Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 11

Time to move on on The Federalist issue?
It's clear from the now-closed RfC that there is no consensus on including content about The Federalist's claims in this article. As the closing admin correctly says, the outcome defaults to excluding the disputed content. I've collapsed the three discussions on different forms of wording as they are now moot, given that there is no consensus for including any content on this issue at all. For those who still wish to include the content, I would suggest that there is no point in reopening the question immediately - it would be better to leave it for now and come back in a few weeks or months' time when things have calmed down. Otherwise it might be better simply to move on, as this clearly isn't going anywhere without a clear consensus one way or the other. Further argument at this stage seems to be rather a futile effort. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, when it comes to noteworthy, well-covered issues, it's not something that will be easily moved on from as long as the same arguments against inclusion that do not address the content or coverage are used and when the closure doesn't appear to have weighted the arguments properly. At this point, those of us in favor of inclusion would need to know whether more coverage would still be opposed or whether false BLP claims would be invoked anytime it comes up in the future before discussion of moving on could even start. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe the final closer (uninvolved admin Future Perfect at Sunrise) got the decision wrong, then by all means feel free to appeal it to him. I totally understand your frustration that the arguments do not appear to have gone your way. But given that there is clearly no consensus and no movement towards consensus, I honestly can't see what would be gained by relitigating this all over again. There are 4,628,365 other articles on the English Wikipedia, plenty of which need improvement. It's surely a better use of people's time to find something more productive to do. Prioryman (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's become very clear that appeals will go nowhere, so the point isn't there. As for relitigating, it's a noteworthy situation, so it's impossible not to see it relitigated.  The rude, dismissive "find something else to do" argument will only fan the flames, not work toward some sort of conciliatory, amenable solution to the existing issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thargor. The problem is that this is both well ref'd and noteworthy. The policy-based opposition to inclusion being weak or non-existent, it will (properly written) ultimately be included in the encyclopedia article on this subject. How can factual, well sourced, notable information not be included? The question answers itself. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC closure was pretty clear: this will not be included. Of course WP:NOTDONE applies so you can definitely raise this issue again in a couple of months, for now it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that it's not well-sourced or notable. That's the whole problem. Claiming that "the policy-based opposition to inclusion being weak or non-existent" reeks of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.  Two different closers of the RfC came to the same conclusion.  It's time to accept that consensus did not go your way.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the facts do not support your conclusion, nor the closure of the RFC, and continuing to demean those who disagree with you is not going to help get to a conciliatory, amenable conclusion to this issue. While I don't see myself as the one to relitigate it, because the closure runs afoul of what our policies and guidelines recommend, it's an eventuality that the issue will come up again, and hopefully the correct result will come about.  Consensus is already on the side of inclusion based on Wikipedia norms, it's now up to the editors at this article to bring it in line.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wouldn't over-state the case here. I think the factual accuracy of the statements is verified and much more well-sourced than many other claims. I think the real question, on which there was no consensus (and I don't see any consensus forming) is one of due weight. My guess is, however, knowing news cycles, these types of "gaffe" type stories don't usually continue on for a long time or continue to grow beyond a certain point, so I doubt it'll ever be so obviously noteworthy that there's a strong consensus for inclusion. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ox0077BE, Here's the problem as viewed by someone who only got involved in the on-wiki dust-up in the past week: Dr. Tyson's anecdote was not a "gaffe", or a one-off mistake, slip of the tongue. It was an incorporated part of his standard presentation that he delivered repeatedly over a period of several years, and apparently continues to incorporate in some modified version.  This was not a small error, as others have attempted to characterize it; in fact, it's unclear if it was an "error" at all.  A minor public figure (Tyson) repeatedly made negative public comments about a major public figure (Bush), and did so with the clear intent to make the major public figure look foolish or ignorant to illustrate a central point in a series of speeches.  Let's be crystal clear: that's not a one-time "gaffe".  I don't have a reliable source that states Tyson did it intentionally, but is is self-evident that Tyson himself was not relying on reliable sources in repeatedly making his public comments about Bush.  We can argue about WEIGHT, UNDUE, etc., but these basic facts are no longer in dispute.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't care about what he did or didn't do at all. I was only saying that this sort of minor scandal tends to pop up, occasionally peek its head into the mainstream media, then die off, not smoulder for long periods of time. At the moment there's no consensus that it wouldn't be giving undue weight to the statements to include them here. I highly doubt that any of the principals involved here are going to change their mind without further evidence, and I doubt that it will be getting further coverage. I'm just giving a little perspective here. A win-by-default is not an all-out clear victory, but my guess is that it's not going to be overturned, either. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its dead for now, but if Tyson comes back and does something similar again in the future, more media might cover the previous incident as part of an ongoing pattern and it might be included at that point. Without some new event occurring its unlikely to be talked about a lot more now that he apologized.  --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Tyson used this "repeatedly over a period of several years" without anybody calling him out on it earlier gives us some idea on the noteworthiness of the incident, in that apparently most of his listeners chose not to take note of it.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. ANI has pretty much said it is over. Let it go guys. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed noteworthy then in a few months or years it will still pop up, and be mentioned in bios, mainstream coverage, etc., either as a controversy / scandal that affects his career and public image, or as a relevant fact about him. Meanwhile, this is only a month old and appears to have died down a while ago as more or less a weekly news cycle event. It would be useful if somebody could manually redo the section headers to put them all under the same first level subject, or else manually archive this to a special place for this one issue. As it is, it overwhelms the talk page history for this article, and makes it hard to find other issues for productive discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While this will probably come up again, the repeated calls to try and diminish the issue and call it "over" and that people should move on is, again, doing more to fan the flames than dampen them. I urge those in favor of keeping this information out of the article to keep that in mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing how things will develop in a few months. --Shabidoo | Talk 20:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to whatever else he is, Tyson is a polarizing political figure who was recently, e.g., the subject of a cover story of the print magazine National Review. The Bush howler is now part of his dossier, and will be brought up repeatedly, but I've never thought it was very important here, yet. If it establishes a meme for him on the right ("Neil deGrasse Tyson, serial fabulist") that should change. What the article badly needs is a treatment of that status as political figure, in addition to the scientist and science popularizer stuff. Andyvphil (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I say. Nonsense! Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree Andyvphil. While there is little doubt about his political leanings, based upon what I have seen, he is primarily a popularizer of science, and very good at it. I haven't seen any evidence of speeches or writing that are primarily political; most of the politics is ancillary to his main message. I support a minor mention of politics, but not much more unless you have solid sourcing.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, Andyvphil won't be replying, as he's been banned indefinitely from editing BLPs. If nobody else agrees with his suggestion of adding content on Tyson's political views, I suggest we close this thread and move on. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we have a section on his political views? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the man six weeks ago. But, I’ve been involved since I saw the attempts to tear him down. Since, I’ve read a great deal about him – but haven’t seen anything about political views. Do you have any RS that suggest that he has strong political views and that they are relevant to his life story? Keep in mind that you can be a “polarizing political figure” with no political views whatever, as politically motivated folk can divine what isn’t there. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had listened to Tyson's podcast for some time before this event and as is my habit, I watch articles about people and things I am interested in with an eye towards protecting them. I do not seek conflict on this encyclopedia... this edit war came to me, I did not seek it out. And for every editor who came to this issue "politically motivated" and seeking to "tear him down" I can show you another who came to this issue seeking to prop him up and edit the article not out of some enlightened sense of encyclopedic includability or the lack thereof but because they admire the man and don't want to see anything potentially negative included about him.  It worked both ways with this issue and to pooh-pooh the inclusionists in this issue and imply that they were simply trying to "tear him down" does a disservice to those of us who felt we had a valid case for inclusion.  Some did, for sure, have ill and far from pure motives and it was demonstrated on both sides of the fence. But it was not all of us, and that needs to be stated.  Marteau (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Political views
For those who are unfamiliar with Tyson's political views it should be noted that most of them are tied in with his secular humanistic view of science. He talks about religion, climate denial, creationism etc which are deeply political topics though he does so through the lense of rational scientism. A quick video search will show you lots of videos where he comments on or even promotes certain political/social views: faith and atheism/agnosticism, creationism and education in schools, enviromentalism and climate denial and race sexism and equal opportunities. Tyson's political views have been broadcasted in television interviews, on scientific documentaries, privately made youtube videos and on blog postings. They are not a side element or fringe element to his scientific work but are an integral part of his views on secular humanism and scientism. It's somewhat of a continuation (or extension or even modification) of Carl Sagan's humanistic thought and activism. --Shabidoo | Talk 14:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know if these viewpoints are rounded up anywhere? I may have time to look later/this weekend, but it appears you may have already done the legwork. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tyson is a scientist. It appears that his beliefs in the theories of climate change and evolution (and presumably gravity) are based on science. Right-wing and left-wing governments can both accept climate change and evolution. There is nothing inherently right- or left-wing about these scientific theories. At the present time, there is a U.S. political party that has taken positions on these scientific areas. I don’t see how they’re efforts at making science political makes it political. Do you have any refs that actually talk about Tyson’s political views and show that they are notable? Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actively fighting against laws which permit creationism to be taught in school as a science is a political action. Actively dicsussing views on secularism, race and gender is highly political. Openly supporting and talking about the merits of sound climate policy is politically charged. I'm not claiming that he is left or right (why is left or right an inherant part of political activism?) nor am I claiming that his political views should necessarily be included in his biography. I'm responding to users in the previous thread who have not read any articles or interviews nor seen any videos where he discusses politically charged topics and providing a few search links and those who are unfamiliar with his predecessors work in secular humanism and Tysons continuation of it. It's up to a bold editor to create a new section in the article if they think they have reliable and notable sources. --Shabidoo | Talk 20:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Shabidoo's position. Discussing ideas and working them out step by step is not political.  The problem is that society has forgotten how to think, so that when a person presents an idea and walks people through it, they are accused of being "political".  This is a thought-terminating cliché to prevent people from thinking.  It is not political for a scientist to "openly support and talk about the merits of sound climate policy", it's an attempt to weigh both sides and present a well reasoned argument.  Since when did thinking become a political act? Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Promoting a greater separation of church and state (and he is very outspoken on the topic) is a political matter and has little to do with science. Claiming that creationism is not science is one thing. Going to review boards for specific boards of education to persuade them to change their policy is another. Claiming that current climate policy will be damaging to the enviroment is one thing, actively campaigning for a radical change in climate (and giving specific examples) is another. Giving unsolicited advice to politicians is political whether the advice is scientifically sound or not. His documentary Cosmos is absolutely loaded with references and the approval of changes in race, class, gender and religious and secular tollerance over the last few centuries. While his views on evolution and climate change are unremarkable amongst scientists, his outspoken activism for specific changes in political policy is and his narrative on changes in race, class and gender have little or nothing to do with science. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo, I respect your opinion, but you are appealing to several fallacies. Tyson isn't promoting anything. The U.S. government provides for the separation of church and state.  Religious extremists in the U.S. have been trying to tear down this separation and to replace science education with religious teachings and to present this as equivalent forms of knowledge in the classroom.  It is not political for Tyson to object to this and to explain why the methodology of science is not equivalent to the religious methodology; it is political for the religious extremists to try and break down the separation and force their dogma into the classroom and government.  Responding to a religious argument does not make one "political".  Objecting to the false equivalence of two different domains of knowledge does not make one "political".  Defending science, free inquiry, and skepticism from those who would wish to destroy it does not make one an "outspoken activist".  The specific changes in political policy have been promoted solely by the people wishing to push religion in the schools and in the government.  Responding to this effort and saying "no", does not make one an activist. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which falacies are you talking about? --Shabidoo | Talk 15:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Actively fighting against laws which permit creationism to be taught in school as a science is a political action. Actively dicsussing views on secularism, race and gender is highly political." In what ways does Tyson actively fight for political action?  IIRC, I believe that he once wrote a letter regarding creationism that was published, I believe in the New York Times.  Other than than, I'm not aware of much political activism.  Whatever that answer to that question ends up being, we need to counter-balance that with how much time he spends talking about black holes, general relativity, interstellar space travel, etc..  I'd hate to find ourselves in another undue weight situation.
 * BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that in an article about an astrophysicist who is known for being director of the Hayden Planetarium, a popularizer of science and host of Cosmos, that there's almost no discussion on this talk page about astrophysics, the Hayden Planetarium, him being a science communicator or Cosmos? Why all this focus on politics?  Why are we trying to politicize a non-political article?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you watched Cosmos? In every episode Tyson focuses on several characters who have become emancipated because of science. Slaves getting their freedom, woman getting the right to work in different professions, the church's control over information, lower class uneducated people rising to stardom. Cosmos is absolutely not a purely scientific documentary. It covers all aspects of secular humanism --Shabidoo | Talk 15:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Your discussion seems to be in the "everything is politics" school but while ok in general philosophical sense, it's just too broad and does not belong on this biography talk page, see NOTAFORUM and WP:NOR. See also, Politicization of science and Science Politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like science to me. Is there someone that's against these things? Objective3000 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course there are millions of people in the world who are unsympathetic to the emancipation of people and general equality. He openly admits that his most recent book is very political here. There is no badge of shame if you campaign for laws that promote both science and greater equality and rights. --Shabidoo | Talk 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure he was admitting his book is "very political"? It appears from the interview that he was admitting his book was "a little more politically inclined" than earlier works.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I overstated it on that link. In any case he talks about science and politics all the time especially on his dozens of appearances on left leaning and right leaning political talk shows. As well here commentary here here here and and here. He focuses on many current political hot topics way more than other popular science commentators. And he's very open about it. He also worked as a science advisor for several politicians actively giving advice for better political policy. I'll even admit that I've used a rather broad set of definitions for political but then so do political commentators, journalists and even political sceintists. I'm not saying that there should be any section on his politics however it would be absurd to claim that he is not active in political commentary and actively working for political change (and far more than other popular science commentators). --Shabidoo | Talk 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Upworthy? :) aprock (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at those sources, Shabidoo, and I fail to see how they support your claim. If Tyson is guilty of anything, it's in encouraging people to think critically and question all authority, and his most vocal critics hate him for this.  That's hardly "political", it's good advice that everyone should take to heart.  "Don't believe anything or anyone, check and verify for yourself".  That kind of inquiry is at the heart of education and learning, not politics.  Conservatives, reactionaries, and fundamentalists despise this kind of inquiry, because it shoots holes in their logic and tears their flimsy houses of cards down in one fell swoop.  How can you appeal to tradition when one questions it?  How can you appeal to belief when one is asked to evaluate it?  And if you pay attention to what Tyson says about religion and god, he's not necessarily criticizing it, he's saying look at the universe/multiverse, "your conception of god is too small", open your mind to the possibility of being wrong and seeing the world from a different perspective, and finally, update your paradigm to incorporate new evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You advise: "open your mind to the possibility of being wrong and seeing the world from a different perspective, and finally, update your paradigm to incorporate new evidence".  Had Tyson taken that advice quickly and properly that would have been great, but instead he stuck to his guns, made a claim towards the infallability of his memory, and said "I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the president. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere — surely every word publicly uttered by a president gets logged... In my case, from life experience, I’m vastly more likely to forget an incident than to remember an incident that never happened. So I assure you, the quote is there somewhere. When you find it, tell me."  It was only when that 'explaination' went nowhere and he realized that no one was buying it that he finally gave a proper explaianation.  So please spare me the 'oh, conservatives are all about distorting the truth and lies and are not into inquiry"  rants when it works both ways and when even top scientists seem to have a hard time admitting when they are wrong. Your implying it's only a conservative thing, when it seems to be a common human trait is as partisan as it is ridicuous. Marteau (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Marteau, I was talking only about Cosmos and the attacks on it by conservatives. Your response indicates that you aren't the slightest bit aware of either topics. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not, of course, debating the context of your premises. I was questioning your premises themselves. Marteau (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone claims that prayer works better than vaccines, and a spokesperson of the scientific/medical community explains how vaccines work and urges people to get vaccinated, this is NOT a political view on the part of the scientist. The fact that some would try to make such into a political view does not make it so.Objective3000 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

hey all, this is not a forum. please discuss content and sources. if somebody wants to make a proposal with sources, please bring it. Sources should be WP:SECONDARY and reliable. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Cosmos is absolutely not a purely scientific documentary. It covers all aspects of secular humanism
 * No true Scotsman? Cosmos has nothing to do with secular humanism.  Cosmos has to do with the history of science.  You seem to be swinging that axe just a little too high. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reliable sources to show that the subject of this BLP has political views that are notable? If not, can we stop wasting time with editor(s) opinions of the subject? Objective3000 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't exist. I know because I looked for them.  Cosmos is not a political documentary.  Tyson is not a political figure.  However, in what cannot be a coincidence, both the religious right and climate change denier fringe have, since Cosmos was released, been making this argument.  They maintain that concepts like evolution and climate science are politically-motivated, secular humanist plots to promote atheism and big government. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to start topic-banning editors who want to politicize a non-political article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Quote from interview with writer Daniel Simone fails verification
The article currently states:

Tyson said: "Interestingly, when I applied to Cornell, my application dripped of my passion for the study and research of the Universe. Somehow the admissions office brought my application to the attention of the late Dr. Sagan, and he actually took the initiative and care to contnact me. He was very inspirational and a most powerful influence. Dr. Sagan was as great as the universe, an effective mentor."

The apparent source is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/tyson.html which does not exist. That URL redirects to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/conversation-with-neil-tyson.html which does contain an interview with Tyson, but does not have that quote. I checked the oldest version of the original link at archive.org, https://web.archive.org/web/20040921070827/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/tyson.html and it does not contain that quote either. Does anyone have a source for this quote? If not, should it be removed from the article? Should it be replaced with some other content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

has an image of the letter Sagan sent to Tyson, through the Cornell admissions department. is from Tyson in his book The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist page 43:
 * "My letter of application had been dripping with an interest in the universe. The admission office, unbeknownst to me, had forwarded my application to Carl Sagan's attention. Within weeks, I received a personal letter ..."

Seems a very strong source for a very close quote. Collect (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote can be found here and here  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Anywhere that doesn't appear to have sourced it from the Wikipedia page? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- Tyson's own book seems a valid source for a very slightly different quote, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "sourced to the wikipedia page"? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean that both your links reference the Wikipedia page for the quote, but it appears Collect has figured out a way to work with the quote citation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Race & Social Justice question
Hi. This is a little thing, but I just noticed that a revision wasn't accepted regarding deGrasse discussing his interview on a local news program. It was reverted for good reason, as the edit was unsourced. But in looking at the sentence, there is an inaccuracy. The current sentence reads: "He told a story about being interviewed about a plasma burst from the sun on a local Fox News affiliate in 1989." But this is incorrect. Fox News does not have affiliates (just like CNN doesn't). Fox has affiliates. Not sure if the language of this sentence reflects what deGrasse said, but since it's not a direct quote, I'm taking the "News" out of the line. Onel5969 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bush quote hits the New York Times
Here's the relevant piece. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an op-ed piece. It cannot be used to establish weight. aprock (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Op-eds aren't supposed to be used to establish facts. They can be used to establish weight.  That said, I doubt any previously involved editor will change their  stance on weight based on this op-ed.  Of course, if I'm wrong I'd be happy to hear from any editors who have flipped.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not swayed. If anything this removes some of the fuel because it was just buried and over with. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 01:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Mr. Swordfish. What you say goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.  As opinion pieces can only be used to support the view of the author, they are all by definition primary sources. aprock (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @Aprock - Mention of the material without context violates WP:NUETRALITY. Mystic55 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good op-ed. Not sure it changes anything regarding the "scandal"; if anything it explains why it really isn't a scandal but at best an example to be used on an article regarding the processes of memory.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This Op-ed is about how unreliable memory can be and only marginally about Tyson. Speaking about fuzzy memory...does anyone else even remember this fabricated scandal anymore? --Shabidoo | Talk 04:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick Google shows The NY Times, pjmedia, Breitbart, Bloomberg and the Daily Caller all writing about it in the past seven days. Oh and the Federalist of course.  So your answer is "yes".  Marteau (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the submitted work of that author credits The Federalist, but the NY Times edited all mention of The Federalist out ( http://blog.chabris.com/2014/12/more-on-why-our-memory-fails-us.html ). It is, however, a shame people hearing of this issue wanting to learn about it from a dispassionate, neutral source (e.g. here) will find nothing and will instead be lead via Google to "the echo chambers". Marteau (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We also lack a dispassionate article on Jasmine Tridevil, even though she got more press coverage than this kerfuffle.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, was the NY Times doing op/eds about Tridevil? I must have missed that. Marteau (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was only a matter of time but Wikipedia shut her down sooner than this, because Wikipedia has a well-known bias against the tri-breasted. She was covered by 100s of news sources around the world, far beyond the American conservative niche website clique that got excited about Tysongate, though they covered Tridevil too.--Milowent • hasspoken  07:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NYTimes op-eds typically do not have long lists of refs (as stated by Chabris and omitted by you). These are opinion pieces, not journal papers, and must fit in tight spaces in a print newspaper. Although you seem to be quite critical of the Times, suggesting it is not a dispassionate, neutral source, Chabris was not at all critical in the link you provided. Indeed, Chabris goes on to explain that they weren't even being critical of Tyson as all of us make errors in memory. And, that was the point of the article. I suggest that your edit above shows bias – not the Times. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you lay off the pointing of accusatory fingers at others for stupid, trumped-up reasons.Marteau (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I am simply incapable of generating an adequate response to your brilliantly expressed argument: “stupid”. You win. Objective3000 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one of the reasons used to exclude this incident from the biography of the subject was that it was a minor story that would not have legs, yet here we are months later with continuing major media accounts of the incident (this time the New York Times!) and there is nothing on the article. Imagine that, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people reading about this in the Times and if they think "I would like to know more, let's check out Wikipedia" they would find...nothing. Disappeared down the memory hole. Perhaps we should revisit the news blackout. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they will wonder why there is a blackout on Wikipedia regarding this issue, and will be curious enough to do some looking into the issue and obtain some learning. That can only be a good thing.  Marteau (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the NYTimes op-ed, and the additional explanations by Chabris (thanks for the link), it is clear that the intent of the op-ed was to use, as an example, the silliness of the entire ballyhoo as it was merely the result of a common memory lapse. And yet, oddly, this appears to be some people’s concept of why this should be included in a BLP. If it is ever included, we would have to include the facts that certain peoples tried to use a simple memory-lapse as reasons to discredit the entire career of a person that is a black, atheist, that believes in science.


 * Marteau, there is no “blackout”. (In fact, such labeling is probably a WP:CIV vio.) There were multiple, long, examinations by several forums within WP, and your view didn’t hold. This opinion piece doesn’t come close to altering any argument. Indeed, it actually argues how silly it is that such a memory-lapse should become news. It is the very opposite of a reason to include such in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody forgot to tell Chabris that the issue was "silly", deserving of no coverage, and worthy of being ignored. True, his discussion was a meta-discussion, but a discussion it was, and from an arm of the serious media.  Discussions and references such as this have, are, and will continue to take place despite it being considered manufactured and silly by those who wish to continue it's exclusion.  Exclusion here in all forms when serious, non-silly people refer to it in their serious, non-silly works is glaring and I welcome, look forward to, and congratulate those who will be curious enough to investigate why.  As I said, that can only be a good thing. Revision.  As it stands, someone doing such reseach, and perhaps Googling "Tyson Bush misquote" will be lead, on the first hit of the first page, to a Federalist article. I would prefer they be referred to the Tyson article here, where an objective discussion could be presented instead of them being directed to an echo chamber, but unfortunately, the concensus for exclusion will almost certainly stand on this issue for as long as you or I edit.   Marteau (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not a consensus for exclusion, it was no consensus for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is objectively true it's that it is a controversy. And that it is a long running one. It is objectively a part of his life that has been discussed extensively as a controversy. It is also objectively true that the statements were false. Why is so much that is objectively true about a person left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoprojman (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is not encyclopedic, nor is it a particularly interesting note in his life. We have had this discussion already and decided it was not notable. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT voting it out. It certainly is notable.  Arzel (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "...nor is it, to me, a particularly interesting note in his life"
 * Fixed that for you. I am by no means about to re-debate the issue or bring this up for another RFC, but there are, in fact, many people who find the occasion of a professional speaker being compelled to apologize to a former president for his public conduct interesting per se and your blanket aseertion to the contrary is laughable and demonstrably untrue.  Marteau (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation: white people angry about uppity blacks, spurred on by the right wing conservative noise machine operated by a hyper-partisan blog. Got it. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has really matured into something amazing hasn't it? Remember when this was all fields? Shabidoo | Talk 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That your motivations for excluding information here include your allegations of a concerted conspiracy against progressives is as evident as it always has. Got it. Believe it or not, not everyone interested in this issue is a hater or part of an effort to tear the man down. This issue is simply interesting to many. Marteau (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a video game, Marteau, where you can "hammer" home your tendentious points to the exclusion of consensus. The majority of people, as represented by RS coverage, do not find this subject interesting, significant, or important.  This is demonstrable, as all of the main sources stem from a manufactured controversy intentionally disseminated by the conservative noise machine to distract the public from Tyson's successful television show in order to deny the climate science and to promote creationism.  Further, the fact that this was done just prior to the international climate conference is no coincidence, as Heartland did the exact same thing before the last conference by promoting the climategate canard.  When one discovers that The Federalist is run by none other than Heartland operatives, the jig, as they say, is up. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That this issue was begun by haters, by a conspiracy, by Heartland, or by the boogie man I could not care in the least. That it in fact became an isssue is indisputable, that it became such an issue thatt Tyson was compelled to apologize is indisputable, and that I and others find the entire case interesting is indisputable.  You can go ahead and continue to edit based on what you percieve are the motives of third-party meanies, I however will continue to use what I contend are more appropriate standards.  Marteau (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice misrepresentation of my response. There's nothing encyclopedic about this "issue".  Have you ever read a biography in an actual encyclopedia?  How about showing me a comparable "issue"? WP:NOT?  Don't make me think this is a throwaway account.  Do something useful and bring Matt Drudge, an article you created, to GA/FA standards.  And don't forget to add all the manufactured controversies.  Yeah, right. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance.  Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere.  Arzel (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Arzel, you seem to be woefully uninformed on this topic. Are you aware that the Heartland Institute has a long, documented history (supported by reliable sources) of mounting massive attacks against  proponents of climate change, and that the attack on Tyson is one of dozens?  This is not a "conspiracy" in any sense of the word.  It is all being done out in the open for anyone to substantiate with a little bit of research. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A 'conspiracy' is a concerted effort to break laws, commit a crime, or do harm. Secrecy is not a requirement. Marteau (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no conspiracy. What part of "no" is troubling you? There is a long paper trail of ad hominem attacks against climate change proponents, and the Heartland is behind a great many.  They have also tried to distort climate science by issuing science-by-petition, confusing the public by creating a faux IPCC of their own that denied the science, and many other hijinks.  Where is the illegality?  And why are you always trying to change the subject? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Marteau didn't I just read that you didn't want to rehash this tired old discussion again? Shabidoo | Talk 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Should you wish to pursue a legal remedy through use of the civil courts system I will gladly produce for you the name of my lawyer (in other words, sue me). Marteau (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Media Discussion
FYI  Viriditas removed this information from the media list without discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, you added it back in without discussion. Please discuss why you think these links are needed here. This is not a link farm.  The burden is on the editor proposing and adding information to justify their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It had been there for months and you just go and delete it and say there has to be discussion to put it back? Where do you get off just deleting stuff you don't like?  Arzel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. Removing a thing without discussion, and then demanding a discussion to replace it, is peculiar.  Marteau (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "valid" about it in the slightest. The length of time something appears has no bearing on its correctness. And per the burden of Wikipedia editing, the editor adding material has to justify its inclusion, not the other way around.  I hope you stand corrected.  I maintain that the press template is being misused to highlight negative, partisan material about the subject in sources that are less than reliable and/or repeat the unreliable material.  Per BLP, we should not permanently host this material on the talk page; there's also the fact that it's a linkfarm.  I can think of no other biography that misuses the press template in this way.  Now, let's see some good arguments for including it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLP issues you cited in your reversion is intended to protect living people from untoward harm. I have no doubt that because you figure the genesis of this issue was part of a nefarious conspiracy by evil men that any mention of the dispute whatsoever, no matter how oblique, harms Tyson, so I'll not waste my time debating the application of BLP in this issue with you.  As is evident throughout the encyclopedia, any mention whatsoever of anything remotely negative about Tyson gets the axe eventually, and as I'm not a masochist I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information. Marteau (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no conspiracy; Heartland has been attacking proponents of climate science for more than a decade. There are quite a number of books on the subject which have documented their egregious campaign of attacks.  Again, what are your arguments for including the list of negative, partisan sources in a permanent header on this talk page? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of "I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information" did you misunderstand? Marteau (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "nefarious conspiracy by evil men". Marteau, where did you read that? I can't seem to find this anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When you have something to complain about regarding me, beyond petulant griping about my paraphrasing, let me know. Marteau (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a thesaurus of insult words? Seriously, paraphrasis is the art of simplifying, not putting words in other people's mouths to create strawmen. Objective3000 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas, do you have a valid reason for removing the media mentions? Yes or no per WP:STATUSQUO Arzel (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did protect the page when I saw the edit-war occurring, but of course that's not useful as it's a talk page which leaves us nowhere to discuss it. So instead, I suggest this is discussed, especially given the possible BLP issues.  Any more blind reversions may end in blocks. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite, There is no BLP issue, just as there was no BLP issue when the issue was being discussed. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the only one edit warring is Virinditas. He deleted long standing media mentions from the talk page.  I reverted and started discussion.  He reverted without discussion.  I started additional discussion. Marteau reverted, and then Virinditas reverted again.  Arzel (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Marteau and Virinditas both have a tendency to go over lines from opposite sides. Can we try for a civil discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to keep that list here. The bits about Wikipedia don't relate to the content of this article - maybe to the history of WP article ...? And yes, repeating journalist and or blogger headlines and comments can be blp problems. If individual items in that list can be used in the article - well, make a case for such on a per item basis. But a bare list of headlines, journalist or blogger opinions doesn't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it's time to recognize that it's worth a mention in the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah. Nothing has changed since our discussion except the NYT wrote an article which wasn't even about the invented controversy but mentioned it in passing in an article that was really about memory recall. The growing and ensuing controversy never materialized and the whole non-event is growingly forgotten as it was destined to. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've heard two good arguments why the links should be removed but no argument at all as per why they should be included. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one problem is that it is not only the NYT which seems to recall events? RealClearPolitics on  4 Jan ran Neil deGrasse Tyson: Troll of the Year and  RealClearPolitics is generally accepted as a "reliable source". ] WaPo etc.  as well as the NYT.  Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah. That article is about the Christmas tweet. It barely mentions the Bush quote. Do you think the Christmas tweet should be included in the article? Shabidoo | Talk 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we have the Christmas tweet but not the Bush controversy. The Christmas tweet isn't really worthy of inclusion, IMO. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed the paragraph on the Christmas tweet.  I don't really understand why there this apparent obsession with including trivia in this article if it's remotely controversial.  Also, the tweet wasn't really about his spirituality.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
 * That is not trivia and it speaks more about him as a person than you may be willing to accept. Being  is not trivia.  This also received at lot of attention.  You can't simple whitewash his article of everything.  Arzel (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief couple of sentences about the often divisive nature of his communications would be appropriate. That he is loathed in certain circles is objective and documented truth reported on by multiple reliable sources. There are numerous examples, e.g. "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson" in the Daily Beast or "Why they really hate Neil deGrasse Tyson: Inside the right’s anti-intellectual paranoia." in Salon. However, this particular tweeting issue does not by itself in my opinion, clear the bar for includability.  Then again, trival fluffery such as Tyson being on one episode of the radio show, "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" will instead remain because it puts him in a good (or at least neutral) light.  Negative trivia = immediate axe.  Positive trivia = stays for years. Marteau (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Purposefully hateful?" Wow. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you call it? Certainly not befitting of someone of his stature.  Insulting a billion people is not a minor event.  Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He showed "hate" to no one. Not one single person. The response showed hate toward him. Look, I never heard of the guy before this "issue". And, I don't think a great deal of him. But, the hate poured out on this man is shocking. And, some of the edits here have been purely racist. Objective3000 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that this was completely neutral in tone. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Arzel, by what your definition of "insulting a billion people" is, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do that on a regular basis and Pen Jilette does it every day. They are but three people from a list of dozens of other notable atheists and humanists who write tweets that may actually be offensive to christians. That would make probably a thousand tweets a week critical of christianity or tweets that put sensitive christians into a tizzy "notable events" or non-minor events. Richard Dawkins article would be about 200 pages long if we included every insulting tweet (by your definition of insulting). Tyson's tweet wasn't even insulting or disparaging of Christianity or Jesus or Christmas and didn't even mention any of them. He said who his favourite historical figure is on the 25th of December. No person or group owns a day of the year and their favourite special historical figure does not have to be everyone elses'. Shabidoo | Talk 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument for its inclusion is significant media coverage, now over a significant amount of time. I don't think we need a whole section, or even a paragraph.  Simply a sentence in views about the issue and the apology he posted suffices. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at enormous length on multiple boards. The result was no inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And that discussion was before the New York Times article posted above, or the Real Clear Politics piece from this week. Consensus should change with new information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not even close to enough new coverage to warrant reopening this tired old debate. All the articles I read barely touch on the non-controversy over the Bush quote mistake and instead use it to illustrate some other point. The Christmas tweet is also trivial unless it garners more interest (which I hope it does because it was hilariously awesome). Shabidoo | Talk 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the press section to be both of interest and valuable in understanding the ongoing discussions here at the talk page. The elimination of that reference material makes the work at this page harder and more time-consuming. Given that there is no legitimate argument made that a list of media ref links is in any way a violation of BLP policy, and that this was a useful resource, I suggest it be restored. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't to endorse one side or another, but would defaulting the box to collapse be a possible compromise? Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think we should link to non-reliable sources such as The Federalist or the Christian Post. However, I don't see a problem with linking to reliable sources, if there are any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we include any mention of the Bush quote, we have to originate why people started caring about it. IE  Cosmos and the Heartland institute uncivil hate rate. Mystic55 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A discussion of the "uncivil hate rate" surrounding this man would be a welcome adddition. The phenomena of Tyson hate is a real thing, as we have all witnessed. Serious, reliable sources have written about it as a phenomena unto itself, it is a serious subject. Just because the haters are, or are percieved to be irrational does not make the phenomena any less real or less worthy of coverage. Such things are a feature of today's divided society and would certainly be more notable and worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia than, say, the current exhaustive list of every occasion Tyson has walked onto a stage or stepped before a microphone. Marteau (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Tyson is now a Talk Show Host in addition to being a popular scientist, I think this is perfectly valid. It would also allow the Bush Quote to be included but to put it in context of why it is significant to conservative media. Mystic55 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No. We discussed your proposal extensively for several months and the community came out against it.  Since the majority of your edits to Wikipedia have been only to continue this dispute, I think it's safe to say that you are a SPA at this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty quick leap to accuse someone of WP: Bad Faith there. In point of fact, the 21 ACTUAL edits I have done, not including discussions, exactly 7 of those 21 have been on this page, and quite frankly not even all those were on this subject. So not only are you in violation of WP: Good Faith but you can't even count.  Last time I checked, WP: STFU wasn't one of our core values....Mystic55 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the comment history, it occurs you are referring to Marteu. Honestly? Even if you are, and even if I completely disagree with what he's been saying, I find your comments wanting Viriditas in terms of civility.  Mystic55 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you were referring to me. Wow.  Just Wow. Mystic55 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Had you looked at THE HISTORY of my contributes to the article, you'd find I agreed with your position previously. In point of fact, Tyson's moving from scientist to entertainer makes me reconsider including this in the article, but only if included in context as to WHY the quote is rediculous.  MEDIC! Friendly fire.  With explosive armor piercing ammunition and an extreme lack of target practice. Mystic55 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the club. Anyone who says something here that Viriditas doesn't like gets their history dissected with a fine toothed comb eventually, and anything he thinks might put that editor in a bad light, he uses e.g. how I created the "Matt Drudge" article! :: gasp! :: I mean, if there is a bias in my article creation history it would be towards Japan, not anything political: I created in total an article about Japanese calligraphy, a Japanese weapon, a Japanese sensei, a Tibetan teacher, "Muckraker", a Democratic mayor, and Drudge but all Viriditas mentions here is "Drudge" implying, I suppose, a bias that is not there in my article creation history, and that's dispicable.  You're not alone in thinking such tactics are pathetic.  Marteau (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT Marteau (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a rather poor job of dissecting my history given that I have agreed with his position hithertonow. In fact, without the context, I completely still think it shouldn't be included.  Deliberate attempts to manipulate the media narrative shouldn't be note worthy in a scholarly publicition unless the meta manipulation is also mentioned. Mystic55 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the completely irrelevant .... If Tyson is taking on a new role as an “entertainer”, I don’t see how any of these tweets mean anything at all. But, I’m also not sure what the definition of “entertainer” is and why it matters. I, personally, am entertained by many National Geographic shows. I enjoy science and nature. I hope we don’t classify science channels and scientists as entertainers because they spread science. Please explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For me its a question of relevance. A misquote of George W. Bush for someone whose primary public persona is "Science Advocate" is ridiculous and only made relevant because conservative media didn't like his statements on climate change.  Wheras, if he moves more towards 'entertainer with a science background', then that to me just 'feels' more holistic, which means the question of what does or does not constitute notability changes.  And again, to be clear, I don't feel that this information should be added without context.  I guess what I'm saying is, it is clear that Tyson's star is 'on the rise' and that he is not just someone who a certain segment of the population likes. In context of that, recognizing that he is a symbol of reason and science to some means that therefore he is a threat to others.  I can see adding a portion of the article that deals with that struggle, and Tyson's take on it, as well as his role in promoting 'science literacy' within the article, since the talk show purposefully is part of that effort, as was Cosmos itself.  As such, attempts to discredit him denote I believe his very reason for taking up this role.  But after thinking it out here, I think this is more of a 'will become relevant if it keeps going this direction' rather than 'we should add this now.'  Thanks for your patience. Mystic55 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

CNN story mentions Bush quote
Recent history knows -- quite accurately, Mr. Williams -- other false memories. This story states that "Astrophysicist and television host Neil deGrasse Tyson, a protege of the late Carl Sagan, claimed he heard President George W. Bush make a remark intended to highlight divisions between Judeo-Christian Americans and fundamentalist Muslims." This seems like coverage in reliable sources such as would be needed to include a mention of the recollection of the quote in the article. Everymorning  talk  15:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we could not get information about this misquote issue included a couple months ago when it was cited even more than it is now, the chances of it getting included now are between none and none. Here's Wikilogic for you: that he liked to dance clears the bar for includability.  This quote thing, pertaining to his paid gigs as a speaker and in relation to a former President, that is being cited as precedent in serious journalism?  Not here any time soon.  Marteau (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The number of news stories about this quote in reliable sources can't decrease over time, it can only increase. In any case, there are plenty of reliable sources that have discussed this controversy in addition to the CNN link above, e.g.     Everymorning   talk  16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. But if you have the time and the stomach, you could peruse the talk pages from late last year, and you'll learn why this information does not stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting into the article. Marteau (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, the fun begin here, and takes up most of the remaining talk archives Marteau (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is specifically about how common false memories are. It shows the absurdity of the many claims by WP editors that Tyson and Williams are “liars”. This is exactlyy why such silliness does NOT belong in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Including in the bio of a multi-talented man whose professions include professional -speaker the fact that he felt compelled to apologize to a former president for his professional conduct, is considered "silly". That's what I'm talking about Everymorning.  But hey, the man sure could dance! Marteau (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Disgusting. You two can talk to each other. Objective3000 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Media controversy - Let's try again
It's been awhile since the Bush quote, and it seems the story has a lasting power, so no WP:RECENT. The collection of articles listed above which mentions the story ranges from bipartisan (CNN, Politico) to highly partisan on both sides (Weekly Standard, Salon), so there seems to be a room for bipartisan consensus on what happened. Perhaps, something along the "false memory" narrative, see e.g. a clean account in NYTimes which seems to be in agreement with Tyson's own FB admission. Given the length the article and inclusion of minor events such as Tyson's appearance on "The Big Bang Theory", I feel it's hard to make a case that a few NPOV lines on the matter would violate WP:DUE. I want to make a new effort to write this into the article. I was not in this discussion before and in generally find heated arguments unproductive. I will watch this space - if you think I am missing something and do not believe this story should be mentioned in the article at all, in any form, please briefly explain. Otherwise, I will try to find a neutral way to include this. Mhym (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you object, it would be helpful to see why you think this story is different from Hillary Clinton's and Brian Williams's false memory stories, both prominent on their WP articles. This is not about WP:OTHER, more like I really want to understand and clarify the case for exclusion.


 * The only mentions that I have seen in months are in passing, and actually suggest that the story is non-important. This has been talked to death. You are now saying that you will ignore the previous discussions and consensus unless we restate everything we have already stated. Move on. Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only article you linked was one from December. It was not about Tyson's quote but about memory recall using Tyson's quote as one example. The links mentioned above are even older (all in the Autumn of 2014). If you cannot show us sources from at least 2015 of which at least a couple are in the last two months...there is next to no chance you will sway the consensus on the issue which, as Objective mentioned, has been talked to utter death. Shabidoo | Talk 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That this article uses the Tyson quote as an example, and that it is not solely about Tyson or the quote, is irrelevant. Even indirect interest, citation and example goes towards notability. Serious articles and scholarly research is built on examples and citations (e.g. Wikipedia) and people often want to learn more about those citations. But I agree that a new RfC is not warranted at this time and the concensus on this quote issue is not going to change barring anything truly dramatic. Marteau (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article was already brought up and talked about and we didn't think it was relevant then either. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shocking. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unpersuaded either way. First, the story does not have to appear frequently in the Media to be included in WP. I doubt "Big Bang Theory" appearance is being discussed still, but if it was relevant then it's relevant now. Besides the NYTimes article linked above, there are others, like this recent CNN article also mentioned above. In my opinion, even if very occasionally this story comes up in non-partisan media, it's a good enough case to including a few lines, and the CNN article shows it does (and I am not even mentioning the over the top articles like this one from a possibly partisan but nevertheless RS). Saying "already discussed" and "move on" feels to me like an obvious effort to suppress speech. Somebody clearly worked hard to "win" last time around and does not want to do this again. Well, WP traditions are contrary to this. For example, WP allows and often encourages the AfD process of the same article multiple times for a reason - with a benefit of a hindsight, when an issue is no longer pressing a conclusion is often different.

Second, solution when nothing at all is being mentioned is no consensus at all. It is, basically by definition, a failure of consensus. There can be many reasons why consensus has not been reached, but is usually because many editors who are pushing their POV. As a result, nothing is done. Again, I am not saying *what* needs to be added to the article, but to me as a neutral observer with a very long editorial record, it's clear that "something" needs to be said, with several links to RS so people can be informed and form their own opinion. I am asking here for a concise general argument (i.e. non-specific to Tyson's case) why a story about a person which is periodically being brought up in the media should not be reflected at all in that person's WP article. Seriously, please tell me rather than brush me off. Mhym (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. And despite Objective3000's protests, you are not ignoring previous concensus; the previous RfC was closed as having no concensus and therefore inclusion of the contentious material was precluded per BLP.  With all due respect to the previous closer, I believe his decision was incorrect and although I am loathe to go through all this again, I'd support another attempt at concensus, for currently, there IS no concensus for inclusion or exclusion on this issue.  Marteau (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. Lack of consensus means no inclusion. How many times do we have to go over the same ground? Trying over and over and over with the hope that no one will notice the third try is ridiculous. Some of us have lives. Move on. Objective3000 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mhym: What "lasting power"? You've cited a half-year old opinion column.  There is still no evidence of any major coverage by mainstream news organizations.  And to provide contrast, we only have 2-3 sentences devoted to Cosmos, even though that actually did receive lots of coverage by mainstream news organizations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been more than enough coverage to clear the bar for verifiability. The only real question is weight.  Saying that this issue does not even have enough weight for a sentence or two is, in my opinion, ludicrous and this issue needs to be and deserves to be revisited. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mhym: What "coverage"? Again, you've cited a half-year old opinion column. If this is so important, why the lack of major coverage by mainstream news organizations?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Quest. Good point.  However, I already responded to both the "nothing recent" issue in my second blurb.  I find CNN and NYTimes to be as mainstream as it gets.  Honestly, I don't understand all the emotions here and requests for many sources.  If you feel this whole story is somehow more controversial than Tyson's appearance on the "BBT" and thus needs more RS, can you explain why?  NYTimes and CNN are in complete agreement with Tyson's version - there is no controversy at all at what happened.  Mhym (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Objective300 - WP:BLP does NOT prevent WP article writing a summary of events which conforms with that of Tyson's own FB admission. I think you should read the policy first before commenting. It seems you are prejudging that in the future there *will not* be a consensus. Why not? Because of you? Your line "Some of us have lives" makes sure you take this article is personal to you. This article is not your property. Perhaps stop editing it for a while and let other editors try to reach a consensus. Telling me to "move on" for the second time around is a clear vio of WP ethics. Please read WP:DICK. I will not respond to personal attacks like that. Mhym (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post, the NY Times, the National Review, the Daily Beast, the Daily Caller, The Week, Salon, the Weekly Standard, the Tampa Tribune, Breitbart, the NY Post, Politico, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Examiner, the Las Vegas Review Journal, and over a dozen other lesser names have all reported on or mentioned this issue. An issue which lead to him publicly explaining, twice, and eventually apologizing for his professional conduct to a former president. How can that not have weight enough for even minimal coverage here? How anyone can seriously put forth the proposition that this does not even have enough weight for so much as one sentence is astonishing. Simply astonishing. This is directly related to his career as an educator and a public speaker, and for anyone to seriously say that such a thing does not belong in the biography of a public speaker, not so much as even one sentence... its borderline laughable and its omission from the encyclopedia is borderline scandalous. Its omission has damaged the credibility of the encyclopedia, subjected it to some unfortunately warranted derision, and it needs to be fixed. Marteau (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll put forth six propositions: unencyclopedic, non-notable, insignificant, unimportant, partisan media cherry picking, and no impact on his career, profession, or influence of any kind. Please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The "major coverage" requirement of some
"A Quest For Knowedge" (and others) bemoan the fact that this issue has not received what they consider "major coverage". In the previous RfC, one editor actually said he'd require "hundreds" of news references before considering the issue fit for inclusion.

I have to point out that although we all know who Tyson is, and although he is very popular with certain demographics (particularly the young and the hip), he is not universally known, nor is he actually a "household name". Our own Objective3000 said he did not know who he was prior to participating in the editing of this article in September of last year. About 1/6th of the population of the USA saw him on at least part of Cosmos. And Cosmos was his biggest exposure to the general public. Yes, he does talk shows (Daily Show, 1.5 million viewers per show usually... Tonight Show, about 5 million viewers on average and a number of other small gigs) but Tyson is, media wise, a minor celebrity and of course his issue with the quotes is not going to be headline news.

Expecting (or demanding) this issue receive the "major coverage" news treatment before so much as one sentence about it can be included when the man is a minor celebrity, relatively speaking, is an unrealistic and unfounded standard to require. For a man of his limited and specialized visibility, coverage of his quote issue in news outfits I cited just above is actually significant and far exceeds the standards for notability of an issue pertaning to such a figure. Marteau (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Media controversy - Let's try again
It's been awhile since the Bush quote, and it seems the story has a lasting power, so no WP:RECENT. The collection of articles listed above which mentions the story ranges from bipartisan (CNN, Politico) to highly partisan on both sides (Weekly Standard, Salon), so there seems to be a room for bipartisan consensus on what happened. Perhaps, something along the "false memory" narrative, see e.g. a clean account in NYTimes which seems to be in agreement with Tyson's own FB admission. Given the length the article and inclusion of minor events such as Tyson's appearance on "The Big Bang Theory", I feel it's hard to make a case that a few NPOV lines on the matter would violate WP:DUE. I want to make a new effort to write this into the article. I was not in this discussion before and in generally find heated arguments unproductive. I will watch this space - if you think I am missing something and do not believe this story should be mentioned in the article at all, in any form, please briefly explain. Otherwise, I will try to find a neutral way to include this. Mhym (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you object, it would be helpful to see why you think this story is different from Hillary Clinton's and Brian Williams's false memory stories, both prominent on their WP articles. This is not about WP:OTHER, more like I really want to understand and clarify the case for exclusion.


 * The only mentions that I have seen in months are in passing, and actually suggest that the story is non-important. This has been talked to death. You are now saying that you will ignore the previous discussions and consensus unless we restate everything we have already stated. Move on. Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only article you linked was one from December. It was not about Tyson's quote but about memory recall using Tyson's quote as one example. The links mentioned above are even older (all in the Autumn of 2014). If you cannot show us sources from at least 2015 of which at least a couple are in the last two months...there is next to no chance you will sway the consensus on the issue which, as Objective mentioned, has been talked to utter death. Shabidoo | Talk 15:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That this article uses the Tyson quote as an example, and that it is not solely about Tyson or the quote, is irrelevant. Even indirect interest, citation and example goes towards notability. Serious articles and scholarly research is built on examples and citations (e.g. Wikipedia) and people often want to learn more about those citations. But I agree that a new RfC is not warranted at this time and the concensus on this quote issue is not going to change barring anything truly dramatic. Marteau (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article was already brought up and talked about and we didn't think it was relevant then either. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Shocking. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am unpersuaded either way. First, the story does not have to appear frequently in the Media to be included in WP. I doubt "Big Bang Theory" appearance is being discussed still, but if it was relevant then it's relevant now. Besides the NYTimes article linked above, there are others, like this recent CNN article also mentioned above. In my opinion, even if very occasionally this story comes up in non-partisan media, it's a good enough case to including a few lines, and the CNN article shows it does (and I am not even mentioning the over the top articles like this one from a possibly partisan but nevertheless RS). Saying "already discussed" and "move on" feels to me like an obvious effort to suppress speech. Somebody clearly worked hard to "win" last time around and does not want to do this again. Well, WP traditions are contrary to this. For example, WP allows and often encourages the AfD process of the same article multiple times for a reason - with a benefit of a hindsight, when an issue is no longer pressing a conclusion is often different.

Second, solution when nothing at all is being mentioned is no consensus at all. It is, basically by definition, a failure of consensus. There can be many reasons why consensus has not been reached, but is usually because many editors who are pushing their POV. As a result, nothing is done. Again, I am not saying *what* needs to be added to the article, but to me as a neutral observer with a very long editorial record, it's clear that "something" needs to be said, with several links to RS so people can be informed and form their own opinion. I am asking here for a concise general argument (i.e. non-specific to Tyson's case) why a story about a person which is periodically being brought up in the media should not be reflected at all in that person's WP article. Seriously, please tell me rather than brush me off. Mhym (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. And despite Objective3000's protests, you are not ignoring previous concensus; the previous RfC was closed as having no concensus and therefore inclusion of the contentious material was precluded per BLP.  With all due respect to the previous closer, I believe his decision was incorrect and although I am loathe to go through all this again, I'd support another attempt at concensus, for currently, there IS no concensus for inclusion or exclusion on this issue.  Marteau (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. Lack of consensus means no inclusion. How many times do we have to go over the same ground? Trying over and over and over with the hope that no one will notice the third try is ridiculous. Some of us have lives. Move on. Objective3000 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mhym: What "lasting power"? You've cited a half-year old opinion column.  There is still no evidence of any major coverage by mainstream news organizations.  And to provide contrast, we only have 2-3 sentences devoted to Cosmos, even though that actually did receive lots of coverage by mainstream news organizations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been more than enough coverage to clear the bar for verifiability. The only real question is weight.  Saying that this issue does not even have enough weight for a sentence or two is, in my opinion, ludicrous and this issue needs to be and deserves to be revisited. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mhym: What "coverage"? Again, you've cited a half-year old opinion column. If this is so important, why the lack of major coverage by mainstream news organizations?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Quest. Good point.  However, I already responded to both the "nothing recent" issue in my second blurb.  I find CNN and NYTimes to be as mainstream as it gets.  Honestly, I don't understand all the emotions here and requests for many sources.  If you feel this whole story is somehow more controversial than Tyson's appearance on the "BBT" and thus needs more RS, can you explain why?  NYTimes and CNN are in complete agreement with Tyson's version - there is no controversy at all at what happened.  Mhym (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Objective300 - WP:BLP does NOT prevent WP article writing a summary of events which conforms with that of Tyson's own FB admission. I think you should read the policy first before commenting. It seems you are prejudging that in the future there *will not* be a consensus. Why not? Because of you? Your line "Some of us have lives" makes sure you take this article is personal to you. This article is not your property. Perhaps stop editing it for a while and let other editors try to reach a consensus. Telling me to "move on" for the second time around is a clear vio of WP ethics. Please read WP:DICK. I will not respond to personal attacks like that. Mhym (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's funny. You falsely claim I made a personal attack, and then refer me to WP:DICK. That's a personal attack. I refer you to WP:AGF. Your claim that I take this personally is evidence-free. Objective3000 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post, the NY Times, the National Review, the Daily Beast, the Daily Caller, The Week, Salon, the Weekly Standard, the Tampa Tribune, Breitbart, the NY Post, Politico, the Tampa Tribune, the Washington Examiner, the Las Vegas Review Journal, and over a dozen other lesser names have all reported on or mentioned this issue. An issue which lead to him publicly explaining, twice, and eventually apologizing for his professional conduct to a former president. How can that not have weight enough for even minimal coverage here? How anyone can seriously put forth the proposition that this does not even have enough weight for so much as one sentence is astonishing. Simply astonishing. This is directly related to his career as an educator and a public speaker, and for anyone to seriously say that such a thing does not belong in the biography of a public speaker, not so much as even one sentence... its borderline laughable and its omission from the encyclopedia is borderline scandalous. Its omission has damaged the credibility of the encyclopedia, subjected it to some unfortunately warranted derision, and it needs to be fixed. Marteau (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll put forth six propositions: unencyclopedic, non-notable, insignificant, unimportant, partisan media cherry picking, and no impact on his career, profession, or influence of any kind. Please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The first four are synonyms and not facts or arguments - they are exactly what we are discussing. The "partisan media" is nonsense contradicted by CNN and NYTimes.  The "no impact" is a bigger nonsense (this is not a requirement), and either way too soon to tell - see WP:CBALL.  Mhym (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As it stands your proposal has been rejected in an RfC. So, in your first post saying you intend to ignore that {'I will do it anyway') is not a good start.  (Moreover, as it appears to be your substantive position that there is already crap in the article - the logical remedy is to remove the crap - not add anything.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I say "I will try to find a neutral way" I mean propose it here on the talk page. I don't intend to edit the article at all unless there is even a modicum of consensus.  As it stands, there seems to be a lot of pushback even before I had a chance to propose a neutral wording.  This is very discouraging.  Re RfC - the decision includes words "If someone wants to revive this down the road, feel free to do it."  Which is exactly what I am doing.  Crap in the article - not my concern.  I am more interested in the high threshold for including this bit of information that arguing minor other points in the article.  Mhym (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for clearing that up. As for the threshold - as already established, we stand at that threshold for this particular bit. That should come as no surprise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, it was not "rejected". The finding of the closer was "no consensus". Second of all, Mhym did not say, "I will do it anyway".  It is fine to paraphrase properly, but don't use quote marks which indicate a verbatim quote. Marteau (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not use quote marks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be a false representation; it did not go in because of the result of the RfC - it was therefore rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

StarTalk
I believe the TV show (and not the podcast version) premieres on Sunday? I'm sure there will be an article on the show (if not rather soon). There is already an article on his pod-cast. There is an article called Startalk_(television_show) already which has nothing to do with him or astronomy. Any ideas what to call Tyson's show? Or perhaps merge the podcast and TV show into one article and change the name to StarTalk (Tyson media)? Shabidoo | Talk 11:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've created a stub here: StarTalk (National Geographic television show). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefuly the article deleting warriors won't pounce all over it. Thanks for creating it Quest. Nice idea using "national geographic show" in parentheses. Shabidoo | Talk 23:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't use the person infobox, but the scientist infobox, where the religion parameter was removed long ago. Spellcast (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)