Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the accusations against Tyson that he fabricated a quote by
George W. Bush?
A1: An RFC was held about whether this should be mentioned in September–October 2014 (see the archived discussion
here) and it was closed as "do not include on the basis of
WP:BLP and
WP:UNDUE."[1]
Jonathan H. Adler (September 24, 2014).
"What makes an accusation Wiki-worthy?".
The Washington Post. Retrieved December 7, 2018. Wikipedia aspires to be a neutral source of verifiable information about just about everything of import. The problem is that sometimes people disagree about what information is relevant or credible.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Neil deGrasse Tyson received a
peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
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)reply
@
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)reply
@
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 ౪99° 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
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 ౪99° 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
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)reply
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 ౪99° 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply