Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Neil deGrasse Tyson has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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))
-
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
-
-
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "Gabrielle_(Xena)"
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,..."
Hopiakuta 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
-
- Some universities use the terms BA and MA even for their science degrees. It has nothing to do with the degree itself. --Etacar11 12:54, 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)
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] Quotes
"Would anyone like a tuna fish sandwich?" --71.237.232.110 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
