-we-cant-trust-neil-degrasse-tyson-who-can-we-trust/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthien22 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry you are late to the party. That link has been in the article, and removed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Standalone article on allegations and local summary

POV fork was deleted

To avoid undue weight issues in this BLP, I've written a standalone article on the allegations themselves - Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, I recommend a brief summation in the "Career" section of the biography (as opposed to the "Politics" section where the mention currently lives). Here is my proposal: In September 2014, Sean Davis of The Federalist, a right-leaning Web magazine, alleged that Tyson had fabricated several quotes and anecdotes used in his books and lectures, most significantly a story about former U.S. President George W. Bush which claimed Bush had used a divisive religious quote in remarks following the September 11 attacks. Bush's speechwriters denied that Bush had ever made such remarks, and reporters covering Bush at the time did not recall the alleged remark. In response, Tyson stated "[T]one and flavor and context and intent are all key elements to any message I convey—all missing to anyone who was not present at the time." Thoughts? Kelly hi! 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Kelly. There is in no way enough sources and notability for a stand-alone article on this. I have redirected the "allegation" article to this article for now, but since the allegations are not currently mentioned in this article, it may be more appropriate to delete it. Do not recreate the allegation article without consensus to do so, as it constitutes a WP:BLP problem to have a controversy article without enough sources/notability to warrant it. Iselilja (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I've restored the content for now. The article is reliably sourced and the Twitter remarks are from verified accounts by mainstream journalists. All facts are sourced to reliable publications. Please use an appropriate process rather than simply blanking content. Kelly hi! 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Perhaps you could specify which facts are not adequately sourced? Kelly hi! 13:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Kelly. My concern isn't so much each fact per se (I have not looked into all that), but there isn't enough sources and notability to warrant a stand-alone article in the first place, because the overall coverage of this in reliable sources is limited to a couple of articles. To have a full article on this dispute constitues WP:UNDUE weight to the issue; currently it's even unclear whether there is consensus to include a single paragraph about the allegations in this main article. Iselilja (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) WP:UNDUE refers to the amount of content within an article, not to the existence of an article in itself. I started this discussion to consider how much of this info, if any, should be included in this biography. Kelly hi! 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC) The thing that spin-off article should only be created if there is too much stuff to have all in the main article. Per WP:Due Weight there is little to suggest that there will be consensus for including several paragraphs on this controversy in this article (even if there is good place for more stuff), hence a spin-off article is not necessary. ( Otherwise, your article appeared well written, and I understand it's irritating to see others undoe it). Iselilja (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I originally drafted it with the intention of creating a section in this article, but I think it's too large for that. Hence I created the content fork with the proposed summary here. Thank you for your comment about the writing, I appreciate it. Kelly hi! 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I do not think it is appropriate to create a standalone article at this time. We have not reached consensus about the notability/weight for inclusion in the main bio, so we are really short of consensus for enough notability/weight for a stand-alone. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC) In that case, you should use a Wikipedia process to address your concerns rather than simply blanking the page. Kelly hi! 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC) We are in the middle of an RFC debating weight/notability. Short circuiting that process by creating a stand-alone article is not the way to achieve consensus. Until we reach some consensus here the stand-alone article should redirect back to this article. The stand-alone article is a WP:POVFORK and violates wikipedia policy. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC) It's not a POV fork, it's a content fork, which Wikipedia uses all the time. That's why I'm making a proposal here in accordance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Kelly hi! 14:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I think it's fair to say that if the notability is this contentious for the main article, then a standalone would be inappropriate. General Epitaph (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) I think it's discourteous to the editors taking part in an RCF to go ahead and create a standalone article. Especially when large portion of users find the entire issue unnotable. This "issue" suffers from multiple problems beyond just "weight" and "reliable sources" (see the many instances of users claiming problems with and violation of policy above). Speedy deletion would be reasonable. --Shabidoo | Talk 17:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Note: I've nominated the article for deletion. Please see thread here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC) There are a number of alleged incidents, but there's quite a range, from pure nitpicking claims through reasonably well-sourced incidents. Very few, save the star-naming incident, have decent sourcing or rise beyond "who cares". Not enough, IMO to justify a separate article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC) It is looking like this fork will end up being deleted. If indeed the fork gets deleted, and if, at the end of the RfC here the consensus is to disallow mention of the Tyson fabrication allegations here, it will certainly be appropriate to restore the fork. Forks can be created for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues. As I said in the Articles for Deletion, WP:WEIGHT policy text uses the example of flat earth concepts not being includable in the earth article due to weight issues. The solution they illustrate to that weight issue is to create a fork, as evidenced by the linking of policy to the flat earth ideas article. The solution is NOT to completely censor every mention of distinct minority issues from the encyclopedia, but to fork off such ideas. There is no basis for completely removing absolutely all mention of this issue in this encyclopedia because of weight issues, as some editors seem to be proposing. Marteau (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC) My understanding of the RFC is not to "disallow mention of the Tyson fabrication allegations" but rather to decide whether to include them at this time based on notability/weight. If this gets more attention we should re-evaluate. The best thing to do right now is for everyone to take a deep breath, let the story develop, and calmly evaluate it in a few weeks. If the rest of the world thinks it's important then we should include it. If not, we should pass. In the meantime, throwing around loaded words like "censor" does not help foster the collaborative spirit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Support Merge of Whatever Merits Mention And Never Recreate This Fork: Imagine an encyclopedia with separate entries for every stupid thing a person did. This should not be wikipedia, it doesn't help our readers as all. Sure some bigwigs require multiple articles to cover everything they did in life, e.g., Early life of George W. Bush, but not George W. Bush pretzel incident.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyson has responded

From Facebook. It addresses a few points and seems to add some desired closure. Please examine for yourself. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're clear on two things now: Tyson is sticking by his 9/11-context claim, but no one as of yet can back him up.--Froglich (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally Facebook is absolutely an unusable, with the exception of WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm not proposing anything specific at the moment, I'm just making a note that information from there is potentially usable. Alsee (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be usable per WP:SPS but it's probably better to wait - I imagine some media outlets will pick it up despite it being released as a Friday night news dump. Kelly ^hi! 08:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to mainly say "this is what I remembered happening, and someone could probably prove it, but if no one is able to prove it, it may still have been true, because proving something did not happen is a fallacious requirement." Close enough? Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a major development. Tyson has decided to stick with his claim, despite the fact that every single public speech by the President is available for review, and not a single person has found the quote. Despite my interest in getting this incident correct, I had a favorable opinion of Tyson, as he is an excellent speaker, and has a knack for engaging his audience. I agree with his main theses, that American's has an abysmal grasp of science, and support his initiatives to address the problem. I also know, form personal experience, that it is possible to misremember things, and I was confident that when pressed, he would realize he made a mistake. That surprises me. Doesn't change the fact that he is an effective speaker, but if someone refuses to change their opinion in the face of evidence, what should we conclude about his character?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"This is a major development." Since when are facebook posts major developments? You are once again deciding what you think is important by your own arbtirary threshold, rather than looking at the most reliable sources, Second Quantization (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In the comments to that Facebook post, Tyson now acknowledges mixing up post-9/11 remarks and 2003 remarks on the Columbia space shuttle disaster. Not sure which way that cuts, but thought I'd note it for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.63.200 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I was stunned that he was trying to stick with his error, but he finally admitted his error. Tha doesn't look like an RS, so we may still have to wait for a better source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it meet WP:SELFSOURCE? PStrait (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it does. I know very little about Facebook, and most of what I see comes from seeing Facebook additions reverted. I understand that his own posts can be an exception, but I don't know enough about the verification process at Facebook to know whether a comment on someone else's page meets the verification standards. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for what it's worth, Tyson tweeted that he plans to apologize for bungling the quote. Again, not sure how this cuts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.63.200 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM Did I miss something? What article edit proposal is being discussed here? Gaba ^(talk) 14:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing a source to use. That is legitimate. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing the significance/usability of Tyson's statement as a potential source. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the comments that came after, mainly the one by S Philbrick. The article should be proposed as a source at WP:RSN linking back to this TP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe his statement can support a line in the article to the effect "Neil DeGrasse Tyson acknowledged on Facebook that he could not provide a direct citation for the quote he attributed to Bush". Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is basically zero question that the source would meet WP:SELFPUB in that its Tyson commenting on the accuracy of his own comments, but its only relevant in so much as its a response to content that may or may not be included. However, the fact that he did respond to it at all does give it some additional weight - you don't swat at non-existant-gnats. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Washington Post discusses Tyson's response here. Kelly ^hi! 20:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Volokh conspiracy is not TWP, it's a blog and it's WP:RS should be discussed. Gaba ^(talk) 21:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We can make a standalone article just about Tyson's facebook post...and how the totally impartial bloggers cover it and how extremely important newspapers and television stations document what the bloggers say (while the whole world waits at the edges of their seats to see what happens next). And then when some new blogger points out that Tyson wore white shirt after Labour day...we can document that on this article and create yet another stand alone (The Tyson white shirt on Labourday controversy). There will be no end to fair and impartial blogs that will critically analyse it and then CNN and the BBC will broadcast to the world the next extremely important development in the TysonGate saga. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the comments, Tyson admits he screwed up the quote: "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote. Perhaps that's a measure of how upset I was in both cases." PStrait (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• It appears Tyson intends to apologize to Bush[22] so I wouldn't be surprised at further coverage. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bush's Quote

Evidently the quote is on page 166 of the following transcript (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf). How does one integrate this into the article/controversy in a non-original research way? In any event, it's here for the discussion. General Epitaph (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think is this one on Page 166 (my highlight): "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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home." George W. Bush. REMARKS ON THE LOSS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA, THE CABINET ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C. FEBRUARY 1, 2003 - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But Tyson's recollection was that it was spoken after 9/11, so maybe his recollection is not accurate? Who knows? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that this was brought up in the original article (my apologies!) Evidently it was brought up as getting the date wrong. From the discussion page here I got the sense that people were claiming "no one could find this quote", hence my posting. Please disregard! General Epitaph (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyson has admitted that got the quote confused: Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote. Perhaps that’s a measure of how upset I was in both cases. The mind is surely the next mysterious universe to be plumbed. [23]

Can we put this now to rest? I hope so. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, but that was the whole point of the article. The actual quote had nothing to do with 9/11 and Islam. But because NDGT didn't bother to do his research and find the quote, he ended up slandering Bush with his misremembered interpretation. That's not a no-harm-no-foul situation. Ronnotel (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Big deal. I guess some people will keep foaming at the mouth about this no matter what. We will have some material about it on the article and we can then all move on to build the pedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The main criticism of this misquote is that Tyson made the quote out to be anti-Muslim/anti-Arab in nature; the fact that Tyson also got the circumstances wrong was always a secondary issue. Also, please be civil, and you may benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:OWN. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited this article. I came here from a BLP/N mention, so I don't understand why are you quoting WP:OWN. The way I look at this is that the outrage that have been raised by this mistake is worth mentioning in the article, but it is not a big deal. Luckily his mistake did not cost a trillion dollars and half a million deaths, if you get my gist. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lucky his mistake did not cost a trillion dollars..." - true but irrelevant. Jane Goodall's 'mistake' with Seeds of Hope didn't cost a trillion dollars, either, yet it remains notiable and recorded in WP. The issue is the error that NdGT made, not the errors which had been made by anyone else. Kerani (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, agree. The article already mentions the mistake, and once the protection ends surely more will be added including his admission. Are we done now? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues of a famed science communicator repeatedly fabricating or misattributing quotes have not been sufficently explored - at least, not sufficent for some people. More media attention to their concerns may yet yield more sources that will warrent inclusion. However, I don't think your contributions will make or break the article, feel free to bow out if you've got more pressing matters.Kerani (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Explore away... but I don't think you need much more to cover this issue in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The PDF quote is "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see there is comfort and hope. 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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home. May God bless the grieving families, and may God continue to bless America. "

We ought not elide the fact that Bush was quoting Isaiah, who is revered by Muslims, in the first place - and did not come up with "naming the stars" out of the blue, and most assuredly did not do so in any sense of separating Muslims from "us." Tyson managed not only to mangle the quote, but also the circumstances of the quote, and the intent of the quote. And to deny doing so until irrefutable evidence was provided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is simply your opinion. You are not supposed to be arguing with Tyson. WP:OR Objective3000 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not my "opinion" as to the quote. It is not my "opinion" that Tyson misquoted Bush (indeed, he states he did so). It is not my "opinion" that he misstated the circumstances of the quote - Tyson states that as well. It is not my "opinion" that Bush did not refer at all to Muslims in the quote - the quote stands quite well on its own. It is not my "opinion" that Tyson denied misquoting Bush until forced to do so by people citing the actual quote in the transcript - the reliable sources cited make that factually clear. And I am not "arguing with Tyson" at all -- just stating what he has said and what the official transcript states. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. Presenting the facts is quite a bit different than presenting your opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We present facts as long as they are mentioned in a WP:RS. We don't present out opinions on the "facts" as Collect did above. Gaba ^(talk) 21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect presented only facts. I would ask you to point out which fact is not true; what is opinion? Arzel (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Two Versions of the Quote Bush and Tyson

What Bush said Feb 2003 in the aftermatch of the space shuttle Columbia disaster was: "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. 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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf

TYSON's Misremembered Version: "Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it? He says, "Our God" - of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, "Our God is the God" - he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis - "Our God is the God who named the stars.""

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/watch/2008/06/19/george-bush-and-star-names

More wrong than just the date. Totally different context and motive. No our god v their god. No us v them. And Isaiah not Genesis. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Resources

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

Source	Status as RS	Discussion of RS status	Article	Added by (use four tildes if inserting it yourself)
The Daily Beast	Y	here	[24]
FrontPage Mag	Y	here	[25]
haydenplanetarium.org	Y	Possibly not for everything, but presumably for this	[26]
Tampa Tribune	Y Editorial - see below	(Presumptive, not seeing any dissent)	[27]
Washington Free Beacon	?		[28]
Hot air	Probably not		[29]
Liberty Unyielding	Probably not		[30]
thedailybanter.com	Probably not		[31]
The Weekly Standard	Y Editorial - see below	here	[32]
original list is above, add new ones below
Physics Today	Y	[33]	[34]	added in comment to this section: Markus Pössel (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Volokh Conspiracy	self-edited blog, published by washingtonpost.com without their editorial oversight, honored by ABA Journal	here	[35] [36]	near top of RfC: Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The Week	Y	(Presumptive, UK Newspaper)	[37]
National Review	Y Editorial - see below	here, and here	[38]
Christian Post	highly doubtful	here	[39]
Facebook	Y	WP:SELFSOURCE	[40]	Alsee (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Caller	Y Editorial - see below	here	[41]	Kelly hi! 08:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Washington Examiner	Y	Presumed, weekly magazine	[42]	Kelly hi! 08:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breitbart as well [43] Bonewah (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're probably right about the phrasing - on Twitter the author said he was "hedging" on that because he couldn't prove a negative.[45] Kelly ^hi! 14:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Additional ref from The Daily Caller, though the main topic is the AFD of The Federalist page.[46] Kelly ^hi! 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Article about the controversy from The Washington Examiner.[47] Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Needs changing

"Race and social justice" section begins: "In an undated interview at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Tyson talked about being an African American and one of the most visible and well known scientists in the world. - this is a ludicrous claim, as he is unknown outside the US (maybe plus Canada). Either change to "a highly visible scientist" or something, or put in quotes if the source actually says this. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The source (youtube video of interview) provides no support for the claim that Tyson is “one of the most visible and well known scientists in the world.” Furthermore, the quote of Tyson that follows is somewhat misleading because it is condensed from a longer conversation from 7:20-10:40 of the video. The quote should be edited to add ellipses in three places: (1) between “nothing to do with being black” and “And at that point, I realized”; (2) between “black people are somehow dumb” and “I wondered, maybe”; and (3) between “who's smart and who's dumb” and “I said to myself.”Beneficial nematode (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your suggested edit of “a highly visible scientist,” while Tyson is both highly visible and is a scientist, is he really highly visible as a scientist? According to Science Magazine,Tyson is the scientist with the most twitter followers but “only 151 citations.” In comparison, Brian Cox is the scientist with the 2nd greatest number of twitter followers and has “more than 33,000 citations.” Perhaps the article should be changed to something like “a highly visible science educator.” Beneficial nematode (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but only in the US, not that we need say that. A grumpy thread about this page on Village pump has produced a global chorus of "Neil who?" Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards

As Marteau was so kind to point out, the vast majority of this page does not conform to WP:NOTFORUM standards. I officially request that ALL such material be immediately deleted. Wvnd (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• To the contrary, it seems to me that a vast majority of the article is related to editing of the article and in no way violates the guidelines. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto. There has been a reasoned conversation with both sides giving valid points refering to wikipedia policy. As it stands the far majority of editors have given multiple reasons for why this paragraph gives undue weight. Multiple users have so far cited the following problems: WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTABLE, WP:BLP, WP:RSUW, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEWSBLOG). --Shabidoo | Talk 18:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely did NOT say anything CLOSE to "the vast majority of this page does not conform to WP:NOTFORUM standards." Watch what you say when ascribing things to another editor. I simply reverted ONE editor and ONE vandalism. Marteau (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Fix italics

Could someone please fix the italics in the following places:

• add italics to Tampa Tribune in Neil deGrasse Tyson#Politics?
• add italics to Ron and Fez in Neil deGrasse Tyson#Media appearances?
• remove italics from James Randi Educational Foundation in Neil deGrasse Tyson#Media appearances?

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

A reminder that due to WP:NEWBLPBAN this article is subject to DS. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Image choice for infobox

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Tyson hosting the 40th anniversary celebration of Apollo 11 at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, July 2009

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson at the November 29, 2005 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, in Washington, D.C.

Wouldn't this: File:Tyson - Apollo 40th anniversary 2009.jpg be a better choice for the main (infobox image) that the current one: File:Neil deGrasse Tyson August 3, 2014 (cropped).jpg--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. The current image does have a very unencyclopedic feel to it, like an informal fan-photo. I agree the photo you suggested would be an upgrade, but I checked Commons and found this one! It's an extremely professional photograph taken by NASA photographers. I tested previewing the page using this photo in the infobox, it looks extremely encyclopedic. The caption is Neil deGrasse Tyson at the November 29, 2005 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, in Washington, D.C. Alsee (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded which one? Sphilbrick's suggestion or Alsee's? I support Sphilbrick's, and wonder why the current image is there, unless it is to denigrate the subject. Alsee's suggestion is only marginally better than the current. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

S Philbrick's image (Apollo 40th anniversary). --Shabidoo | Talk 05:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I inserted both imageboxes here for easy comparison. Note that Sphilbrick's image is already used in the body of the article, so we'd have to do some image shuffling if we wanted to use that one for the infobox. Alsee (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the images, I should have done that. While I like Alsee's suggested image, it is marred by the intruding head, which doesn't look easy to crop. I was hesitant to offer my observation about the current image, but Moriori nailed it. While I have been active in discussions above to include information that is critical of Tyson, I think he is a very effective communicator, and an excellent spokesperson for science education. I think he dserves a more professional looking photo as the lead image.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the 2009 image should go in the infobox, the 2005 image should go where the 2009 image is currently, and the current infobox photo should be retired. I agree with the idea that the head intruding on the 2005 image disqualifies it for the infobox. Plus you can see his cufflinks in the 2009 image. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that both of these photos are "nicer" (particularly the '09), the problem is that they're not current photos (as befits a living person article). Tyson is "grayer" now, and the 2014 photo accurately depicts this.--Froglich (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think Tyson looks all that different in the 2014 photo than in the 2005 or 2009 photos. You get essentially the same impression of his features from all three photos. I also don't think we have any obligation to show the most recent photo of someone, we just want to make sure it's illustrative. A counter-example to the "use the most recent photo" doctrine is Abe Vigoda, whose article has a picture that is 7 years old, but the one used above the fold is 37 years old. It's not like in the past 5 years Tyson has been attacked by birds and now uses large facial scars and an eyepatch as a stylistic trademark - he looks like basically the same guy with a few more patches of grey hair, maybe his weight has changed a bit and he might have a few more wrinkles, but it's not a significant difference. I also wouldn't be surprised if the lower-quality lighting and impromptu nature of the photo shoot were the only reason he would look "older" in the 2014 photo. I think the 2009 photo looks best. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there's consensus that the current infobox image should be dumped, consensus that Tyson hosting the 40th should be the infobox pic, and I think a general view that Neil deGrasse Tyson at NASA Advisory Council is worthy of inclusion elsewhere. This requires a little shuffling.

Proposal:

• Tyson in conversation with Richard Dawkins moves from bottom of Spirituality to the top, where Tyson hosting the 40th is. It should have been there in the first place.
• Tyson hosting the 40th goes from spirituality to the lede infobox.
• Tyson at the screening of Cosmos in lede infobox gets dropped.
• Neil deGrasse Tyson at NASA Advisory Council goes next to NASA where Tyson with Bill Nye and U.S. President is.
• Tyson with Bill Nye and U.S. President moves up to RIGHT side at top of Politics.
• I also propose dropping Tyson promoting the Cosmos in career section. It's a really bad photo, Tyson is barely visible behind the photographer and the yellow frame. The double glass pane in front of his chest doesn't help either. Alsee (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal entirely. The only thing that I'm unsure about is the last point. I'm not sure that photo is actually hurting the article, and that section might just be a huge block of text without it. If you look at the full size version, he's a lot more obviously there. Maybe re-cropping that image and then increasing its display size on the page would help. Alternatively, the uncropped version of the current infobox photo is also a Cosmos promotional event. It would need to be re-cropped to frame it better and to remove the watermark, but perhaps that could be a replacement for the Tyson-in-Australia photo.

Another potential change to your proposal would be rather than inserting the 2005 NASA hearing photo where the current Bill Nye photo is, insert this group photo in front of a lunar lander instead, since it's very obvious that it's a NASA event just looking at it. The downside is we'd have two group photos with Bill Nye in them right next to one another in the article, which is not aesthetically ideal.

In think we should pull the trigger on at least the first 3 bullet points, since I doubt those will be controversial. I'd do it myself, but apparently the page is protected (no protection template, though, what's up with that?). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of shuffling the Nye/Obama/Tyson 'selfie' shot up to politics, drop that one and instead use one from this NASA page (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-visits-nasa-goddard/#.VCgiJ_ldXzc) for the politics section. (For clarification, it's not the persons in the photo, it's the selfie that strikes me as "could do better." Kerani (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the framing of that photo is fine, but it's a bit grainy and out of focus. Also, I'm not sure that conveys the same concept of Tyson's political activities as the NASA-related photos (which are relevant to the "NASA" section anyway, for which there are already two good photos). Plus, it's not like the photo of Nye, Obama and Tyson is a selfie - it's a professionally taken photograph of Nye, Tyson and Obama taking a selfie together, which conveys something about their relationship and engagement with, modern culture or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson to the bottom of the page. Kelly ^hi! 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Shortening length of full protection

There have been some major advancements in this story since the (justified) full protection for edit warring was put into place. Currently the protection is set to expire October 11th. I think this is clearly too long. I am changing the protection to expire 24 hours from now, which leaves plenty of time for discussion as to the wisdom of it. I would not oppose immediate lifting of protection if someone else thinks that's wise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove italics

I have nothing to say about the discussion over this section, but "Our God is the God who named the stars," should not be italicized. Quotations are denoted by quotation marks only. See MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The image with Bill Nye should also be at the top of the section so it doesn't cause the odd spacing around NASA and white space below it. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change about the Bush quote

Everyone has been arguing over the bush quote, but now that Neil Tyson has confirmed what he was referring to, I think this can be explained in a way that everyone can agree with. Someone might want slightly different wording, etc. or different references, that's fine, but lets work to getting a final version everyone can agree with, so here is what I propose. Eliminate the current paragraph at the end of the Views\Politics section and replace it with the following:

On September 16th, 2014 the website The Federalist accused Neil Tyson of quoting President George W. Bush out of context. Neil Tyson had claimed that within a week of the 9/11 terrorist attack, that President Bush in an attempt to distance Muslim fundamentalists from Christians loosely quoted Genesis when he said “Our God is the God who named the stars.” Neil Tyson has confirmed that he was referring to President Bush’s February 2003 speech on the space shuttle challenger’s explosion and that he "transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote." In that speech President Bush quotes not Genesis but Isaiah when he said “He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name." President Bush then says, “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.” This speech was on February 1st, 2003, not within a week of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and said nothing about Muslims.

--Obsidi (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

If there MUST be something in the article (and by the way there hasn't been anything remotely approaching consensus on the issue and there has been no agreement on including any of this in the article yet) then it should be way shorter than this. --Shabidoo | Talk 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am at least of the opinion having read through the issue posted above, that much of the disagreement was on if there was a reliable source to say which quote Neil Tyson was referring to. All that has changed now that we have a WP:SELFSOURCE, from Neil Tyson, and should no longer be controversial. I don't think anything I posted above can be disputed (do you disagree?). You say that it should be "way shorter" by which I assume you are saying that my proposal is giving it too much weight. This is about the accusation that he took the president of the united states out of context, which if true, would seem to be worth commenting on at least a bit. I am not proposing a new section or any more then a single paragraph on the controversy. Maybe other people feel even that is too much, but I don't at least at the moment. Why do you feel that is too much weight for the topic? --Obsidi (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the reason that this gives undue weight is that President Bush actually did make comments very similar to the comment, in the same time frame, on the same subject, as claimed by Tyson, and the general thrust of what he is saying is a perfectly honest opinion, whether or not others agree with the opinion. I’m not trying to bash Bush. (I personally think he is far more moderate toward Muslims than these blogs.) I’m saying that this is a ‘no harm, no foul’ misquote that has been turned into another faux-controversy by a blog so extremist that it equates Wikipedia editors with beheading jihadists and the due-diligence discussions of Wikipedia volunteer editors as equal to the crucifixion of Christ. It should be clear that this blog, that erroneously claims to be cited by every major network and news outlet, is trying to raise its exposure to the level of its claimed exposure by repeatedly accusing Wikipedia to be a part of yet another oddball conspiracy, which is grist for the mill of a part of the conspiracy-soaked blogosphere. I don’t see any reason for any inclusion whatsoever. If there is, it should be one sentence in a criticism section. But, if honestly stated, it will make him look better as it’s about as shallow a criticism as one can imagine. I would be delighted if that were the worst criticism one could find about me. Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhmmm...No President Bush did not actually make comments very similar. That is the whole point. From the (ABA award winning, WaPo hosted) VC blog: "Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims. As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too." There is a reason that this story has been picked up broadly in mainstream media, it is deemed noteworthy when a prominent public intellectual makes claims of this nature. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)"Very similar"? Um -- the quote claimed was clearly anti-Muslim. The actual quote does not appear to be anti-Muslim. The claimed quote had Bush claiming God named the stars, the actual quote is from Isaiah, who is a prophet as far as Muslims are concerned. The actual quote is clearly aimed at showing the grief about seven dead astronauts, and has nothing at all to do with anything else. Sorry - there is a significant difference between the actual quote and the anecdotal claims made by Tyson, as Tyson now acknowledges. And calling a blog "extremist" for daring to present the evidence about the error in the quote is not really very impressive here at all. Collect (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The Devine inspiration section of Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War clearly shows Bush statements that are similar. Not exact, but along the same lines and clearly offensive to Muslims, no matter how intended. 2. This has NOT been picked up broadly in mainstream media. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Devine inspiration" section (should be divine) had this quote "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him." This has nothing at all to do with the quote "Our God is the God who named the stars." It is not similar at all. -- Obsidi (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You can connect the space shuttle deaths with the Iraq War? Really?? And quoting a prophet revered by Muslims is insulting to Muslims? Really?? I am not quite as gullible as to suppose that you are correct on those claims. Collect (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything slightly close to any of that. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Half of what you wrote is you going off about The Federalist. Most of us who support inclusion have agreed The Federalist is no longer considered a reliable source and most of us who support inclusion are well aware of their tendency to froth at the mouth. Regarding the weight issue, the way to create proper weight is to include opposing viewpoints, not by precluding "any inclusion whatsoever" or limit it to "one sentence". Reliable sources saying why this dispute is not a big deal can be included to give proper weight, but this whole notion that nothing about it must be included due to weight issues is a misapplication of the weight guidelines. Marteau (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you’re not suggesting that WP should include all refs from people that “froth at the mouth”. I don’t see that in weight guidelines. Some guy is trying to control the actions of WP editors in order to increase his exposure via WP:CAN campaigning. Will we have weeks long discussions every time some blog tries to gain hits in this manner over something so inconsequential as a quote that was less than perfect, but actually on point as to quotes that were made on the same subject in the same time frame? This is an encyclopedia with excellent rules and procedures. Not an advertising medium. The tail should not wag the dog. Objective3000 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fear not and rest assured, I suggested nothing of the sort. Marteau (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (edit) AHHH, I see where your confusion lies. I said "Regarding the weight issue, the way to create proper weight is to include opposing viewpoints, not by precluding "any inclusion whatsoever" or limit it to "one sentence". That is true. I stand by that. And the way that is accomplished, I said in the sentence that followed: "Reliable sources saying why this dispute is not a big deal can be included to give proper weight". Reliable sources, that is. NOT The Federalist. Which I have said before and will say again, cannot be considered a reliable source here. Marteau (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Objective3000, The quote was not on the same subject, this has been made quite clear. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The quotes I linked to are about the run-up to the Iraq War. The original quote by Tyson is about post 9/11. Same thing. I amd not talking about the Challenger quote. Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

<-The first line of your proposed edit should, in my opinion, be changed. The article cited actually accuses NdGT of "quote fabrication" not quoting out of context. Perhaps the line could read "On September 16th, 2014 the website The Federalist accused Neil Tyson of fabricating quotes attributed to President George W. Bush. I also think the second line should quote NdGT directly, rather than explaining. Thoughts? Bonewah (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we include the fact that support was drummed up for this edit of the article IN the article? It seems pretty notable to me that the right is trying to Swift Boat Tyson. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1332921/-The-Al-Gorification-of-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson Mystic55 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection change

This article was under full protection through sometime in October, but the protection will expire later today. Many longtime editors will be aware that the change in protection can trigger a number of edits, sometimes triggering a need for further protection.

Given the intensity of feelings about this article, it would be wise to reach a consensus on this page before making any substantive changes. Obviously, I have no authority to insist on this; I am simply sharing that edits made, even if substantial, after discussion on a talk page are less likely to trigger a new protection that several editors falling over each other to make changes and starting an edit war.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We still have a significant number of editors insisting that there be absolutely no mention of this issue in the encyclopedia. That suggests we have a long way to go to reach consensus. Jimbo is wiser than I am in these cases, and I am not questioning him re-opening the article tomorrow, for he knows the dynamics of the encyclopedia better than I, but I cannot see anything happening tomorrow but continued warring, perhaps eventually leading to Jimbo having to step in further. That said, I will not edit without consensus, and I hope others will too. Marteau (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Count me in as one of those "significant" number of editors. This is very clearly yet-another manufactured controversy being pushed by the conservative noise machine. We have no obligation to add such controversies to Wikipedia, especially to any BLP. No, this really needs to end, and it needs to end now. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How is this manufactured? NGT seriously misquoted GWB and implied something that is simply not true. WP is not here to defend NGT against his own actions. As a person of science myself, when we run fast and loose with "factual" stories that turn out not to be true, then trust is lost. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that phrases like "conservative noise machine" have no real usefulness in Wikipedia. The only question is whether reliable third party sources have taken note of the controversy, which they have. It's a significant matter that needs to be addressed in the article in an appropriate fashion. [Addendum: Obsidi's very matter-of-fact and non-editorializing suggest above seems like a good starting point. It's probably a bit too long but cut down to essentials, it appears to cover the issue fairly.]--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The "conservative noise machine" or The Republican Noise Machine, however you want to use the term, has a lasting currency and is in wide usage in the United States. The phrase is very useful, as it accurately describes the many manufactured controversies created by conservative think tanks and lobby groups. If you believe this issue is a "real" controversy that has been discussed in some significant way by reliable secondary sources, I would love to see a single source for this claim. AFAIK, it isn't a real controversy and it hasn't been discussed as such. Based on this dearth of independent sources, it does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. Anyone who looks at this problem critically, immediately sees it for what it truly is: a fallacious ad hominem. "You can't trust Neil deGrasse Tyson on the subject of science because he misquoted George Bush." I can't see a valid argument for adding this nonsense to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that NGT uses stories to convey misuse of numbers, statistics, and science within his presentations. These stories are presented as actual factual examples. Count me as one person that fights situations where people don't understand the meaning/difference of Median and Mean; don't understand that 1,000mg is the same as 1g; have a poor or non-existent understanding of probabilities and risk. I appreciate what he is trying to do, but when you misquote what people say within the context of those stories the very people you are trying to educate lose trust in the message you are trying to convey. If you don't see this as a problem then I don't think you really understand why this is an issue. If you actually read what people are saying about this you can see why they think it is a problem. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While there are only 14 scripts in Hollywood, there is still only one script at the Heartland Institute. "You can't trust climate scientists, look at how they predicted global cooling and then misused and altered the data to fabricate global warming!" We know how the noise machine helps the energy companies frame the narrative, after all they've been doing it for several decades now, and several books have documented it (Merchants of Doubt, Doubt is their Product). But do you understand how they deliver the manufactured controversy? They get their unknown operatives (Davis, Tracinski) to write for unknown websites (Federalist) that slip under the funding radar (It must be true, I read it on the Internet). Then, they get the known opinion bloggers in mainstream sources to comment about the obscure sources to give it an audience (Adler). And, presto, Tyson's defense of climate science is suspect because he misquoted George Bush. And this should go in Wikipedia, why? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that it is you that is ranting about GW here. However, if you want to go there, you should not want someone that makes up quotes defending your narrative. And frankly I think you are upset with the wrong people/person. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Beast, one of the few mainstream sources to take note of this, attributes this controversy to the conservative noise machine and notes that reaction outside of it has been "overwhelmingly dismissive". We should be careful not to over-represent a minority viewpoint on this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that needs to be in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's assuming that it belongs in the article at all, and I don't think it does. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The way to address these nasty, evil products of this supposed "Conservative Noise Machine" is to give proper weight to views, perspectives and information which refute it, not to obliterate it with a "Liberal Silencing Machine". Marteau (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Week notes that this controversy has had an impact on the climate change debate.[48] Kelly ^hi! 06:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If by impact you mean "nothing has changed", then yes, it has had an impact. BTW, there is no debate, that is a talking point used by Heartland. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Given the intensity of feelings about this article, it would be wise to reach a consensus on this page before making any substantive changes." I very much agree with that. When the protection is lifted later today, there will likely be a flurry of edits, reversions, reverts of the reversions, etc. My recommendation would be to leave the article as-is until the RFC runs its course, with perhaps the addition of a sentence stating that Tyson has admitted that he muffed the quote and {apologized} or {said he would apologize} . We can evaluate further in the light of the RFC results and perhaps more press coverage. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please drop the issue of climate in this discussion? As the sub-head of the Week article says "Tyson has allegedly been caught embellishing anecdotes. And climate change is still real." Not a single editor has proposed mentioning climate science in any way, shape or form. It looks like a straw man argument. Let's return to the issue at hand and determine whether the draft by Obsidi can be trimmed. The issue of whether the incident deserves mention at all is the subject of the on-going RfC. We can craft appropriate language, and when that RfC is closed, that conclusion can be enacted, if it means removal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have no intention of bringing the global warming debate to this page. I was just musing as to whether The Week's analysis of the quote controversies' impact should be included or not. I'm thinking probably not, at least for now, as they are the only RS I've seen that has put forward this interpretation. Kelly ^hi! 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why pretend that the elephant isn't in the room? The only reason the misquotes are an issue is because Tyson mocks those who deny Climate Change. No evidence for noteworthiness has been advocated of inclusion save by sources that also attack Tyson's attitude on AGW. Not one. Mystic55 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

proposal

Currently we have:

Tyson has claimed that, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)".[59] Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."[60]

To (adding proper cites of course)

In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)". Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrectly used by Tyson misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven deadChallenger astronauts, and that the full context did not refer to Muslims at all, but was

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

Tyson on Sep 26, 2014, defended his use of the quotation on Facebook: "I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere -- surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged." and then on Sep 27 he emended his position stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote."

This avoids any accusatory tone, or any use of "but it was found by extreme right wing nuts" or the like - sticking to straightforward reportage of the incident. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that an embellishment of an anecdote requires coverage in a BLP. But what is notable, is the brouhaha that this embellishment has caused in right-wing media. So if we are to include anything about this misquote, is that aspect, as it should be obvious to anyone what are the reason this has become a fabricated controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What an interesting view of a straightforward section - I think you might be evincing the "we can not allow anything from extreme right wing folks in Wikipedia" or the like? That you find this all a "fabricated controversy" would appear to mean you think that Tyson did not misuse or misrecall the Bush quote, but that horse has left the barn as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, no. He obviously did misquote, but what is notable is not the misquote, but the over-reaction to it by right-wing media. That's what I mean. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So NGT mis-speaks and mis-attributes a quote by GWB it and the only controversy is that the right is pissed about it? That is a good argument. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the proposed edit above. I recomend we change "seven dead astronauts" to "the seven Challenger astronauts" With a wlink of course. Also, i think saying that the quote was "incorrectly used" implies that the quote was what GWB actaully said, but that NdGT should not have used the quote in the context that he did. I think we should change the line to "Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrect". Bonewah (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the proposal above is far too long. — TPX 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Counterproposal:

Criticism

Tyson was accused of misquoting President George W. Bush in a post 9/11 speech in a manner that caused the President to sound religiously divisive.(ref) Tyson later apologized and withdrew the quote.(ref) Objective3000 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Grossly inadequate, and seems to totally ignore Tyson's responses to the accusations. The speech was not "Post 9/11" as Tyson had used it, was not about 9/11, and made no religiously divisive claims. Tyson has not "withdrawn" the quote, nor did he "apologize" (to whom?) - he simply thanked people for finding the correct quote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Although he has not apologized, he has stated his intention to do so https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/516238870514388995 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The criticism was that Tyson suggested it was in a post 9/11 speech and it was religiously divisive. That's the point. If you want to include Tyson's dismissive responses to the Federalist, would you also include their nonsense about beheading, crucifixion, etc? If this is to be included at all, it should be "just the facts ma'am".Objective3000 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Worthless. You can't talk about the section without including the quotes. Also, as Gaijin has stated, he has not appologized as of yet. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is much better. Concise and to the point. For the time being, we can say Tyson acknowledged the error, instead of apologising for it (which he intends to do shortly). — TPX 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The counterproposal fails for the reasons enumerated by Collect. The proposal is a bit long. Can we consider removing the initial defense by Tyson?

Suggested wording:

In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)". Columnists and bloggers noted that the quote was incorrectly used by Tyson, misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven Challenger astronauts, and that the full context did not refer to Muslims at all, but was:

"In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. 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 agreed, stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote."

No, no, no! It's absolutely insane to provide more coverage to this than to Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey or declassifying Pluto as a planet which is still in the news 8 years later. Will this quote thing still be in the news 8 years later? It's barely in the news now. For heaven's sake, Tyson's stance on Pluto forced 75 years of astronomy textbooks to be rewritten! Sheesh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Pluto, Schmuto, there are axes to grind here! What I find fascinating about this whole dispute is that the sort of loose recollection of facts which Tyson displayed here is quite common among commentators, it is hard to predict which become picked up on. But its day to day sniping at best.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of words for something that STILL has not hit a single national paper or network. Objective3000 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't delete Pokemon articles because 19 century architecture is undercovered, so it starts out as a false argument. Why are you bringing up Pluto? If Tyson did have a role in it, the role wasn't big enough to get even a mention in Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. I read it , and while it is possible it slipped my recollection, I did a Google book search and it states his name does not appear. If you would like to expand the coverage of Pluto's status, be my guest, you've been around long enough to know about Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a very good search as Tyson wrote The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet. Unlike the current subject, Tyson’s work in this area was covered by major papers and networks. Otherstuff doesn’t apply as we are talking about two parts of the same article and their relative importance. Objective3000 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this was barely touched by Reliable Sources (so far). It doesn't warrant an entire section-size explanation. It can probably be two or maybe three sentences if we give a general statement of the accusation, an his acknowledgement. Note: Tyson has indicated he's planning a bigger statement with an apology.... it's very possible that this will trigger significantly more news coverage. More coverage would warrant more detail. Alsee (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we limit the discussion here to proposed edits and keep the question of "should this even be included at all" to other talk page sections? I get that there are still numerous editors who oppose inclusion of this material, but there are also, presumably, numerous editors who, like me, find the question of inclusion or exclusion easier to decide if we can see what would be included. Bonewah (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rereading this section i see that editors are objecting to the length of quotes, not their inclusion per se. Bonewah (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the complete Bush quote should be included. This is the Tyson bio, not the Bush bio. Removing that, and simply referencing it would reduce the wording materially.

A reminder that the RfC upthread is on the issue of inclusion or not, please weigh in there is you want to support or oppose inclusion (and havent already) This section is for the crafting of the wording that neutrally summarizes the incident, should it be concluded that it deserves inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New proposal

The initial proposal by collect is ridiculously excessive. Here's my proposal::

“ In some of his lectures Tyson stated that, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars."[59] After being questioned on the accuracy of the quote[1] Tyson commented in his Facebook profile "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote. Perhaps that's a measure of how upset I was in both cases."[Tyson's FB post] ”

[1]: the most reliable source available for this, ie: no thefederalist.com.

Anything else would be WP:UNDUE. I'm not even sure it should be mentioned at all given that no major media outlets picked up on this in spite of some right-wing media's efforts to make this an issue. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Much better. Objective3000 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Managing to imply Tyson was absolutely correct in what he said the quote was about (an attack on Muslims), that the quote was correctly worded with only the event date being wrong, , and failing to note that the actual quote is from Isaiah? What an interesting view. Collect (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I see at least two problems here. One, the proposed edit does not mention that the other incident was the shuttle explosion, so the line "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote." is cryptic. Two, the proposed edit makes no mention of the critic's claim that Tyson wrongly portrayed GWB as anti-Muslim, the ""distinguish we from they (Muslims)" part. Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect and Bonewah the proposal is in line with the sources. Your own thoughts on what Tyson omitted or how he should've responded or the "implications" of what he commented are almost as irrelevant as the whole "incident" itself. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

IOW you aver that sources state Tyson did not in any way misquote Bush or draw wrong inferences from what Bush actually said, only that he got the dates wrong. Right? Really? Collect (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No. You need other words? regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Objective3000IM not commenting on how Tyson should have responded or the implications (with or without the ""), im only commenting on the proposed edit. Again the problem is that the proposed edit fails to mention Tyson's critics main complaint, that Tyson incorrectly portrayed GWB as anti-Muslim using a quote that GWB never actually said. Bonewah (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Only GWB did make other statements, in the same time period, in the same vein, that would suggest just that. Rationale for the Iraq War. Now, I don't believe GWB is anti-Muslim. But, it's hard to take this as slanderous (as stated in the original proposal) when GWB has, in fact, made like statements. Objective3000 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What does the Rationale for the Iraq War article have to do with this? Did Tyson cite something from that article? Did any of his critics? Not that im aware. Again, the core argument that his critics made is that Tyson wrongly portrayed GWB as anti-muslim using a quote that GWB never actually said. The fact that GWB has said some things that you, personally, think are in the same vein is totally irrelevant. Bonewah (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposal

My proposal is to just delete the entire thing. It's not important enough to warrant inclusion and we're not a not a news site. It barely registers a blip in reliable sources. This is not the way to write an encyclopedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How about,"Tyson admitting to accidentally misquoting Bush about the naming of stars after an anonymous conservative wikipedia editor drummed up support on several conservative news sites. It is believed this is an attempt to discredit him by AGW Denial advocates such as the Heartland Institute due to comments he made on the critically acclaimed show Cosmos." Mystic55 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasnt there been enough acrimony on this subject already? Yes, we get it, you both strongly oppose any inclusion of this material. Do you have to flood the talk page with snark to prove that? Bonewah (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't snark. This is the beginning of an obvious process to discredit Tyson as denoted on a liberal site, making it a notable issue. The attempt to sway conservative commentators has, in fact, made the attempt to sway them and discredit Tyson notable and worthy of inclusion, and failure to do so takes the context of the addition of the criticism OUT of context. It is noteworthy because the commentator made it so. Mystic55 (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014

Ok, if you are being serious, then i totally oppose your proposed edits as obviously and laughably POV pushing as well as WP:OR. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how including mention that a 'misquote' that was included in the article with a POV agenda isn't actually WP:NOTABLE if not more notable than the misquote? Mystic55 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are asking. Bonewah (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't even be mentioned given the little to no relevance it had in reliable media but I guess the outcome of the current RfC will decide that. The extent and content of what gets included, in the case the RfC turns out is should be included at all, is another issue altogether. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Contextual Counter-proposal

I believe that including the context is important to indicate the notable nature of the event. I suggest:

In June 2008, during prepared remarks, Tyson used an anecdote about then-President Bush to illustrate what Tyson considered widespread scientific illiteracy. In his presentation, which included slides and photos, Tyson attributed the following quote to Bush - "Our God is the God who named the stars" - and stated that the quote had been made in the context of the 9/11 attacks and had been used by Bush to distinguish between Christians and Muslims. Tyson held that this quote was an example of scientific illiteracy due to the large contributions of Arabs to astronomy, particularly highlighting the number of stars with Arabic names.

In 2014, a conservative website published an article alleging several false or attributed statements by Tyson, including the Bush quote above, which could not be independently sourced. The website suggested instead that a passage from a 2003 speech by Bush in the wake of the Colombia disaster had been mis-contextualized by Tyson. Tyson initially insisted that the quote was accurate in that the original speech referred to differences between Muslims and Christians, and was in the immediate wake of 9/11. Controversy over the provenance of the quote and its potential reflection on Tyson's integrity garnered even more attention. Eventually Tyson acknowledge that the 2003 speech was the likely source.

Edited to put 2nd para in italics And obviously references will have to be added before posting. end edit.

I realize this is wordy, but it does have the advantage of being complete and (IMO) non-inflammatory.Kerani (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)