Talk:The Federalist (website)

Notability

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Title / Rename article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not punish climate change skeptics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of independent secondary sources

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

Edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page etiquette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users

• Assume good faith

• Avoid personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

About The Federalist

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

Cites the magazine and its writer(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Domenech

Publisher, The Federalist

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

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

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

Query about the "recruitment" tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two editors

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 28 September 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only source about The Federalist

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

Removal via OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia as part of the story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logo

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

Undue Weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 03 October 2014

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 3 October 2014

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 4 October 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed section for Tyson misattribute issue

Current version -

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several critical articles concerning physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, alleging that Tyson had mis-quoted President George W. Bush. Tyson acknowledged that he had mis-remembered the Bush quote and apologized. would be more in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raw Story also provide a different angle:

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

— TPX 09:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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