Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've noticed that the allegations seem to have migrated from this article to

The only reason someone has not added the fabrication allegations to this article recently is that it is locked down, and was locked down just after an editor deleted mention of the allegations. Also, it is locked down due to edit warring, not BLP issues or notability issues. Claims do not appear in this article because that's the way the article was before it was locked down, again, for edit warring, not because of BLP issues or notability issues. Claiming people are adding this information to the Federalist article are “partisans” is not assuming good faith. Marteau (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The notability of the allegations is still an open question. The fact that they dont appear here is in no way an indication that the issue is resolved. Bonewah (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason? You don't think failure to reach consensus for inclusion (yet) is a valid reason? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral party here, but just looking at things, assuming that

Thefederalist.com is not deleted (it looks like a no-consensus at the moment even among established and presumably non-canvassed editors), this event likely has more weight in an article about Thefederalist (which seems to be of marginal notability) than one about deGrasse Tyson, since at the moment Tyson seems much more well-known than The Federalist, and this event seems to make up a significant fraction of the the independent coverage of this site.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib

] 20:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I said, "The only reason someone has not added the fabrication allegations to this article recently is that it is locked down" and that is, indeed, true. My point is, that it's non-appearence in this article was not the result of a process. The process is still going on. It's non appearance here is due to the fact that it was locked down minutes after the allegations were deleted. A simple matter of timing, not process. Furthermore,

WP:COATRACK is not policy, it is not even a guideline. It is an essay. I agree with it's aim, but it's application here is inappropriate in my opinion. Marteau (talk

) 20:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this issue, but it's patently obvious from the deletion discussion that there is a hell of a lot of political campaigning going on here, on both sides (though not to the same extent by both) - hence my reference to partisans. Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your right. Mea culpa. I'll strike that out. I have pointed out the partisanship evident in these issues myself. Marteau (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I agree, but there are also those who see an article somewhere that says "look at what is going on in Wikipedia" and they join the discussion (for better or worse) as a result. I think Wikipedia has to be able to both deal with the Meat Puppets, while encouraging, or at least not discouraging those who are sincere in their interest. Not finding fault with your approach or your comments here, just saying that, unhappily, we are judged based on how we deal with the difficult subjects, not the infinitely more numerous ones where everything in Wikipedia works as intended. Bonewah (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think not. We've seen enough of these "campaigns" on Wikipedia to know that most of them are coordinated offsite in a covert manner, usually to denigrate and attack a BLP. I think it is highly unlikely that all of these user accounts are just dropping by to see what is going on. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theory is both odd and a broad violation of

WP:AGF. I suggest striking that statement. Capitalismojo (talk

) 04:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as Viriditas isn't attacking anyone personally, I don't see much of a problem with their remark, and as a conspiracy theory, it's not far-fetched, at least not in general. In addition, the contributions at the Federalist AfD certainly suggest off-site coordination by SPAs. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The only point I'd disagree with Viriditas on is that I don't think it's being coordinated covertly - it all seems quite overt to me. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot going on behind the scenes. Don't forget about the relationship between Heartland and the Discovery Institute,[1] and how Discovery started going bananas after Cosmos was rebooted.[2] In April, Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute attacked Tyson in the Federalist.[3] This is all part of the same campaign (the wedge strategy) with all the same players. Add the current Colorado High School censorship controversy to the mix, which has the hands of Koch's Americans for Prosperity group all over it, and you can see a full-court press attempt by the conservative right in play. There's no need for us to go after ISIS, we've got them right here at home in the states. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So you noticed TheFederalist's evil attack, but you still want the site's existence Wiki-censored away. I tell ya, this is like shooting Wikifish in a Wikibarrel. Moynihanian (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Cosmos produced and aired by Fox? Kelly ^hi! 10:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fox's entertainment division is beholden to mainstream entertainment ratings. Fox News division is beholden to a hyperpartisan strategy. There's a well established history of them operating in strikingly contradictory directions. Alsee (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the comments in this thread have gotten way off topic. The talk space is strictly for improving the article and not for discussing politics. TStein(talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! I guess I should have read the rest of the last threads before making a comment just about this one. If I made a comment about every off topic section I'd do nothing else. TStein (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability Standard Misused (Again) By Wikilawyers This isn't exactly a surprise, given the only tangential relationship between Wikipedia and facts, let alone its own (purported) rules, standards, and principles. But hell, why not point out (just for grins) that the notability standard applies only to whether or not a person or topic is important enough to write about at all. The standard specifically and quite explicity does NOT apply to article content. But the Wikicensors and Wikilawyers here (and throughout Wikipedia) routinely cite the standard while ignoring its content. And then you wonder why serious people don't take you too seriously. Moynihanian (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read

WP:UNDUE in order to recognize your glaring error. It most certainly applies to article content. Also, I can't help but note your reliance on the term "Wikicensor", as it harkens back to the wedge strategy used by creationists. You folks have done enough damage and it's time for you to exit stage left. Look at how dangerous conservatives have made the world. If you hadn't tried to remove evolution from the school books in Texas and fought science with your bibles, it's possible the Ebola outbreak could have been prevented. Instead we have Texas leading the world in ignorance, and sending people suffering from Ebola home with antibiotics. Please keep your ignorance to yourself. We've had enough of it. Viriditas (talk

) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? Using such a broad brush to paint those you apparently despise says much more about you than anything else. I suggest you stop the inflammatory language. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Texas is arguably the center of conservative power and one of the most conservative states in the Bible Belt. Its campaign against science (that is, any science that isn't devoted to petrochemical extraction), its defense of creationism, and its battle against secularism are well known. Seems highly relevant to note the real world consequences of this kind of philosophy, and it's highly relevant, as these ideas form the basis of the ideological campaign against Tyson. Is there something wrong with despising the virus of ignorance? I sure hope you won't treat it with antibiotics like Texas did. When rational people are confronted with ideas that don't work, they discard them, they don't embrace them even more than before. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone needs to get off their

soapbox, this page is not the place for it. Bonewah (talk

) 01:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia would it be "standing on a soapbox" to point out a glaring and obvious violation of your own (alleged) "standards" in your editing. Carry on, then. This contratemps is trivial, but it's still quite blatant. I like those "small" examples, because in my experience, those who cheat on the little things can't be trusted on the big things either. It's especially amusing to see myself characterized as an evil, anti-scientific Texas creationist (tm?) for noticing all this. I wish I could bronze a comment, 'cause I'd definitely bronze that. Moynihanian (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Moynihanian (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, which is why lying about the fact that the only reason the Federalist cared about Tyson's quote is because they're funded as a propoganda front organization coordinated with several other political front organizations, some of which have managed to buy their way into the umbrella standard of reliable sources solely by whining about a lack of objectivity in the 'liberal' media until they are brought in with no editorial standards or journalistic integrity whatsoever is a little thing that I think leads to the big thing that this whole thing is a lot of BS, but if we absolutely MUST include it then we can site the fact that it was a CONSERVATIVE blog that started the query, because to do anything less whatsoever is a lie. A little lie, but a very important one. Mystic55 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One person's BS is another person's belief. I agree it's trivial (and have written as much above), but it's such a pure case of everything wrong with Wikipedia that I decided to hop in. My full views about Wikipedia and facts are on my talk page. Yes, it should be included, along with the obvious fact that TheFederalist is a conservative site. But then, there are no facts here, obvious or otherwise, only agreement among "editors" about what will be presented as quasi-factual. Maybe TheFederalist should be called a Martian website. If enough "editors" agree, then a Martian website it will be! Moynihanian (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would it necessarilly be needed to state that it was a conservative blog, when the relevent claim here has been shown to be factual (and Neil deGrasse Tyson has admitted as such?) Chester Lunt (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't include what his horoscope was on September 11, 2001, what his favorite color is, what he had for breakfast yesterday or why he got sick when he ate that spoiled food 2 years ago; these too are factual. Because it is not notable. EXCEPT of course, that it IS notable because a conservative website decided to MAKE it noticeable and make a big wikipedia bashing campaign about it. Mystic55 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is funny! Here you are, talking about "notable," when Wikipedia's so-called "standard" on "notability" explicitly states that it does not apply to the content of articles. This reminds me of my favorite scene in my fave cheesy cable TV movie, "The Devil's Advocate," in which Al Pacino, playing the devil, leers into the camera and says, "Vanity -- it's my favorite sin." My favorite Wiki-sin is all the Wikilawyering that surrounds the willful failure to actually read the so-called "standard" about "notability," or (more likely) the willful failure to abide by it, given that -- in the end -- words means whatever the latest Wikiflashmob decides they mean at any given moment. Moynihanian (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What he had for breakfast or what his favorite color are are irrelevant to his overarching story and do not belong in his biography. His professional conduct is different. He is a professional speaker and the fact he felt compelled to apologize to a former president due to his professional conduct is pertinent to his overarching story. That it started as a “manufactured controversy” may or may not be true. But the fact of the matter is, it developed into a REAL controversy. Editors seem to be fascinated by the motives of who started this issue. Why it got started and by who, and whether they hate Tyson or not is irrelevant to the fact that the controversy became very real and the subject of much discussion by real people in the real world. Marteau (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some who believe this began as a “manufactured controversy” are proposing that the way to address it is to ignore it, or to not mention anything at all of what happened leading up to and including Tyson's apologies. I believe in information, not darkness. I believe in shining light onto nasty situations, not blacking it out. The way to deal with this is to include mitigating and contextual information. Information written by reliable sources and supporters of Tyson to give it proper weight. Not to try silencing your opponent, but shining the light of truth on your opponents. Wikipedia can be that light of truth, by dealing with the raw facts, not hyperbole, not distortions, but facts. But blacking out coverage in this matter is a manufactured silence almost as bad as a manufactured controversy. Marteau (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is ever "the light of truth," it's by mistake. Moynihanian (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Had a few edit conflicts with Marteau, but in response to the earlier points - sure, they tried to gain attention - as anyone presumably does when they write a blog, or article, or cover a news story. Someone could write an article about your examples too - his horoscope, his breakfast yesterday, even indeed his breakfast today (scandalous!) Probably, those would not be picked up by bigger publications, and probably they would not get a response from Neil deGrasse Tyson. There's numerous reasons to why not, yet what really matters to Wikipedia is that it hasn't (yet) happened. Meanwhile, we do have a case here where something has become notable, after being raised - sure - initially in a blog. Yet it was picked up by others, due in large part because what was found was that Tyson inaccurately quoted/contextualized the statements of another prominent figure (a former President).

We can flip this around a bit: you or I could give a speech at a function and inaccurately quote a prominent figure, and it is quite possible that it wouldn't get a single article or even blog entry. It is natural though that more people take notice when Neil deGrasse Tyson gives a speech, and that is what happened. So I think, we could talk about hypotheticals all day, or delve into why some stories become bigger than others, but in the context of discussion for this article, I'm not sure that the initial motivation is essential to be mentioned, given the events that followed. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, but Wikipedia's so-called "standard" on notability quite explicitly and specifically states that it does not apply to the content of an article. But hey, we're in a fact-free zone! Who cares about what words mean, when anyone and their 15 closest virtual friends, i.e. cronies in bathrobes, can ignore anything at their will? Moynihanian (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making things unclear with my word choice (I didn't intend to reference a specific policy). What I meant to get at is, his hypotheticals are unlikely to have warranted coverage in media outlets, but what matters is that this non-hypothetical incident has warranted coverage, and a response from Neil deGrasse Tyson directly, and therefore is worthy of inclusion in the article. Chester Lunt (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What coverage? Where? The echo chamber of the self-citing conservative blogosphere is not a valid example of media coverage. However, there is one aspect of this story that has been covered reliably, and all of you have failed to identify it. I have, and I will surprise you very shortly with what I found. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, your rules (such as they are) don't allow original research. Not that anyone ever followed an inconvenient rule on this site! Moynihanian (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some examples of the coverage above, including the most recently added source - Salon[4], which is far from a part of any "conservative echo chamber." While acknowledging the central fact (that Tyson was incorrect in his assertion, and that he has admitted so), it criticizes those who would take this a leap further and use it to otherwise impugn him as a scientist (to roughly paraphrase). Chester Lunt (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on importance: I am not following these debates very closely, but as someone interested in view stats (I am a co-writer of the
  Thefederalist.com, understandably a much less popular article, but its' counts jumped to the ~2500 per day range (from the ~100 range) for 9-26 and 9-27[6]; they have since dropped below 1,000 per day. This is a very small controversy in the scheme of life. No doubt we want to get it right, but we shouldn't think some battle for the soul of left-right American politics is at issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken
  13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Give it a week to 10 days it will go back to the low hundreds. That's the nature of storms in a teacup. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the

Just checked views at the

Thefederalist.com and now The Federalist (website); they have dropped to about 200/day and below, it seems most traffic is being generated by the talk page, the internet has moved on to other dramas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken

12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

hagiography /ˌhæɡiˈɒɡrəfi/ ...when referring to modern, non-ecclesiastical works, the term hagiography is often used as a pejorative reference to biographies and histories whose authors are perceived to be uncritical or reverential to their subject. Hagiography This is what I wrote. This is what I meant. Leave it alone.

"Ideolizing biography". This is a terrible header. It shows bad faith to the authors who have participated in writing it, it makes a sweeping negative claim about the article as a whole and is totally POV. It also sets a pretty negative tone for discussion...and if you read this section you see its mostly full of snark. --Shabidoo | Talk 08:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence: "...unable to complete his Ph.D. because his thesis committee voted to dissolve itself." What the source actually says is, "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him." I don't see anything about "voting". The local claque's allergic reaction to the truth apparently didn't begin with The Federalist.

I've reverted this [7] edit, which re-hides the significance of the thesis committee's dissolution as stated clearly in the source and restores a claim about an unexplained "vote" that is a complete fabrication. Objective seems outraged that any truths he feels are negative about Tyson might slip into the article (Viriditas thinks it shows Tyson's mettle, but never mind) and seems too lazy to supply an alternative that fixes the falsehood I'd already pointed out here. Or maybe he was just too lazy to read this section, which he's contributed to, before restoring this bit of hagiography? Or... what is the third alternative that would allow me to continue to AGF? Memory failure?

Andyvphil (talk

) 21:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not completing your PH.D. thesis is not "flunking". And this is not an example of "hagiography". And your edit is a violation of

WP:CIV. Objective3000 (talk

) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that's not flunking at all and it's irresponsible for that writer to call it such, all the more so since that's a campus publication and they should know the difference. We shouldn't let the poor wording of a single source force us to make an inaccurate claim in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel Since Tyson himself says they kicked him out, I don't think the source is misrepresenting anything (see my comment just below). However, we don't think this is so important that it must be covered either, and as Cwobeel said at the bottom, he did get his PHD later from somewhere else, so if we do include this it should be in the proper context. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I nowhere said you should fail to provide context. Tyson's attempt to get a PhD from Texas was a failure. The idea that this is of no importance in his biography is indefensible. Here's another quote from our source, btw: " Astronomy professor Craig Wheeler remembers Tyson: “Research was not his strength. He was never going to solve any major scientific problems. But I knew he was going to do something big, because he had charisma." Seems like a sound evaluation. Tyson can gen up funding to pay for Hayden's new research wing, but his personal contribution to scientific knowledge is pretty minimal.[8]

Andyvphil (talk

) 05:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone saying that it is of no importance? Sure, we can discuss it, but we shouldn't call it "flunking" or a "failure" in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel said it was of no importance, unless you think it is possible for it to have importance but still be "irrelevant." What it should be called is: he "washed out" of the PhD program. The MS he got by getting an adequate GPA on coursework, but that's not academically adequate to qualify for a PhD and Tyson was kicked because his advisors decided he wasn't cutting it.

Andyvphil (talk

) 03:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

NPR picked up the Alcade story as well and went with this as their summary "There are very, very few African-American astrophysics PhDs," Tyson told Alcalde, an alumni magazine for the University of Texas, Austin, where he studied for a time during graduate school. "That's for a reason. I was doing something people of my skin color were not supposed to do. So people who believed in me, like Sagan, were important" [9] which was in turn picked up by policy mic [10]Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tyson is alleging this to be an instance of racism..." Not the washing out, he doesn't.

Andyvphil (talk

) 08:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

His thesis committee certainly seems to have thought "he was not academically up to par." If a racist thesis committee prevented him from getting his PhD for another 5 years, that would certainly deserve mention.

Andyvphil (talk

) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know what his thesis committee thought about the matter? Please, let's leave our personal conclusions off the talk page and certainly out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I know what they thought? Well, obviously they thought he was wonderful, just like you do. That's why they kicked him, right?

Andyvphil (talk

) 03:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article also says that "After UT, Tyson transferred to Columbia, where he earned his PhD in 1988", so the PhD issue at UT-Austin is irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"The PhD issue at UT-Austin is irrelevant." No, not really - it is not at all typical that PhD students who have failed so spectacularly to earn a degree at on institution go on to transfer and successfully earn a degree at another institution. Tyson spend a signficant amount of his academic career at UT-A, and this is worthy of notation. It should not be given excess weight, but should be noted. Kerani (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Failed so spectacularly"? He didn't finish a degree, he finished it somewhere else, at a more prestigious institution. Let's keep this in perspective people. Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That he was after failing able to gain admission to a more prestigious institution (assuming that's true of the ranking of their astro programs) is itself interesting. Was that special treatment, and did he continue to get it? If not, what is the explanation.

Andyvphil (talk

) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful. This smacks of overt racism. It may not be. Just can't figure out what else this could mean. Perhaps you could explain. Objective3000 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@

Andyvphil (talk

) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

'Failure to finish a degree' as an undergrad is absolutely not the same thing as failure to complete post-doc studies. People transfer from one institution to another for BS/BA degrees all the time, it is not of any note. Starting a post-doc graduate degree or professional degree (such as PhD, MD, DVM, etc) at one place and shifting to another is not typical and needs explanation. Transferring because the previous institution had problems with ones research ability is even more significant. I'm not saying that this is equivalent to repeatedly failing to advance to 10th grade, but "just finishing it else where" is inaccurately reducing this incident.Kerani (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. First of all, you seem to be confused about the difference between a Ph.D. program and a post-doctoral program. The distinction should be glaringly obvious from the titles (a post-doctoral program happens after one obtains a doctorate), but you refer to a "post-doc degree" and conflate the two. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that Tyson failed to complete his "post-doc studies" when the issue at hand is in fact his doctoral work. Finally, you assert that it is atypical to change institutions during graduate work and that doing so requires some sort of explanation. I'd like to know the basis on which you assert this. Speaking from experience, it is not particularly uncommon for graduate students to change advisors, programs, or even institutions during their work toward a Ph.D. I think it might be helpful to spend a few minutes looking into the topic, or (better yet) talking to someone who actually knows something about it, before making dogmatic pronouncements and asserting that Tyson owes you a explanation for his post-graduate career path. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MastCell - you are free to think of me what you like, but to claim that changing institutions is in anyway analogous to changing advisors within a department indicates that your own perspective on this is significantly flawed. You are correct that I typed 'post doc' when I should have used 'graduate' - but that is as far as it goes. Tyson does not owe me any explanation. This article is not being written by Tyson. It is being written from a neutral pov about the incidents in this person's life. Finally - in this particular incident, we are not talking about Tyson's "post graduate career path" - we are talking about the work that he did in order to earn his graduate degree in the first place. As to "what basis this claim is made" - go make your appeals to authority elsewhere. If you are interested in actual lit on the subject, check out these works: http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/january-2004/another-view-of-the-masters-degree-switching-institutions-on-the-way-to-a-phd, and http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/DataSources_2010_03.pdf.Kerani (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You still seem quite confused. Let's be clear. Tyson's "post-graduate career path" is "the work that he did in order to earn his graduate degree". These are two ways of saying the same thing. You seem to think they are two different things. It's clear to me that your errors here are not typographical, but rather spring from your misunderstanding or ignorance of how post-graduate education works. Separately, the source you cite ([11]) indicates that nearly half of history Ph.D.'s switch institutions during their post-graduate training. In other words, it directly contradicts your assertion that such switches are highly atypical. Can you clarify your interpretation of this source? MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly highly atypical for individuals who fail to make adequate progress on their thesis and are therefor kicked from a PhD program to go on to become prominent "scientists". Are you denying this? Seriously?

Andyvphil (talk

) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tyson completed his master's thesis. All the article says is that "his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee". It does not appear to discuss how much progress towards completing it he did or did not make. Speculating about other details as editors are doing here is irresponsible. Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the article also says, "Tyson wasn’t making progress on his dissertation, and professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers." And, "After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him.." So your assertion that the article "does not appear to discuss how much progress towards completing [his dissertation] he did or did not make." is simply false.

Andyvphil (talk

) 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed that sentence, thank you for providing evidence for that particular assertion. I have yet to see evidence backing up some of the other irresponsible comments here, however. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made no "irresponsible comments", but if I've said something you think that and want to see any evidence I've omitted, just ask. As to "lazy", which someone inappropriately redacted from one of my comments, that is the point of the first The Federalist article: Davis agrees (as do I) that newspapers and politicians are innumerate, but Tyson [redacted- not a forum for your negative opinions about tyson]

Andyvphil (talk

) 22:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You've made a ton of irresponsible comments, with this one above another example. There is no evidence Tyson "fabricated" anything. He may have misquoted someone, but that does not imply fabrication. The Federalist operatives are attacking Tyson for reasons that have nothing to do with his misquote. This is obvious to the most basic, unicellular organism. Stop pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy, just what are you on about? History is replete with successful individuals who performed poorly in institutional settings. In fact, there is a strong argument in the literature that suggests failure is partly responsible for later success. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Failure to complete your dissertation predicts success as an astrophysicist? This "literature" I have to see. Cite, please.

Andyvphil (talk

) 09:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the source says anything abour "fail[ing] to make adequate progress on their thesis and are therefor[e] [being] kicked from a PhD program" - that seems to be your interpretation. And what's a "scientist" as opposed to a scientist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See my answer to Gamaliel, immediately above. And a scientist is someone for whom it is not true that “Research [is] not his strength. He [is] never going to solve any major scientific problems." A "scientist", on the other hand, is a [redacted] planetarium director who proclaims "“The lab beckons,” ... “Right now the public stuff takes up most of my time. But I want to get back to more research.", but who in fact has never done much research and is well past the age where that can be expected to change.

Andyvphil (talk

) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're long past the point where you need to be continually reminded that this page is not a forum to degenerate the subject of the article. You can raise the point that the article should discuss his relative achievements or lack thereof in research without resorting to such language. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're long past the point of pretending that there is much chance of the article addressing the merits of Tyson having achieved the position of, as I believe Adler called it, America's most prominent scientist. See Objective's revert, which you ought to have reverted rather than leaving it to me to do so. Anyway, it would odd for me to make the case that "the article should discuss his relative achievements or lack thereof in research" without my pointing to the evidence that there's reasons to think it's in question. I was not very familiar with Tyson (I'd seen a couple of YouTubed videos, I believe) before seeing a mention of the attempt on Wikipedia to delete [theFederalist.com], but I've discovered all sorts of reasons since to think [redatcted - not a forum for your personal negative opinons on Tyson] If Stephan Schulz didn't want me to expand on that point, he shouldn't have asked.

Andyvphil (talk

) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, the "reasons" you claim you have uncovered that show Tyson is [redacted] probably belong on The Federalist blog, along with all the other climate change deniers, creationists, and what can only be described as "serial fabulists". You'll fit right in. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy, please don't make me take administrative action, it's Friday and I'd like to relax over the weekend, but if you continue to use this talk page as an excuse to pontificate about your negative opinion about Tyson, I will. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"What is really so “mysterious” is why Tyson finds it so difficult to confess error and pretends that Bush’s 2003 remarks were only just-now discovered... Sean Davis had pointed to this quote as a potential source from the beginning. Yet if this is the source of the quote, then nearly everything else Tyson claimed about it and its significance is false (as is the account of the quote’s provenance he gave last night)... [Tyson] regularly repeated a false account in order to cast aspersions on another public figure. The only proper thing to do is recant and apologize. That is what a person of integrity does."[12] Note the quotes around “mysterious”. It is of course not mysterious at all. The evidence is that Tyson is not "a person of integrity" and your peculiar notion that we are obliged to leave that unmentioned on this page is without any foundation in policy. It should inform our editing decisions, and it is perfectly proper for me to bring it to the attention of such editors as might prefer not to write hagiography.

Andyvphil (talk

) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This hagiography meme is nothing but disruptive.

WP:TPG --Shabidoo | Talk

00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein failed to make progress toward his PhD and did not acheive it until much later, after he gained noteriety. That did not make him a failure as a scientist. Objective3000 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

He dropped out of his early schooling at 15 years old, and he failed the entrance exams the first time to collage (passed math, but filed botany, zoology and language) but studied some more and entered a year latter. After graduating he decided to work in the patent office for a while first. Other then that I am unaware of what you are talking about "failed to make progress toward his PhD". He was awarded his PHD when he was 26 (after working in the patent office for 2 years) on his first try with his dissertation entitled, "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions.". --Obsidi (talk ) 02:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)