Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

The Bush quote hits the New York Times

Here's the relevant piece. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's an op-ed piece. It cannot be used to establish weight. aprock (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Op-eds aren't supposed to be used to establish facts. They can be used to establish weight. That said, I doubt any previously involved editor will change their stance on weight based on this op-ed. Of course, if I'm wrong I'd be happy to hear from any editors who have flipped. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not swayed. If anything this removes some of the fuel because it was just buried and over with. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Swordfish. What you say goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. As opinion pieces can only be used to support the view of the author, they are all by definition primary sources. aprock (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Good op-ed. Not sure it changes anything regarding the "scandal"; if anything it explains why it really isn't a scandal but at best an example to be used on an article regarding the processes of memory.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This Op-ed is about how unreliable memory can be and only marginally about Tyson. Speaking about fuzzy memory...does anyone else even remember this fabricated scandal anymore? --Shabidoo | Talk 04:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google shows The NY Times, pjmedia, Breitbart, Bloomberg and the Daily Caller all writing about it in the past seven days. Oh and the Federalist of course. So your answer is "yes". Marteau (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the submitted work of that author credits The Federalist, but the NY Times edited all mention of The Federalist out ( http://blog.chabris.com/2014/12/more-on-why-our-memory-fails-us.html ). It is, however, a shame people hearing of this issue wanting to learn about it from a dispassionate, neutral source (e.g. here) will find nothing and will instead be lead via Google to "the echo chambers". Marteau (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• We also lack a dispassionate article on Jasmine Tridevil, even though she got more press coverage than this kerfuffle.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, was the NY Times doing op/eds about Tridevil? I must have missed that. Marteau (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time but Wikipedia shut her down sooner than this, because Wikipedia has a well-known bias against the tri-breasted. She was covered by 100s of news sources around the world, far beyond the American conservative niche website clique that got excited about Tysongate, though they covered Tridevil too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 07:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• NYTimes op-eds typically do not have long lists of refs (as stated by Chabris and omitted by you). These are opinion pieces, not journal papers, and must fit in tight spaces in a print newspaper. Although you seem to be quite critical of the Times, suggesting it is not a dispassionate, neutral source, Chabris was not at all critical in the link you provided. Indeed, Chabris goes on to explain that they weren't even being critical of Tyson as all of us make errors in memory. And, that was the point of the article. I suggest that your edit above shows bias – not the Times. Objective3000 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you lay off the pointing of accusatory fingers at others for stupid, trumped-up reasons.Marteau (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I am simply incapable of generating an adequate response to your brilliantly expressed argument: “stupid”. You win. Objective3000 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one of the reasons used to exclude this incident from the biography of the subject was that it was a minor story that would not have legs, yet here we are months later with continuing major media accounts of the incident (this time the New York Times!) and there is nothing on the article. Imagine that, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people reading about this in the Times and if they think "I would like to know more, let's check out Wikipedia" they would find...nothing. Disappeared down the memory hole. Perhaps we should revisit the news blackout. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they will wonder why there is a blackout on Wikipedia regarding this issue, and will be curious enough to do some looking into the issue and obtain some learning. That can only be a good thing. Marteau (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the NYTimes op-ed, and the additional explanations by Chabris (thanks for the link), it is clear that the intent of the op-ed was to use, as an example, the silliness of the entire ballyhoo as it was merely the result of a common memory lapse. And yet, oddly, this appears to be some people’s concept of why this should be included in a BLP. If it is ever included, we would have to include the facts that certain peoples tried to use a simple memory-lapse as reasons to discredit the entire career of a person that is a black, atheist, that believes in science.

Marteau, there is no “blackout”. (In fact, such labeling is probably a WP:CIV vio.) There were multiple, long, examinations by several forums within WP, and your view didn’t hold. This opinion piece doesn’t come close to altering any argument. Indeed, it actually argues how silly it is that such a memory-lapse should become news. It is the very opposite of a reason to include such in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Somebody forgot to tell Chabris that the issue was "silly", deserving of no coverage, and worthy of being ignored. True, his discussion was a meta-discussion, but a discussion it was, and from an arm of the serious media. Discussions and references such as this have, are, and will continue to take place despite it being considered manufactured and silly by those who wish to continue it's exclusion. Exclusion here in all forms when serious, non-silly people refer to it in their serious, non-silly works is glaring and I welcome, look forward to, and congratulate those who will be curious enough to investigate why. As I said, that can only be a good thing. Revision. As it stands, someone doing such reseach, and perhaps Googling "Tyson Bush misquote" will be lead, on the first hit of the first page, to a Federalist article. I would prefer they be referred to the Tyson article here, where an objective discussion could be presented instead of them being directed to an echo chamber, but unfortunately, the concensus for exclusion will almost certainly stand on this issue for as long as you or I edit. Marteau (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not a consensus for exclusion, it was no consensus for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is objectively true it's that it is a controversy. And that it is a long running one. It is objectively a part of his life that has been discussed extensively as a controversy. It is also objectively true that the statements were false. Why is so much that is objectively true about a person left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videoprojman (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not encyclopedic, nor is it a particularly interesting note in his life. We have had this discussion already and decided it was not notable. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT voting it out. It certainly is notable. Arzel (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"...nor is it, to me, a particularly interesting note in his life"

Fixed that for you. I am by no means about to re-debate the issue or bring this up for another RFC, but there are, in fact, many people who find the occasion of a professional speaker being compelled to apologize to a former president for his public conduct interesting per se and your blanket aseertion to the contrary is laughable and demonstrably untrue. Marteau (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation: white people angry about uppity blacks, spurred on by the right wing conservative noise machine operated by a hyper-partisan blog. Got it. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has really matured into something amazing hasn't it? Remember when this was all fields? Shabidoo | Talk 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That your motivations for excluding information here include your allegations of a concerted conspiracy against progressives is as evident as it always has. Got it. Believe it or not, not everyone interested in this issue is a hater or part of an effort to tear the man down. This issue is simply interesting to many. Marteau (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a video game, Marteau, where you can "hammer" home your tendentious points to the exclusion of consensus. The majority of people, as represented by RS coverage, do not find this subject interesting, significant, or important. This is demonstrable, as all of the main sources stem from a manufactured controversy intentionally disseminated by the conservative noise machine to distract the public from Tyson's successful television show in order to deny the climate science and to promote creationism. Further, the fact that this was done just prior to the international climate conference is no coincidence, as Heartland did the exact same thing before the last conference by promoting the climategate canard. When one discovers that The Federalist is run by none other than Heartland operatives, the jig, as they say, is up. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That this issue was begun by haters, by a conspiracy, by Heartland, or by the boogie man I could not care in the least. That it in fact became an isssue is indisputable, that it became such an issue thatt Tyson was compelled to apologize is indisputable, and that I and others find the entire case interesting is indisputable. You can go ahead and continue to edit based on what you percieve are the motives of third-party meanies, I however will continue to use what I contend are more appropriate standards. Marteau (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice misrepresentation of my response. There's nothing encyclopedic about this "issue". Have you ever read a biography in an actual encyclopedia? How about showing me a comparable "issue"? WP:NOT? Don't make me think this is a throwaway account. Do something useful and bring Matt Drudge, an article you created, to GA/FA standards. And don't forget to add all the manufactured controversies. Yeah, right. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Race & Social Justice question

Hi. This is a little thing, but I just noticed that a revision wasn't accepted regarding deGrasse discussing his interview on a local news program. It was reverted for good reason, as the edit was unsourced. But in looking at the sentence, there is an inaccuracy. The current sentence reads: "He told a story about being interviewed about a plasma burst from the sun on a local Fox News affiliate in 1989." But this is incorrect. Fox News does not have affiliates (just like CNN doesn't). Fox has affiliates. Not sure if the language of this sentence reflects what deGrasse said, but since it's not a direct quote, I'm taking the "News" out of the line. Onel5969 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)