Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 23 October 2011

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Physics: Biographies C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Neil deGrasse Tyson received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This guy is awesome

His race/ethnicity shouldn't be a factor. He is basically the American version of Richard Dawkins, the voice of logic and reason in a sea of superstition. Intranetusa 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Except the part where he's agnostic and Dawkins isn't too fond of agnostics. That and his writing style is a bit better than Dawkins'. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Race

I think the fact that Dr. Tyson is black is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. African-Americans and other minorities have a very limited presence in the physical sciences, and Dr. Tyson may be the most visible and most prominent minority scientist working today. A black youngsters thinking of a career in astronomy or another hard science is much more likely to stick to that goal if he has a role model like Dr. Tyson than if he does not.

Does he call himself African-American, or did someone just assign him the term? I think it's a fairly ignorant term and I have seen it misapplied to both people who are Black, but not of immediate African descent, or who are Black or even African, but not American citizens. Of course those who want to self-identify as African-American can go right ahead. I think one just needs to make sure before jumping to conclusions. --SavvyCat 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless he is cited in some way because he is black (wins an NAACP award or some such), or he decides to proclaim it in some notable way, it probably doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned. I feel like a picture would do the trick. I don't know enough about wiki picture templates or fair use laws to add one myself, though. Slurms MacKenzie 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to explicitly say that he is black. In fact, after reading many articles on different people, I found it a little uncomfortable to read "African American" right on the top of the page. This is pretty much pointless information unless, like Slurms said, he is notable for it. And if that were the case, the first paragraph would not be the place for it; it would fit better in a trivia section. (Antonio.sierra 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

He wrote a whole book on it: . Wl219 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Being black is not the point of that book. It's his memoirs, and although he does talk about it in a single chapter (out of 12), it's more about how his dreams as a young boy have become reality, including the fact he is now the director of the Hayden Planetarium, the place that was so influential in his interest in the cosmos. If someone is white, we don't start their bio with "John Smith, Caucasian Farmer"; it would be irrelevant, as I feel it is here. Andrew Gilligan 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that he talks about it in his book, I suppose it's relevant to include it in the article, but including it in the info box is just weird. Is that a standard field in articles about scientists? Does the article on Edwin Hubble indicate his ethnicity in the infobox? Does anyone even know? Circumspect 09:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted his ethnicity from the infobox. I think it would be good to include a mention of it in the article's body, but I did not do so because it seems that the logical way to do this would be to cite the chapter from his memoirs, but I have not read his memoirs. Someone who has should add appropriate text to the body of the article. Circumspect 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a revert war on the question of including Tyson's race in the infobox. I have requested comments via Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies. Please comment on whether you think the ethnicity reference should be deleted from the infobox. I think it should be, as it is not typically included in the infoboxes on pages for other scientists. I proposed a compromise above regarding how to address the issue of Tyson's ethnicity. Circumspect 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The course of action taken in this article should apply to any other article. If we put race in the infobox, we shall also put it in the infobox of other notable people. I think that it would be quite awkward to see race used as general important detail (like birthplace). Outside of the USA, not many countries discriminate by race. Although, if, like W1219 said, he wrote a book about it, then it should merit a mention as important as his book. Btw, the link to the book info isn't working. --Antonio.sierra 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should keep race out of the infobox, but if would be good if someone who has read his autobiography can add some text to the main body of his entry which speaks to whatever he said on the subject. I've taken the ethnicity field out of the infobox a few times, but not having read his memoir, I didn't feel qualified to construct some kind of summary about what he said in it about race. Circumspect 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RFC, Stating that he is an "African American" isn't required in the infobox, though a brief mention in the article with a reliable resource won't hurt. Though we definitely need to keep the article listed under "African American scientists" category. Wikidudeman 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment-I do not think the article should state Tyson is African American in the opening paragraph or the infobox. Worse the foot note on African American in first few words of introduction, the foot note number and WL together high lights race and distracts astrophysicist. He was also voted "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" but that is also not good in introduction. It is not most noteworthy fact about him, neither his race, so shouldn't be so prominent claim in article either. If he is noteworthy because he is African American in this field, reference must be found discussing this fact. If the reference for noteworthiness of African American is autobiographical then that reference text should be used in this article describing in what manner this is noteworthy fact. Otherwise it is just a race based label. This is not ordinary used to introduce him in other situations. Venado 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Venado's logic. I think his strategy could be used universally applied. If an artist, for example, is notorious only for being caucassian then it should deserve a mention in the first paragraph. If the artist's race has come up in various other situations, then it should be noted but definitely not in the first paragraph. And finally, if race is of very little significance for the person's public life, then maybe it should not even be mentioned. I can't imagine George Bush's' article starting by saying "George Bush is a Caucasian American..." --Antonio.sierra 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He's notable for his celebrity, not his race. I would leave it out. I think Misplaced Pages needs to establish a broad policy on this question, if it has not already.Verklempt 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the African American statement as it seemed irrelevant and could easily be deduced by his picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.127.25 (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

His race on his myspace page clearly states "black/african decsent" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheckr (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think it shouldn't be in the infobox as the infoboxes on other American scientists don't state their 'ethnicity'. Anyone who finds the enthnicity of a scientist important can see it from his photo. Ashmoo (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems everyone posting in this section agrees that the ethnicity should not be in the infobox. Yet, after >2 years of debate, it's still there. Are the pro-ethnics just reverting w/o discussing? I agree with the comments here that it would be wrong to include his ethnicity in his infobox since, while his race may be notable for being a successful black American scientist in a field dominated by people of other races, it's not germane in the sense that his field of expertise, his positions/jobs, his awards, etc. are. I agree, that it's probably good to keep him in the category of African-American scientists and perhaps to mention it in a trivia section or biography section, but definitely not in the opener or the infobox. Carl Sagan's article certainly doesn't waste time describing his ethnicity. So, after this post, I'm going to continue the revert war and delete ethnicity from the infobox. Alberrosidus (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a major point is being missed here. Searching "wikipedia african american astrophysicist", Dr. Tyson comes up first, with his picture, in the three most used search engines. Using black, or scientist, or Tyson, without astrophysicist and/or his first name, he does not show up on the first page, and in some cases, not until double digits (in one, 102nd page). His name is a lot for people to catch on a first chance, even displayed. People may not know much about him, but this is how they find him. 75.204.129.143 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Career

Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?

See his personal homepage for publications. --Andrew Delong 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he's got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush's version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It's just bizarre. To answer Delong's question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. - Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.6.98 (talk) 18:03, December 3, 2008

Tyson's voluminous CV on his web site says that he is a member of the American Physical Society. The Society's membership directory does not list him. If I have searched in error, please advise --Peter Zimmerman, past member of APS Executive Board.

68.110.238.96 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this guy hasn't done any science in years, and despite his place in the so-called 'Planetary Society' he is a laughingstock among real planetary scientists, since he knows nothing of it, and very few of whom were present at the vote in question at the IAU. It doesn't even make scientific sense, since if you follow the new definitions closely the Earth isn't a planet since it hasn't cleared its orbit, but they didn't know enough to realize this at the time. Any grad department which focuses on astronomy/planetary science rather then galactic astrophysics knows who this guy is and doesn't like him. He's just a political hack and the IAU vote was pure politics. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I sadly agree with the above poster. While I think his writing style is pretty good (easy to understand, etc), I think it's sad that a scientist who has done nothing more than help popularize physics gets more fame than scientists who do more. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Being eloquent in his descriptions and teaching of the universe is as much a contribution to the field as any publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitchwk (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

His contributions are around public outreach, not scholarly works. This is why PBS tapped him for hosting duties for NOVA ScienceNow as well as a new Cosmos series first hosted by Saganref and NASA has brought him in as a speaker in tweetup events.

"Gabrielle_(Xena)"

"Xena"; "Ceres", "1 Ceres".

Hilarious & silly.

Miles O'Brien , cnn, speaking with Neil deGrasse Tyson, announced this mnemonic:

"My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas,..."

"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto,..."

"...'chovies eXtra."

Hopiakuta 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Education

Did he really earn a BA and an MA? Or was it a BS and an MS? The latter seesm more likely, given the subject matter - an MA is Astronomy can't be worth that much...

24.22.178.134 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some universities use the terms BA and MA even for their science degrees. It has nothing to do with the degree itself. --Etacar11 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who really cares about his BA (Physics) or his MA (Astronomy) when he trumps it all with a PhD (Astrophysics)? Or the fact that he has all three degrees? What impresses me the most about him is he's a "regular guy" who went to public school. Witty, engaging, and nice as hell by my experience. --SavvyCat 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Do we know for a fact that Dr. Tyson is not an atheist? The citations linked in the article demonstrate clearly that he believes God has no place in the realm of scientific inquiry, though he's never said anything about the role of God in any other context (to my knowledge). Based on what he's written and said, I'd speculate that he is something like a scientific pantheist (because of the way he uses "spiritual" language when talking about the cosmos), though he could very well be a private atheist or Christian. --Perspicuus 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

His statements here seem incompatible with the view that he's anything but an atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

I think the text in the article is in error when it states he's neither religious nor an atheist. If the article is to state that he's not an atheist, there should be some citation in which he states that he is not an atheist. That he is not religious is patently obvious from his talk (available on YouTube in links from the above YouTube page) at the Beyond Belief conference, and from the two essays on his web site cited in the Misplaced Pages article:

http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_perimeter.php http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_holywars.php

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is not religious, and has argued that religion poses a threat to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Circumspect 08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to religious views, a person is what they say they are. If someone calls themselves a Christian, I may make assumptions on what that means but ultimately they are a Christian regardless of their belief in any individual tenant of Christianity. Tyson has asserted (on this article itself), that he is an agnostic, see http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/24/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-religion/ looseBits (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He is an agnostic atheist. However, he calls himself an agnostic and rejects the label atheism based off his personal definitions of the two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read this (third paragraph), he says he's edited this article to change "atheist" to "agnostic". Unless he specifies otherwise, it should stay as that. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms and since he does not believe in any gods he still falls under the atheist label in addition to the agnostic label. He may not agree with it, but he is by definition an agnostic atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, when someone calls himself a theist, he is alost never called an agnostic theist. I know quite a few agnostics who consider the term agno-atheist and other related terms to be completely absurd and slightly offensive, as it (to them at least) is an attempt to pull them into a belief, when they're more about knowledge. In Tyson's case, he does not believe in the existance of a god, nor does he exclude the possibility of its existance (or, in more literal terms, he does not believe that a god doesn't exist). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if someone's posted this already (I'm sure they have), but he states in this article here: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_sept_oct/Tyson.html that he finds it remarkable that the only two essays he wrote on religion have somehow placed him into the atheist community, which he wants no part of. He doesn't like religious arguments and has no intention of arguing with anyone about religion. He clearly mentions intelligent design, not religion itself. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang

I think that his work on the Big Bang should be mentioned.--24.22.111.99 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Kyle McKenzie Street

The theory or the show??? --MinorFixes (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Voice Acting?

I also believe he has done some voice acting for the Zelda series (for the Philips CD-I). He was possibly the voice of the King of Hyrule, and Ganon during the cut scenes. This should not be included in the article until verified and found relevant. If you want to check for yourself, look on YouTube where the cut scenes have been posted (and made somewhat popular by the "YouTube Poop" series, which you should avoid since they are modified for humor purposes). I was watching an original cut scene and noticed the voice to be familiar. I remembered it was the voice of the host of Nova's ScienceNow.

208.110.226.233 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't him. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference

The third reference "3^ Neil deGrasse Tyson interview on opposition to string theory, dated July 19, 2006 (2006-08-21).; NOVA podcast, "Proving String Theory", dated July 19, 2006. Retrieved August 21, 2006" is incorrect. The correct reference should be to the podcast from July 12, 2006 titled "A Theory of Everything?" (located here: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/626200) instead of the podcast mentioned now (located here: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/648292).

Kevincross 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

The article states "Born the year that NASA was founded (established 7/29/1958)..." Isn't this a tad redundant? His birth date is listed in the first sentence of the article and also in the sidebar to the right. I propose removing the entire parenthetical reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.245.165 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is the sort of fun trivia acceptable for a magazine article on him, but this is an encyclopedia. Ashmoo (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone finds a reference where he notes it. I haven't seen all of his stuff, but it's the kind of informative aside he uses, if only to give people a mnemonic they'd remember. Anyone? 75.204.129.143 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify whether his last name is "Tyson" or "deGrasse Tyson"

The Hero of This Nation (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

according to his official biography they use just Tyson, so I think I will change the article to reflect that. andyzweb (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive language when describing Dr. deGrasse Tyson

Referring to Dr. deGrasse Tyson's character as "colorful" is a gross violation of pillar 2 of the Misplaced Pages 5 Pillars, neutrality. Such subtle references to a subject's race is highly offensive and an affront to the notion of a post-racist society.

Personally I like "engaging". Jovial, jocular, avuncular... I've heard James Carville described as colorful, though it's not in his article. It is in Naftule Brandwein's, and he was Jewish from Galicia. Perhaps it was intended as a subtle reference, there are numerous policy guidelines against that assumption; did the editor(s) in question have a history, or is this a reaction? 75.204.129.143 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Colourful" is a gross violation? Oh, good grief. It's not a racial comment. The OED gives colourful as "full of interest; lively and exciting : e.g 'a controversial and colourful character' or 'a colourful account of the meeting' ". Most British novelists, royals and poets are regularly described as 'colourful'. It can also be taken as a euphemism for 'slightly eccentric' or having a 'big personality', which he certainly has. I think Tyson would quite enjoy such descriptions. They are are not derogatory at all. I assume the above comment is based on a misunderstanding of the word. Span (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jovial, jocular, and avuncular are all good terms to describe him. Also colorful. I don't think of this immediately as a racial connotation. Are we only allowed to use the term for white people? He's colorful in the most flattering and non-racial sense. Mrguido45 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

He's on TV and in Many Documentaries, His IMDB page should be added

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not held to be a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Thanks Span (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of him being a chicken tycoon?

Is this a cover-up? --129.19.137.5 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation 23

The reference to Tyson's article on September 11 is broken 124.180.172.148 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.Novangelis (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyson's view on a higher power in the universe

In the article in the section on Views:

I read:

Tyson has collaborated with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and presented talks with him on religion and science. When asked if he personally believed in a higher power, Tyson responded: "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."

I think the man is not being cognizant of the whole picture, the fact that he for being a black American just the same has attained a great career and a great life, should stir up his curiosity that the universe and its author have more of goodness for mankind than all the ways he claims to know that they want to kill him.

So, it is a catastrophic tragedy for himself that for having such a great brain he should be so narrow-minded as to be plainly blind to the whole picture of life and the universe, specially when he looks at himself and a lot of people like him who do get to come to a great career and a great life.

112.198.79.31 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Pachomius

112.198.79.222 (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Pachomius

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• Old requests for peer review