Talk:The Federalist (website)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal via OR

AQFK removed this under the rational of OR. Now you may not like this, but edit summaries which are simply not true do not help the situation. Arzel (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Something similar happened here. I agree it is disruptive. Kelly ^hi! 13:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I did explain explain my reasoning here which I will repeat: None of these sources actually says that the Federalist has been mentioned in several articles. That's an original conclusion not stated in any of these sources.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing that it was mentioned in several articles? That seems to me pedantic and more than a little tendentious. Kelly ^hi! 13:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that this claim fails verification. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I see your position but I disagree - I think the cited reliable sources serve as adequate verification for the statement. Kelly ^hi! 13:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "conclusion". There is no "original conclusion" or "claim" it is a straight report. There is no original research of any sort whatsoever. The line says media including...(x,y,z, etc) debated or discussed the Federalist's allegations. This is immediately followed by the refs of x,y,z media orgs debating or discussing the Federalist's allegations, explicitly mentioning the Federalist. This is the proper way of addressing it.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is not WP:OR, then can you provide the exact quote from these sources which directly states that the Federalist's allegations were picked-up, debated, or discussed in a variety of national media including Physics Today, the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy blog, Weekly Standard, Daily Beast, the Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and the Tampa Tribune among others? You can't because it's not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If we were to follow A Quest for Knowledge's theory we could not say the Federalist was "mentioned in several articles" we would have to say something like: "In September the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy column discussed the Federalist's accusations. (ref)" "Also in September the Daily Caller discussed the Federalist's accusations (ref)." "Also in September Physics Today addressed the Federalist's accusations. (ref)" "Also in the Tampa Tribune... (ref)" "Also in x...(ref)" "Also in y...(ref)" "Also in z...(ref)"

This is absurd, and not supported by policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw man. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Simply listing sites is not OR per WP:NOTOR under section "Compiling facts and information" where it says: "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." Marteau (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read that quote again, Marteau: "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." So, what this is saying is that you're allowed to organize an article (such as in sections, paragraphs) but you're not allowed to present unpublished conclusions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most perfect examples of Wikilawyering in order to produce a desired result I have ever seen. Calling the sentence "Its allegations were picked-up, debated, or discussed in a variety of national media" a "conclusion" is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond it's intention. A conclusion is a judgement resulting from a process involving reasoning. That it was "picked-up, debated, or discussed" is bare fact; it does not require "reasoning" to say it's true, but only simple reading comprehension. Marteau (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with AQFK's contribution history, and I don't recall him ever engaging in "wikilawyering". Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you "recall" anyone whose POV you agreed with ever engaging in "wikilawyering"? And did you say anything at the time? Andyvphil (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am very familiar with much of AQFK's contributions, which are quite impressive, and don't recall any prior examples of "wikilawyering" That makes this instance all the more puzzling, because it is clearly "wikilawyering".--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tyson acknowledged that he had conflated one Bush quote with another, half-remembered, to make the point that it was Arabs, not Yahweh, who had named the stars."

This is pushy language, seems specially massaged to make it sound like Tyson was somehow right in some way, which he obviously wasn't. We should keep an encyclopedic tone: "Tyson acknowledged that he had misremembered a quote from another Bush speech, and stated that he had only wanted to make a point about past achievements in the Islamic world." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the most [refactored]], as opposed to merely lazy, thing that Tyson has been revealed to have done was to listen to Bush's Biblical quotation and write a note to himself (which in the event he was too lazy to locate) to the effect, apparently, that Bush had clowned himself by taking credit for star names that were actually Arabic. So, since I wrote the words you complain about, it should be obvious that they are not intended to make Tyson seem in any way correct. I would be in favor of making this clearer by quoting someone to the effect that attributing to Isaiah the intent to take credit for star charts drawn up a millennia after Isaiah's death is profoundly stupid, but I was in a hurry to replace a vacancy on the page and an appropriate source didn't spring to mind. In any case, I am adamantly opposed to the change you propose, since it removes all specifics, leaving a tasteless gruel, and I don't see anything particularly "encyclopedic" about bad writing. The bit about Yahweh is directly from Tyson's acknowledgement of error on Facebook, btw, where he still shows no inkling of how [refactored]] his interpretation of Bush's Biblical quotation is. Andyvphil (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil - even though you think you were clear in what you think you said, I think there is value in listening to what others tell you they get from how you phrase your message. Factchecker says that he got the impression that Tyson was being given an out by the words used, and opposed that phrasing on those terms. Factchecker's on your side, you name-calling knucklehead, and if you'd pay more attention to getting people to appreciate your pov instead of getting your way, you'd get further along in getting people to appreciate your values and your pov.Kerani (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

And I opposed his phrasing on different grounds than that it expressed a POV different than mine. Nor do I yet see anything in the words I wrote that implies Tyson isn't much to blame for his mistake. But if you can show me that, I'll propose a fix. Andyvphil (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil - don't ask me to show it to you, ask Factchecker.Kerani (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, when you urged me to "listen", I thought you were implying you had done what I had not, and had actually "heard" something you might be able to communicate to me. My bad. Andyvphil (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying the quote was "half-remembered" gives too much credit, and the prose about "it was Arabs, not Yahweh" is just so painfully opaque and context-free that it borders on nonsensical. It is a million miles from being encyclopedic. Not sure why that is hard to see. Try reading it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you know who Yahweh is (and that can be blue-linked), it seems perfectly clear to me. Tyson said it just like that, and I don't see why we should assume Wikipedia readers are less well informed than those who read his Facebook postings. I haven't got a clue as to what aspect of the word "encyclopedic" you imagine it violates. Unlike, "stated that he had only wanted to make a point about past achievements in the Islamic world" which is unencyclopedic because Tyson didn't say any such thing. Andyvphil (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice - Do you think this section would benefit from a (non-Federalist) quote, dating post-Tyson apology, which notes that Tyson's explanation does not cover the lack of appropriate reference? Or is that leading the reader?Kerani (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP and it applies also to this page. I have refactored certain words here. Stay on topic which is 'improvements to this article, not our own opinions on the subject. Andyvphil, can make your argument without calling the subject names, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Worse things have been said about "The Federalist" without you objecting. Goose/Gander. Andyvphil (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)!

The Federalist is not a person, and BLP would not apply unless someone was making a comment about one of the writers or the founders, in which case I would have refactored as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They might be small enough that WP:BLPGROUP applies, but also maybe not. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but I have not seen any foul language used, have you? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that Tyson is a liar could be a BLP vio, depending on where is said, who said it, and the proof offered; saying that it is profoundly stupid for him to take the quotation from Isaiah as a attempt to steal credit for naming stars from the Arabs, not as some later vague misremembering but as something he wrote a note to himself about, is simply accurate opinion, not libel. Nor a BLP vio. I strongly suggest you leave this paragraph alone. Andyvphil (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 03 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to The Federalist (website). However, there does not appear to be consensus for a merge. Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Thefederalist.com → The Federalist (website) – Now that the deletion efforts are done with, the page title ought to be improved as already discussed on this page. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a specific convention for the title of articles about news and commentary ebsites, but the standard seems to be using self-identification, not web addresses. In this case, that would be Federalist or The Federalist, but the former is ambiguous and the latter primarily means the Federalist Papers. As such, the suggestion above to move this article to The Federalist (website) seems to be the best option. It's certainly better than using a web URL. 64.134.185.48 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Rename to The Federalist (website), and merge and redirect to Ben Domenech#The Federalist The Afd ended in keep, and the closer suggested a merge discussion could happen here. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to "The Federalist (website)". Oppose merge and redirect; instead, improve this article using the sources identified in the unsuccessful deletion debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Move and redirect of the current page to the new page. Appears to be the logical choice. Can't imagine there will be much opposition to this. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Ben Domenech page. S806 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support rename and oppose merge. The use of ".com" in an article title may cause confusion. The AfD determined that the website meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, and there is no reason to think that more people will search for a founder's BLP than for this article, and that is the primary argument which would be needed to support a "merge". (Ben Domenech gets all of 40 page views per day (Sep 2014), Thefederalist.com gets currently well over 500 page views per day. ) Collect (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Give it 10 days and it will go back to 50-80 page views: [1]. And don't forget that our own views also count, lol. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a merge and redirect, people looking for the website will reach the content in the section about the website on Domenech's article. I am sure you knew that already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rename and merge as per Cwobeel. DocumentError (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. Trying to sneak through a merge after consensus was overwhelmingly clear about it being kept as is feels like dirty pool to me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:ATD-M, and understand how discussions work before making accusations. S806 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that, thanks. I stand by my general comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist is an active enterprise. I see no reason to think the article on it is "unlikely to be expanded". Andyvphil (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rename and not merge. The need for renaming is obvious, and widely supported. Let's work through that and deal with merging later, so as not to confuse the issue. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and MERGE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION - The Federalist section on Ben Domenech's page should be stubbed down to maybe two or three sentences, with a link to this article. Alsee (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support rename and oppose merge. Apparently this website has multiple founders, so merging it to the page of one particular founder would be inappropriate. JS (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect/merge. As it stands right now, the article is a small blurb about somebody's project, with a current/active NPOV section that obliterates the purpose of the Wikipedia entry (information about the subject). Insertion of this Stub on the article Ben Domenech will both prevent deletion of the subject and retain all its (influx) current data. - 76.89.136.191 (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect/merge. It seems plain that the article is barely a stub; it would be better off incorporated into its founder's article. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. Agree with Alsee's suggestion above that the content about the website in the Domenech article be brought to this one. Kelly ^hi! 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename, no merge. I haven't seen any involvement by Domenech in the Tyson issue at all, it's all Sean Davis. Putting the The Federalist material in Domenech's article is an attempted two-step deletion as it will soon be argued by the same people who want the merge that it shouldn't be there or should be made microscopic. "Obvious [WP:UNDUE], blah, blah, blah..." Andyvphil (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral on rename. Oppose merge at this time. We just passed an RFC to keep the article, and while merging is consistent with the RFC result I'm not seeing anything close to a consensus to merge. There's also the issue of where to merge it: there are two co-founders and it's not clear which one would be the better choice. Putting the material in both is sub-optimal, so my call would be to leave the stub and try to expand it. If a year from now it's still a stub I'd consider a merge. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral on rename. Oppose merge. Whether the article is renamed or not, it will still have to go on the disambiguation page, so I see no clear advantage either way. As for the merge, I think Mr. Swordfish has the right of it - not clear that it belongs on either or both of the founder's pages. Give it a bit, wait to see if the water clears.Kerani (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Rename and oppose merge The name is not the WP:COMMONNAME in any of the refs. The most notable (and well ref'd) parts of this organization don't mention the potential merge target. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• redirect and merge -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment I have no opinion on the move, but I'm wondering about the rationale of having no redirect. Seems to me if someone is searching for thefederalist.com they should wind up on this article, wherever it may end up. Am I missing something? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that a redirect to the new page would be the natural course of action. I don't think it needs to be specified, but I did add that to my support. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment To those suggesting a merge (essentially a delete), we just had an AfD, and this RfC is specifically to renaming of this page. If you want to try and merge/delete this page, then start a new RfC, but it is not proper to hi-jack this RfC. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A merge isn't a delete, and has never been a delete. Evidence [2] S806 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A Distinction without a difference. Regardless, this is not a merge RfC. Start a new RfC if you want to merge. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:ATD-M. Also, this is the place to discuss this. I oppose move and suggest merge and redirect. Not sure how I can be more clear. S806 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears pretty clear that a move is in order here. Can we close this up and complete it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:BLP violation in "Neil deGrasse Tyson articles and Wikipedia controversy" section.

Per WP:BLP, I've removed the first sentence[3] because it was sourced to thefederalist.com, which is clearly not a reliable source for this content. Yes, I realize that the section now makes less sense without this sentence, but whoever wrote it shouldn't have used non-reliable sources in the first place. The material can be restored, perhaps modified, based on what reliable sources actually say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think we can and should use the direct link for attribution purposes, but I've readded it using existing sources that are clearly reliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section for Tyson misattribute issue

Current version -

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several articles alleging that physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson had misrepresented as actual quotes, in multiple repeated presentations, a fake newspaper headline, a fake quote from a member of Congress, and an alleged claim by President George W. Bush that it was his God, not Islam's, that had named the stars.[7][8] The Daily Beast, Tampa Tribune, and other news outlets also covered the story in editorials.[9][10] Tyson acknowledged that he had conflated one Bush quote with another, half-remembered, to make the point that it was Arabs, not Yahweh, who had named the stars.[11] The Federalist, news sources and commentators also took note of debates on Wikipedia as to whether this issue should be included on Tyson's article and whether the article about The Federalist website should be deleted.[12][13][14][5][6]

My proposal (includes one new source, others (obviously) to be added later) -

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several source criticism articles concerning physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, alleging that Tyson had committed scientific misconduct by repeatedly including in his prepared presentation material quotes which were either mis-attributed, altered, or could not be independently verified. The most significant of these accusations concerned a 2003 quote by President George W. Bush, which Tyson had repeatedly used to illustrate scientific illiteracy.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13049/11-badass-neil-degrasse-tyson-quotes Davis cited information supporting the claim that Tyson had mis-attributed the timeframe, source and intent of the original quote and called on Tyson to apologize. The Federalist was joined by The Tampa Tribune, Salon, and the Washington Examiner, among others, in discussing the misuse of the Bush quote. Articles at the Federalist and elsewhere went on to cover debates on Wikipedia as to whether this issue should be included on Tyson's article and whether the article about The Federalist website should be deleted. Tyson eventually acknowledged that he had mis-remembered the Bush quote and stated that he would apologize in an appropriate venue.

Kerani (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

References

As written, it would constitute over half of the article and tacitly imply that this is the only thing thefederalist.com is notable for. Something more like:

In September, 2014, The Federalist's Davis wrote several critical articles concerning physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, alleging that Tyson had mis-quoted President George W. Bush. Tyson acknowledged that he had mis-remembered the Bush quote and apologized.

would be more in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that proposal. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we want to avoid undue length here. I think that while (earlier) attempts to include notes on every step of the controversy would be unproductive, it would also be sub-optimal to cut the mention down too far. I think that three additional things need to be noted: 1) The Federalist noted multiple, repeated dubious quotes by Tyson 2) The Federalist noted Tyson had made the Bush quote part of Tyson's narrative about science literacy and 3) (most significantly) the controversy included Wikipedia and the Federalist article. I think all three of these are important (and notable) parts of the event (with 2, for now, getting the least attention).Kerani (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Mr. Swordfish's proposal. I don't agree with all of Kerani's. (1) is redundant as it's covered by Mr. Swordfish's wording. (2) is unnecessary - this article is supposed to be about the website, not Tyson. (3) is possibly OK if it can be established that the Wikipedia angle really was a significant element of the controversy - and I don't count Thefederalist.com's own rantings as evidence of significance. Above all, I would say that WP:WEIGHT is the most important issue here. This article shouldn't and mustn't be a WP:COATRACK for making allegations against Tyson. Prioryman (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also - I think it's not unreasonable to think that the main section will get larger when the protection lock is lifted. This will help balance weight.Kerani (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything we can add to that, where sources are saying more about thefederalist? Alsee (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Salon, The Week, and The Daily Beast characterized the issue as an attack on global warming proponents in general. Kelly ^hi! 07:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that subtext is pretty obvious by now. Prioryman (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Raw Story also provide a different angle:

"For the most part conservatives were fine with Tyson when he stuck to talking about space and black holes and other otherworldly stuff. But this past year he stuck his toe into the climate change non-debate and you would have thought he wanted to sex up a Duggar daughter, such was the umbrage. And so it came to pass that Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist with Ben Domenech, came up with what he believes is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s gotcha moment. [...] The whole point is that Davis is trying to diminish and discredit Tyson, a popular scientist and public intellectual, before he starts to expand his influence and does damage to those who have a vested interest in dismissing climate science..."^[4]

— TPX 09:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to take the angle that, if only those nasty conservative bloggers hadn't questioned what Tyson said, then this nasty smear would not be on Tyson's record. Which is...unsupportable. Tyson himself (to his credit) has acknowledged the error in source confirmation. It wasn't climate change deniers who forced Tyson in front of a camera and threatened him with decapitation if Tyson didn't make false accusations against Bush re: science illiteracy & religious bigotry. This is a Tyson own goal, and it's really, really weak tea to claim that the motivations of the fact-checkers outweigh the accuracy of the quote.Kerani (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Raw Story tidbit is emphatically non-notable and rather silly opinion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am persuaded by Prioryman that point #2 (how Tyson misused the quote) is more about Tyson than the.Federalist and am willing to drop that point from inclusion by this article. I strongly disagree that the multiple and serial source verification violations by Tyson were covered in Mr. Swordfish's language - the multiple items Mr Swordfish referenced were 'articles by the.Federalist' not 'errors by Tyson'. I think that 2-3 properly chosen words can convey this point accurately without unduely weighing down the article.Kerani (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Far be it from us to weigh down this article, given its exhausting length, with enough detail for a reader to get an inkling as to what The Federalist articles were demonstrating... er, "alleging"... and why they got the reaction they did. Hey, Tyson, speaking off the cuff, got the date wrong for Bush's attack on Islam and triumphalist affirmation of the One True God -- what's the big deal about that? Hey, he apologized (or has promised to), this article's not about Tyson, why bring his name up?

I'm not remembering this allegation of "scientific misconduct", however. It doesn't sound likely - Tyson's talks aren't science. Neither did "The Federalist" engage in source criticism ("...The Danish word “kildekritik” like the Norwegian word “kildekritikk” and the Swedish word “källkritik” derived from the German “Quellenkritik”...") -- it's not a Scandanavian or German academic publication, and what it was criticizing was not Tyson's sources but his track record. Andyvphil (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems a great deal of the press coverage has resulted from writers on this site making fun of Tyson for saying dumb stuff and being blinded by his ideology and desire to lash out at Republicans. It is this article, and not Tyson's BLP, that is exactly the correct place for extended material about this incident. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It does not belong at Tyson's article per WP:BLP, and neither here for the same reasons. See WP:POVFORK in addition to WP:COATRACK - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding each of the policies you just cited. There are no BLP issues prohibiting the inclusion of the material anywhere on Wikipedia. It is simply a matter of encyclopedic tone and proper weight that the Tyson article not be bogged down with extended material about this incident, because it's not really all that biographically significant, nor is the federalist's own commentary on the matter especially notable such that it should be discussed at length in a BLP about the target of the criticism, rather than the proponent. You cite POVFORK but that isn't really relevant. Nor is it a plausible citation to COATRACK; this dustup with Tyson is rather central to TheFederalist's notability. Actually, a big long section on this incident at Tyson's BLP would raise coatrack concerns. But here it's directly on-topic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the coatrack issue is very real. As the WP:COATRACK page says at the top, "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing." Absent the Tyson controversy, there are only 58 words (!) in this article. It's barely even a sub-stub. If you have a situation where coverage of a side topic far exceeds that of the main topic, that's the very definition of a coatrack. It might be different if the main section of this article was more substantial but I'm struck by the fact that despite several weeks of controversy nobody seems to have found much more to say about this website other than the Tyson controversy. Prioryman (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The magazine was already discussed in a couple articles, but that is beside the point. Your understanding of the COATRACK essay is obtunded. As it says, "...A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability."([WP:WINAC]) So far the attention received for undressing Tyson is the main source of outside attention to the magazine, though not the only one. IAW [WP:UNDUE], the fraction of this article that should be devoted to its contribution to the Tyson revelations should be "in proportion to [it's] prominence... in the published, reliable sources." By that measure it is too small, but we can fix that. Andyvphil (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with an astronaut's trip to the moon is absolutely fallacious. A moon walk is a hugely significant historical event, covered in numerous high-quality sources over an extended period of time. In contrast, any objective observer would deem l'affaire Tyson a very limited controversy in terms of both time and coverage; essentially a one-week controversy, principally covered in various unreliable sources (i.e. blogs), with very limited coverage from second- or third-tier reliable sources. Major media outlets have almost entirely ignored the issue. I'm not aware of there having been any further developments, so it can't be said that this is an ongoing controversy. In short, this is an issue of at best very low notability - at best, maybe notable enough to mention briefly.

Let's be clear. This is supposed to be an article about Thefederalist.com. It is not an article about Tyson. Attempting to turn it into an article about Tyson is very clearly coatracking. Although WP:POVFORK does not strictly apply in the case of an existing article, its spirit would certainly be violated if editors who had failed to insert their preferred form of words into the main Tyson article sought to insert it here. Any coverage of the Tyson controversy here should be limited to Thefederalist's role in the affair and the consequences for Thefederalist. I'll have a go at suggesting a form of words later today when I've had a chance to think about it. Prioryman (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's clear up a couple things. The article subject is notable enough for an article, material on the Tyson fracas is central to the subject's notability, and there is plenty of RS material on it. There won't be an issue unless the article becomes too long for Wikipedia, and that won't be for many, many kilobytes. There is not a WP policy saying "only dumb conservatives would enjoy reading this, so we should keep this article very short".

Also, any fair and encyclopedic reflection of this debate is going to have profoundly unflattering implications for Tyson, so his fans should make peace with that sooner rather than later.

Prioryman, it is impossible to take seriously your suggestion that material reflecting this incident is somehow off-topic. Your reading of POVFORK is also entirely unsupported by the actual substance of that policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look forward to Prioryman's suggestion. After all we will need to reach a compromise that we can all live with. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On WP there is no need to compromise for the sake of non-policy-based complaints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How long have you been in WP? Compromise is always an option in content disputes, if you have not noticed. WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My way or the highway may work in other venues, but it does not work here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read that policy again, carefully this time, you'll see that the words "legitimate" and "while following Wikipedia policies" confirm that I am, of course, right. And you can easily check for yourself how long I've been editing WP. (Spoiler: a lot longer than you.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern, and it addresses policies that editors here have raised. You can think you are right as much as I and others can think the same, hence the need for compromise. As for your editcountitis, thank you for your contributions to the pedia, but it has no bearing on this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Merely name-dropping a policy has no effect, because policies mean something and WP is not a democracy when it comes to deciding what those policies are.

And you're the one who brought up the length of my . . . tenure. Thus your comment on "editcountitis" — which I've never heard of before, perhaps because I make no attempt to pad my edit history with pages of trivial or bot-generated edits — seems rather silly indeed, not to mention irrelevant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at this page, there is a substantial number of editors that disagree on how to (or if at all) report on the Tyson incident. In these cases, there is no place for an argument of "I am right". We will need to follow WP:DR, and reach consensus on a way forward, and for that we will need to compromise and find a middle ground. DR in wikipedia 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaints lacking any grounding in policy will not have any more effect in DR than they do here. Complaints that are grounded in policy are relatively easy to articulate, and will make themselves obvious. The complaint stated above by Prioryman is not grounded in policy. And no matter how much you might wish that it were so, WP's social policies never provide a way to bypass its content policies. That's Wikipedia 100. You're clearly not ready for 101. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can easily argue the same against your position, but I would not waste my time. Clearly there is no consensus and we will need to find it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash. You can't make the argument so you're not going to try. Because there's no argument to be made. Such posturing has zero weight on WP and does not guide the writing of articles. Take it to the boards if you feel otherwise. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call it hogwash all you want, but that does not change the fact that material that was removed from Tyson's article as a WP:BLP violation, can magically re-appear here in contradiction of the same policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You can spew hogwash all you want, but it won't make a non-existent "BLP violation" magically materialize where none actually exists. Or if one existed, you could say what it is. But there isn't one. So you can't say what it is. Again, such meaningless posturing has no effect on WP, and at this point your comments are an abuse of this talk page because all you're doing is saying "nuh uh"... over and over again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you just want to have the last word ... but basically the material was removed from the Tyson article due to BLP and UNDUE violations, and need to be removed from here per the same plus COATRACK and POVFORK. Alternatively, we can try an find a compromise, to which you also object. So what's next? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page now has 29 sections and a variety of old discussions. I would like to archive those that haven't been talked about in 10 days. I post here to make sure there in consensus for that. --Obsidi (talk ) 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I set up auto-archiving on the page but feel free to jump-start the process with the old discussions. Kelly ^hi! 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that didn't notice that you had set it up just a few minutes before I posted. --Obsidi (talk ) 13:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So much for notability

It is amazing that after a highly contested AFD, there is nothing to expand this article. So much for notability. I'd like to see some of those that advocated for keep, to see if they can find some material for this stub. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is amazing that an editor who advertises in his user space he's an inclusionist is so interested in deleting an article that meets notability guidelines. The publication has been in business barely a year. As time goes on, more opportunities for content will continue to emerge as The Federalist grows and ages. There's no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is such a notable website, why in hell there is nothing written about it? There are many websites that started a year ago and they are not in Wikipedia, for a very good reason. Regarding your comment about inclusionism, read the goals of the project m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians#Goals. It is not what you think. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at The Daily Caller. It was started on Jan 2010 , and survived a speedy deletion,[5]. A year later, by January 2011 [6] it had enough sources to meet WP:WEBCRIT. We are a year into The Federalist’s life and what do we have? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What do we have? We have a stub article. There are numerous stub articles in Wikipedia. The following is from WP:PSA: "When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it...Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to improve it."

This article stub is precisely in the place where other editors will be able to expand it and improve upon it. Which is exactly what Wikipedia is about. Because, of course, there still is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As a delete voter, this article is fine in its current state and, once some of this hand-wringing ends, will be able to be expanded using a lot of different sources that will invariably crop up. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be, either. There are plenty of other articles that have been kept that have no sources talking about it whatsoever, this isn't one of them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Saturday night, Cwobeel's got a partisan axe to grind and he's real surprised no one else wants to play. Shocked, shocked. This idiot doesn't understand WP policy, merely sees it as a tool for attacking conservatives. OH, NOTE ALSO SMART GUY, the article was LOCKED UNTIL LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO — in no small part due to your histrionics and anti-policy editing crusades. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attack is noted. Please cool it, discuss the edit and not the editor is the way to go. Being angry at me only reflects poorly on you. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Guess what? You're both the same color and do the same things. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have never attacked an editor. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE ALSO that there was no actual edit to discuss — since this was merely a childish partisan rant by a relentlessly axe-grinding editor who's just mad that his dumb AFD failed and now wants to argue vacuously over the result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, there's always this [7] (and a history of others), but who's counting? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am counting, and that was not a personal attack. In any case, this discussion is not going anywhere useful besides being a playground for personal attacks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It started off as an inappropriate and silly rant by you, and at no point did it have anything to do with an actual policy objection. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reception section

There is very little material in 3rd party sources that describe this website, and I have posted there what I have found. If anyone can find anything else, please add. But please don't remove content. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You threatened to add a bunch of negative stuff if this article was not deleted, why am I not surprised? Arzel (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

MMfA is not a reliable source for this type of information, and is not a noted source of this content. Why should it stay? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It was once of the major pieces cited by editors voting keep in the deletion discussion as significant coverage of The Federalist. If we're not going to use it, then perhaps we should revisit the deletion discussion as those keeps would be invalid. Gamaliel (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. You'll recall that I voted delete, as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be negative for you, but for anti-LGBT conservatives, it is a blessing. We have just a very small number of sources that describe The Federalist, and this is one of them. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to push a POV about The Federalist. It's not a source that describes it, it's a non-noteworthy criticism. Has anyone else noted this criticism? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's especially encyclopedic to include guilt-by-association criticisms from partisan editorials of the form "X likes Y, and look how awful X is" (in an article about Y). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is as encyclopedic as any other material on the article. Their anti-LGBT position is well noted, and they are proud of it. [8] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking material that notes LGBT positions that Federalist has taken, as I already made very very explicit to you and it's really quite annoying that you're making a point of pretending I said something else, please see the definition of STRAW MAN and other dishonest argumentation techniques. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the concerns I brought up in the AfD debate was that although there are a few independent sources, there are none which portray The Federalist in a non-negative light. Perhaps the only way to avoid the NPOV issue in view of this limitation is to change the title of the "Reception" section to "Criticism". I also think this section can be pared down quite a bit - the criticisms can be summarized much more succinctly, and doing so might help simplify this talk page debate. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Positive" or "negative" is in the eyes of the beholder. The anti-LGBT position, for example, is something that they are proud of, devoting an entire section of their website to that issue. If we have an article on this website, we have to use what we have, and despite many editors weighing in on the AFD, no one has made any significant effort to expand the article with what has been reported. I spent hours looking for material, which I have added. If more material surfaces later, it can be added then as many have argued. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Criticism" sections should be avoided in articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it is hard to avoid having such a section in an article about an entity that is solely notable for being criticized. I would say this article already has a "criticism" section, and the whole NPOV issue is that it isn't called that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this was its state before the AFD: [9] ... and the keep votes in the AfD were referencing a number of articles, all of which have been used in the current version. As we can't reopen the AFD now, we have to live with what we have. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the POV tag, as it's not really a "reception" section but rather a series of hit pieces, one of which is not even a reliable or noteworthy one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have thought about it during the AFD: You canlt have it both ways, one way saying that The Federalist is notable for an article, and another way saying that the only sources that describe the website are not usable. The AFD was conclusive: the website is notable because there are sources that describe it, so we report what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your obsession with re-fighting the AFD and lashing out at those who opposed deletion is telling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not re-fighting the AFD. On the contrary, just note that most of the material on the article was added by me after the protection ended, so go and complain about something else, because you have lost the argument here. Now, will you do some of the hard work and improve the article? That's a question. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you'll recall I voted delete. My issue is mostly with one unnoted, unreliable source you chose to re-add after I removed it. The rest can and probably should be condensed for weight purposes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, condense away but not so much as to remove all usefulness from the content, and if you find anything new, by all means add as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I removed the nonreliable source, you added it right back. Are you going to do that again? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not. I have voluntarily taken myself out of the fry, and will not edit this article or comment on this page until Nov 1st. happy editing and good luck. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP - ARBCOM

I removed the Tyson material. Please note that WP:BLP applies here, and that there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in place for this matter. DO NOT include here, until the discussion in completed on the Tyson page. What the policy says, exactly, is: "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Do not WP:COATRACK this matter into WP until discussion is resolved. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, there is not a WP:BLP concern for things sourced by a WP:BLPSELFPUB. Nor do I have to wait for an unrelated discussion to finish before stopping your deletion. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read WP:SELFPUB, point 2. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very serious, the quote by Neil Tyson is about Neil Tyson, he can say what he did himself. It does not involve 3rd parties to say what he did. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the material that you reverted to. It speaks about Sean Davis wrote a series of articles at the site accusing noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson of fabricating quotes. How is that SELFPUB? That material was removed from the Tyson article due to violations of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and there are Arbcom discretionary sanctions in this regard. You need consensus to add any disputed material in a BLP or related to a BLP, which applies in this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also attributed and linked to the federalist article accusing him. The federalist is the source and cited, it also cites to a WP:NEWSBLOG (as it says " If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")). This is attributed material explaining who did the accusation, it doesn't say the accusation is true. The only line that does say it is true is properly cited to a WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions about this material, it's clear this revert was inappropriate. BLP issues should be discussed on the talk page, not the subject of revert wars. Consensus should be developed before it is restored. Note that BLP issues are not subject to the three revert rule. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In a conversation that Obsidi opened on my Talk page here, I suggested that we wait until the RfC on the Tyson talk page is resolved. There is WP:NODEADLINE, hopefully everybody can live with that. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I take WP:BLP issues very seriously. That's why when he did remove the material and claimed it was a WP:BLP issue, I asked him what his WP:BLP issue was on his talk page[10]. He did not provide me with any reason for the WP:BLP issue (or at least any reason I believe to be an valid WP:BLP concern) so I reverted what I still believed to be a disruptive edit falsely claiming WP:BLP issues. Here is what the administrator User:Sphilbrick said about a similar claimed WP:BLP related removal to Neil Tyson's page by User:Cwobeel: "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." until consensus is found for inclusion I don't think a single revert AFTER asking why there was a WP:BLP concern and not receiving a specific answer is wrong. A single revert isn't "getting into an edit war" (normally it is WP:BRD). It was put back and I plan to go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, to stop (what I believe to be) an improper WP:BLP claim. --Obsidi (talk ) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. Thank you Jytdog for letting him know I talked to you on your talk page, I do appreciate that. --Obsidi (talk ) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What, precisely, is the BLP violation that is being asserted at this article? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog provided a reason in his comment here. If a consensus of editors find that reason to be spurious, then the material can be restored. Until then, there is no hurry to restore the material when an editor has brought BLP concerns to this page in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted content. It is factual and well sourced. Jytdog may have "invoked BLP," but there is no credible basis for doing so, nor has Jytdog provided any. I can assert the moon is made of green cheese, but that is not the basis for a serious argument. None of the facts in the restored material are in dispute, and the Tyson controversy has contributed significantly to the subject publication's present notability/notoriety. From my perspective, this is a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no BLP or NPOV violation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Should nae have done that, while discussions are pending. suggest you self-revert but you will of course do as you please. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, please assume good faith, do your best to reduce your combative tone, and let us consolidate this discussion in a single place, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209#The Federalist (website), where we are most likely to get more informed discussion participants involved. You could start by providing, in detail and with specificity, a description of what your good faith objection to including this content in The Federalist (website) is -- because from your statement above, it is far from clear, and seems only to be "BLP - ARBCOM!" In any event, I will be happy to discuss this further on the BLP/Noticeboard page linked above, and I will do my best to maintain an open mind regarding any arguments and or elucidations of BLP and guidelines you or others may provide. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As discussion is ongoing in how to treat this material, which pertains to a living person, then BLP requires keeping it out until the matter is settled through dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP policy-violating content in that material. Nobody making the BLP complaints is even bothering to specify what the violation is. Kelly ^hi! 11:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. False. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All discussion participants are respectfully requested to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209#The Federalist (website), where we can involve more knowledgeable editors in this ongoing discussion, and so that we consolidate the discussion in a single location. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, you are the one who is edit warring per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the specific BLP violation you are claiming? Kelly ^hi! 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(E/c)The violation that is stated is that it gives undue weight to information about a living person, which read BLP is a violation of BLP. It's absurd to claim that an organization claim to notability is giving undue weight to a part of a living persons life, and then repeat what it has given undue weight to. (I am out of time and may be able to return later)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, I've reverted twice, and so have you. Are we both edit-warring? The "revert and deny" gamesmanship, and the unsupported assertions of BLP violations, are the reasons I have chosen to enter this discussion; such conduct violates my sense of fair play. BTW, no one has yet made a credible statement of what the BLP violation regarding The Federalist article actually is. Please join the consolidated discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209#The Federalist (website); perhaps you can articulate what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, you edit warred against policy with your first revert. That is not how to deal with any open policy compliant/editing discussion let alone with BLP material. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kelly, you are respectfully requested to move the discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive209#The Federalist (website) for the reasons stated above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to poorly sourced or unsourced contentious claims. Is the claim that Tyson misquoted Bush poorly sourced or unsourced? Is the claim that he misquoted Bush contentious? At this point, with Tyson stating he misquoted Bush, it is hard to accept that as an argument against mentioning that claim here. BLP absolutely allows mentioning living persons in other articles, so that sort of argument fails here. "Undue weight about a living person" is not something which is a policy-based argument at this point. Collect (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone here was under notice already that BLP and discretionary sanctions are in effect for this subject matter. I am expecting admin judgement/action today on the edit warring to restore the contested content to the article. Gamaliel made the same warning. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, enough with the silly warnings already. Nobody has ever made a case, much less gotten any consensus, that there is the least amount of BLP violation with the material. Kelly ^hi! 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Without all the warnings, we might actually have to talk about BLP policy and its application to this article. Perish the thought. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The warnings are not silly. WP policy and sanctions are not silly. The WP admin machinery doesn't move as fast as the blogosphere, but it moves. Discussion is and has been underway at BLPN. I encourage everyone to take part and try to hear one another. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say WP policy was silly. The warnings being issued pursuant to a blatant abuse of policy are silly. Your BLP case will go nowhere because you have no case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

please AGF. if you honestly believe I am acting in bad faith please bring me to ANI for being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of bad faith, just bad judgment. And, I am content to let you flail around while your spurious admin complaint goes nowhere, because that takes less effort on my part and it's a problem you created in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I see; at least I have that going for me. :) You continue to make comments on contributors, not content, which speaks for itself. In any case I will continue to work toward improving WP. So far, with one exception, things are going as I expected with the issues on this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have managed to breathe 10,000 words on this subject without even hinting at what BLP violations might possibly exist if non-progressives were allowed to edit this article. That, sir, speaks for itself. Your insistence on strict adherence to social policies, coupled with a complete lack of concern for integrity and correcteness in application of content policies, exposes your position for what it is. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

he continues making comments on contributors. in any case, i have said very little; others have written much more, and more bitterly. i have stated a case; sorry if you lost it in the thornbush of words that has grown up around this. here is where i stated my case most clearly, i think. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So in a nutshell you object to using the word "fabricating" irrespective of what the sources say. That can be easily addressed by attributing the language or even using a different word. Done. Is that really it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

lovely, you picked up the bolded word. thank you. :) there is more than just that. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you have objections that (1) cannot be clearly expressed in English words, or (2) cannot be expressed with clear reference to Wikipedia policy, then those objections carry no weight and actually shouldn't even be talked about here. Just a suggestion to hopefully guide your next Talk page comment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Physics Today article

This was removed with an edit summary that includes this" the information doesn't talk about Federalist except in passing:

According to an article in Physics Today, the Discovery Institute, a political organization that defends the theory of intelligent design, has been echoing The Federalist attacks on Neil deGrasse Tyson. They mention Robert Tracinski, a writer for the website who linked his criticism of Tyson in an article under the headline "Neil deGrasse Tyson and the science of smug condescension" by using "standard right-wing climate-war assertions" about global-warming, global cooling and the controversy they call "Climategate", and refers to the criticism as a political attack.

References

This is what the source says:

In September, several attacks have appeared at a year-old political website called The Federalist, published by Benjamin Domenech, a senior fellow at an institution known particularly in the climate wars: the Heartland Institute. Domenech has appeared on national TV. The site has been cited at CNN.com, The Hill, RealClearPolitics, and at least six times at the Wall Street Journal, which has also published at least three brief online commentaries from The Federalist’s writers. [...] Another piece appeared under the headline “Neil deGrasse Tyson and the science of smug condescension.” The Federalist identifies the author, Robert Tracinski, as having been “published in dozens of newspapers, from the Chicago Tribune to the San Francisco Chronicle” and “featured on many radio and television shows, from Rush Limbaugh to ‘The O’Reilly Factor.’” Tracinski declares that the Davis attacks’ “common denominator” is Tyson’s alleged “tendency to construct stories that make Tyson—and, by extension, his fans in the audience—seem smart and sophisticated, while making his straw man opponents, particularly politicians on the right, look bumbling and ignorant.” Tracinski's piece eventually links the criticisms to standard right-wing climate-wars assertions concerning the global-warming hiatus, global-cooling worries expressed in past decades, and stolen email messages in the controversy that Tracinski and others call “Climategate.” [...] The intelligent-design-defending Discovery Institute, another political organization cited in major media, has been echoing The Federalist’s attacks. One online posting invoked tweets in support of Davis’s campaign from Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, and from Ann Coulter, the conservative TV pundit. Another, also praising Davis’s campaign, called Tyson “a political propagandist for a particular secular agenda, not an objective observer of science.” Yet another mostly just quoted Davis.

These are three paragraphs in an article consisting of eight paragraphs, hardly not in passing, and clearly the centerpiece of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That section is about the Discovery Institute. The message you and the article is trying to make is quite clear. The Discovery Institute has echoed The Federalist, thus the Federalist promotes Intelligent Design. This is clearly a WP:COATRACK paragraph. Arzel (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you misunderstand. The Physics Today article has plenty to say about the Federalist. Unfortunately the information included in this wikipedia edit is about the Discovery Institute. That is not appropriate to this article because it is peripheral to the Physics Today article and to this wikipedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading the same text and the same article than me? Assuming you are, I can't understand how can you reach these conclusions. The article is focused on The Federalist's attacks on Tyson, which they call "political" and provides the context for their assertions. If you have a better way to summarize that article, by all means do it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the point is moot per the comment in the next section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't recall the exact policy but as mentioned above I believe that this guilt-by-asscotiation stuff is to be avoided. The bulk of that material isn't actually about The Federalist. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the stuff about the Discovery Institute, and left the other pertinent material. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Obsidi:, please discuss your rationale for removing this [11]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at all the comments up above, there is FAR from consensus to include this. To me it seems to be both WP:UNDUE as on off hand comment by one source. And takes even that somewhat out of context because it doesn't include the line before it: "Tracinski declares that the Davis attacks’ “common denominator” is Tyson’s alleged “tendency to construct stories that make Tyson—and, by extension, his fans in the audience—seem smart and sophisticated, while making his straw man opponents, particularly politicians on the right, look bumbling and ignorant.”" It clearly is intended to attack the federalist in a not-NPOV. --Obsidi (talk ) 17:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. If there is no consensus to include material from this source, there is no consensus either to include the other material. No double standards, please. Removed entire section until consensus is achieved. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. There is consensus to include the other material. Or if you feel there isn't, please go initiate a long series of admin complaints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is consensus, does not make it so. Just look at the article history. As for your continuous personal attacks, including making spurious claims about my editing, please note that I don't give a fuck you don't appreciate my contributions, which BTW are the only substantial contributions to this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is a lack of consensus, or propping up BS non-policy arguments, does not give you a leg to stand on. I, also, give zero fucks about what you think, because you are a terrible editor who is dedicated to screwing up WP via absurd partisanship that makes it look bad to outsiders.

"Which BTW are the only substantial contributions" -- just lol, just LOL, after all your desperate attempts to whitewash (hey, that's a word that rarely gets used accurately on WP!) this article, then the lockdown which ensued largely as a result of your ridiculous partisan efforts, and your continued deletion of material that reflects poorly on Tyson, are the main reasons the article is so short. You might as well pour a bucket of water on somebody's head and then say "HEY BRO Y R U SO WET?" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL or not LOL, most of the material in the article has been researched and added by me. Like it or not, I am doing all the bloody work while you just complain, revert, and attack editors that disagree with you. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Still LOL'ING, because actually you are doing your best to make sure that only you, and editors who share your political views, have any opportunity to edit the article, and meanwhile I am sure you are working diligently to lock in the particular bias you want the article to take, and priming yourself to argue that it is somehow the product of "consensus" despite being solely your work or despite being edit-warred in over clearly stated objections. How precious. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the template {{pp-protected}} to the top of the article. Someone forgot to add it.--Auric talk 00:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done except that I used the more specific {{pp-dispute}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a functional equivalent. Says nothing about disabling editing. Andyvphil (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've looked for current uses of {{pp-protected}} on a fully-prot page to see what the difference might be; there's one on New York Institute of Technology. That doesn't say anything about disabling editing either - I observe two differences between {{pp-protected}} and {{pp-dispute}}: the mouseover tooltip on the lock icon ("This article is protected until ..." vs "This article is protected until ... due to editing disputes") and the categorisation (Category:Wikipedia protected pages vs Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute). It is surely better to reflect the actual reason for protection than to show no reason at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've encountered fully protected pages many times, and I've never before seen it not mentioned that editing is disabled until such-and-such a time. Wtf? Andyvphil (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To editor Andyvphil: As is normal on fully protected pages, there is a padlock symbol at the upper right-hand side of the article. Point your mouse at it and it tells you the expiry date of the protection. Just the same as all the fully protected articles I've encountered. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, maybe my experience with fully protected articles goes back further than yours, but is not of recent enough vintage to include such a discreet notification to a potential editor that a backstage struggle is going on. The corresponding template, at least as I recall, used to say in plaintext visible without hovering that editing of the article had been suspended. I don't think that this is an improvement. Andyvphil (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Most protection templates produce the padlock icon, and this is how the majority are used. Some can produce the box-type message as an alternative to the padlock; {{pp-dispute}} is one of those, so I have removed the |small=yes parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Particularly since the attempt to delete this article is getting attention outside of Wikipedia the box will be much more informative for some visitors than the padlock. Andyvphil (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We now have not even the padlock. The admin (Dreadstar) who effectively took sides in the content dispute by accepting as dispositive an allegation of BLP violation that he refused to evaluate also seems to have not known the mechanical details of protection procedure. Please restore the box informing visitors of the protection and its length. Again. Andyvphil (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The {{pp-protected}} that I added on 27 September became invisible when the prot that it was associated with was lifted at 21:25, 30 September 2014 (it would have done so anyway when that prot expired at 00:34, 4 October 2014). Since then, the page has been protected twice, once at 20:23, 3 October 2014 (expiring 20:23, 10 October 2014)‎ under its old name and once at 23:33, 13 October 2014 (expiring 23:33, 20 October 2014) under its new name. Done but please note that the box which I have just added will therefore vanish again tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. I understand that the box will disappear when the protection disappears. And I will probably have to repeat this request when the page is protected again as the protecting admin may supply only the padlock. This last time, however, there wasn't even a padlock. That's just incompetence. Andyvphil (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)