Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 12
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The "major coverage" requirement of some
"A Quest For Knowedge" (and others) bemoan the fact that this issue has not received what they consider "major coverage". In the previous RfC, one editor actually said he'd require "hundreds" of news references before considering the issue fit for inclusion.
I have to point out that although we all know who Tyson is, and although he is very popular with certain demographics (particularly the young and the hip), he is not universally known, nor is he actually a "household name". Our own Objective3000 said he did not know who he was prior to participating in the editing of this article in September of last year. About 1/6th of the population of the USA saw him on at least part of Cosmos. And Cosmos was his biggest exposure to the general public. Yes, he does talk shows (Daily Show, 1.5 million viewers per show usually... Tonight Show, about 5 million viewers on average and a number of other small gigs) but Tyson is, media wise, a minor celebrity and of course his issue with the quotes is not going to be headline news.
Expecting (or demanding) this issue receive the "major coverage" news treatment before so much as one sentence about it can be included when the man is a minor celebrity, relatively speaking, is an unrealistic and unfounded standard to require. For a man of his limited and specialized visibility, coverage of his quote issue in news outfits I cited just above is actually significant and far exceeds the standards for notability of an issue pertaning to such a figure. Marteau (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- You keep putting forth the same arguments. Circles. Objective3000 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Marteau: Almost all the coverage has been opinion columns or low-quality sources (the Daily Beast? Seriously?) Compare that with news coverage of Cosmos: Time Magazine, Columbia Journalism Review, National Geographic, The New York Times, Wired, Los Angeles Times...the list is endless. And this is straight up news coverage, not opinion columns. I'm sorry, but you haven't offered up anything new.
- Now let's switch gears for a second. Why is it so important to you that this be included in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is "so important" to me because I like the encyclopedia, I am protective of it, and I don't like to see its reputation be harmed. In this instance, I believe that many of the criticisms addressed by both insiders and outsiders regarding the exclusion of this material are well-founded and have and are continuing to damage the encyclopedias reputation. We all find our niches and projects we prefer on the encyclopedia... things we enjoy doing, things we (think) we are good at, and things which we hope will make the encyclopedia better. That is why it is "so important" to me. Because I think the time I have to invest on the encylopedia is well spent addressing this issue, and that my efforts will hopefully help the encyclopedia undo some of the damage that has been done to its reputation by the continued exclusion of this material. Marteau (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some perspective would be good. You're still talking about a minor bit - articles never go on and on for ever - some things don't make a cut - that's just the way it goes. (Or perhaps you see it as a truly life shattering thing of cosmic perportion (or somewhere in between a minor bit and cosmic meaning) you just have to live in the knowledge that others don't find the weight you place (or your dramtic reading of it all) here, worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- If he is the chronic quote manipulator as he is made out to be, then he is surely likely to do it again and perhaps then...there will be enough weighty sources to justify a mention of his raging lying bluffery. Until then...aaaaaaaaaaaand scene! Shabidoo | Talk 23:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Some perspective would be good. You're still talking about a minor bit - articles never go on and on for ever - some things don't make a cut - that's just the way it goes. (Or perhaps you see it as a truly life shattering thing of cosmic perportion (or somewhere in between a minor bit and cosmic meaning) you just have to live in the knowledge that others don't find the weight you place (or your dramtic reading of it all) here, worthwhile. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- With the hindsight of a little bit of time, we can see this was a non-issue. It had it 5 minutes of glory by virtue of partisan sources gleefully making it a big deal, which obviously it wasn't. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- With hindsight we see that it was an issue which the subject resolved by publicly apologizing. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I find it amazing that we can have a paragraph on the subject's kindergarten-12th grade life with few refs (mostly youtube) and not even one line about an incident that has 12 refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused, the Manitoba talk is on youtube, so why can't this point be included? I was at that talk and was disillusioned when I tried looking up those quotes afterwards. Wikipedia is an inspiring collection of the cumulative knowledge of our culture and should strive to post as much information as possible. Adding more positive things about Neil sounds great, but censoring information on an encyclopedia that's for everybody goes against everything I thought it stood for. I'm going to wait for now on my Wikipedia donation for this year. -Brian 142.90.85.115 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I find it amazing that we can have a paragraph on the subject's kindergarten-12th grade life with few refs (mostly youtube) and not even one line about an incident that has 12 refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- With hindsight we see that it was an issue which the subject resolved by publicly apologizing. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- With the hindsight of a little bit of time, we can see this was a non-issue. It had it 5 minutes of glory by virtue of partisan sources gleefully making it a big deal, which obviously it wasn't. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#The_Federalist_.28website.29:_inclusion_of_the_Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_.22fabrication.22_allegation. Please weigh-in there as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
WTF?
Asked and answered. See the RFC referenced in the FAQ at the top of the page. The discussion has strayed far from "how do we improve this article" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
I just across this article (yeah, it a few months old... so sue me). It discusses the ongoing controversy surrounding this page (which apparently isn't old news, but is still occurring). It makes us all look like a bunch of fools and seriously undermines the credibility of this project. There's no way I'm going to wade thru the sheer volume of this talk page and associated archives to find out what this is all about... would anyone mind giving me a very neutral and equally very brief summary of what the problem is here? (from both pov?) After that, I'll see if I can help. Maybe a fresh perspective would be of benefit here. I've never even heard of this guy or any of the obvious controversy surrounding him. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 07:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Signpost article. We're doing this for the third time? Seriously... Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Bush Quote ControversyIt was notable, covered heavily in the media and caused a fair amount of press regarding Wikipedia, so why don't we have at least a sentence or two regarding the incorrect quote that Tyson attributed to George Bush? 108.100.172.226 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
Photo from 2009
Isn't that a bit too old? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Got a better one that follows Wikipedia standards? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Does it matter? If it was the same pic but taken in 2015, would it make all the difference? It's not like he looks much different, if at all, compared to back then. Newer doesn't mean better. Spellcast (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know where does this come from, but usually people in the year 2015 look like they do in 2015.
- Also, you can't take a "same" picture 6 years later (riiight?), but the same pose from the same angle, yes, better. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't have a better replacement, then there's nothing to really discuss. The image is fine. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- How about this[1] one? Not perfect, but from 2013, CCBYv2 license is wikipedia-compatible, and pose shows him lecturing about something astronomical due to the gestures. eyebrows not as wrinkled-up in this one, either, though it is still an 'action pose' rather than a 'formal smile pose'. Several other libre-licenced options, if you don't like that specific option.[2] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't have a better replacement, then there's nothing to really discuss. The image is fine. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Timeline of publications , with cite-counts
These are raw-data, according to scholar.google.com (which is notorious for being incorrect... sometimes extremely incorrect).
cites,yr,auths,notes '58 born '68 after planetarium visit, begins studying astronomy (age nine) ~'74 publishes a newsletter about physics plus gives informal astronomy lectures '75 day-visit to meet Carl Sagan at Cornell '76 receives HS diploma, accepted to Harvard '80 receives BA in physics from Harvard '83 receives MA in astronomy from UT-Austin 16 '85 #2/2 UVBY photometry of blue stragglers in NGC 7789 BA Twarog, N Tyson - The Astronomical Journal '86 leaves doctoral program at UT-Austin, becomes astronomy lecturer at U.Maryland '88 accepted into doctoral program at Columbia 51 '88 #1/2 Bursting dwarf galaxies-Implications for luminosity function, space density, and cosmological mass density ND Tyson, JM Scalo - The Astrophysical Journal 63 '88 #1/1 On the possibility of gas-rich dwarf galaxies in the Lyman-alpha forest ND Tyson - The Astrophysical Journal '89 receives MPhil in astrophysics from Columbia '89 publishes first book 36 '91 #1/2 Radial velocity distribution and line strengths of 33 carbon stars in the Galactic bulge ND Tyson, RM Rich - The Astrophysical Journal '91 receives Ph.D in astrophysics from Columbia 37 '93 #1/2 An exposure guide for taking twilight flatfields with large format CCDs ND Tyson, RR Gal - The Astronomical Journal 1 '93 #1/4 On the possibility of a major impact on Uranus in the past century ND Tyson, MW Richmond… - Astronomy and … '94 joins staff of planetarium as staff scientist '94 publishes 2nd book 73 '94 #18/18 The expanding photosphere method applied to SN 1992am AT CZ= 14 600 km/s , …, K Kuijken, D Zucker, M Bolte, ND Tyson - The Astronomical … 181'94 #43/43 The Type IA supernova 1989B in NGC 3627 (M66) LA Wells, MM Phillips, B Suntzeff… - The Astronomical … '95 becomes director of planetarium 297'96 #49/82 BVRI light curves for 29 type Ia supernovae M Hamuy, MM Phillips, NB Suntzeff… - arXiv preprint astro-ph/ … '97 honorary doctorate from CUNY 143'98 #21/30 Optical light curves of the type Ia supernovae SN 1990N and SN 1991T …, APS Crotts, RM Rich, ND Tyson… - The Astronomical … '98 publishes 3rd book (and republishes second edition of first book) '00 publishes 4th and 5th books ; 2nd and 3rd honorary doctorates '??? museum of natural history 2 '01 #7/7 3-D visualizations of massive astronomy datasets with a digital dome …, M Shara, FJ Summers, ND Tyson - … Observatories of the … '02 publishes 6th book 5 '03 #1/1 Holy Wars: An Astrophysicist Ponders the God Question ND Tyson - Science and Religion: Are They Compatible '03 publishes 7th book 24 '04 #1/2 Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution N deGrasse Tyson, D Goldsmith '04 publishes 8th book (and republishes second edition of 4th book) '07 publishes 9th book ; Time 100 16 '08 #8/8 The faint-end slopes of galaxy luminosity functions in the COSMOS field …, NZ Scoville, SM Tribiano, ND Tyson - The Astrophysical … '09 publishes 10th book (''Vive le Pluto!'')
Not suggesting any changes to mainspace are needed (though it wouldn't hurt to remove his scientific papers with less than double-digit cite-counts), but since I was researching Tyson's WP:GOOG profile for applicability to other articles at AfD/etc, and figured I would paste the cite-counts here for future reference, in case anybody wanted them. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion for better profile photo for infobox
Suggestion of File:2014 Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson Visits NASA Goddard (14339308834) (cropped to Tyson collar).jpg for better photo for infobox.
2014 visit by Tyson to Goddard Space Flight Center.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Commons now has several other photos that could possibly be used for the article, arranged by year at commons:Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson and also at commons:Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson facing front. Hope that's helpful to other editors, — Cirt (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the more stable image that was previously in the article. The notion that a current image trumps a good image is seriously misguided. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:You mean this one currently File:Neil deGrasse Tyson August 3, 2014 (cropped).jpg = where you can see some other girl's face chopped off in the side of the photo? — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since that's clearly not the stable image that was previously in the article, I have no idea why you would refer me to it. Sorry, I don't have time for these games. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:, PLEASE, I request that you assume good faith, as I've NOT been following this article history at all, okay? Wouldn't you agree that both those images would be better than the current one at present that includes a girl's chopped face in the right side? — Cirt (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat myself. If you have a reading comprehension problem, then there is nothing I can do about that, and given our past interaction history, I would say that is the problem. I have restored the stable image. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:, PLEASE, I request that you assume good faith, as I've NOT been following this article history at all, okay? Wouldn't you agree that both those images would be better than the current one at present that includes a girl's chopped face in the right side? — Cirt (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since that's clearly not the stable image that was previously in the article, I have no idea why you would refer me to it. Sorry, I don't have time for these games. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we should use an image just for the sake of having a more recently dated photo. Newer does not mean better; it should be based on how good the actual photo is itself, not its age. Although the 2014 photo is high resolution, it does seem quite grainy and pixelated. It's not like he looks that much different, if at all, compared to the stable 2009 photo File:Tyson - Apollo 40th anniversary 2009.jpg. Spellcast (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'm glad Viriditas restored the stable image, actually. I honestly don't recall what the prior issues were with Viriditas, but I would respectfully and politely ask that Viriditas let bygones be bygones and hopefully we can move forward productively and assume good faith in the future going forwards from here on out. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I'm trying to contact representatives for Tyson to obtain a better photo. We'll see if they get back to me. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Tyson confabulations
Borghunter removed my section on confabulation citing previous consensus.
Earlier "consensus": allegations were unreliable since they were made by rightwing bloggers. Better sourcing was demanded.
For my source I pointed to Tyson's admission. I also cited the Friendly Atheist's article. Tyson is not a rightwing blogger and neither is the friendly atheist.
The earlier consensus is obviously false.HopDavid (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looking through the previous RfC, I don't think anyone is disputing that Dr. Tyson got the context of President Bush's quote wrong. Indeed, Dr. Tyson has admitted as much, and my own opinion is that there's adequate sourcing to establish the veracity of that claim. My main question, and the question that people in the RfC debated, is: How much weight is this controversy due? I think, a sentence up to a paragraph *might* be appropriate, and even that should not be automatic--it depends on the context it goes in. A three paragraph section titled "Confabulations"---as the second section in the article, before even "Career"--is giving the topic way more weight than it's worth, and the title itself is not neutral. I'd also like to see some other opinions before we reverse the outcome of last year's RfC. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Borghunter writes "I don't think anyone is disputing that Dr. Tyson got the context of President Bush's quote wrong." Yes, someone is disputing this fact. On December 13, 2015 Objective3000 stated there was no evidence of a misquote. Zero Serenity calls the accusations suppositions of fringe right wing blogs. Even after Tyson has ADMITTED his video mangled the context and message of Bush's speech. The old line was that the misquote never happened, that it was just a fiction of lying right wing blogs. The new line is that it is not worth mentioning because it doesn't appear in impartial and reliable mainstream venues such as Daily Kos or Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a joke.HopDavid (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus was that the issue does not get mentioned at all in the Tyson article, in any form, no matter how slight, no matter what the context. Heck, there were editors insisting the issue not be mentioned ANYWHERE in the encyclopedia in ANY way... I had to fight for weeks to get mention of the issue to be grudgingly allowed in The_Federalist_(website) article (the webzine which first covered the story). In the RfC last year, there were editors here requiring HUNDREDS of reliable sources before they would consider the issue worthy of coverage here, and I see no reason to expect another attempt to include it here would bear different fruit. I'd recommend investing your time elsewhere in the encyclopedia because there's no way it's getting in this article. Marteau (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I don't expect this group consensus to do the right thing. I am gathering material how a toxic subculture willfully conceals data that goes against their preconceptions.HopDavid (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus was that the issue does not get mentioned at all in the Tyson article, in any form, no matter how slight, no matter what the context. Heck, there were editors insisting the issue not be mentioned ANYWHERE in the encyclopedia in ANY way... I had to fight for weeks to get mention of the issue to be grudgingly allowed in The_Federalist_(website) article (the webzine which first covered the story). In the RfC last year, there were editors here requiring HUNDREDS of reliable sources before they would consider the issue worthy of coverage here, and I see no reason to expect another attempt to include it here would bear different fruit. I'd recommend investing your time elsewhere in the encyclopedia because there's no way it's getting in this article. Marteau (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus was to not include. Marteau's edit above is a gross exaggeration and a violation of WP:AGF.
- I used every word precisely, everything I said in verifiable, and exaggerated nothing. Marteau (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus was to not include. Marteau's edit above is a gross exaggeration and a violation of WP:AGF.
″How much weight is this controversy due?"
Tyson's story falsely portrays Bush as a divisive xenophobe. False accusations of racism are not okay. It deserves a lot of weight. Shame on Wikipedia for this complete censorship.HopDavid (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- What is this? The 10th time this has come up since the federalist wrote about me? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've never heard of you until reading this Talk page. (Googling…) From a strident Daily Kos article "…supposedly misquoting George W. Bush."[1] No, not a supposition. Tyson has admitted it. Registered Democrat here, voted for Obama twice. So no, I am not a right wing fan of the Federalist. Your right wing blogosphere argument is a sham. By attempting to conceal facts, your defense will harm Tyson. You provide guys like Sean Davis with great ammunition.HopDavid (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- The reputation of the encyclopedia was seriously harmed by the unfortunate result of the RfC and the deliberations that preceded it. Ten times it has come up since then? I have no doubt it'll come up 110 times. It was that bad, and remains still a major embarrassment to the project. Marteau (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"The reputation of the encyclopedia was seriously harmed"
And deservedly so.
This is an example of a group willfully concealing facts that do not support their beliefs.
A good scientist acknowledges data whether or not it supports his pet theory. The Tyson defenders here may pay lip service to science. But in truth this toxic sub culture is anti-science.HopDavid (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I supported inclusion at the Federalist, and if I recall, I supported a minimalist inclusion here. That said:
- HopDavid, please drop the "censorship" rhetoric. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal blog to publish what they want. Everyone has an equal right to add and remove content. We have dispute resolution mechanisms, and as an editor you get an equal voice in them.
- Under our Reliable Sources policy all blogs are unusable for most purposes. Left wing, right wing, and no-wing blogs are equally not Reliable Sources. Blogs don't provide the sort of editorial oversight and responsible fact checking we need for backing up an encyclopedia. We also give virtually no weight to the bloggosphere's hype-of-the-week. We look for books, newspapers, and other Reliable Sources as impartial evidence that the world has assigned something weight for possible inclusion in an encyclopedia.
- We try to apply special care to Biographies of Living People. When negative information is challenged we apply a rule that it is excluded by default, until there is reasonable Consensus for inclusion. There was a major discussion on this. Coverage outside the bloggosphere was marginal. Tyson misremembered something, he apologized, and Reliable Source publications didn't consider it very newsworthy.
- "It deserves a lot of weight". That's not for me to decide, and it's not for you to decide. If Reliable Sources consider it newsworthy, that is what gets it into the article. It would be possible to start a new RFC, but it wouldn't be advisable unless someone were going to present new sources that were published after the previous RFC. I also wouldn't recommend a new editor try it. Starting an RFC without a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies could backfire. It may result in a fresh consensus cementing this as a dead issue. Alsee (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Tyson himself has admitted to this. Lack of reliable sources outside the blogosphere is no longer an honest argument.
At stake is the credibility of Wikipedia. That may well be a dead issue.HopDavid (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @HopDavid:, see WP:ADVOCACY and read the profuse archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:ADVOCACY This pretense at neutrality and rejecting advocacy is ridiculous. Advocates would have us believe Tyson walks on water. To further this advocacy they conceal information thus destroying any illusion of Wikipedia's neutrality. Not to mention credibility.HopDavid (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why aren't the accusations against Tyson that he allegedly fabricated a quote mentioned?
Further discussion almost certainly will be fruitless. Editors proposing concrete action, and not just use the space to vent, should feel free to start a new section
|
---|
Surely a celebrity populizer of science making up quotations is a sufficiently big deal to be included in this lengthy biography, isn't it? Why do I see nothing at all about it? It's a surprising lacuna.71.121.193.107 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This question is answered directly in the FAQ posted at the top of the page. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Would an admin please colapse this section. Its just the same unpleasantness repeated and not a single new morsel of information or argument has been made nor any given reason to revisit this done and over debate. Shabidoo | Talk 00:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC) References
Accusations against living personsOn the talk page Archive 7, Objective3000 wrote "Bush made comments to the same effect as those claimed by Tyson. So what is all this gnashing of the teeth about?" [3] I have never seen Bush make general slams against Arabs or Islam. He's taken on Islamic militants and tyrants, yes. But the more general racism and xenophobia that Objective3000 is trying to attach to Bush? That's a fabrication. I've been told false accusations against living persons don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, not even the talk pages. If so, Objective3000s false accusations against Bush should be deleted from Archive 7.HopDavid (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Geeze Louise, can we just cut to the chase and get you to provide a source for you words already? In particular, where you say "Basically saying that God told him to kill a lot of people of another religion." It is contentious, it is a BLP issue, and if you're not going to bother to back up your words when challenged, but instead just go on about how indignant you are, it's got to be redacted even if it is on an archived talk page. For what it's worth, I am aware that Bush thinks God told him to go after terrorists, and Iraq, but it is the "religion" thing I cannot find backing for. Thx. Marteau (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
References
|
Remove signature
Why are signatures published? IMHO it should be removed, in all instances of such for personalities on the Wiki. It's like giving the tools to crooks for falsification : it's irresponsible as well as completely irrelevant for the sake of an encyclopedic article (we're not talking about a historical figure from the past in which case it would be ok). --HawkFest (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am 100% sure that this is not the appropriate place to discuss a topic like this. Just sayin. DP76764 (Talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point but it's unnecessary paranoia. His signature/autograph was already easy to find online before Wikipedia, e.g. Library of Congress [3]. Besides when was the last time, if ever, a living celebrity was harmed by a crook who stole their signature online, let alone Wikipedia? Spellcast (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet another mainstream media mention of Tyson's false memory
That Tyson's account is false is well established. As I understand it, it isn't noteworthy because supposedly it's only been mentioned in right wing blogs. Of course it's also been mentioned in the New York Times, Washington Post, as well as blogs all over the political spectrum. Today (March 13, 2016) it was mentioned by CNN[1] "6 photos: Famous false memories Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed he heard President George W. Bush say in a post-9/11 speech…" It's been almost two years since Sean Davis broke this story and it is still coming up, this time as a famous false memory. CNN seems to be a major main stream venue. What does it take to be deemed noteworthy by this clique of editors?HopDavid (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Article needs an In The Media section
Article needs an In the Media section, possibly a sub header under Media Appearances, to address the subject being cited in media, but not actually appearing in person.
Just opening it up for feedback, before taking action.Super veritas (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
He is featured as a character in this show where he and Fyootch are old buddies and calls him NDT. He has telepathic abilities and very muscular arms. I think we should mention this somewhere but I am not sure which section. Ranze (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Father
I learned this morning that, unfortunately, his father passed away yesterday. (Pacific standard time) However, going back several or a billion revisions, it seems that the article stated that Cyril Tyson had died before 2012. This seems rather an odd mistake. These sources [4] [5] [6] and [7] all show that. So I don't know why this appeared this way when he was alive. Does anyone know? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Work with Avenged Sevenfold
In this edit, Samuel010898 added the comment that In 2016, Tyson made a guest appearance on the Avenged Sevenfold album The Stage, where he delivered a monologue on the track 'Exist'
. This was cited to a YouTube video. This addition was reverted by Dp76764 with the comment GFE, but non-notable trivia. please find a reliable 3rd party source. youtube is not one
. However, in this case, the video was published by the official channel of Metal Hammer, and is therefore as reliable as if it had been posted on the Metal Hammer site. Youtube is a means of communication, not a publisher. Videos uploaded by random people are not normally reliable sources, but videos uploaded directly by reliable publishers, particularly via official channels, are just as reliable as anything else from the same publisher. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC) I have restored the change. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, your source is reliable, but is this the only source? If it is, then I still contend that this is not notable and trivial. DP76764 (Talk) 15:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't as yet looked for other sources. By the way "notable" refers to the standard for including or not including an article. It should not be used for the standard to include or not include a content item in an article. As WP:N says (in the section WP:NNC:
The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception for some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
. This is a mistake that many editors make. it also means that the number of sources that mention a content item is not as relevant as it would be for the determination of notability for a standalone article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC) - A quick google search found the following (and there ear more):
- http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-joins-avenged-sevenfold-its-ne-245026
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYL0fzPUBZI
- http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/avenged-sevenfold-talk-wild-new-ai-themed-album-the-stage-w446962
- http://q106fm.com/news/articles/2016/oct/29/avenged-sevenfolds-m-shadows-explains-neil-degrasse-tysons-cameo-on-the-stage/
- http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=41312
- https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/music-business-not-as-usual-an-exclusive-interview-with-m-shadows-of-avenged-sev.html
- http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7557720/avenged-sevenfold-interview-new-album-concert-capitol-m-shadows
- http://www.thepostathens.com/article/2016/11/avenged-sevenfold-the-stage-review
- I haven't as yet looked for other sources. By the way "notable" refers to the standard for including or not including an article. It should not be used for the standard to include or not include a content item in an article. As WP:N says (in the section WP:NNC:
I don't have ti,me at the moment to go through these and determine which would make the best cites, but the presence of billboard and rolling stone suggests that there is ample sourcing here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I may be overly sensitive to IP/new users adding things solely sourced with youtube, thus my quick reaction to remove. Carry on! DP76764 (Talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320010721/http://howtorockyourbaby.com/moms/ to http://howtorockyourbaby.com/moms
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pasadenajournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1587%3Aamazing-african-americans-in-history-dr-neil-degrasse-tyson&Itemid=128
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630025422/http://multiversitycomics.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-consults-on-action-comics-14-finds-krypton-in-real-life/ to http://multiversitycomics.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-consults-on-action-comics-14-finds-krypton-in-real-life/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304214552/http://www.planetary.org/about/neil_tyson.html to http://www.planetary.org/about/neil_tyson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150301210506/http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html to http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150503212138/https://www.arcsfoundation.org/5000-alumni-work-us to https://www.arcsfoundation.org/5000-alumni-work-us
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022134532/http://www.amnh.org/science/bios/bio.php?scientist=tyson to http://www.amnh.org/science/bios/bio.php?scientist=tyson
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150301210506/http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html to http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/feb-26-2015-NASawards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222053806/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20130585,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20130585,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there no WikiProject for Black Scientists?
Seems kind of odd that there wouldn't be a WikiProject for African American Scientists. Perhaps someone should start one. Alialiac (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:African-American_scientists and he's already tagged Marteau (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
NPOV??
A biography with a neutral point of view should do more than list Tyson's accomplishments. Especially for a controversial figure.
Tyson has received criticism from scholars of Muslim history for his lack of rigor and accuracy. He's received similar criticisms from doctors, biologists, mathematicians and physicists. He has also been criticized for inventing histories to support his talking points.
You would never guess any of this from this one sided and obviously biased article.
HopDavid (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can provide us with a few dozen links to substantiate your comment. -- TomK32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can provide many links to academics who've called out Tyson's sloppy scholarship and questionable claims. From people like Paul Zachary Myers, Dr. Steven Novella, Joseph E. B. Lumbard, astrophysicist Luke Barnes, Emily Willingham, Jonathan H. Adler, Hemant Mehta and others. HopDavid (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Show me where he has PUBLICLY DEBATED, face-to-face scientific issues of any controversy in front of experts with any contrary POV. Interviews with like-minded or father figures like Stephen Hawking are hardly a debate. He promotes himself as the "face" of science but does not represent it until he can defend his agenda to other experts. Whether he represents science or not depends on who he debates. Until he can defend himself in front of other experts, his opinions remain bad science. His best credential is that he runs a planetarium! WTF makes him an expert other than astrology? There are a LOT more others who could run orbits around his COG. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018
This edit request to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Media appearances In 2018, Tyson made a guest appearance on the show The Big Bang Theory as himself, together with fellow scientist Bill Nye source: https://popculture.com/tv-shows/2018/09/24/big-bang-theory-bill-nye-neil-degrasse-tyson-welcomes-season-premiere/ Ricopaat (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018
This edit request to Neil deGrasse Tyson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add RFC text as per talk page:
In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos and subsequently covered by the Washington Post and others.[2] The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[2][3][4] Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. [2][5] 2A0C:5BC0:40:1410:ECD0:B170:DD5D:654A (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/13/tech/neil-degrasse-tyson-wrong-sex-twitter/index.html?
- ^ a b c Kaplan, Sarah; Guarino, Ben (December 1, 2018). "Neil deGrasse Tyson under investigation after accusations of sexual misconduct". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 December 2018.
- ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
- ^ Kilkenny, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Fox, National Geographic Investigate Neil DeGrasse Tyson Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
- ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusations: "I'm The Accused, So Why Believe Anything I Say?"". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
- Not done for now:. This is just a repeat of the above. O3000 (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to archive this since its just a repeat of the section above. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
edit request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
begin:
On November 11, 2018, Variety reported that three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson were being investigated by the producers of Cosmos. The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former assistant, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[1]
end: In addition, this tweet by Allers confirms the accuracy of the coverage by Patheos linked here. Dr. Michele Thornley of Bucknell confirmed that Allers told her about her experiences with Tyson years before she went public.
- If we are going to restore it at all, and I am neutral on that, then I think we would be better going back to the version cleaned up by Masem. We definitely don't want a red link. The Tweet does not confirm anything beyond Allers being satisfied with the Patheos coverage, which I don't think anybody has questioned, so I don't see any significance in that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is also acceptable (Masem version with WTW changed and Tyson response.
In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos. The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[2][3] Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. [4]
- The tweet is only a source documenting that Patheos reliably repeated Allers complaint. More relevant is that Patheos includes quotes from another professor that relates that fallout from the groping complaint resulted in changes to the conditions of a speaking event Tyson was part of. It gives the event more relevance to Tyson't career as well as corroborating from a credible third party (Dr. Thornley) that the complaint was lodged years ago. It's a bit much detail for inclusion at this point but it helps with RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4b4::1001 (talk • contribs)
- Given that Tyson has made a statement, I'm drifting from neutral to being in favour of inclusion with an understanding that we want to keep the coverage at this sort of level unless there are significant further developments. Anybody else have a view? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the most fair and honest thing to do in this situation is to include info on both the allegations and Tyson's response to them.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Problem I have is the original sources. Please someone tell me if I am in error – but the Patheos post appears to be a blog post by a student who has only made one post. I can see no way that we would accept that as RS and that it should be mentioned in any manner, particularly in a BLP. Further, it’s behind most of the other mentions. Perhaps this is why the RS press hasn’t picked it up. I think, as an encyclopedia, we should be well behind the press – not in front. Patience will out. Let’s be right (or at least verified) instead of first. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Washington Post, AP, USA Today and Vanity Fair have all covered it. I put those sources in previous section and are easily goggled. His response will drive up other sources as well but those are sufficient in any case. [8][9][10].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- And a second "In Depth" WaPo article with WaPo byline [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Except its all the same information/accusations from the same people. It all still stems to Patheos and the three people making these claims. --Masem (t) 02:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The ltest WaPo article is independent of Patheos with WaPo relying on its own interviews and sourcing. [12]. Same with NY Times [13] that added Hayden Planetarium in NY is also investigating Tyson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- They validated with the three people accusing Tyson. That's not new sources, that's just getting more details from involved people. --Masem (t) 02:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That means it's subject to WaPo editorial standards and they are no longer attributing to Patheos. Look, if Patheos intereviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, and then WaPo interviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, we don't argue to dismiss it because Patheos interviewed him first. WaPo added corroboration as well with
Producer Drew Dowdle, for whom Watson worked for seven months in 2017, told The Post that Watson told him about her experience with Tyson a few months after quitting “Cosmos.”
. How is it that you can continue to dismiss even though WaPo[14] and NYTimes[15] are reporting it under their own reporters names? We can toss Ptheos for WaPo and NYTimes for RS as the story no longer relies on that source. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4b4::1001 (talk • contribs)- No, they haven't validated any of the claims, only obtaining additional details of the accusations of the three people. We still have no idea how true these three people's stories are or what impact that will have. And no, even with Wa Post and NYTimes, we would have to explain that the initial accusations were reported by the Patheos blog, if we were including these accusations. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- The media never validate the claims. They report the claims through interviews and corroborating sources. They report responses to claims and they report results of investigations. We don't do "truth" as a standard or else we would never cover allegations. These allegations are sourced to WaPo and NYTimes. And no, we don't need Patheos at all. That's not how RS works. WaPo published the results of their own interviews under their banner. We can certainly include Patheos for timeline as WaPo did but Patheos isn't the Reliable Source, WaPo is. Even the timeline re Patheos is sourced to WaPo. Here are the operative words in the the Post
In an interview with The Post, Watson described....
,In a statement, “Cosmos” producers told The Washington Post that...
,In an email to The Post, Allers confirmed the details of her experience...
. That's sourced to WaPo, not Patheos or a blog. WaPo is reporting in their voice to their editorial standards. That's the foundation of a reliable source.
- The media never validate the claims. They report the claims through interviews and corroborating sources. They report responses to claims and they report results of investigations. We don't do "truth" as a standard or else we would never cover allegations. These allegations are sourced to WaPo and NYTimes. And no, we don't need Patheos at all. That's not how RS works. WaPo published the results of their own interviews under their banner. We can certainly include Patheos for timeline as WaPo did but Patheos isn't the Reliable Source, WaPo is. Even the timeline re Patheos is sourced to WaPo. Here are the operative words in the the Post
- No, they haven't validated any of the claims, only obtaining additional details of the accusations of the three people. We still have no idea how true these three people's stories are or what impact that will have. And no, even with Wa Post and NYTimes, we would have to explain that the initial accusations were reported by the Patheos blog, if we were including these accusations. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That means it's subject to WaPo editorial standards and they are no longer attributing to Patheos. Look, if Patheos intereviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, and then WaPo interviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, we don't argue to dismiss it because Patheos interviewed him first. WaPo added corroboration as well with
- They validated with the three people accusing Tyson. That's not new sources, that's just getting more details from involved people. --Masem (t) 02:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The ltest WaPo article is independent of Patheos with WaPo relying on its own interviews and sourcing. [12]. Same with NY Times [13] that added Hayden Planetarium in NY is also investigating Tyson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Except its all the same information/accusations from the same people. It all still stems to Patheos and the three people making these claims. --Masem (t) 02:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Problem I have is the original sources. Please someone tell me if I am in error – but the Patheos post appears to be a blog post by a student who has only made one post. I can see no way that we would accept that as RS and that it should be mentioned in any manner, particularly in a BLP. Further, it’s behind most of the other mentions. Perhaps this is why the RS press hasn’t picked it up. I think, as an encyclopedia, we should be well behind the press – not in front. Patience will out. Let’s be right (or at least verified) instead of first. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the most fair and honest thing to do in this situation is to include info on both the allegations and Tyson's response to them.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Given that Tyson has made a statement, I'm drifting from neutral to being in favour of inclusion with an understanding that we want to keep the coverage at this sort of level unless there are significant further developments. Anybody else have a view? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Updated to include WaPo independent in-depth article.
In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos and subsequently covered by the Washington Post and others.[5] The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[5][6][7] Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. [5][8]
- I am in favor of mentioning this scandal on the Wikipedia page. The edits suggested above are better than nothing. Still, my preference would be for something more condensed than the above, such as suggested by my comment above. Whatever you do, please cite the media source you are using for the allegation in the text of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it part of Wikipedia's policy to accept any allegation as being guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? Why do you people always assume that if it's in the big media then it must be true? Where's the police report? Where's the criminal conviction? Where's the due process? I'm glad you Wikipedia editors never designed the justice system or had a hand in designing the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.239.111 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is definitely not Wikipedia policy to accept all allegations as true and we are not going to do that. You can see a few people requesting us to do so above but you can also see that they have not had their way. You do not need to worry about this.
- The facts we are trying to get straight here concern what the allegations are, what the response is, and what reliable sources support their existence because that defines our coverage. We are not taking any sides here. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I support adding info on these allegations. This is a significant trio of allegations. If we add info that he's been accused of heinous things, that does NOT mean we are taking sides, as we are not actually saying that he abused anyone, only that he's been accused of abusing people. The excuse that there is not deadline for this info to be added makes no sense given that Wikipedia has never waited to include info on sexual misconduct allegations before. I hope Tyson is not being treated with favoritism simply because some Wikipedians admire his promotion of science in the media.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
- Yup, time to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS (multiple times by others including the cabal comments too). Opposition to inclusion right now on this talk page is pretty policy-based without having to go into aspersions territory. It is pretty standard for Wikipedia policy that we don't engage in recentism and let events play themselves out first to assess lasting encyclopedic value. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
- ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
- ^ Kilkenny, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Fox, National Geographic Investigate Neil DeGrasse Tyson Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
- ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusations: "I'm The Accused, So Why Believe Anything I Say?"". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
- ^ a b c Kaplan, Sarah; Guarino, Ben (December 1, 2018). "Neil deGrasse Tyson under investigation after accusations of sexual misconduct". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 December 2018.
- ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
- ^ Kilkenny, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Fox, National Geographic Investigate Neil DeGrasse Tyson Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
- ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusations: "I'm The Accused, So Why Believe Anything I Say?"". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
Nevis
Off-topic from the discussion of recent (late 2018) allegations...I intend to make the following edit once the article is again editable. I think it needs to be clarified that Nevis (birthplace of Dr. Tyson's grandmother), was at the time of her birth a British territory and part of the British West Indies, but is now part of the independent nation Saint Kitts and Nevis. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
PETA
Just a reminder that we need to be careful about organizations like PETA when content involving them comes up since WP:FRINGE applies. In this case, Tyson specifically responded that they edited out the part about him cooking lobsters, which can significantly change the intended point of view of the BLP by such an advocacy group. WP:NPOV can get tricky with such groups because they'll often say they interviewed some well known person and make it look like the person supports the group. With such context issues here and if the mention of the interview is going to be included, qualifiers from the BLP subject are pretty important, especially since we can't unduly legitimize such groups even by indirect association. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- A problem we often run into. Add something, and you may need to add a response, which may lead to another response, etc. In this case, Tyson made a PSA for PETA. It appears that PETA left out a line from an interview in an attempt to suggest Tyson supported more of their mission than he does, and he likely felt a need to very briefly respond that he wasn’t a vegetarian. Six years later, he made a statement which is mostly true from a scientific, historic view; but uncomfortable for some. I think we are fine up to the last sentence. The first three sentences all relate to 2011. The last, six years later, is really off-topic of his view that animals should be treated ethically, and the word “however” sounds like we are synthesizing a connection. Even if we find RS that ties this together, it seems a stretch. I’d drop the last sentence. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- He has used the cow line multiple times, in this next case, specifically in the context of plant based diets, and specifically talks about not wanting to give up his 16 oz ribeye, which makes it a bit more relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In6YtNK9PCs. However, I think the whole PETA section is pretty fluffy, and would be ok with dropping it all together. Relative to the things Tyson is well known for, this is pure trivia, and is not an important and lasting part of his biography. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Far as I know, he's never suggested he's a vegetarian, which makes it irrelevant in my mind. You can eat meat and not torture cats. But, I wouldn't complain about dropping the entire paragraph. It's just a PSA -- and we all know no good deed goes unpunished. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, like the accusation, how much of a long-term effect has this had? This is one we can judge which I would say is : Precisely none. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. To be honest, the initial sentences on the interview really just seem like a case of, "It made it in the newspaper, so include it." The lobster tweet is only relevant if that's included, and the cow one is another (should be modified if included as Objective3000 alludes to) isn't really standalone either. I'm fine removing the whole paragraph of folks are relatively on board with that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Again, like the accusation, how much of a long-term effect has this had? This is one we can judge which I would say is : Precisely none. --Masem (t) 20:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Far as I know, he's never suggested he's a vegetarian, which makes it irrelevant in my mind. You can eat meat and not torture cats. But, I wouldn't complain about dropping the entire paragraph. It's just a PSA -- and we all know no good deed goes unpunished. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- He has used the cow line multiple times, in this next case, specifically in the context of plant based diets, and specifically talks about not wanting to give up his 16 oz ribeye, which makes it a bit more relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In6YtNK9PCs. However, I think the whole PETA section is pretty fluffy, and would be ok with dropping it all together. Relative to the things Tyson is well known for, this is pure trivia, and is not an important and lasting part of his biography. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
As there is apparently consensus for this, Done ResultingConstant (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)