Talk:Phil Plait

Real name?

Surely it is preferable to have the article under the guy's real name, and have 'Bad Astronomer' as the redirect, instead of the other way round?--Fangz 20:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reckon you're right, I just turned the Phil Plait one into the redirect because it was the shorter of the two. Because both already exist I reckon we'll need an admin to do the swap-over. Sockatume 12:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links

User Frecklefoot, in his 13:58, 26 August 2005 revision, said, "extern links, the way they were used are prohibited". What I want to know is, prohibited in what way? The Wikipedia:External links doesn't say that anything is wrong about external links being used like this (the space.com link). The "Bad Astronomy" book link I can understand (1.3, What should not be linked to, #2: Links to a site that is selling products, unless it applies via a "do" above), although in the context of the article I think it'd be alright. If not, linking here would be appropriate, no? WayneC 06:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit: On second thought, linking to Bad Astronomy's book page would probably be better, because it contains more information and links to reviews. WayneC 06:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not covered in the "Extern links" section of the Manual of Style. But extern links in-line in the article are discouraged (not really prohibited, probably). But including them as cites is allowed, and that's what I changed them to. HTH. — Frecklefoot | Talk 09:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Watch out for Vandals

I just changed back all the references to "BadAstronomy.com". Some vandal has changed it to BadAstronomer.com. Which is a known woo-woo site run by a banned member of Bad Astronomy.

Be on the lookout for vandals, and make sure the links work, and point to the correct sites. Skyman8081 18:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Hi! This is the titular Bad Astronomer here. If anyone sees this page as being changed by "vandals", please contact me at badastro @ badastronomy.com. I'd like to know if/when it happens. Thanks! Phil Plait TheBadAstronomer 20:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, editors watching this page will revert any vandalism they notice, but don't expect anyone to email you. That is considered very un-wiki. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Thanks for that. I didn't know. OK, that's cool. But I am familiar with this particular vandal, and he will continue to come back and change this page. I will subscribe to the page (as have others) and correct it whenever he comes back. Is there any other action that can be taken? Thanks. TheBadAstronomer 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Kinda doubtful, I'm afraid. If he uses a consistent IP, then we can block these IPs. However, looking at the history page, this guy seems to cycle through IPs, so we may hit innocent people too. Possibly, we can protect the page and prevent it from being edited at all, but that's a very drastic step and I don't think things are that bad yet.

Of course, since we know his IP, we can theoretically track him down and send one of our highly trained wikininjas to teach him a lesson with the wiffle bat...--Fangz 00:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Small Edit

I added one sentance about the merger of the boards so that other people would not get confused as I did about it. William Stoett

Redirect from Babb

Umm...why in the world does this page redirect from "babb"? Babb is my last name and it has alot of history dating all the way back to England before William the Conqueror(pre-1000 AD). Im going to change it unless someone could give me a good reason why not too.

BABB used to stand for the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, so that's why it redirected to this page. The board is now BAUT (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today), so it's fine by me if you change it. -Phil Plait

I second the notion to stop the re-direct from "Babb" to this page. I was curious why it did so and had to look all the way here on the Talk page to find out why it did so. Does that necessitate that we create a page for the "Babb" entry? Michaeloz 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Move BadAstronomy.com?

Since there's a Bad Astronomy article for the book, it seems like it'd be appropriate to put the website section on that page. So the Phil article is about Phil and the BA article is about the book and website. --ndc (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. I'll let others weigh in though. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The approval of another person made it worth sticking merge proposal tags up. =D --ndc (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to remove the section on BadAstronomy.com. In its current state, it adds to the article about its creator and, seeing as how the subject of the article is known for his work on BadAstronomy.com, the section compliments the article. If this specific section grows so large that it detracts from, rather than enhances the article, a move might be prudent. As things are at the moment, I find it wholy unnecessary Anrie (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue there is a large enoug difference between the book and the badastronomy.com website that the two should remain seperate. The blog covers general science news, science fiction news, skeptic news, and examples of "bad astronomy." This section could use a little cleanup, but besides that I think it should stay where it is for now. 3Juno3 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, do not converge this section into Bad Astronomy. BA Blog and the book are different. 76.114.240.3 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am removing the notice. Orion11M87 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article does not meet wikipedia standards

Phil Plait is not even a minor celebrity. He is not famous and therefore doesn't deserve mention. I suggest this article be deleted. Wamboman (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Having a show on the Discovery Channel and featured, no matter how brief, on Time.com makes him notable. From Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no mention of celebrity status. Blehfu (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I worked all over the Harvard Medical School campus ... there are some extremely famous intellects there and most of them dont have more than a one or two paragraph item here on wiki ... not only should this person's wiki article be massively cut back but also someone should personally tell him to STOP TALKING WITH HIS HANDS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I will give an example ... this guy is 100 x's the intelect of phil plait and see how little he gets on wiki, Jack L. Strominger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you have some work to do then. Stop commenting on Plaits page and start working on their sites. Sgerbic (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion. Phil Plait is a notable public figure. He has the media appearances and mainstream media citations to support that. As for the claim that "smarter people have smaller articles," well, I agree with Sgerbic. Get to work beefing up their wiki articles. I don't even understand the "not even a minor celebrity" argument. I mean Vine star Curtis Lepore has a wikipedia page. What, never heard of him? Basically, he's famous with people who use a particular phone app. The idea that a published author who had his own Discovery miniseries, plus appearing on numerous others, should have his wikipedia page deleted makes no sense to me. I don't understand people who have all this spare time that they want to spend their time nominating well-written articles for deletion. Dustinlull (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dustinlull, if you would like to weigh in, the discussion page for the deletion nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_Plait. While I agree with you that the subject meets General Notability Guidelines (outlined at WP:GNG), I'm hoping the discussion actually results in the improvement of the article, reducing its reliance on primary sources. Deletion nominations can seem frustrating, especially if you've been involved in helping to write the article, but they hopefully result in a stronger Wikipedia article in the end. Nmillerche (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Bad Universe award.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bad Universe award.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bad Universe award.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

False and misleading quotes by Phil Plait

Nothing constructive by now-blocked IP. a13ean (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Phil Plait**: "New CEPHEI is the farthest star you can see with the naked eye" - which he states in his own youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHGLcNDGvA at approx 3:00 - 3:35 correct answer: Eta Carinae is. Its getting better! Phil Plait also claims that ALL shuttle astronauts has been through the van allen belts!!!!!!!!: "Every single shuttle astronaut who has ever gone into space" - which he claims in a radio program with Joe Rogan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc at approx 6:00 - 6:13 Two lies, and still his website is used all over wikipedia to debunk the moon hoax theory? 91.145.38.53 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I don't know if they're "lies" so much as misstatements, but they're not even incorrect. According to Wikipedia (I'm sure you've heard of it), Eta Carinae is a stellar system, not a single star. And the Van Allen belt extends from 1000 km above the surface of the Earth. Whether they've all passed through it depends on your definition of astronaut. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Just for the record, no Space Shuttle orbiters have had apogees as high as 1,000km. They were all less than half that. It's the same for all Cosmonauts. The only crews who flew higher were aboard Moonbound Apollo missions. A few of those crew also eventually flew some Space Shuttle missions. If one were to arbitrarily define "Shuttle Astronaut" = "Apollo Astronaut Who's Been To The Moon", then it can be said that all Shuttle astronauts have been through the Van Allen Belts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC) This article does not meet wikipedia standard and should be deleted, and his website should not be used as a source in the moon hoax articles because, as we can see, contains numerous of errors and misleading propaganda 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 91.145.38.53 (talk), if there are statements in the article which do not accurately reflect what the source says, then please feel free to update it or add the appropriate maintenance templates for uncited information. However, it sounds like the objections here are to statements made in Youtube videos that are not mentioned in the subject's Wikipedia article. 31.209.16.177 (talk), if you have suggestions for improving the article then I invite your participation. Disagreeing with the subject's views regarding moon landing hoax conspiracy theories is not itself grounds for the article's removal. Nmillerche (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Note both those IPs are the same editor, or at least highly suspected of being so, and both have been blocked over incivility and personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 16:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

I have just performed an expansion and reorganization of parts of the article, primarily focusing on Career, research and educational outreach, while also adding, updating and improving citations where applicable. Here's hoping these edits are helpful. Nmillerche (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this page has been greatly improved over the last few months. I have assessed it as "B" class on the Wikiproject Skepticism but I have not assessed it for the other wikiprojects. Members of those projects may want to do that.

Perhaps it should be referred for an official review by the GA reviewers. Should I do that or does someone else want to weigh in first? Allecher (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Planet X, or Nibiru cataclysm?

Someone put a wikilink to Nibiru cataclysm and labeled it Planet X. These are two completely different things, and links should not be mislabeled to mislead the reader. We need to fix ths, but I'm not familiar enough with Plait to know exactly which idea he's debunking. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Plait's blog regarding Bill Kaysing

Whoever keeps whitewashing this section by deleting the criticism, please stop it. It is a demonstratable fact that Phil Plait published a blog entry containing strawman fallacies about Bill Kaysing, and that such strawman fallacies were disputed by daughter Wendy Kaysing and follower Jararh White.

Plait's blog entry for June 28 2005 contained the following statement: "To be fair, some may actually believe what they say. Kaysing may have. But he was still wrong, and made claims that are sickening (NASA killed the Apollo 1 astronauts to keep them quiet; NASA blew up Challenger on purpose to keep the astronauts quiet about the “fact” that space travel is impossible, and much more)." [Emphasis added]

While Kaysing did believe the Apollo 1 and Challenger crews were murdered, he did not believe they were murdered because space travel was impossible. In the Fox special - which Plait cites in the same blog entry! - Kaysing specifically states in his interview: "The astronauts were launched with the Saturn V. Then, in order to account for their disappearance, they simply orbited the Earth for eight days and in the interim they showed these fake pictures of the astronauts on the Moon. But on the eighth day the command console separated from the vehicle and descended to Earth as, of course, was shown in the films." [Emphasis added]

Jarrah White published a pdf on Aulis, Section 2 contained criticism and direct quotes from Wendy Kaysing. Here's the full section.

"After Bill Kaysing died in 2005, he became the subject of trolling by many of his enemies. Phil Plait the Bad Astronomy webmaster and defender of Apollo was fully aware of this FOX TV special and yet now finds it useful to repeatedly blog that Kaysing believed “All space travel was impossible.” [P. Plait, 2005; 2009] Demonstrably untrue. Yet in the comments on one of his YouTube videos Plait knowingly repeated this false claim to me. Then, in the very next sentence, in an attempt to reinforce this notion Plait paraphrased what Kaysing had said about the Challenger disaster on Naudwaur Radio. In reply I supplied the actual quote from that same interview, which once again demonstrated that Kaysing DID NOT claim that all space travel was impossible [Fig. 2.2]. And equally clearly demonstrated that Plait wittingly puts his own words into Kaysing’s mouth. Even after this April 11 2008 public discussion and other personal communications, Plait has made no attempt to rectify this ‘error’. It was this attempt to control the Apollo hoax narrative via character assassination and the fabrication of complete untruths that led me to think about writing an essay on such matters [...] (Wendy Kaysing) told me in response to Phil Plait’s strawman: During his time at Rocketdyne, Bill Kaysing had told his daughter – and summarized in his technical reports for the company – that the scientists that he was working with believed that they had the technology “to get to the Moon but not get back”. (In other words a Moon landing could not occur since take off from the Moon and re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere were not achievable). She had added this comment: “I cannot imagine my father ever saying that we could not do space travel. That’s ludicrous! That’s ridiculous! […] Anybody who says that about my father is just trying to discredit my father’s ability to even think.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.126 (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. The issue isn't whether Plait wrote certain things or whether anyone criticized what he wrote: it's whether this is WP:DUE to include in the article. White isn't an independent source, being a follower of Kaysing and discussing his own arguments with Plait in that (unreliable for contentious information in a blp) pdf. There doesn't appear to be any mention of this incident/dispute in any independent reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Phil Plait presents himself as an authority on fact-checking all things space and astronomy related, and on the occasions when somebody in that field that been taken out of context he has condemned such actions (for example). Thus Plait should be held accountable for quoting out of context himself. It is a demonstrable fact that Bill Kaysing did NOT claim "all space travel is impossible", and having posted a rebuttal to the Fox special in which Kaysing specifically theorized the Apollo astronauts stayed in Earth orbit the entire time, Plait should know better than to strawman his opponent's position.

As far as independent sources go, White spoke about his dispute with Plait in a Binnard of America radio show, his dispute of Plait's strawman appears at about 36min and 30sec into the program. He talks about how he went so far as to travel from Australia to Las Vegas to call Plait's bluff at a convention where he was talking.

Perhaps a shorter version of this criticism section would be more appropriate? How about the following instead?

"Following the death of Bill Kaysing, the originator of the Apollo hoax theory, Plait published an obituary stating: “(Kaysing) made claims that are sickening […] about the “fact” that space travel is impossible.” Plait repeated this claim in many subsequent blog articles and social media comments.

Plait's comments were disputed by Kaysing’s family and followers. Jarrah White argued that in the same Fox television show that Plait had responded to, Kaysing specifically theorized that the Apollo astronauts stayed in Earth orbit the entire time. White called Plait's comments a strawman attempting to “control the Apollo hoax narrative via character assassination and the fabrication of complete untruths.” Wendy Kaysing concurred: "I cannot imagine my father ever saying that we could not do space travel. That’s ludicrous! That’s ridiculous! […] Anybody who says that about my father is just trying to discredit my father’s ability to even think" As of 2023, Plait has not corrected his blog entries. 137.111.13.126 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct link regarding White's appearance on Binnall of America. 137.111.13.126 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hit REPLY too soon. The interviews with Wendy Kaysing that White cites can be found on YouTube. She clearly disputes what Plait said about her father doubting all space travel. The fact that Plait repeated his strawman suggests it was intentional, rather than a mere mistake. And given that Plait has chastised others for quoting astronauts and astronomers out of context, his not leading by example makes his stance on quotemining appear - to say the least - something of a double standard.

How are the sources not reliable? The first source is Plait's own blog article covering Kaysing's death, in which he cites both Kaysing's interviews on the Fox special and Nardwaur Radio as 'evidence' that Kaysing believed any space travel is impossible. The subsequent sources are links to the interviews in question clearly showing Kaysing state the exact opposite of what Plait claimed. And the remaining sources are YouTube videos of Wendy Kaysing - Bill's daughter - clearly refuting Plait's strawman; Jarrah White appearing on Binnall of America radio again refuting Plait's strawman; and a Flat Earth debunk pdf by White published on Aulis which includes a section refuting Plait's strawman. How much more reliable can you get?! 137.111.13.126 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You're approaching this like an investigative reporter, assembling evidence into a narrative. That is not what Wikipedia editors do. The article should summarize what independent, reliable sources have said about the article subject. Find reliable coverage of the matter by sources not connected to Plait or Kaysing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References