Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 11) (bot |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{article discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
{{article discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
||
{{Not a forum}} |
{{Not a forum}} |
||
== The Bush quote hits the New York Times == |
|||
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/opinion/why-our-memory-fails-us.html?_r=0 Here's the relevant piece]. [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:That's an op-ed piece. It cannot be used to establish weight. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mr swordfish|Mr. Swordfish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Zero Serenity|Zero Serenity]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Zero Serenity|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Zero Serenity|contributions]])</sup></small> 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. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Aprock - Mention of the material without context violates [[WP:NUETRALITY]]. [[User:Mystic55|Mystic55]] ([[User talk:Mystic55|talk]]) 15:58, 8 January 2015 (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.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 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? --[[User:Shabidoo|Shabidoo]] | [[User talk: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". [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 04:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, was the NY Times doing op/eds about Tridevil? I must have missed that. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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.--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 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. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}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. [[User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Objective3000|Objective3000]] ([[User talk: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. <strike>As I said, that can only be a good thing.</strike> 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. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk:Marteau|talk]]) 03:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was not a consensus for exclusion, it was no consensus for inclusion. [[User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] ([[User talk: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? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Videoprojman|Videoprojman]] ([[User talk:Videoprojman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Videoprojman|contribs]]) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: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. [[User:Zero Serenity|Zero Serenity]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Zero Serenity|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Zero Serenity|contributions]])</sup></small> 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually it was a bunch of [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] voting it out. It certainly is notable. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Wikipedia has really matured into something amazing hasn't it? Remember when this was all fields? [[User:Shabidoo|Shabidoo]] | [[User talk: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. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Viriditas/sandbox|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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 21:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Arzel, you seem to be woefully uninformed on this topic. Are you aware that the Heartland Institute has a long, documented history (supported by reliable sources) of mounting massive attacks against proponents of climate change, and that the attack on Tyson is one of dozens? This is not a "conspiracy" in any sense of the word. It is all being done out in the open for anyone to substantiate with a little bit of research. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::A 'conspiracy' is a concerted effort to break laws, commit a crime, or do harm. Secrecy is not a requirement. [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk:Marteau|talk]]) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::There's no conspiracy. What part of "no" is troubling you? There is a long paper trail of ad hominem attacks against climate change proponents, and the Heartland is behind a great many. They have also tried to distort climate science by issuing science-by-petition, confusing the public by creating a faux IPCC of their own that denied the science, and many other hijinks. Where is the illegality? And why are you always trying to change the subject? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Marteau didn't I just read that you didn't want to rehash this tired old discussion again? [[User:Shabidoo|Shabidoo]] | [[User talk:Shabidoo|Talk]] 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Should you wish to pursue a legal remedy through use of the civil courts system I will gladly produce for you the name of my lawyer (in other words, sue me). [[User:Marteau|Marteau]] ([[User talk:Marteau|talk]]) 23:13, 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. [[User:Onel5969|Onel5969]] ([[User talk:Onel5969|talk]]) 14:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Media Discussion == |
== Media Discussion == |
Revision as of 00:44, 19 January 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Media Discussion
FYI Viriditas removed this information from the media list without discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- FYI, you added it back in without discussion. Please discuss why you think these links are needed here. This is not a link farm. The burden is on the editor proposing and adding information to justify their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It had been there for months and you just go and delete it and say there has to be discussion to put it back? Where do you get off just deleting stuff you don't like? Arzel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. Removing a thing without discussion, and then demanding a discussion to replace it, is peculiar. Marteau (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing "valid" about it in the slightest. The length of time something appears has no bearing on its correctness. And per the burden of Wikipedia editing, the editor adding material has to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. I hope you stand corrected. I maintain that the press template is being misused to highlight negative, partisan material about the subject in sources that are less than reliable and/or repeat the unreliable material. Per BLP, we should not permanently host this material on the talk page; there's also the fact that it's a linkfarm. I can think of no other biography that misuses the press template in this way. Now, let's see some good arguments for including it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP issues you cited in your reversion is intended to protect living people from untoward harm. I have no doubt that because you figure the genesis of this issue was part of a nefarious conspiracy by evil men that any mention of the dispute whatsoever, no matter how oblique, harms Tyson, so I'll not waste my time debating the application of BLP in this issue with you. As is evident throughout the encyclopedia, any mention whatsoever of anything remotely negative about Tyson gets the axe eventually, and as I'm not a masochist I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information. Marteau (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's no conspiracy; Heartland has been attacking proponents of climate science for more than a decade. There are quite a number of books on the subject which have documented their egregious campaign of attacks. Again, what are your arguments for including the list of negative, partisan sources in a permanent header on this talk page? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- The WP:BLP issues you cited in your reversion is intended to protect living people from untoward harm. I have no doubt that because you figure the genesis of this issue was part of a nefarious conspiracy by evil men that any mention of the dispute whatsoever, no matter how oblique, harms Tyson, so I'll not waste my time debating the application of BLP in this issue with you. As is evident throughout the encyclopedia, any mention whatsoever of anything remotely negative about Tyson gets the axe eventually, and as I'm not a masochist I'll pass on investing any further effort in restoring this information. Marteau (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing "valid" about it in the slightest. The length of time something appears has no bearing on its correctness. And per the burden of Wikipedia editing, the editor adding material has to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. I hope you stand corrected. I maintain that the press template is being misused to highlight negative, partisan material about the subject in sources that are less than reliable and/or repeat the unreliable material. Per BLP, we should not permanently host this material on the talk page; there's also the fact that it's a linkfarm. I can think of no other biography that misuses the press template in this way. Now, let's see some good arguments for including it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. Removing a thing without discussion, and then demanding a discussion to replace it, is peculiar. Marteau (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- It had been there for months and you just go and delete it and say there has to be discussion to put it back? Where do you get off just deleting stuff you don't like? Arzel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- "nefarious conspiracy by evil men". Marteau, where did you read that? I can't seem to find this anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- When you have something to complain about regarding me, beyond petulant griping about my paraphrasing, let me know. Marteau (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a thesaurus of insult words? Seriously, paraphrasis is the art of simplifying, not putting words in other people's mouths to create strawmen. Objective3000 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- When you have something to complain about regarding me, beyond petulant griping about my paraphrasing, let me know. Marteau (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- "nefarious conspiracy by evil men". Marteau, where did you read that? I can't seem to find this anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas, do you have a valid reason for removing the media mentions? Yes or no per WP:STATUSQUO Arzel (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did protect the page when I saw the edit-war occurring, but of course that's not useful as it's a talk page which leaves us nowhere to discuss it. So instead, I suggest this is discussed, especially given the possible BLP issues. Any more blind reversions may end in blocks. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Black Kite, There is no BLP issue, just as there was no BLP issue when the issue was being discussed. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the only one edit warring is Virinditas. He deleted long standing media mentions from the talk page. I reverted and started discussion. He reverted without discussion. I started additional discussion. Marteau reverted, and then Virinditas reverted again. Arzel (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Marteau and Virinditas both have a tendency to go over lines from opposite sides. Can we try for a civil discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no valid reason to keep that list here. The bits about Wikipedia don't relate to the content of this article - maybe to the history of WP article ...? And yes, repeating journalist and or blogger headlines and comments can be blp problems. If individual items in that list can be used in the article - well, make a case for such on a per item basis. But a bare list of headlines, journalist or blogger opinions doesn't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Then maybe it's time to recognize that it's worth a mention in the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. Nothing has changed since our discussion except the NYT wrote an article which wasn't even about the invented controversy but mentioned it in passing in an article that was really about memory recall. The growing and ensuing controversy never materialized and the whole non-event is growingly forgotten as it was destined to. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've heard two good arguments why the links should be removed but no argument at all as per why they should be included. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps one problem is that it is not only the NYT which seems to recall events? RealClearPolitics on 4 Jan ran Neil deGrasse Tyson: Troll of the Year and RealClearPolitics is generally accepted as a "reliable source". [1]] WaPo etc. as well as the NYT. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. That article is about the Christmas tweet. It barely mentions the Bush quote. Do you think the Christmas tweet should be included in the article? Shabidoo | Talk 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know why we have the Christmas tweet but not the Bush controversy. The Christmas tweet isn't really worthy of inclusion, IMO. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed the paragraph on the Christmas tweet. I don't really understand why there this apparent obsession with including trivia in this article if it's remotely controversial. Also, the tweet wasn't really about his spirituality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
- That is not trivia and it speaks more about him as a person than you may be willing to accept. Being <WP:BLP violation removed> is not trivia. This also received at lot of attention. You can't simple whitewash his article of everything. Arzel (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- A brief couple of sentences about the often divisive nature of his communications would be appropriate. That he is loathed in certain circles is objective and documented truth reported on by multiple reliable sources. There are numerous examples, e.g. "The Right’s War on Neil deGrasse Tyson" in the Daily Beast or "Why they really hate Neil deGrasse Tyson: Inside the right’s anti-intellectual paranoia." in Salon. However, this particular tweeting issue does not by itself in my opinion, clear the bar for includability. Then again, trival fluffery such as Tyson being on one episode of the radio show, "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" will instead remain because it puts him in a good (or at least neutral) light. Negative trivia = immediate axe. Positive trivia = stays for years. Marteau (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is not trivia and it speaks more about him as a person than you may be willing to accept. Being <WP:BLP violation removed> is not trivia. This also received at lot of attention. You can't simple whitewash his article of everything. Arzel (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed the paragraph on the Christmas tweet. I don't really understand why there this apparent obsession with including trivia in this article if it's remotely controversial. Also, the tweet wasn't really about his spirituality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
- I don't know why we have the Christmas tweet but not the Bush controversy. The Christmas tweet isn't really worthy of inclusion, IMO. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. That article is about the Christmas tweet. It barely mentions the Bush quote. Do you think the Christmas tweet should be included in the article? Shabidoo | Talk 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps one problem is that it is not only the NYT which seems to recall events? RealClearPolitics on 4 Jan ran Neil deGrasse Tyson: Troll of the Year and RealClearPolitics is generally accepted as a "reliable source". [1]] WaPo etc. as well as the NYT. Collect (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've heard two good arguments why the links should be removed but no argument at all as per why they should be included. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. Nothing has changed since our discussion except the NYT wrote an article which wasn't even about the invented controversy but mentioned it in passing in an article that was really about memory recall. The growing and ensuing controversy never materialized and the whole non-event is growingly forgotten as it was destined to. Shabidoo | Talk 12:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Purposefully hateful?" Wow. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- What would you call it? Certainly not befitting of someone of his stature. Insulting a billion people is not a minor event. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- He showed "hate" to no one. Not one single person. The response showed hate toward him. Look, I never heard of the guy before this "issue". And, I don't think a great deal of him. But, the hate poured out on this man is shocking. And, some of the edits here have been purely racist. Objective3000 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- What would you call it? Certainly not befitting of someone of his stature. Insulting a billion people is not a minor event. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Purposefully hateful?" Wow. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also note that this was completely neutral in tone. Arzel (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Arzel, by what your definition of "insulting a billion people" is, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris do that on a regular basis and Pen Jilette does it every day. They are but three people from a list of dozens of other notable atheists and humanists who write tweets that may actually be offensive to christians. That would make probably a thousand tweets a week critical of christianity or tweets that put sensitive christians into a tizzy "notable events" or non-minor events. Richard Dawkins article would be about 200 pages long if we included every insulting tweet (by your definition of insulting). Tyson's tweet wasn't even insulting or disparaging of Christianity or Jesus or Christmas and didn't even mention any of them. He said who his favourite historical figure is on the 25th of December. No person or group owns a day of the year and their favourite special historical figure does not have to be everyone elses'. Shabidoo | Talk 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- The argument for its inclusion is significant media coverage, now over a significant amount of time. I don't think we need a whole section, or even a paragraph. Simply a sentence in views about the issue and the apology he posted suffices. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- This was discussed at enormous length on multiple boards. The result was no inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- And that discussion was before the New York Times article posted above, or the Real Clear Politics piece from this week. Consensus should change with new information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Not even close to enough new coverage to warrant reopening this tired old debate. All the articles I read barely touch on the non-controversy over the Bush quote mistake and instead use it to illustrate some other point. The Christmas tweet is also trivial unless it garners more interest (which I hope it does because it was hilariously awesome). Shabidoo | Talk 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- And that discussion was before the New York Times article posted above, or the Real Clear Politics piece from this week. Consensus should change with new information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- This was discussed at enormous length on multiple boards. The result was no inclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I found the press section to be both of interest and valuable in understanding the ongoing discussions here at the talk page. The elimination of that reference material makes the work at this page harder and more time-consuming. Given that there is no legitimate argument made that a list of media ref links is in any way a violation of BLP policy, and that this was a useful resource, I suggest it be restored. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This isn't to endorse one side or another, but would defaulting the box to collapse be a possible compromise? Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think we should link to non-reliable sources such as The Federalist or the Christian Post. However, I don't see a problem with linking to reliable sources, if there are any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- If we include any mention of the Bush quote, we have to originate why people started caring about it. IE Cosmos and the Heartland institute uncivil hate rate. Mystic55 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- A discussion of the "uncivil hate rate" surrounding this man would be a welcome adddition. The phenomena of Tyson hate is a real thing, as we have all witnessed. Serious, reliable sources have written about it as a phenomena unto itself, it is a serious subject. Just because the haters are, or are percieved to be irrational does not make the phenomena any less real or less worthy of coverage. Such things are a feature of today's divided society and would certainly be more notable and worthy of inclusion in an encylopedia than, say, the current exhaustive list of every occasion Tyson has walked onto a stage or stepped before a microphone. Marteau (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given that Tyson is now a Talk Show Host in addition to being a popular scientist, I think this is perfectly valid. It would also allow the Bush Quote to be included but to put it in context of why it is significant to conservative media. Mystic55 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. We discussed your proposal extensively for several months and the community came out against it. Since the majority of your edits to Wikipedia have been only to continue this dispute,[2] I think it's safe to say that you are a SPA at this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's a pretty quick leap to accuse someone of WP: Bad Faith there. In point of fact, the 21 ACTUAL edits I have done, not including discussions, exactly 7 of those 21 have been on this page, and quite frankly not even all those were on this subject. So not only are you in violation of WP: Good Faith but you can't even count. Last time I checked, WP: STFU wasn't one of our core values....Mystic55 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the comment history, it occurs you are referring to Marteu. Honestly? Even if you are, and even if I completely disagree with what he's been saying, I find your comments wanting Viriditas in terms of civility. Mystic55 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, you were referring to me. Wow. Just Wow. Mystic55 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Had you looked at THE HISTORY of my contributes to the article, you'd find I agreed with your position previously. In point of fact, Tyson's moving from scientist to entertainer makes me reconsider including this in the article, but only if included in context as to WHY the quote is rediculous. MEDIC! Friendly fire. With explosive armor piercing ammunition and an extreme lack of target practice. Mystic55 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club. Anyone who says something here that Viriditas doesn't like gets their history dissected with a fine toothed comb eventually, and anything he thinks might put that editor in a bad light, he uses e.g. how I created the "Matt Drudge" article! :: gasp! :: I mean, if there is a bias in my article creation history it would be towards Japan, not anything political: I created in total an article about Japanese calligraphy, a Japanese weapon, a Japanese sensei, a Tibetan teacher, "Muckraker", a Democratic mayor, and Drudge but all Viriditas mentions here is "Drudge" implying, I suppose, a bias that is not there in my article creation history, and that's dispicable. You're not alone in thinking such tactics are pathetic. Marteau (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT Marteau (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Had you looked at THE HISTORY of my contributes to the article, you'd find I agreed with your position previously. In point of fact, Tyson's moving from scientist to entertainer makes me reconsider including this in the article, but only if included in context as to WHY the quote is rediculous. MEDIC! Friendly fire. With explosive armor piercing ammunition and an extreme lack of target practice. Mystic55 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is a rather poor job of dissecting my history given that I have agreed with his position hithertonow. In fact, without the context, I completely still think it shouldn't be included. Deliberate attempts to manipulate the media narrative shouldn't be note worthy in a scholarly publicition unless the meta manipulation is also mentioned. Mystic55 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring the completely irrelevant .... If Tyson is taking on a new role as an “entertainer”, I don’t see how any of these tweets mean anything at all. But, I’m also not sure what the definition of “entertainer” is and why it matters. I, personally, am entertained by many National Geographic shows. I enjoy science and nature. I hope we don’t classify science channels and scientists as entertainers because they spread science. Please explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- For me its a question of relevance. A misquote of George W. Bush for someone whose primary public persona is "Science Advocate" is ridiculous and only made relevant because conservative media didn't like his statements on climate change. Wheras, if he moves more towards 'entertainer with a science background', then that to me just 'feels' more holistic, which means the question of what does or does not constitute notability changes. And again, to be clear, I don't feel that this information should be added without context. I guess what I'm saying is, it is clear that Tyson's star is 'on the rise' and that he is not just someone who a certain segment of the population likes. In context of that, recognizing that he is a symbol of reason and science to some means that therefore he is a threat to others. I can see adding a portion of the article that deals with that struggle, and Tyson's take on it, as well as his role in promoting 'science literacy' within the article, since the talk show purposefully is part of that effort, as was Cosmos itself. As such, attempts to discredit him denote I believe his very reason for taking up this role. But after thinking it out here, I think this is more of a 'will become relevant if it keeps going this direction' rather than 'we should add this now.' Thanks for your patience. Mystic55 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring the completely irrelevant .... If Tyson is taking on a new role as an “entertainer”, I don’t see how any of these tweets mean anything at all. But, I’m also not sure what the definition of “entertainer” is and why it matters. I, personally, am entertained by many National Geographic shows. I enjoy science and nature. I hope we don’t classify science channels and scientists as entertainers because they spread science. Please explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)