This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
According to jinfo.org, a site claiming "to provide an online resource that accurately describes the Jewish contribution to the cultural, scientific, and technological evolution of civilization" he is (so is co-researcher Adam Riess). Is this a credible source? DGtal (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We use jinfo.org just short of 50 times on WP. I cannot find any discussions questioning their reliability. I would say its safe to add this as a reference, to at least support categorizing him as a jewish scientist.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.142.53 (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@83d40m: et al.: I liked the section on Popular Culture references, and I've seen similar in other Wikipedia articles. Why did you remove it? I propose that we re-insert it. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The removal makes the article more fitting for an encyclopedia. Obviously, I would oppose reinsertion of the section, but let's see what seasoned editors think. I see that you are a rather new editor, but perhaps are one using a sock puppet and, if so, making me wonder why use one? The possibilities that come to mind imply understanding of what prompted me to delete it.
Generally, we have been getting away from "popular culture" sections that do not reflect great interest in folks in the entertainment or arts fields or a significant influence in some continuing cultural development. This section seemed to be such a juvenile hit piece of obscure jocular origin — unrelated to either science or a very well known entertainment or arts figure — that it prompted me to follow that advice.
Please follow the format for discussion among editors if you pursue reinsertion and advise me of the debate. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's see what other editors think. What is your basis for writing Generally, we have been getting away from "popular culture" sections that do not reflect great interest in folks in the entertainment or arts fields or a significant influence in some continuing cultural development? Yes, The Big Bang Theory is generally juvenile in its humor, but I don't see that that is relevant. That it is popular and well known seems more relevant when considering whether its inclusion is encyclopedic. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The juvenile and mean-spirited jokes admittedly arising only from jealousy have not had any effect upon popular culture. They are lacking references and especially, secondary references regarding them that would indicate such an effect. The two posts do not meet WP MOS standards for significance nor being a significant contribution to an "in popular culture" section of a WP article. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "juvenile and mean-spirited jokes admittedly arising only from jealousy" in The Big Bang Theory are the reference in popular culture; as I see it they are not and need not be something that affects (other) popular culture, right? In other words, the episodes of The Big Bang Theory are the reference that both source the information and indicate its notability/significance; we don't need a meta-reference for the reference on top of that, right?
We need more editors to opine. With this present one-v-one, the status quo (with the popular culture section in the article) would win the day. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made the restorative edit to the article, pending the outcome of the discussions here and with the hope that it draws more editors into the discussion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note restoration edit please, "restoring to edit when agreement was made re failure to meet criteria per WP MOS:in popular culture and awaiting survey, please refrain from edit warring - fyi, adding self-promotion links does not qualify as secondary sources as "references" - please familiarize yourself with the editing style guidelines available at MOS" _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@83d40m: Please ... no such agreement was ever had. Please undo your most recent edit, thus restoring the article to where it was for quite a while until just two days ago. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your post agreeing to the survey,
Please follow the format for discussion among editors if you pursue reinsertion and advise me of the debate. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the process, as a new editor, it could be a good learning experience for you, perhaps make your contributions more valuable and you will learn the process for resolving such issues in a long standing process that avoids warring over edits — can't hurt to wait, eh? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to respond to this comment separately? Yes, let's follow the process of keeping the article's status quo (up through May 12, 2025, meaning that it includes the section being discussed as it was all that time), while we continue the discussions here.
The "good learning experience" I am looking for is a discussion on the deletion you propose, on the merits. Can we agree to focus on that? If you are looking for good learning experiences outside of that, possibilities that come to mind are:
why you referred to me as a new editor
why you suspected that I might be a sock puppet
why you thought I pretended to misunderstand your reasons for deleting the section
why you thought I should carry on debate without you and then advise you of the outcome
why you thought my agreeing that we should encourage participation from other editors meant that you can re-do the edit that we are currently discussing
why you thought that my wanting to (a) first discuss things here rather than (b) change from the status quo first and then discuss the changes is somehow not following the longstanding process
why you thought the person who should have to wait is the person defending the status quo rather the person who keeps making edits despite not having achieved a consensus.
If I have misunderstood you on any of these points, I apologize. Regardless, they are off topic.
Let's discuss the Popular culture section. If we shortened it to mention the episodes but not at the level of all that verbatim dialog, would something like that work for you? Regardless of your opinion on that, please give that opinion in the discussion with @Jessamyn below. Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor chiming in, I think it's worth noting that he's a scientist mentioned in a popular TV show but I might, if it were all up to me, just mention that he was mentioned in two episodes and make the discussion of that briefer. That is, we don't need to read all the jokes, we mainly need to know that he's a pop culture reference/mention. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
