In case you’ve been living under a rock, you know that there’s been a bit of controversy over a quote that Neil Tyson invented and then attributed to President George W. Bush. Long story short: everything about Tyson’s story is false (even down to Tyson’s fabricated inflection of Bush’s voice as he uttered the fake quote), and every rational person who’s examined the highly questionable provenance of Tyson’s story has concluded that it’s complete garbage. End of story, right?
Not so much, thanks to Pravda’s heirs at Wikipedia. Wikipedia, you see, is run by editors who love facts, reason, evidence, and science. Boy do they love science. And facts. And also evidence. They LOVE those things. But they don’t adore anything as much as they adore Neil Tyson, their high priest, and unsavory facts about their shaman of science will not be tolerated.
Since the Tyson fabrication scandal broke, Wikipedia’s little army of tinpot propagandists has been hard at work shoving facts and evidence down the memory hole. To date, Tyson’s Wikipedia page has been revised at least 60 times since the story broke last week. Every time a reference to the scandal is added, a Tyson Truther removes it. Despite the fact that no evidence exists that Bush ever said “Our God is the God who named the stars” shortly after 9/11 as a way of segregating Christians and Jews from Muslims, under no circumstances will Wikipedia allow that site to note that Tyson’s fabricated quote is obviously fake and non-existent. What’s the difference between Jesus Christ and a Neil deGrasse Tyson quote? For starters, we have historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed.
Anyhow, the total delusion of Tyson’s Truthers at Wikipedia really must be seen to be believed. It’s that absurd. So here are the 9 most absurd edits and comments by Neil Tyson’s cultists at Wikipedia (the last one is my personal favorite). Note that not one of them provides any evidence that Bush ever said, “Our God is the God who named the stars.”
Keep in mind, these are actual quotes from Wikipedia editors discussing why it’s okay to airbrush history in order to protect their precious prophet.
1. “Telling a funny anecdote with fudgy details to make a joke/point is not a controversy, its what public speakers do.”
2. “It doesn’t matter if we can demonstrate it happened or not, many things happen in many people lives, we don’t write each of them into every persons biography.”
3. “[W]e may have to leave this up for a few days until S Davis drops his ‘censorship’ campaign.”
4.”So, [Tyson]’s not making a point about Bush, he’s making a point about the lost opportunity of 1.3 billion people not contributing to the advancement of human knowledge.”
5. “This is thus far a relatively insignificant story pushed by a fringe attack blog[.]”
6. “We shouldn’t be asserting that ‘No evidence exists’ based upon the current sourcing.”
7. “There are literally thousands and thousands of articles about this topic […] If this was something important, then you would see a lot more sources covering.”
8. “[I]t is a non-notable commentary that begun in an obscure media site and was picked up with even more obscure sites/blogs.”
9. “[T]his is being kept off because Wikipedia is deeply conservative in the non-political meaning of the word.”