Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Semi-protected edit request on 26 Nov 2019

Missing citation source in section "Media appearances" for film appearance: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

Criticism

Nothing about criticism in this article. Looks like a PR~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.156.61 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like people are being paid good money to keep this page as a monument to Neil's greatness & avoid any reference to things like this https://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/ Aussiesta (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aussiesta, you can look in the archives for previous discussions on the issue. Keep in mind that The Federalist is not a reliable source for wikipedia articles (see WP:RSPS). Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting the article about me to reappear today...Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, is Politico RS and its article by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review? If Lowry of NR writing for left-leaning centrist Politico is too right wing for you, how about an academic blog called History for Atheists (founded by atheist rationalist, Tim O'Neill, historian with a specialisation in historicist analysis of medieval literature and sources, and regularly contributed to by historians of science, medievalist, etc.), with critical assessments like the following: Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Al-Ghazali - History for Atheists, written by several historians of science? How about response by Luke Barnes, professor of astronomy at Western Sydney University, is he RS when he said "Scientists suck at history. The end." referring to deGrasse? Or Hop David, who compiled extensive list of factual errors made by deGrasse at his blog, under the title Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson (blog is regularly visited and contributed to by likes of Tim O'Neill). deGrasse has made enough nonsense claims and bogus arguments, which he pulled straight out of his arse, that provoked responses and refutations by academic of all colors and creed, some of which include public back-and-forth in social media and Internet, and that warrants mention in his wiki bio. Instead, we have this sterilized, whitewashed version, guarded by his admirers. @Zero Serenity, @Aussiesta; questioning this lack of critical point of views is valid. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Santasa99, I simply pointed out that we can't use The Federalist as a source. Before anyone reopens the question of including the issue in the article, they should review all of the previous discussions about it.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Schazjmd (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you regarding Federalist ilk , but the issue pointed there is a valid (if I am not mistaken it was an issue of misquoting Bush for years). We don't need Federalist to properly reference this episode with RS such as Washington Post, or above mentioned websites.

Regarding older consensuses - you are aware that the consensus is susceptible to correction and change. In other words, earlier consensus, now in tp archive, is not set in stone if we agree that some corrections are needed on whatever points in the article. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Santasa99, I have never argued for or against inclusion of criticism of Tyson in the article, nor have I ever said that the issue shouldn't be reopened. If someone wants to propose revisiting the old consensus, I'd suggest that they (1) provide the specific text that they think should be added with (2) the specific sources to cite. I think such a proposal will have a better shot if there are newer sources that weren't considered in previous discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for sounding a bit cold and abrasive in my first post, as if you said more than you actually did. I fully agree with your stance from this last post. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some mention should be made about Tyson's propensity for peddling pseudo-history to his naive followers. O'Neill calls him The STEM Lord -a reference to the fact that his clueless groupies think he's an authoritative source for history because of his background in science. I think we have enough reliable sources stating that Tyson pushes biased misinformation about history. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! It was because of Objective 3000 and Zero Serenity I made my page "Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson". I search for discussions where Neil's fans repeat his misinformation and I provide the correct information. Someone needs to do it. I don't think Wikipedia is the only information outlet attempting to whitewash Neil's image. I am trying to do my part to combat systemic dishonesty. I was quite surprised when Objective 3000 et al failed in their efforts to censor mention of the allegations of sexual misconduct. Maybe at some point Wikipedia will have a more rounded article on Neil Tyson. In addition to the efforts of Tim O'Neill, Luke Barnes and myself historian Thony Christie has been making solid efforts. See Thony's piece on Tysons history regarding Isaac Newton. HopDavid (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft started on Cyril deGrasse Tyson

I've started a rough draft article about Neil's father at Draft:Cyril deGrasse Tyson. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

See also section

More poor editing found. All four links in thr See also section are not needed. deGrasse Tyson is only the son of a person of Puerto Rican descent. 43.249.196.153 (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)