Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 12

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)


 * 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)

See also Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Please weigh-in there as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WTF?
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. - the WOLF  child  07:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, I strongly suggest you read through the archives. That article does not make us look like fools nor does it undermine Wikipedia.  That "article" (if one can call it that), is part of a larger, well-funded and coordinated right-wing effort by religious fundamentalists at the Discovery Institute working very closely with climate deniers at the Heartland Institute to character assassinate Tyson, attack secularism, and sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about the overwhelming consensus on climate science.  For a partial list of the players behind the scenes, see here.  This is virtually the same attack script used by the same people and players to facilitate the "climategate" attack on scientists several years ago. In this case, Tyson's rebooted Cosmos series was their secondary target.  What you need to understand is that you are dealing with religious extremists and climate deniers who have teamed up together in the same way that the Republican Party in the U.S. embraced religious fundamentalists under their wing.  Essentially, this is the last gasp of an attack funded by creationist organizations and the oil industry working together to defeat the common enemy: facts. Welcome to the conservative alternate reality. If you still have no idea what I'm talking about, then read our article on the Merchants of Doubt.  This is an old game they've been playing for half a century. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your above objection to coverage of the "misquote issue" is completely based on the fact that external meanies have it out for Tyson, and not on Wikipedia policy or procedures. Thanks for making your motive so clear (one which is evidently not uncommon here), your reply to Thewolfchild is actually very useful and will aid in his understanding of some of the Wikidynamics going on here.  Marteau (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not address the coverage of the "misquote issue" at all, I addressed the reliability, authority, and accuracy of the sources that are making those claims, an essential part of evaluating sources for reliability, an essential Wikipedia procedure. Please review our guidelines on assuming good faith before you speculate on the motives of other users again, a violation of both our civility and NPA policies. Furthermore, the material I provided above forms the entirety of the scope behind the "misquote issue", namely, the logical fallacy that if an authority on X misquotes Y, that somehow refutes his authority on X.  This is a typical propaganda strategy of PR outfits and fake think tanks promoting nonsense attempting to neutralize an opposing view.  It's a subset of dirty tricks masquerading as journalism.  Opposition researchers pour through transcripts, audio feeds, and anything they can get their hands on to dig dirt on their opponent.  This includes misquotes.  Wikipedia has absolutely no responsibility to promote such nonsense, especially when it is coming from unreliable sources pushing propaganda.  The argument that "Tyson misquoted Bush, therefore he's wrong about climate science, secularism, and evolution" is about as fringe as you can get.  If you can't see that or recognize that, then I suggest you brush up on your critical thinking skills. This is one of the oldest PR tactics in the book, and the fact that it comes from a source closely aligned with creationists and climate deniers mounting a campaign against Tyson is proof positive that it doesn't belong here, nor is it in any way shape or form notable outside of the fringe-y, conservative alternate reality espoused by an echo-chamber filled blogosphere.  Look, there is a reality out there, you're just not going to find it reflected by an unreliable source like the Federalist.  Please stop pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining.  I think it's cute that conservatives have created their own personal fantasy world, in the same way that it's cute that a child believes in Santa Claus.  But there comes a time when you have to grow up and face the world as it truly is, not how you want it to be. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you are fascinated with the genesis of this issue, and are ignoring what it became. The Federalist was indeed the first to write about this issue, however, it moved beyond the "fringe-y echo chambers" and attained coverage from some rather respecable publishers.  Who broke the story, and why, is obviously very important to you, and you are obviously using that as a rationale for exclusion.  What I am saying is, that is not a policy grounded basis for exclusion.  Whether or not there is some kind of conspiracy to damage Tyson's reputation as you allege is compeletely irrelevant when the issue moved beyound those sources and attained sufficient coverage from non-fring-y sources, and when this in fact did become such an issue for Tyson and his professional life that he felt compelled to explain himself in public and to publicly apologize to a former president.  For a professional speaker, that is in fact a big deal, and deserves coverage in the biography of a professional speaker.  The motives of some to protect Tyson from his critics is obvious in this issue and is a motive for many to prevent inclusion of the issue in the article, and I'll expect I'll continue to be accused of "not assuming good faith" for pointing that obvious fact out. Marteau (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no conspiracy. The Discovery Institute, the Heartland Institute, and The Federalist were clearly all working together on this project out in the open.  You can read the Federalist for yourself: Ben Domenech of the Heartland Institute writes an article in The Federalist on January 16, 2014, attacking Tyson's understanding of the books he reads; Hank Campbell writes an article in The Federalist on March 13, 2014, attacking the reboot of Cosmos and accuses it of attacking religious people; Jay W. Richards of the Discovery Institute writes an article in The Federalist on April 30, 2014, criticizing Tyson's representation of religion as on Cosmos; James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute writes an article in The Federalist on June 29, 2014, calling  Tyson's representation of climate change in Cosmos as "global warming alarmism".  That's just a small sample of the conservative echo chamber.  There's no conspiracy, the fundies and deniers are working together out in the open to attack Tyson, funded by creationists and big oil.  Those are facts -- deal with it.  And none of these are reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no conspiracy. The Discovery Institute, the Heartland Institute, and The Federalist were clearly all working together on this project out in the open.  You can read the Federalist for yourself: Ben Domenech of the Heartland Institute writes an article in The Federalist on January 16, 2014, attacking Tyson's understanding of the books he reads; Hank Campbell writes an article in The Federalist on March 13, 2014, attacking the reboot of Cosmos and accuses it of attacking religious people; Jay W. Richards of the Discovery Institute writes an article in The Federalist on April 30, 2014, criticizing Tyson's representation of religion as on Cosmos; James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute writes an article in The Federalist on June 29, 2014, calling  Tyson's representation of climate change in Cosmos as "global warming alarmism".  That's just a small sample of the conservative echo chamber.  There's no conspiracy, the fundies and deniers are working together out in the open to attack Tyson, funded by creationists and big oil.  Those are facts -- deal with it.  And none of these are reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A large RfC (that took place long after that old article brought here again) determined according to wikipedia policy, it would not go in the article. (See the FAQ at the top of this page: "An RFC was held about whether this should be mentioned in September-October 2014, and it was closed as "do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.") So, that is why it is not in the article. As I said above to someone else, "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 proportion (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 dramatic reading of it all) here, worthwhile." See also WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion are on those seeking inclusion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's Wikipedia for you... his skill at dancing is considered appropriate in his biography, but his conduct as a paid professional speaker is not. Marteau (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In actuality, the article is too conservative and doesn't say enough about his dancing (there's quite a bit in the literature). As for your claim about his "misconduct" in public speaking, that's opposition research attempting to argue that because he misquoted an anecdote about Bush, he must also be wrong about climate change, evolution, and science in general. Hogwash. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, there are a number of interesting arguments in our article on Opposition research that perfectly illustrate why The Federalist is not a legitimate news source on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This rejected OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, again? If there is crap in the article, than that is a call to remove the crap not to add anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 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)
 * Some people just don't know when they're beaten, right? How gauche.  Marteau (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Try not to see everything as a zero-sum game. The article Zero Serenity linked to covers the topic quite nicely.  Please put the stick down now. Viriditas (talk)
 * Thanks, but when they occur I will continue to respond to sincere inquiries here, such as that of Thewolfchild, with the viewpoints of the inclusionists on this issue. Marteau (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest not putting words in the mouth's of others, and then calling them names based on the words they didn't post. I'm beginning to doubt the purpose of RfCs if editors just ignore them. Objective3000 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobody's ignoring any RfCs 2) I suggest you be specific, because I'm certainly not calling anyone "names" nor am I seeing anyone else doing so. Marteau (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Gauche: lacking social grace, sensitivity, or acuteness; awkward; crude; tactless. Synonyms: inept, clumsy, maladroit; coarse, gross, uncouth. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. When they told me some Wikipedians were "humor challenged" they weren't kidding. Marteau (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest not calling other editors names. Do I need to be more specific? Objective3000 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but you seriously do need to lighten up. Marteau (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to lighten up. If you want to edit pages here, other editors will disagree with you. If your position does not prevail in an RfC, that's life. Calling people names and ascribing to them motivations that you could not possibly know will never make your arguments stronger. All this does is make it less likely that people will consider your future arguments as unbiased.


 * Discourse, at least in the US, has become more and more mean-spirited and less and less useful over the last decade, to the detriment of us all. We are all volunteers. Polite discourse enables rational compromise. It also saves an enormous amount of time. And, most of us have lives outside of WP. (And no, that does not suggest that you don't.) Please reread all of WP:CIV as it is brilliantly written. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon my length. He may have the last word. Objective3000 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Viriditas tells me just above, today, that I am "pissing" on people's legs, and you call ME out for incivility, and for of all things, calling MYSELF "gauche". You have had it out for me for almost a year now, and I can no longer take you and your issues seriously.  Should you have further issues with my conduct, I suggest you take it up on an arbirtration or enforcement board, because I'll no longer humor you and your hypersensitivity to my editing style. Marteau (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bush Quote Controversy
It 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 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.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 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,

&mdash; 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, &mdash; 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)
 * 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? &mdash; 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)
 * , 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? &mdash; 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)

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 restored the stable image, actually. I honestly don't recall what the prior issues were with, but I would respectfully and politely ask that  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, &mdash; 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. :) &mdash; 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 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)

″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." 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)


 * , 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?
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 has been discussed at length. There is no evidence that he was "making up quotations" or that it was a "fabrication". Please tone down your language should you wish to contribute. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "There is no evidence that he was 'making up quotations' or that it was a 'fabrication'." Absolutely false. Tyson has admitted it.HopDavid (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If this has been discussed at length, you would be hard pressed to discover that fact from this talk page.
 * I would disagree that there is _no_ evidence, given that Tyson did make the statements. If you choose to believe that it was simply an error, one repeated over and over, nevertheless the accusations and responses were themselves newsworthy, and strike me as worthy of inclusion. Tyson stated that it was an error, so there is no dispute about what he has said on the matter; surely _that_ is worthy of inclusion. To the subject generally, as Jonathan Adler put it in The Washington Post: "The various stories Davis challenges are regularly repeated in Tyson’s lectures, and the Bush anecdote is highlighted on the Hayden planetarium Web site.  They are the sorts of claims someone of Tyson’s stature should not be making in public lectures unless they are, in fact, true. Politicians are routinely flayed for less — and we know Tyson is much smarter than the average politician." Yet it does not appear on this page?
 * It is also significant that Tyson cited the quotation in order to claim that Bush was attempting to divide the nation along religious lines, when in fact the only quotation resembling the one Tyson cited was clearly intended in a uniting sense. A scientist getting evidence exactly wrong is significant, is it not? And repeating it?
 * It is not clear to me what your objection would be to including this subject in a biography which is sufficiently detailed as to include the exact numbers of the public school he attended for kindergarten. Surely this subject is more important than that. I came to this page to see perhpas a summary of the topic, and was surprised to see that in a 4300 word article there was not a peep about something that even I, who know very little about Tyson, am aware of.01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.193.107 (talk)
 * You will see a list of archives of this Talk Page near the top of the page. Objective3000 (talk) 01:42, 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)
 * Thank you for that. I hadn't noticed there was a collapsed FAQ here, or an archived discussion. I appreciate you pointing me to that. I guess it's obvious I don't particularly agree with that decision, since I myself came here specifically to read about the topic, but I'm glad to hear it has been debated. Thanks again.71.121.193.107 (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to our unwillingness to provide dispassionate, neutral information regarding this, people who want to know about the issue will no doubt resort to a Google search and learn plenty from the "right wing echo chambers" as they are referred to in this talk. Well done, Wikipedia.  Way to drive the curious over to some of the more biased  sources on the net. Marteau (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Characterizing many other editors' opinions in such a manner is not productive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Marteau (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm not overly fond of the modification that was made to my original subject line here. While it was apparently too inflammatory for some people's tastes, the fact is that the non-specificness (I did not say "Bush") was important, more so than I realized. In doing some further reading on this, it's clear that the existence of other unsourced quotations deGrasse has cited has been questioned. (Which, by the way, would be, to me, evidence of "fabrication", which I was told above did not exist.)
 * Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, when deGrasse quotes a newspaper headline that says "Half the schools in the district are below average", thought it may stroke our intelligent egos to chuckle a bit at that and assume we would never have made such a mistake, it strikes me that it should be necessary that such a headline actually ever existed. Same for the "member of Congress"-attributed quotation "I've changed my views 360 degrees on that issue."
 * I was also curious as to how one would, in fact, provide evidence of "fabrication". Would it be necessary to find, say an e-mail from Tyson stating "Yeah, I made that one up"? I ask this in all seriousness. I think the Bush one was the most closely examined because everything a President says nowadays is recorded, and therefore perhaps more easily checked than a newspaper headline that may have come from forever ago.71.121.193.107 (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Would it be necessary to find, say an e-mail from Tyson stating 'Yeah, I made that one up'? " Which, as of this writing has already happened. Tyson posted an admission to his Facebook pageHopDavid (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is simply false. Tyson most certainly did not admit to fabrication. He admitted to not correctly remembering the quote. This is an encyclopedia. You cannot be sloppy with such facts. Frankly, it is a violation to make such an accusation even on the Talk page of a WP:BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Fabrication: the action or process of manufacturing or inventing something. Often "confabulation" is listed as a synonym. From Wikipedia: "Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive." Notice the word "fabricate" is part of the confabulation's definition. As is the phrase "without conscious intent to deceive". Tyson badly misremembered context. And the divisive message Tyson attributed to Bush was completely made up. In Tyson's own words: "And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia. " Objective3000, the accusations Tyson leveled against Bush were serious and they were false. I suspect Tyson believed what he was saying, that there was no intent to deceive. Regardless, "fabrication" is still a correct label for Tyson's confabulation. This is an encyclopedia. And you certainly can be sloppy with facts as your misinterpretation of "fabrication" demonstrates. I do not back down from my accusation one millimeter. Further I ask that you retract your false accusation against me.HopDavid (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Synonyms rarely mean the exact same thing. There is zero evidence that Tyson fabricated anything. This is a false accusation against a living person and you need to stop making this accusation. Objective3000 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The questionable Tyson video : "George Bush and Star Names" . Tyson has Bush quoting scripture on star names in the wake of 9-11, supposedly in an attempt "to distinguish we from they". (1:39 of the video). Sean Davis charged the video is a made up story. Mention of Davis' charges were deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds of reliable sources. Supposedly Davis is a fringe right wing blogger not to be trusted. However a 10 year old child could do the fact checking here. Bush did give a speech within a week of 9-11. But it was a call for unity and tolerance . And bush did quote scripture on star names. But it was a eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia. . Moreover, Tyson has admitted to this error There is more than ample evidence Tyson's account is a made up story. Shame on the Wikipedia editors who question such an easily verifiable fact. Objective3000, you need to retract your false accusation against me and issue a public apology to Sean Davis.HopDavid (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 71.121.193.107, for what it's worth, Wikipedia actively ignores the blogosphere. It doesn't matter if it's left wing blogs or right, the blogosphere can hype inflammatory or even libelous stories with no fact-checking. We focus on Reliable Sources such as newspapers. This story spread in some of the conservative blogosphere, but it barely blipped in Reliable media. We also try to be extra careful about negative accusations in the biographies of living people. It has to have sufficient weight of coverage in Reliable Sources. This was a borderline case, and it would have been included if it had drawn slightly more coverage in Reliable media. Alsee (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alsee writes "for what it's worth, Wikipedia 'actively' ignores the blogosphere." At least one of the prevailing editors here is a blogger for Daily Kos. I suspect more than one are active participants in the blogosphere. So forgive me if I'm skeptical. "We focus on Reliable Sources such as newspapers." Once again, Tyson has ADMITTED to this. What more reliable source do you need?HopDavid (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds very reasonable to me. As I've said, I myself came here looking for info on this, and in my view the ambient volume of talk about it, the amount of coverage in Reliable Sources, and the fact that Tyson was moved to respond should have been enough to get it included. But I've read the entire talk archive on it and I can see that the topic was discussed at length. I don't agree with the result, but that's the way it goes. Also, thanks to Objective for the re-re-titling of this.71.121.193.107 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They aren't here because there are a couple wikipedia editors that lock the page and block it.  This page has actually been in the media because of the troll wars. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just looked through your history. The better question is why haven't you been blocked. Your ref is to a nutty article from over a year ago. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 29 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)


 * Yes the debate is done and over. Did Bush make a post 9-11 speech trying to elevate "Our God" above the God of the Arabs? Absolutely not. A 10 year old child could verify this. Also Tyson has admitted it. Was it a noteworthy event? It's appeared in the New York Times and on Bill Maher as well as countless left wing and right wing blogs. Do we need to be ultra careful criticizing living persons? No. On these very talk pages editors are claiming the real Bush made comments to the same effect as the comments from Tyson's fictitious Bush. News flash, Bush is a living person. Until that hypocrisy is remedied know that this noise about BLP is a sham. So basically what your asking is admins from your clique to censor unpleasant facts that don't support your doctrine. And Tyson and his fans invoke the name of Feynman!HopDavid (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusations against living persons
On 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?" 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)
 * This is a serious violation on your part. You used quote marks indicating a direct quote, but left out part of the edit. You then suggested that I was claiming "racism and xenophobia". Words I did not use. I only claimed Bush "made religious comments that were divisive". I don't know what your point is in going back to an archived 2014 Talk page edit and misquoting it, but I do not think this is appropriate behavior. Objective3000 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you watched the video in question ? Tyson has Bush putting "Our God" on a pedestal to "distinguish we from they", they being Arabs. The fictional Bush Tyson paints is definitely xenophobic and racist. You may not have used the words "racism and xenophobia". But you imply as much when you say "Bush made comments to the same effect as those claimed by Tyson." Bush has not made comments to the same effect. Your falsehoods against a living person should be deleted.HopDavid (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I implied no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth. You are violating WP:CIV. What is your purpose here in bringing up an archived Talk page edit from 2014? Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you have implied exactly that. Stop trying to weasel out of it. Tyson portrays Bush making a general slam against Arabs. You say Bush has made comments to the same effect. Tyson has Bush elevating "Our God" to "distinguish we from they". Again, Bush has made no comments to that effect. Not in his actual post 9-11 speech, not in his eulogy for the Columbia astronauts , nor in the references you cite. My purpose in quoting you? To show the hypocrisy of this clique of Wikipedia editors. When it comes to Tyson there is much gnashing of teeth about making valid criticisms of a living person But no such concern when it comes to making false accusations against Bush (who is also a living person).HopDavid (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strawman. I made no such implication. I am not weaseling out of anything. I meant exactly what I actually said and stand by it. I do not stand by the words or meanings you are putting in my mouth. This is dishonest and a violation of WP:CIV. You do not speak for me. Objective3000 (talk) 20:57, 28 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)
 * You just said you are aware that Bush has said god told him to attack Iraq. The god of his religion told him to attack a country of another religion. If you read my entire edit, NOWHERE did I say that this was xenophobic or racist, as claimed in this thread. In fact, I have said in other edits that Bush was not racist. I simply said that it was divisive. Wouldn't you think it divisive within his own country if the head of a primarily Muslim, but part Christian, gov't said allah told him to attack America? If you read my entire edit, I was not making any "accusation" against Bush at all. I was merely stating that Bush had made statements along the same lines as what Tyson claimed Bush said as I thought it aided in an understanding of the actual discussion at the time. HopDavid searched through the archives to find something to attack another editor about. He had to go back seven archives. I will not respond further to his attacks. The discussion is silly and should be hatted. Objective3000 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You're equating Saddam Hussein's secular government with Muslims in general? Ummmm…. No. Not all Islamic people are oppressive tyrants. And Desert Storm wasn't Christians vs Muslims. Allies included Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Tyson has bush trying to elevate his God above the God of the Arabs. And you're saying Tyson wasn't accusing Bush of racism or xenophobia? Sorry, bashing Arabs in general is both racist and xenophobic. Again, only Tyson's fabricated Bush is guilty of this accusation. Redact your false accusations against a living person.HopDavid (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's clearly not going to. I recommend you drop the stick.  Continuing to argue with him is not going to gain anything.  Should you wish to continue your campaign to get him to do take backs (and I don't recommend you do so) you need to take it up on the BLP notice board WP:BLPNB because going on and on about it here is not going to accomplish anything (well, actually, going to BLPNB is not going to accomplish anything either, but you seem to be headed that way anyway, so might as well get it over with) Marteau (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just watch out for boomerangs. Objective3000 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, HopDavid. A person who takes another person or issue to an enforcement board often finds themselves the subject of an enforcement action them self.  It is common enough to have it's own term here; a 'boomerang' and you should be prepared to have one come back should you choose to take this to an enforcement board, courtesy of the fine watchdogs of this article.    Marteau (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your words were "Basically saying that God told him to kill a lot of people of another religion." Bush never said such a thing.  He said God told him to go after Iraq, and terrorists.  Whether that was your intent or not, your statement clearly implies religious motivations and an attack motivated by religion, and that needs a source, otherwise I will redact that passage as per WP:BLP. Marteau (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the onus is on you. You, personally, should redact. It has been pointed out to you that this statement is misleading.  It is a product of WP:SYNTHESIS which of course has no place in BLP issues.  I suspect you realize this statement would not be permitted in the article space due to BLP issues, and would therefore also be disqualified from talk space on the same grounds.  That you refuse to give a cite for it, and refuse to see it as a BLP issue, or as misleading, or as synthesis, is clear and on the record, and that's enough for me.  I have taken this as far as I have the stomach to and I'm not going to waste editors time on this any further when there are so many more important things to deal with. Marteau (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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. DP 76764  (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 . 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 "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)

Future Worm
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 |here |here |here and |here all show that. So I don't know why this appeared this way when he was alive. Does anyone know? -A la d  insane   (Channel 2)  06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Work with Avenged Sevenfold
In this edit, added the comment that. This was cited to a YouTube video. This addition was reverted by with the comment. 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.  DP 76764  (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: . 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 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!  DP 76764  (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.

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.

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.

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.wikipedia.org/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)
 * Astrology? Really! Moriori (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018
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)


 * ✅ Fish +Karate 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018
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. 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. Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. 2A0C:5BC0:40:1410:ECD0:B170:DD5D:654A (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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
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.

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. Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct.
 * 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. . — 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  — 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. --M asem (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. . Same with NY Times  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. --M asem (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 and NYTimes 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. --M asem (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.


 * 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. 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. Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct.
 * 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)

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. --M asem (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)

As there is apparently consensus for this, ✅ ResultingConstant (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)