Talk:3081: PhD Timeline

This comic is about present-day politics and the Trump administration. Additionally, the comic is about a controversial immigration-related action taken by said administration. Please don’t feed the trolls: don’t give recognition or respond to trolls or vandals. If you find vandalism, revert and move on. If the vandal is a registered user, revert, block, and ignore. As with these contentious topics, please don't write in a biased and slanted manner. Always be considerate of the other side, don’t attack people, and always assume good faith. (In case you need assistance in blocking a vandal, message Kynde.)

What an age we live in... --DollarStoreBa'al ^{ConverseMy life choices} 15:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It only gets rougher... It's enough to radicalize a person. 172.69.65.187 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

When even Randall starts freaking out, it usually indicates the most entertaining timeline. 162.158.245.161 00:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I will only grant this only if we have a happy outcome for all the people already damaged by your current government. I look forward to Nazis getting punched and the Ark of the Covenant being opened Kev (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a happy outcome for everyone who voted for this. 172.68.159.201 21:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Events like this are scary, and they're even scarier if you have a personal or geographic connection to them like Randall does. I can understand why he would feel frustrated about his inability to do something concrete, and if this comic raises awareness for the situation then it has done a good thing. Not sure why I thought this comment was necessary; maybe it's just a way of processing the emotions that the comic made me feel. Dextrous Fred (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree, those of us that are non-US look to the US to uphold human rights. Very sad. Kev (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A misplaced sentiment. As bitter as it is to say, it's clear the US doesn't care for human rights anymore. The CDC is plastering some bullshit about gender ideology on the page for HIV, immigrants can be dragged off for no reason, the DoD is literally erasing history from their website and only put it back after people got mad...172.69.70.115 12:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I dont want to start an argument, but I am glad Randall Munroe is making a specific, reasonable point. A lot of times I see people saying either "there is no antisemitism on campus, nobody should ever get deported, ACTUAL terrorists should get green cards", and others say "EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME SHOULD GET DEPORTED, EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TERRORIST." I think both of them are extreme points obviously, and I am glad Randall is just taking the side, for now, of "this specific person did not violate their green card visa."

"...EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A TERRORIST." That are literally the words that a Trump official was reported to have said. If you protest the actions they take against anyone they label as a terrorit, YOU will be treated as a supporter of terrorism. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, expert-on-the-Öztürk-case but not-an-immigration-expert-really here. For clarity, Öztürk held an F-1 student visa but was not a lawful permanent resident (LPR) (green card holder), unlike the similar case of Mahmoud Khalil (Columbia university) who was a green card holder. And "green card visa" is not a thing, there's a "green card," which you cannot "violate" (although you could commit crimes that might have consequences for your LPR status), and you generally don't hear "violate their visa" although it's true that a visa is related to and may restrict that work you can do in the country. Regardless, no allegations have been made that Öztürk violated anything laws or rules or did anything other than lend her name to speech in a newspaper. JohnHawkinson (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes thank you johnhawkinson. I do not know the terminology. Ozturk did not, to my knowledge, violate any laws or rules. Thank you to the clarification.Tzelofachad (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

as always, based randall, at least for now. Tzelofachad (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean "biased"? Barmar (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean "biased towards due process?" Nyrrix (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's probably "based", as that's a term that can either be used in support or mockery of a philosophical position (because of Poe's Law, hard to know which in most cases, including here). It's more usually used in 4chan-like responses (and I doubt Randall would be considered "based" in those other places) than hereabouts, so perhaps it needs some clarification for those not (or not enough) in that sort of crame of mind. 141.101.99.94 17:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I meant based. I know it is often used in a different space. I meant it in a [Satirical yet Agreeing while in a ironic mode of understanding that nothing is as it seems, but still definitely complimentary] mode. Basically, I agree with this and it is goodTzelofachad (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Randall Munroe clearly only cares about this one incident because he does not at all care about politics. He's definitely not using this as an illustrative case on the countless other identical incidents happening under the Trump administration. /s /s /s /s /s. ^Dr.Meepster (<chat> • <reply>) 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Randall is currently calling out this one incident, and while he is obviously also disagreeing with many other incidents that have happened and will happen, he is not overgeneralising any specific criticism to every case. For instance, if he said "nobody who was deported has done anything wrong" i would disagree. He said "Ozturk did not do anything wrong" which i agree with. Sorry for the misunderstanding!Tzelofachad (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I really hope this is one of those comics that does NOT stand the test of time. In other words, I hope the next generation of graduate students sees this and thinks "oh, that must've been written in 2025, we don't have to worry about those kinds of things anymore." Perhaps "hope" isn't the right word, it implies I have hope. Maybe "pray fervently" is the right phrase. Sigh. 198.41.227.72 16:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure ... "Oh, that was before third world war, we don't have to worry about those kinds of things anymore." -- Hkmaly (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

We can go back to considering how the Ph.D. became a participation trophy for the financial benefit of the awarding institution - and, in the sciences, a source of slave labor. 172.71.146.61 01:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

How do we edit the Categories? This should have category Politics. Barmar (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Usually, once at least one other category (not created from templates like {{comic}}) you can edit the page and see the other cat(s) at the bottom, beyond the comic-discussion template. Or edit the Transcript section (or any Trivia one, whatever's the last one) as that'll also have the tail-end of the page. So long as you know there's a category "Foo", you should be able to work out how to add "Category:Foo".

But don't add Foo if it doesn't exist, hoping that someone will tire of the redlink that's created. You may be wrong about it needing to exist, or miss the actual "Category:comics featuring Foo", and unless someone is feeling generous it's possible that your edit just gets reverted as not properly researched, or checked... I think there actually is a Politics category, by that name, but I'm trying to answer the general question, not yet going out there to look it up for certain (at which point, I may have just added it myself, making it useless to have explained how you could 'easily' do it... At least in this instance).

TL;DR;, though, look at the source (wiki-edit) of another comic that is about Politics and is so categorised. Go all the way to bottom, and you'll see which 'tag' you might want to put at the bottom of this one. Should be obvious. 141.101.99.94 17:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I've added that category now 104.23.190.60 19:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm so tired of this administration :( Nyrrix (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you a citizen of the USA? If so, are you dead? In exile? In jail? Have your assets been seized? No to these? Then this is your administration and mine. Own it, or act. "Tired" doesn't cut it. 172.71.147.21 02:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Your point being...? GammaRaul (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The comic on mobile has the title text has a youtube video URL, and if you click on the comic on desktop version, it links to the youtube video of the arrest. This isn't reflected in the description currently. 172.70.126.121 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The video URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyypeEEOklM and appears to be "CBS Boston [282K subscribers]" so probably legit? I will try to add the URL. --PRR (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I copy-pasted the "note" from 1723 into this comic. I also think we should have a category and perhaps a template to make adding notes like this easier and more uniform. 172.69.67.22 21:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"I copy-pasted...." Thank you! --PRR (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can create it right now if you want! --FaviFake (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this the first with an out of site link? -- Commercialegg (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

No this happens often. For instance this comic xkcd 1723. --Kynde (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, let's keep the explanation as neutral as possible. Facts only. Dogman15 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Dunlap's Laws. 1. Fact is solidified opinion. 2. Facts may weaken under extreme heat and pressure. 3. Truth is elastic. (Arthur Block's "Murphy's Laws", 1977.) - "Facts are elite, facts are fungible, facts are false. And once nothing is true, anything can be true." Alan Burdick, Trump vs Science, New York Times Newsletter, 25 April 2025. 172.68.22.41 02:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

the problem is facts have a heavy anti trump bias. You CAN NOT state basic facts and not be against this regime 162.158.112.187 00:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to emphasize that neutrality is simply a bias towards the truth rather than towards anything else. On a technical level, being unbiased precludes being neutral and being neutral precludes being unbiased, even if people mostly use the word "unbiased" in the same way as "neutral". In other words, bias isn't inherently a bad thing.172.71.102.219 00:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"A bias towards the truth" is a bias towards what my homies and I declare to be correct - since 'absolute truth' does not exist, all 'truth' is relative, is what 'my homies and I declare to be correct'. This bias is not trivial, as you point out. Explanations on xkcd have striven to cover the "what, when, where, who, how" of the associated comic, and have striven to omit "what do we think about all this" except as is necessary to describe "what, when, where, who, how". The goal is laudable, but [ahem] difficult to manage when the topic is a lit match on a powder keg. 108.162.245.143 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This "no absolute truth" false neutrality nonsense is a bad faith argument rooted in pop philosophy and obfuscating rhetoric intended to discredit the existence of inconvenient facts. There's a famous, if apocryphal, parable about the philosopher who tried to argue this sort of hogwash to the oncoming train that hit him. Gravity exists, the Earth is not flat, and the current administration is run by a bunch of idiotic narcissists actively harming people for personal profit. Scorpion451 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"To be properly neutral, you have to give all sides equal time and credence!" This turns out not to be the case. BunsenH (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course, the bit I was correcting (with bad grammar, and lack of facts) got totally changed about before I tried to post it. "For instance citizens usually cannot be deported for any reason (only extradited, although the US typically refuses to comply with requests even from countries that freely extradite to it), and would instead be subject only to local legal penalties, but relatively minor allegations have resulted in visitors' extraditions." was what I wrote. Now, I think that was neutral enough, but it doesn't fit there now anyway. 172.70.58.113 22:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Ack, I think I'm the one who changed it before you could. My bad. Anyway, seconded. Opinion on the conflict in Gaza itself is not needed in this explanation; the edit that suggested that the student could be materially linked to Hamas by providing a link to an opinion poll of how Palestinians feel about the Oct 7 attacks is, in my opinion, very disingenuous, especially considering Ozturk is not Palestinian but Turkish, making the cited data even more blatantly irrelevant than it already would have been. Psycherprince (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This article could potentially be a reasonable place to try to establish a norm of separately including opposing sides of political topics (rather than the usual edit conflicts). 172.70.110.176 00:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Step 6: Try not to lose your visa when traveling or studying abroad by being a nuisance, since visas (in any country) can be denied or revoked for virtually any reason. 162.158.112.168 01:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pray the leopards never eat your face. 172.69.138.29 (talk) 26 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I'll bring decoy meat and try not to insult the cheetahs while visiting. 162.158.112.186 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Do nothing whatsoever controversial, because you don't know who will be running things within a few years? Or what liberties they may take with due process or law? Certainly one wouldn't want to run afoul of officials who are, say, flat-Earthers, Biblical literalists, or holders of unusual views regarding medical practise. BunsenH (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no inalienable right to travel or study abroad, so doing anything "controversial" as a visitor definitely puts you at risk of "being shown the door", as Randall likes to put it. The van full of thugs was added just for drama, but underneath it's no different than being denied a visa for some social media post, which has been happening at least since Obama. 172.68.159.201 21:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"...within a few years"? We have that today. These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hang on. Why does the explain xkcd:Editor FAQ say no references? We literally have reflist template and a bunch of pages with references. 42.book.addict^{Talk to me!} 04:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never seen a page with references besides this one. I guess the template could be used for other things, but we don't use references in explanations. --FaviFake (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

They have been rare, they are (usually) eventually reworded to be 'inline onward references' (i.e. just 'standard' directly hyperlinked text, of whatever kind: [], [[]], {{w}}, etc), and I've done that myself on occasion There may even be some cases where the additional "ref"ness available from a ref-tag is more useful (e.g. multi-instance-same-ultimate-external-resource, or metadata).

It is very true that we highly prefer not-a-Ref links (which editors used to other wikis might not appreciate), I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the reflist template is now quite so "you should not be seeing this!" in nature. Without actually lookingnat "Pages which use the reflist template"/whatever (I presume you did this?) I'm not sure whether there are any that I would retain, but there may be one or two that I'd be in no hurry to convert to the typical/desirable links instead. 172.69.43.163 16:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. He will send in black ops instead." Good that I'm a German. Such stuff can't happen in Germany. Ever! ;-) 162.158.172.244 11:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Germany would never deny a visa to an outspoken nazi sympathizer? They couldn't even bring themselves to grant asylum to Snowden because some free speech is just too costly, but that's not the same as a visa, I guess. Maybe he can still get a tourist visa for a quick trip from Moscow to Berlin, but the next trip would be to extradition prison. 162.158.112.182 23:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

As it is now, the reason given for Özturk's detention is a half-truth. She was not detained because her visa was revoked. That would only prevent her from re-entering the US, if she left it. In contrast, Özturk's visa was revoked in secret, and she did not know about this until after she had been grabbed off the street and treated like a terrorist, or like a dissident in a South American regime. https://oiss.washu.edu/visa-status-stamps/ says: "The visa stamp is solely for entering the U.S. You will need it again only when you leave the U.S. and intend to re-enter using that visa. It’s sometimes called an “entry visa,” which is different from “status,” a concept explained below. The visa stamp can expire at any time after your entry to the U.S. without affecting your non-immigrant status. If you leave the U.S. and your visa has expired, you will need to apply for a new visa in order to re-enter the U.S." — "Non-immigrant status (also referred to as “status” or “immigration status”) is a non-physical legal condition, granted by an official of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when you are admitted into the U.S. at a port of entry. Once you obtain non-immigrant status, you must maintain that status throughout your stay in the U.S. unless you legally change to another status." ExplainXKCD leaves unexplained whether Özturk's immigration status changed, and on what charges she was detained, or whether she was detained without a charge. It is unclear how her visa revocation is related to her arrest, as a visa revocation would not normally lead to an arrest (or does it?). If the ExplainXkCD's failure to explain the reason for Özturk's arrest is related to the US government's failure to explain the reason, then that should be made clear. Or simply say, "we're not explaining it because politics, go read Wikipedia and educate yourself", but then explainxkcd should not suggest that the reason is the visa revocation. 162.158.95.159 04:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added a brief note that ordinarily, visa revocation is not, in itself, grounds for detention. BunsenH (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Linked the Tufts Daily article she co-authored (which has been claimed to be related to her detention), but it would go better in the References section. Someone, please amend this? I'm too exhausted to do it properly right now. 162.158.6.3 21:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim of genocide in the explanation is in fact false. There is no genocide. However, as all sources here are biased, and some claim that there is a genocide, I think a better description would be something like "the Gaza war, which is sometimes considered a genocide". The article also misrepresented this - the only plausible thing was that Palestinians were a group that could theoretically be genocided. Jerdle (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not responding to this person, as they are undoubtedly beyond reach, but I needed to make a comment to clarify that the view that Israel is committing genocide is widely accepted among organizations like Amnesty International and international scholars on genocide. This is not a partisan take but simply an observation. To say there is factually no genocide in Gaza is selfishly inserting your opinion without looking at the diplomatic landscape. This post is aimed at people who, like me, get incredibly frustrated when they have to read comments by genocide or holocaust deniers. 162.158.233.116 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Genocide has an actual definition. The war in Gaza does not meet it.Jerdle (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

(I was responding to the above (no-indent) voice, but was Edit-Conflicted by the last message... Can't see what they should have signed with. // Ok, now I can, and done!) I would not have put the word "genocide" myself. Nor do I think it's, at this stage, a "war"... It's been a "I hit you 'cos you hit me" thing for so long that "conflict" is better, punctuated by the 'armed forces' of either(/all) sides mostly attacking the civilians on the opposing side with very few proper "army v. army" encounters (whatever either side says about their own intentions).

However, it is indeed very likely correct in to use "genocide", emotive and assumption-filled as it may be, by the original coining of the term. Targetting a national and/or ethnic group in order to perform acts resulting in "the disintegration of its political and social institutions, of its culture, language, national feelings, religion, and its economic existence".

Both Israeli and Palestinian actions have been made with the express purpose of making the opposing group "go away" in all those various ways, and right now it's the Israelis who are dismantling the Gazan nation, both violently and 'non-violently'. (And possibly the US, if you take POTUS's statements seriously of scattering all Gazans to free up the real-estate opportunities.) It isn't (necessarily) Aushwitz-level killing that group out of existence, but it qualifies to the definition of the word.

I would avoid "genocide" mostly because it gets interpreted as the full holocaust/death trope, but it's definitely going on (and, for some, it might even be considered that level). If we use it for everything that it could be used for, it might devalue its meaning. But the aforementioned definition is happening here, and probably well within the top 10% of all applicable current uses (if we're crass enough sort by "how genocidy" things are).

It's a pity that there aren't the nuances available and commonly understood to avoid this kind of conversation (OTOH, it'd make you wonder about the world if there was, indeed, a globally recognised "league table" of these things, and yet nobody then doing anything particularly good with this information). As I said, I wouldn't put the word there. But I certainly wouldn't remove it, either. 172.70.85.33 13:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

See above (sorry, didn't notice your reply when I inserted my ECed one in again, but can't easily rearrange without rewriting things). 172.70.162.13 13:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I wish Randall would layoff the politics for a moment. Not because it isn't important or worth discussing, but xkcd is one of the few escapes for the hellhole that is the world and Id rather not be reminded of how everything sucks. Glad he's bringing awareness tho. Also, here's praying that the trolls don't descend -anon 172.69.70.173 11:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. I'd rather an entertaining comic, primarily. But on the "all it takes [...] is for good men to do nothing" basis, I'm glad he occasionally makes points like these. He's human^{[citation needed]} and we know he has Opinions. The occasional overtly political point (not even being sneaky about it, unlike some) is understandable and... I'd say "forgivable", but I personally don't see anything needing to be forgived.

Obviously, it could grate against the sensibilities of those who are politically opposed (even if intellectually in his typical audience type), but we all have to take the rough with the smooth. I know I'm fortunate, here, that I'm not too politically dissimilar in attitude (though different country, different personal concerns). There's some other creators where I can still appreciate them while clearly not exactly on my side of the political fence (with the redeeming feature that they may come to different conclusions, but at least they do so with internal logic, not just soak up a lazy mindset). And it would be boring never to be challenged like that.

Given the amount of commentable situations that politics has presented, a couple of political comics that happen to be inspired in quick succession isn't necessarily a sign of anything new. Same old Randall, and I can't see this completely turning off people who weren't already fully turn-offable before. 172.70.85.33 13:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)