Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 9

Salon weighs in on incident
Now Salon has written about the dust-up. I think that put this into the realm of about 13 RS sources on this, not counting NdGT's statements. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? That source is three days old and we've discussed it various places.  NOTNEWS, not relevant, and not significant. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is: How many RS refs talking about this before it becomes "significant"? Ordinarily, it would be one or two... we are over a dozen. At this point policy seems to demand its appropriate inclusion. It is not controversial material (NdGT has admitted the error). It is well ref'd. It has appeared in multiple reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop trying, they won't give up. Chemical Ace (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather large number of violations. Objective3000 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that there are literally thousands and thousands of sources on this topic (a Google News Search gives over 10,000 results), I would say that a few hundred sources wouldn't be unreasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You did a Google news search on a very well known person's name. Not on the topic we are discussing. Of course there are a lot of hits. Objective3000 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The argument put forth by AQFK has two critical flaws. First, I presume AQFK is familiar with Google result counts are a meaningless metric, so one cannot conclude, with any certainty, that there are 11,000 hits. Second, and more important, even if there are a large number of hits, there is nothing in policy or guidelines instructing editors that several hundred references are needed. Ever. The suggestion is, to be blunt, absurd. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I follow. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the topic we're discussing.
 * No one is suggesting that this entire article be removed. Of course Tyson is well-known. What is under discussion is an incident. Almost none of the hits you supplied are relevant. Objective3000 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My point is that Capitalismojo was suggesting that 13 sources was a lot, when in fact, it's a drop in the bucket. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a perfect metric, but it is an objective metric. If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.  (Actually, I can think of several more, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say the results will be similar.)  And yes, of course, there is such a policy.  It's called WP:WEIGHT.  Why do you think so many editors are objecting to covering something so insignificant?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily on either side here, but the request for "a few hundred" reliable sources seems downright insane to me. There are only 94 references in the entire article. Here's a sentence, chosen at random from the article: "He was 18th author on a paper with Brian Schmidt, a future winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, in the study of the measurement of distances to Type II Supernovae and the Hubble constant." I would challenge you to find even a dozen reliable sources for this statement, let alone hundreds. Shall we remove that sentence from the article on weight grounds? 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm very familiar with WEIGHT. Your suggestion that WEIGHT implies that several hundred references are needed to cover an aspect of a subject with a few thousand references is, as I said, absurd. (I disagree that it is insane, that's too much :) My guess is that less than one per cent of our material would meet that standard.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What I am pointing out is that 13 sources is tiny fraction of sources on this topic. BTW, you did not answer my question: What objective criteria would you recommend using instead?   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You proposed it when asked for what would be a reasonable number of sources as a criterion for inclusion. Maybe it's a small fraction of the number of articles that say "Neil deGrasse Tyson" in them, but that seems fairly meaningless. If you honestly believe that 13 sources is too few, then should we remove anything with, say 20 or fewer reliable sources for it? Can you give 13 reliable sources for the statement I chose, at random, from the article - that he was 18th author on a paper with a Nobel Prize winner? How about for the names of his children? Honestly, be reasonable here. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, however, more than many of the other pieces of information in the article, such as the section on his spiritual beliefs. Kelly  hi! 15:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar nor have a researched his children or that paper. But I am familiar with his role in getting Pluto reclassified as a dwarf planet, and I was able find about a hundred using the reliable sources search engine.  Unfortunately, 100 is apparently the maximum number Google custom search engines allow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So then you would agree that we should remove the names of his children and the statement about his being 18th author on that paper, and any other statement for which less than 100 reliable sources can be found? 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that we should remove all information which does not have hundreds of references? I would be with you if the argument was, clearly this is a less important bit of information than, say, the fact he is an astrophysicist - it would be utterly inappropriate to include in the first sentence or first paragraphs even. It would be inappropriate to place this in such a prominent place. But to argue that it has no place at all, because it doesn't have hundreds of references - even though the factuality of it is not in any doubt - seems to be opening up quite a pandoras box to me. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Id say that 13 sources is a fair number relative to Tyson's overall fame. Except for the fact that most of those 13 sources arent really reliable that is. Really we have maybe 3 actually reliable sources and like 10 blogs. Bonewah (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we have at least 12 RS, non-blog refs available (Go to "Resources" above to review). Many are columns or editorials, some are straight news. Not blogs. (I'd count Volokh Conspiracy as RS but I remove it from this count as a blog although it is at WaPo.) Capitalismojo (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm generally neutral on this, but I'm interested in getting this pinned down so that people aren't moving goalposts. - what would be your "cutoff" number of reliable sources covering this for it to merit a 2-sentence mention in the article? Stipulating that your point is taken that there are only 3 (seems in dispute but that's fine) - would 5 sources be enough? If we find other statements covered by only 3 or fewer reliable sources, would those also merit removal? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding goalposts - correct me if I am wrong, but a significant reason that multiple sources are required according to WP:BLP is essentially, in order to get it right in a higher stakes environment. If something is disputed and cannot be verified, we have to be careful not to make unsupported (potentially libelous) claims. It gives the example of an alleged affair by a politician, where you would cite newspapers where the claim is made, while presenting it as a claim (not simply fact, and also presenting the denial if there was one). In this case, it doesn't seem so applicable (at this phase) - we do have multiple sources here, but even more than that, we have all the sources we need to remove doubt about the factual nature of the story: this is not about allegations, it is about a documented event where the person involved, far from denying it, has acknowledged error personally. The concerns that lead to there being a higher bar for biographies of living people seem to be answered here easily. That still leaves the "editorial decision-making" about how prominent we should present this information. It seems clear, it should not be the most prominent thing in the article or even amongst the top. But it also seems clear, there should be a place for it. Chester Lunt (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have any immediate thoughts on how to create an objective metric. I am quite sure that this is the wrong forum for that discussion.
 * If we are going to play a numbers game, we should be more careful about not mixing apples and oranges. When AQFK says that Google News has 11K hits(ignoring for the moment that it is an estimate, not a count), that isn't 11K distinct publications, but 11K articles. When someone says 13 sources have discussed the Bush incident, that is 13 separate publications It is innumeracy to talk about 13 as a ratio to the thousands. Either count distinct publications in both numerator and denominator, or count total articles in both, don't mix them.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with 's point. That's what adds to the Kafkaesque quality of this discussion. Many time, there are conflicting sources, and when that happens, it is appropriate to ensure that we have a fair number of sources to make sure we get it right. In this instance, I don't believe there are any disputes, except about minor details. Everyone agrees Tyson made a negative claim about Bush's statement, arguing that he was being divisive and ignorant. Everyone (including Tyson) agrees, he got several aspects of the story wrong, and the main point of the anecdote was quite wrong. There is no dispute about the facts—the only issue is weight.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont have a hard and fast cutoff number, its relative to the overall fame or noteworthiness of the subject (Tyson, in this case). Ive already said that this information should be included due to the fact that Tyson responded to it, but i wanted to remind everyone that the general feeling was that not all of the sources that mentioned this incident were really considered reliable, even by those that felt the information should be included. Bonewah (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another week, and not a single broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable news network (FOX, CNN, MSNBC), international news agency (AP, UPI, Reuters), or major newspaper has felt this worthy of mention. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is any of the information in this article sourced to major news networks? Should we remove information that is not? Kelly  hi! 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a biography, not a news article. So, yes there are many refs that are not news sources. But, this incident is being characterized as news, indeed a scandal by the original source. One would expect major news sources – particular given the care used in adding derogatory items in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many who have called it news are doing so in order to invoke WP:NOTNEWS-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To compare this to another recent blunder, Sarah Palin's misstatement that the White House was at "1400 Pennsylvania Avenue" is the subject of literally hundreds of news articles, some of them from major networks and news agencies. 13 sources does not seem to be a particularly significant number, especially when most of them are right wing blogs.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarah Palin was a vice presidential candidate for the United States who has since maintained a fairly high profile. I think it's fair to say that she's a bit higher profile than deGrasse Tyson. There are a number of other statements included in this article that are not meeting such a high bar - I imagine there are plenty of statements in the article that don't even have coverage in 3 reliable sources. If you want to just count sources then you need to give a reasonable yardstick that can be applied more or less uniformly. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. What is the uniform standard?  Personally, I'm trying to apply the standard I've seen employed at other articles. To respond to your objection about Palin's profile, I would say as the US' most famous scientist he may have a somewhat high profile himself, but let's compare a less high profile figure.  Obscure Congressman Curt Clawson made a gaffe this summer that was the subject of almost as many news articles as Palin's gaffe, yet the editors on that article and at the BLP noticeboard deemed it not noteworthy enough for inclusion.  If Clawson's gaffe - the subject of many more news articles than Tyson's gaffe despite his relative obscurity compared to Tyson - is not in the encyclopedia, then in my opinion Tyson's should not be either.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's certainly a reasonable standpoint to take. I'd have to see the details of the BLP noticeboard's reasoning, but if it is indeed an apt comparison then I'm fine with that being the current interpretation of the policy. Certainly Tyson is himself more notable than Clawson, so if there was even more coverage of the Clawson event and it was still undue weight, then this event would definitely be undue weight as well. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where was the determination made in that case? If it was strictly here (Talk:Curt_Clawson) then it appears to have elicited much less input than this discussion. I think there could be a valid case for inclusion there, even though I wouldn't rate this incident and that one on the same scale (is this really a case of just a gaffe?) Chester Lunt (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comparing Tyson to Palin or Clawson or anyone else is always going to be apples to oranges. The relevant comparison is to other details about Tyson. The basic details of his life and career are probably sourcable to hundreds if not thousands of sources. Some very high quality, but many probably low quality (blogs, pop magazines etc). However once you get past the basics, I believe many of the details are likely sourced only to one or few sources (and more importantly, only ABLE to be sourced to one or few sources.) What is the objective standard that is keeping those details in, but this out. (For example, his statements on Peta, sourced only to Peta, The content on Penny4Nasa sourced only them, his various media appearances, being the 18th author on a paper, sourced to the primary of the paper, the unsourced latin dance team medal, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, those comparisons are irrelevant. Standard biographical detail present in every biography cannot be compared to scandals and gaffes which may or may not be worthy of inclusion.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I don't know a whole lot about the Curt Clawson situation (just having heard about it now), but after looking through Talk:Curt Clawson, there is quite an enlightening discussion there with some familiar faces to this talk page. Just to venture an opinion here, I think there might be a better case for inclusion of that gaffe into his page, than Palin's gaffe into her page, because in a sense her public persona is one that involves gaffes to some degree (imagine discussing all gaffes of Joe Biden in the body of his article.) You might cite a particular gaffe, towards supporting the claim that gaffes are a part of his public persona (or for Palin as well).
 * In the case of this article, I don't think it is really a gaffe per se, in the same sense as those other two things are gaffes. For instance, "Death Panel" is a famous term coined by Palin which was widely criticized as being inaccurate. That has a whole article on it. It wasn't a gaffe, it was a claim that was widely disputed.
 * I'm not suggesting this is how we handle Tyson's claim (with a whole article). Certainly we shouldn't. Nor would I suggest that we should (as some have suggested) use Tyson's claim to build a case that he has a history of doing this sort of thing. In this case I think a small mention could be quite appropriate. Chester Lunt (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Insurance companies have been doing death panel nonsense as much as they can get away with it for decades. Palin merely opposes that the government would now assume that role and since the government would be unlikely to regulate itself well, the oversight would be oversighted. As far as the issue of this little misquote by Tyson that was made by Bush, who cares? We're not a tabloid....it has no business being in this article.--MONGO 18:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The easy answer would be that clearly Tyson cares as he responded. And if there is one take away from all this, I think it might very well be that people care. However, whether everyone cares or not has never (to my knowledge) been a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but this isn't a rumor or gossip. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's also a question of article length, as that affects whether weight given to an incident is due or not. Curt Clawson's BLP is 248 words long (prose size as measured by the Page Size tool); this present article's prose size is 3,344 words. There's absolutely no question that Clawson's gaffe would be covered if his bio were over 3,000 words long; given that it's less than a tenth of that size, it's more debatable (though I would lean towards inclusion of a one-sentence statement even in that case, given how widely the gaffe was reported).
 * I once wrote an essay, WP:ADAM, about Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency to let biographies become an assortment of unflattering minor details while no one bothers to actually write what the person is notable for. This Wikipedia biography is not one of those cases. It's long, well-tended, providing a clear impression of what the subject is notable for, and giving a full account of his many achievements. I think in this case there is room for a short reference to some valid criticism that Tyson received. In the context of the overall biography, it's not undue.
 * I note and sympathise with ' concerns that this seems to be an effort to discredit Tyson, driven by a political faction who may resent Tyson for views he's expressed on climate change and so forth, but regardless of the source or motivation of these criticisms, Tyson himself acknowledged that the critics had a point (as did Salon later on). Right from the beginning, this – combined with the length of the biography – moved this past the tipping point for inclusion for me. Andreas JN 466 12:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this seems to be driven by a desire to discredit Tyson for political reasons, but that does not make this a unique situation. A lot of criticisms, valid and vapid, spawn from political maneuvering, doesnt really change anything.  There is nothing in Wikipedia that says that only those criticisms that are born of a pure heart are worthy of inclusion. To my mind, the subject of his critics motivations are only relevant in so far as we might make mention of it if we decide to note this affair.  Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am fine with including it if we mention that it was started because of a CONSERVATIVE BLOG. Context is key. It is a controversy because American Conservatives made it one.  Want to include it? Fine.  Explain WHY or don't include it at all.  Without the conservative sources stirring this up, Tyson would never have responded to it and it would never have initiated this discussion. Mystic55 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Without the conservative sources stirring this up" the fact that Tyson repeatedly mis-referenced a quote by a government official and claimed that the quote said something that it did not would never have come to light, Tyson would have gone on mis-using the quote, and we never would have have this discussion about checking your sources and your assumptions. Sounds to me that Tyson, the wider scientific community, and WP owe "the conservative sources" a firm 'thank you' and a bit more charity of motive in the future. A note to that effect in the article would not go amiss, either, methinks.Kerani (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Do you really believe that if no conservative had raised this issue that Tyson could smear a president of the United States with a false allegation about religious divisiveness and no liberal or centrist would ever challenge him on it?. If true, that's rather sad.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I should owe a debt of gratitude to sources deliberately manufacturing a controversy because he opposes Anthrogenic global warming? How about WP: Soapbox? And as for rather 'sad', I note the fact that only conservative sources really seem UPSET about this. If this is indeed the dire controversy it has been manufactured to be, where are the reliable sources not only mentioning the controversy but actively criticizing him for it? Salon might have covered the controversy, but they're just mentioning it exists.  What is rather 'sad' is attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack anyone who disagrees with their carefully manufactured world view. Is that what we are reduced to? Not only can conservatives make up controversy out of thin air, but now we also have to thank them for doing it?Mystic55 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, this isnt the place for it. WP:BATTLE Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. WP:BATTLE WP:UNDUE, WP: SOAPBOX And let me add something else.  If we really, TRULY, owe a debt of gratitude to these noble pioneers of truth, these bastions of nobility only thinking of the accurate honest record of history, then all the MORE reason to include the fact that they are both conservative and desiring to highlight this fact because of an attack on their beloved fellow conservative president.  Let us pay these wondrous heroes of virtue their due and mention the fact in the article.  If they did us a service, why HIDE the fact that they are conservative? Mystic55 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with noting (with RS) that the.Federalist is a conservative-slant publication. Nor do I have a problem with noting that this was the first attention given to this fairly obvious citation failure in any news source, conservative or liberal or otherwise. Kerani (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is of course a consideration, but I don't recall that being the primary consideration for those opposed to inclusion. Clawson was just one of many possible examples of a shift I've seen on Wikipedia towards exclusion of such things by invoking BLP and WP:NOTNEWS.  If that is the general trend, or possibly even consensus, then it should apply to Tyson as well.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP is no longer the key issue (as long as it is properly written for inclusion) as the accusation has been acknowledged by Tyson. The question of UNDUE is well addressed by Andreas above. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem to apply. This is a two month discussion among a variety of media entities. It is not "breaking news", or "diary", or "routine reporting", or a minor "who's who" event. I'm not sure what part of "not news" I'd hang opposition  to inclusion onto. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Two months? Barely a couple of weeks at this point. "A variety of media entities"?  That brings us back to User:Objective3000's original point, the lack of mainstream media coverage.  If hundreds of articles can be ignored as WP:NOTNEWS, then taking the position that 13 blogs, one Daily Beast article, and no major news coverage is also NOTNEWS is a reasonable one.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I see that as of tomorrow it will be one month. That does not mitigate my NOTNEWS points. This does not fall into any NOTNEWS bucket. It is not "breaking news" It is not "routine reporting". It is not "diary". It is not "who's who". [User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding "lack of mainstream coverage", I'd direct attention to the "Resources" section above on the talk page. We have such refs as Politico, Salon, NY Post, Tampa Tribune, Daily Caller, The Week, National Review, Washington Examiner, Weekly Standard, Physics Today, among others. I believe that is sufficient for a mention. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I accepted on good faith that there were 13 reliable sources.  Upon close inspection, most of these sources are opinion pieces, not straight news reports.  So, the actual number of good, solid sources appears to approach one or zero.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIASED, they're just fine for citations of fact, although any opinions must be cited and attributed as such. Kelly  hi! 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I'm putting this in bold because it appears you didn't notice it the last dozen times it has been pointed out to you:
 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
 * This is from WP:RS WP:BIASED does not say what you claim it says. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly that's your interpretation, but I disagree. I wouldn't use them to cite disputed facts, but for uncontestable ones, for instance Tyson's mischaracterization of Bush's statements, they're fine. Kelly  hi! 12:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think there is any question about the facts of this case any more once Tyson acknowledged the error. There is still the question of undue weight, but i dont think blogs are in any way forbidden from counting towards an undue weight analysis. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is right - the context you are using a source matters greatly (I think to some degree, no matter what the source). Again, the high standards for BLP's is partly because of libel/slander laws. Unlike an article on Saturn which might include inaccuracies, subjects of BLP's could potentially seek legal action. So when facts are disputed, you need to find multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is not a dispute of the facts.
 * But there also seems to be a misunderstanding of the policy in WP:UNDUE. The example is given of the flat earth theory, and how it would be giving undue weight to it to include a direct mention in the article on Earth. It gives a certain false equivalency to include such a discredited theory side by side with ones that are proven. Is that the case here, by including a mention of this incident? Given that its factual nature is not disputed, and that Tyson acknowledged and apologized, I don't see how this would be comparable to the flat earth example.
 * In the broader sense, beyond that policy, you don't want to give undue importance to certain facts over others. You wouldn't lead off the article saying Tyson is a dancer, even though he is a dancer, or that he is a father, even though he is also that. There are editorial choices to make about where to place things, and the importance to why they are well known is certainly a huge factor. It would be inappropriate to include this incident into a prominent place, but to argue that there is no place at all within the body of this article is too far a leap for me. Chester Lunt (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have seen some classic "moving the goalposts". The discussion was about whether there was any mainstream coverage (other than blogs). When presented with evidence that there is enormous mainstream coverage, the issue suddenly becomes "we can't use it because it's opinion". Well, actually, we can use opinion, carefully. There is straight news reporting in the refs. There are opinion columns in the refs. There is even selfpub (Tyson's) in the refs. Each has its appropriate place. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no “moving goalposts”. Time moves on, and still not a single broadcast network (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable news network (FOX, CNN, MSNBC), international news agency (AP, UPI, Reuters), or major newspaper has felt this worthy of mention. Objective3000 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Should we remove information in this article that doesn't use those types of sources? Kelly  hi! 14:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. Objective3000 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good question: certainly this isn't the standard outlined in guidelines, but is it your view that we should apply it to this article and remove everything not cited in the sources you describe? Chester Lunt (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I answered this the last time he asked it. This is a biography, not a news article. So, yes there are many refs that are not news sources. But, this incident is being characterized as news, indeed a scandal by the original source. One would expect major news sources – particular given the care used in adding derogatory items in a BLP. We're just going in circles. Objective3000 (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you have stated it before. Wouldn't this deal more with deciding how to present the incident, rather than whether to present it? Maybe thefederalist would present it one way (certainly they did), but as an encylopedia we have different aims. Per WP:BLP, we must be careful not to make it an attack article with the wrong tone or emphasis. But that doesn't mean we can't cover things viewed as "negative." We just should not be using things like derogatory terms, insults, etc - instead we are bound to cover it in a neutral way. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the end, it all comes down to the rationale for including an item. What is the reason for this inclusion in a BLP? The reason given by the originator of the claim (which published thirteen articles on the subject), and most of its echoes, is that it “proves” Tyson is a “serial fabulist”, and therefore, we can ignore his arguments in favor of climate change and evolution. Only, there is absolutely zero evidence that he is a “serial fabulist”. He got a quote wrong, and repeated that one misqoute. If that’s the criteria for derogatory statements in a BLP, glad I’m not in Wikipedia. Thought that was in the realm of gossip columns. And, some of the editors that wish to include this also wish to denigrate his academic credentials because he did not get his PhD at one school, but transferred to a more respected school and achieved it there. STOP THE PRESSES! (Einstein also had some initial, like difficulties, in obtaining his PhD, not included in his article. And that's not a BLP) Seriously, many of the sources were attacking Tyson before this for not believing in and respecting their deities. And many people here have said that we should include because WP would look bad because of the attacks against Wikipedia. (That’s really sad.)

Two comments on the attacks. First, this is playing the ref. In sports, coaches make very strong complaints to the refs that their rulings are biased against them (particularly in away games) in an attempt, often successful, to get them to rule in their favor in later tight situations to prove non-bias. That is, they try to force bias. Second, some of these attacks have been so over-the-top as to make the comments nonsensical. For example, the originator’s comments that Wikipedia editors that wish to exclude this silliness as being the equivalent of beheading jihadists and the crucifiers of Christ. (Amazing that they avoided Godwin’s Law.) Further, naming WP editors in a public blog and accusing them of unpleasant things for merely expressing opinions based on WP !rules. Will WP actually fall for this? If so, every time one of these blogs wishes to raise its visibility, it will start attacking WP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A few things here: it was not just a misquote. What he ended up apologizing for was, well, to quote him precisely: "And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia." It wasn't so much that he was just a few words off, but that the meaning was made very different because of those few words, which prompted him to apologize.
 * As for the rationale - it is easy to imagine why a blog generally viewed to be conservative, would be critical of a public figure generally viewed to be liberal (and who in this case, was criticizing a conservative public figure). They have their motives, and they also have their conclusions. Yet it does not follow that because they first made the claim, they can dictate the way we must present it here. Do the facts support their broad conclusions? I haven't seen any evidence that he is a "serial fabulist," and this incident is not proof of it. As for the potential of forcing bias, that certainly is something to be wary of. But to use your referee analogy, imagine a coach makes a very strong, over the top complaint. The refs look at it, find that there is merit to it. But they feel pressured, and in order to send a message against pressuring the referees, they rule against the coach despite the facts.
 * I'm sure this sometimes happens in sports too, even though you would like to think referees would not be swayed either way. Wikipedia is different from sports obviously in many ways, one is that there is the benefit of time. I remember the sad case a couple years ago where a no-hitter was lost due to a bad call with 2 outs in the 9th. The umpire apologized for the bad call later, as the evidence was conclusive that he was wrong, but that doesn't change the outcome of the game. When it comes to getting Wikipedia right though, we have time to get it right.
 * So to return to the question of rationale for inclusion: we aren't bound by the same rationale used by the claim originators. Why should an encylopedia like Wikipedia mention this incident? Because it is well documented with reputable sources, involves a claim about a prominent figure (former president) that was shown to be inaccurate, which later was apologized for by Neil deGrasse Tyson. There's no dispute about the facts, and presenting the facts helps provide context on Neil deGrasse Tyson (presuming it is presented in a neutral, responsible way). Chester Lunt (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * With no evidence that this misquote was purposely fabricated, it's an oops. And, I hardly think it damaged a retired president's reputation or job prospects.:) Objective3000 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What kind of evidence would you be looking for that it was "purposely fabricated"? We aren't mind readers here.... --17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say "originator" do you mean Sean Davis?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would it have to have been purposely fabricated in order to be included? Chester Lunt (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You started out well with In the end, it all comes down to the rationale for including an item.  but what followed was a mismash of OR, and not very well done OR, because it is replete with non sequiturs. Plus straw men (no one here has argued this incident deserves including because Tyson is a serial fabulist). Chester Lunt has already made the point that your simplistic sumarization needs work, but that's not all that is wrong with your post. But the opening sentence was good. Maybe you can try again and follow it with say, a discussion of the actual rationale rather than an invented one.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Never before seen so many snarks on one page. Objective3000 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please address the content, and avoid the aspersions. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to empty insults is pointless -- and that's all that you provided. Objective3000 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can assure you there was no snark intended in any of my comments here. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't seen snark in your edits. I just didn't respond as I thought the question had been answered so many times before and didn't see the point in more repetition. Frankly, I simply cannot imagine any reason to include a goofed quote in a BLP, particularly considering the vast number of times this guy has spoken. Objective3000 (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that some editors don't deem it personally important is moot. Policy suggests that we include events that have significant coverage. All agree that this has received significant coverage (Salon, Politico, etc...) We have sufficient refs. There is no BLP issue (its not controversial because the subject has acknowledged it). A spare tightly written description will avoid undue issues in a large bio. I see no policy based reason not to include. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just wrong. In fact, BLP policy suggests exclusion, not inclusion.  Please read it. I'm curious, how did you get the opposite impression?  When in doubt, we exclude.  And as far as your "significant coverage" argument goes, that's been debunked several times.  The conservative, right wing echo chamber, starting with the Federalist Heartland-front blog, and moving to other conservative opinion pieces and blogs, is not in any way "significant coverage". Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no longer a WP:BLP problem as we have a WP:SELFSOURCE verifying the information. Once a fact has been verified in a source reliable for WP:BLP (such as a WP:SELFSOURCE), then the WP:BLP concerns go away for that fact.  Now if additional facts unsupported by the WP:SELFSOURCE are added, you can complain about those, but that hasn't been proposed yet.  The only thing we have left to decide is WP:WEIGHT. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give it a break and find something else to do with your time. A Facebook posting is not a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read WP:SELFSOURCE, in which Neil Tyson's confirmed Facebook posts are perfectly reliable sources as to a not self-serving claim about himself. It says explicitly: "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook ."--Obsidi (talk ) 04:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obsidi, there is no connection to having a BLP policy problem with content and what the SELFSOURCE guideline says about how to identify a reliable source. You're also running afoul of the "verifiability guarantees inclusion" error. It doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP raises the bar on the reliability of the source to protect against potential liable being incorporated into a WP page. When a subject says something about themselves (assuming it can be verified it is actually that person saying it, and that it is not self-serving), it removes any problem of the reliability of the fact. There is a whole section in the WP:BLP page dedicated to telling you this: WP:BLPSELFPUB which links to "Further information: WP:SELFPUB" which again says "This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." A self source is a perfectly reliable source for a BLP page (in this case it is the only really reliable source as to the fact that he actually made a mistake rather then just the accusation occurred). Now as to the second part about "verifiability guarantees inclusion", that is true, just because the WP:BLPSELFPUB is verifiable does not guarantees inclusion. Verifiability DOES remove BLP concerns (assuming it is written in a WP:NPOV), and all we are left with is standard WP:WEIGHT issues. It shouldn't be included if only one reliable source talks about something in an off hand manner (not important) or even if many talk about it but due so in a way that the RS believes is not relevant to the overall story of the subject. But the question is "What do the reliable sources think the importance of this to the overall story of the subject?" Not what you, or I, think the importance of the fact is but only what the WP:RS think. In this case every reliable source on the subject (which does include biased sources which are reliable sources), clearly thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson. That means it should be included (with proper size, a single paragraph at most). --Obsidi (talk ) 12:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources have argued this is important as a part of his life? None that I know about.  Please present them here for review.  And while you're at it, it would help if you familiarize yourself with a few GA/FA biographical articles.  You'll find that they don't contain this level of irrelevant trivia. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization of it as irrelevant trivia. There are currently 14 WP:RS talking about the importance of this to Neil Tyson.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) --Obsidi (talk ) 00:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quantity over quality? You're either not understanding the discussion or you are intentionally moving the goalposts.  You claimed that "every reliable source on the subject...clearly thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson."  I then responded, "which reliable sources have argued this is important as a part of his life?"  You responded to my request for clarification with a link dump.  That does not help nor answer the question.  If you believe that one of these sources makes the case that this trivial misquote was "important to the overall story of Neil Tyson", then choose one up above so I can comment on it.  Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said "Please present them here for review." and so I did. Each of the linked sources claim that it is important to the story of Neil Tyson, and each one is a reliable source.  You are free to start from the first if you wish to disagree.  --Obsidi (talk ) 01:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how talk page discussions work. We discuss things one at a time, often using a single example as the basis for arguments.  Since the onus is on you to demonstrate that at least one of these sources "thinks that it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson", please choose one that supports your argument so that I may best address it.  If you can't do that, then you must forfeit the argument.  We simply don't have time to do your research for you.  If you feel strongly that your argument is correct, then you must choose at least one of the sources you list above (preferably the best one) that substantiates your argument.  If you still don't understand, then you may want to review WP:TALK.  I very much doubt that all of these sources support your argument, and since you are the claimant, the onus is on you to prove that they do.  Get to it. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say not to discuss them one at a time, as I said, you can start with the first link I included which was . --Obsidi (talk ) 01:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first link is an opinion piece by conservative sports columnist Tom Jackson that duplicates the claims made by The Federalist and reproduces them on his blog. Not notable, not relevant, and not even remotely supporting the case that "it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson".  You can't even make an argument that Jackson's opinion is notable for this article, because it isn't.  Please cross that opinion piece off your list. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Tom Jackson was the author, but it was a piece published on the The Tampa Tribune.  Yes it talks about the claims made by the The Federalist, while also clearly showing that it is considered an important topic relevant to the overall story of Neil Tyson calling it in his own words "vicious, gratuitous slander."  Do you disagree that it clearly shows that to the author of the article that is "important to the overall story of Neil Tyson"?  I know you don't think its important, but the author of the article written in a WP:RS clearly does think it is.  So the question is 1) Is this a reliable source? You gave no reason for believing it is not (other then calling it a blog, but this is from a published source with a editorial board, which makes it not a blog as WP defines that word in WP:BLOGS, and instead should be considered a WP:NEWSBLOG.) 2) Does the article think it is important to the overall story of Neil Tyson, and in this case the article clearly makes that point.  --Obsidi (talk ) 02:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is a good reliable source for this biography article. While it is certainly current, it is not neutral and repeats the attacks made by Davis.  I also don't see how it makes the case that the misquote is relevant.  More importantly, I should point out that the good sports columnist is an admitted, out of the closet climate change denier.  This is guy who writes, "But just as you don’t have to have played in the NFL to present an authoritative opinion about who has emerged as the best quarterback to lead the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, or have served in the White House to analyze responsibly what's going on there, neither is an advanced degree in climate science necessary to ascertain that the verdict about humankind's effect on global temperatures is far from settled."  I should point out that Jackson's paper, The Tampa Tribune, appears to have some kind of close relationship with the Heartland Institute, as they seem to publish an unusual number of Heartland commentary and "expert" opinions in place of actual scientific facts. While it is generally agreed that "weird" Florida is an outlier when it comes to the rest of the United States, this kind of open, outright shilling for lobby groups is unprecedented and tells me the source is not reliable for this or any other article. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not required to be neutral to be a WP:RS (see WP:BIASED). The whole point is that it “repeats the attacks made by davis” clearly it thinks the issue is important which is why it bears repeating! This “misquote” (in your words, I would say it is far more then that), is relevant to the overall story of Neil Tyson according to the article. You are not even disputing this so far. An ad hominem attack on the author’s other views is irrelevant. The fact that 47 of the 2,990,000 google hits on their site include the word “The Hartland Institute” (ie they asked someone from the heartland institute what their view on the subject was) is not even evidence of systematic bias of the publication (which even if biased wouldn't matter, see WP:BIASED). By that standard the NYT’s has a LOT of systematic bias’es that would make it an unreliable source (which clearly it isn’t unreliable). . Only if they stated facts that were not true then that would cast into doubt their reliability (not being biased). --Obsidi (talk ) 00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously consider this disgusting rant in a blog from a sports columnist calling the director of the Hayden Planetarium "a little, little man" a serious ref? Is that what an encyclopedia should use as a reliable source? And that's the first pick of all your refs? I've had enough of this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its clearly an opinion piece, and for many of the things included could not be sourced as facts about Neil Tyson (such as the part about "little, little man" or it being "vicious, gratuitous slander"), but that doesn't mean it isn't a WP:RS, its still a WP:NEWSBLOG and properly attributed could be included in the article if supported by proper WP:WEIGHT (such as "Tom Jackson thinks..."). As such it can be used to support that there is a significant viewpoint among WP:RS on the importance of this subject, which is important for a question of WP:WEIGHT.  --Obsidi (talk ) 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and I can't see how this source can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Further it does not support your claim that this is a "significant viewpoint" at all, it actually supports the claim that it's a minority viewpoint promoted by climate change denial and creationist groups attempting to attack Tyson. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This source was actually up on this page as the original source, cited all by itself (with approrate attribution) for a long time (I was not the one that added it). No admin removed it through protection, which they could have (and did for another part), if it wasn't a WP:RS.  Why don't you think it is a WP:RS as a WP:NEWSBLOG?  "Significant viewpoint" is shown by multiple WP:RS agreeing that it is important, I don't claim a single source can demonstrate a "Significant viewpoint" exists, but multiple WP:RS can. --Obsidi (talk ) 11:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources like this have claimed Obama is the AntiChrist. The majority of the article is a copy of the Federalist article, which nobody thinks is a RS, with some ad homs thrown in like "a little, little man." It's a disgusting rant and should not be used as a source anywhere in an encyclopedia, much less in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What you do mean "sources like this"? This is the The Tampa Tribune which is a daily published newspaper sense 1895.  If you can point to a link in which the The Tampa Tribune claims factually that Obama is the Anti-Christ, I will strike the source.  To say that some other organization accused Obama of being the Anti-Christ, does not in any way harm the reliability of the The Tampa Tribune.  --Obsidi (talk ) 01:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the Tampa Tribune. It's a conservative columnist who is using a polemical opinion piece to repeat claims made by The Federalist, an unreliable source.  Further, the columnist is an admitted climate change denier.   It has no place here. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)