Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Why was a major edit made without consensus?

This has become unproductive. Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I requested that Mastcell revert the removal. Some discussion on Mastcell's talk page, but not making much progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume the rationale was to err on the side of WP:BRD and leave contentious material out of a BLP until consensus can be reached. a13ean (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stating that "No evidence exists that Bush said that.", which is sourced to a reliable source", which WP:RS would that be Sphilbrick}?
  • "Bush speech historians have weighted in that he never said it", on Twitter.
  • "Searches of transcripts have been done and it hasn't been found.", WP:OR.
  • "The speech that Bush made", Bush made many speeches. Which WP:RS said where that particular one was the one Tyson quoted?
I support MastCell, that was a good edit and should not be reverted. In fact, the entire mention looks like it's going to be removed. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
We're three days into an RfC process which defaults to a thirty day process (which can be expanded or contracted depending on how it's going and the interest). I wouldn't be so sure. The quality and weight of the sources is only increasing. And if Tyson himself comments on this, all bets are off. Marteau (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But the sourcing is still close to zero. When we start having dozens or hundreds of reliable sources (and I'm looking for straight news stories, not opinion columns), then I might be willing to re-examine the issue. But for now, it's a slam dunk no. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Requiring "dozens or hundreds" of reliable sources before you "might" reconsider is of course your prerogative. I consider it an unreasonably high bar, but your bar is your bar. And some others I am sure would not reconsider it if there were thousands. Such is the nature of editing Wikipedia. Marteau (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not an unreasonably high bar. There are literally thousands and thousands of sources on this topic. Consider for example that a Google News search currently turns up a total of only 5 hits about the quote allegation.[1] Now, do a Google News Search on Tyson and Cosmos. You get back a whopping 761 sources.[2] Granted that this is not a perfect methodology, but it is an objective methodology. Bearing that in mind, per WP:WEIGHT, the article should have about 150 times more coverage given to Cosmos than the quote controversy. Yet, when I first came to this article,[3] there was 5 sentences devoted to the quote allegations and 4 sentences about Cosmos. That doesn't seem massively out of whack to you? If it takes hundreds of sources to get Cosmos into the article, it should take hundreds of sources to get the quote allegation in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Because Cosmos HAS hundreds of sources does not mean it TOOK hundreds of sources to get into the article... the logic does not follow. Personally, I would have allowed Cosmos into the article if, for some reason, there were only two reliable sources, and I would do so in the future in a similar situation. I'm sure I'm not alone. Marteau (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I said that incorrectly. What I meant is that Cosmos has received roughly 150 times more coverage that than the quote allegation. That means it should get (roughly) 150 times more coverage. Do you agree or disagree? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say that is a faulty comparison. I would say that the Cosmos series should have it's own section, but that started in March of this year and has had much more time to be in the news. This, however, has received coverage much more recently. A more apt comparison would be to see in approximately 6 months if the quote fabrication has as much coverage as Cosmos has today. At least then they would be on similar time frames. Arzel (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting a possible misquote is going to have the same lasting impact as the large amounts of coverage he got from the high-budget popular TV show Cosmos? Second Quantization (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anything, simply pointing out a logical falicy. And let us be clear here. This is not a possible misquote. What he claimed Bush said, did not happen. He has repeated it several times. Don't fool yourself, you know that his legion of followers have scoured the internet for proof that Bush actually did say this. As it becomes more and more evident that no evidence exists their cries against this issue have only become louder. The longer that Tyson refuses to either provide proof of the statement or correct his statement only makes the problem worse. Your actions do him no service either. Arzel (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No. My standards for determining whether an event should be included are on a case by case basis and do not strictly involve comparisons of why other material was included or the sheer numbers of reliable sources. The amount of text devoted to an incident within an article DOES depend on other content, but the question of it's inclusion does not. And ratios comparing the number of citations of proposed additions with existing material certainly are not involved. My requirements for covering professional malfeasance, in particular, are not weighted as much towards coverage in the press as in other cases for inclusion. Cases of professional misconduct have an inherent weight to me. When there is professional misconduct, I may only require two sources, and may not personally require as much press coverage. For example, say a doctor was accused of botching an operation because he was drunk and killed the patient. A court finds him guilty and jails him. The only source is the ruling of the court, and perhaps ONE story about him going to jail. I'd include that, just based on that, just two sources, because this is a case of professional malfeasance, and the court ruling is an impeccable sorce. Now, the accusations in the Tyson issue involve his conduct as a professional speaker, a professional speaker who is accused of manufacturing quotes and slandering a president. Moreover, this is a professional speaker who holds logic and rationality up as his standard. If this were some other celebrity, my requirments for inclusion would need much more press coverage. But because he is a professional speaker and a scientist and holds himself up as a rationalist, documented and true instances of professional malfeasance in the course of his career get high weight in my judegement and require not as much press coverage. I fully am aware this may be contrary to others standards, probably even being considered a radical departure from Wikitradition. It is, however, the standard I use and the standard I will continue to use until I quit or am asked to leave. Marteau (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"My requirements for covering professional malfeasance, in particular, are not weighted as much towards coverage in the press as in other cases for inclusion." Well, Wikipedia standards are decided by coverage, so your out of luck on that one. If you want to argue we should abandon our basic criteria for inclusion and instead rely on your subjective opinions about what's really important, then argue at WP:WEIGHT about it. Second Quantization (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gaba p: The edit removed by Mastcell said, "No evidence exists that Bush said that." It was courced to two sites, one of which is probably not an RS, but the other one, the Weekly Standard is an RS. The edit also removed Hemant Mehta called this "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence" but that source looks like a blog, and probably should not be included.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick and as I pointed out 5 days ago here, both sources failed verification completely. That's leaving aside the unquestionable status of non-WP:RS of the principal source being used, ie: thefederalist.com. Regards. Gaba (talk)
Sorry I missed that discussion. If I understand your query, you are unable to understand how the sentence No evidence exists that Bush said that. is supported by the source. The source says:
But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true. George W. Bush did make a remark that bears a resemblance to this, but it was two years later, in his speech following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a context that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Islam. “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today,” Bush said.
(emphasis added)
Frankly, the source is even stronger. They don't just contend that Bush didn't say it, they claim that nothing about the statement is true. They have identified the statement by Bush probably picked up by Tyson, which is not about Muslims.
Let me know if your quibble is with the exact wording, but it looks to me like it supports a stronger statement than was used. One possibility is to use the actual quote, if there is something about the existing sentence that is problematic.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick what you quoted above could be used, at most, to source something along the lines of
"The Scrapbook claimed in The Weekly Standard that "nothing about (the) anecdote is true".
but absolutely not the definitive statement No evidence exists that Bush said that, worst of all stated in WP's voice.
Proper attribution is extremely important in a BLP, specially when the person is being accused of lying. If attributing it to "The Scrapbook" sounds silly to you, that's because it is. There's no reason we should include an attack on a BLP just because someone wrote it down online. Notability isn't there and WP:RSs haven't covered the issue. The entire mention should be removed from the article as the majority !vote in the ongoing RfC appears to be pointing to. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying that RS's have not covered the issue? The Weekly Standard has, the National Review has, the UK newspaper "The Week" has, the Tampa Tribune has.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Because I don't consider many of them out-of-the-question WP:RSs. They could be discussed in the context of what precisely they are saying since, as I proved above, TWS which is perhaps the main source being referenced does not support the original quote you keep insisting on restoring and which I strongly advise you don't. Also important is the fact that as far as I could tell all the sources that have chimed in on this refer back to the out-of-the-question not WP:RS thefederalist.com. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That sources refer back to the origin of this issue is natural. It brings the reader unfamiliar with the genesis of this issue up to speed. If the NY Times does an article on this issue, if they refer to The Federalist's coverage in the rehashing of the issues, will you protest that as well? I just am not sure why you feel that the fact that sources "refer back" to an unreliable source is important. Most of those sources make independent assertions on their own that are not dependent on The Federalist, and these independent assertions are citeable here. That their conclusions match the Federalist's on some issues (e.g. that Bush never said it) does nothing to degrade the assertions of the reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
But the fact is the NY times hasn't published an article about the issue. Neither has any major media site. The fact that only second-rate sources have commented on this and that they all refer back to the "investigation" by the S Davis character at thefederalist.com substracts even more weight to this non-incident. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I think it is rude an disrespectful to jump into a conversation without doing at least some homework to become informed. Neither item you mention has been alleged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. You appear to have assumed he has done no homework, and I welcome a new voice. Also, one of his items was mentioned before and the second possibly was. I also think his WP:DROPTHESTICK ref is well put. This is rapidly becoming both repetitive and much ado about nothing. The editor appears to have come here in good faith to bring this to a conclusion. At this point, it appears that the only reason that this “issue” is still alive is because this TP is talking about it and the original source keeps “quoting” this TP. I added the scare quotes because the original source is attempting to publically bully WP editors by quoting snippets of this page, out of context, with WP editor handles, and ridiculing them. Now, in my humble opinion, THAT is a story that should be carried in the real press as it appears to be an attempt at stifling free speech. Just my opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
THAT is a story that should be carried in the real press ... Respectfully disagree. Nobody outside of the participants in this talk page and a few random blog readers gives a rat's ass about any of this. I know that's just my opinion, but I can't imagine any real journalist doing a story on a failed attempt to "work the refs" on wikipedia. Of course, if it does garner widespread coverage in mainstream media, we (i.e. wikipedia editors) will be there to document it with RS citations. (c:
Oh, WP:DROPTHESTICK for sure. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Schopenhauer said: “Journalists are like dogs, whenever anything moves they begin to bark.” It’s also known that when you tell a dog to be quiet, it often voices one last bark. Let us hear the last bark and close this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith. A new voice, without a clue, is not an addition. Neither allegation has made as far as I know. He didn't confuse "mean" with "average" and no one who knows those terms would express it that way. He confused average with median, then confused it by correcting himself and saying he meant "mode" which isn't right either. You can look it up. Mis-attributing a quote means getting the person who said wrong. No one has alleged that any quote was said by anyone but Bush. Tyson got the quote wrong, the date wrong, the meaning wrong, as well as the source of the words, but no one mis-attributed it. You can look it up. What stick do you mean? This is a simple case of a mistake made by a notable person, covered by reliable sources. There only stick wielding is by those who throw alphabet soup at the wall, desperately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article. I agree that sticks should be dropped, although we may disagree about who is wielding them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
"Desparately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article"? I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is you are trying to say here S Philbrick. Could you clarify/expand? --Shabidoo | Talk
WP:DROPTHESTICK, are you kidding? Something like 14 different editors all think this incident deserves some mention, therefore a discussion about it is warranted. I see no reason why that conversation should stop simply because you personally feel it should. If the discussion bothers you, maybe you are the one who should disengage. Bonewah (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Advocating that we WP:DROPTHESTICK implies that the debate is over, and that we should stop discussing it. The debate is most certainly not over, neither literally or figuratively . Saying it is is, if not rude, then tactless and taunting. Marteau (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
We are all entitled to our opinions, and that includes me. This massively long thread shows to me that it is time to drop it. Of course, if you want to keep wasting your time with this minutiae, be my guest. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Again with the taunts. If you are assuming these tactics benefit your cause, I would advise you to reconsider. Marteau (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Which "cause" is that? I think you are seeing shadows where there are none. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Marteau: I am patiently waiting for an answer. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "cause", as I used the word, is a colloquialism commonly used in debates. It is that which someone advocates or defends in their argument. You advocate we WP:DROPTHESTICK, therefore WP:DROPTHESTICK was your "cause" in the debate. Marteau (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That, and nominating Thefederalist.com article for deletion could also lead one to reasonably assume you have a "cause" Marteau (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Under what color of authority did Gamaliel "archive" the above text? Anyway, I have something to add, whether he considers it productive or not. (Transcluded from a RS noticeboard discussion of "The Weekly Standard".): The WS is a perfectly respectable mainstream political journal in no discernable way different than The Nation, NRO, New Republic, etc., etc. and there is no reason it suffer any higher or lower level of scrutiny than any of those. That said, the statement that "No evidence exists that Bush said that" should have been attributed, as common sense tells you it was not a scientific fact, but merely a statement about a search process conducted by the WS or the proxies it relied upon, and the reader should preferably therefor have been explicitly informed in text as well as citation who was responsible for the conclusion being stated. Nonetheless, the claim[4] by MastCell that this statement, fully-cited to the WS editorial, was an "unequivocal WP:BLP violation" (evidently, a "defamation of living persons" per WP:PREFER) is nonsense, as it was in no way the equivalent of a "serious and potentially defamatory factual claim... that tyson fabricated quotes". And, IMHO, MastCell abused his admin bit in editing the way he did, through full protection, to remove all traces of this particular embarrassment for Tyson.

So, where do we take it to get MastCell's bit pulled? Andyvphil (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Where to place information about the Bush quote

There was a point made by the most recent person who reverted, User:DreamGuy, that I am not sure we have consensus upon, and I wanted to talk about it. Where would be the best place to put this information about the Bush quote? Now I understand some people think that there are problems with WP:Weight in including anything at all, this section isn't to discuss that. My question is, assuming we include something, where should it be placed? User:DreamGuy makes a good point that this isn't really his political views (although I would suggest it is related to politics). I mainly kept it there as that is where it was before. Is there a better place for it? Or do we need a new section (and if so what should we call it)?

--Obsidi (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere. There is no consensus for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you see where I said "this section isn't to discuss that"? There are other sections talking about the WP:Weight of including anything. --Obsidi (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Despite specifically asking that we refrain from discussing inclusion in this section, the first response is one reminding us that cwobeel opposes inclusion of this material. You arent helping your case here, all you are doing is showing that you are not interested in a good faith discussion. Bonewah (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
IMO the most generous take is that it is relevant to Tyson's political views. Assigning it to a (new) section of allegations of impropriety and research fraud might be most accurate, but that would be both difficult and fraught with negative repercussions. Kerani (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you aware of manufactured controversies. If you weren't this is a good example of one. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware. That 'manufactured' is being used to describe the identification of the mis-attribution, and not the attribution itself, is somewhat telling. Any researcher who had been found to have been repeatedly misrepresenting a source in that fashion would have immediately corrected it, or else been dismissed as a reliable scientist.Kerani (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with kerani about where to potentially put this info if it is decided that it should be included. Bonewah (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a "manufactured controversy", it's criticism of exactly the same type Wikipedia routinely includes in biographies of conservatives. Andreas JN466 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The attack on Tyson by multiple right-wing sources is a manufactured controversy, and it's what they do best. Tyson hasn't changed his position on anything, and the quotes he used were used accurately even if he got the place and time of the original quote wrong. As for what is routinely included in conservative biographies, I will say that 1) that's not true, and 2) this isn't a biography of a liberal. This is a biography of a person who is known for his work as a science communicator. Trying to draw some kind of analogy here is nonsensical. Jayen, I like your content work, and I often agree with your opinion pieces offwiki, but I think you are totally wrong on this one. I suspect it's because you aren't familiar with what Heartland & Co. do and how they operate in the US. This may be a simple case where your unfamiliarity with American politics is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
the quotes he used were used accurately Claims like this completely sink any hope of demonstrating a grasp on the facts of this particular case and of proper sourcing of material. The Bush quote that Tyson used was mis-attributed in that it was not sourced to a location where it could be found by anyone else - it was said to have come from a speech shortly after 9/11 and did not, it was said to have come from a passage differentiating Muslims from Christians and it did not. The quote was furthermore not accurately linked to the original reference which was clearly noted in the Columbia speech. Most significantly, the Bush quote Tyson referenced was selected to support his contention that there was widespread scientific illiteracy, and the quote did not support that assertion. Only by being used in a false/inaccurate manner could the quote be used to support that assertion. That Tyson is a noted science communicator is part of what makes this so noteable - which completely undermines the idea that this is "manufactured" or that Tyson's misuse of that quote was in any way defensible. Stop saying that either is correct.Kerani (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell us what his political views are, and why you believe they are political and relevant? Do you consider evolution and climate change views held by a scientist political views? Objective3000 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Off topic discussion of Neil Tyson's other political views
Objective3k, AFAIK he is politically liberal on the US scale. The political views of a researcher are important in order to understand the bias that they bring to a study or paper. The political views of a public speaker who advocates on public policy & spending are of far greater relevance. I consider views on evolution to be political when they are held by non-life science scientists, and views on climate change to be political when held by non-meteorologists. Last I heard, NdGT's area of expertise was in extra-terran subjects, so his views on evolution and climate change would not be authoritarian. AND I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HIS FREAKING VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. It's not part of the topic under discussion. I consider bringing it up to be a red herring, distracting, and completely non-productive to the issue at hand.Kerani (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, climate change and evolution have a political component to them, even if you feel they shouldnt. In any event, i think 'political views' is the 'default' choice, as in, i cant think of a better place. Any suggestions? Bonewah (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kerani:, you may not want to talk about climate change, but why do you think this website and the right-wing media jumped into the story? Any reasons you may think? Elephant in the room, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel - I'm going to AGF and think that it has something to do with NdGT jacking up a quote in a remarkably careless manner, and in the process attributing malice and scientific incompetence to a conservative political figure. Whether or not one agrees that Bush was malicious towards Muslims or a moron or a purple man from Mars, the evidence shows that the quote Tyson chose did not support those claims, and should never have been used for that purpose. I think that your refusal to grapple with the specific topic at hand, continuing to revert to allegations of bad faith and dismissal of opposing views suggests significant weakness in your position.Kerani (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You are missing my point. Did Tyson screwed up with that quote? Surely he did. My point is this is only a "story" because the right-wing media despises Tyson, for many reasons. Have you read by any chance the book The Republican Noise Machine? I am reading it now, highly recommended. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Your appeals for non-partisan RS are badly damaged by this reference to a partisan source. And again, you're sidestepping the issue under consideration - the inclusion (or not) of substantiated mis-attribution of sources by a noted science commentator. Please stick to the topic and quit trying to disrupt the conversation.Kerani (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
False, I and I suggest you don't read inflammatory books when trying to edit with AGF in mind. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Inflammatory? I would say eyeopener instead. Reading does one good. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Partisan Shrill is hardly reading at all, and certainly does not expand one's mind. I suggest 1984, the comparison is quite illuminating. Arzel (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it is "partisan shrill" if you have not read the book? (BTW, the author was a right-wing journalist and he is reporting on his book amazing facts about this subject from first-hand experience.) Books open minds, my friend. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not a "Republican Noise Machine" is responsible for starting this controversy, fact of the matter is, it IS a controversy, as evidenced by Tyson addressing it. Despite the protestations in this talk page, this issue IS gaining traction with the public and IS being discussed. Of course, not in the NY Times or Time Magazine but average people interested in Tyson and in science ARE talking about this. It seems to me Tyson knows that and is why he felt the need to address it. The controversy is, in fact, real and should be addressed, no matter WHY it came to be. Should reliable sources come forth and describe the functioning of this "Noise Machine" in this issue, by all means, let's put it in the article. But putting our virtual fingers in our virtual ears and going "La la la la... I can't hear you!" is not the solution, because readers of the encylopedia are not so willing to play such games and will naturally wonder why we are. Marteau (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Marteau, we fully well know how you see the opinions of editors who differ from yours. They are "bizarre" or a "game" or "sticking their fingers into their ears going bla bla bla" or as SPhil called it "desperately trying for a way to keep this incident out of the article". The other editors simply disagree that this controversy is worth taking seriously (a manufactured controversy in a fringe part of the blogosphere). There seems to be a massive impasse. Where do we go from here? --Shabidoo | Talk 08:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely think games are being played here and that some editors are driven in this instance not by a purely wholesome concern for the good of the encyclopedia, but by partisan politics and gamesmanship. Do you seriously not see that? On both sides? I'm not sure how anyone, no matter what their politics, could read this talk page and not have that impression. That is at the root of this impasse. Let's stop with the games is all I'm saying. Marteau (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
... and furthermore, editors of the opinion that this controversy is not "worth taking seriously" differ from Tyson himself, who took it seriously enough to address the issue, and seriously enough that he plans to apologize. That sounds fairly serious to me. Marteau (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of users could claim that both you and I are playing games. That gets us nowhere. Such a great impasse. Where do we go from here? --Shabidoo | Talk 09:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
No doubt. This is a nasty bit of business; thankfully something of this magnitude is rare, but what to do. I suppose all I can do is voice my opinion, wait for the results of the RfC (which, barring something monumental occurring will probably be for exclusion). And so be it. I don't expect my opinion regarding inclusion to actually make a difference, because minds, in this case, seem to be made up. No, I write because I need to, and I have to guess you do too. Marteau (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding two claims made here, one: "you may not want to talk about climate change, but why do you think this website and the right-wing media jumped into the story?" I think you could very well be right. And you will find that this could be very common amongst those who investigate public claims by public figures. Someone who largely agress with, for instance, former President Bush, might be less inclined to investigate the veracity of claims they make (not always, but I hope you see the general point here). If someone who is opposed to Bush were to investigate a claim he made, you might be able to say, they did this investigation because they disagree with him or one of his agendas, and you would not necessarilly be wrong.
Yet this would not undermine the results of what they find. If they find an inaccuracy in something they claim or did, this does not discredit on its own that fact. So in truth, the motivation is only part of the story here - the other part, which is more significant, is that there was actually an inaccuracy found. Were there not one, I think we'd be in a very different place - there would be "no there-there." But there was an inaccuracy in the claim.
Two: "My point is this is only a "story" because the right-wing media despises Tyson" - This is untrue. It partly became a story because some people were motivated to look into it, sure - if a tree falls in a forest and noone hears it, did it really fall? (yes, but you know..) But also, again because Neil deGrasse Tyson was incorrect in his speech and made claims which were false. If that were not the case, absolutely there would be no notability. But it has become a story because actually, it was an incorrect statement. It has been picked up by more and more sources, and I will say ironically, partly because of the discussion happening on Wikipedia. If there was "no there-there," that wouldn't be the case. If it were just some claims thrown out there, that would be one thing - but the motivation of those making the initial claims, doesn't change the fact that an inaccuracy was found, and it has been deemed notable to be discussed in quite a few reputable sources now. Chester Lunt (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Right wing sources. That all deny climate change. Mystic55 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the "Career" section. Beyond being a scientist, Tyson is an educator and paid speaker. This incident occurred during a paid speaking engagement and fits there better than under "Politics". Marteau (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for any improper protocol on my part. I'm getting a warning about my links but don't want to include the points without sources. Please collapse if found to be off topic. From my POV this discussion is quite a mess and indicates there is a lack of addressing Tyson's history of political entanglement. I suggest there should be a place that highlights his increasing political prominance. Between people like the Federalist author Sean Davis having an axe to grind[5] & a Daily Kos author saying "For those of us on the left side of the political spectrum, Tyson is like the hero of the pro-science crowd"[6] it's hard to deny his increasing political relevance/involvement. He's also commented on science denial within the political community "there is plenty of science denial from the left"[7] and has said he wants to help people make informed policy choices[8]. These points don't encapsulate his overall views but are handy examples. He seems to try to stay out of it when his writings & talks are politicized, but like it or not he is becoming a salient political figure (my POV). I'm not sure what degree of involvement, let alone how to quantify that involvement, constitutes a dedicated section and defer to more experienced editors on the proper way to address my suggestion, if at all necessary. As for the Bush (mis)quote, I think several people have made good points on problems with weight. It currently exists on Tyson's Wikiquote page[9] and if changes should be made anywhere it's there. As noteworthy as I find his improper quotation and later admission, I'm not sure it would even belong in the theoretical dedicated political section I suggest. Sure he made a mistake, but I don't see it as important enough to include in his core biography. Tetchmagikos (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson felt this was worth responding to, is that noteable or undue?

Tyson has publicly addressed these claims at least twice now, the second time confirming that the quote in question was inaccurate Link.. If the case for including this information was based solely on the relatively meager sourcing we have seen so far, i would say that excluding it was an OK decision. The fact that Tyson felt it important enough to address it directly tells me that this issue was important to him, and, therefore, important enough to at least mention. So, in what will hopefully find *some* common ground, i offer the following edit proposal, which is also option 9 above:

:Following accusations that Tyson had fabricated a quote by former president George W Bush, (cite the federalist, maybe one or two other sources), Tyson said in part "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. I have no excuse for this, other than both events-- so close to one another -- upset me greatly." (cite https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/partial-anatomy-of-my-public-talks/10152360009440869)

Thoughts? Bonewah (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Don't cite thefederalist.com. It's not a reliable source by any stretch, especially for a biography or a living person. Physics Today or The Week would be better.
For the broader question, he responded on facebook. Is everything he posts on facebook automatically notable? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think citing the federalist is appropriate here. Yes it is not a reliable source as to any fact about Tyson, but that isn't why it is being cited, its being cited for WP:RSOPINION, as they were the one who made the initially accusation. Its saying what the Federalist's accusation was, not that Tyson actually cited Bush incorrectly. Only the self source is a good source for that. --Obsidi (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Precisely. They made the accusation so they are a reliable source for the accusation. Further, citing them is an effort towards compromise. To answer the question by Mr swordfish, Not everything he posts on facebook is, but given everything else, his response is notable, even if it happens to appear on facebook. Bonewah (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Has any reliable source reported on this facebook post? If and when they do, we can use that to gauge how important it is and how much weight to give it. Right now we don't have anything to go on. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this is fairly close, but there is no mention about how it was originally put in the context of 9/11, maybe an extra word or two in the first part of the sentence would fix that (something as small as "about 9/11" added), then I would support it as much as any other proposal. (as a grammatical matter, it seems like a very long sentence, maybe split it into two? and I think the "said in part" could be cut down to just "said") --Obsidi (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that as long as the proposed entry cites thefederalist.com you will receive significant pushback regarding WP:BLP. In the interest of building consensus you might want to consider relying on other sources. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Accusations" must include that it was a conservative blog. Omission to make POV is still POV. Mystic55 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a POV problem is describing the accusations as coming from a conservative blog (hey conservative blog gets one right!), but I just am unsure if it should be included from a WP:WEIGHT point of view, I mean how much does it being described as a conservative blog really matter to the story of Neil Tyson? I mean I think most people wouldn't care if it came from a liberal or conservative of loony nuts idiots if it is proven true by other sources. Adding the "conservative blog" part would be VERY important if it were merely an allegation without substantiation (even if the allegation was reported in WP:RS), because it would show that the allegation is less likely of being true because of possible ulterior motives. In this case that doesn't apply. Oh, and I am not all that sure we can call the federalist.com a "blog" I believe it has an editorial board that makes it more then a blog even if it isn't yet a WP:RS. --129.174.227.192 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If The Federalist were not notable before, Tyson has made them so by responding. But even if not, The Federalist references aren't even necessary for inclusion now that Tyson has addressed the topic. There is no longer any logically sound reason to deny inclusion of this event (although it probably belongs in a new "Controversy" section).--Froglich (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the question: "Is everything he posts on facebook automatically notable?" I think the answer to this question is clearly no, but it doesn't need to be. Facebook just happened to be the means which he used to respond to the situation. That he responded to it is what contributes to its notability, in this context. In seeking a reliable source that quotes the facebook post, while I wouldn't argue against seeking one, WP:RS (specifically WP:SELFSOURCE) makes it clear that facebook in itself could be considered a reliable source in specific cases. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" so long as they meet certain criteria, which I believe are met in this case. Chester Lunt (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, this stuff is not going to be included based on Facebook posts, or on The Federalist. The whole RS requirement isn't just there for reliability purposes--it also helps separate the wheat from the chaff. In other words, if reliable sources don't report on it, it might as well not have happened, lest every single thing listed on every single blog become some noteworthy event which, in this case, is clearly used for political purposes. I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors are abusing the article for political purposes, but making a controversy out of a blog and a couple of Facebook posts or whatever, that's making a mockery out of the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that they should be included based merely on a facebook post or a blog entry. But on the specific question of, does Tyson's apology need to be picked up by another source, I think the answer is made clear by WP:SELFSOURCE which outlines that facebook can be a reliable source in the context of information about themselves. I admit I could be misunderstanding the policy - if so, feel free to correct me. Chester Lunt (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The point isn't just about reliability, but rather about notability. Basically, stuff that doesn't get picked up in reliable, mainstream publications typically isn't worthwhile including in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and towards that point, that he responded lends points towards it being notable (it was notable enough to respond to), in addition to its appearance in multiple publications. While it may have begun as something much smaller (on one site), it grew as a story to where we are now, where I think it would be quite appropriate to include a mention written in a neutral way. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Another response from NDT

Here. Again, I am still feeling this is not noteworthy for the article, but I wish to share this post for more depth. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 02:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see Tyson doing the right thing, and a public apology to a president adds weight to the issue and adds further grounds for including this controversy in the encyclopedia. But barring that, here is what I foresee happening many, many times out there in the real world: People learn Tyson publicly apologizes to the president. They come to the encyclopedia to obtain context. They'll think "OK, I see it says here, he was a wrestler... OK, is says here, he was a good dancer... that's nice... but where is this Bush thing?". They will then, perhaps, investigate WHY Wikipedia mentions him dancing and wrestling but not apologizing, and will learn. That can only be a good thing. Marteau (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
... and furthermore, by not providing people seeking information about this issue, we compel them to resort to a Google search, thus driving them away from our potentially non-biased, factual information without hype or frothing at the mouth, and send them away and right to the sites editors here are calling "hate blogs" and products of the "Noise Machine". Will we provide people with a non-biased, non-hyperbole filled accounting of this issue, or will we leave it up to the "haters" to tell them about it. The choice is ours. Marteau (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Marteau, I strongly disagree with your points. You really seem to be pushing a strong POV that is at odds with the evidence. This is a non-issue, that has little to no relevance to a biography on the subject. Please do me a favor and review actual biographies of scientists. You will not find one that says "An unknown blogger claimed so and so misquoted the president." This is irrelevant to Tyson, it has had zero impact on his career, and has no importance other than that given to it by the conservative blogosphere. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It is the bio of a scientist AND a paid, professional speaker and educator. His conduct as a speaker is directly relevant to who he is as a professional and how he conducts his professional life, and the fact he has apologized to a former president for his conduct as a paid speaker is absolutely relevant. Marteau (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Marteau, I think you should read the Facebook post again, as you didn't seem to understand it. Read it now. The point that the conservative blogosphere has raised about Tyson's misquote is irrelevant. As Tyson and others have noted, this attempt to highlight a small, insignificant, trivial error about something he said in order to cast doubt on larger things (like climate science) is a transparent tactic of the right. There no evidence whatsoever that Tyson is a "compulsive liar and a fabricator", and that's all the conservative noise machine is attempting to do. This has no place on Wikipedia. I'm absolutely amazed at the incredible time and energy spent by dozens of editors trying to shoehorn this nonsense into the encyclopedia. There isn't a single, professional biography on the face of this planet that discusses trivial, insignificant things like this. This is nothing but a manufactured controversy, whose importance only exists in the minds of the bloggers that created it. I can't think of a single policy-based reason to add this to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand what Tyson said very well, thank you very much. He complains about people using this issue to "cast doubt on everything else" he says. I'm not. Neither are many others. Some do, as you repeatedly point out, but not everyone. Some of us simply feel that his conduct as a professional and his need to apologize for his conduct as a professional to a former president is not trivia, per se, but goes directly towards his overarching story and belongs in his bio. Your POV is that this is trivial. Mine is not. It's as simple as that, and saying I don't seem to understand what Tyson is saying is just incorrect. Marteau (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I haven't offered any POV, but you have, in heaping amounts. You write, "Some of us simply feel that his conduct as a professional and his need to apologize for his conduct as a professional to a former president is not trivia". Except, it is trivia, and your characterization of his "apology" is pure POV pushing. Tyson's explanation on his Facebook page ("A Case Study: Quoting George W. Bush") is the very definition of trivia. In fact, one can define trivia by only looking at this incident. We don't add content based on what conservative bloggers "feel" is important. We add it based on its overall authority, relevance, currency, reliability, and neutrality. The source material you claim we should add fails every aspect of evaluation, and more so because this is 1) a BLP, and 2) negative material. I can't think of a single policy or guideline that supports adding this information. What blows my mind is the amount of time and energy wasted trying to push this trivia into this article. It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Tyson's profession or the narrative of his biography. It is a manufactured controversy intended to distract and dissuade, not to inform and educate. If you truly believe that this nonsense belongs in this biography, then you should be able to find a single policy-based argument to support it. There's a reason, however, that you can't: the policies aren't designed to support contentious, poorly sourced, negative material about BLPs—quite the opposite actually. So why are you and others still here arguing for inclusion? We need to keep asking that question until we get a good answer. Clearly, you and others are not here to improve this topic, to bring it to GA or FA status. If you were, then you could at least argue, at the bare minimum, "I'm trying to improve this article, look at all the research I've done, and all of the authoritative sources I've used." But you can't say that, and frankly, none of the people arguing for inclusion can say that, because none of you are here to improve this topic. There's no consensus for inclusion, the policies don't support adding the material, and nobody can say they've done the research required. No, what we have here is a POV pushing campaign run from the conservative blogosphere, an attempt to manipulate the media and Wikipedia in order to take Tyson down a notch, based on nothing more than criticizing where Tyson said the quote occurred. Tyson addressed the quoting out of context, and demonstrates that his argument is still valid, regardless of where Bush initially gave the speech. So the substance of this entire debate is: "Tyson made a mistake when he said Bush gave this particular speech after September 11, 2001. Bush didn't; he gave the speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster." I cannot imagine anything more trivial or petty than this. This has no place in this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That this incident is not trivial is my POV. That it is, is your POV. The fact that you don't seem to realize that, and go so far as to say, "I haven't offered any POV" is all I need to know that you and I have nothing further to discuss. How can you discuss anything with someone who thinks their opinion is objective truth? You can't, so with you, I won't. Marteau (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Marteau, the burden of proof is on the editor proposing or adding material. Discussion can only take place if you understand that you have the responsibility to meet this burden, not me. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson having issued a clarification on his FB page adds no weight to the issue. Significant coverage by WP:RS (enough to establish notability) is still not there. It's that simple. Regards. Gaba (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The fact that Tyson responded indicates that the issue was of some importance to him, or he wouldnt have responded (twice i believe). By your logic Tyson's own views, as expressed by him, are only worth of inclusion if those views receive substantial coverage in the media, which would exclude most of the content on his bio. Take a look at the 'views' section, how many of those views received any coverage in RS's, let alone substantial coverage? Would you apply the same standard you advocate here to Tyson's views on religion? Or Nasa? Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think its fine if we explain that the reason he responded is that he was concerned a right wing effort to discredit him due to his views on climate change meant he didn't want to give fuel to AGW deniers. Mystic55 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And your source for that assertion about Tyson's motive is what, a posting on Daily Kos? Moynihanian (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Quite. Look: there are few contemporary scientists who have a 4,000-word biography in Wikipedia. In a 4,000-word biography, there should be room for a mildly critical point. Without that, the story is not complete. Much of the positive content in this biography has far weaker sourcing than the proposed item. Do the right thing, folks. Link to his apology: it is a handsome one. I doubt Tyson will be significantly diminished in the eyes of the public – unlike Wikipedia if editors here continue to insist on censoring this. There are far too many non-neutral biographies in Wikipedia as it is. Andreas JN466 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is definitely room for criticism of Tyson. For example his attack on philosophy is heavily criticized by philosophers (naturally) and some fellow scientists. I'm surprised there isn't anything on that yet. There has also been criticism of his new series "Cosmos" (aesthetic criticism). There is other criticism on his ideas, dissemination of ideas and even his personal behaviour. These are all documented by reliable sources (philosophers magazine, new scientist, NYT, etc.) By all means, an editor should be bold and add such material to the article (in a criticism of section). What I don't understand is why the saga of "some pissy blogger generating some undue controversy over a citation error (making serious accusations of habitual lying) and two newspapers who parroted it and some tweeters who harassed him about it until he gave a correction on facebook" is of any significance in his biography. In the long term it will be nothing but a trivial forgotten matter. If it even does end up in the article...surely someone in a year or two will cut it out and replace it with some criticism that is far more relevant, weighty, better sourced and due. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Very well put. Of course there is room for a criticism section. What person is perfect? Find criticism that is from reliable sources, and not blogs that make outrageous claims for political reasons. Objective3000 (talk)
Er, no. Wikipedia doesn't do "criticism" sections, and this is especially true when it comes to BLPs. Please try to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, as well as our best practices before encouraging users to violate them. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I know they are not advised. But, if you are saying WP doesn't allow such sections, I may have to spend the next 30 years of my life deleting them all.:) Objective3000 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Encouraging users to familiarize themselves with policy is always a good idea. Though it's probably best done in a civil way and without being so snarky and condescending?
There are hundreds of "criticism" sections throughout uncyclopedia (maybe thousands?), in some cases they are appropriate. You're right...it's probably not a good idea to have a dedicated "criticism" section in an article on Tyson. But in any case, that wasn't my main point or even my secondary point. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This Controversy Is Yet Another Vivid Illustration of Wikipedia's Dysfunction

Totally off-topic, but there is one takeaway: "notability" is not just a policy (actually, that's Wikipedia:Notability), but also a word in the English language pointing at the editorial judgment on whether content is notable (look it up in the dictionary) enough to be included in an article. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When your "encyclopedia" is built on the idea that there is no such thing as a fact in its own right, but that factuality itself is determined by a majority of "editors," then there are no fixed stars at all, including Wikipedia's vaunted rules, policies, and principles, any of which can (and are) routinely ignored by the Wikicensors and Wikilawyers who populate this degraded website and give it a worldwide reputation of absolute unreliability when it comes to any topic where there is dispute.

To be more specific, this "Talk" page is typical in that it discusses whether or not Tyson's misquotation of Bush is "notable" enough to be mentioned in the article. This is something I ran into before I finally threw up my hands and decided that I'd never make another edit to a Wikipedia article unless and until the enterprise changes its relationship to facts. You see, a look at the "notability" standard will show that it explicitly and prominently does not apply to the content of an article, but only to whether the subject of an article is worthy of inclusion in this online "encyclopedia."

That doesn't stop the Wikicensors and Wikilawyers here and on every other article under dispute from blatantly and directly misusing the notability standard. It's one of my favorite Wiki-sins. You see, where there are no facts, there are no standards, no rules, and no principles other than what a roving flashmob might agree upon at any given moment. This, my Wikifriends, is why this enterprise is laughed at around the world, and why serious people avoid you like the plague.

By the way, I don't care one way or the other whether Tyson screwed up the quote. I'm here as a consequence of the repetition of the same old Wikifarce, this one motivated purely by politics. This case it's lefty types squelching wingnutties. I've seen it the other way around at Wikipedia too. And I've seen no-wing absurdity. It always boils down to the reality that, whenever there's a controversy, this site becomes Wikilordoftheflies. Moynihanian (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:WPDNNY - Cwobeel (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC
This is one facet of one of life's core realities, at least for those of us who studied enough Greek philosophy to think that there is such a thing as reality. I'd only point out that it applies to both of us. Moynihanian (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have anything at all to say that is on point? Objective3000 (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess the fact that Wikipedia never met a rule, a principle, or a standard it can't ignore is so routine that there's no point in even mentioning the black hole within, is there? Moynihanian (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
How about ignoring WP:GoodFaith about your editors or WP: Soapbox about your fellow editors who simply don't think that a deliberate attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill by someone using attempt to bring public pressure to bear against Wikipedia's integrity? Show me the source that cared about this quote BEFORE the Federalist and BEFORE Cosmos talked about Climate Change (Yeah I said it) and maybe we can respeak about notability. Mystic55 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to address this: the standard you are imposing here about notability is unrealistic and circular. Imagine applying it to a public figure, like perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson - in order to prove he is notable enough for an article, we must find articles discussing him from reliable sources before he became notable. You wouldn't be able to do that, and this isn't how it works. One thing can lead to another - we live in a world where a blog post can get picked up by others, eventually leading to larger, well known, reputable publications picking it up, and even eventually leading to Neil deGrasse Tyson responding himself. That it began as something much smaller matters much less than that it became bigger. Chester Lunt (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Again the so-called notability "standard" here explicitly states that it does not apply to content of an article, only to whether the article should exist at all. This "standard" may well be the most routinely ignored "standard" at Wikipedia, although there are plenty of others. As for "public pressure against Wikipedia's integrity," well, I think that sort of thing is strictly a function of Wikipedia's manifest lack of integrity. Occasionally, someone(s) will make enough of a public fuss to embarrass Wikipedia, although the longer I observe this fustercluck of an "encyclopedia," the more tempted I am to add Wikipedia to the list of entities that cannot be embarrassed: dogs, Republicans, real estate developers, Daily Kos, car dealers, Wikipedia ... Moynihanian (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
For something that lacks integrity, there sure is a lot of effort by folks who otherwise claim that wikipedia has no integrity to control every aspect of their articles. See Romney's article for example. Mystic55 (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
When you have no integrity, you are much more susceptible to outright manipulation. It is rampant throughout Wikipedia, which in recent years has become swamped by advertising -- commercial and otherwise, which is more commonly termed propaganda -- disguised as encyclopedia entries. A standards-free "encyclopedia" is a sitting duck. Moynihanian (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To the Wikicensor who tried to hide this -- Please don't. We're not China yet, as much as you want us to be. Thanks. Moynihanian (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_4&oldid=1086322321"