User talk:81.2.120.161

November 2023

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Global catastrophic risk seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about Musk's companies as though they are doing any real science or engineering seems less than neutral to me. SpaceX has not managed a single successful launch of anything other than satellites, so should not be taken seriously for anything other than that. And lots of other companies launch satellites quite happily. 81.2.120.161 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia is to give information about subjects in a neutral manner with due weight to opinions on both sides of an argument, instead of presenting opinions as fact. The articles SpaceX and Elon Musk also already discuss SpaceX and its work. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we bring up the alchemists of the past when talking about chemestry as though they actually had a real chance of turning lead into gold? (Which we have actually done, btw. Alchemists just didn't ever manage it (Ok, it was bismuth->gold that we've done, but the same principle applies))

Same thing here. SpaceX and Musk have shown no chance of getting humanity off-planet, so they have no business in an article about avoiding human extinction. 81.2.120.161 (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article says that Musk hopes that SpaceX's work will help, instead of just saying that SpaceX's work will help. There's a difference. Also, "no real chance" cannot be accurate, since the future can always change, and Wikipedia is not used to predict events. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we're quoting hopes and dreams with credulity now? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are, since the article just says that he hopes that SpaceX's work will do something, and readers can interpret that in any way they want. Flat-out adding an opinion to an article, however, makes readers believe that and develop a bias instead of making informed conclusions. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the hope that I can learn to fly under my own power like superman is now something that can be included in the article about aircraft?

Because that's the logical result of that you're saying. 81.2.120.161 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not, since it's impossible to do that, but SpaceX could start making more progress on sending people to Mars at any time in the future (it doesn't warp the laws of physics or anything), and sending people to Mars is its eventual goal, so we can expect it to eventually get there. Besides, SpaceX has invented some technology that may make it easier in the future, such as reusable rockets. You may add viewpoints from others with reasoning about SpaceX's work to the article using reliable sources and inline citations, but again, please do not add your own commentary, since it is not neutral, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Therefore, if you decide to present both sides of an argument about SpaceX's effectiveness, please do so in a way correlating with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> SpaceX could start making more progress on sending people to Mars at any time in the future

And so could I. Why is that unfounded prediction relevent?

> its eventual goal, so we can expect it to eventually get there.

That's a massive fallacy. The USSR also had the eventual goal for their space program of putting men on the moon. Doesn't mean they ever did it.

> SpaceX has invented some technology that may make it easier in the future, such as reusable rockets.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reusable_launch_vehicle

SpaceX didn't invent squat.

> since it is not neutral,

Neither is claiming SpaceX will do something in the future. That's the very definition of shilling (which isn't neutral at all) unless you also talk about Blue Origin, Scaled Composites, Rocket Lab and all the others. 81.2.120.161 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article just says that Elon Musk hopes that SpaceX will work, and saying that someone hopes that something will work is not the same as the article itself saying that it will work; readers can also interpret Elon Musk's wishes for SpaceX in any way they want. Blatantly claiming that SpaceX's work hasn't been useful is definitely less neutral, since it's stating an opinion as fact, so a reader's going to either interpret that as a fact, or - if they support the actions of SpaceX - get angry about it and potentially decide that the article is a biased source, which may make them think that Wikipedia is biased, which reflects badly on Wikipedia. The whole point of Elon Musk's ideas for SpaceX being in the article is so that people can understand that a company is attempting - which is not the same as going - to do something for space colonization, making it relevant to the article's focus. Okay, so the term created is more accurate than invented; sorry, that was just an error in word choice. Anyways, as for other companies, feel free to mention them as long as they have goals or projects relating to space colonization. That's all I have to say. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> saying that someone hopes that something will work is not the same as the article itself saying that it will work

It implies it pretty heavily.

> Blatantly claiming that SpaceX's work hasn't been useful is definitely less neutral,

It is, however, very factual. Sometimes the facts aren't neutral.

Reality has a left-wing bias, after all.

> get angry about it and potentially decide that the article is a biased source, which may make them think that Wikipedia is biased, which reflects badly on Wikipedia.

Any article on trans people will do that. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia remove all articles on trans people? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, saying that SpaceX doesn't do anything useful is certainly not an improvement in neutrality, in my opinion; I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, since this discussion has been going on for 12 comments, not including this one, and has essentially gotten nowhere; if you are still concerned about the way in which SpaceX is mentioned in Global catastrophic risk, please discuss it on the article's talk page, or move on. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's more important: Being factually correct, or being "nautral"? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If something is factually correct, it is inherently neutral, and saying that SpaceX hasn't made any useful progress isn't neutral. End of discussion. Please either talk about the manner in which SpaceX is mentioned in Global catastrophic risk using its talk page, or move on, because due to the reason written in my most recent response, I will not be discussing this edit or its reversion any longer. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> SpaceX hasn't made any useful progress isn't neutral.

What useful progress have they made? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still not neutral; usefulness is subjective. Moving on. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So why are they on the page at all? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's there since Elon Musk hopes that it'll help with space colonization, which is a focus of the article. Anyways, please just head to the Global catastrophic risk's talk page to discuss the topic with editors who are currently working on this article. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Elon Musk hopes

So hopes and dreams are neutral now? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Wikipedia's neutral point of view article says:

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

So yes, as long as the hopes and dreams are shown to be coming from sources outside the article. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you think leaving out that Musk has so far failed to launch anything other than satellites is a neutral statement? 81.2.120.161 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have concerns about that, feel free to specify that SpaceX has not launched anything other than satellites, as long as you provide a reliable source with an inline citation. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's on their own sodding page. 81.2.120.161 (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.