Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

There is now consensus to include some text on this incident in the article. Please comment in the section lower down regarding which text proposal you prefer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

haha, what a surprise, wiki sjws are busily tossing the sexual misconduct information down the memory hole to keep the page clean. As i heard someone say, we can't take down a black scientist can we. That wouldn't be woke... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.83.186 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
lol. i knew this debate would be going on and fanboys would be circling the wagons. you are fighting the inevitable. i don't even care because i know it will be added eventually. 98.11.85.190 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Regarding WP:BLP on the TP, Objective3000 made false allegations against President Bush on Archive 7 of this talk page. If he chose to sue, Bush would have a good libel case against Wikipedia.
Bush did not sow division in the wake of 9-11 as Tyson charged. Rather than an "attempt to distinguish we from they", Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion.
Nor has Bush ever slammed the general Muslim population. Bush, his family, and members and administration have repeatedly condemned anti Muslim rhetoric. Colin Powell was one of the first public figures to call attention to sacrifice of Corporal Kareem Kahn. Cheney harshly criticized Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. As did Jeb Bush.
Bush made statements against Al Queda, yes. But not the general Muslim population. If Objective3000 wants to equate terrorists with Muslims in general, I would say Objective3000 is the xenophobe.
So stop it with WP:BLP on the TP. You are a serious offender of this Wikipedia policy.HopDavid (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I wish I could say I was surprised. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
Daniel Rigal writes "Also, I don't buy your idea that a media organisation has an incentive to cover up." I was wrong, the major news outlets haven't buried this story. Almost all of them have carried the allegations of sexual misconduct. Mea Culpa.
Now back to the lack Reliable Sources as a reason to suppress this information. That argument is history. The noise about RS was a smoke screen and we both know it.
Rigal writes "OK. I admit that I am being a bit underhand here. You see, I already Googled (... snip ...) and all I found was a spat over Tyson misstating or misremembering something that GWB maybe did or did not say.
Since your Google Fu is weak I'll lend a hand. Tyson repeatedly claimed George Bush's 9-11 speech was an attempt to "distinguish we from they". See this, this and this.
However Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. See Bush's actual speech.
With some arm twisting Tyson eventually admitted his account of Bush's 9-11 speech was false and apologized to President Bush. See this Washington Post column by Jonathan Adler.
So what does this have to do with the current allegations? It's noteworthy that history repeats itself regarding Wikipedia's treatment of information some editors don't like. Look at Archives 2 through 12 of this Talk Page. First RS was the justification for suppressing the data. But then the story appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times as well as Tyson's admission on his own Facebook page. After RS ceased to be a valid argument the censors cited BLP.
If BLP is a reason not to carry criticism, why does Donald Trump's page carry his falsehoods as well as allegations of sexual misconduct? This talk page contains accusations against Bush 43 who is a living person. The stuff O3000 says about President Bush on page 7 of this Talk Page is false and grounds for libel. Bush is a living person.
Archive 2 of this Talk Page also contains statements about Sean Davis. Sean Davis is a living person. Those accusing Davis of falsehoods or stretching the truth are making allegations against a living person. And false allegations at that. By Tyson's own admission Davis' charges are accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopDavid (talkcontribs) 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


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)
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)
Objective3000 writes "The title of this section is 'rape allegations'". How Wikipedia has handled earlier allegations is relevant to this discussion. The false account of Bush's 9-11 speech was noted in numerous reliable sources and Tyson even acknowledged his accusations against Bush were false.
Objective3000 writes "At this point, I have no idea what you want changed," I don't want a thing changed. The article as it now stands is a wonderful example of Tyson's toxic cult of personality actively suppressing information they don't like. Tyson could shoot someone dead in the middle of a busy street and it still wouldn't get mentioned in this Wikipedia article.HopDavid (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion accepted. We won't change it. O3000 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The mis-quoting of Bush provides a perfect example of a non-story that has no encyclopedic. I cannot find any enduring coverage of it outside a window of time in Sept-Oct 2014, when the mis-quoting was made. Nothing came out of that that impacted Tyson's career, so appropriately, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, looks like this is starting to impact his career.HopDavid (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Masem writes: "Nothing came out of that that impacted Tyson's career" Sadly our celebrities can make false claims and still have successful careers. Both Trump and Tyson are good examples of this. We live in a time when people value celebrity and entertainment more than rigor and accuracy.
And, like Trump's birthers, Tyson's followers censor data they do not like. This Wikipedia article is part of your reality bubble.HopDavid (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
We go by sources, and in the long-term, Tyson mis-quote on Bush merited no further coverage down the road. Nothing's being censored, just that no one saw the situation as a notable facet of Tyson's career. With the current situation, it's certainly has the potential to be the same non-issue and due to BLP, we take a cautionary approach. This is why WP is not a newspaper, we're looking at the long-term picture. --Masem (t) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Masem writes "We go by sources". Nope. RS isn't a valid excuse for your censorship. The Bush and Star Names fiction was covered in numerous reliable sources. Including Tyson's own admission. And the rape allegations are also now mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Stop using this dishonest argument.
Masem writes "Nothing's being censored, just that no one saw the situation as a notable facet of Tyson's career." You're okay with Tyson delivering false histories repeatedly year after year after year? Falsehoods are okay if he gets away with it? okay.
Masem writes "This is why WP is not a newspaper," Thanks to the efforts of dishonest editors like yourself, WP is becoming less credible than a supermarket tabloid.HopDavid (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, I said that save for the two month period, no one has brought up the Bush mis-quote since 2014. That's going by the RSes, that in the long-run the incident had little weight on his career. We're an encyclopedia. And you cannot 1) imply a BLP is lying ("Tyson delivering false histories repeatedly year after year after year") without any RSes backing that up nor 2) use personal attacks against editors. --Masem (t) 07:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Masem writes "And you cannot 1) imply a BLP is lying..."
I made no such implication. Do not put words in my mouth. I believe Tyson's falsehoods come from a poor memory, powerful imagination and strong confirmation bias. Tyson probably believed he was telling the truth when he told the Bush and Star Names story. Regardless is is a false history.
Masem writes "...('Tyson delivering false histories repeatedly year after year after year') without any RSes backing that up"
Once again. Here is the Washington Post column noting Tyson's admission: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/neil-degrasse-tyson-admits-he-botched-bush-quote/
Tyson started telling this story as early as 2006. See this video of the Beyond Belief Conference held in November 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7rR8stuQfk. The Bush and Star Names story begins at around 26:30.
And Tyson kept on telling this false story until Sean Davis called him out in 2014. Tyson repeatedly delivered a false history year after year after year. This is indisputable fact well substantiated by Reliable Sources.
And stop it with the BLP nonsense. As I've already pointed out Wikipeda is completely fine with documenting Trump's falsehoods as well as allegations of sexual misconduct against him. And Trump is a living person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Sexual_misconduct_allegations HopDavid (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
With "falsehoods", there is a huge difference between misquoting someone from memory (and then coming clean when pointed out when wrong), and calling someone a liar. You cannot call Tyson a liar, even the WaPost source is clear that it was a mis-recollection what Tyson thought Bush said. And Trump is very different as those falsehoods and those allegations are having a clearly effect not only on him but the discourse of his presidency. --Masem (t) 19:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
For the second time: I'm not calling Tyson a liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopDavid (talkcontribs) 20:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
And I also differ with your claim that Trump's falsehoods have impacted his career. Trump was elected president. He was elected and remains in office in spite of many demonstrably false claims and numerous allegations of sexual misconduct.
And I ask you again, what's the relevance of impact on career? You seem to think that falsehoods should be excused if the person making them continues to be successful. By this intensely stupid criteria, the falsehoods and allegations of sexual misconduct should be removed from Trump's Wikipedia page.
I commend Wikipedia for calling out President Trump. But at the same time I condemn Wikipedia editors like yourself who suppress criticism of Tyson. Clearly Wikipedia is not neutral. Clearly a double standard is being usedHopDavid (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
Number of reliable sources mentioning the story is irrelevant. It would not matter if the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and a multitude of outlets carried the story. Nor is the validity of the accusations. Even if Tyson were to admit to wrong doing, his toxic cult of personality would censor it out of the Wikipedia article. This has already been demonstrated. See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/24/what-makes-an-accusation-wiki-worthy/
Wikipedia is not a neutral or credible information source.HopDavid (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Agree. Sourcing is sketchy for a serious charge in a WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Stop it with the RS, already. The allegations have been picked up by scads of reliable sources. We all know that is not the criteria here. You will suppress information you don't like regardless of RS.
Also stop it with the BLP. Wikipedia is fine with carrying the sexual allegations against Trump as well as falsehoods from Trump. And Trump is a living person.
And stop pretending Wikipedia is neutral and credible.HopDavid (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Kavanaugh is on team red. Tyson is on team blue. Both have multiple RS carrying their allegations. Both are living persons. Kavanaugh is now a supreme court judge so the allegations did not derail his career.
Wikipedia is not neutral. Nor does it give a complete and accurate picure.
It is shameful Tyson's sympathizers have suppressed information they don't like.HopDavid (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:AGF WP:NPA O3000 (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
DanielRigal writes "Wikipedia is not a front in anybody else's battle.
Wikipedia mentions Trump's falsehoods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#False_statements . But it makes no mention of Tyson's demonstrably false claims.
Wikipedia mentions allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Sexual_misconduct_allegations But WP will make no mention of the allegations against Tyson.
Note that Trump is a living person. And note that allegations against Tyson have been covered in many RS. Stop using RS and BLP as your excuse to suppress data you do not like. And stop pretending that you are a neutral source.HopDavid (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

And they are all using as sources Twitter and a blogger with one blog post. O3000 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Objective3000, I am writing this 11 days after you said "I'd give it a couple more days." Since December 1 it's got a lot bigger. Let's be honest. Under no circumstance will you include information damaging to Tyson in the article.
Earlier you pushed Tyson's false allegations against Bush down the memory hole. Even after Tyson acknowledged his portrayal of Bush was false.
It is editors like yourself that destroy the credibility of Jimmy Wales' endeavor. The Wikipedia article on Tyson is incomplete and presents a false image of the man.HopDavid (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you stop these personal attacks. That do not engender consensus. O3000 (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

───────────────────────── 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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Eh, RS deem it important enough to report on and that is all we need. There seem to be more than enough at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)

───────────────────────── 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)

@ResultingConstant - Re: "the accusations are credible..." This phrase "credible accusation" gets bandied about a lot these days, but what exactly does it mean?...What precisely is the threshold for deeming an accusation "credible"?...Or, conversely, what does it take, to your thinking, for an accusation to be deemed as NOT credible? Is every accusation "credible" so long as the person isn't obviously making it as a joke or satire?...Because I really don't know by what other standard ANY of the accusations would be considered credible!
One allegation is someone who came up to him for a photo-shoot and he was looking at and commenting on her solar system tattoo, which was nowhere near her breasts or buttocks or genitals. Nothing sexual about it, and it was in public in front of a photographer, for crying out loud!...The second one involves nothing more than a handshake....And the third one, the alleged "rape" is from way back in 1984 - by a woman he'd had an ongoing casual relationship with. They'd had sex consensually multiple times, and she alleges that one time he spiked her drink. That makes no sense, and there NO EVIDENCE of this. So no, these allegations are ANYTHING BUT credible.
And, to be clear, I'm not even particularly a fan of Tyson. I find his personality rather annoying, and that he often comes off as rather pompous...But that's quite different from him being a bloody rapist, for crying out loud!
I came here when I heard about the allegations to see if or how Wikipedia had covered them, and was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't included in the article. It's a crying shame that today, with the hysteria of the #MeToo witch-hunt, all it takes is a few people with a vendetta, a political agenda, or simply a desire for attention, to make completely baseless allegations and permanently impugn people's character...So that their Wikipedia article includes a section about "Sexual Misconduct Allegations" or whatever - it's total BS!
Oh, and you put that "the accusations have been independently verified," which is misleading, since that would tend to imply that the accuracy of them had been verified, but it's simply been verified that someone in fact made an allegation, LOL! And apparently, for many people these days, that's all that it takes for an accusation to be deemed "credible."
Well, you guys will probably get your way eventually, as more and more mainstream media outlets cover these tabloid-worthy allegations to get more ad revenue. But I, for one, am happy that it hasn't happened yet! -2003:CA:870D:D800:E021:9E8A:9C8:3CBC (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • @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)
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)
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)
  • There is a very good Vox article on the subject detailing one of the older, more serious, allegations.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

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][not in citation given] 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)

  • 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)
  • STOP THE PRESSES!. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There is no deadline. O3000 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    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)
First, I did answer that argument. Secondly, it's WP:OTHERCONTENT and therefore irrelevant. O3000 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
"@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)
Yep folks, this's the best argument that he/she managed to come up with, lol Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Openlydialectic: Cabal? What cabal is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
These continuing PAs are not useful. [6] [7] [8] O3000 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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
    • 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)
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)
  • 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.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] 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)
    • 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)
      • @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)
        • 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)
          • While I appreciate your guess work and heck you might even be right. It is still guess work, at the moment what we have to go on it tons of RS writing about it and giving it more weight. I would even venture to bet that it would be the best sourced item in the whole article. While there is of course no deadline there is also no valid reason to wait, sources are there and that is all that matters. We have statements from both sides so per BLP we can write the allegation and his denial. Heck it is textbook WP:PUBLICFIGURE, why do you not want to follow BLP policy? PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
            • sources are there and that is all that matters. Hardly. WP:RS is only one guideline of many. RS does not imply DUE. O3000 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Dozens of strong RS show due weight, kind of how it works. It is starting to sound like a WP:CRYBLP and WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
                • And that sounds like CRYCRYBLP.Face-smile.svg O3000 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
                  • Ha, now that is to meta for me! PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Support. As previously stated, and also support minimal, vague inclusion as well. Either will do--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "Either will do..." what, exactly? You say "as previously stated", but all I see is your "lynch mob" comment, so I am left wondering exactly what encyclopedic information about deGrass Tyson you hope to convey to our readers with your proposed edits. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Epiphyllumlover, would you care comment on my proposal below so your support of a minimal mention is more explicit? UpdateNerd (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • I have to ask, did you bother to read any of the discussion above or any of the sources listed above? I ask because it seems you do not know what you are talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I've read all of the discussion above, as well as all of the sources above, so you'll have to elaborate on the source of your confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I suppose my confusion comes from the incorrectness of your vote. For starters it is not a BLP violation, not how any of that works especially with how well sourced it is. Next is your rambling on a topic not really brought up here, no place for that here. So yeah perhaps you could correct your wording and we can start addressing actual concerns with how to get this well sourced content into the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the clarification. I didn't vote; I did, however, state my opposition to restoring removed content back into an article due to an inability to productively discuss said content. That has not changed, so there is no wording correction needed. As for the WP:BLP violations, please understand that before such content can be introduced about a living person, we need to first be sure that the allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, and there is significant disagreement expressed by multiple editors (myself included) that this requirement has been met. Is it noteworthy? It has already fallen out of the news cycle and is relegated to opinion and commentary sites now, which may change if there is actual impact on his career/life, or if significant new reporting crops up, but that hasn't yet happened. Is it relevant? Too early to tell; to date there has been no reported impact on his career or life, but as editors have said, that may change. Are the allegations well documented? They are well repeated, agreed, but not yet "well documented". Aside from routine Wikipedian silliness such as "misconduct by multiple women who were former students of his", which violated BLP by not being documented at all, there are some slow-moving attempts at documenting it (by NYT and WaPo), but those making the allegations are refusing to provide additional details. I hope this has helped to clear up some of your confusion. As to your suggestion that we "start addressing actual concerns with how to get this well sourced content into the article", I think that exhibits the wrong motivation. WP:BLP (sorry to keep throwing that little policy up) insists that this article must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..., and that should be our starting point. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSE - Per BLP and Not-News. It's not the place of Wikipedia to cover every click-bait tabloid type allegation, and in doing so permanently tarnish people's character with totally baseless allegations. If/when there's actual evidence of serious misconduct on his part, and/or if one of his main publishers, venues, or media outlets should sever ties with him on the basis of these allegations then it would arguably be worth of inclusion, but definitely not now. -2003:CA:870D:D800:E021:9E8A:9C8:3CBC (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - There has been a fourth accusation and it's been reported by many reputable news sources. A short unbiased paragraph should be added. Even if the accusations lead nowhere, it should be included - see Morgan Freeman and Aziz Ansari's pages for examples of notable misconduct allegations that didn't pan out - yet both pages have the information there. According to the Pageviews Analysis, traffic on this page is much higher than usual, likely from people who are looking for more information about the allegations; this shows that it's a pretty notable event that people want to read more about. Wikipedia should be a place for people to find the most up-to-date, unbiased facts about a notable event. Sk5893 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The fourth "allegation" seems to have as much merit as the previous ones (i.e. apparently, not much). In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies philosophically. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Believe women. I had no idea we had an "article" on that. PackMecEng (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the fourth "allegation" is that he tried to joke and flirt with some woman at a party, she told him that she wasn't interested, and he walked away....And people are pointing to this BS as if it some how substantiates that he's a sexual predator because there are "multiple accusers!" It'd be really funny if it weren't so sad. -2003:CA:8713:1000:A59D:8DC2:C5DC:9794 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      I pointed out below that with the accusation with Ansari, it creeted a larger debate around the #MeToo movement so it made sense to include. For Freeman, there was debate about taking away an award, but ultimately they decided to let him keep it, that seems reasonable to mention. Still nothing of that order here for Tyson. --Masem (t) 18:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This being still an active, ongoing, unresolved current event, I think it would be wise to wait until there’s some level of a resolution to decide what needs to be included. Jwwetzel (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This isn't a court of law, and no one is arguing that we should convict NDG. But, after allegations from four separate women, and media attention from a host of reputable news sources, of course this must be included in the article. It shouldn't be in the lead, or be the focus of this article. But, we should add a couple of sentences stating that he's been accused by multiple women of sexual assault/harassment, and that he has denied the allegations. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Minimal inclusion[edit]

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:

Three women have accused Tyson of sexual misconduct, though he has denied any intentional wrongdoing.[1] In December 2018, Fox and National Geographic announced that they would investigate the matter, which Tyson encouraged.[2][3]

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

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)
Done UpdateNerd (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
I see your point and made an edit above to better represent the sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You have been modifying your proposed edit frequently, to more closely reflect what reliable sources say, and that is appreciated. As for introducing that content to the article, I agree with the other editors who say it is still premature to do so, and may still be undue. If we get to the point where such information is introduced, my previous recommendations still apply: "Multiple women" should be changed to "Three women", and they should be named. Also, the "denied wrongdoing" wording would need to be corrected; he denied inappropriate behavior, but reiterated his apologies if his actions caused discomfort. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, I support minimal inclusion. It would only need one vague sentence, and anyone who really wanted to learn more could click on a link to a source in the reference. Leaving nothing at all opens the door more for someone to possibly come in two years when all the attention has died down and perhaps put in a lot of unnecessary and unverified detail.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see what the issue is. The sexual harassment claims are well-documented, and the rape accusation has been mentioned in a reputable news source, unless you think the Washington Post isn't a reputable source. I'm not is saying we should judge whether or not he is guilty; I'm merely saying that the accusations themselves are a notable event in his life and thus should be included. I might add that, since the start of the #MeToo movement, pages like this have been choked with people screaming about "innocent until proven guilty" and "witch-hunts"; deleting or forbidding information about sexual assault allegations is not the best way to assert your opinions on the subject, and is not appropriate for editing an encyclopedia. Treybien (talk) 03:02 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just because something gets reported in the news doesn't necessarily means it should be included in a Wikipedia article. The main allegations seem spurious (looking at a tattoo and a handshake). We have no WP:DEADLINE. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I'd rather wait and see how this plays out. I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm not saying 'no', I'm saying 'not yet'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:A Quest For Knowledge on this: Reported (or simply 'repeated') in media ≠ encyclopedia-quality information. You may think me overly-optimistic, but I see Wikipedia eventually morphing into the premier go-to source of worthy, legitimate factual information. I'm sure there is a market for salacious gossip about notable individuals, but Wikipedia doesn't strive to be a part of that. You said you fail to see what the issue is, and I am hoping to help you get past that failure. Wikipedia should convey relevant, significant, pertinent information about whatever subject is covered. We (as a society) have gossip websites and TMZ to report on the weird romances, social blunders and missteps of those in the public eye, but we (Wikipedia) strive to be a little more serious than that. When it comes to improving Wikipedia articles, rumors should be ignored, unsubstantiated allegations should be handled cautiously, and rushing to publish such material on our project site should be avoided. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion as to whether the accusations are credible is irrelevant. And if something has been reported on by multiple legitimate news organizations, it is not "salacious gossip". I would respectfully suggest that you're letting your preconceived opinions on this matter get the better of your objectivity. Treybien (talk) 18:04 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Guys, c'mon. It's gotta be at least minimally included. I understand he's someone a lot of users on here admire, but we can't cherry pick on a subject as serious as this. We just can't. This is a figure with a huge public presence and influence, who regularly attracts hundreds of thousands, to millions, of views on sites like YouTube. These allegations are important and significant. Making excuses for not including the allegations tells everyone who reads this page that these women don't matter. Sure - it's not as widely-reported as others. That doesn't mean it's any less important, or the pain of the accusers is any less felt. Let's go ahead and stop delaying, stop the side-stepping, and stop the excuse-making. Include the allegations on a minimal scale at the very least. To reject this common sense idea, is to be on the wrong side of this overall issue. ControlEntrada (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support minimal inclusion - a sentence or two as suggested is the best course. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Minimal mention per SMcCandlish and others, one sentence is all that's needed now until this goes further and has or doesn't have major consequences. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text proposals[edit]

The strongest consensus, by far, is that from "#Final draft text". Most of the opposition is based on the opinion that this proposal is too long and detailed. However, none of the three shorter proposals below have gained what could be considered a consensus, and even interpreting the "support but trim" !votes as opposers, there is still a consensus behind that proposal. There is, of course, still no prejudice against continuing to discuss trimming the wording, but discussion about the initial proposals has stagnated for two weeks and there is a fairly clear result. Regards,  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rather than us trying to infer from previous comments which text various commenters may or may not support, I am pinging all !voters/commenters from the RFC above (excluding those who have already commented below)(and obviously excluding IPs which cannot be pinged). If you could please make a comment in the sections below as to which text you support, thanks. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Openlydialectic, DanielRigal, Stephan Schulz, MagicatthemovieS, Masem, PackMecEng, Xenophrenic, Epiphyllumlover, UpdateNerd, Sk5893, Jwwetzel, Treybien, ControlEntrada, Fyunck(click), Serpentine noodle, Rosguill, Ifnord, Happy monsoon day, Irandill, Drmies, Wumbolo, SMcCandlish, JzG, NickCT, and Byconcept:

Final draft text[edit]

During December 2018, four separate accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson, first reported by Patheos.[4][5] Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.[6] Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering.[7] [8] Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018 which led her to resign from the position days later.[7] [8] A fourth anonymous woman asserted Tyson made inappropriate comments to her during a 2010 holiday party at the American Museum of Natural History.[4] Tyson denied El Maat's rape accusation, and corroborated basic facts around the situation of Allers and Watson's assertions, but claimed his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense.[9][10][11] Tyson asked for an investigation into the accusations, and The Museum of Natural History and the producers of Cosmos, Fox and National Geographic, announced investigations.[12]

References

This seems basically OK to me. Just one grammatical comment: The very end jumps from "investigation" (singular) to "investigations" (plural) in a weird way. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done thanks ResultingConstant (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too much detail considering none of the investigations has completed. And, I still don't like the sourcing for the fourth, and am not certain it can be called sexual misconduct. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The text above is well within WP:WELLKNOWN. Take BFN to RSN if you think it is not sufficiently sourced, but since both the site and the author have many creds, I think you are wasting your time. Regarding calling it sexual misconduct, we should follow the sources, many of which say 4 women (and specifically the 4th woman) accused him of "sexual misconduct". [20][21], etc. You can rightly point out that most of those sources are just talking about BFN's reporting - that is more evidence that BFN is in fact an RS for this. WP:USEBYOTHERS. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A point of order: We would not take such a question to RSN while this discussion is still ongoing; any given issue should have one, centralized consensus discussion, not a WP:TALKFORK (which is apt to have a forum-shopping effect at best, and come to completely contradictory conclusions or cause both discussions to come to no conclusion).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I support this language. I don't see any reason to not add it today - if there is discussion later, it can be edited (this is a wiki after all..). No reason to hold off inclusion any longer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as it reads neutrally. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Way too much in terms of WP:DUE and minimal inclusion mentioned in the RfC so far. WP:NODEADLINE and especially WP:NOTNEWS policy still applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 Could you please either !vote on this proposal, or the other, as your !vote is double counted now relative to everyone else who only commented under one of the proposals. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
That's the intent of RfCs. If there is something wrong with a specific proposal, an oppose explanation goes there as it would on a proposal with support. If I were neutral on this proposal, then I would not have commented on it here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 98.165.105.12 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support this length of text is required to give proper context to the allegations and Tyson's denial. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too much detail and undue weight of unverified allegations. See my proposal for minimal inclusion above. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the "Final draft text" post below is sufficient.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
  • Oppose - far too much detail. One or two sentences is all we need here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - it covers the allegations, includes Tyson's rebuttal and mentions that Fox and NatGeo are investigating. Language is also unbiased.Byconcept (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to add, this version makes it appear as though the allegations were first brought forward in 2018. Thchiya had accused Tyson years earlier and although the 2010 incident at San Francisco’s Palace of the Fine Arts hasn't been confirmed, she had written about it on her blog in 2014. Also, in his facebook post, Tyson didn't ask for an investigation. He simply said he welcomed the investigations announced by NatGeo etc. Perhaps an improvement along the lines of During December 2018, four separate accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson, first reported by Patheos.[1][2] Thchiya Amet El Maat, who had raised allegations in her blog years earlier, accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.[3] Other accusers include Bucknell University professor Katelyn Allers[4][5] and Ashley Watson who claims that inappropriate sexual advances made by Tyson led to her quitting her job as his assistant on Cosmos.[4][5] In a Facebook post, Tyson denied El Maat's rape accusation and corroborated basic facts around the situation of Allers and Watson's assertions, although he claimed his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any offense.[6][7][8] Tyson also welcomed the investigations announced by The Museum of Natural History and the producers of Cosmos, Fox and National Geographic[9] This is shorter, leaves out the excessive details, and mentions that Thchiya had publically made allegations earlier than 2018.
  • Support – this seems reasonable. I will point out that the wording Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018, causing her to resign from the position days later is a bit ambiguous as to whether the sexual advances or making the accusation led Watson to resign. Better wording could be Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018, which had led to her resignation from the position. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks,  Done ResultingConstant (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This summary seems to provide about the right level of detail to cover the allegations that have been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post, and many other news outlets. I also support the suggestion to include the material immediately, as WP:BLP and the RfC consensus make it abundantly clear that this content belongs in the biography. Serpentine noodle (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Too much detail, but overall the right approach. This needs to be compressed by at least a third, and the anonymous allegation thing is too iffy to include. I could go create a temporary e-mail address right now and make an anonymous claim about Tyson myself, but that would not make it encyclopedic. If the real world can't verify anything substantive about that fourth claim, then neither can Wikipedia. That said, the general intent and scope of this version is correct, in providing context and giving balance between the allegations, Tyson's response, and what is happening. It's just mired in too much detail. PS: Some of the wording in the anon's original version above (under "RfC Consensus text") is better. A merged version that aims for concision is the right angle.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC); rev'd., 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Why do we trust any report for any controversial fact? We don't know who the 4th accuser is, but BuzzfeedNews does, and did the due diligence on our behalf of verifying information, just like every reporter does with every source. This is not some random blog, they are a credentialed and awarded outlet. BuzzfeedNews also knows the recipient of the email. If they had named the source that wouldn't make the allegation suddenly more reliable. To the degree that anonymity makes the source less reliable, we have called it out as anonymous to let the reader know to take that portion with a grain of salt. I think part of the "detail" is required by BLP in Tyson's favor. All of the allegations are not of the same severity, and as you point out perhaps not of the same reliability. We need to give enough to the reader to let them weigh the accusations. At this point that one of the accusations is rape is widely known, if we just say "4 accusations" and don't give the detail, that can lead people to believe there are 4 rape accusations. Could you quote the specific text from above you think is better? Or specific text you would cut from this version? ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    I could be mistaken; but as I understand it, BFN did not communicate with the accuser. They merely saw a copy of an email provided by yet another person. If this is true, it is well below the level of due dilligence taken by the NYT or WaPo. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Objective3000: you are mistaken, as I have pointed out to you multiple times above. From the article, again : Now a fourth woman has told BuzzFeed News her experience of sexual harassment from Tyson ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Re: "Why do we trust any report for any controversial fact?" – In point of fact, we don't – not just any report, and not just one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, doubly so for a BLP. That is, we expect to see multiple reliable sources in agreement with each other and other RS not contradicting them. Even then, just because something can be sourced doesn't make it encyclopedic. This is not RumorAndAnonymousAccusationPedia. The non-anon stuff is already well-sourced enough both as to the allegations and the responses that including the iffy anon bit is not useful to do. BuzzFeed is not a high-quality source, and a real journalist wouldn't agree that's news. It's unaccountable smearing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. While lengthy, it appears to have all the elements written in a neutral tone. The alternatives, while shorter and more palatable to some, miss information as detailed in their oppose votes. Ifnord (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We have no deadlines. None of the allegations have been confirmed and some of the aren't even allegations of misconduct. According to this article,[22] 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 just to think of it as "creepy". The other so-called sexual assault was a hand-shake. 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.
I know that some people have attempted to compare this to Kevin Spacey or Brett Kavanaugh. The situations are entirely different. With Kevin Spacey, the allegations had a huge impact on his career and life. First off, the allegation prompted him to came out as gay. Second, he was lost his lead role on House of Cards.[23] Third, his movie, The Gore Vidal, was canceled.[24] Fourth, his scenes in All the Money in the World were cut from the film.[25] These are huge and significant changes to his life and career. With Kavanaugh, the accusations reached the highest legislative branch of the US government.[26] Nothing remotely equivalent has happened with Tyson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge:. Re "handshake", you forgot about the part about taking off his shirt, playing sexually suggestive music, singing those lyrics to her (do I make you quiver), asking her about "physical release", saying if he hugged her he would just want more, telling her she was too distracting to be a successful in the business, etc. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the final draft text--yet it should be redacted in a year or two and replaced with a more brief summary or conclusion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. More precise than the other proposals, but I'm not sure that this is completely BLP-compliant. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the above and oppose the below. It is honestly a little frustrating that we have to rely on voting and stuff. I wish there were objective criteria we could apply. In fact, the community should form a consensus on how allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct should be dealt with in BLP contexts (i.e. depending on the severity, credibility, persistence, volume, with a way to somehow quantify these qualities and arrive at a number) and then simply apply it going forward. Having it out every single time makes no sense.Happy monsoon day 02:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, so we use Inductive reasoning and just plug values into:
and the decision is made for us. Apologies for the sarcasm. But Wikipedia, much like the court system, is not yet an WP:Artificial intelligence machine. We still need to debate WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:DUE aspects. O3000 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the gist of it but trim a little. Cut the Patheos clause, halve the lengths of the four accusation sentences and shorten the "Tyson denied..." sentence to "Tyson denied the rape accusation and claimed his actions have been misinterpreted, apologizing for misunderstanding or offense". Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Bilorv could you give an example of how you would halve the allegation sentences? Regarding the denial, I think that detail is somewhat important. This case is very unusual compared to many of the other #metoo incidents, in that we have proof/admission that he knows the accusers, and some of the events took place, it is merely how those events are being interpreted which is at issue - Most of the other denials are "I never met them, this never happened" - we need to be clear that that is not what Tyson is saying. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Replace "Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018 which led her to resign from the position days later." with "Tyson's Cosmos assistant claimed that inappropriate advances in 2018 led her to resign". I concede that halving is quite ambitious but the current text is undue. Another example: we could shorten "Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering." to "A Bucknell professor said Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 astronomy gathering." Details like names of accusers, the name of the society etc. are not important; they are the first things to go when a text is of undue length. We only need to know that Tyson has more-or-less denied all four accusations; the fact that he knows the accusers is not for us to speculate about and not important unless you can show me some reliable sources which comment on it being a groundbreaking denial for the #MeToo movement. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I too think the Patheos bit is unimportant, but it is included as part of a compromise with Masem. I think I would probably support those edits to the accusation sentences, but since this discussion is so far along, I think it would be derailing to edit the proposal (which might make it seem as some support something they do not), or to add another proposal so late in the game. The point is not that his knowing the accusers is somehow groundbreaking, its that it eliminates a whole class of doubt regarding the allegations. And multiple sources have gone into analysis of his denial and what it does or doesn't mean, although we are not currently proposing to use those sources. (These are indeed opinion sources, and we are currently (correctly) sticking just to the facts. But which facts? I think these sources can help us inform on that point, and they go on at length regarding the content of his denial. A single (long) sentence for that is appropriate. ) [27][28] [29][30][31][32][33] ResultingConstant (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There's a certain constraint based on the format of the discussions, but it's rather unavoidable when trying to get large numbers of people to establish consensus on the precise wording of a text. I'm not proposing changing this suggestion or adding another; I'm simply giving my opinion in full—surely I have the right to do this. I note SMcCandlish makes a similar !vote above, and if enough of us do then there will be consensus for someone to add the proposed text into the article and then shorten it a bit. In any case, with my !vote I'm supporting this proposal as the lesser of the three suggested evils. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Oh absolutely you have that right, I apologize if I came across as implying otherwise. I was just saying that while I would be willing to use that feedback in the actual article, I didn't think I could change the ongoing discussion to take that into account. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While it does seem a little overlong, it is not egregiously so, and it is the best of the options suggested so far. XOR'easter (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too much detail in any event, & none of the allegations has been proven; mention of the number & the names of the accusers, & dates, is plenty. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely the best of the options presented. Contains all the relevant information and the sources are good. Written in a neutral tone. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 1[edit]

In December 2018, Fox Entertainment and National Geographic announced investigations of alleged sexual misconduct by Tyson.[1] [2] [3]

  • Support As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - We can add to this when investigations are complete or RS introduce additional info. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer this with Objective's qualification above. It includes the minimal inclusion that a lot of the RfC respondents want while balancing the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE, etc. issues brought up by others. If issues are substantiated in further investigation, more depth can be considered, but this is about as close to consensus we'll be able to get while balancing the policy issues and satisfying those who want it in right now rather than waiting for events to develop as we normally do for encyclopedic content (as opposed to news content). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm also not entirely opposed to adding a few extra words or a short second sentence saying something to the effect that Tyson denied or "qualified" claims against him, but it might just be easier to include a source to his statement without additional text for now too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
What you're doing is - "I lost the RfC, so let's make the addition at small as possible." That's... not how any of this works. Of course people who voted 'exclude' in the RfC will support this after losing - it's gaming the system and it's ridiculous. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This is way out of line. And for some odd reason, the RfC is still open. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC, which these comments don't do. Even if I personally don't agree with inclusion before an investigation is over, this is more in line with what most of the people I initially disagreed with mentioned with minimal inclusion, so it's far from gaming. It's how an RfC and consensus-building works. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This is NOT how WP works. This is an overly-cautious approach because people don't want to make Neil Tyson look bad. It's gotten completely out of hand, and this is just a farce. It's a farce, it's ridiculous, and the fact that people continue to push for the bare minimum of a mention is just evidence of some strange, strong bias. It's right in line with this ridiculous talk page. The only thing out of line is the continued attempts to censor and destroy mention of these accusations. It's disturbing and gross. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read WP:ISNOT if you're not familiar with how WP works in terms of being "behind-the-ball". The rest is just an attempt to disrupt this talk page with aspersions and completely ignoring the policy implications people do bring up. Please strike that so others don't have to remove such direct misrepresentations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Details provided by the various victims as well as Tyson's response are notable, crucial elements covered by RS 98.165.105.12 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that those details have not been established as encyclopedic or WP:DUE yet (WP:NOTABLE is a little different than that and merely being reported in newspapers doesn't automatically establish due weight). If we're going to go by the claimed consensus of the first part of this RfC, such details go beyond minimal inclusion mentioned there. One can debate the mention of an investigation being due weight either way, but the deck is stacked policy-wise trying to push for more than that at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose The amount of coverage on this item requires more WP:WEIGHT. Additionally Tyson's denial is somewhat required by WP:WELLKNOWN ResultingConstant (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • This is just a starting point. We can expand once we get back the results of the Fox and NatGeo investigations. We can also expand if the accusations result in criminal charges. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this short version is better then the long version but proposal No. 2 is even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose This sentence does not provide any of the context necessary to understand the source of the investigation. Serpentine noodle (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Too short. While the first one above is excessively wordy, this is too far in the other direction, providing no context. It ends up becoming a WP:WEIGHT problem in its own way, but implying that the allegations are so likely to be true that we need not even explain them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: too short. We need to include details of the allegations. Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely too short. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2[edit]

There was another proposal that was missed.

2a - In late 2018, Tyson was accused by four women of sexual misconduct.[1][2] No criminal charges have been filed, but FOX and National Geographic are investigating the claims.[3] Tyson released a statement which denies any wrongdoing.[4][5][6]

  • Support - a little more info than alt proposal 1, but it is still short and to the point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose If we are going to say that no charges have been filed, we also need to say that the most severe allegation (rape) happened beyond the statute of limitations, and therefore no charges are even possible, otherwise it appears to be a judgement about the allegations. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support this one (as well as my own proposal above) if "by four women" is removed. The reason why is that there's a huge delta between a handshake and looking at a tattoo and actual rape. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge While I agree with you there is a big delta in severity between the allegations, the RS have categorized them all as misconduct or harassment, aren't we required by policy to defer to their description? Thats part of why I think we need the more detailed version, so that people can see that delta/gradient. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Also too short, and missing the key fact that Tyson himself asked for investigation. Just compress the first version above to about 1/2 to 2/3 (at most) its present verbosity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, and it should include the fact that Tyson has cancelled or postponed any upcoming events. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    That fact only came to light after this was proposed. That's why it's missing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    Also, it hasn't been confirmed that the cancellations were a result of the allegations. Byconcept (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to be stated that way; just the fact that the cancellation followed shortly after the publicity of the allegations properly represents the source. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose Too short. If we are going to say no charges have been filed as if that is in any way meaningful, we should add that a rape complaint was filed with the Austin PD. The allegations of 3 of the 4 victims are not criminal so criminal charges are not particularly relevan. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as a last resort but we need a little bit more detail on the allegations. The four accusations are not the same and as a minimum, the first accusation should be described properly. Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Works for me with my comments of support for the previous alternative proposal 1 text. It gives WP:DUE for an unfolding situation to avoid too much WP:RECENTISM while reigning back the proposals that go against the consensus for minimal inclusion. Basically, it avoids the WP:NOTNEWS policy issues of including too much recent events material and sticks to a more encyclopedic approach while linking to sources if finer detail is wanted by readers beyond the current encyclopedic scope. With that, comments on being too short should be more or less adequately addressed policy-wise, especially considering that if more developments come out requiring more details in terms of due weight, this can be expanded upon. We need to stay brief like this if we're going to follow the rough consensus for inclusion from the first part of the RfC though.
Specific details on each the accusations are something better left until after the news settles since detailing each of them right now can get into WP:UNDUE territory pretty easily. It'll probably be much easier to have some distilled content on that when things settle, FOX/NatGeo investigations can be sourced, etc. There's competing aspects within WP:BLP in that regard which this current proposal balances for now. There's potential undue weight in terms of detail, but also qualifying whether some accusations have as much merit as others, seriousness, etc. I don't think that's something we can do right now, so it's better for the events develop first to avoid such recentism mistakes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with ResultingConstant that this version seems to be making a judgment in Wikipedia's voice, and I think SMcCandlish makes a good point about what's missing. XOR'easter (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading comments and because of very recent news, perhaps a tweek of the original:

2b - In late 2018, Tyson was accused of sexual misconduct.[1][2] No criminal charges have been filed, but FOX and National Geographic are investigating the claims.[3] Tyson released a statement which denies any wrongdoing and has encouraged the investigations, but he has cancelled multiple talk engagements because of the controversy.[4][5][6][7]

  • Support This will work for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Only to nit on this one, while the implication the talks were cancelled because of the charges in the RSes, no official reason has been given. I mean, its hard to say it was for anything else, but we should be careful on that. --Masem (t) 22:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I don't particularly think 2b below is a great improvement over 2a since we have to careful about claiming events were cancelled for a reason without attribution, and that addition falls subject to WP:RECENTISM too. If there's some lasting effecting of canceling events rather than a temporary lull in hindsight, then including some information on it would satisfy WP:DUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I prefer this second and shorter version, without going into the graffic details of "drugs and rape". Rowan Forest (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I prefer a short version until we see if anything comes of investigations. I’m still concerned about any mention of a fourth person and the sourcing is very sketchy. Caution is required by WP:BLP, and an encyclopedia has no deadline. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose This story has exceptionally good and massive sourcing. Thisfar too short, not giving enough context for the information given. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dislike this one less than 2a, but it's not enough of an improvement to win me over — still too lacking in detail. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The significance of MeToo affecting the world of science and science communication cannot be overstated. [1] Proposal 2b does not acknowledge the importance of this development, nor the notable coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post. It omits the nature of the accusations, which is an essential piece of information. Proposals 2a and 2b are inadequate to give proper weight to this development. Start from proposal 1 and perhaps trim where absolutely necessary. Serpentine noodle (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Process[edit]

This has become rather messy. A better method might be to list the three proposals and allow editors to provide opinions on all three at once. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Too late, since many people have already commented substantively. And this is in fact a common RfC format for proposing major textual decisions.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You may be right. But, I have seen such polls in controversial areas become so muddled they had to be restarted. O3000 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Because there is a risk we might have to restart things, lets just restart things. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's include the shortest version, and then discuss a better alternative here. Leaving any mention out for any longer than we already have is purposeless. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, that should reduce the time pressure some editors feel. And, it’s hard to come up with a rationale against this. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering that Tyson has cancelled public talks, likely as a result of this, I think the controversy should be minimally mentioned in the article—though we shouldn't actually state that the cancellations were a result of the controversy. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I added the minimum as it's hard for anyone to argue against that given the consensus for inclusion. Discussion will continue on final text. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
If enough folks would like to combine this into an RfC, I've formatted an RfC at: [34]. I won't add this unless folks feel this makes sense as SMcCandlish has a point about lateness. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I am firmly opposed to restarting this discussion with a new RFC as it would be extremely disruptive, and waste everyone's time who has commented above, especially since it seems that a consensus is close to forming (while WP:NOTAVOTE, the numbers are instructive. 10-3/4-5/2.5-2). However, I would not be opposed to closing the original rfc (again, as it seems even AQFK agrees there is consensus for some type of include now) and marking the current discussion as an rfc to try and get some wider input on which text to include. As someone above commented, the current format is not an uncommon RFC format anyway. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming a case study in gaming the system. The proposed paragraph 1 is short. It's sourced to our most reliable sources. Add the paragraph and let the process work out wording. We have already proposed paragraphs and no one has redacted the talk page which would be required if indeed the BLP arguments were valid. They are not. Add the text and lets move on. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 There is absolutely a consensus that the current version is too short. The proposals which match the text currently in the article have more opposes than supports, and only 4 supports. Meanwhile, the longer text is supported by 13 people. Do you really think that a neutral closer would close this discussion as anything other than option 1? You are stonewalling and gaming the system. Stop it. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this. You reopened the RfC claiming that it was closed incorrectly, even though it was essentially a SNOW. You are now essentially claiming this discussion is closed even though you are the most heavily involved editor, and adding your own text to the article. O3000 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Once again you are inaccurately describing things. This seems to be a pattern. You misread the sources, even after having that pointed out multiple times. I did not claim the RFC was closed incorrectly. A Quest For Knowledge did. I agree with your WP:SNOW close, but I re-opened it to allow the process to continue while the issue was being discussed. The text I added was in fact written by Masem (although it is obviously influenced by my proposal). I am not claiming this discussion is closed. I am more than happy to let more discussion continue. But it is very WP:SNOW obvious that a longer version is preferred by almost everyone. Consensus is not unanimity, and yes there is consensus currently. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Your reopen was incorrect as it was not according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and the eventual close challenge ruled the close was valid. Adding text during discussion of the text is also incorrect. And please avoid comments like This seems to be a pattern. Patience. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you think this discussion is going to close as anything other than option 1. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The process has been a prime example of how not to gain consensus. There have been over a dozen attacks. (It seems anyone with BLP concerns must be a “fanboy”.) The responses to the proposals are difficult to evaluate as some folks !voted on multiple and some felt they shouldn’t. Those suggesting the text is too short are in two different camps: one wanting more salacious detail and one wanting more detail on the subject’s response. Many comments did not include policy cites. Meanwhile, the story is fading and the subject has yet to receive a suspension or termination. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to piggyback on your comment, it's really difficult for those claiming it's just fanboys defending Tyson to make that stick even if that was appropriate use of the talk apge (and also forgetting this page is under discretionary sanctions for such personal attacks) considering how even most of the people who initially didn't want to include at this time, etc. have given a variety of ways to address this content-wise in terms of policy, cautioned about recentism, etc. Just a reminder to those throwing those accusations out there that such commenters need to be ignored by the closer, so it's not helping the talk page one bit and is risking sanctions to boot.
In terms of process as a more general comment than individual reply, the closer will evaluate the policy-based arguments of the proposals in light of the discussion on inclusion at all. Comments with a simple support/oppose don't get "counted" in WP:CONSENSUS, nor does counting !votes help a whole lot given the policy on it either. That'll all happen when the 30 days are up. There's no rush to try to end the RfC earlier, especially since things are still being fleshed out and commented on by those finding the RfC. Plus, waiting increases the likelihood of new sources coming out that help alleviate some of the WP:RECENTISM issues inherent with this type of topic. Not rushing helps all "sides" in the dispute here, which is in part why RfCs exist. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no RFC running right now. There is a discussion. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
On a humorous note, I’ve never seen any of Tyson’s shows or lectures, and have never been to Hayden Planetarium, despite living less than two miles away during his entire tenure. So, I’d make a pretty bad fan. O3000 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Final draft text 2[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal "Final draft text" has the most support and there have not been any votes in several days. If there are no valid reasons stated as to why Final draft text should not be instated despite consensus, I will take the initiative to add it in tonight or tomorrow. Thanks, all ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it’s dropped out of the news, his TV and radio shows continue, he is still head of the Hayden Planetarium, and he has three appearances scheduled. I don’t understand the level of detail. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Tyson's still head of Hayden Planetarium.
And Trump's still president.
And Kavanaugh is still a supreme court justice.
Yet allegations of sexual misconduct and falsehoods remain on their WP pages. And rightly so.
O3000's argument seems to be if someone gets away with something, it's not wiki-worthy. I very much disagree. But if this is indeed a Wikipedia criteria, it should be applied to Trump and Kavanaugh as well as Tyson.
And if not, Tyson's numerous falsehoods should also be included in his Wikipedia article as well as noting allegations of sexual misconduct in detail.HopDavid (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an absolutely terrible and incorrect view of developing pages about BLPs and in an encyclopedic fashion. And we've already determined that these "falsehoods" were misstatements that Tyson since corrected and apologized for misstatements. WP is not a court of public opinion and needs to avoid reflecting the immediate public opinion when, at the end of the day, that opinion may no longer matter (as possibly here in the case of Tyson). Asking us to treat allegations the "same" for all is absolutely inappropriate. There are different levels of such. --Masem (t) 18:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The criteria O3000 used was that Tyson still holds his job. And the same is true of Trump and Kavanaugh.
Tyson's admission and apology does not change the fact he repeatedly slammed a public figure with a false story. Year after year after year over a period of eight years.
And the Bush and Star Names story isn't the only false story Tyson has told. By his own admission he acknowledges that Ghazali never wrote that math is the work of the devil. Tyson's cautionary tales against religion are based on invented histories. Most of his falsehoods he has not acknowledged or apologized for.HopDavid (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
By your username , the name of that blog, and names on that blog, there might be some conflict of interest here. We certainly aren't going to entertain BP violations that stem from user blogs. And more from user blogs that may belong to WP editors. If you have an axe to grind with your opinion of Tyson, WP is not the place for that. --Masem (t) 07:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Zero Serenity was a prominent voice in earlier debates on this talk page. And he has an opinionated blog. I dare say everyone has opinions and preconceived notions. If that were the criteria, most if not all Wikipedia editors would be disqualified.
The criteria should be the evidence provided to support claims. I provide plenty of citations and evidence on my page Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Tyson routinely botches basic math and science, however this is harmless bull shitting. A more serious offense is his inventing histories to support his political talking points.
Wikipedia editors sympathetic to Tyson will cite RS. How many of Tyson's flubs have appeared in major news outlets? Well the Bush and Star Names tall tale did appear in many outlets. Forbes and the Washington Post picked up the story on Tyson's ignorance in biology.
Unfortunately most of Tyson's flubs are too dry and esoteric to appeal to the average reader. So they are unlikely to surface in major news outlets. They are verifiable though.
A complete account of Tyson should acknowledge he is a source of misinformation.HopDavid (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
We are not turning this into a hit piece. Please stop trying to push things in that direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Rather you would turn this into a fluff piece with nothing but praise for Tyson. You would even delete the minimal mention of allegations of sexual misconduct if you could.
Wikipedia misinforms when it presents an incomplete and lopsided portrait of TysonHopDavid (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
WP looks at the long-term view of a topic. Allegations of sexual misconduct that go nowhere and have no long-term effect on a person's life do not need to be documented in an encyclopedic article. That's the whole point of BLP, NOT#NEWS, and RECENTISM. If the allegations did have a significant effect on his life, even if they proved to not be true (as the case was for Kavanaugh's nomination process), then we can add them. But so far, not one iota of significant change has happened with Tyson's career. --Masem (t) 19:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Masem) HopDavid, please do not misrepresent my opinions and motives. I have made it clear that I actually do support coverage slightly (but not excessively) larger than what is currently in the article on the subject of the allegations. What you are trying to do is raise a completely separate issue. You want to make out that he is generally a sloppy scientist. That is not what we are discussing here and this discussion is already overcomplicated enough. It is clear from that January 2016 blog post of yours (that you linked to) that you have a longstanding grudge against Tyson which pre-dates the recent allegations. That grudge should not be pursued in this thread. It is A) your personal issue and B) nothing to do with the allegations we are discussing here. If you really dislike Tyson so much then why are you distracting from discussion of covering serious allegations against him with much more minor stuff about him making some mistakes in public lectures and TV programmes? Now would be a really good time to drop that stick. Please don't push it until somebody requests a topic ban. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Tyson has invented histories to support his political talking points and cautionary tales against religion. This is not minor stuff.
Putting the moves on a subordinate is shameful, yes. But in my opinion attempting to rewrite history is a more serious offense. In the long run bad history can be very damaging. It is shameful Wikipedia wants to censor this and push it down the memory hole.HopDavid (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Continuing to make these assertions as a WP editor towards a BLP, given everything we know, is pushing you into an single-purpose account and could lead to you being blocked. Unless you have RSes that make these assertions, you need to stop bringing these up. --Masem (t) 04:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
There can be (and is) consensus, despite your lack of understanding or agreement. Consensus is not unanimity. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to concur there was sufficient weight of opinions expressed to be a consensus that the final draft text should be included. As @HopDavid: said, just because something is no longer on the front page does not mean it is suddenly no longer relevant. This is clearly an ongoing issue and the text should be included. I agree with @ResultingConstant: that consensus is not unanimity. To @Masem: I say that we must indeed treat all allegations exactly the same. For otherwise we are expressing a bias. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I say that we must indeed treat all allegations exactly the same. Can you expand on this thought? Would that mean we give the same imprimatur to the NYTimes and Son of Sam? O3000 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you back to the RS argument again? FYI the NYTimes carried the allegations of sexual misconduct. And they also carried the story of Tyson's false accusations against President Bush. You may liken Sean Davis to the Son of Sam. But Tyson has admitted his story was false. You are damaging your own credibility here.
Now back to treating people the same. You argue that Tyson kept his job therefore WP shouldn't run bad stuff about him. However Trump and Kavanaugh also kept their jobs. And they're living persons. HopDavid (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
You continue, time and again, to link to articles about Bush which has absolutely nothing to do with this section. And it now appears that you have a personal attack blog focusing on the subject of this BLP. As I said on your TP, your edits consistently fail to assume good faith amounting to personal attacks. This is contrary to WP:5P4 and does not engender consensus building.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Questioning the bias of editors with whom you have a disagreement is ironic considering you run a attack blog against the subject and apparently have personally interacted with him on your blog. O3000 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Added. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

From an admin standpoint, the !votes above would normally be treated as no consensus for action, it is too split in policy reasons. From a practical view O3000 is right in that this story has died out, though with the holidays, the investigations may still be in progress. --Masem (t) 15:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Masem An RFC has already been closed showing consensus for inclusion, this was merely to decide which version to include. Which version has the strongest support? ResultingConstant (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That choice of which text to include is what I am discussing, not whether to include or not. The strongest support to include in that basis is the minimal one. --Masem (t) 16:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all proposals agree on inclusion of at least minimal text. That’s all I see as a consensus. But, some editors keep forcing more detail into the article. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: - where are you getting that from? The Final Draft Text has 13 supports, 6 opposes and 1 neutral. Alternate 1 has 4 support and 7 oppose. Alternate 2 has 3 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Alternate 3 has 3 support and 3 oppose. Therefore, I concluded that the final draft text has the most support, as it does. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: I believe you undercounted the support for proposal 1. I see at least 14 supports. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right! I count 13, as well as one "support the gist but too detailed" which I counted as neutral. I also recounted and there are actually 6 opposes, not 5. Still, the same 'gist' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Please give WP:CONSENSUS policy a read rather than WP:!VOTE counting. I agree with Masem that another RfC would probably be closed as no consensus on specific text given the above !votes and properly weighing them policy-wise, (the more minimal proposals could maybe get marginal consensus), but no one should be able to claim consensus on the non-consensus version I just had to revert. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

::One proposal got more support than the others. There were no new votes for over a week. The most supported text was instituted after no valid objection. It's unclear how this could have been done more by the book. Consensus does not mean unanimity. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No version has more support than another, with the only slight edge to a reduced statment. No consensus means we keep the status quo, particularly with·BLP. --Masem (t) 19:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Masem? Do you not see that one proposal has 13 supports and the others have significantly less? And there is no status quo - a single sentence was added after the RfC supported conclusion, as a stand-in until there could be consensus on which text proposal to add. I am very confused what you are looking at here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think what he's saying is that a full version got 13 supports and several different types of minimal versions got 10 supports If all you're doing is counting, that makes it tough to change the status quo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): - thank you for the explanation. But again, there is no status quo. The single sentence was added as a stand-in prior to the completion of discussion re which text to include. The single sentence was never intended to remain in the article long-term. Never mind that one version got more support than the others, and opposes to each proposal were people voting support for another proposal. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Indeed. WP:ONUS is still very much in effect, so no one should be edit warring back in these versions beyond the status quo until consensus is gained on something else. There's nothing here that would be such obvious consensus that someone could unilaterally add it at this point.
As a reminder to everyone, this page is under BLP discretionary sanctions. If we get continued problems with edit warring without gaining talk page consensus, we're likely looking at full protection on this page again or more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we involve arbitration or some third-party mechanism here? Apparently everyone is ignoring what actually occurred on this talk page the past several weeks. No one unilaterally decided anything, it's called applying consensus. I'm not sure what other conclusion could have been arrived at. And stop threatening sanctions, you have no grounds at all. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I already discussed casting aspersions issues with you on your talk page, but continued edit warring without gaining consensus is why sanctions can also be invoked. Please undo your edit-warring and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit first to follow onus policy so others don't have to undo it for you.
You're making it very clear you're not familiar with how consensus policy works on Wikipedia, so please carefully read that policy as the way you are trying to apply it here is not how it is done. We already had to protect the page because people were trying to push in their preferred version without gaining consensus, and we're going down again now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I admit it. I am completely confused by where we have got to. The text currently in the article seems OK to me, although maybe less so than some of the previous suggestions. Anyway, I don't think we are getting anywhere letting this thread spiral into chaos. Here is what I recommend:

  1. Decide whether there is an actual proposal being discussed here.
  2. If there is then state that proposal clearly in an RFC.
  3. Follow the RFC process and resist attempts to derail this into general chit chat about Tyson.
  4. See whether the proposal is accepted and abide by the result.

--DanielRigal (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The last I saw was that we had 13 editors wanting to expand the section and 10 editors wanting some version of minimal mention (as we have now). Including some text was endorsed but no consensus was seen for more than is included now. With everything died down, I guess we are waiting to see if things pick up (like allegations turning into lawsuits, firings, etc). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Since there is an RFC with consensus to include, and the small version as added without prejudice while discussion is ongoing, why is the choice with less support winning? There is no status quo. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

editing wikipedia to be agnostic[edit]

In the section on spiritual views, the article talks about Tyson editing the article to change his views to be listed as agnostic. Very meta. While this fact may be notable (although I think the extensive quote may be undue), I think our introductory text should be changed, but I'm not sure how. Additionally, in the same interview with Big Think, Tyson mentioned that he edited Wikipedia's entry on him to include the fact that he is an agnostic. "editing wikipedia's entry" is really awkward, since that text is in fact ON wikipedia's entry. Its like referring to yourself in the 3rd person. Thoughts.? ResultingConstant (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)