You can view some discussion about Tyson's quotes here and reasons for and against including it, kind of dry but interesting.
Idea tally
Since RfC's are not meant to be votes, but rather to help solicit viewpoints towards building consensus (based on strength of arguments), I looked through the comments above to try and find common arguments used by both sides. I totally admit this is imperfect work, but here is what I came up with:
Against inclusion
Has not been covered by a mainstream outlet (12)
Sources are not reliable or notable enough (8)
Politically motivated (8)
Began on a small blog (4)
Public speakers make errors all the time, this is not significant (3)
Interference from canvassing (2)
Objections to RfC process (2)
Beyond this particular instance, accusations of a pattern of activity are not supported (1)
Lack of factual coverage (1)
Wikipedia should not be treated as a news site (1)
Original quotes not covered, no reason to cover now (1)
If included, there must be context of how it became a bigger issue (1)
For inclusion
There is now enough coverage to warrant mention, including news sources, and prominent figures such as Tyson himself (14)
Should be at least mentioned (7)
Pattern of activity (6)
As a prominent scientist he should be held to a higher standard (2)
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a prominent scientist and this provides context on him (2)
Tyson's statement is shown to be false (2)
Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 7
Since RfC's are not meant to be votes, but rather to help solicit viewpoints towards building consensus (based on strength of arguments), I looked through the comments above to try and find common arguments used by both sides. I totally admit this is imperfect work, but here is what I came up with:
Against inclusion
Has not been covered by a mainstream outlet (12)
Sources are not reliable or notable enough (8)
Politically motivated (8)
Began on a small blog (4)
Public speakers make errors all the time, this is not significant (3)
Interference from canvassing (2)
Objections to RfC process (2)
Beyond this particular instance, accusations of a pattern of activity are not supported (1)
Lack of factual coverage (1)
Wikipedia should not be treated as a news site (1)
Original quotes not covered, no reason to cover now (1)
If included, there must be context of how it became a bigger issue (1)
For inclusion
There is now enough coverage to warrant mention, including news sources, and prominent figures such as Tyson himself (14)
Should be at least mentioned (7)
Pattern of activity (6)
As a prominent scientist he should be held to a higher standard (2)
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a prominent scientist and this provides context on him (2)
Tyson's statement is shown to be false (2)
Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 7
Leave a comment: