This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe that although it does not explicitly say this, BLP together with our other content policies would support the following practice: That criticism about a living person should only appear in the target's dedicated biographical article if the criticism is especially notable — that is to say, it is widely subscribed to or given prominent circulation in mainstream sources. If criticism about a living person is notable but not prominent, it should be confined to articles about the proponents of the criticism. Otherwise there is the potential for a "coattails" effect and I think that is at the heart of the complaint of those objecting to inclusion here.
WEIGHT requires us to consider both the prominence of a viewpoint and its relevance to an article subject, but these are two entirely different kinds of inquiry. In particular, while it may be possible to give a general assessment of the prominence of a viewpoint, the relevance of a viewpoint will differ by article. I don't see any clear way of conducting both inquiries at once when an incident or viewpoint is relevant to multiple articles, and I think the mixing and muddying of these two lines of analysis is contributing to the impasse here.
If this were the applicable standard, I think we could reach a clear conclusion that this incident deserves at most a brief mention in NDGT's actual BLP article, while readers wishing to know more about "quotegate" would have to navigate to the Federalist article where the incident had more contextual relevance. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs) 19:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That won't work. An admin put that page under full protection, THEN jumped into the edit war and removed the entire section on Tyson, leaving only a coatrack of negative reactions to the magazine from its political opponents. Another round of derision of Wikipedia may ensue, fully earned. Andyvphil (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That won't work because it can't be placed on The Federalist article per the policy you quoted above: That criticism about a living person should only appear in the target's dedicated biographical article. So it does not belong there, and by the look of it we have yet to reach consensus if to feature it here, or if at all. - Cwobeel(talk) 22:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel You are misreading the hypothetical policy. Its not "Criticism only belongs on page X, and only if Y" its "Criticism belongs on page X, only if". That tells you nothing about when criticism on Z is acceptable. The only modifies the if, not the where. But in any case, thats not the actual policy anyway, its just what he was saying was a way to interpret the actual policies and mood swings of the wiki. Gaijin42 (talk)
I see your point. I think that after such a long debate about this minutiae, I am getting my wires crossed. Thanks for clarifying. - Cwobeel(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, your confusion is understandable. I read the "proposal" above late last night, and it left me scratching my head, too. IMHO, the proposed changes would only reinforce the present impasse over the NDGT "quotegate" controversy, not resolve them. With all due respect to Centrify/FCAYS, I think this proposal is DOA. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Dirtlawyer1. I do not see it as an attempt to summarize existing policy, but a proposal for a vastly different policy than currently exists.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I too concur with Dirtlawyer1. The proposal would be counterproductive in the extreme. LHMask me a question 23:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dirtlawyer as well. Not a step forward, in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
terse NPOV proposal
This is now moot as the RfC above has found no consensus for the inclusion of any content on this issue. Anyone seeking to make a fresh proposal should first obtain consensus on the WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues raised earlier. Prioryman (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In speeches, Tyson cited George W. Bush as saying after 9/11 "Our God is the God who named the stars" in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)". Columnists and bloggers noted that Tyson misquoted Bush, and that the correct quote was from the memorial for the seven Columbia astronauts, ("In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.' The same creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.") Tyson on Sep 26, 2014, defended his use of the quotation on Facebook: "I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere -- surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged." and then on Sep 27 he emended his position stating "Good to see that the Bush quote was found. Thanks to all who did the searching. I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote."
Appears to me to be a neutral statement of fact, avoids accusations of any political nature, and fits in one terse paragraph. Collect (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - this seems to be a good summary in NPOV language. Kellyhi! 13:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - overly verbose and thus UNDUE. One short sentence is all we need. - Cwobeel(talk) 13:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
supportGaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Way, way too long. He got a quote wrong. It never hit any major news outlet, despite incredible efforts (13 articles) by thefederalist to elevate it. It is certainly not, as indicated by the length in relation to the article, a major part of this man's life. I don't see that any mention is useful in a biography. People who spend a major part of their lives in public speaking make all kinds of errors. But, unlike some people, Tyson has no history of inventing a multitude of quotes or facts. Undue weight.Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Support I would support Collects version. (even if I think its not quite accurate that he was accused of just "misquoting", I can accept that as compromise) --Obsidi (talk ) 16:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Ten sentences are ten sentences too many. None of this needs to be in the article. --Shabidoo | Talk 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Shabidoo. None of this is significant enough to be mentioned in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. Tyson gives a lot of public talks, tells this story frequently, and says that he is going to continue to use the quote. The quote seems to be important to Tyson's message, and this account emphasizes Tyson's own position, so it is fair to him. Just add the appropriate references. Roger (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Trivia, no indication of significance or longevity. Tyson misquoted Bush, so what? Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. Roger's comments are spot on. Arzel (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Grossly undue weight to a very minor event sourced to mostly to opinion columns (as opposed to straight news coverage). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Way too long and detailed; misses the entire point, which is not that George Bush said a particular thing on a particular occasion, but that a conservative website fomented a small controversy when it found NGDT to be making up false quotes in his public appearances. There are enough sources that it would be notable a stand-alone issue if we decided to cover brief controversies as encyclopedic subject matter (we generally don't). Whether this is of due weight or relevant, either to the website in question or his own bio, are separate concerns. Is it really something that defines the site and that it's known for, or is it just something that happened there? Will this affect his reputation and career long term or is it an irrelevant incident. I'm just saying that if it is going to be included, it shouldn't be devoid of content in an attempt to achieve neutrality. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Way way too much verbiage for what is ultimately a minor incident. It does need to be mentioned, but this incident is a minor black mark for Tyson, not a defining controversy. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Much too long and completely WP:UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
Cwobeel, would you be willing to propose said one short sentence ? Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Something like this may work. It provides a short description of the issue, and provides necessary context for our readers: - Cwobeel(talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In September 2014, a series of articles in the conservative website The Federalist accused Tyson of misquoting former U.S. President George W. Bush in some of Tyson's public speeches.[1] Tyson later apologized on his Facebook page for mistakenly dating a quote from Bush on a different occasion and in a different context.[2] According to an article in Physics Today, these accusations and a number of other pieces in The Federalist, were political attacks against Tyson, related to right-wing climate-wars assertions and rejection of secularism.[3]
Comment. Cwobeel's offering takes a silly anti-conservative tone. We are going to cite Physics Today for a political opinion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs) 16:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not? It is the only non-partisan source weighing on this issue. - Cwobeel(talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, but i think your summary of events doesnt really make it clear that the core objection is that Tyson painted bush as anti Muslim when the quotes in question dont support that. Bonewah (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd support this language without the political attacks line, which doesn't seem supportable. Two sentences is proper weight here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Too much detail and not that relevant. The sources are provided, readers can dig deeper if they want.- Cwobeel(talk) 15:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, so sourcing a physics journal for the political opinion that it was a partisan smear attack was just the right level of detail, but pointing out the actual facts of Tyson having screwed up so stupidly is unnecessary detail? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs) 16:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Um -- injecting political matters into what should be a simple statement of facts seems, to me, to be a poor way to handle this. Intuitively, that proposal is extraordinarily POV where we ought to be seeking a totally neutral wording of what actually occurred. Collect (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the first part isn't quite accurate for what the federalist actually accused him of (maybe incorrectly). The last line is not NPOV. --Obsidi (talk ) 16:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
What the Federalist accused Tyson for is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is was an obvious political attack by a conservative website. If we are to ever include anything about this issue, it needs to provide the necessary context, which is the real elephant in the room. - Cwobeel(talk) 16:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The elephant in the room is that Tyson went around making political attacks that turned out to be super dumb. You are saying that Tyson's wrong-ass political attacks are irrelevant, but conservatives pointing out their wrongness should not be discussed here except via silly partisan condemnation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Physics Today is the only non-partisan source we have, and should carry the weight it deserves. - Cwobeel(talk) 16:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that what the Federalist accused Tyson of is irrelevant. Its the spark that started all of this, and, lets not forget, its what Tyson acknowledged and apologized for. I cant understand how that doesnt qualify as 'necessary context'. Bonewah (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - I will conditionally support this (or very similar) compromise language, even though I am not in love with the final sentence. But I want to see some buy-in from a majority of "pro-deletion" editors. I have no interest in re-litigating this issue in days, weeks or months. I want a stable compromise that everyone is equally unhappy to accept. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment I think the Physics Today line is not appropriate, I'd say it doesn't reflect the majority of sources. Otherwise fine. I'm largely fine with the other proposal just above Cwobeel's as well. The more brief the better. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. None of this belongs in Tyson's article. Not every silly thing anyone has ever said about a famous person in a blog belongs on that person's WP bio. Not even if they said it a lot. As for discussing it in the the Federalist article, fine, because it's the only thing that website is remotely notable for. However, if the allegations are discussed explicitly there it should be made clear that they are without merit. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I appreciate the effort, but these are fringe sources promoted by polemical opinion pieces with no indication of encyclopedic significance or longevity. If these attacks on Tyson are notable, then we should see serious coverage outside the fringe conservative blogosphere. We really don't see that. Yes, PT covered it in passing, by verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. NOTNEWS, COATRACK, UNDUE, and other issues come into play as well. I can't think of a single GA or FA biography that includes this level of trivia, not can I find a single offline encyclopedia article that mentions such a trivial aspect. We need to look a who is making these claims, the type of sources that publish them, and the POV pushing by Wikipedia editors defending it. When one does that, one is forced to conclude these claims don't rise to the level of notability. Tyson misquoted Bush, so what? Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The phrase "out of context" is inaccurate, and I don't think anyone described the quote/misquote that way. Roger (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Grossly undue weight to a very minor event sourced to mostly to opinion columns (as opposed to straight news coverage). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, still WP:UNDUE. Regards. Gaba(talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The third sentence is totally uncalled-for. That some are using the incident inordinately is immaterial to the fact that it happened and that Tyson was to blame. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This is now moot as the RfC above has found no consensus for the inclusion of any content on this issue. Anyone seeking to make a fresh proposal should first obtain consensus on the WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues raised earlier. Prioryman (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding, including an accusation that Tyson regularly misquoted former U.S. President George W. Bush in one of Tyson's standard educational talks.[1] In October 2014 Tyson described one of his standard talks, described how he had been taking a quotation from President Bush out of context in that talk, and apologized to the former president for having done so.[2]
My druthers would be not to mention this at all but there will be no end to this if we don't compromise, as others have said. i could live with the version above. it is accurate and puts things in a larger context somewhat. It feels kind of ... whitewash-y ... to limit the description of the onslaught to just "a misquote accusation" - I recognize that the description isin other proposals has been limited in good faith (not to hide anything) to avoid BLP sensitivities, but if we are going to say what happened, let's say it. hence the above. and better to use an independent source for the accusations rather than the source of the attacks. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC) (tried to clarify a bit more. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC))
Oppose. The above gives the misimpression that the accusations are notable and/or deserve to be taken seriously. By WP:DUE this stuff doesn't belong in the article at all. So, let people complain. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
for what its worth, in my view, in the context of the whole article (in which this is a couple of lines), where it is clear that Tyson is very accomplished, the "conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding" is not going to have a lot of sympathetic traction. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Fringe sources promoting a minority viewpoint about Tyson and attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to include their crackpot theory that Tyson is a "serial fabulist" are not acceptable. "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects." The mainstream media has ignored this fringe theory while the lunatic fringe blogosphere went nuts with it, going so far as to claim that because Tyson misquoted Bush, climate change was a fraud, evolution was a lie, and God was coming back real soon to smite the atheists who dared question the inbred ignorance of the radical right. Finally, these fringe theories were repeated ad nauseum by polemical opinion editorials pumping up the redneck echo chamber. Meanwhile, there remains no indication of any mainstream attention, significance or longevity. Per FRINGE, it can't be added. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
hey viriditas we are on the same side of this at the bottom. i don't want the shit slinging in here either and i agree 100% that where they went with it, is la-la derpland. but they really got him on the serial mis-use of the bush quote (which was pretty gratuitous in the midst of a science lecture.... and so, so wrong. W was actually very impressive in explicitly saying that 9/11 was not about islam and was an affront to islam - and even visited a mosque 6 days after it happened; it seems somehow ugly to suppress that too. my effort there is to face the ugly on both sides. the reasonable middle is hard, here. very hard. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The "both sides" problem is the false balance that NPOV warns us against. Tyson misquoted Bush, so what? All responses indicate that this is a non-issue. The policies are pretty clear on this. When faced with sourcing issues and questions of significance, we exclude. All arguments for inclusion are based on the false balance fallacy that the policies warn us against. The Federalist, a fringe source if there ever was one, filtered their fringe through opinion columns. This is the strategy of Heartland, and they've done this for years. Just because the fringe is filtered, doesn't mean we have to filter it as well. If we do, then that will give them added ammo and incentive to keep doing it and to further manipulate the media and the encyclopedia by simply creating manufactured controversies whenever they desire. Sorry, but the buck has to stop here. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WP is NOT a battleground. But that is exactly how you view this situation. I am beginning to wonder how you can continue to make such comments without being sanctioned. Arzel (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You're a very confused person. I just illustrated how Heartland is fighting a battle using the Federalist to manipulate Wikipedia, and you accuse me of fighting a battle? Upholding our policies and guidelines so that outside lobby groups don't manipulate our content is exactly the opposite of fighting a battle. It's defending our policies against those who misuse them. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
v just to be clear - did you watch the video where he does the misquote? the mention of bush is really gratuitous, and he gave this talk lots of times. (video is here and is just 4 minutes long, if you haven't seen it) that is why i reckoned he apologized. and why i am grudgingly saying it should come in. it was not a one-off. do let me know if you've watched it, and if you got some cringe on while watching, knowing what you know now about what bush really did after 9/11. i did. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I believe I did watch it, but just to be sure, I'll watch it again and get back to you shortly. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I just watched it again per your suggestion. It's a very brief, minor rhetorical point, and Tyson's argument is still accurate regardless of what Bush said. Tyson also explained this on his Facebook page. After watching this video, my opinion is even more solidified. This is a non-issue being fought over by POV pushers who are trying to make it something more than it is. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"redneck echo chamber". There it is. Do you realize the bigotry in that, and other statements of yours? And could you please leave the WP:SOAPBOX at home? When I first read your comments and before checking out your history, I genuinely though that you were a conservative plant here to make the left look unhinged and was going to call you out for that, but incredibly, you proved to be sincere. Please refrain from the bigoted statements, the allegations of conspiracy, and the soapboxing and contain your arguments to points of policy and fact and a spirit of collaboration and improvement. Marteau (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, you may want to have a look-see at the definition of the word "redneck", as it perfectly describes the demographic of the right wing echo chamber. There's absolutely nothing "bigoted" about it. Further, if you truly believe there is a monolithic entity on the U.S. known as the "left", then you are also a bit confused on that definition as well. Not only isn't there an actual "left", but I don't subscribe to or believe in the false Fox News dichotomy of a left-right paradigm. That's an immature, childish concept that no longer has any relevance. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
"But it's true!!!! They really are << enter attribute here>> !!!" has been the bigot's defense since time immemorial. Marteau (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Marteau, your only role here is to divert, deny, and distract. I'm well aware of your strategy. If you want to discuss your personal problem with the use of the word "redneck", I'm happy to address it on your talk page or mine. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The only "strategy" I have in this case is speaking out against your soapboxing, your bigoted statements, and your divisive stance. My only "strategy" here is to please ask you to knock it off because your behavior is contrary to the principles of the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk)
Your strategy is to distract from this discussion. You know perfectly well that I've already taken this to your talk page to prevent you from continuing to distract from this discussion.[1] I have not "soapboxed" about anything anywhere at any time. That's your own private delusion. Please continue to keep it private. Again, the discussion about your concern with the word "redneck" is taking place on your talk page. Don't continue to distract from this discussion on this page. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The only further discussion I would recommend involving you is why the encyclopedia allows an editor with eleven blocks to his record to continue to so blatantly, easily and proudly continue to piss on the principles of talk page protocol. As I have no stomach for such a task I'll leave that to others. Marteau (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The primary rule of "talk page protocol" is not to distract from the discussion (accusations of bigotry) and to refrain from fallacious posturing (You can't trust Viriditas, he has 12 blocks!). As I said before, I've added a courtesy thread to your talk page to prevent the continuing distractions. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I was not aware that the left/right paradigm in politics was a manipulative invention of Fox News. I would be interested to know more about this and other topics such as the "echo chamber" you can't seem to stop talking about. Overall, I can tell that your uniquely insightful world view allows you to contribute to this article in ways most of us are not capable of. Do pay a visit to my talk page, erstwhile Sir. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)(talk)(contribs) 14:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - As a less-than-perfect compromise to resolve this on-wiki controversy. Contrary to the assertion above, there is nothing "fringe" about the available sources that document Dr. Tyson's problematic quoting of Bush out of context, using the misquote to hold Bush up as an exemplar of religious and scientific ignorance, doing it in public speeches over a period of years, and eventually acknowledging the problem and apologizing for it. If you don't believe the truth of the matter, please read Tyson's own apology. Hell, there's video of Bush's misquoted 2003 Columbia speech and several of Tyson's own speeches where he disparages Bush based on the misquote. Does anyone still doubt the truth of this? We may not like the partisan affiliation of several of the sources, but focusing on the "right-wing echo chamber conspiracy" does nothing to dispel the truth of the underlying allegations, now admitted: Tyson screwed up. Let's find a suitable compromise, and be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtylawyer: I actually don't doubt that Tyson screwed up. Can you point to some non-fringe sources though? I mean independent non-partisan sources, not youtube. I can't find any. And citing the conservative blogosphere opens up a whole different can of worms, because they made many, many, more outrageous accusations against Tyson, which then have to be addressed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: It has been loudly claimed that all of the sources are fringe, but that just ain't so. There's a list of sources I compiled last night for the WP:BLP/noticeboard discussion that's ongoing about The Federalist article and the "quotegate" controversy. Among the sources I linked for review are articles and columns from mainstream conservative publications like National Review and The Weekly Standard, mainstream liberal publications like The Week (including both a description of Tyson's screw-up, but with criticism of the conservative attacks), and a very nice factual summary of the whole embarrassing mess from Case-Western law professor Jonathan Adler on the "Volokh Conspiracy" legal newsblog hosted by washingtonpost.com. Attempting to characterize National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Week or the "Volokh Conspiracy" as "fringe" is probably the biggest stretch anyone has asserted in these discussions. (Volokh is non-partisan -- all of the contributors are prominent tenured law professors.) Yes, The Federalist went after Tyson; yes, no doubt some folks involved had ulterior motives. But none of that changes reality: Tyson fucked up, unfairly attacked Bush's reputation, and got rightfully called on it. All the rest of the story -- including attempts to discredit Tyson otherwise -- is so much sturm und drang. There is also a decent summary of the basic facts from a syndicated column by Rich Lowry that was published in multiple mainstream newspapers between October 1 and 11. Sammy, my suggestion is pick one conservative source, one liberal source, and include Tyson's Facebook apology (with a quote in the Facebook footnote in case the Facebook link goes dark). Frankly, I don't much care which sources you pick, as long as everyone can live with the final result, and is willing to defend the compromise text from the inevitable vandals and POV-warriors. I spent eight years of my life prior to law school as a national campaign consultant; if you have any questions about particular political publications, ask. I'll give you the straight dope -- liberal, conservative, or otherwise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: The Volokh Conspiracy is partisan by its own description: [2]. But I can't find the sources you're talking about among the enormous quantity of material in that discussion. I admit having read about this far too much I'm skeptical that there is a non-partisan source. I'm not aware of a liberal source either. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: Read that again. Not sure how you get "partisan" from "We're generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these, though we don't toe any party line, and sometimes disagree even with each other." Not exactly a partisan manifesto. Last time I checked, libertarianism is a movement without an organized party, and centrism by definition is milquetoast. Re-read Adler's two linked columns and tell me if you think he's arguing from a partisan conservative viewpoint. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: By this logic, I might as well tell people I'm not a liberal, just a Communist. But other than that blog, where are these non-partisan and liberal sources? --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: All kidding aside, I'm not sure I understand your comment. In your perspective are libertarians somehow more partisan than conservatives? I'm not getting your point. Please explain. I spent eight years of my life dealing with liberals, conservatives, libertarians and centrists in and out of Washington, and I can tell you that the last two aren't like the others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I'm just asking for the sources you said you provided on the other page, but which I couldn't find. (And also saying that libertarians are partisan and "centrist" is a word conservatives use for themselves when they want to be coy, but that's a bit beside the point.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sammy1339: Here's the section link: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Federalist: list of potential sources. None of these sources are "non-partisan," bu that does not mean that they are not reliable sources as to the facts. For starters, try The Week for a description of Tyson's problematic behavior from a liberal viewpoint, coupled with criticism of the conservative echo chamber. Please keep in mind that this is a political controversy, and therefore we need to be prepared to evaluate political sources. Just because an article is liberally or conservatively partisan does not mean the author got her facts wrong. We should be able to readily distinguish factual assertions from opinion -- especially since the essential facts of this matter are really no longer in dispute.
As for libertarians being "partisans," I think you are perhaps misapprehending who and what most American libertarians are. Political libertarians tend to be split between loosely aligned Republicans (~60%) and loosely aligned Democrats (~40%), depending on what their other issues are. Some libertarians are a little kooky; most are not. Very few qualify as partisans, but the term "libertarian" means different things to different people. In the context of tenured law professors, "libertarian" tends to mean socially liberal, small government types who emphasize civil liberties over law enforcement, but those are generalities. What most libertarians are not is affiliated with a political party in any meaningful way. For a typical law professor, libertarianism is not a partisan alignment but a loose philosophical framework for viewing issues of personal freedom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OpposeUndue weight to a very minor event sourced to mostly to opinion columns (as opposed to straight news coverage). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. This is the proper weight to a minor event given significant coverage in reliable sources in this article's context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
support in addition to supporting the original proposal, I can also support this version. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
support I'm a little sad that how he took Mr. Bush out of context isn't included but I can live with this compromise. --Obsidi (talk ) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
'OpposeS Philbrick has convinced me that this is missing the point, for now I will oppose but I'll still be thinking about this proposal. --Obsidi (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Support I have yet to read a convincing explanation of how this might violate BLP, with most reasoning amounting to "I don't like the sources that covered this incident." That is mitigated, however, by the fact that Dr. Tyson has addressed the problem and apologized for it. Very few sources are always bad or always good. Context does matter, and in this particular instance, those sources are not problematic. LHMask me a question 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Summarizing this incident as a attack on Tyson's character is missing the main point, which is that Tyson was attacking the character of Bush, did so repeatedly, and was wrong on almost every substantive point of the attack.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Support This is the proper weight for this controversy, without editorializing on either side. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Many of the !votes to oppose seem to be based on prejudice against the conservative commentators who brought this incident to light. That seems to me to commit the genetic fallacy. This is not just a ticky-tack failure to properly cite references, but an overzealous attempt to smear a public figure. It's a minor black mark, and it deserves a sentence or two, as in this proposal. Per this commentary, that some are trying to use the incident to discredit NDGT entirely is as unacceptable as that some are trying to suppress all mention of the incident. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per Sammy1339. And because this is still WP:UNDUECa2james (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. Not perfect, but better than nothing. (And User:Sphilbrick has a point, people.) AndreasJN466 11:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As I've said here, this is far too much weight on an incident of minimal significance. Prioryman (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. This is my first time weighing in here, though I've been following the general story. I believe this language is a suitable compromise between the two extremes (and support Dirtlawyer1's argument). Ruby2010/2013 03:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
alternative text 2
This is now moot as the RfC above has found no consensus for the inclusion of any content on this issue. Anyone seeking to make a fresh proposal should first obtain consensus on the WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT issues raised earlier. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Following a conversation with Jytdog on my talk page, I decided to propose the following modification of his proposal. The point is to avoid mention of the non-notable (and baseless) political attacks against Tyson while retaining mention of his error and apology.
In 2014, Tyson was accused of misquoting former U.S. President George W. Bush in one of his standard educational talks, and later apologized for mistakenly taking the quotation out of context.[1]
Comment - This version of the proposed compromise text omits virtually all of the required context to indicate why this is even worth mentioning. I agree with Jytdog's comment above in the alternative proposal: if we are going to mention it at all, we need to provide some measure of detail and context. Otherwise, it will simply become a magnet for future vandal/POV edits because it omits any sense of detail and real meaning. Let's do the minimum context required, and I, for one, will keep it on my watch list and defend the compromise text from future POV-pushers. Let's be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
*Conditional Support - Although I believe no mention is warranted, I will support this if no one attempts to augment it.OpposeObjective3000 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment - As pointed out by Dirtlawyer1 the context is missing. It wasn't just that the quote was out of context, it is that the miss-quote was used to make Bush look stupid. This context is why this became an issue. Arzel (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Conditional support, given that if we give context to The Federalist attacks on Tyson, we are basically making WP part of their echo chamber. After all, this article is about Tyson, not The Federalist. - Cwobeel(talk) 02:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, I don't care if the text mentions The Federalist, but I think you need to provide enough detail and context for the reader to make sense of why this was a controversy. A couple of sentences are probably required, and the "alternative text" one section above this one is pretty close to the minimum required. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as eliding the entire context issue which is the crux of the contretemps. It is rather like saying the US Civil War "was an impolite discussion over some state issues." Collect (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
OpposeUndue weight to a very minor event sourced to mostly to opinion columns (as opposed to straight news coverage). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of any context for what occurred. --Obsidi (talk ) 17:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Is it too much to ask that editors making proposals ensure that they understand the situation they are trying to summarize? All these words are not being spilled because a speaker simply misquoted someone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose While this would be the most reasonable text that should be used (if there must be text at all), I simply feed that the best alternative is not have no text whatsoever as this whole baseless fabrication allegations and orchestrated controversy has gone on long enough. --Shabidoo | Talk 18:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a point of order: this is not about "allegations" and is certainly not "baseless." Dr. Tyson has directly addressed what happened, and is planning on apologizing to former Pres. Bush. You may still not want this material in the article, but calling the material "baseless fabrication allegations" is not accurate at all. LHMask me a question 05:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between misremembering and fabrication. The original source claims he is a “serial fabulist”. There is no evidence that he has fabricated anything, much less being a “serial fabulist.” Objective3000 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there is evidence of fabrication. It is merely "misremembering" that he gets the quote a little wrong. As an aside, it is unfortunate that some people talk about getting the quote wrong, yes it is wrong, but that's a detail. It may also be misremebering when he says Bush was quoting Genesis. It may be misremebering when he places the quote just after 9/11. But it is not misremebering to claim that Bush used the quote to distinguish between we and they(Muslims). There is absolutely nothing in the actual quote to even hint at that conclusion; it is completely made up by Tyson. I don't attribute malice to Tyson, he wanted a segue to make a point about how many stars had Arabic names, and he might have misremebered some aspects of the actual quote, then convinced himself that his version made sense, but it is irresponsible to use such a story multiple times without bothering to check your facts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It is an extremely serious claim to make that someone fabricated a quote. I wouldn't even have accused my undergrad students of fabricating a quote unless he/she did it more than once, if he/she couldn't defend or explain what happened and only if I could make a very strong and convincing case that it was wilfully fabricated. You have nothing like this on him. It's assuming a lot even if it seems obvious to you. Take a step back. Your case is minimal. I think this is pretty heavy s*** to lay on someone when it's based on pure conjecture and speculation. --Shabidoo | Talk 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Philbrick, you appear to be suggesting that this incident is so egregious because the misquote suggested that GWB was distinguishing between we and they (Muslims), and that this is a purposeful mischaracterization of GWB. But, GWB has done exactly that. Something from Rationale for the Iraq War: In a 2003 interview, Jacques Chirac, President of France at that time, affirmed that President George W. Bush asked him to send troops to Iraq to stop Gog and Magog, the "Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse." According to Chirac, the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush GWB then invaded Iraq. Objective3000 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Lets just say I disagree and leave it at that. --Obsidi (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This lacks context to such an extent that a reader unfamiliar with Dr. Tyson would have no earthly idea what had even really happened. LHMask me a question 05:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per LHM. This is too short and does not give enough context to impart basic understanding. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
About both "alternative texts", I'm all in favor of compromise language, so I do not oppose the spirit of that. But I think it would be best to leave content about this matter off of the page for the time being (see also WP:ONUS). In approximately six months or so, editors might want to come back and see whether or not secondary, independent sources are continuing to give attention to the controversy. If not, it's probably not of enduring importance, whereas if so, then it will be clearer how to frame it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a minor event but it can't be properly inserted into any article without also including context (which this proposal excludes entirely, and which is one reason to oppose this particular proposal). However, inclusion of the required context turns this molehill into a mountain which is WP:UNDUE. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. As I've said here, this is an incident of minimal significance and isn't worth covering here. Prioryman (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
