Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 26 Nov 2019[edit]

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

Criticism[edit]

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]

It looks like people are being paid good money to keep this page as a monument to Neil's greatness & avoid any reference to things like this https://thefederalist.com/2014/09/18/why-is-wikipedia-deleting-all-references-to-neil-tysons-fabrication/ Aussiesta (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[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]
Wasn't expecting the article about me to reappear today...Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:44, 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]

Concerning: The Black Brane[edit]

Of all the specialists in the field to debut a new study, this article should very well be nominated as expert content material. There is an article on English Wikipedia that addresses "Brane", it elaborates on universalism and the cosmos of things, but no reference of contemporary authors or cohorts. Should there be inclusion? Habatchii (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024[edit]

Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to think of himself as an agnostic but really, he is an atheist. User10wrpoie959245 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And why it is WP:DUE Besides, if you think you are an agnostic; you are an agnostic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]