Jump to content

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

This guy is awesome

His race/ethnicity shouldn't be a factor. He is basically the American version of Richard Dawkins, the voice of logic and reason in a sea of superstition. Intranetusa 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Except the part where he's agnostic and Dawkins isn't too fond of agnostics. That and his writing style is a bit better than Dawkins'. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Career

Has Tyson done any real science? He seems to be a media celebrity, but when I look in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS, I can find no record of scholarly work in science, except for popular books and social commentary. Is he in fact a practicing astrophysicist?

See his personal homepage for publications. --Andrew Delong 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he's got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush's version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It's just bizarre. To answer Delong's question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist. - Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept. of Astronomy, Cornell University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.6.98 (talk) 18:03, December 3, 2008

Tyson's voluminous CV on his web site says that he is a member of the American Physical Society. The Society's membership directory does not list him. If I have searched in error, please advise --Peter Zimmerman, past member of APS Executive Board.

68.110.238.96 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this guy hasn't done any science in years, and despite his place in the so-called 'Planetary Society' he is a laughingstock among real planetary scientists, since he knows nothing of it, and very few of whom were present at the vote in question at the IAU. It doesn't even make scientific sense, since if you follow the new definitions closely the Earth isn't a planet since it hasn't cleared its orbit, but they didn't know enough to realize this at the time. Any grad department which focuses on astronomy/planetary science rather then galactic astrophysics knows who this guy is and doesn't like him. He's just a political hack and the IAU vote was pure politics. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I sadly agree with the above poster. While I think his writing style is pretty good (easy to understand, etc), I think it's sad that a scientist who has done nothing more than help popularize physics gets more fame than scientists who do more. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Being eloquent in his descriptions and teaching of the universe is as much a contribution to the field as any publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitchwk (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
His contributions are around public outreach, not scholarly works. This is why PBS tapped him for hosting duties for NOVA ScienceNow as well as a new Cosmos series first hosted by Saganref and NASA has brought him in as a speaker in tweetup events.
Tyson has done more for science than most research scientists ever will. Who cares if he doesn't want to use his education for study? 69.116.250.211 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Gabrielle_(Xena)"

"Xena"; "Ceres", "1 Ceres".

Hilarious & silly.

Miles O'Brien [ Miles_O'Brien_(journalist) ], cnn, speaking with Neil deGrasse Tyson, announced this mnemonic:

"My Very Educated Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas,..."

"Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto,..."

"...'chovies eXtra."

Hopiakuta 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Education

Did he really earn a BA and an MA? Or was it a BS and an MS? The latter seesm more likely, given the subject matter - an MA is Astronomy can't be worth that much...

24.22.178.134 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who really cares about his BA (Physics) or his MA (Astronomy) when he trumps it all with a PhD (Astrophysics)? Or the fact that he has all three degrees? What impresses me the most about him is he's a "regular guy" who went to public school. Witty, engaging, and nice as hell by my experience. --SavvyCat 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang

I think that his work on the Big Bang should be mentioned.--24.22.111.99 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Kyle McKenzie Street

The theory or the show??? --MinorFixes (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Voice Acting?

I also believe he has done some voice acting for the Zelda series (for the Philips CD-I). He was possibly the voice of the King of Hyrule, and Ganon during the cut scenes. This should not be included in the article until verified and found relevant. If you want to check for yourself, look on YouTube where the cut scenes have been posted (and made somewhat popular by the "YouTube Poop" series, which you should avoid since they are modified for humor purposes). I was watching an original cut scene and noticed the voice to be familiar. I remembered it was the voice of the host of Nova's ScienceNow.

208.110.226.233 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't him. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference

The third reference "3^ Neil deGrasse Tyson interview on opposition to string theory, dated July 19, 2006 (2006-08-21).; NOVA podcast, "Proving String Theory", dated July 19, 2006. Retrieved August 21, 2006" is incorrect. The correct reference should be to the podcast from July 12, 2006 titled "A Theory of Everything?" (located here: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/626200) instead of the podcast mentioned now (located here: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/648292).

Kevincross 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Early Life

The article states "Born the year that NASA was founded (established 7/29/1958)..." Isn't this a tad redundant? His birth date is listed in the first sentence of the article and also in the sidebar to the right. I propose removing the entire parenthetical reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.245.165 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is the sort of fun trivia acceptable for a magazine article on him, but this is an encyclopedia. Ashmoo (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone finds a reference where he notes it. I haven't seen all of his stuff, but it's the kind of informative aside he uses, if only to give people a mnemonic they'd remember. Anyone? 75.204.129.143 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify whether his last name is "Tyson" or "deGrasse Tyson"

The Hero of This Nation (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

according to his official biography they use just Tyson, so I think I will change the article to reflect that. andyzweb (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive language when describing Dr. deGrasse Tyson

Referring to Dr. deGrasse Tyson's character as "colorful" is a gross violation of pillar 2 of the Wikipedia 5 Pillars, neutrality. Such subtle references to a subject's race is highly offensive and an affront to the notion of a post-racist society.

Personally I like "engaging". Jovial, jocular, avuncular... I've heard James Carville described as colorful, though it's not in his article. It is in Naftule Brandwein's, and he was Jewish from Galicia. Perhaps it was intended as a subtle reference, there are numerous policy guidelines against that assumption; did the editor(s) in question have a history, or is this a reaction? 75.204.129.143 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Colourful" is a gross violation? Oh, good grief. It's not a racial comment. The OED gives colourful as "full of interest; lively and exciting : e.g 'a controversial and colourful character' or 'a colourful account of the meeting' ". Most British novelists, royals and poets are regularly described as 'colourful'. It can also be taken as a euphemism for 'slightly eccentric' or having a 'big personality', which he certainly has. I think Tyson would quite enjoy such descriptions. They are are not derogatory at all. I assume the above comment is based on a misunderstanding of the word. Span (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the term colorful has been applied to Caucasians as well as every other ethnic groups, this is just nonsense. Schwinghammer (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is nonsense, but if people are offended, I don't see the harm in using a different adjective. In any case, the issue appears to be moot as the word was removed from this page long ago.JoelWhy (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jovial, jocular, and avuncular are all good terms to describe him. Also colorful. I don't think of this immediately as a racial connotation. Are we only allowed to use the term for white people? He's colorful in the most flattering and non-racial sense. Mrguido45 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

He's on TV and in Many Documentaries, His IMDB page should be added

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1183205/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not held to be a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Thanks Span (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of him being a chicken tycoon?

Is this a cover-up? --129.19.137.5 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation 23

The reference to Tyson's article on September 11 is broken 124.180.172.148 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.Novangelis (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)\

Meme

So... this is not cited? I believe it should be in section "Media appearances". He became a meme after all... ZackTheJack (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's trivial.JoelWhy (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are entire websites made after his meme... (Demf) 16:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are entire websites devoted to Star Trek fan fiction, insisting President Obama is the Anti-Christ, and posting photos of people dressed strangely at Wal-Mart. That doesn't mean the issue isn't trivial.JoelWhy (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

§Media appearances

Meh, who cares. As time goes on Dr Tyson will no doubt make more and more appearances in the ever growing "media" universe. Listing all (or even just many) of these in WP seems nonsensical to this editor as most of them fail to meet the notability criterion. That § will just get larger and larger and larger and ... Secondarily, the references in the § become a defacto list of links - something that WP really ought not be. §Media appearances should be removed from the article.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I don't disagree with you. I think we should list certain more notable appearances (I'm thinking specifically of his many appearances on Colbert Report, and maybe his appearance on Big Bang Theory) but no reason to list every time he's on some TV show, etc.JoelWhy (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
given the number of them, a filmography seems more appropriate?
So, I cleaned up the Media section a bit. Still needs more work, and plenty of missing citations. But, I think it's a bit easier to read now (and I removed some of the references which were waaaay down the list of notable appearances made by a guy who is on the TV/radio/internet probably a dozen times each month.JoelWhy (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agnostic vs. Athiest

This inteview mentions his page on the project, noting that he was claimed to be an atheist but is an agnostic. The present version of the article lists him as an agnostic, but I will leave the interview here to clarify in case it comes up, as it seems to about once a year or so. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Tyson is an astrophysicist. He is NOT known for his religious views. With all due respect to my fellow skeptics out there, just because atheism is important to you does not mean the article here should delve deeply into this issue. It violates the NPOV standard. Tyson was actually making fun of the atheists trying to claim him on his Wiki page -- and, this is precisely what I see continuing to happen here. Please take a step back and try to look at this objectively. He's not a religious spokesperson. Even though he occasionally talks about religion and its connection to science, claiming him as "one of us" violates the Wiki standards we are so eager to enforce in articles where the religious folk try to add extraneous religious information.JoelWhy (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Tyson most certainly is known for his religious views, he talks about them a great deal, and when he does it on video they're among the most popular atheist/agnostic videos on YouTube. But he's specifically complained about this article calling him an atheist when he identifies as agnostic, so obviously the latter needs to be used. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more precise -- he is not primarily known because of his religious views. The man is, by and large, known for his work in popularizing science, and astrophysics in particular. Yet, every nuance of his religious views was being explored in this article with a push to make him seem as close to "atheist" as editors could. I agree his religious views are sufficiently prominent to include here (and, I think the current version is fine,) but there clearly was a movement to pull every quote possible that made him seem "as atheist" as possible. (As an aside, we now have to work on the media appearances segment -- seriously, the man has appeared in every form of media out there 10,000 times, and yet we somehow include an interview with him on a college radio show?? Will start working on fixing that soon...)JoelWhy (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Race

I think the fact that Dr. Tyson is black is worth mentioning somewhere in the article. African-Americans and other minorities have a very limited presence in the physical sciences, and Dr. Tyson may be the most visible and most prominent minority scientist working today. A black youngsters thinking of a career in astronomy or another hard science is much more likely to stick to that goal if he has a role model like Dr. Tyson than if he does not.

Does he call himself African-American, or did someone just assign him the term? I think it's a fairly ignorant term and I have seen it misapplied to both people who are Black, but not of immediate African descent, or who are Black or even African, but not American citizens. Of course those who want to self-identify as African-American can go right ahead. I think one just needs to make sure before jumping to conclusions. --SavvyCat 19:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless he is cited in some way because he is black (wins an NAACP award or some such), or he decides to proclaim it in some notable way, it probably doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned. I feel like a picture would do the trick. I don't know enough about wiki picture templates or fair use laws to add one myself, though. Slurms MacKenzie 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, there is no need to explicitly say that he is black. In fact, after reading many articles on different people, I found it a little uncomfortable to read "African American" right on the top of the page. This is pretty much pointless information unless, like Slurms said, he is notable for it. And if that were the case, the first paragraph would not be the place for it; it would fit better in a trivia section. (Antonio.sierra 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
He wrote a whole book on it: [1]. Wl219 05:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Being black is not the point of that book. It's his memoirs, and although he does talk about it in a single chapter (out of 12), it's more about how his dreams as a young boy have become reality, including the fact he is now the director of the Hayden Planetarium, the place that was so influential in his interest in the cosmos. If someone is white, we don't start their bio with "John Smith, Caucasian Farmer"; it would be irrelevant, as I feel it is here. Andrew Gilligan 11:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that he talks about it in his book, I suppose it's relevant to include it in the article, but including it in the info box is just weird. Is that a standard field in articles about scientists? Does the article on Edwin Hubble indicate his ethnicity in the infobox? Does anyone even know? Circumspect 09:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted his ethnicity from the infobox. I think it would be good to include a mention of it in the article's body, but I did not do so because it seems that the logical way to do this would be to cite the chapter from his memoirs, but I have not read his memoirs. Someone who has should add appropriate text to the body of the article. Circumspect 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a revert war on the question of including Tyson's race in the infobox. I have requested comments via Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Please comment on whether you think the ethnicity reference should be deleted from the infobox. I think it should be, as it is not typically included in the infoboxes on pages for other scientists. I proposed a compromise above regarding how to address the issue of Tyson's ethnicity. Circumspect 04:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The course of action taken in this article should apply to any other article. If we put race in the infobox, we shall also put it in the infobox of other notable people. I think that it would be quite awkward to see race used as general important detail (like birthplace). Outside of the USA, not many countries discriminate by race. Although, if, like W1219 said, he wrote a book about it, then it should merit a mention as important as his book. Btw, the link to the book info isn't working. --Antonio.sierra 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We should keep race out of the infobox, but if would be good if someone who has read his autobiography can add some text to the main body of his entry which speaks to whatever he said on the subject. I've taken the ethnicity field out of the infobox a few times, but not having read his memoir, I didn't feel qualified to construct some kind of summary about what he said in it about race. Circumspect 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Coming from RFC, Stating that he is an "African American" isn't required in the infobox, though a brief mention in the article with a reliable resource won't hurt. Though we definitely need to keep the article listed under "African American scientists" category. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-I do not think the article should state Tyson is African American in the opening paragraph or the infobox. Worse the foot note on African American in first few words of introduction, the foot note number and WL together high lights race and distracts astrophysicist. He was also voted "Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" but that is also not good in introduction. It is not most noteworthy fact about him, neither his race, so shouldn't be so prominent claim in article either. If he is noteworthy because he is African American in this field, reference must be found discussing this fact. If the reference for noteworthiness of African American is autobiographical then that reference text should be used in this article describing in what manner this is noteworthy fact. Otherwise it is just a race based label. This is not ordinary used to introduce him in other situations. Venado 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Venado's logic. I think his strategy could be used universally applied. If an artist, for example, is notorious only for being caucassian then it should deserve a mention in the first paragraph. If the artist's race has come up in various other situations, then it should be noted but definitely not in the first paragraph. And finally, if race is of very little significance for the person's public life, then maybe it should not even be mentioned. I can't imagine George Bush's' article starting by saying "George Bush is a Caucasian American..." --Antonio.sierra 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


He's notable for his celebrity, not his race. I would leave it out. I think Wikipedia needs to establish a broad policy on this question, if it has not already.Verklempt 03:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


I just removed the African American statement as it seemed irrelevant and could easily be deduced by his picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.127.25 (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

His race on his myspace page clearly states "black/african decsent" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcheckr (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think it shouldn't be in the infobox as the infoboxes on other American scientists don't state their 'ethnicity'. Anyone who finds the enthnicity of a scientist important can see it from his photo. Ashmoo (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems everyone posting in this section agrees that the ethnicity should not be in the infobox. Yet, after >2 years of debate, it's still there. Are the pro-ethnics just reverting w/o discussing? I agree with the comments here that it would be wrong to include his ethnicity in his infobox since, while his race may be notable for being a successful black American scientist in a field dominated by people of other races, it's not germane in the sense that his field of expertise, his positions/jobs, his awards, etc. are. I agree, that it's probably good to keep him in the category of African-American scientists and perhaps to mention it in a trivia section or biography section, but definitely not in the opener or the infobox. Carl Sagan's article certainly doesn't waste time describing his ethnicity. So, after this post, I'm going to continue the revert war and delete ethnicity from the infobox. Alberrosidus (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a major point is being missed here. Searching "wikipedia african american astrophysicist", Dr. Tyson comes up first, with his picture, in the three most used search engines. Using black, or scientist, or Tyson, without astrophysicist and/or his first name, he does not show up on the first page, and in some cases, not until double digits (in one, 102nd page). His name is a lot for people to catch on a first chance, even displayed. People may not know much about him, but this is how they find him. 75.204.129.143 (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly surprised you all are missing the most critical factor here, that Tyson himself mentions again and again. I'm guessing most of you are white, and grew up in a world where education was important. Tyson, in a lengthy interview with Whoppie Goldberg, explored the fact that black kids had few "heros" (if you will excuse the term) other than actors and athletes. You simply do not see black faces in politics, science or even education. And both he and Goldberg said they are proud to be able to tell minority kids "I'm here, and I'm black - see it works". Not unlike the famous picture of Pres Obama having his curly hair patted by a kid saying "wow, you are just like me", Tyson goes into inner city schools and says "we're here. You can be here too." This is a part of his personality, his views on life, and his goals. and it should be directly addressed, and not hidden in PC "we don't really want to talk about race" that I see you, at least in this discussion, doing. (kipruss3 - not signed in) --184.96.230.212 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reddit

Neil Degrasse Tyson has created an AMA on Reddit responding to many users questions.

Tyson's AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/mateq/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ama/

Proof that Neil Degrasse Tyson is making these posts: https://twitter.com/#!/neiltyson/status/135764787127787521

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.192.73 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2011‎ (UTC)

NdGT degrees

I think his degrees should be a BSc and MSc no a BA and MA as his article claims. Someone shoudl look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.59.199 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Do we know for a fact that Dr. Tyson is not an atheist? The citations linked in the article demonstrate clearly that he believes God has no place in the realm of scientific inquiry, though he's never said anything about the role of God in any other context (to my knowledge). Based on what he's written and said, I'd speculate that he is something like a scientific pantheist (because of the way he uses "spiritual" language when talking about the cosmos), though he could very well be a private atheist or Christian. --Perspicuus 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

His statements here seem incompatible with the view that he's anything but an atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0

I think the text in the article is in error when it states he's neither religious nor an atheist. If the article is to state that he's not an atheist, there should be some citation in which he states that he is not an atheist. That he is not religious is patently obvious from his talk (available on YouTube in links from the above YouTube page) at the Beyond Belief conference, and from the two essays on his web site cited in the Wikipedia article:

http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_perimeter.php http://research.amnh.org/users/tyson/18magazines_holywars.php

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he is not religious, and has argued that religion poses a threat to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Circumspect 08:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to religious views, a person is what they say they are. If someone calls themselves a Christian, I may make assumptions on what that means but ultimately they are a Christian regardless of their belief in any individual tenant of Christianity. Tyson has asserted (on this article itself), that he is an agnostic, see http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/24/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-religion/ looseBits (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
He has also stated that he would prefer to call himself nothing but a scientist, with "agnostic" being a label he takes only grudgingly. I think an article about the status of his personal beliefs should include this information, and leave out any speculation as to other philosophies he may or may not ascribe to. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlDj_RGOzO8 PD711 02:38, 5 May 2012

He is an agnostic atheist. However, he calls himself an agnostic and rejects the label atheism based off his personal definitions of the two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read this (third paragraph), he says he's edited this article to change "atheist" to "agnostic". Unless he specifies otherwise, it should stay as that. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms and since he does not believe in any gods he still falls under the atheist label in addition to the agnostic label. He may not agree with it, but he is by definition an agnostic atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.159.119 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And yet, when someone calls himself a theist, he is alost never called an agnostic theist. I know quite a few agnostics who consider the term agno-atheist and other related terms to be completely absurd and slightly offensive, as it (to them at least) is an attempt to pull them into a belief, when they're more about knowledge. In Tyson's case, he does not believe in the existance of a god, nor does he exclude the possibility of its existance (or, in more literal terms, he does not believe that a god doesn't exist). 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if someone's posted this already (I'm sure they have), but he states in this article here: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/09_sept_oct/Tyson.html that he finds it remarkable that the only two essays he wrote on religion have somehow placed him into the atheist community, which he wants no part of. He doesn't like religious arguments and has no intention of arguing with anyone about religion. He clearly mentions intelligent design, not religion itself. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on." ~Neil DeGrasse Tyson 24.19.167.36 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The term Atheist can mean different things. If he doesn't call himself an atheist, we don't get to label him that here in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement, "Showcasing his lack of knowledge of the definition of the two words, and associating atheism with unnecessary baggage.", is opinion on deGrasse and does not belong in this article. EnricCirne (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The man doesn't believe the labels should even be used at all, that they're disingenuous and used to assume all that somebody believes without actually paying attention to what they say. From what I've seen of him he believes that people who believe in god do so due to scientific ignorance and he believes that religions contribute to the undoing of scientific progress and inquiry. This information should be included. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos FuturistSage 14:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever we may think or interpret as editors, we must follow Wikipedia's policies. Within Wikipedia's policy on no original research, WP:SYNTH states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my italics). It goes on to say that, " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" (again, my emphasis).
We can't take various sources that seem to imply he does not believe in a god or gods, or theism, and apply the term "atheist", if it is not "explicity stated" in any of the sources.
I hope that helps. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyson has specifically refuted atheists' claims that he is an atheist. He has expressly stated that he is an agnostic. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/neil_degrasse_tyson_communicating_science/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos. There are conflicting definitions of atheism, and some are broader than others. Some definitions of agnosticism fall under some definitions of atheism, but not all the definitions are universally agreed and the no amount of Venn diagrams are going to settle the definition. What matters more is 'connotation'; Agnosticism specifically refers to an attitude of open-mindedness where one neither believes nor disbelieves, whereas Atheism has a connotation of disbelief. In this regard, there is a difference in the common usage of the terms and Tyson is perfectly correct in using the word agnosticism to describe his religious views. Therefore the Wiki user(s) who keep editing his Views section to promote the opinion that he still falls under the umbrella of atheism, should cease and desist. 68.197.117.230 (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tyson has refuted??? So, if I, as a man, refute the fact that I am a man, but a woman, would you tell others that I do not have a penis, just because I said I don't? Tyson made a mistake. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. Granted, smarter than most of us, but yet still human non the less! So, the Wiki user(s) who keep failing on several logical fallacies are the ones who should cease and desist.Just because dr Tyson doesn't like labels does not mean he does not in fact fall in a certain category. Either you can claim that he is a theist, which I would love to see OR you can claim that it is impossible to determine whether he is a theist. However, if he is not a theist then he is, by the very definition of the prefix a-, an a-theist, a non-theist. The several "definitions" of the word are meaningless because the word a-theist is painfully simple and clear, it means "he who is not a theist", nothing more, nothing less.--88.152.169.97 (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't look at the root words or history of a word to determine what a word currently means. The several "definitions" are not meaningless. What some anonymous poster on the internet decides a word means, on the other hand, is quite meaningless. If you have any questions about what the term atheist means, I suggest you try a dictionary. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This etymological argument is silly. Words do not mean only what their roots suggest or awful wouldn't mean "bad" it would mean "full of awe", it's etymological origin. Likewise anyone who believes in a "priesthood" could call themselves "Presbyterian" (presbyter=priest)because of the constructed roots of the word, whom we know today to be a specific offshoot of Protestantism. When words become "proper nouns" they take on an evolved meaning with the evolution of that movement or thing. "Atheist" has moved, in common usage, from it's literal meaning (which I have most often today seen replaced with "irreligious", for clarity)to meaning "avowed denier of the existence of God". Of course English is a fluid language and we have no L'Académie française equivalent for the it but rather we have the notion of consensus and usage frequency. To one who wishes to make the distinction between himself as an Agnostic and another's view as atheistic, he's not wrong, he's clearly looking for you to get the nuance he's speaking to. He's clearly stating a desire for people to understand that he's not so cock-sure of his irreligiosity to call it Atheism and that he's open to something transcendent, but simply hasn't found something so compelling as to say "I believe!".
It is clearly a tool for either the atheist or the strongly religious (ironic huh?) to pigeon hole someone who is attempting not to be pigeon holed by splitting hairs over the origins of a word or it's literal meaning.
From Wikipedia's own article on atheism, within the hard/soft or positive/negative atheism section is this
"Philosophers such as Antony Flew[44] and Michael Martin[39] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[44] and in Catholic apologetics.[45] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[32] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism,[citation needed] which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[46] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[47][unreliable source?] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[48] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[49] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[50] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists"."
So from that, if one really wants to sneak the word "atheist" into Tyson's biography, I submit that one needs to use the more obscure (have you ever heard a person say "I'm a negative atheist"?) "negative" or "weak". That seems cumbersome or less clear to the average reader than the more widely understood "agnostic".
This leads me to a suggestion for changing the wording of something I find quite awkward. What does "Tyson defined himself as an agnostic that is widely claimed by atheists" mean? Does that mean that atheist often claim that Neil is an agnostic or that atheists often claim to be agnostic? It feels like somebody is making a very reaching statement with some philosophical end in mind that is completely off-topic. I don't have a problem if the meaning is "atheists claim he's an agnostic" is the meaning and there is a source to back that up but I don't know if the second possible meaning has any value at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.51.94 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Didn't realize this had been changed from "Tyson defined himself as an agnostic." I agree, "Tyson defined himself as an agnostic that is widely claimed by atheists" is awkward and confusing. Plus, if I said "People think I'm Jewish, but I'm really Hindu," I'm not sure my Wiki page should include this as opposed to simply stating "JoelWhy is Hindu." (For the record, I do not have a Wiki page and I am not Hindu! ;) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Meme II

This meme information has been posted again, and yet again, fails to cite a reliable source demonstrating the information is notable. I see no reason this information should be included in an encyclopedic article. Having an image used as a meme is hardly notable. However, I am open to hearing other editors' opinions on the matter.JoelWhy (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed this information per WP:BLPSTYLE. Biographies of living persons need to have higher standards of sourcing and avoid merely trivial information. SkyMachine (++) 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the meme (yet again) for the same reasons as before.JoelWhy (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I never heard aboud this guy and found him when search for the meme and see the origimn. I think many people globally recognize his figure after meme, so its notable, doesnt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.114.30 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It is nice that you think that, but where is your reliable source that verifies that? SkyMachine (++) 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Is a Google Images result where the very first image is that of Tyson in his 'meme pose' a reliable source? How about the 3 million results for 'Watch out, we got a badass over here'? Well-known enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.227.171 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a reliable source because search results—especially from global search engines like google, bing, yahoo—change over time. Regardless of how many bazillion hits a meme gets on a search engine, the mere fact of its existance doesn't raise it from triviality. The article is about Dr Tyson, not about the public use of images of him as a meme (or anything else for that matter); the aricle is just about Dr Tyson (yes, I repeated myself).
--Trappist the monk (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
On the Rick Astley article, his resurgence of popularity due to RickRolling is specifically mentioned in considerable detail, so why should Dr Tyson's Internet fame be treated any differently? 86.132.227.171 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to go on the Rick Astley page to argue against its inclusion; or not. It's irrelevant to this page. See WP:OSEJoelWhy (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Relevant phrase from Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#What a search test can do, and what it can't note: "that Google searches for exact quoted expressions may report vastly more hits than actually exist. For example, a Google search for "the green goldfish", with quotes, currently initially reports "About 14,400 results", yet on paging through the actual number of hits turns out to be 58." Possibly a similar effect for "Watch out, we got a badass over here." SkyMachine (++) 22:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of pages have sections on popular culture references. I think the problem in this case is that the inclusion of his meme was done in the manner of vandalism. Furthermore, he is not famous because of his meme, regardless of whether that's how many people find out about him. He only has this meme because he was famous already and was participating in the "Big Think" interview, from which the "badass" picture originated. He never even said the words "badass". The meme has absolutely nothing to do with him other than it uses a black and white outlined version of his likeness. 68.197.117.230 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm not a common wiki-editor. Here is a link to an interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about his meme - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sp1QyieuMg - Surely this is a good enough resource. It's words from his own mouth! 184.147.227.64 (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@skymachine; while google search results may, in a small way, amplify the opularity of a certain word or term, it is unclear whether your statement is a serious suggestion that the Neil deGrasse Tyson "Badass Over Here" Meme is, in fact, an internet obscurity. Not so. In plain language, the statistical probability of so many references to Neil de Grasse Tyson accidentally emerging from such a google search is totally absurd. Any such suggestion has a fatal credibility issue.
And yes, of course, cultural references are transitory by their very definition. But as the man at the centre of this phenomenon is himself on record (as linked) having spoken about this evidently popular reference, and seeing as reports of the meme have featured in mainstream, contemporary publications, it seems as though there is very little argument to substantiate any opposition to a mention
Thirdly, and finally, the issue of precedence is important. You dismiss precedence in the case of the Rick Astley cultural reference by suggesting that one user ought resort to arguing the case for such references on the Rick Astley page.
Aside from the fact that contributions criticising reference to the Astley meme never got beyond one line in an extensive 'talk' entry for the Rick Astley wiki page, you must take into account the wikipedia trend in relation to internet memes. I have searched a number of popular 'internet memes' on wikipedia, and all of those (e.g. the McKayla Moroney e-phenomenon, Jay Maynar (tron guy) phenomenon, and even the John Kerry "Don't tase me" internet meme gets extensive to brief references on each respective biographical page. But all do get a mention. So clearly, the precedence would suggest that popular internet memes are acceptable for insertion into biographical articles, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you to argue against this entry (and therefore, all other such entries simultaneously) to users' satisfaction. Otherwise, I really cannot see that you have any credible grounds for opposing such a minor reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V04bf04a (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we know he gave lectures at 15?

Just seems to be a feedback loop of unreferenced sentences regarding this phenomenon in various blogs and profiles. But I have yet to find any resource or university website that claims this has happened. —Aiden 13:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC) He mentioned it in this interview <http://www.parlemagazine.com/black-history-month/959-dr-neil-degrasse-tyson--the-prodigy-astronomer.html> —User:THemom_bojimbo 13:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.230 (talk)

Mixed

His mother is white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.81.68 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source?82.5.196.220 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Of course it matters -- if it's true. If we have a good source, add it. Otherwise, it stays out. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Party

Is he republican or democrat?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering he's into political science (he wrote a statistical analysis of what a hypothetical election would be like, after an American Democratic primary), I guess he's leaned this way and that.. There is some speculation about what his alignment is in this blog post: http://hollowverse.com/neil-degrasse-tyson/
"Considering he’s an agnostic (few conservatives are), his TV appearances, his take that Intelligent Design is certainly not science, and his sympathy for the cause of animal rights, we’re calling him a liberal. But fiscally, he’s got to be Republican." --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Views

In this section there is the statement: "By the way, how much does NASA cost? It's a half a penny on the dollar. ...".

It would be helpful if someone could provide an explanation, in the article, as it meaning is opaque and it's not the easiest thing to look up.

Does it mean the US spends $0.005 for every dollar GDP, tax revenue, science budget; or is the meaning more technical and esoteric? PRL42 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That point is clarified in the following paragraph: "Right now, NASA's annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar..." Still, may make sense to add something to clarify in the sentence you reference. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
could be clarified as just 0.5% of the US Government's annual budget or expenditure or whatever word you want to use99.4.184.9 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Influences

Why is Christopher Hitchens listed as an influence? It seems more like an attempt to group NDT with Dawkins and Hitchens on atheism than a legit influence. I mean even saying that Dawkins is an influence is a bit odd. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist... Anonopotamous 18:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desildorf (talk • contribs)

So, Mr Hitchens was not an influence and his mention was expunged? A curious Wordreader (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not unexpectedly, Carl Sagan was featured in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, episode 1: "Standing Up in the Milky Way". There's a sweet, heartfelt expansion on how, as a professor at Cornell, he invited the 17 year old "future astronomer" high school student, Neil Tyson, to join him for the day. He even picked the boy up at the bus station, took him back at the end of day, and told Neil to call him at home if the bus was canceled due to heavy snowing. Full episode 1: http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515# (expires in 55 days). Also, he's talking about the event again right now on The Colbert Report. Check the website tomorrow for a video of the episode. Wordreader (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rican?

was his mother puerto rican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.62.146 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rican

(Since this was left to my personal talk page, I'm going to transplant it here first:)
I reverted your "revert". According to references Neil deGrasse Tyson is a multicultural person since he is of Puerto Rican and Afro-American descent. Does he being born in the Bronx mean that he is not of Afro-American descent? No, I didn't think so, nor he less a Puerto Rican for it. If you take the time to read the heading of the list you will notice that both people who are Puerto Rican or of Puerto Rican decent are included. In accordance to Wikipedia policy we rely on reliable verifiable sources. therefore see for yourself: Puerto Rican astrophysicist set to inspire next generation to reach for the stars with new science show. Thank you and take care.Tony the Marine (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Until the edit you made was put in, he was not mentioned as Puerto Rican in the article at all. According to the article it does not define him, nor is he actually from said territory. Therefore, the inclusion of him as such a thing is trivial at best and dishonest at worst. Zero Serenity (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tyson was not born in Puerto Rico and according to the article, has never lived there. A "See also" section composed entirely of Puerto Rican links is not relevant. --NeilN talk to me 17:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Wikipedia is not about what we like or dislike. It is about facts backed up by reliable verifiable sources. Articles are written all the time and people are allowed and encouraged to edit articles with new and additional facts. Nobody owns an article in Wikipedia and therefore no one has the right from keeping an editor, especially one with years of experience, from adding information to an article. The additions to the article were links in which he is included because he is a person of Puerto Rican heritage. The article clearly states that he is of Afro-American (father) and Puerto Rican (mother) heritage. Believe it or not, in the United States people of Puerto Rican heritage are called "Puerto Ricans", it does not matter if the person was born in Puerto Rico or lived there. A clear example are Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez. To back it up here are the reliable verifiable sources which back me up: Puerto Rican astrophysicist set to inspire next generation to reach for the stars with new science show, Neil deGrasse Tyson Is at Home in the Universe, Neil deGrasse Tyson - Biographical Profile, Indy-Latino - EL SOL, LA LUNA Y EL CIELO: NUYORICAN STYLE. One more thing. Do not indulge yourself in personally attacking me by referring to me as "dishonest", as you did above. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment These lists of Puerto Ricans include plenty of people with some Puerto Rican heritage born in the US. -- Irn (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you added those links to Lopez's and Anthony's pages: [2], [3]. No one is arguing Tyson is of Puerto Rican descent. Since the addition was challenged, it is up to you, with your years of experience (with should tell you not to edit war), to show how a See also section composed of entirely Puerto Rican Links is relevant and good editorial judgment. --NeilN talk to me 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I made the addition, the other party reverted. I am not war-editing since that requires three reverts on the same day. I added relevant links to articles of people who share his same heritage. By the way, I would to share the following: Certificates of Puerto Rican citizenship are issued by the Puerto Rico State Department to any person, who requests it, born on the island as well as to those born outside of the island that have at least one parent who was born on the island.(Spanish) Citizenship application. Puerto Rico Department of State[4] Departamento de Estado expedirá certificados de ciudadanía puertorriqueña] Tony the Marine (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Might want to read WP:EW: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts..." And again, I am not disputing Tyon's Puerto Rican ancestry. I am saying it's not important enough for your See also section. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess that it really shouldn't have been a big issue adding the "section". I will go along without the section addition in the article. However, since there no denying his Afro-American and Puerto Rican heritage, I have added the category: Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent and with that I come to a peaceful ending in this subject. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Astrophysicist

In the lede he's described as an astrophysicist, but under the "Career" section there's exactly one sentence describing his actual work in the field... wow Wikipedia.

(The sentence is this one: "Tyson's research has focused on observations in cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic astronomy, bulges, and stellar formation.")24.69.71.254 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly: I wanted to find out what he works on "in real life", published papers, etc. Nada. Długosz (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A list of his published papers in scientific journals can be found under "Research Publications" at http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae. Spellcast (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

His being a science communicator is a function of, and dependent upon, his being an astrophysicist. He communicates about his specialty, which is astrophysics. Logically, therefore, in my opinion, mention of his status as an astrophysicist should precede mention of his status as an astrophysics communicator ("science communicator"). Marteau (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agnosticism

Tyson has clarified his religious views as 'agnostic' and specifically not 'atheistic'. The citation [26] to the interview explains his view and an anecdote of trying to correct this Wikipedia article to be correct. It is also explained here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mburns (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, he said a bit more than that. Specifically that on the question of God he has no interest at all ("I'm not about any of the rest of this."), and he would "rather not be any category at all", since he would "rather we explore each other's ideas in real time rather than assign a label to it and assert". Since he would rather not be in any category, adding him to the African-American agnostics/American agnostics categories is kind of contrary to what he was saying. From what he was saying it appears that he wants to be neutral on the question of God, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

-So; an agnostic then. I'm pretty sure somebody saying quite openly 'I am an agnostic'-means that someone is, er, an agnostic.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. Question, if Tyson declares himself to be 'white and specifically not black', should we define him here as a white male?
The man is promoting a wrong meanings of the words he is using, and wikipedia, apparently, is accommodating the promotion of such false understandings and knowledge, a non-truth if you will...? I thought wikipedia is here to provide truth and facts. The fact is that Tyson is an atheist, regardless whether he realizes that or not. Yes, it should state here that he declares himself as an agnostic, but there should also be an explanation why this is wrong, IMO. He is clearly a non-theist, which is what the prefix a- in atheist actually means, as he clearly stated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5yWdVHv3o The fact that he does not understand or know that there is no third option, that one is either a theist or not, should be clearly explained, IMO.
Further more, it should also be explained that this sentence of his is also wrong: "I can't agree to the claims by atheists that I'm one of that community. I don't have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way... I'm not trying to convert people. I don't care." because atheists are not just the activists (which are mostly anti-theist, to be honest) atheists are also people who are not trying to convert anyone and who also do not care. The criteria for being an atheist is not activism, it is simply "not being a theist", which is what Tyson is, again, regardless whether he is aware of that or not, and more importantly, regardless whether he likes that or not.
Finally, just because "he wants to be neutral" does not mean he actually is. I refer back to my black/white question, if he said that he does not want to be labeled black or that he wants to be neutral on the question of skin color, would we categorize him as gray? "Neutral point of view" implies objectiveness, and defining Tyson as an agnostic only, is anything but. Yes, he is an agnostic, no question there, but that does not answer the question of faith, rather of knowledge. He is also a non-theist (atheist) in addition to being agnostic, those are completely separate categories.
I apologize if I made any mistakes by writing all this here. I am, I admit, a wiki n00b. My goal is to keep wikipedia objective, that is all. --StojadinovicP (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Falsely Attributed Source

In the Honors section, the source for the following honor says nothing about Tyson or even "50 Best Brains in Science". Archives of the link around the time of its retrieval don't either. 

2008 Discover Magazine selected him one of the "50 Best Brains in Science".

I found several websites referencing it, but it may just be a rumor that has spread. I was unable to find a source on a quick search, and the acclaimed source is a clear false attribution. If anyone is able to produce a valid source, please do so, otherwise I will challenge or remove it in a month or so. Waliway (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the dead link [5]. Spellcast (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I already found that page, but it says nothing about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Even web archives of the page dating back to the original citation say nothing about him. It appears to be a fictitious reference. If a source can't be produced, we may even need to discuss the original editor's integrity. I tagged it as disputed, and please remember to always verify sources before citing them! Waliway (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You didn't check the second page. Spellcast (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I'm sorry I missed that. Thank you for updating the reference. Waliway (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Media appearances

Is this worth mentioning? 92.232.49.38 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No considering that cinamasins itself might be deleted soon. If anything it might be including in that article but its a minor note for Neil himself. NathanWubs (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


epic rap battles

Is it worth mentioning the parody rap featuring Neil and Isaac Newton ? It's had done media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.142.100 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

no Secondplanet (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely no. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Not here anyway. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
it's not the real him anyways. NathanWubs (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

However if you were looking at media or fictional representations of Neil Degrasse Tyson that would be appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Predicting the 2008 Presidential race

In the Views section there is a short paragraph about an op-ed Tyson wrote in the New York Times in 2008 that seems to have no relevance to his "views" and doesn't seem to me to be pertinent to his Wikipedia page. How does it improve our knowledge of him, his work, his views to suddenly point to an article he wrote eight years ago in which he employs calculations that show who would have won an election on a given date that is not election day? In fact, in the piece he specifically wroite: "This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does."

Further, it certainly doesn't say anything about his support of the current president nor does it say that he particularly supported one candidate or the other. In fact, the end of article points out that more than anything, he is positing that the Democratic primary system may benefit from looking at the numbers using this then-new method: "And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?"

I propose that this sentence be removed as it is irrelevant to the larger article. 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Axis42 8/23/14

You claim the text in question does not have any relevance to his views. But then you say about the reference that "he is positing" things, and you make it clear that the reference clearly DOES deal with at least one of his points of view and that he feels that certain things would be beneficial to the electoral system. If the text here does not reflect that fact, perhaps it should be updated and not just removed. Marteau (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right, it does state a view of his. I actually had this thought in the shower just after posting the above. The paragraph, as written now, doesn't actually state that view though. So, if we think it should be included (which I still don't but in the interest of being comprehensive, I guess), how about we re-word as:
"On June 6, 2008, after the conclusion of the Democratic presidential primaries, Tyson wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in which he presented the results from "a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls," that he claimed is, "a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary." His results showed that if the general election were held on the day after the conclusion of the Democratic Presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain but McCain would beat Barack Obama. This, he noted, "... does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does."Axis42 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Update to Cosmos note

Since Cosmos finished airing a few months ago, I thought it appropriate to put "began hosting" in the past tense, but it was quickly reverted. As far as I know there is no announcement that the series is going to continue; is there some other reason that it's inappropriate? Eowynjedi (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hoping to add a subsection on his views about Race

I've drafted a subsection about Tyson's views on race and how it has and still does affect his public persona. Since this is the first very substantive edit I've made to an article and it's Biography of a Living Person, I wanted to make sure I am doing it right, before I post. The draft is on my sandbox. Any comments or suggestions are welcome there or on this page. Thanks. Axis42 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to Axis42's Sandbox[6] for anyone who would like to review it.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards

As Marteau was so kind to point out, the vast majority of this page does not conform to WP:NOTFORUM standards. I officially request that ALL such material be immediately deleted. Wvnd (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely did NOT say anything CLOSE to "the vast majority of this page does not conform to WP:NOTFORUM standards." Watch what you say when ascribing things to another editor. I simply reverted ONE editor and ONE vandalism. Marteau (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Fix italics

Could someone please fix the italics in the following places:

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

A reminder that due to WP:NEWBLPBAN this article is subject to DS. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs changing

"Race and social justice" section begins: "In an undated interview at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Tyson talked about being an African American and one of the most visible and well known scientists in the world. - this is a ludicrous claim, as he is unknown outside the US (maybe plus Canada). Either change to "a highly visible scientist" or something, or put in quotes if the source actually says this. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The source (youtube video of interview) provides no support for the claim that Tyson is “one of the most visible and well known scientists in the world.” Furthermore, the quote of Tyson that follows is somewhat misleading because it is condensed from a longer conversation from 7:20-10:40 of the video. The quote should be edited to add ellipses in three places: (1) between “nothing to do with being black” and “And at that point, I realized”; (2) between “black people are somehow dumb” and “I wondered, maybe”; and (3) between “who's smart and who's dumb” and “I said to myself.”Beneficial nematode (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your suggested edit of “a highly visible scientist,” while Tyson is both highly visible and is a scientist, is he really highly visible as a scientist? According to Science Magazine,Tyson is the scientist with the most twitter followers but “only 151 citations.” In comparison, Brian Cox is the scientist with the 2nd greatest number of twitter followers and has “more than 33,000 citations.” Perhaps the article should be changed to something like “a highly visible science educator.” Beneficial nematode (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but only in the US, not that we need say that. A grumpy thread about this page on Village pump has produced a global chorus of "Neil who?" Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add Category:Neil deGrasse Tyson to the bottom of the page. Kelly hi! 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Standalone article on allegations and local summary

POV fork was deleted

To avoid undue weight issues in this BLP, I've written a standalone article on the allegations themselves - Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, I recommend a brief summation in the "Career" section of the biography (as opposed to the "Politics" section where the mention currently lives). Here is my proposal:

In September 2014, Sean Davis of The Federalist, a right-leaning Web magazine, alleged that Tyson had fabricated several quotes and anecdotes used in his books and lectures, most significantly a story about former U.S. President George W. Bush which claimed Bush had used a divisive religious quote in remarks following the September 11 attacks. Bush's speechwriters denied that Bush had ever made such remarks, and reporters covering Bush at the time did not recall the alleged remark. In response, Tyson stated "[T]one and flavor and context and intent are all key elements to any message I convey—all missing to anyone who was not present at the time."[1][2]

  1. ^ Mak, Tim (19 Sep 2014). "The Right's War on Neil deGrasse Tyson". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 24 Sep 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Adler, Jonathan (22 Sep 2014). "Does Neil deGrasse Tyson make up stories?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 Sep 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thoughts? Kelly hi! 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kelly. There is in no way enough sources and notability for a stand-alone article on this. I have redirected the "allegation" article to this article for now, but since the allegations are not currently mentioned in this article, it may be more appropriate to delete it. Do not recreate the allegation article without consensus to do so, as it constitutes a WP:BLP problem to have a controversy article without enough sources/notability to warrant it. Iselilja (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've restored the content for now. The article is reliably sourced and the Twitter remarks are from verified accounts by mainstream journalists. All facts are sourced to reliable publications. Please use an appropriate process rather than simply blanking content. Kelly hi! 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could specify which facts are not adequately sourced? Kelly hi! 13:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Kelly. My concern isn't so much each fact per se (I have not looked into all that), but there isn't enough sources and notability to warrant a stand-alone article in the first place, because the overall coverage of this in reliable sources is limited to a couple of articles. To have a full article on this dispute constitues WP:UNDUE weight to the issue; currently it's even unclear whether there is consensus to include a single paragraph about the allegations in this main article. Iselilja (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE refers to the amount of content within an article, not to the existence of an article in itself. I started this discussion to consider how much of this info, if any, should be included in this biography. Kelly hi! 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The thing that spin-off article should only be created if there is too much stuff to have all in the main article. Per WP:Due Weight there is little to suggest that there will be consensus for including several paragraphs on this controversy in this article (even if there is good place for more stuff), hence a spin-off article is not necessary. ( Otherwise, your article appeared well written, and I understand it's irritating to see others undoe it). Iselilja (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I originally drafted it with the intention of creating a section in this article, but I think it's too large for that. Hence I created the content fork with the proposed summary here. Thank you for your comment about the writing, I appreciate it. Kelly hi! 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate to create a standalone article at this time. We have not reached consensus about the notability/weight for inclusion in the main bio, so we are really short of consensus for enough notability/weight for a stand-alone. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case, you should use a Wikipedia process to address your concerns rather than simply blanking the page. Kelly hi! 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We are in the middle of an RFC debating weight/notability. Short circuiting that process by creating a stand-alone article is not the way to achieve consensus. Until we reach some consensus here the stand-alone article should redirect back to this article. The stand-alone article is a WP:POVFORK and violates wikipedia policy. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a POV fork, it's a content fork, which Wikipedia uses all the time. That's why I'm making a proposal here in accordance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Kelly hi! 14:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that if the notability is this contentious for the main article, then a standalone would be inappropriate. General Epitaph (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's discourteous to the editors taking part in an RCF to go ahead and create a standalone article. Especially when large portion of users find the entire issue unnotable. This "issue" suffers from multiple problems beyond just "weight" and "reliable sources" (see the many instances of users claiming problems with and violation of policy above). Speedy deletion would be reasonable. --Shabidoo | Talk 17:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've nominated the article for deletion. Please see thread here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of alleged incidents, but there's quite a range, from pure nitpicking claims through reasonably well-sourced incidents. Very few, save the star-naming incident, have decent sourcing or rise beyond "who cares". Not enough, IMO to justify a separate article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is looking like this fork will end up being deleted. If indeed the fork gets deleted, and if, at the end of the RfC here the consensus is to disallow mention of the Tyson fabrication allegations here, it will certainly be appropriate to restore the fork. Forks can be created for many reasons, one of the most important reasons is to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues. As I said in the Articles for Deletion, WP:WEIGHT policy text uses the example of flat earth concepts not being includable in the earth article due to weight issues. The solution they illustrate to that weight issue is to create a fork, as evidenced by the linking of policy to the flat earth ideas article. The solution is NOT to completely censor every mention of distinct minority issues from the encyclopedia, but to fork off such ideas. There is no basis for completely removing absolutely all mention of this issue in this encyclopedia because of weight issues, as some editors seem to be proposing. Marteau (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the RFC is not to "disallow mention of the Tyson fabrication allegations" but rather to decide whether to include them at this time based on notability/weight. If this gets more attention we should re-evaluate. The best thing to do right now is for everyone to take a deep breath, let the story develop, and calmly evaluate it in a few weeks. If the rest of the world thinks it's important then we should include it. If not, we should pass. In the meantime, throwing around loaded words like "censor" does not help foster the collaborative spirit. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This article needs help...

Addition of two links that are already known and fully discussed

Good news: this article made the news. Bad news: it made it for all the wrong reasons- edit warring. Just wanted to bring this to everybody's attention so that an intelligent discussion can occur about how to fix the problems with this article ASAP. I'm no expert on this topic (I don't even know what he does for a living), but sometimes an outside view point can help with controversial topics.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/ Luthien22 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snarky, but you're about a week late to the party. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
User:ZeroSerenity This page isn't in my expertise- I just saw this article pop up in my facebook feed. That being said, would this article by the Friendly Atheist about the issue be any help to you guys, or did somebody already find it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/if-we-cant-trust-neil-degrasse-tyson-who-can-we-trust/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthien22 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you are late to the party. That link has been in the article, and removed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_1&oldid=1144181363"