Talk:George Deutsch

comment

I'm not sure if it fits but Deutsch may have a history of making questionable comments in articles he wrote while writing for the Texas A&M Battalion. This includes embracing the defense inspired theory that Satanists were likely the ones who murdered Laci Peterson. This blogger documents some of his writings here http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html

note - I edited my own previous comments and realized I had not signed it properly the first go around. I'm new and learning. Mr Christopher 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to provide some context to the link to Michael Brown. Yes, I understand that Brown is another controversial Bush political appointee but that information should be provided for future reference. Otherwise, it looks like Brown has something to do directly with the situation at hand. I'm going to edit that, actually. Moonsword 17:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the MDB link, since MDB and this man were both: (a) Bush appointees who (b) worked for Mr. Bush's reelection campaign and (c) we're found to have fishy resumes and (d) resigned after some scandal during W's second term. They would have to be identical twins to have more of a connection. 68.183.117.254 04:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to include a section that shows the before and after texts about the Big Bang to show what this guy did to the scientific presentation. His "contribution" was no better than the stickers placed on textbooks by creationists. However, there should be a clear distinction between what scientists were saying at NASA and how he perverted those statements.

Look here: "http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_deutsch.html"

64.24.44.162 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)UncleBucky.

User:biochemnick

Please be wary of his edits to this and other articles, as he is solely adding biographical information to Wikipedia. Or, discuss the merits of his edits. 208.255.229.66 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, and you can look at my contributions to see that I've added information about a wide variety of subjects. I would personally be wary of someone that seeks to eliminate any mention of a certain person (and who does so without a proper user name). The information in the George Deutsch article was there before I ever signed on to Wikipedia, and I intend for it to stay there, since whoever added it did so because it was well-sourced and relevant.Biochemnick 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is your Rhodes scholarship relevant? Of course not. 208.255.229.66 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the information about the Rhodes Scholarship, actually. That was there before I ever got on Wikipedia. I don't think it's particulary relevant, but the part about The Scientific Activist certainly is.Biochemnick 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• So you are saying you did not make this edit, which has an Oxford IP address? 208.255.229.66 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, I did not, actually. I never made any anonymous edits. The first edits I made were after I created my current user name. It's not surprising that someone added the Rhodes Scholar information from Oxford, as it was probably someone else from Oxford wanting to publicize the scholarship. Honestly, I think it's completely irrelevant. I do think, however, that the version before that edit is particularly relevant, as it mentions the original source of the relevation that George Deutsch did not graduate from Texas A&M (as noted in The New York Times). I could care less whether or not the Rhodes Scholarship is mentioned, but I think that removing any mention of Nick Anthis and The Scientific Activist is equivalent to removing relevant information. Biochemnick 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • And not this edit, from a similar IP, on your high school's page? This edit was just before your first edit under your username. 208.255.229.66 01:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that those are from two distinct IP addresses. The Pascal edit was mine, but the George Deutsch edit was not. It should not be surprising that the George Deutsch edit came from Oxford, since it added info about the Rhodes Scholarship, but I did not make that edit. Biochemnick 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Note that a school can have thousands of IP addresses on public computers. At any rate, you seem to have a track record of vanity articles/edits. 208.255.229.66 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, that does not mean that any mention of Nick Anthis or The Scientific Activist was a "vanity edit". I'm a firm proponent of Wikipedia and everything that it stands for, so I don't add information that I perceive as irrelevant. Just because someone else not surprisingly over a year ago believed that The Scientific Activist was relevant to the George Deutsch story means that this was a vanity edit. Obviously a school has thousands of IP addresses and obviously someone from Oxford supplemented the pre-existing information on The Scientific Activist in this article. That is all we know, though, and that does not make systematically purging Wikipedia of any mention of this appropriate. Biochemnick 01:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page because two 3RR violations were reported because of the reverting. I don't know what the issues are, but biographies of living persons must adhere very strictly to WP:BLP. We have to be particularly careful regarding the use of blogs, which are never allowed as third-party sources, and should never be linked to; see WP:SPS. In this case, if the New York Times subsequently picked up the story, that is our source, not the blog, so we need to be careful how it's written up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that we should revert this article back to the orginal form, before 208.255.229.66 began the edit war, since that was it's most informative state. We can take out the part about the Rhodes Scholarship (something that, once again, I'll emphasize that I never added, and you can check the history to verify that), but the part about Nick Anthis and the Scientific Activist is certainly relevant, and it is sourced in the article back to The New York Times. The original revelation came from The Scientific Activist, as pointed out in The New York Times, and although that may be fairly common knowledge now, it certainly won't be many years down the line. Biochemnick 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, your contribs, under this account and previous IP addresses, do make it seem that you're using Wikpedia to promote a certain individual and his blog. It might be best to take a back seat and allow other editors to decide how to edit this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Why is a rewrite needed?

Recently User:Aetheling made this update but, while doing so, removed some of Deutsch's actual words from the article, e.g. about the Big Bang where he says 'We are both Christians..'. These passages showed that Deutsch was following an agenda inspired by his religion. I'd like to hear why Aetheling felt it necessary to remove any material, and what problems this rewrite was correcting. This is a sensitive article due to the science-and-religion issues. EdJohnston 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)