Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 5 February 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia 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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies 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 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neil deGrasse Tyson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Neil deGrasse Tyson at the Reference desk.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Sean Davis (18 September 2014). "Why Is Misplaced Pages Deleting All References To Neil Tyson's Fabrication?". The Federalist. "Cosmically Dishonest". The Weekly Standard. 29 September 2014. Tim Cavanaugh (22 September 2014). "Neil deGrasse Tyson's Text-Burning Followers". National Review. Sean Davis (23 September 2014). "9 Absurd Edit Justifications By Misplaced Pages's Neil Tyson Truthers". The Federalist. Jonathan H. Adler (24 September 2014). "What makes an accusation Wiki-worthy?". The Volokh Conspiracy. Napp Nazworth (25 September 2014). "Why Is Misplaced Pages Removing References to Neil deGrasse Tyson Misquoting George W. Bush?". The Christian Post. Sean Davis (26 September 2014). "Misplaced Pages Is Now Trying To Eliminate The Federalist's Online Entry". The Federalist. Patrick Howley (26 September 2014). "Conservative Website 'The Federalist' Targeted For Misplaced Pages Deletion After Criticizing Neil deGrasse Tyson". The Daily Caller. Paul Bedard (26 September 2014). "Misplaced Pages wants to ban acclaimed conservative site the Federalist". The Washington Examiner. Napp Nazworth (29 September 2014). "Neil deGrasse Tyson (Sort of) Admits to Misquoting George W. Bush and Agrees to (Someday) Apologize for It". The Christian Post. Rich Lowry (1 October 2014). "The Cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson". Politico. Sandy Fitzgerald (2 October 2014). "Editor Slams Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson Over Bush Statements". Newsmax.

Media Discussion

FYI Viriditas removed this information from the media list without discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, you added it back in without discussion. Please discuss why you think these links are needed here. This is not a link farm. The burden is on the editor proposing and adding information to justify their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It had been there for months and you just go and delete it and say there has to be discussion to put it back? Where do you get off just deleting stuff you don't like? Arzel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Removing a thing without discussion, and then demanding a discussion to replace it, is peculiar. Marteau (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "valid" about it in the slightest. The length of time something appears has no bearing on its correctness. And per the burden of Misplaced Pages editing, the editor adding material has to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. I hope you stand corrected. I maintain that the press template is being misused to highlight negative, partisan material about the subject in sources that are less than reliable and/or repeat the unreliable material. Per BLP, we should not permanently host this material on the talk page; there's also the fact that it's a linkfarm. I can think of no other biography that misuses the press template in this way. Now, let's see some good arguments for including it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:BLP issues you cited in your reversion is intended to protect living people from untoward harm. I have no doubt that because you figure the genesis of this issue was part of a nefarious conspiracy by evil men that any mention of the dispute whatsoever, no matter how oblique, harms Tyson, so I'll not waste my time debating the application of BLP in this issue with you. As is evident throughout the encyclopedia, any mention whatsoever of anything remotely negative about Tyson gets the axe eventually, and as I'm not a masochist I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information. Marteau (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no conspiracy; Heartland has been attacking proponents of climate science for more than a decade. There are quite a number of books on the subject which have documented their egregious campaign of attacks. Again, what are your arguments for including the list of negative, partisan sources in a permanent header on this talk page? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What part of "I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information" did you misunderstand? Marteau (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"nefarious conspiracy by evil men". Marteau, where did you read that? I can't seem to find this anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

When you have something to complain about regarding me, beyond petulant griping about my paraphrasing, let me know. Marteau (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a thesaurus of insult words? Seriously, paraphrasis is the art of simplifying, not putting words in other people's mouths to create strawmen. Objective3000 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas, do you have a valid reason for removing the media mentions? Yes or no per WP:STATUSQUO Arzel (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I did protect the page when I saw the edit-war occurring, but of course that's not useful as it's a talk page which leaves us nowhere to discuss it. So instead, I suggest this is discussed, especially given the possible BLP issues. Any more blind reversions may end in blocks. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite, There is no BLP issue, just as there was no BLP issue when the issue was being discussed. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the only one edit warring is Virinditas. He deleted long standing media mentions from the talk page. I reverted and started discussion. He reverted without discussion. I started additional discussion. Marteau reverted, and then Virinditas reverted again. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Marteau and Virinditas both have a tendency to go over lines from opposite sides. Can we try for a civil discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to keep that list here. The bits about Misplaced Pages don't relate to the content of this article - maybe to the history of WP article ...? And yes, repeating journalist and or blogger headlines and comments can be blp problems. If individual items in that list can be used in the article - well, make a case for such on a per item basis. But a bare list of headlines, journalist or blogger opinions doesn't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe it's time to recognize that it's worth a mention in the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah. Nothing has changed since our discussion except the NYT wrote an article which wasn't even about the invented controversy but mentioned it in passing in an article that was really about memory recall. The growing and ensuing controversy never materialized and the whole non-event is growingly forgotten as it was destined to. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've heard two good arguments why the links should be removed but no argument at all as per why they should be included. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps one problem is that it is not only the NYT which seems to recall events? RealClearPolitics on 4 Jan ran Neil deGrasse Tyson: Troll of the Year and RealClearPolitics is generally accepted as a "reliable source". ] WaPo etc. as well as the NYT. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah. That article is about the Christmas tweet. It barely mentions the Bush quote. Do you think the Christmas tweet should be included in the article? Shabidoo | Talk 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why we have the Christmas tweet but not the Bush controversy. The Christmas tweet isn't really worthy of inclusion, IMO. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the paragraph on the Christmas tweet. I don't really understand why there this apparent obsession with including trivia in this article if it's remotely controversial. Also, the tweet wasn't really about his spirituality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

That is not trivia and it speaks more about him as a person than you may be willing to accept. Being <WP:BLP violation removed> is not trivia. This also received at lot of attention. You can't simple whitewash his article of everything. Arzel (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A brief couple of sentences about the often divisive nature of his communications would be appropriate. That he is loathed in certain circles is objective and documented truth reported on by multiple reliable sources. There are numerous examples, e.g. "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson" in the Daily Beast or "Why they really hate Neil deGrasse Tyson: Inside the right’s anti-intellectual paranoia." in Salon. However, this particular tweeting issue does not by itself in my opinion, clear the bar for includability. Then again, trival fluffery such as Tyson being on one episode of the radio show, "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" will instead remain because it puts him in a good (or at least neutral) light. Negative trivia = immediate axe. Positive trivia = stays for years. Marteau (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Purposefully hateful?" Wow. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What would you call it? Certainly not befitting of someone of his stature. Insulting a billion people is not a minor event. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

He showed "hate" to no one. Not one single person. The response showed hate toward him. Look, I never heard of the guy before this "issue". And, I don't think a great deal of him. But, the hate poured out on this man is shocking. And, some of the edits here have been purely racist. Objective3000 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that this was completely neutral in tone. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arzel, by what your definition of "insulting a billion people" is, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do that on a regular basis and Pen Jilette does it every day. They are but three people from a list of dozens of other notable atheists and humanists who write tweets that may actually be offensive to christians. That would make probably a thousand tweets a week critical of christianity or tweets that put sensitive christians into a tizzy "notable events" or non-minor events. Richard Dawkins article would be about 200 pages long if we included every insulting tweet (by your definition of insulting). Tyson's tweet wasn't even insulting or disparaging of Christianity or Jesus or Christmas and didn't even mention any of them. He said who his favourite historical figure is on the 25th of December. No person or group owns a day of the year and their favourite special historical figure does not have to be everyone elses'. Shabidoo | Talk 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The argument for its inclusion is significant media coverage, now over a significant amount of time. I don't think we need a whole section, or even a paragraph. Simply a sentence in views about the issue and the apology he posted suffices. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed at enormous length on multiple boards. The result was no inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And that discussion was before the New York Times article posted above, or the Real Clear Politics piece from this week. Consensus should change with new information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not even close to enough new coverage to warrant reopening this tired old debate. All the articles I read barely touch on the non-controversy over the Bush quote mistake and instead use it to illustrate some other point. The Christmas tweet is also trivial unless it garners more interest (which I hope it does because it was hilariously awesome). Shabidoo | Talk 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the press section to be both of interest and valuable in understanding the ongoing discussions here at the talk page. The elimination of that reference material makes the work at this page harder and more time-consuming. Given that there is no legitimate argument made that a list of media ref links is in any way a violation of BLP policy, and that this was a useful resource, I suggest it be restored. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't to endorse one side or another, but would defaulting the box to collapse be a possible compromise? Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think we should link to non-reliable sources such as The Federalist or the Christian Post. However, I don't see a problem with linking to reliable sources, if there are any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If we include any mention of the Bush quote, we have to originate why people started caring about it. IE Cosmos and the Heartland institute uncivil hate rate. Mystic55 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of the "uncivil hate rate" surrounding this man would be a welcome adddition. The phenomena of Tyson hate is a real thing, as we have all witnessed. Serious, reliable sources have written about it as a phenomena unto itself, it is a serious subject. Just because the haters are, or are percieved to be irrational does not make the phenomena any less real or less worthy of coverage. Such things are a feature of today's divided society and would certainly be more notable and worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia than, say, the current exhaustive list of every occasion Tyson has walked onto a stage or stepped before a microphone. Marteau (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Tyson is now a Talk Show Host in addition to being a popular scientist, I think this is perfectly valid. It would also allow the Bush Quote to be included but to put it in context of why it is significant to conservative media. Mystic55 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No. We discussed your proposal extensively for several months and the community came out against it. Since the majority of your edits to Misplaced Pages have been only to continue this dispute, I think it's safe to say that you are a SPA at this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty quick leap to accuse someone of WP: Bad Faith there. In point of fact, the 21 ACTUAL edits I have done, not including discussions, exactly 7 of those 21 have been on this page, and quite frankly not even all those were on this subject. So not only are you in violation of WP: Good Faith but you can't even count. Last time I checked, WP: STFU wasn't one of our core values....Mystic55 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the comment history, it occurs you are referring to Marteu. Honestly? Even if you are, and even if I completely disagree with what he's been saying, I find your comments wanting Viriditas in terms of civility. Mystic55 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you were referring to me. Wow. Just Wow. Mystic55 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Had you looked at THE HISTORY of my contributes to the article, you'd find I agreed with your position previously. In point of fact, Tyson's moving from scientist to entertainer makes me reconsider including this in the article, but only if included in context as to WHY the quote is rediculous. MEDIC! Friendly fire. With explosive armor piercing ammunition and an extreme lack of target practice. Mystic55 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Anyone who says something here that Viriditas doesn't like gets their history dissected with a fine toothed comb eventually, and anything he thinks might put that editor in a bad light, he uses e.g. how I created the "Matt Drudge" article!  :: gasp! :: I mean, if there is a bias in my article creation history it would be towards Japan, not anything political: I created in total an article about Japanese calligraphy, a Japanese weapon, a Japanese sensei, a Tibetan teacher, "Muckraker", a Democratic mayor, and Drudge but all Viriditas mentions here is "Drudge" implying, I suppose, a bias that is not there in my article creation history, and that's dispicable. You're not alone in thinking such tactics are pathetic. Marteau (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT Marteau (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather poor job of dissecting my history given that I have agreed with his position hithertonow. In fact, without the context, I completely still think it shouldn't be included. Deliberate attempts to manipulate the media narrative shouldn't be note worthy in a scholarly publicition unless the meta manipulation is also mentioned. Mystic55 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the completely irrelevant .... If Tyson is taking on a new role as an “entertainer”, I don’t see how any of these tweets mean anything at all. But, I’m also not sure what the definition of “entertainer” is and why it matters. I, personally, am entertained by many National Geographic shows. I enjoy science and nature. I hope we don’t classify science channels and scientists as entertainers because they spread science. Please explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For me its a question of relevance. A misquote of George W. Bush for someone whose primary public persona is "Science Advocate" is ridiculous and only made relevant because conservative media didn't like his statements on climate change. Wheras, if he moves more towards 'entertainer with a science background', then that to me just 'feels' more holistic, which means the question of what does or does not constitute notability changes. And again, to be clear, I don't feel that this information should be added without context. I guess what I'm saying is, it is clear that Tyson's star is 'on the rise' and that he is not just someone who a certain segment of the population likes. In context of that, recognizing that he is a symbol of reason and science to some means that therefore he is a threat to others. I can see adding a portion of the article that deals with that struggle, and Tyson's take on it, as well as his role in promoting 'science literacy' within the article, since the talk show purposefully is part of that effort, as was Cosmos itself. As such, attempts to discredit him denote I believe his very reason for taking up this role. But after thinking it out here, I think this is more of a 'will become relevant if it keeps going this direction' rather than 'we should add this now.' Thanks for your patience. Mystic55 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-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
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press