Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 3

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.

There have been some major advancements in this story since the (justified) full protection for edit warring was put into place. Currently the protection is set to expire October 11th. I think this is clearly too long. I am changing the protection to expire 24 hours from now, which leaves plenty of time for discussion as to the wisdom of it. I would not oppose immediate lifting of protection if someone else thinks that's wise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has been arguing over the bush quote, but now that Neil Tyson has confirmed what he was referring to, I think this can be explained in a way that everyone can agree with. Someone might want slightly different wording, etc. or different references, that's fine, but lets work to getting a final version everyone can agree with, so here is what I propose. Eliminate the current paragraph at the end of the Views\Politics section and replace it with the following:

On September 16th, 2014 the website

--Obsidi (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If there MUST be something in the article (and by the way there hasn't been anything remotely approaching consensus on the issue and there has been no agreement on including any of this in the article yet) then it should be way shorter than this. --Shabidoo | Talk 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am at least of the opinion having read through the issue posted above, that much of the disagreement was on if there was a reliable source to say which quote Neil Tyson was referring to. All that has changed now that we have a

WP:SELFSOURCE, from Neil Tyson, and should no longer be controversial. I don't think anything I posted above can be disputed (do you disagree?). You say that it should be "way shorter" by which I assume you are saying that my proposal is giving it too much weight. This is about the accusation that he took the president of the united states out of context, which if true, would seem to be worth commenting on at least a bit. I am not proposing a new section or any more then a single paragraph on the controversy. Maybe other people feel even that is too much, but I don't at least at the moment. Why do you feel that is too much weight for the topic? --Obsidi (talk

) 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the reason that this gives undue weight is that President Bush actually did make comments very similar to the comment, in the same time frame, on the same subject, as claimed by Tyson, and the general thrust of what he is saying is a perfectly honest opinion, whether or not others agree with the opinion. I’m not trying to bash Bush. (I personally think he is far more moderate toward Muslims than these blogs.) I’m saying that this is a ‘no harm, no foul’ misquote that has been turned into another faux-controversy by a blog so extremist that it equates Wikipedia editors with beheading jihadists and the due-diligence discussions of Wikipedia volunteer editors as equal to the crucifixion of Christ. It should be clear that this blog, that erroneously claims to be cited by every major network and news outlet, is trying to raise its exposure to the level of its claimed exposure by repeatedly accusing Wikipedia to be a part of yet another oddball conspiracy, which is grist for the mill of a part of the conspiracy-soaked blogosphere. I don’t see any reason for any inclusion whatsoever. If there is, it should be one sentence in a criticism section. But, if honestly stated, it will make him look better as it’s about as shallow a criticism as one can imagine. I would be delighted if that were the worst criticism one could find about me. Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhmmm...No President Bush did not actually make comments very similar. That is the whole point. From the (ABA award winning, WaPo hosted) VC blog: "Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims. As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too." There is a reason that this story has been picked up broadly in mainstream media, it is deemed noteworthy when a prominent public intellectual makes claims of this nature. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)"Very similar"? Um -- the quote claimed was clearly anti-Muslim. The actual quote does not appear to be anti-Muslim. The claimed quote had Bush claiming God named the stars, the actual quote is from Isaiah, who is a prophet as far as Muslims are concerned. The actual quote is clearly aimed at showing the grief about seven dead astronauts, and has nothing at all to do with anything else. Sorry - there is a significant difference between the actual quote and the anecdotal claims made by Tyson, as Tyson now acknowledges. And calling a blog "extremist" for daring to present the evidence about the error in the quote is not really very impressive here at all. Collect (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The Devine inspiration section of Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War clearly shows Bush statements that are similar. Not exact, but along the same lines and clearly offensive to Muslims, no matter how intended. 2. This has NOT been picked up broadly in mainstream media. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Devine inspiration" section (should be divine) had this quote "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him." This has nothing at all to do with the quote "Our God is the God who named the stars." It is not similar at all. -- Obsidi (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You can connect the space shuttle deaths with the Iraq War? Really?? And quoting a prophet revered by Muslims is insulting to Muslims? Really?? I am not quite as gullible as to suppose that you are correct on those claims. Collect (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything slightly close to any of that. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Half of what you wrote is you going off about The Federalist. Most of us who support inclusion have agreed The Federalist is no longer considered a reliable source and most of us who support inclusion are well aware of their tendency to froth at the mouth. Regarding the weight issue, the way to create proper weight is to include opposing viewpoints, not by precluding "any inclusion whatsoever" or limit it to "one sentence". Reliable sources saying why this dispute is not a big deal can be included to give proper weight, but this whole notion that nothing about it must be included due to weight issues is a misapplication of the weight guidelines. Marteau (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you’re not suggesting that WP should include all refs from people that “froth at the mouth”. I don’t see that in weight guidelines. Some guy is trying to control the actions of WP editors in order to increase his exposure via

WP:CAN campaigning. Will we have weeks long discussions every time some blog tries to gain hits in this manner over something so inconsequential as a quote that was less than perfect, but actually on point as to quotes that were made on the same subject in the same time frame? This is an encyclopedia with excellent rules and procedures. Not an advertising medium. The tail should not wag the dog. Objective3000 (talk

) 01:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fear not and rest assured, I suggested nothing of the sort. Marteau (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (edit) AHHH, I see where your confusion lies. I said "Regarding the weight issue, the way to create proper weight is to include opposing viewpoints, not by precluding "any inclusion whatsoever" or limit it to "one sentence". That is true. I stand by that. And the way that is accomplished, I said in the sentence that followed: "Reliable sources saying why this dispute is not a big deal can be included to give proper weight". Reliable sources, that is. NOT The Federalist. Which I have said before and will say again, cannot be considered a reliable source here. Marteau (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Objective3000, The quote was not on the same subject, this has been made quite clear. Arzel (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The quotes I linked to are about the run-up to the Iraq War. The original quote by Tyson is about post 9/11. Same thing. I amd not talking about the Challenger quote. Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

<-The first line of your proposed edit should, in my opinion, be changed. The article cited actually accuses NdGT of "quote fabrication" not quoting out of context. Perhaps the line could read "On September 16th, 2014 the website

Can we include the fact that support was drummed up for this edit of the article IN the article? It seems pretty notable to me that the right is trying to Swift Boat Tyson. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1332921/-The-Al-Gorification-of-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson Mystic55 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

People are claiming consensus where none exists and there are still organized canvasing efforts on conservative sites to influence this article. Can we please reprotect? Mystic55 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that people outside of WP are canvasing doesn't change what the WP article should be. WP rules only apply to people on WP. --Obsidi (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note the removal of any attempt to put this organized character attack by conservatives, conservative websites drafted by canvasing. The cited source CLEARLY cites that it does indeed refer to this wikipedia page not just the deletion of the Federalist website from wikipedia. There is organized propoganda campaign being initiated against wikipedia and the subject of this article in direct violation of

Perhaps you can explain what part of it you think "CLEARLY cites" to this page and not the federalist.com RfD? This is how it starts: "The Wikipedia page for the conservative online publication “The Federalist” was targeted for deletion following the site’s critical coverage of progressive scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson."[1] --Obsidi (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also saying the cited source doesn't say what it does when it clearly DOES say it is also a direct violation of WP: Good Faith. Mystic55 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Tyson hosting the 40th anniversary celebration of Apollo 11 at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, July 2009

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson at the November 29, 2005 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, in Washington, D.C.

Wouldn't this: File:Tyson - Apollo 40th anniversary 2009.jpg be a better choice for the main (infobox image) that the current one: File:Neil deGrasse Tyson August 3, 2014 (cropped).jpg--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. The current image does have a very unencyclopedic feel to it, like an informal fan-photo. I agree the photo you suggested would be an upgrade, but I checked Commons and found this one! It's an extremely professional photograph taken by NASA photographers. I tested previewing the page using this photo in the infobox, it looks extremely encyclopedic. The caption is Neil deGrasse Tyson at the November 29, 2005 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, in Washington, D.C. Alsee (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Shabidoo | Talk 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded which one? Sphilbrick's suggestion or Alsee's? I support Sphilbrick's, and wonder why the current image is there, unless it is to denigrate the subject. Alsee's suggestion is only marginally better than the current. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

S Philbrick's image (Apollo 40th anniversary). --Shabidoo | Talk 05:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I inserted both imageboxes here for easy comparison. Note that Sphilbrick's image is already used in the body of the article, so we'd have to do some image shuffling if we wanted to use that one for the infobox. Alsee (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the images, I should have done that. While I like Alsee's suggested image, it is marred by the intruding head, which doesn't look easy to crop. I was hesitant to offer my observation about the current image, but Moriori nailed it. While I have been active in discussions above to include information that is critical of Tyson, I think he is a very effective communicator, and an excellent spokesperson for science education. I think he dserves a more professional looking photo as the lead image.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the 2009 image should go in the infobox, the 2005 image should go where the 2009 image is currently, and the current infobox photo should be retired. I agree with the idea that the head intruding on the 2005 image disqualifies it for the infobox. Plus you can see his cufflinks in the 2009 image. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that both of these photos are "nicer" (particularly the '09), the problem is that they're not current photos (as befits a living person article). Tyson is "grayer" now, and the 2014 photo accurately depicts this.--Froglich (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think Tyson looks all that different in the 2014 photo than in the 2005 or 2009 photos. You get essentially the same impression of his features from all three photos. I also don't think we have any obligation to show the most recent photo of someone, we just want to make sure it's illustrative. A counter-example to the "use the most recent photo" doctrine is Abe Vigoda, whose article has a picture that is 7 years old, but the one used above the fold is 37 years old. It's not like in the past 5 years Tyson has been attacked by birds and now uses large facial scars and an eyepatch as a stylistic trademark - he looks like basically the same guy with a few more patches of grey hair, maybe his weight has changed a bit and he might have a few more wrinkles, but it's not a significant difference. I also wouldn't be surprised if the lower-quality lighting and impromptu nature of the photo shoot were the only reason he would look "older" in the 2014 photo. I think the 2009 photo looks best. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that there's consensus that the current infobox image should be dumped, consensus that Tyson hosting the 40th should be the infobox pic, and I think a general view that Neil deGrasse Tyson at NASA Advisory Council is worthy of inclusion elsewhere. This requires a little shuffling.

Proposal:

• Tyson in conversation with Richard Dawkins moves from bottom of Spirituality to the top, where Tyson hosting the 40th is. It should have been there in the first place.
• Tyson hosting the 40th goes from spirituality to the lede infobox.
• Tyson at the screening of Cosmos in lede infobox gets dropped.
• Neil deGrasse Tyson at NASA Advisory Council goes next to NASA where Tyson with Bill Nye and U.S. President is.
• Tyson with Bill Nye and U.S. President moves up to RIGHT side at top of Politics.
• I also propose dropping Tyson promoting the Cosmos in career section. It's a really bad photo, Tyson is barely visible behind the photographer and the yellow frame. The double glass pane in front of his chest doesn't help either. Alsee (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal entirely. The only thing that I'm unsure about is the last point. I'm not sure that photo is actually hurting the article, and that section might just be a huge block of text without it. If you look at the full size version, he's a lot more obviously there. Maybe re-cropping that image and then increasing its display size on the page would help. Alternatively, the uncropped version of the current infobox photo is also a Cosmos promotional event. It would need to be re-cropped to frame it better and to remove the watermark, but perhaps that could be a replacement for the Tyson-in-Australia photo.

Another potential change to your proposal would be rather than inserting the 2005 NASA hearing photo where the current Bill Nye photo is, insert this group photo in front of a lunar lander instead, since it's very obvious that it's a NASA event just looking at it. The downside is we'd have two group photos with Bill Nye in them right next to one another in the article, which is not aesthetically ideal.

In think we should pull the trigger on at least the first 3 bullet points, since I doubt those will be controversial. I'd do it myself, but apparently the page is protected (no protection template, though, what's up with that?). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of shuffling the Nye/Obama/Tyson 'selfie' shot up to politics, drop that one and instead use one from this NASA page (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-visits-nasa-goddard/#.VCgiJ_ldXzc) for the politics section. (For clarification, it's not the persons in the photo, it's the selfie that strikes me as "could do better." Kerani (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the framing of that photo is fine, but it's a bit grainy and out of focus. Also, I'm not sure that conveys the same concept of Tyson's political activities as the NASA-related photos (which are relevant to the "NASA" section anyway, for which there are already two good photos). Plus, it's not like the photo of Nye, Obama and Tyson is a selfie - it's a professionally taken photograph of Nye, Tyson and Obama taking a selfie together, which conveys something about their relationship and engagement with, modern culture or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have the agreed picture in the infobox, and Tyson-with-RichardDawkins moved up to fill slot next to the Spirituality heading. I moved Tyson-with-Obama up a paragraph so it's right next to the Politics heading. I didn't touch the NASA section yet. I still think Tyson-at-NASA-Advisory-Council may be good there. I think it's a more serious-science-work portrayal, a counterpoint to the Tyson-as-communicator tone of some of the other images. Alsee (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The article should be improved through normal

If you want to revert back to what it was stable at for the last 10 days, I would have been fine with that till we reach a better consensus. Now

WP:BLP, I did see the part where it says "contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed. Maybe that is what he means but I thought we already had a consensus on the BLP aspects of this. Regardless I am not going to undoUser:TheRedPenOfDoom, If others feel what was added isn't reliably sourced enough for a BLP, I'll let another editor make that call.--Obsidi (talk

) 02:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What precisely is your

WP:LIBEL or other BLP related issues that the libelous/unsourced statements are not left up while people debate. --Obsidi (talk

)

Of course the initial deletion was because there was no RS ref that were supportive for inclusion. Now we have both RS and the subject of the BLP admitting the error(s). So the information is now WP:V verified and has been significantly changed by the interim developments. Thus invoking WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is mooted. The material for inclusion is different and ref'd. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The BLP objection is well presented in the oppose comments on the RFC. You can read them there. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is flat out false. Are you simply throwing stuff at the wall, hoping some will stick, or is the situation worse? Yes, several editors have opposed the inclusion based upon a number of issues.

The first one to mention BLP: two things have changed since my original vote: the article has been edited to comply with BLP,

Second one: I don't think there's anything sad about being cautious when BLPs are involved I agree, we should be cautious, but the editor does not assert a blatant BLP violation, simply notes that this is an article about a living person.

Next one: WP:BLP says to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". I agree, but it doesn't say there is a BLP violation deserving removal.

Next: I don't see how this meets the tough sourcing requirements set forth by BLP This comes close to arguing for a removal on BLP grounds, but if that editor saw one, they could have removed rather than adding to an RfC

Next: It is WP:UNDUE to accuse someone of being a “serial fabulist” based on such weak evidence in a WP:BLP.

Moot as “serial fabulist” is not in the article.

Next: Some have been basing their conclusions on their own personal interpretations of the incident, which falls afoul of WP:BLP and standard policies.

Moot, as no such statements are in any of the options, or in the most recent version

Next: That being said any content should be neutrally worded, and well referenced per BLP I agree, this is a support, so clearly not an argument for removal on BLP grounds.

Over 50 editors have weighed in. Only seven even mentioned "BLP", not a single one said this qualifies for immediate removal under BLP grounds. At best, a couple might make that arguments if asked, but if 50 editors are asked, and almost all opine on other grounds, your case is thin gruel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also from BLP and BLPREQUESTRESTORE: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. . Where are the high-quality reliable sources? A blog post by a conservative contributor in the Tampa Tribune? The Federalist.com? The Daily Caller? If and when the "story" is picked up by high quality sources, we can revisit this. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(3ec)That was an improper deletion. Had there been legitimate BLP concerns, given the large number of editors who are watching, it would have been removed long ago if it was a legitimate BLP issue. The RfC on the weight issue would have been SNOW closed long ago. Thus, I do not accept that it is a good faith removal. I think it is disruptive, you ought to self-revert and apologize. There are good faith debates on the value of some proposed references, there is a good faith debate on the weight this incident deserves, but to make a removal on BLP grounds evinces astoundingly bad judgement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We should err on the side of caution on BLPs. These are the sources:

• The Volokh Conspiracy blog
• The Federalist (2 posts)
• Examiner.com (3 posts)
• Patheos blog
• Meidaite
• Tiwtchy
• FrontPage Magazine
• PJ media

Are these high-quality sources as required by WP:BLP? I don't think so, thus my removal of the material. Also, per BLP we need consensus to keep the material and the RFC shows that there is no such consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I take it you are asserting that the claim Tyson misquoted Bush in Tyson's speeches is a "contentious claim"? I would suggest the fact that Tyson has stated that he did so basically makes this a "d'oh" moment in the Wikipedia history of contentious claims. Contentious claims supported by the person in question cease to be a problem AFAICT. You might possibly have had a point of some sort until Tyson basically took that argument away by himself. Collect (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I will keep this diff, next time you argue to the contrary on politician articles (you know what I am talking about). - Cwobeel (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I created a table of resources and you omitted some. If you are not even going to bother paying attention to the Talk page, I request that you refrain from disrupting. You are making false statements, and it is incomprehensible that you do not know this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

These are by no means high-quality sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The user hasn't disrupted anything. There is no support for inclusion at this time, and the repeated rebooting of every discussion after consensus was not found in order to create a new consensus is the real disruption here. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support deletion. These are not reliable sources for a BLP, especially for controversial, POV-driven polemics against the subject. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think

WP:SELFSOURCE is reliable enough for a BLP? --Obsidi (talk

) 23:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read and understand

WP:UNDUE, as this is one of the greatest examples of undue weight I can imagine. Viriditas (talk

) 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple

WP:RS which have commented on the importance of this (see resources for the list). I don't think any reliable sources have said it isn't important (although maybe I missed one). Now I proposed something that was as small as I could get and include the context for the reader to understand what happened, if you got a smaller way of explaining what occurred in context please propose it. --Obsidi (talk

) 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck? Did we just decide to dump discussion and consensus-building and go straight back to edit-warring? Why was there a dump-restore-revision without waiting for the on-going discussion of what to say to at least hit 24 hours?Kerani (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You may not support inclusion, but don't conflate your personal opinion with a consensus. I haven't said the editor isn't permitted to have an opinion, but removal of material while under active discussion is disruptive. What justification is there for making a list of sources, and omitting ones that have been discussed multiple times? And it looks like you are making the same assumption. Are you seriously proposing deletion without reading the talk page? I get that newbies might do that, you have no such excuse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please

WP:AGF and cool the rhetoric a tad if you could. My argument stands, the burden to provide high-quality sources is on those that want to restore the material. Find these sources and I will myself restore the material. - Cwobeel (talk)

00:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided a two sentence summary of this silly affair. Even this is more than necessary and could be reduced to one sentence. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to remove any mention of this affair until such time as we get something like a consensus. Numerous editors have expressed concern over the inclusion of this material, and while i mostly disagree with them, the best move is to simply wait until we have a consensus. If we absolutely cannot form a consensus, we can deal with it then. I dont believe we are there yet. Bonewah (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. --Shabidoo | Talk 08:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have nothing to say about the discussion over this section, but "Our God is the God who named the stars," should not be italicized. Quotations are denoted by quotation marks only. See

The image with Bill Nye should also be at the top of the section so it doesn't cause the odd spacing around NASA and white space below it. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: @Reywas92: The quote is not in the current version of the article, so there's nothing to do there. About the picture - which Bill Nye picture do you mean, and what do you mean by "at the top of the section"? Which section, and left or right? (Please reactivate the edit protected template when you reply.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently the subsection 'NASA' is tucked under 'Race and Social Justice'. I believe this is a minor edit correction of a typo. Could this be fixed, please?Kerani (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the paragraph titled "Race and Social Justice," it is mentioned that Tyson appeared on a Fox News affiliate. Fox News is a network, and does not have affiliates. Does CNN have affiliates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.26.159 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The correct term is "Fox affiliate". Simply remove the "News" part. Of course, you probably knew this already. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize some of the options.

Please recall that if you think nothing at all should be included, you should weigh in at the RfC

In some cases, I made some stylistic edits (removing indentation which doesn't work inside a table). If I messed something up, it was not intentional, please feel free to correct it.

Some included refs, some did not, if we gravitate toward one of the options without refs, we should add them.

One reservation I have with listing these in a table form is that invites a straw poll; I do not think we are quite ready for that, and urge consideration and discussion of the options. Then we can either take an up and down straw poll, or eliminate some of the least attractive options and vote on the remainder.

I deliberately left some blank options in case someone wants to add another.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any inclusion of any proposal which does not include the reference of the word conservative does include the quote is POV by omission. Mystic55 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the 2003 speech in question was about the Columbia shuttle disaster, not Challenger. Several of the proposals have that switched. More generally, I'd suggest staying away from warring quotes as much as possible. Finally, I don't think proposal 4 was made seriously - that might be an easy one to get out of the way.Kerani (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work, but useless I am afraid. In BLPs we err on the side of exclusion when there is no consensus for inclusion. See

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk)

22:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

We also don't just remove from BLPs content because a few people disagree with what is said without support from other

WP:WELLKNOWN "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" --Obsidi (talk

) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No media outlet other than a few extreme conservative/partisan sources have reported this brouhaha, so valid BLP concerns apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Except for the non-partisan RS refs of course, and the liberal/progressive refs, and the newspapers. All found in the discussions above. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@

Discretionary sanctions. I am trying hard to have a reasonable discussion about the inclusion and the wording if included. You are disrupting.--S Philbrick(Talk)

23:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Revised: 7,8,3,6. #7 needs to replace "blogger" with "website". It doesn't identify as a blog, and I don't think we have sourcing for calling it that. If 3 I suggest dropping the last sentence "Perhaps that's a measure of how upset I was in both cases", and revise the "After being questioned on the accuracy of the quote[1]" after figuring out which source to use. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE coverage at any length. this is a fart in a hurricane and the only people who smell it have their noses stuffed too far up their asses for anyone's good. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
  00:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, if you approach an article talk page that is already contentious, and the most you can add is invective, perhaps its better if you dont comment at all. Bonewah (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

its only "already contentious" because people have their heads up their asses. the air is much fresher out here out of looney land. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support prop 7 It doesn’t assume ulterior motives. It doesn’t cave to extremist sites. It includes mention of the incident. It doesn’t use non-RS sources. It is balanced in size in relation to his awards, best-selling books, obvious stature, etc. It is accurate. Most importantly, It doesn’t violate BLP. It is the epitome of what WP policies guide us to include. I might consider changing my vote to include if this exact statement was used. Objective3000 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Well if i had to pick, id go with Number 6. Fairly concise and neutral. The
  WP:UNDUE crowd does have a point, even if they cant resist making it at every opportunity, wether we needed reminding or not. Bonewah (talk
  ) 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would support any of 1,2,5, or 6. (I was the author of #1). #3, fails to talk about how the quote was put in the context of talking about Muslims even though it had nothing to do with that. #4 is POV pushing. #7 says almost nothing about what actually occurred that I think are important. and #8 is not appropriate with multiple
  WP:RS saying the event is important and none saying it isn't.--Obsidi (talk
  ) 01:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Given the lack of coverage in mainstream publications, prop 8 would seem to be in keeping with Wiki policies. Of course, if this two-week old brouhaha receives wider coverage we would need to re-evaluate. Props 6 & 7 are reasonable. 7 is about as much space as it merits - readers can follow the links to read more detail. Prop 6 is longer than I feel necessary, but I could live with that. The others are too "inside baseball" for a general interest encyclopedia.

So, favor 8, can live with 6 or 7, disagree with the others. Really, the best course of action is to let the RFC run its course at which point it should be a lot more obvious just how much weight to give the matter in the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Proposal 8 Grossly
  WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk
  ) 14:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Proposal 6 It is the most neutral and smallest version that provides all the facts needed.--97.65.104.162 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal 8 It's such a shame to not include something which is true and interesting. At least mention the controversy. Part of what I love about Wikipedia are all the inane details that people find about obscure topics (not that I'm admitting that this is an inane detail or an obscure topic). I haven't edited Wikipedia for years so feel free to ignore me, I do love reading it! I won't cite any rules, apart from
  WP:IGNORE. Please include it, please. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't want to see the principle applied consistently to other pages. American editors should also bear in mind that domestic US political considerations mean nothing to those outside of the US. Cheers Chemical Ace (talk
  ) 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

on another note, your desired reading does not seem well suited to being satisfied in an encyclopedia. i would suggest something like people.com or snopes.com rather than wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

so we should include trivia that is only of interest to US political hacks? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a political issue. This is a he made up a quote to make someone else look stupid issue and repeatedly said that quote, and has only now kind of appologized. Arzel (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

its completely a political issue - the person "being mocked" is a political figure and the people upset about the "mocking" are political hacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Week wrote extensively about it and they are a UK news magazine. Kelly ^hi! 13:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen accusations of Tyson being "Swiftboated" by the right. What ever that means and whether or not it is true is irrelevant. The fact that some may consider it (wrongly) a victory for Creationism or a blow to climate change is also irrelevant. That's what I meant. Sorry it's pretty unclear in the original statement. If it means Republicans get elected for the next million years you should still include it. Stop thinking about smug Christians and just include it, because it happens to be true. Chemical Ace (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong Approach this is really the wrong approach to this. Until the RfC is completed it is mostly pointless to have a vote like this, plus it is not put into an RfC format. Arzel (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

From Facebook. It addresses a few points and seems to add some desired closure. Please examine for yourself. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we're clear on two things now: Tyson is sticking by his 9/11-context claim, but no one as of yet can back him up.--Froglich (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally Facebook is absolutely an unusable, with the exception of

WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm not proposing anything specific at the moment, I'm just making a note that information from there is potentially usable. Alsee (talk

) 05:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be usable per

WP:SPS but it's probably better to wait - I imagine some media outlets will pick it up despite it being released as a Friday night news dump. Kelly ^hi!

08:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to mainly say "this is what I remembered happening, and someone could probably prove it, but if no one is able to prove it, it may still have been true, because proving something did not happen is a fallacious requirement." Close enough? Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a major development. Tyson has decided to stick with his claim, despite the fact that every single public speech by the President is available for review, and not a single person has found the quote. Despite my interest in getting this incident correct, I had a favorable opinion of Tyson, as he is an excellent speaker, and has a knack for engaging his audience. I agree with his main theses, that American's has an abysmal grasp of science, and support his initiatives to address the problem. I also know, form personal experience, that it is possible to misremember things, and I was confident that when pressed, he would realize he made a mistake. That surprises me. Doesn't change the fact that he is an effective speaker, but if someone refuses to change their opinion in the face of evidence, what should we conclude about his character?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"This is a major development." Since when are facebook posts major developments? You are once again deciding what you think is important by your own arbtirary threshold, rather than looking at the most reliable sources, Second Quantization (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In the comments to that Facebook post, Tyson now acknowledges mixing up post-9/11 remarks and 2003 remarks on the Columbia space shuttle disaster. Not sure which way that cuts, but thought I'd note it for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.63.200 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I was stunned that he was trying to stick with his error, but he finally admitted his error. Tha doesn't look like an RS, so we may still have to wait for a better source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it meet

WP:SELFSOURCE? PStrait (talk

) 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it does. I know very little about Facebook, and most of what I see comes from seeing Facebook additions reverted. I understand that his own posts can be an exception, but I don't know enough about the verification process at Facebook to know whether a comment on someone else's page meets the verification standards. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for what it's worth, Tyson tweeted that he plans to apologize for bungling the quote. Again, not sure how this cuts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.63.200 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM Did I miss something? What article edit proposal is being discussed here? Gaba ^(talk)
  14:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the supposed relevance of NOTFORUM? I keep seeing this paragraph mentioned by editors who are apparently attracted by it "name", but seem to have no idea what it says.

Andyvphil (talk

) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing a source to use. That is legitimate. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing the significance/usability of Tyson's statement as a potential source. Kelly ^hi! 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the comments that came after, mainly the one by S Philbrick. The article should be proposed as a source at

WP:RSN linking back to this TP. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe his statement can support a line in the article to the effect "Neil DeGrasse Tyson acknowledged on Facebook that he could not provide a direct citation for the quote he attributed to Bush". Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is basically zero question that the source would meet

WP:SELFPUB in that its Tyson commenting on the accuracy of his own comments, but its only relevant in so much as its a response to content that may or may not be included. However, the fact that he did respond to it at all does give it some additional weight - you don't swat at non-existant-gnats. Gaijin42 (talk

) 19:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Washington Post discusses Tyson's response here. Kelly ^hi! 20:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Volokh conspiracy is not TWP, it's a blog and it's

WP:RS should be discussed. Gaba ^(talk)

21:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We can make a standalone article just about Tyson's facebook post...and how the totally impartial bloggers cover it and how extremely important newspapers and television stations document what the bloggers say (while the whole world waits at the edges of their seats to see what happens next). And then when some new blogger points out that Tyson wore white shirt after Labour day...we can document that on this article and create yet another stand alone (The Tyson white shirt on Labourday controversy). There will be no end to fair and impartial blogs that will critically analyse it and then CNN and the BBC will broadcast to the world the next extremely important development in the TysonGate saga. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the comments, Tyson admits he screwed up the quote: "I transposed one disaster with another (both occurring within 18 months of one another) in my assigning his quote. Perhaps that's a measure of how upset I was in both cases." PStrait (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• It appears Tyson intends to apologize to Bush[2] so I wouldn't be surprised at further coverage. Kelly ^hi! 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bush's Quote

Evidently the quote is on page 166 of the following transcript (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf). How does one integrate this into the article/controversy in a non-original research way? In any event, it's here for the discussion. General Epitaph (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think is this one on Page 166 (my highlight): "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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home." George W. Bush. REMARKS ON THE LOSS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA, THE CABINET ROOM OF THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D.C. FEBRUARY 1, 2003 - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But Tyson's recollection was that it was spoken after 9/11, so maybe his recollection is not accurate? Who knows? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see that this was brought up in the original article (my apologies!) Evidently it was brought up as getting the date wrong. From the discussion page here I got the sense that people were claiming "no one could find this quote", hence my posting. Please disregard! General Epitaph (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyson has admitted that got the quote confused: 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. Perhaps that’s a measure of how upset I was in both cases. The mind is surely the next mysterious universe to be plumbed. [3]

Can we put this now to rest? I hope so. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, but that was the whole point of the article. The actual quote had nothing to do with 9/11 and Islam. But because NDGT didn't bother to do his research and find the quote, he ended up slandering Bush with his misremembered interpretation. That's not a no-harm-no-foul situation. Ronnotel (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Big deal. I guess some people will keep foaming at the mouth about this no matter what. We will have some material about it on the article and we can then all move on to build the pedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The main criticism of this misquote is that Tyson made the quote out to be anti-Muslim/anti-Arab in nature; the fact that Tyson also got the circumstances wrong was always a secondary issue. Also, please be civil, and you may benefit from reading (or re-reading)

WP:OWN. Korny O'Near (talk

) 23:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited this article. I came here from a BLP/N mention, so I don't understand why are you quoting

WP:OWN. The way I look at this is that the outrage that have been raised by this mistake is worth mentioning in the article, but it is not a big deal. Luckily his mistake did not cost a trillion dollars and half a million deaths, if you get my gist. - Cwobeel (talk)

23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lucky his mistake did not cost a trillion dollars..." - true but irrelevant. Jane Goodall's 'mistake' with Seeds of Hope didn't cost a trillion dollars, either, yet it remains notiable and recorded in WP. The issue is the error that NdGT made, not the errors which had been made by anyone else. Kerani (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, agree. The article already mentions the mistake, and once the protection ends surely more will be added including his admission. Are we done now? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues of a famed science communicator repeatedly fabricating or misattributing quotes have not been sufficently explored - at least, not sufficent for some people. More media attention to their concerns may yet yield more sources that will warrent inclusion. However, I don't think your contributions will make or break the article, feel free to bow out if you've got more pressing matters.Kerani (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Explore away... but I don't think you need much more to cover this issue in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The PDF quote is "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see there is comfort and hope. 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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home. May God bless the grieving families, and may God continue to bless America. "

We ought not elide the fact that Bush was quoting Isaiah, who is revered by Muslims, in the first place - and did not come up with "naming the stars" out of the blue, and most assuredly did not do so in any sense of separating Muslims from "us." Tyson managed not only to mangle the quote, but also the circumstances of the quote, and the intent of the quote. And to deny doing so until irrefutable evidence was provided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is simply your opinion. You are not supposed to be arguing with Tyson.

WP:OR Objective3000 (talk

) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not my "opinion" as to the quote. It is not my "opinion" that Tyson misquoted Bush (indeed, he states he did so). It is not my "opinion" that he misstated the circumstances of the quote - Tyson states that as well. It is not my "opinion" that Bush did not refer at all to Muslims in the quote - the quote stands quite well on its own. It is not my "opinion" that Tyson denied misquoting Bush until forced to do so by people citing the actual quote in the transcript - the reliable sources cited make that factually clear. And I am not "arguing with Tyson" at all -- just stating what he has said and what the official transcript states. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. Presenting the facts is quite a bit different than presenting your opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We present facts as long as they are mentioned in a

WP:RS. We don't present out opinions on the "facts" as Collect did above. Gaba ^(talk)

21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Collect presented only facts. I would ask you to point out which fact is not true; what is opinion? Arzel (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Two Versions of the Quote Bush and Tyson

What Bush said Feb 2003 in the aftermatch of the space shuttle Columbia disaster was: "In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. 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. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf

TYSON's Misremembered Version: "Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it? He says, "Our God" - of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, "Our God is the God" - he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis - "Our God is the God who named the stars.""

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/watch/2008/06/19/george-bush-and-star-names

More wrong than just the date. Totally different context and motive. No our god v their god. No us v them. And Isaiah not Genesis. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The stupidest part of what Tyson did was to think that God "bring[ing] out the starry hosts one by one and call[ing] them each by name" had anything to do with the names in the star table he displayed. I mean, if he remembers that some pol said "360 degrees" meaning "180 degrees", and can't be bothered to look it up so he can attribute it to Waters, that's just laziness. But to hear Bush's speech and think he he was trying to claim for his God the naming of Betelgeuse is profoundly moronic. Is there any evidence this guy is actually smart, or has he gotten where he is solely through affirmative action?

Andyvphil (talk

) 09:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)