Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 10

Resources
Here is a first stab at a list of some relevant sources. Note that several do not qualify as reliable sources in some cases are not sure but my guess is that they are not. I've included them in the list those interested in seeing what is being said about this incident.


 * Note: the table below represents the opinions of several Wikipedia editors who may or may not be familiar with how we evaluate sources for reliability. Furthermore, their asseessments of sources may or may not accurately represent the linked source discussions.  Please do not interpret this table as reliable or factual.


 * I added a column and a couple of items which have been mentioned. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Re Physics Today they are "  the flagship publication of the American Institute of Physics, is the most influential and closely followed physics magazine in the world. With authoritative features, full news coverage and analysis, and fresh perspectives on technological advances and ground-breaking research, Physics Today informs readers about science and its role in society."  Just FYI  Capitalismojo (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Tampa paper is clearly a political opinion editorial. Those tend to go all over the place. It's different from a news article covering the topic. It think his editorial is enough to prove that the opinion exists, but not enough to prove it is notable enough to mention out of all the many, many things that could be said in this encyclopedia article. Even if it were in a news article I'd prefer something a little less regional in its coverage in order to demonstrate national or international traction on the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the "discussion" comprising the "checkmark" links on that chart is 5- to 7-year-old partisan tripe. Circa the present, responsible editors are not obligated to do anything other than laugh at it.--Froglich (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * even if they were ALL reliable, it would still be WP:UNDUE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * When multiple mainstream media sources begin writing about a public intellectual making up quotes it is noteworthy, even if some are op-ed pieces. Opinion pieces are often the main source of criticism in BLPs and are reliable for the opinion of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it is WP:UNDUE or not is a subjective opinion, and is an issue I am guessing we will eventuall have to formally vote on in an RFC. I will just add that Tyson is known for giving lectures and for his role in educating and instructing. Reliable sources saying that in his role as a public, paid speaker, he manufactures quotes should not have a very high bar to clear regarding notability. Lecturing about things which are false goes towards his credibility and the quality of his lectures and can be considered unprofessional and unscholarly, particulary from a speaker who is also a scientist.  Tyson positions himself as and is in fact a paid speaker and communicator, this issue is in fact a big deal when applied to a paid lecturer, and is includable even if no further sources than we have now chime in on the issue. Marteau (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's also a Physics Today report on the controversy: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8070 - as part of their "Science and the Media" section in their daily edition. A brief description of the current controversy taken from that would probably be a good thing to put the current paragraph about the GWB quotation into perspective. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call this anywhere near a "controversy" yet. In any case, this article doesn't actually mention the quote but is more of a catalogue of writers in the blogosphere and a couple newspapers attacking Tyson in general. --Shabidoo | Talk 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's approaching that point, as Bush's former aides are weighing in on the topic. Kelly  hi! 15:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

haydenplanetarium.org is also the source used in WikiQuote as the source for the God-stars Bush quote. There seems little doubt that Tyson said that Bush said it. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would echo my comment above that "The Volkl Conspiracy" does not fall under NEWSBLOG, because it is only hosted by WaPo and not subject to editorial control like their many other NEWSBLOGs. It's a RS for the opinion expressed by the author only. News pieces in Physics Today, like the one mentioned above, are RS. a13ean (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The jury is still out on Volkl. Or rather, it has not even been conveined. The fact that the Volkl Conspiracy is independent does not, of course, disqualify it. Being independent, will have to rely on it's own reputation and not that of the Post in what will certanly be a soon forthcoming RfC regarding its reliability or otherwise. Given that it's reputation is weighty and highly respected I predict it's reliability won't be an issue. but that is, of course, to be determined.  Marteau (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Marteau, the Volokh blog is respected for their legal commentary. Some of their non-legal blog behaviour is gruesomely close to FoxNews. --Shabidoo | Talk 09:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fox News is a reliable source for Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 10:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I said their "behaviour". Blog behaviour. The comparison of their non-legal blog behaviour with Fox News...would be the banter on the show Fox and Friends. I would hope no one ever uses program banter as a source except to document Fox News as a News Network. Same with MSNBC's banter. Or any banter for that matter. --Shabidoo | Talk 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Fox news is not reliable for everything. As with just about everything WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For example, when it comes to science and medical content, newspapers in general are not reliable and we look to different sources. Sources are rarely reliable for everything. Second Quantization (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the Volokh Conspiracy is not a newsblog, and the reference is not the Washington Post. So the table above is quite incorrect. I'm hesitant to edit someone else's text on the talk page, so I request that someone update it.  Or give me the green light to update it - not sure what the policy is in that regard.


 * As we've already discussed above, the VC is a self-published source that may be used as a RS by folowing those guidelines. And since the proprietor, Eugene Volokh, does not exercise editorial control over his co-bloggers each individual contributor would need to be evaluated individually.  It's a mixed bag, with some contributors (EV, Orin Kerr) above reproach and others not so much (won't name names here, sorry).  See http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/about/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/21/in-brazil-you-can-always-find-the-amazon-in-america-the-amazon-finds-you-2/ for details about the VC-WAPO relationship.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The National Review Online picked up the story link. It also, unhappily, also repeats Davis' wikipedia spaz-out.  Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Breitbart as well Bonewah (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Swordfish et al, please update the table to reflect the current info. I added the WaPost entry based on the linked comment and the immediately following comment that it was NewsBlog. The table is a summary, so can't be expected to hold more than the basic info thus be more liberal in your editing than with someone's text. The table was labeled as being created incomplete, so fill in the details. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy as a RS: I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_19#The_Volokh_Conspiracy_.28legal_blog.29 Resolved: Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this predated the agreement with the WaPo. I'm not sure how much this changes things. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In case anyone missed it in the other thread, there's a new source today from The Week. This one seems to be written from the left side of the political spectrum and calls on Tyson to apologize. Can we add this to the table above? I'm terrible at Wikiformatting. Kelly  hi! 13:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've updated the table. Thanks for the head's up.


 * I don't know that there's much new here - note that The Week themselves have not presented any original reporting, they're just repeating what was posted at thefederalist.com. The two relevant passages are "Tyson has allegedly been caught embellishing anecdotes." (emphasis mine) and "Tyson needs to check carefully, in the future, that the quotes in his anecdotes are factual and not a figment of his imagination. And he should apologize to those who he has misquoted."  Note that they are quite careful in their language and do not directly say that he has misquoted anyone or has made up anything up.  This is the UK and their libel laws mean that accusations are usually done via implication rather than direct accusation, so damning by implication is as strong as we're likely to get.  Still, while this is a RS for the fact that the federalist has made these accusations, it's not a RS that they are true.  It does move the needle on the notability meter, but I don't think by very much.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about the phrasing - on Twitter the author said he was "hedging" on that because he couldn't prove a negative. Kelly  hi! 14:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think The Week HAS presented "original reporting" here. They are saying that his alleged fabrication of lecture material have caused climate deniers to point out that if Tyson is fabricating information in one realm, "Perhaps he's lying about that (climate change)as well.".   I am not aware of any other source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are damaging his message or his credibility.  This is directly pertinent to his "overarching story" as another editor pharased it earlier, and adds weight to the argument that mention of these incidents is worthy of inclusion. Marteau (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose if by "orignial reporting" you mean restating what some people are posting in the blogosphere, then yes they have - their article does provide a reliable source to confirm the fact that non-RS bloggers are saying certain things. If you mean independently verifying facts or otherwise coming up with new information then not so much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is more than a "restating" of what some people are posting. It is a reliable source saying these allegations are causing some to question Tyson's reliability. That has been obviously implied by many sources and assumed by many, but has not explicity said by any I am aware of.  That is, in fact, significant and not simply a "restating" as you call it.  The lack of such an explicit linkage between the allegations and "what makes him noteworthy" has been used as a basis by editors for advocating exclusion of this issue.  And where does The Week say this effect is limited to "non-RS bloggers" as you say?  The Week said no such thing.  They did say that this is "A much bigger problem" which indicates they think it's no trivial mattter  Marteau (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From the article:


 * "...climate deniers have latched on to this controversy to make a case against climate change."


 * That's about it. No specifics as to who is making the case, where they are making it, or what, exactly, they are saying. Agree that we don't know at this point whether the folks they are talking about are RS or not, but the only ones they specifically mention are non-RS.  If we put this in the article it would cry out for a  tag.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Many climate sceptics are nuts. If they are arguing that Tyson's concession he got this wrong has any relevance to Tyson's views on climate change, well, they deserve to be mocked.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "That's about it"? You say that as if it minimizes what this source is saying and the linkage this source is providing.  We now have a source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are having an effect on his overarching story and what makes him notable (which includes his career as a speaker and provider of opinion and fact).  That's a big issue regarding it's includability here. The lack of such a thing has been used as a basis for non-inclusion, and this source addresses that criticism. Because he does not go into details does not negate his statment which as a reliable source (unlike Wikipedia editors), he is not required to provide.[User:Marteau|Marteau]] (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "We now have a source directly saying Tyson's alleged fabrications are having an effect on his overarching story ..." Really? Where does the article say that?  I understand that the people fanning the flames of this "controversy" desperately want it to have an effect, but so far from what I've seen the effect is minimal if even detectable.  That may change as things develop, but for now we need to rely on what the RS sources actually say, not what we might wish for them to say. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "having an effect" was a poor choice of words. "directly related to" is better, and correct. Marteau (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "I don't know that there's much new here" - I was not aware that an RS was useful only for their original content. We can't use an RS which states that the sky is blue, because that's not original? We can't use an RS with a well-known JFK quote because that's not original? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Did someone say we can't use it as an RS? I'm not seeing that opinion expressed anywhere above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, five of the sources in this list also reported on Obama saluting with a coffee cup in his hand. (Actually, it was probably tea, so they didn’t even get that right.) Five so far – this was only two days ago. I don't think anyone thinks this is something we should add to WP, or would consider carefully crafting a table like this to "prove" its notability. And, it's about the POTUS, not some popular science guy I never heard of. Problem is with these blogs, they publish even the tiniest insignificant items if it denigrates someone they dislike, and this echoes throughout the blogosphere until the next item pops up. Instead of Wikipedia becoming a part of the echo chamber, perhaps the text should be removed and the subject revisited in six months to see if anyone remembers it. Objective3000 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost everything the President eats, wears, says, or does is remarked upon. That fact is supremely irrelevant to this discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Almost none of the key refs under discussion here are blogs. The blog that is most discussed here is published on the Washington Post site. It most certainly did not comment on the president's salute. The National Review is not in any way a blog. It also did not comment on the president's coffee. The magazine Physics Today is not a blog and did not comment on the president. The Daily Beast is not a blog. Its small paragraph on the president's coffee pointed at a CNN article. The Week is a news magazine not a blog. It did not comment on the president's coffee. The Tampa Tribune is a newspaper, it has less than 90 words on the president's coffee salute. The Federalist (which started this entire discussion) has been talked about here as a "blog", it is not. It is a subscriber-based conservative opinion web magazine with professional paid staff. It has not commented on the president's coffee. This is a long way to say that the statement that this is all about an echo chamber of unreliable blogs is inaccurate. It would be best to stick to the subject under discussion rather than diverting discussion to the president's activities. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional article today from The Christian Post here - could someone add that to the table? Kelly  hi! 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Their line, "At the time of this publication (yesterday), Tyson's Wikipedia entry still did not include references to Tyson misquoting Bush." makes their being considered a RS here impossible, in my opinion. The argument could be made that, although our article does include Tyson saying it, and and the Tampa paper saying it was slander, there is no text here saying it was a misquote. But I think that defense would be astretch.  That would be playing games with words and context which goes towards unreliability. Marteau (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Added to the table. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder, from WP:V: WP:RS


 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Tampa Tribune pieces fall under this classification and should be treated as such. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:RS. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 14:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Corrected. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional ref from The Daily Caller, though the main topic is the AFD of The Federalist page. Kelly  hi! 07:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article about the controversy from The Washington Examiner. Kelly  hi! 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two obviously partisan sources. Are there any reliable sources available or is this just a storm in a teapot on the right? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it further up the page, but per WP:BIASED, partisan sources may still be considered reliable. Kelly  hi! 08:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Editorials as sources on BLP
One editor has attempted to mark reliable sources that could be considered as editorials as unsuitable for a BLP - I have not seen that policy and would welcome a discussion/link. Kelly hi! 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes you have seen this policy because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you in multiple forums, you are just refusing to acknowledge it. For the record, here it is again:


 * "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."


 * "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."


 * Both are at WP:RS. Please read that policy and act accordingly.  I am now going to restore the table to reflect whether each citation can be used in this article of a WP:BLP.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the material being sourced is contentious. Even Tyson has acknowledged that it's true, as documented in multiple sources. Now please stop modifying work that has been compiled by others without consensus to do so. Kelly  hi! 12:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the checkmarks I edited the table to reflect whether the source is usable here i.e. as a source for a WP:BLP because that's what we are dealing with at the present time. I understand that many of them are WP:RS for other issues, but that is not relevant to the current discussion. If you disagree, please discuss here rather than edit warring on the table. In particular, Physics Today gets a red check because it doesn't include the words "Bush" or "quote". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that proviso anywhere in WP:BLP. Kelly  hi! 12:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * From WP:BLP


 * "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP...; or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."


 * Editorial and opinion columns are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What contentious material are you referring to? Kelly  hi! 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

My attempts to edit the checkmarks to indicate what is usable for this matter as a WP:BLP were reverted, so I simply marked with text all the opinion or editorial items. After doing so, basically all that is left is Tyson's facebook posts. There's not a single straight news article treating the matter other than The Daily Beast and it merely reports on the accusations of thefederalist.com. The Physics today article doesn't even contain the words "Bush" or "misquote", so I don't see it as a source for anything other than the fact that thefederalist.com is making accusations. The others are opinion or editorial pieces which can't be relied on for statements of fact. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion but I disagree. The information proposed to be cited to these sources is not contentious - even Tyson himself admits the quote and characterization of Bush were incorrect. So I'm just not seeing the BLP concern here. Can you specify? Kelly  hi! 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to establish facts for the article. Opinion and editorial pieces can't be relied on to establish facts.  We don't have much to go on to establish facts.  Maybe the facebook posts are enough for the facts, and maybe all those opinion pieces are enough to establish weight, but to my eyes the sourcing looks pretty thin once you start evaluating it according to Wikipedia standards for a WP:BLP.  Reasonable people may differ, which is why the material is contentious.  Pretending that it isn't doesn't make it so. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Federalist, the source for all of this, does a lot more than say Tyson misquoted Bush. It goes on rants in, by my count, thirteen articles lambasting Tyson’s religion (or lack thereof), politics, integrity, acumen and scientific knowledge; and ascribes many scurrilous motivations to Tyson bereft of any evidence. There exist obvious BLP problems. Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Editorials, such as the one from Rich Lowry, editor of National Review at Politico Magazine may be a good source for the article on Rich Lowry, but not for this article. This is a BLP and such sources are not acceptable. Can you image having an editorial by Rachel Maddow brought to an article as source for Sara Palin? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting example - Public image of Sarah Palin contains numerous statements sourced to her political opponents. Kelly  hi! 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For questions of WP:WEIGHT we do not need the WP:RS to establish facts. All that must be true is that it is a WP:RS that has talked about the importance of the subject.  The facts as to if he was mistaken can be verified from the WP:SELFSOURCE (which is perfectly fine to use in a WP:BLP), and what bush said can be verified from a variety of sources.  Other facts should not be included in the article.  If you want to downgrade some of the sources to yellow as biased/opinion, that would be ok, that just means we need to be careful to remove any POV from any facts we cite from it (see WP:BIASED).  For instance the most recent politico piece refers to the quotes as evasive and condescending, we should not include that without a "Rich Lowery says" kind of qualification.  Split the facts (what Tyson said) from the opinion in the article and it is perfectly fine to use as a WP:RS --Obsidi (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. Editorials such as this are not useful for BLPs and attribution does not remove the problem either. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in BLP policy that prohibits citing opinion pieces. This is duly reflected in the fact that such pieces are commonly cited in Wikipedia biographies (!). According to WP:NEWSORG, When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Rich Lowry has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine and a host of other reputable publications. He's a significant voice by any standard. Andreas JN 466 16:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is Rich Lowry is an expert on Tyson and an expert on quote fabrication? --Shabidoo | Talk 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lowry is a prominent commentator on US politics, and the presidency in particular. Tyson commented on the statements of a past president of the United States: Lowry is an expert in that field whose opinions and perspectives are sought by the country's foremost press publications. Lowry is no expert on astrophysics, but to the extent that Tyson commented on politics, Lowry – and not Tyson – is the expert in that field. Andreas JN 466 00:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think not. While I certainly respect Lowry as an intelligent person, which nobody who has read or listened to him will doubt, he unfortunately has a long history of climate change denial and his polemics against Tyson aren't relevant or significant.  He represents the National Review, who began attacking Tyson in July, prior to this latest attack.  When you look at the history of attacks on Tyson in context, you discover that the National Review, along with the Heartland Institute and the Discovery Institute, have been promulgating this manufactured controversy because Tyson dared to promote evolution and exclude creationism from Cosmos.  He also defended climate change science and criticized religion on Cosmos.  The conservative right is apoplectic because many school districts are considering using the Cosmos show in their classrooms.   It is the position of the conservative right that evolution and climate change science are political topics, but the rest of the world does not share their view.  Because they are unable to directly criticize the positions that Tyson takes on the show, the conservative right are forced to attack him as a person.  Because Lowry is helping to further the attacks of these special interest groups, I can't see how his opinion is relevant to this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I good example of what an ad hominem is. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To get hypothetical, I could imagine citing Rachel Maddow for the claim that Rachel Maddow was critical of Sarah Palin, and could imagine citing Sarah Palin for her response (in the above hypothetical). In many cases it could be inappropriate to cite these people, but in limited cases it could very well be valid. The same goes for here - in the limited context, I think you could cite Rich Lowry or thefederalist.com, to establish that a claim was made, and could cite Tyson directly for his response. I think this falls under the self-source guidlines outlined in WP:SELFSOURCE. Whether these are the best available sources that can be used is another matter. Chester Lunt (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Countless BLPs, even high-profile ones like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, are full of opinions. Opinion pieces from reliable sources are perfectly acceptable for citing uncontested facts, and for citing properly attributed opinions. "Neil Tyson misquoted George W. Bush" is a fact. "Neil Tyson is a serial fabulist" would be an improperly attributed opinion asserted as fact and could not be included here. "John Smith of The Daily Newspaper said that Tyson is a serial fabulist" is a properly attributed opinion and inclusion would be determined by editorial consensus. Kelly  hi! 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How can the National Review, the NYPost and Politico be considered three resources when the NYPost and Politico cites are an opinion column by the editor of the National Review? If a columnist has a column in 100 papers, is that 100 sources? Objective3000 (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Rich Lowry didn't write about Tyson at National Review. The Politico and Post pieces are similar, but not identical - looks like the Politico version is the longer one because it talks about the controversy occurring here at Wikipedia. I suppose an editor could choose whichever source they wanted for their cite. Kelly  hi! 11:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's largely irrelevant considering how newspaper columns work. The Lowry piece was syndicated as an opinion piece in many American newspapers.  Best practice is to avoid using polemical op/eds in BLP articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Going to keep this thread from archiving as it is very relevant to the ongoing RfC. --Obsidi (talk ) 01:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson a "Washout"?
Andyvphil has now inserted into this article three times that Tyson “washed out” of his PhD program despite the fact that there are zero refs that state this. When I last reverted this, he attempted to get me barred from Wikipedia. Fastest denial I’ve ever seen. Someone else should revert this slanderous edit to a BLP. This is not useful in a process that is already difficult. Objective3000 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If what you say is true, because this article is covered by BLP discretionary sanctions, then Andyvphil is subject to a topic ban. Rather than reverting, please report him to arbcom enforcement and/or ANI and request action. I believe Andy has already been notified about the sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take it to WP:AE if you really think its the case, but I don't. The reference for the statement says it "essentially flunking him", which is fairly close to "washed out". .  As to the "attempted to get me barred from Wikipedia. Fastest denial I’ve ever seen."  I assume you are referring to this.  He mistakenly read this from Viriditas, and thought that the 1RR restriction was a part of the ArbCom WP:NEWBLPBAN.  Yes you did not say that directlyViriditas (Or I would report you myself), but it could easily be misunderstood as it was in this case.  As such he reported what he incorrectly thought was behavior banned by ArbCom, and it was properly shut down as it wasn't a violation. Obsidi (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obsidi, you've previously been corrected on this point, so I'm concerned you are engaging in WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT behavior in an attempt to disrupt this page. To correct you once again, 1) As a BLP, the Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page 2) This includes  Andyvphil 3) 1RR is often recommended to editors to prevent them from being subject to a block or ban.  If any of this is still not making sense to you, then please find a mentor or someone you trust to explain it to you.  I'm getting really tired of your bizarre arguments bordering on word salad. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to hear more about your "previous correction" of Obsidi. Has it been previously pointed out to you that your "recommendation" to other editors that they obey 1RR can easily be misinterpreted as a statement that the topic under discussion is subject to 1RR? And have you nonetheless continued to place such "warnings" without clarifying the text you use? Andyvphil (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still awaiting your response. You of course have the right to remain silent so that nothing you say can be used against you, but the possibility under consideration is that you are attempting to gain advantage in edit wars by misleading editors with POVs different than yours into believing that they are subject to 1RR when they are not. If you can truthfully debunk this surmise, why not do so? Andyvphil (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the hell you are talking about "previously been corrected on this point". Clearly any uninvolved admin can impose discretionary sanctions on anyone making unsourced/poorly sourced BLP edits. And clearly that does include Andyvphil (I never said it didn't).  I have no problem in recommending 1RR (It was just said in a way to almost make it sound like the 1RR was a required part of WP:NEWBLPBAN, which its clearly not). Feel free to go to AE if you wish, I just disagree that it was an actual violation in this case.  --Obsidi (talk ) 04:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is much better to report editors in violation of BLP sanctions than to engage in an edit war. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support any report any editor chooses to make.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Report in progress... Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The record for "fastest denial [Objective300's] ever seen" has been re-set. Andyvphil (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article now states that he "flunked out". This has been discused before. Not completing your PhD is NOT flunking. Yes, an alumni magazine uses the term. But, this is an encyclopedia and WP:BLP requires more discretion. Objective3000 (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When a dissertation committee dissolves it is either because the candidate gives up, concedes he is not cut out for the candidacy, or the committee comes to the conclusion that the candidate is not cutting it. That is how "flunking" is done by dissertation committees, they "dissolve"... the exception being when the candidate completes his dissertation and makes it to the examination process, which Tyson did not. Given the context and Tyson admitting he was a poor student, the term "flunking" is not unwarranted. Marteau (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy requires that contentious claims be well and strongly sourced. It is strongly sourced that his dissertation committee dissolved - anything more in Wikipedia's voice would be wrong. That noted, where a source says "flunked out" then that is an opinion which should be ascribed to the source as opinion.Collect (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Barring voluntary removal from the process by the candidate, dissolution is effectively a judgment by the committee and the judgment is failure. Using the term "flunking"... although it is typically used only in informal writing, is not unwarranted in this case. Marteau (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * “Flunking” has a specific meaning related to coursework. There is NO evidence that he failed his coursework. It is common for someone to complete coursework, but not complete a thesis. This is not “flunking”. Objective3000 (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect and I usually have a hard time agreeing on the colour of the night sky, the spelling of colour, and the number of wheels on a Volkswagen Beetle. We agree on this. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I could go for attributing the use of the term to the alumni magazine, rather than using Wikipedia's voice. "According to...yadda yadda" etc etc.  But clearly, given the context and Tyson admitting he was a poor student, he did not complete the process because he failed, and conveying that using an "According to" construct,  would be appropriate. Marteau (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect and Stephan Shultz, et. al. are right, and the arguments that it is a colloquialism actually show that it should not go in as it is neither fact nor encyclopedic tone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy for the rare opportunity to join in agreement; "flunking" should not be used. However, it is understandable why someone would choose that term, so let's remove it, but not impose sanctions on prior additions of the term.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We really do not need another heated controversy regarding NDGT. Really, we do not. It is now documented by a reliable source that Tyson did not complete his Ph.D. dissertation process at the University of Texas. I have been a graduate student at both American and British universities, and a professional student in law at two American universities; I am intimately familiar with how the thesis (M.A.) and dissertation (Ph.D.) processes work. For research master's and doctoral degrees, the degree candidate is required to satisfactorily complete classroom-based coursework for the first part of the degree program (anything lower than a "B" grade is often treated as failing); the final requirement is to complete and defend a thesis for a terminal master's or a dissertation for a doctorate. The master's thesis committee may be relatively informal; a dissertation committee, composed of several supervising professors who hold a Ph.D. in the candidate's subject field, is usually a very serious academic affair. Ph.D. degree candidates often take two or more years to complete their dissertation, while also performing sponsored research and serving as a classroom instructor or teaching assistant. Ph.D. candidates who fail to demonstrate satisfactory and relatively timely progress regarding the completion of their dissertation may be terminated, regardless of the fact that they have satisfactorily completed their required coursework. This is apparently what happened to Tyson. Notwithstanding the "flunking out" phrase used by the source, it should not be used in the Wikipedia article for the simple reason that is not accurate, and we know better. Reliable sources get individual facts wrong all the time; it does not mean Wikipedia should repeat the factual error because it is included in the reliable source. Common sense and editorial judgment are required. Nor does it mean the source is not otherwise reliable, or disqualify the source. If an occasional factual error disqualified a source, even gold-standard reliable sources such as The Financial Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post would be disqualified, and we would be left with virtually no sources for Wikipedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, the source used "essentially flunked out" in an attempt to help a lay person understand what had happened. I don't see them using that phrase as an attempt at an academic statement of fact (i.e. "Dr. Tyson flunked out of UT.") as much as just trying to clarify what essentially happened for non-academics. With that said, I don't have a problem with the removal of the phrase. I do take issue with the removal of mentioning what his professors said about trying a new career. Dr. Tyson himself has mentioned this, and it's not trivia or cruft, particularly given the heights to which he has now risen in that field. LHMask me a question 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The term used by the source is not "flunked out", but "essentially flunked out" with the additional information that (a) Tyson did not make satisfactory progress on his dissertation and (b)that Tyson characterized what happened to him as being kicked out. I advanced here on Talk well before I put it on the main page that "washed out" would be a good way to characterize what happened to Tyson, as it does not necessarily carry the implication of bad grades in coursework associated with "flunked out" or require the explanation that the reason was academic if we used "kicked out". (The hagiographically inclined editors chose to offer no alternative, so I went ahead, and was variously accused of making a "disgusting" edit and "bullshit".) I still think "washed out" is the best choice, but I can live with either of the terms found in the source with the additional otherwise unnecessary explication. What's not acceptable is to continue to recount the dissolution of the dissertation committee with no indication that it was anything other than an accident that happened to Tyson with no agency on his part. That is bullshit. Andyvphil (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now this is a better argument. I would have no problem removing "essentially flunked out" from Wikipedia's voice and attributing it.  Or doing so in a way that does at least a little more then just "the committee dissolved".  The current version seems fine to me . --Obsidi (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A problem with, "However, by his own account, he did not spend as much time in the research lab as he should have, and his professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers." is that his professors' "encouragement" is not part of his account, iirc, but simply something said in the article without attribution. Again, iirc. Andyvphil (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through the source in detail last night. Dr. Tyson says something to that effect in talking about his time at UT. LHMask me a question 14:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see the source say that, but I don't see a quote by Dr. Tyson (maybe I missed it). I would be fine with splitting the sentence up so it doesn't appear that Dr. Tyson himself said that directly (and instead in Wikipedia voice as I don't think there is any dispute that it occurred).  --Obsidi (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the big deal with this? So, he did not complete his PhD in Texas, so what? He got is PhD in astrophysics later at Columbia. It is really amazing to see the efforts here by some editors to attempt to discredit the subject of the article and fight and edit war for such minutiae. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. It's a big deal because the professors at UT claimed that a man who later rose to great acclaim in the field should "try another profession." Also, Dr. Tyson makes no secret of what happened then, and even seems to draw a sense of satisfaction from having proved them wrong. I find your last sentence extremely insulting, and ask you to retract it. LHMask me a question 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has shown any evidence whatsoever that Tyson “flunked”. The article’s strange words “essentially flunked” are weasel words and don’t belong in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It called it that (we can use other words that mean the same thing if its too much of a colloquialism), but it also quotes Tyson as saying "I don’t hold a grudge, and I don’t blame the department for kicking me out. I might have done the same thing in their position". Which again conveys fairly close to the same meaning.  --Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not "weasel words", they're the words of our source, which in tone is really quite friendly to Dr. Tyson. The phrase was an attempt (perhaps a clumsy one) to explain what the dissolution of his PhD committee meant in lay terms. LHMask me a question 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am asking again: why is this such an "important" issue that (a) requires an entry in this article, and (b) is generating an edit war and a super long discussion including multiple round trips to AN/I and ArbCom? I am still puzzled. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you keep asking. (Also above, "The article also says that "After UT, Tyson transferred to Columbia, where he earned his PhD in 1988", so the PhD issue at UT-Austin is irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)") You also keep not listening to or responding to the answers. Why keep asking, then? Andyvphil (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, it is inaccurate to say that Tyson "transferred to Columbia"; he was admitted to a different Ph.D. degree program, in a related, but different academic discipline (astronomy vs. astrophysics). Given the the difference in academic programs, he probably received very little, if any, academic credit for the terminal astronomy M.A. he completed at Texas in 1983 in his astrophysics M.A./Ph.D. program at Columbia.  Hence, why he has two master's degrees.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The text says he was accepted into the Columbia "Astronomy" program but got his degrees in astrophysics. The cites don't seem to be relevant. Is this our error? Andyvphil (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's drop any idea of inserting the vernacular phrase "flunked out" into the article; it is inaccurate and imprecise for the reasons I outline above. That having been said, let's also stop trying to poo-poo the fact that Tyson's UT dissertation committee was "dissolved"; it is the equivalent of being terminated for failure to submit adequate work by required deadlines. Based on the various time-consuming extracurricular activities in which he was involved -- it would be highly unusual for a Ph.D. candidate to be involved in one, let alone three -- he apparently did not spend sufficient time on his dissertation and related research. Tyson alluded as much in his own voice. Furthermore, there were undoubtedly academic consequences. Most graduate programs require that all degree requirements be completed within five years, and many also commonly require that certain core academic courses must be completed at the degree-granting institution, and Columbia's graduate school is one of the finest in North America, with rigorous standards for degree candidates. The net effect of these two requirements is that Tyson probably had to re-take classes at Columbia which he had already passed at Texas. This is not like transferring from one accredited university to another after your sophomore year as an undergraduate, and expecting all of your undergraduate credit hours to transfer to the new degree-granting institution. Tyson failed to properly prioritize his life as a young man, it undoubtedly cost him more time and tuition money as a result, and that's part of his life story accurately told. That he overcame this setback is also part of his life story accurately recounted, and we deny him the credit due for overcoming it by dismissing or minimizing its importance. Give the man his due: he bounced back strongly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Again, there's (in other words, but the same thought previously expressed as "more prestigious") that interesting assertion, "... Columbia's graduate school is one of the finest in North America, with rigorous standards for degree candidates." Has anyone seen anything in the sources which would explain why a washout from UTA was adjudged to have met those standards? Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil, your question is not entirely clear, but you seem to be asking why a terminated Ph.D. candidate from Texas (a very good graduate school) would later be admitted to another Ph.D. program at Columbia (one of the 5 or 10 very best). I'm guessing the answer lies in good test scores, the strength of his academic work in the classroom (i.e. grades not dissertation work), his two years as an instructor/lecturer at Maryland, five additional years of maturity, strong admissions application essays explaining his maturing process, some strong letters of recommendation -- and a whole lot of groveling.  That's conjecture.  Bottom line: the termination of his candidacy at Texas was a significant setback, but he overcame it.  Kudos to him.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's not entirely clear, perhaps it's because the last time I asked it I was told that doing so "smacked of overt racism". I've asked, nay, demanded, clarification on that accusation.
 * I'm not an expert on Tyson, coming here by way of seeing a mention of the attempt to delete the Wikipedia article on "The Federalist". And then I found that the resident editors are treating their material in a way which might be surprising to someone not familiar with the phenomenon of editors with a particular point of view clumping around particular articles. Given that phenomenon what happened to the cite under discussion is not unexpected.
 * I've been pleasantly surprised to see more than a couple editors of a different stripe show up at the same time, as the resident claque can usually discourage editors with different viewpoints showing up in ones or twos. Whether it will make any difference remains to be seen.
 * Anyway, your speculation on how Tyson recovered from his failure is a nice story, but painfully pc in what it chooses to omit as a possible, indeed probable, indeed almost certain contributory factor. I don't know that there are any rs that that state this, but given the predilections on display I'm fairly certain that any such sources would have been ignored if they exist. So, given that there are fresh eyes on the subject, I'm asking if anything previously ignored has been noticed. Andyvphil (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, we can speculate all day, but all we have is Tyson's side of the story regarding "racism" playing some role in his being booted from the Texas Ph.D. program. That being said, and knowing that most Ph.D. professors will make significant good faith efforts to help minorities in American universities, I will guess that Tyson's lack of focus and time-consuming interests in competitive ballroom dancing, wrestling and rowing -- and how that impacted professors' perception of his commitment to the Ph.D. program -- probably had a lot to do with it.  That is, however, conjecture on my part, but it is conjecture informed by dealing with my own thesis committee and observing the proclivities of tenured professors up close and personal.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't know that only Tyson's side of the story is available. I gave you my reasons to think that the current article still may not accurately reflect the available sources. I think your speculation that the interest taken in Tyson may reflect a "significant good faith effort to help minorities" is a safe bet, and it should be reflected in his biography if sources an be found for that fact. Andyvphil (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you speak in plain English? What exactly are you suggesting? Objective3000 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "smacks of overt racism(non seq)" guy. I suggest first of all that you explain that comment, as demanded upthread. Andyvphil (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the way professors attention to minority students may be a lot different now than it was 30 some years ago in Texas. On the other hand, it wasn't 60 some years ago either. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The euphemism "affirmative action" dates back to LBJ. UC vs Bakke was decided in 1978. Tyson was admitted to Columbia in 1988. As I said, safe bet. Andyvphil (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How's about we leave the conjecture and the "safe bets" at the door, and use the talk page to discuss sourced material and improving the article, mmmkay? Marteau (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. Speculation and conjecture is inappropriate, wherever it comes from. LHMask me a question 18:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for this whole section is this article's misuse of its sources, and I am discussing how to overcome that and improve the article, mmmkay? Andyvphil (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You are not seeking to improve the article by going into undocumented allegations of affirmative action in this case. You are simply getting on a soapbox and spewing your suspicions and your hunches and your "good bets" and you need to knock it off. Marteau (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, it appears that you are saying that it is “indeed almost certain contributory factor” that Tyson was admitted in the first place because of his race, but was not competent and this was why he “washed out”, and that there are probably reliable sources that say this, but half of us here would ignore those sources? Is that correct? Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any response to your attempt to put words in my mouth can wait until after you explain your statement that what I've said "smacks of overt racism". Proceed. Andyvphil (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing that needs to stop straightaway is the disparaging of my motives in working on this article that is happening above. If I'm going to work at this article, I won't have other editors implying that I'm trying to "discredit" Dr. Tyson. LHMask me a question 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, OK. My apologies (I was not referring to you BTW, but my apologies to you and any others). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking that portion of your post above. LHMask me a question 15:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to the substance of the discussion at hand -- in reviewing this article, I note that previous editors have apparently misused the words "thesis" and "dissertation", in particular in the discussion regarding Tyson's time at Columbia. As far as I know, all American universities use the term "thesis" for master's level terminal research papers, and "dissertation" for doctorate level terminal research papers.  Someone needs to gnome-edit the Columbia section.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? As far as I understand it, the terms "PhD thesis" and "dissertation" are very nearly synonymous, with the first being a bit more specific (i.e. "dissertation" can be used in principle for any thorough academic treatise on a subject, but in practice it's nearly always used meaning a PhD thesis). A "thesis" is a lot less specific, and at least here we also have bachelors and masters theses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're German, right, Stephan? University usage of the terms varies by nationality; in the States, it's relatively uniform in that "dissertation" is usually reserved for the terminal research paper of a Ph.D. candidate.  That having been said, some American universities (and individual academic departments) do sponsor undergraduate "honors thesis" programs, in which high-performing undergrads have the opportunity to write something like a master's-level research paper.  You may want to look at the linked "thesis" article that discusses national variation in the use of the terms.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is an additional interview with Tyson himself discussing the committee being dissolved, and Tyson again characterizing it as "kicking out", and then his subsequent work at Columbia, which he says was essentially starting over. http://www.tengerresearch.com/learn/interviews/neildtyson_text.htm - As I stated before, Tyson has put this into the context of racism and a "black guy studying something he shouldn't" or words to that effect, which we can include as his POV, but pretending it didn't happen at all is not a service to the reader. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the passage -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, cwobeel, are "lost years" deserving of a mention? Andyvphil (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, if we can find a way to describe that aspect without loaded words or innuendo, and with the right context, I don't see why not. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "If"? Andyvphil (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if. Make a proposal if you want. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Geeze, this is what you're calling "washing out"? He transferred from one respected program to another due to a disagreement about his research. That's not a blemish on his record, nor is it even that uncommon. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no "disagreement about his research". Tyson has agreed with his dissertation committee that his work on his UTA dissertation was inadequate and that they were probably justified in kicking him out. The source calls this "essentially flunking". He didn't "transfer", he failed and took a non-tenure track instructor job for a couple years before being given the opportunity to restart his quest for a doctorate, in a slightly different field, redoing equivalent work to do so and losing a couple years from his academic progress. All this is explained above, including my explanation for why "washed out" is superior to "flunked out" or "kicked out". You're welcome. Andyvphil (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above @12:56 and 15:55. Having your dissertation committee dissolved three years into a four-year Ph.D. program is not a small thing, and would have ended the academic career of most Ph.D. candidates.  Andyvphil gets it more or less right immediately above, although he is working overtime to cast Tyson in the worst possible light.  I strongly disagree with any insertion of the phrases "washed out" or "flunked out" as being inaccurate, imprecise and unencyclopedic in tone.  The phrase "kicked out" is relatively accurate, but unencyclopedic.  In my opinion, the presently existing text on point ("Tyson . . . began his graduate work at the University of Texas at Austin, from which he received a Master of Arts in astronomy in 1983.  Tyson joined its dance, rowing, and wrestling teams.  By his own account, he did not spend as much time in the research lab as he should have.  His professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers and the committee for his doctoral dissertation was dissolved ending his pursuit of a doctorate from the University of Texas.") strikes a pretty good balance and no further substantive changes are required.  The present text is well supported by a reliable source (The Alcalde, Texas alumni magazine), with quotes from Tyson himself.  So, guys, I'm pretty sure there's not a lot left to argue about on this particular point; this 24-hour digression has just about exhausted itself.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see in what way "washed out" is less accurate or precise than "kicked out", but I too have no problem with the text you quote despite it's failure to put Tyson in a worse light than he deserves. Andyvphil (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you want "to put Tyson in a worse light than he deserves"? Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your irony detector is very broken. Andyvphil (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Iignoring Andy's poor choice of words for the moment, and in light of my three comments above @12:56, 15:55 and 11:28, is there anything substantively objectionable about the present text? Or are we ready to let this subthread conclude?  From my perspective, the issues have been addressed and the thread has played out.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I prefer the original text. The added text sounds like it was taken from an adlibbed stream of consciousness response to an interview question as opposed to a statement by Tyson about his educational career. The article doesn’t say where these claims originate. If the half-paragraph claiming Tyson was advised by profs to look at alternate careers is added, shouldn’t the remainder of the paragraph also be included: “He took the criticism hard, and he also faced racial discrimination on campus”? Objective3000 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is some interesting info in Alfred Kleiner that is missing from Albert Einstein. Einstein was originally working on a dissertation on thermoelectricity. During the period from 1901 to 1905, he changed his advisor, withdrew his original dissertation, and decided to drop the effort to get a PhD saying that “the whole comedy has become tiresome for me.” Later he changed his mind again, changed his dissertation topic to molecular kinetics, I believe changed schools to ETH (which had an agreement with Zurich that allowed Zurich to issue the PhD) and eventually obtained his doctorate.


 * The road to obtaining a doctorate often contains changes, and starts and stops. Even in the case of the most famous of all scientists. I see many parallels with Tyson and find it unfortunate that this is being turned into a negative in a BLP. Of course, we could add to the Einstein article that he “washed-out” or some other variation on the theme like he was advised to try another career. Objective3000 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on my personal experiences in grad and law school, I agree, but I don't view it as a net negative; I see it as a net positive. Getting to the third year of a four-year Ph.D. program and then being told, "take your terminal master's degree, you're done here," was a real blow to Tyson's academic career.  Several editors above characterized it as a "transfer"; no, it was not.  He basically started over in a related, but different discipline (astronomy vs. astrophysics), five years later.  He was a year away from completing his Ph.D. at Texas when he left in 1983.  He did something else for five years, including a year or two as an instructor at Maryland, and then started the Columbia Ph.D. program in 1988.  He got his Columbia Ph.D. in 1991; he could have completed the Texas Ph.D. in 1984 or 1985.  So, yeah, it was a setback.  As I said above, however, it's part of his personal story, and it had a net positive outcome.  He suffered a setback, he worked through it, he accomplished his goal: that's indicative of character.  Trying to characterize it as a net negative is not right, but this part of his biography was not some insignificant bump in the road; you could make a very good argument it made him who he is today  Given the impact on his life from 1983 to 1991, it's surely at least as important to a well-written biography of Tyson as his brief competition career as a Latin ballroom dancer.


 * As for Einstein, I was under the impression that he had some early academic issues, possibly including some form of a learning disability. Given that Uncle Albert is feted as one of the smartest people who ever lived, I would suggest that his early learning and academic problems are not only relevant to a well-written bio of Einstein, but are essential to a good understanding of the man's life.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Einstein didn’t get along with his first dissertation advisor, and others at Zurich. He also went off and did something else, and it was also a serious blow to his career. So serious that, unlike Tyson, he spent two years looking for a teaching post and failed to find one, ending up in a seriously dull job for “one of the smartest people who ever lived”. I know that you find this a net positive and character-building. But, you have much experience in this arena. I also don’t consider it a negative for Tyson. However, it is clear from the discussion here that this has the sound of a serious negative to most. Yes, all of this is obviously in Einstein’s 726 and 928 page biographies. No, it is not in a short bio in Wikipedia. (It is in his advisor’s WP article, because it was about the only thing notable about him.) I don’t see where it belongs in a BLP, which is more sensitive than a “BDP”. Objective3000 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An aside. Changed my mind. It does belong in the Einstein article. Obsidi, on this page, said that Einstein received his dissertation “on his first try”. This is quite wrong. Perhaps if people knew this about Einstein, they wouldn’t think it so awful that there exist twists and turns in the paths others take, and people would realize that this could be character-building, as you say, and not washing-out, as it currently can be taken. Objective3000 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do know about Einstein. Its true Einstein voluntarily withdrew his first dissertation after he wrote about how his professor hadn't even examined it months after it had been submitted.  He instead published it in Annalen der Physik , this is one of the core papers of statistical physics  and probably lead to his world changingly important paper 3 years developing Brownian motion.  Einstein likely had some kind of learning disability that hurt his very early education, but that no longer mattered at this point in his life. --Obsidi (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, except that it was not very early in his education. Einstein was a brilliant physicist and theoretician. And people that have spent so much effort in their lives to accomplish so much, and have overcome so many obstacles, should not be denigrated by those that wish to add crap to encyclopedic articles about early difficulties. Objective3000 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're moving toward common ground. If you think the UT Ph.D. language is somehow unduly negative in tone, I certainly would not object to your tinkering with it as long you preserve the essential facts.  I'm not wedded to the word choices or phrasing.  From my perspective it's pretty clear what happened, but not all of the other editors commenting here share that grad school experience.  Of all the facts mentioned in the Alcalde article, the weirdest to me was that he was clearly spending a great deal of time with three very time-consuming extracurricular activities.  In light of my own experiences, I have no idea how he could have balanced his academic obligations.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have enough info to discern the degrees to which loss of focus, racism, disagreements with advisors, and whatever else played in the determination of Tyson’s path at UT. It simply isn’t that well documented. Another good reason to drop this. I'd leave this up to his biographers. In any case, having never finished high school, my perspective may not be the best at tuning a discussion of post-grad intricacies.:) Objective3000 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)