Jump to content

Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xenophrenic (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 4 December 2018 (+cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Sexual misconduct allegations

Yes, there is no mention of rape allegations. This would be hard to do because there is possibly no media coverage of the allegations. It is general media practice to not mention scandalous allegations unless the accused denies it, police get involved, or a high-profile third party makes a public big deal about it.
Here is the only first-person source I found with Google:
*End the Silence, End the Violence Chapter 6: Austin, Texas 1983-1984: I Survived RAPE by Neil de Grasse Tyson; The Blue Lotus Speaks!
Reading this, it is easy to see why the media would want to stay out of this. However, if there was a comedian or other high=profile third party that made a big issue about it, like with Crosby, then it could become something. At this point I think Wikipedians should table this and wait. Perhaps in a couple years there will be more, or perhaps not. If there is more, put it on the main page, otherwise, leave it out.

--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that that was published back in 2014 and it sounds like nothing came of it, possibly illustrating why allegations of serious criminal offences are best made to the police rather than to astrology blogs. I certainly agree that we should leave this out unless some actual reliable sources ever pick it up. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's frankly ridiculous that Tchiya Amet's accusation isn't covered. It was clearly credible, and I think its absence reflects badly on the Wikipedia community. Now there are two new accusations: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/two-more-women-accuse-neil-degrasse-tyson-of-sexual-misconduct/ Owen (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been published in reliable sources or mentioned here yet, so of course it's not going to be covered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By reliable sources you mean major news outlets like CNN? Tyson has been the go to science guy for many of these organizations. Publishing unflattering stuff about Tyson would make talking heads like Fareed Zakaria look foolish. So these outlets have a motive to bury this story. I believe this is why Tyson's false histories rarely get much attention. Although there are a few exceptions. I give Jonathan Adler of the Washington Post some credit for calling out Tyson's falsehoods.HopDavid (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the source provided is a blog by a person with one blog post. I could not find this story on any RS, but did find the story was on numerous conspiracy sites, like the white supremacist site Stormfront. Frankly, I think even mentioning this on the TP is a WP:BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say I was surprised. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post is reliable but you are not pointing us at any specific articles. Is there anything specific there which we should be considering as reference material for these accusations? If so, please provide links and we can take a look.
OK. I admit that I am being a bit underhand here. You see, I already Googled for "+"Jonathan Adler", +"Neil deGrasse Tyson", +"Washington post"" and all I found was a spat over Tyson misstating or misremembering something that GWB maybe did or did not say. I see nothing about any rape allegations at all apart from a Reddit thread which, of course, is of absolutely no use to us at all. While Adler has been critical of Tyson in some respects what I do not see the slightest trace of is him giving any mention, never mind any credence, to these or any other rape allegations. We must be careful not to attribute reporting of these allegations to him if he has not done so! That could create trouble both for him and for Wikipedia.
Also, I don't buy your idea that a media organisation has an incentive to cover up. If anything, the incentive for media organisations is to distance themselves from anybody who is even potentially tainted as fast as possible to avoid reputational damage to the wider organisation. There is no point in getting into a conspiracy theorist's mindset where the lack of smoke is taken as sure proof that somebody is covering up a fire. Once you start to think like that everybody is automatically assumed guilty of a conspiracy to commit everything even before anybody suggests who or what it might involve. So, yeah. I'm pretty sure that there is no here here. But if you have anything in WP:RS to show otherwise then feel free to prove me wrong. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Rigal writes "and all I found was a spat over Tyson misstating or misremembering something that GWB maybe did or did not say." There's no question it's a misquote. Tyson amitted his account of Bush's 9-11 speech was wrong and apologized to Bush. No reasonable person can argue that Bush sought to "distinguish we from they" in his 9-11 speech. Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion.
Besides Adler's "Tyson admits he botched Bush quote", Adler also wrote "What makes an accusation Wiki-worthy" where he talks about Wikipedia actively censoring criticisms of Tyson. It's not far fetched to imagine other information sources also buried this legitimate criticism of Tyson.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/neil-degrasse-tyson-admits-he-botched-bush-quote/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/24/what-makes-an-accusation-wiki-worthy/
This isn't some alt right blog, mind you. This is the Washington Post.
Daniel Rigal writes "I see nothing about any rape allegations at all "
Straw man. I remain agnostic on whether Tyson is or isn't a rapist. I'm saying the outlets Wikipedia calls "Reliable Sources" seem disinclined to run stories that may harm someone they've been putting on a pedestal for decades.
The Bush and Star Names story isn't the only demonstrably false story Tyson has told. Another one: Tyson tells a story how a friend asked Newton about elliptical orbits. Newton goes home and invents integral and differential calculus. And then comes back two months later with the answer. And then Newton turns 26. Well, any child using Google can easily verify that Halley asked the famous question about elliptical orbits when Newton was 41. Newton came back two years later with the rough draft for Principia. Halley published Principia when Newton was 45. Plus Newton got much of his calculus from his instructor Isaac Barrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/why-doesnt-he-just-shut-up/
Wikipedia is a supposedly neutral information source. But look through the Wikipedia Tyson article and you'll see glowing admiration for this controversial figure from start to finish. The only mildly critical part is where the article notes he failed at his first attempt at a doctorate. There's nothing about the bad history he uses to support his political talking points. There's nothing about his botching basic math and science. And there's nothing about allegations of sexual misconduct.
Actually I'm hoping this Wikipedia article doesn't change. The longer Wikipedia censors criticisms of Tyson, the less credible it becomes. It reinforces Wikipedia's reputation as a source of misinformation.HopDavid (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this section is "rape allegations". At this point, I have no idea what you want changed, or I guess not changed. WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And after all that (and back on topic) it turns out that there is now an RS (Variety, published yesterday) for this being investigated and the matter has been added to the article in an acceptable way. (I don't mind that it is mentioned in the lead for now but I do feel that it should be removed from the lead section if the investigation later fails to find any wrongdoing.) It is clear that the starting point is indeed the Patheos article rather than any sort of official complaint (either to the broadcasters or to the police) and that at least two of the three allegations start with the Patheos coverage. Should we add in a mention Patheos here? They do seem to be central to this matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has already lost all of it's credibility after the gamergate, wikileaks and the white helmets debacles, so I don't know what else has it got to lose. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely doesn't belong in the lede until it is proven and/or makes an impact in his career. I have reworded how it is in the body to note Patheos as the origin point. --Masem (t) 15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this Neil deGrasse Tyson: New sexual misconduct allegations to be investigated by Fox and National Geographic | The Independent. It's primarily about alleged sexual misconduct by Tyson, but there is one sentence about Tchiya Amet's rape allegations. At this point, given the dearth of coverage in reliable sources and the fact that none of the allegations have been confirmed, I think we should take a wait and see approach and not include it in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did also add THR's coverage too when I reworked. But I do not think we need to link to the Patheos blog post itself (all these sources do if the reader needs more). I too would personally rather not see it mentioned until something of impact happens (I only reworked it on the presumption consensus may want it to stay, to a better way to present the allegations). --Masem (t) 15:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:DUE and WP:ONUS (i.e., not automatic inclusion) definitely come into play when there's so little information or coverage that it's probably better to leave it out for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Sourcing is sketchy for a serious charge in a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough coverage and women (at least three and two have advanced degrees in astrophysics) who have come forward to mention the allegations. In the era of #metoo, we shouldn't bury credible allegations my multiple, credible women covered by reliable sources. Even if unproven such as with Kavanaugh, the allegations and rebuttals are presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:GorillaWarfare here is the perfect example of WPs male power structure deciding these women are not relevant. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers might even warrant a standalone article. Here's her page at Bucknell http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~kna003/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF WP:NPA O3000 (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you feel attacked? In what way? I apologize if it made you feel attacked. I only stated facts that are backed up by the 90% male presence and its history of suppressing female points of view. That is not a personal attack nor is it not assuming good faith. In fact, by stating it, I hope you will try to correct the systemic biases that already exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia. It is not a place to change the world, just a place to document it. Wikipedians may have a very wide range of views off-Wikipedia, and may support a wide range of causes off-Wikipedia, but here we are only focused on writing an encyclopaedia. It is not assuming good faith to suggest (as you clearly are) that we are covering anything up when all we are doing is applying the same rules we would normally apply when anybody is unofficially accused of something without any official complaint being made (i.e via the police or the courts). We are not here to amplify the allegations nor to diminish them. We just wait to see what, if anything, comes of them and will document it as appropriate. Please try to remember that what we write on Wikipedia will have no bearing on the outcome either way. Wikipedia is not a front in anybody else's battle. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop patronizing. These are the same arguments that kept the multiple Cosby allegations out in spite of reliable sources reporting multiple complaints. These aren't "unofficial" complaints. They are public complaints in major news outlets that launched investigations by his employers. In the article in 2013, an "official" complaint to Bucknell's speakers board led to conditions that Tyson not be left with individual female students as well as accomodating a professors desire not to attend a reception with him.
There's just a cabal protecting their darling. If he was a nominee to the supreme court of the United States, you'd bet there'd already be section of 8 paragraphs on this page and 12 articles detailing every bit of the allegations. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be the last to disagree that we're seeing hypocritical handling of "allegations" across the WP on BLP and that's an issue I plan to raise elsewhere once I form an argument, but we should always plays it conservatively/middle-ground and avoid including any unproven allegations until they have been proven or have had an enduring impact on his career. --Masem (t) 22:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this to Kavanaugh is more than a stretch. That was not only on the front page of every major newspaper, but the subject of live broadcasts of hearings. This doesn’t appear to be on any page of any major newspaper. When it appears in such, or a police complaint is made, or it affects his career; we will surely document it. But, as this is a WP:BLP, I lean to erring on the side of caution. We are not on a deadline. Also, WP:AGF WP:NPA. Frankly, I have never seen name calling work as an effective method of gaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are pages of additional major news orgs devoted to this which meets your appearance criteria: Washington Post w/ AP byline [1]. USA Today [2]. Vanity Fair [3]. What names were you called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are now a massive number of sources covering this story. This is clear WP:WELLKNOWN territory, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, this should have coverage in his article. vanity fair, variety, huffpost, the hill, fox, usa today, the independent and many more. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they are all using as sources Twitter and a blogger with one blog post. O3000 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. they are also using direct statements from Sagan's employers that they are investigating. That investigation and statements by those doing that investigation transcend any WP:GRAPEVINE concerns. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Tyson has now publicly denied the allegations, although he admits a consensual relationship with one of the accusers. (His denial of course should also be covered in our article)https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/ ResultingConstant (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that Tyson's denial actually admits the basic facts of the accusations, including that they complained to him previously. His defense is merely that he didn't think he was being out of line. I was reported to have “groped” her by searching “up her dress”, when this was simply a search under the covered part of her shoulder of the sleeveless dress. and At that last meeting in my office, I apologized profusely. She accepted the apology. And I assured her that had I known she was uncomfortable, I would have apologized on the spot, ended the evening, and possibly reminded her of the other social gathering that she could attend. She nonetheless declared it her last day, with only a few days left of production. and Over this time I had a brief relationship with a fellow astro-graduate student, from a more recent entering class. I remember being intimate only a few times, all at her apartment, but the chemistry wasn’t there. So the relationship faded quickly. There was nothing otherwise odd or unusual about this friendship. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that’s closer. (And works better than assuming bad faith.) Of course, these are automatic responses. I’d feel better with the serious press taking notice. Perhaps soon. I'd give it a couple more days. O3000 (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Tyson's comment makes this a bit more "corroborating" (for two of the cases, he's not denying the encounter, but is denying what happened), I'm still of the mind that this is still a 24hr-old story and it would be UNDUE to include it right now. If this is still being discussed in a week or so, then it might make sense, but if this blows over, then why include it? --Masem (t) 00:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less where I'm sitting too in terms of WP:ISNOT policy. We're an encyclopedia, not a late-breaking news source. We're not going to engage in WP:RECENTISM by including it right now, so it's better to wait as/if things unfold. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous If The New York Times reports that he is the subject of sexual misconduct and that both FOX and NatGeo are investigating this we should add it to the article! We have cautiously done this when other celebrities were accused by such actions. Treat this like how we updated Kevin Spacey, Scott Baio, Louis C.K. and hell they even did so to George H. W. Bush. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of at least Spacey and Louis C.K., within 24hr, there was a severe impact on their careers, effectively "killing" them as entertainers. That's reasonable to include. So far, outside of the organizations he's working with investigating the claims, Tyson's career is not touched yet. If something does happen, we can include that information, but if this was just blowing smoke, there's no point in including that information. And since we're NOT#NEWS and have no deadline, it is better to wait and see than rush and get it wrong. --Masem (t) 03:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you making new standards? We rely on coverage in reliable sources. WaPo and NyTimes are the highest quality reliable and both have produced articles by their staff. It's a national story with coverage by multiple reliable sources. This moving goalpost that we must now wait for career impact is without merit. We have no method of determining career impact. This is an arbitrary standard without foundation and is why our standard is coverage in reliable sources and not what editors think "is a severe impact on their careers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Just because something is widely reported doesn't mean we have to include it, particularly under our BLP policy. --Masem (t) 03:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. policy pretty much exactly describes the situation here. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. Is it noteworthy? Yes, many many sources have taken note. Is it relevant? Yep, directly relevant to this person. Well documented? See #1. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except, we don't have any public scandal yet. Allegations made, denial given, nothing else has happened. --Masem (t) 04:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that what a public scandal is? It appears there are plenty of sources, so why not report the allegations and denial? The version you put up first looks like a good start and see how things develop. In any case it is starting to look like a clear consensus to include at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A public scandal would be something like what Kavanaugh faced as it factored significantly into his Supreme Court nomination process. At this point, nothing has changed with Tyson's career. If the allegations prove to be nothing, then we shouldn't include this information at all in the long run (who will care a month, a year, ten years from now?) and that should be our default position. If something happens, then we have a means to cover it. --Masem (t) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'm a bit shocked at the amount of verbiage that has transpired since I last checked this talk page (I bear the dubious honor of being the second commenter, and the first one with a Username). I figured I should go here because I saw this: Neil deGrasse Tyson investigated by Fox, NatGeo Networks on Associated Press News. So from there, and for the record, I am in favor of including some sort of brief, vague mention that, according to Associated Press, 1. He was accused of something improper. 2. It is currently being investigated by networks.
That said, the allegations against another, similar media figure appear more credible than this one, yet the Wikipedia consensus if you will says that you shouldn't mention it in the article. Moreover we need to tread lightly here especially because the accused is black and most of those accusing him (I assume) are white. 100 years ago that would have resulted in a lynch mob. If you weren't in favor of lynch mobs then, we shouldn't be in favor of the updated version now.
Lastly, we aren't committing libel if we report the media report. It isn't like his reputation will be trashed forever because of Wikipedia, of all sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but this might be turning out to be a bit of a joke. According to this article,[4] one the interactions was simply Tyson looking at someone's tattoo. The supposed victim admits it might not be assault and it took her 9 years for her think of it as "creepy". The other so-called sexual assault was a hand-shake. These allegations seem spurious. As a WP:BLP, we shouldn't just report every little incident or complaint just because it gets covered in the news. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sure, just looking at her tattoo... by putting his hands under the fabric of her dress and lifting it up (which he admits to). Totally appropriate. /s On the other one, he took his employee to his home, gave her alcohol, a really wierd handshake, and told her that if he hugged her he would just want more. and she felt it was inappropriate enough that she immediately resigned. Nobody is saying he is bill cosby here nobody is even saying he is guilty, but the accusations are credible, the accusations have been independently verified and reported. international by tier 1 sources, internationally. The continual moving of the goalposts by the opposers is transparent and ridiculous. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the only editor that ignores the content of edits that include attacks against other editors. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about failure to WP:AGF! Sorry, but we're an encyclopedia, not a cheap tabloid. We have higher standards than that. If it turns out that there is merit to these accusations, then we should approach it appropriately. Right now, there's a small amount of smoke and fury, but little in the way of substance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @A Quest For Knowledge: I am sorry, are you suggesting that the Washington post, the wall Street journal and BBC (who'd published the accusations on the main page) are cheap tabloids, or are you saying that the 12 articles about the Kavanaugh debacle were published on some other encyclopedia that isn't wikipedia? Openlydialectic (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do hold ourselves to higher standards than news sources. Attempting to compare this with Kavanaugh is a false equivalently. The accusations against Kavanaugh reached the highest level of the legislative branch of the US government. If the accusations against Tyson reach Congress, then you might have a point. But based on what we know, you're comparing apples with oranges. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Today's media, running 24/7, have so much space to fill that something like this will get well covered, but that doesn't mean it gets automatically included. That's the whole point of WP:NOT#NEWS, we're looking for encyclopedic value - long-term merit of what would remain important in articles long after the event, rather than minute-to-minute coverage. WP has a whole has been failing on upholding this principle of late, and we need to return to this. --Masem (t) 16:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

The discussion's going in circles and is clearly not helpful, so here's a vote: Do you support restoring the following subsection under the personal life section of this article?

===Sexual misconduct allegations=== In December 2018, Tyson was accused on sexual misconduct by multiple women who were former students of his.[1] Despite denying the allegations, Fox and National Geographic announced that they would launch an investigation into the manner.[2] Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University claimed Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former assistant, Ashley Walton, alleged that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[3]

Openlydialectic (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I Support it. We've added the accusations to articles about people as different as Spacey and Kavanaugh in less than an hour after the accusations have been made, with people protesting the Kavanaugh inclusion getting banned by a cabal. Nowthis guy, it's clear as day, is not getting these accusations added to his talk page only because he's a darling of some other Wikipedia cabal. If this site still argues it has some standards of editorial independence remaining (which is laughable ofcourse, but still) the accusations should be restored, since it's apparently obvious that the majority of editors - both who'd expressed their opinion here and who tried restoring them to the article without joining the Talk page discussion - support that move. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP THE PRESSES!. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There is no deadline. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't mentioned anything about any deadline, it's just that the discussion is going nowhere with cyclical arguments, and with defenders of Neil just ignoring most hard-pressing arguments (like why it was okay for kavanaugh, but not for this guy) Openlydialectic (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did answer that argument. Secondly, it's WP:OTHERCONTENT and therefore irrelevant. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"@Openlydialectic: most hard-pressing arguments (like why it was okay for kavanaugh, but not for this guy". If you honestly believe that, you're not reading the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep folks, this's the best argument that he/she managed to come up with, lol Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Openlydialectic: Cabal? What cabal is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These continuing PAs are not useful. [5] [6] [7] O3000 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merely suggesting that there's a cabal without any identification is most definitively not a personal attack. I shouldn't have written the last sentence the way I did though, so I edited it. Farewell. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Oppose the suggestion here, particularly the section heading. The suggestions in the "edit request" section below are better and I think that the discussion there might be able to find to something that we can all (more or less) agree on. Let's focus on that instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this text as per DanielRigal. I think we can now add something with the care necessary in a BLP as this has hit some RS. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without checking which "side" has proposed the vote, and without having formed an opinion on the issue: Wikipedia:NOTVOTE, and especially not on WP:BLP issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We have no deadlines. Right now, there's a small amount of smoke and fury, but little in the way of substance. As a WP:BLP, we shouldn't just report every little incident or complaint just because it gets covered in the news. If it turns out that there is merit to these accusations, then we should approach it appropriately. Until then, we should take a wait and see approach. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support it. This is a significant trio of allegations. If we add info that he's been accused of heinous things, that does NOT mean we are taking sides, as we are not actually saying that he abused anyone, only that he's been accused of abusing people. The excuse that there is not deadline for this info to be added makes no sense given that Wikipedia has never waited to include info on sexual misconduct allegations before. I hope Tyson is not being treated with favoritism simply because some Wikipedians admire his promotion of science in the media.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
    • WP has generally in the past waited to post allegations if they have waited. Unfortunately, between the events of #MeToo and the Trump admin, edtors have been lax in enforcing this. We need to get back to the point that just the report of allegations, even if well-reported, should be held off until they have enduring affect on the person in question. It's not about taking sides, but being an encyclopedia with respect to BLPs. --Masem (t) 00:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to argue with this. We are here to document knowledge. We should take care not to document what is not yet known -- in particular in BLPs. I’m a strong believer in the MeToo movement. That means that I want companies and authorities to take notice and behave accordingly. But, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am a stronger believer in following the mission of WP. Clearly, BLP trumps immediacy. What’s the harm in an encyclopedia waiting to evaluate dueness? O3000 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unfortunately it has passed the point where there are to many RS not to have something. I do not know if it's own section is necessarily the best. But that can be worked out over time.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Those are all in addition to the sources already scattered around this page. It has also forced him to respond at this point and welcomes an investigation. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is never a point where "too many RSes" requires us to include something that can be a BLP violation. We have a different mission from newspapers (that's why NOT#NEWS exists). --Masem (t) 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Masem: I would agree if this was a possible BLP violation, this is clearly not. So I am not sure what you are going on about? Also there is a difference between something being in the news and being noteworthy. At this point it is noteworthy, so not news really does not apply to this again. Basically dozens of sources have thought it noteworthy enough to devote articles to it, we do not get to choose based on how you feel what should be included. The RS have made it abundantly clear at this point you are wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, to the hypothetical : what if nothing comes about of the investigation that Fox or Nat Geo does, and Tyson's career goes on without any change? Is this going to matter in a year or more or be relevant to a bio article on him? Absolutely not, and we would not include it as BLP instructs. That's the lens we need to look through, not the "here and now, this is what the 24hr news cycle is covering". We have no deadline to add this material if something does turn out to be true. --Masem (t) 15:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Masem. Per policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS, so there is a really high bar to including this sort of thing and generally letting current events settle. If the complaints are substantiated, investigation shows something, etc., then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, it's much to recent to judge encyclopedic merit as we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL whether this is meritless and blows or has substance (i.e., a symptom of WP:RECENTISM). Policy weights pretty heavily against inclusion for the time being. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - it doesn't make sense to not include them. These are formal accusations which there is a formal investigation regarding. Accusations are even included in the Michael Douglas article. We do not censor FACTS, just because people happen to like Neil, which is clearly why they are being taken out. These were even acknowledged by the subject of the article himself, and which he admitted occurred, though denied wrongdoing. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add - WP is NOTNEWS but it is also not a paper encyclopedia, and we try to be as up to date as possible, within reason - once something is confirmed in RS, it can be added per WP:V and WP:RS. There are reasons we can overrule V and RS, but I don't see any here. Is it more important that he was voted sexiest astro-physicist, or that he is formally accused of groping and other incidents? According to the current state of the article, it's that he's sexy. Just a thought. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where anyone has suggested that we "censor FACTS, just because people happen to like Neil". I do see where editors have objected to introducing mere inflammatory allegation and speculation, with little to no in-depth coverage outside of the past 72 hours. There are policy reasons for such objections, which have been given. Is it possible you missed them? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so passionate about keeping the allegations out of this article, but have done little to keep them out of articles like Michael Douglas, @Xenophrenic:? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was that mistakenly directed at me? I've never edited the Douglas article, not even a "little", nor have I removed those allegations from this article. Could you rephrase your question? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE the suggestion that we need to restore controversial and WP:BLP-violating content because "The discussion's going in circles and is clearly not helpful". That isn't how we do things. Perhaps try making a cogent argument as to what encyclopedic content about deGrasse Tyson you are trying to convey with your proposed edits, so that we can discuss the merits and suitability. Resorting to "whataboutism-examples" that bear little resemblance to this subject matter aren't really helping. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal inclusion

I suggest a compromise edit, as simply voting for consensus on a certain phrasing excludes those who would support a different version. I think a single sentence in the 'Personal life' section makes the most sense, with no mention of the victim names, who aren't directly relevant to this article. The fact that allegations have been made is relevant, but the unproven specifics aren't:

In December 2018,[failed verification] Tyson was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women.[failed verification] Though he has denied any wrongdoing,[1][failed verification] Fox and National Geographic have announced that they would investigate the matter,[4][5]

UpdateNerd (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is closer to what I would like to see as well. Though I would say we need to include his denial. Perhaps add it to the first sentence something like ",which Tyson has denied". That would help satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done UpdateNerd (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose language like this. It's much better than leaving it out altogether. However, an issue I see with this, and the longer proposal too, is that he didn't technically deny all the allegations, he denied that what he did was wrong (I read some of the denial, which stated he DID run his finger along the woman's arm, but that he was looking for Pluto and nothing untoward was meant by it). So, in a way he acknowledged that the acts occurred, but argues they were instances of misconduct. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and made an edit above to better represent the sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed "compromise edit" as a non-starter. There has been no consensus to add WP:NOTNEWS tabloid content, but even if that were to change in the future, we wouldn't add unsourced rubbish like "accused by … multiple former students" - WTF? What students? And we wouldn't add "accused of sexual misconduct by multiple ...", when only one accuser alleges sexual misconduct (re-read the NYT cited source if you need to). Since this is an English Wikipedia, we wouldn't say "Tyson stated his welcome". And we certainly wouldn't omit the names of the people lodging such allegations. Something to think about if and when legitimate, productive reasoning is ever put forth for introducing this stuff in the first place. Please try to remember that you are dealing with a living person here when considering content for this encyclopedia article - it's not a tabloid or news article. Some of the proposals and reasoning presented above looks like it came from moonlighting National Enquirer hacks instead of Wikipedians. We can do better. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the proposed text has been slightly altered again since my comment, but is still unsupported by the citations provided. In addition, the proposal is still missing an explanation as to what encyclopedic information the proposer is hoping to convey to readers about the subject of this article. A little input, please? Can the proposer summarize what information about Tyson they are hoping to impart to readers with their 1 or 2 sentence addition? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is hoping to impart that he was accused to sexual misconduct... that seems evident by using common sense and context. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't encyclopedic information about a living person, and fails to advance our reader's knowledge about the subject of this article. It's right up there with "he's been accused of wearing corny ties". As other editors have already explained, until and unless something substantive comes of the accusation you mentioned, it remains little more than inappropriate celebrity tabloidism. And that isn't just common sense, it is also policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The widespread news coverage of alleged sexual misconduct and an open investigation which the subject has acknowledged. Wikipedia articles on living people aren't strictly biographical; they also reflect public perception, criticism, controversy, etc. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Widespread echoing of a salacious story over a 72-hour news cycle shouldn't be confused with actual news coverage, and there isn't "an open investigation" as such - just his employers and associates promise to look into the allegations, as they should. My question to you was what encyclopedic information about Tyson, the subject of this article, were you hoping to impart to our readers? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

begin: 

On November 11, 2018, Variety reported that three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson were being investigated by the producers of Cosmos. The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former assistant, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[6]

end: In addition, this tweet by Allers confirms the accuracy of the coverage by Patheos linked here. Dr. Michele Thornley of Bucknell confirmed that Allers told her about her experiences with Tyson years before she went public.

If we are going to restore it at all, and I am neutral on that, then I think we would be better going back to the version cleaned up by Masem. We definitely don't want a red link. The Tweet does not confirm anything beyond Allers being satisfied with the Patheos coverage, which I don't think anybody has questioned, so I don't see any significance in that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is also acceptable (Masem version with WTW changed and Tyson response.
In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos. The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[7][8] Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. [9]
The tweet is only a source documenting that Patheos reliably repeated Allers complaint. More relevant is that Patheos includes quotes from another professor that relates that fallout from the groping complaint resulted in changes to the conditions of a speaking event Tyson was part of. It gives the event more relevance to Tyson't career as well as corroborating from a credible third party (Dr. Thornley) that the complaint was lodged years ago. It's a bit much detail for inclusion at this point but it helps with RS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2600:8800:1300:4b4::1001 (talk • contribs)
Given that Tyson has made a statement, I'm drifting from neutral to being in favour of inclusion with an understanding that we want to keep the coverage at this sort of level unless there are significant further developments. Anybody else have a view? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most fair and honest thing to do in this situation is to include info on both the allegations and Tyson's response to them.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Problem I have is the original sources. Please someone tell me if I am in error – but the Patheos post appears to be a blog post by a student who has only made one post. I can see no way that we would accept that as RS and that it should be mentioned in any manner, particularly in a BLP. Further, it’s behind most of the other mentions. Perhaps this is why the RS press hasn’t picked it up. I think, as an encyclopedia, we should be well behind the press – not in front. Patience will out. Let’s be right (or at least verified) instead of first. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post, AP, USA Today and Vanity Fair have all covered it. I put those sources in previous section and are easily goggled. His response will drive up other sources as well but those are sufficient in any case. [19][20][21].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And a second "In Depth" WaPo article with WaPo byline [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except its all the same information/accusations from the same people. It all still stems to Patheos and the three people making these claims. --Masem (t) 02:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The ltest WaPo article is independent of Patheos with WaPo relying on its own interviews and sourcing. [23]. Same with NY Times [24] that added Hayden Planetarium in NY is also investigating Tyson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They validated with the three people accusing Tyson. That's not new sources, that's just getting more details from involved people. --Masem (t) 02:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That means it's subject to WaPo editorial standards and they are no longer attributing to Patheos. Look, if Patheos intereviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, and then WaPo interviewed Isaac Newton on Gravity, we don't argue to dismiss it because Patheos interviewed him first. WaPo added corroboration as well with Producer Drew Dowdle, for whom Watson worked for seven months in 2017, told The Post that Watson told him about her experience with Tyson a few months after quitting “Cosmos.”. How is it that you can continue to dismiss even though WaPo[25] and NYTimes[26] are reporting it under their own reporters names? We can toss Ptheos for WaPo and NYTimes for RS as the story no longer relies on that source. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4b4::1001 (talk • contribs)
No, they haven't validated any of the claims, only obtaining additional details of the accusations of the three people. We still have no idea how true these three people's stories are or what impact that will have. And no, even with Wa Post and NYTimes, we would have to explain that the initial accusations were reported by the Patheos blog, if we were including these accusations. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The media never validate the claims. They report the claims through interviews and corroborating sources. They report responses to claims and they report results of investigations. We don't do "truth" as a standard or else we would never cover allegations. These allegations are sourced to WaPo and NYTimes. And no, we don't need Patheos at all. That's not how RS works. WaPo published the results of their own interviews under their banner. We can certainly include Patheos for timeline as WaPo did but Patheos isn't the Reliable Source, WaPo is. Even the timeline re Patheos is sourced to WaPo. Here are the operative words in the the Post In an interview with The Post, Watson described...., In a statement, “Cosmos” producers told The Washington Post that..., In an email to The Post, Allers confirmed the details of her experience.... That's sourced to WaPo, not Patheos or a blog. WaPo is reporting in their voice to their editorial standards. That's the foundation of a reliable source.
Updated to include WaPo independent in-depth article.
In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating three allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos and subsequently covered by the Washington Post and others.[10] The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her.[10][11][12] Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct. [10][13]
I am in favor of mentioning this scandal on the Wikipedia page. The edits suggested above are better than nothing. Still, my preference would be for something more condensed than the above, such as suggested by my comment above. Whatever you do, please cite the media source you are using for the allegation in the text of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it part of Wikipedia's policy to accept any allegation as being guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? Why do you people always assume that if it's in the big media then it must be true? Where's the police report? Where's the criminal conviction? Where's the due process? I'm glad you Wikipedia editors never designed the justice system or had a hand in designing the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.239.111 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not Wikipedia policy to accept all allegations as true and we are not going to do that. You can see a few people requesting us to do so above but you can also see that they have not had their way. You do not need to worry about this.
The facts we are trying to get straight here concern what the allegations are, what the response is, and what reliable sources support their existence because that defines our coverage. We are not taking any sides here. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding info on these allegations. This is a significant trio of allegations. If we add info that he's been accused of heinous things, that does NOT mean we are taking sides, as we are not actually saying that he abused anyone, only that he's been accused of abusing people. The excuse that there is not deadline for this info to be added makes no sense given that Wikipedia has never waited to include info on sexual misconduct allegations before. I hope Tyson is not being treated with favoritism simply because some Wikipedians admire his promotion of science in the media.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Yup, time to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS (multiple times by others including the cabal comments too). Opposition to inclusion right now on this talk page is pretty policy-based without having to go into aspersions territory. It is pretty standard for Wikipedia policy that we don't engage in recentism and let events play themselves out first to assess lasting encyclopedic value. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Neil deGrasse Tyson Denies Misconduct Accusations". The New York Times. December 1, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Fox and NatGeo Investigating Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Neil deGrasse Tyson". Fortune. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
  3. ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  4. ^ "Fox and NatGeo Investigating Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Neil deGrasse Tyson". Fortune. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
  5. ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  6. ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  7. ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  8. ^ Kilkenny, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Fox, National Geographic Investigate Neil DeGrasse Tyson Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
  9. ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusations: "I'm The Accused, So Why Believe Anything I Say?"". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
  10. ^ a b c Kaplan, Sarah; Guarino, Ben (December 1, 2018). "Neil deGrasse Tyson under investigation after accusations of sexual misconduct". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 December 2018.
  11. ^ "Neil deGrasse Tyson Sexual Misconduct Claims Being Investigated by Fox' 'Cosmos' Producers". Variety. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  12. ^ Kilkenny, Katie (November 30, 2018). "Fox, National Geographic Investigate Neil DeGrasse Tyson Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
  13. ^ Ramos, Dino-Ray. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson Addresses Sexual Misconduct Accusations: "I'm The Accused, So Why Believe Anything I Say?"". Retrieved December 1, 2018.

Nevis

Off-topic from the discussion of recent (late 2018) allegations...I intend to make the following edit once the article is again editable. I think it needs to be clarified that Nevis (birthplace of Dr. Tyson's grandmother), was at the time of her birth a British territory and part of the British West Indies, but is now part of the independent nation Saint Kitts and Nevis. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson&oldid=871985606"