Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Request for comment (RfC)

How, exactly, should we cover the the allegations of sexual misconduct against Neil deGrasse Tyson?  Swarm  {talk}  19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Should the allegations be included?

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.

---

Should the allegations of sexual misconduct reported in the Washington Post [1][2], New York Times [3], and other reliable sources be included in the biography of astrophysicist Neil Tyson?

17:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpentine noodle (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, pending the outcome of the investigations by Fox/National Geographic, or some other event that affects his career. If the investigatons determine no validity to the accusations, we shouldn't include them. Any other result that give weight that the accusations were valid, we should add it then. --Masem (t) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It has been extensively covered and he has made official statements in regards to them. Impact on him or his career is not relevant to deciding if it should be in the article. Also validity of accusations is also not relevant and a little disturbing to be honest. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not at this time as it violates multiple policies as extensively discussed in previous sections regardless of the amount of people that want to include it currently. Editors wanting mention seem to be forgetting WP:DUE and WP:ONUS policy that simply because something is reported on sources does not mean it's encyclopedic and guaranteed inclusion. Not to mention that it's WP:RECENTISM. There isn't lasting significant established yet, though that can change if the investigation does conclude something. the These are basically unsubstantiated allegations at this point that only got brief media attention. This RfC is pretty premature with all that in mind, and forgetting that WP:NOTNEWS policy is very clear that we are an encyclopedia, not a place for the latest breaking news that may or may not have lasting significance for the BLP due to unfolding events (i.e., WP:CRYSTAL). Not to drop the alphabet soup on this, but there is so much in the previous conversations weighing against inclusion at this time that this RfC or just renewing the above conversations shouldn't have even been considered until a later time with more information than the small unencyclopedic amount we have now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• NoEchoing Kingofaces43's and Masem's arguments, it is premature to make edits to a BLP based on hot-off-the-presses allegations, even if those allegations are repeated in reliable sources. We need to wait until the dust settles.The minimal inclusion proposal seems appropriate _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)18:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not Yet 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, we should err on the side of caution. Let's wait and see how this plays out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not to go into much crystal territory but what would you expect to change with time? A credible accusation was made and he denied it. More could be added later if the investigations show anything and the like but I am not sure what would change with the facts on the ground at the moment. I also am not see anythinghing that would run afoul of BLP, besides WP:PUBLICFIGURE. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been a large number of such allegations against high profile individuals lately. In the majority (I think) of recent cases, the accused’s career was affected, usually by a resignation/termination. We haven’t seen that here. I’d feel more comfortable with some sort of closure. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Lots of things: Criminal charges, civil trial, cancellation of Season 3 of Cosmos, resignation of Director of the Hayden Planetarium, etc.. If none of those things happen, do the allegations dog him the rest of his career or are they largely forgotten? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if none of those things happen, it's still an event in his career which received wide coverage, his own attention, and will very likely lead to further reports with (possibly inconclusive) outcome. A glance at Johnny Depp's article shows paragraphs of allegations from Amber Heard, also largely unverified, but probably represented on the site with less scrutiny because she's famous. Please note my suggestion for #Minimal inclusion, which is all this type of information merits. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We need to be looking at this from a long-term point of view, not the "news of the moment" one. Imagine, fully hypothetically, that some editor found that there was coverage of allegations made against Carl Sagan in 197x, that was covered in the news for a few weeks, but the allegations never were validated to be true, and there was nothing else of them ever mentioned in RSes since. Would we include that on Sagan's article. The answer should clearly be "no", it would clearly be undue. Unfortunately, today, we have exponentially more news coverage, and that creates undue weight on these types of charges, particularly in the current #MeToo environment. We need to really wait until we know how this pans out for Tyson. (And the stuff with Depp and Heard actually affected Depp's life (he was briefly married to her) so of course that needs to be included there). --Masem (t) 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If RS published such stories about Sagan, even if they ended up leading nowhere, but were not actually discredited, then they should be included. As for the Depp example, the divorce itself is relevant but the domestic dispute details are out of proportion. If Wikipedia finds that information, sourcing People and Vanity Fair worthy of inclusion, then at least a mention of what HuffPost & Variety has published regarding Tyson is warranted. Looking at this objectively, it shows editor bias to pretend such reporting hasn't happened and doesn't affect him biographically. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

With Depp, there was a lawsuit and resulting settlement. That's a major impact on Depp. There might be too much about it, but including it is fully in line with BLP and the argument here. And in the hypothetic, even if the claims were never discredited, but otherwise had no impact on his future career, we wouldn't include it. Trying to include it now without knowing how much of an impact it will have is being far too speculative, and BLP demands we use caution. --Masem (t) 22:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng - You write that a "credible accusation" was made, but on what basis exactly are any of the accusations to be considered "credible"???

And, conversely, on what basis would you (or anyone else who employs the now-popular "credible accusation" rhetoric) decide that an allegation was NOT credible? Would it have to be an allegation which was clearly made as a joke or satire?...

To be quite frank, NONE of the allegations made against him are credible at all. Yet it seems there's no established standard for determining whether or not an allegation is in fact credible. Our society today just automatically labels ALL allegations against public figures as "credible," and on that basis alone we can stomp all over their reputations, smear and slander them, edit their Wikipedia bios to include a section about "sexual misconduct allegations," even call for their firing or the torpedoing of their appointments.

I don't even particularly like Tyson. I often find him rather pompous and annoying, but I'll still call for basic decency in the way he's treated as a public figure...and that means not permanently sullying his Wiki article with salacious tabloid click-bait BS! -2003:CA:870D:D800:E021:9E8A:9C8:3CBC (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Probably yes but only very briefly and with great attention to NPOV. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". This situation is an exact match to the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.151.79 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely. However, it shouldn't be in the lede and he should not be labeled anything that has not yet been proven. The article should simply state he is accused, that it was published in reputable media, and that he has offered a public explanation for his behaviour. Ifnord (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. For reasons I stated ad nauseum above. It's been reported, he's acknowledged the allegations, there is a formal investigation - what more could you possible need? A federal indictment? At least a mention of it should be featured in the article. I have a hard time understanding why it should be left out. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• No, at this time. First, to the new editor (just a few days old) posting this RfC, thank you for posting your request, and welcome to Wikipedia. According to the sources you provided, there are actually 3 separate "allegations". and only one of them is "sexual misconduct" - the alleged drugging and rape. One of them is described as "inappropriate behavior" - looking under the dress strap, in a room full of party guests and in front of a photographer, to discern if a solar system tattoo included Pluto. And the third is described as making a subordinate employee feel "uncomfortable" with a "10-second handshake", and comments that "you're too distracting" and "if I [do hug you], I'll just want more". At present, the 34-year old rape charge is unsubstantiated, and the "looking under a dress strap" and "suggestive comments that if interpreted one way might seem creepy" allegations don't yet amount to encyclopedic information. However, and as a fervent supporter of the long-overdue #metoo movement, I can't stress strongly enough that if the "rape" allegation is eventually supported by actual evidence, or if the "uncomfortable" feelings by a subordinate employee are shown to be caused by legitimately inappropriate advances, a reasonable argument could be made for inclusion. At present, however, all we have are allegations, which do not rise to the level of "encyclopedic information", which is what Wikipedia strives to convey. We should wait for the various employers and associates of Tyson to complete their review of the allegations, and we should wait for the various legitimate news organizations to finish pestering the involved parties for additional information, before we consider what to add to this biographical article. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes in the same manner that the Aziz Ansari allegations/claim/contretemps was reported in RS and became a big deal. Not particularly clear what the big difference is. [Redact comment making an evaluation of the allegations of themselves.] Don't play it up. Don't put it in the lead. But not having even a sentence doesn't look good.Happy monsoon day 04:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At least with Ansari, the claims led to wider discussion on the nature of #MeToo beyond just Ansari; there might be something of the same for Tyson's case here, but there's nothing yet established that wold be appropriate or creating a similar debate. --Masem (t) 14:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Good point. So maybe we wait a bit longer for the fallout. At the same time, if there was not the wider discussion it's likely they would still appear just because they stirred up enough RS. Our process lacks judgement in that sense. Something could be quite without merit, but we defer to RS to determine what constitutes merit.Happy monsoon day 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

*Yes - a fourth woman has now come forward with allegations against Tyson [4]. Why is this article being whitewashed in this manner? So many editors seem to be trying very hard to keep this information out, what's going on? IAFIS (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE O3000 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Odd article. It goes into great depth on the three allegations regurgitating Patheos. Then it has one paragraph on a fourth person. But, it appears solely based on an email from an unknown source that was “shared” with Buzzfeed. No name, no details, no further mention that I see. This is now being repeated by a bunch of non-RS citing Buzzfeed. If Buzzfeed is considered RS, that should be reviewed (again). O3000 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never been much of a fan of Buzzfeed News, but for some reason they do keep getting confirmed at RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hitting on someone and sexual harassment are two different things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not know about this situation but I will say it certainly can be the same thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes These allegations are clearly having some effect on his career and thus deserve mention. We should also be fair to Tyson, neither ignoring the allegations, as we never ignored allegations against other people accused of sexual misconduct, nor stating that the allegations are true.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
• Yes These allegations have been widely reported by reputable sources and, echoing opinions above, are having an effect on his career (I believe the network is investigating, that constitutes a career effect imo). With other celebrities such as Spacey the allegations were added to their pages almost immediately. Irandill (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how his career has been affected at this point. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Irandill: You're comparing two different situations. 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.[5] Third, his movie, The Gore Vidal, was canceled.[6] Fourth, his scenes in All the Money in the World were cut from the film.[7] These are huge and significant changes to his life and career. Nothing remotely equivalent has happened with Tyson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

See Aziz Ansari and Michael Douglas articles for better comparisons to this matter. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: My point though is that Spacey's page was updated almost immediately when the stories broke regarding the allegations. The things you listed re Spacey took time to occur, but his page was updated prior to this fallout. Irandill (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Editors should not be doing that in general. That said, in Spacey's case, it was 4-5 days from first allegation to first major impact on his career (House of Cards being reworked w/o him); that's the point it should have been posted, not on the Oct 29 when the first allegation landed. But in this case, for Tyson, we've still yet to see any type of needle wiggle on the status of his career. --Masem (t) 15:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the above kind of gets into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. This is where editors saying include (especially those casting aspersions saying it's just because those saying not include like Tyson too much) really need to pay more attention to what's being written. I'm not aware of anyone outright saying do not include under no conditions, but instead it's only include if WP:DUE is satisfied while keeping WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONUS in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• INCLUDE The standard of "not convicted and no major effect on his career" is nowhere in policy. It is a made up standard being used by those to protect someone they like. BLP and NPOV repeatedly say to follow the sources, and to include informational proportional to its coverage in reliable sources. This story has now been covered repeatedly by every major outlet in the US, and many international outlets. It has got to be one of the most covered portions of Tyson's life at this point The article ius full of trivia gleaned from passing references in various articles, WP:DUE is a joke here. . Coverage has been sustained since the story broke, so all of the "wait a week and see" people are just moving their goal posts. Here are a few of the notable recent sources. [8] [9] [10]ResultingConstant (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet more WP:ASPERSIONS that discounts such a !vote at the close. Keep in mind that WP:NOTNEWS is policy as well as WP:DUE (which isn't a joke policy). We have WikiNews for stuff like that. So far, we aren't getting anything of lasting encyclopedic merit, which is a much higher bar than simply being reported in sources for a short while. Wikipedia is supposed to be "behind the ball" and wait for events the unfold. As it stands currently, we can't really pass a metric like WP:10 year test without more substantiating information. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

My point was that the way WP:DUE is being applied here is a joke. A standard is being invented here to protect an icon, that is not applied anywhere else. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes--this is widely reported by now. But in very careful terms. The coverage in highly reliable sources is just about everywhere right now. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. By the time this RfC is closed, this will no longer be a BLP issue, especially considering he's denied it publicly. Since he has denied it publicly, it's not covered by BLP as much. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 21:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Four women have stepped forward to describe the alleged harm to their own careers (see The Atlantic for that perspective). Fox and National Geographic have opened an investigation, and he has made a public statement. Wikipedia's failure to mention any of this is out of step with the widespread coverage. This is not a borderline-notable figure where we would exercise caution in case the allegations overwhelm the biography. We should be guided by WP:BLP (WP:PUBLICFIGURE): "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—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - At this point coverage is adequate. But, I’m not comfortable with the vague, unknown fourth person sourced only to an email Buzzfeed say they saw, but didn’t receive directly. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes include per my edit request from days ago. The alleged rape has a police report. Two women have documented harm and impact to their careers. A fourth has come forward. In addition to Fox and Cosmos, his other employer Hayden Planetarium is conducting an investigation. Coverage is widespread and in what we consider our most reliable sources. 98.165.105.12 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - but as DanielRigal said above, it should be very brief and to the point (maybe one or two sentences). Whether it's Trump, George Takei, Richard Dreyfuss or Tyson, its making the news cycle just with the accusations. Although I have to admit that some accusations such as Mariah Carey's sexual assault accusation has not made it into the article for some reason. But the Dustin Hoffman accusation actually made it into the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Minimal only. Just because someone made an allegation doesn't mean its true.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. While the existence of allegations does not prove the allegations, there is substantial coverage o this now, and the data form multiple cases and jurisdictions clearly show that such allegations are sufficiently unlikely to be false as to overwhelm the normally conservative approach of WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - WP doesn't have any "innocent until proven guilty" clauses. If high quality sources like WaPo and NYT thought it worth mentioning, I don't see why we wouldn't. Obviously there a WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP concerns, but a single sentence wouldn't be an issue. NickCT (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - So when is the edit coming up? True or not, Forbes, National Geographic have discussed it. It's disingenuous to not include a line or two in his career or personal life section considering Neil himself has addressed it and has been cancelling public speeches because of it (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/arts-and-theater/the-artistic-type/os-et-neil-degrasse-tyson-orlando-cancel-20181212-story.html). It's undeniably a part of his career at this point and its dishonest to not have at least a mention of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byconcept (talk • contribs) 09:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. I personally like the guy and don't think the allegations are so serious, however if it was reported in published media, we should state it so in the article. If any new development happens we can edit the section. Bilseric (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: widespread media coverage, multiple independent accusations and acknowledgement by both Tyson and some of the channels he works for. As for length, I don't like any of the (current) proposals below; I would expect maybe 3 sentences on the topic, longer than the alternative proposal 2 and shorter than the first proposed text (which violates WP:UNDUE by a mile). Describe the first allegation, note that there have been three others and comment on Tyson's denials and the channels' investigations. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes — there's more than enough reliable sourcing to build a statement upon. Moreover, ResultingConstant makes an important point that The standard of "not convicted and no major effect on his career" is nowhere in policy. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 16 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.

RfC Consensus text

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.

---

Proposed addition to comply with RfC consensus

In November 2018, the producers of Cosmos announced they were investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against Tyson that were first reported on the website Patheos and subsequently covered by the Washington Post and others. The oldest allegation was that Tyson had raped musician Tchiya Amet when they were both graduate students. Dr. Katelyn N. Allers of Bucknell University said Tyson groped her in 2009, while Tyson's former productio assistant on Cosmos, Ashley Walton, said that she quit her job because Tyson repeatedly sexually harassed her. Tyson confirmed a relationship with Amet, meeting Allers and being friendly with Walton but denied any misconduct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk • contribs) 

References

At this point I don't think we need to follow the sourcing of the original story. Everybody has covered it, and the alleged victims have been independently interviewed by other sources. We can just attribute the allegations directly to accusers. (strike first sentence starting at "that were first reported). The level of detail of who broke the story and how it developed from there is more appropriate for an event article (if one were to be created) and is not needed for the BLP. for the last sentence, I think we should include more detail of Tyson's denials, in that (with the exception of the rape accusation) he admits to the basic facts of the events as described by the accusers, and indeed there is photographic and other evidence to confirm that some of the events took place, but interprets the meaning/intent of those actions differently. (This is not OR, many RS have done this analysis at this point). This text also completely omits the 4th accuser. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing from Patheos is important - its identifying whom these women spoke to on the charges (on two separate occasions too). They didn't approach WaPost, NYtimes, etc, they went to this Christian website. That could mean a lot of things, nothing we can verify or talk about, and all we can do is let the reader decide that, but omitting Patheos would be wrong.

Also, there absolutely needs to be mention of Fox/NatGeo' investigation into the claims. --Masem (t) 15:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Masem writes: "...they went to this Christian website. That could mean a lot of things,..." It means you're comfortable with making assertions without exercising due diligence. Patheos is home to Hemant Mehta's Friendly Atheist blog. The Patheos article article was written by David G. McAfee, also an atheist. See McAfee's Disproving Christianity: Refuting the World's Most Followed Religion.HopDavid (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: This is mostly moot since I have conceded to include Patheos wording, but Patheos is not a Christian website, it is a site that discusses all religions and spiritualities,and beliefs and the particular subsection this was published in is the skeptic/agnostic/athiest, and McAffee (the author) has written books like "Mom, Dad, I’m an Atheist: The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-believer". ResultingConstant (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is my proposal. I think the sentence on Watson needs work - I think some of the details of the allegation are important for context of the accusation, but it seems a bit run-on. I also wouldn't be opposed to putting in specific responses/quotes from tyson on each of the accusations of others think that is appropriate

@Masem: You are incorrect. Patheos **published** the story, but Amet **went** to many sources, and was ignored, see this line from Buzzfeed For years, Amet had been trying to make the world listen to her account of a powerful man who had once assaulted her and derailed her life. Mainstream publications, including BuzzFeed News, were unable to adequately corroborate the events from so long ago, and did not publish her allegations.. Vox also discusses this aspect in detail. The other two went to Patheos because the story was published there and they were corroborating it. I think that level of detail is probably too much (and too tangental) for Tyson's BLP (though appropriate for a WP:EVENT article), but if we are going to go down the road of implying something about the sourcing, it will be necessary to give the full picture. All of the accusers have now independently told their stories to other sources including Buzzfeed, Vox, etc. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In late 2018, Tyson was accused by four women of sexual misconduct. Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her in 1984 when they were graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin; El Maat had makign these allegations since 2010, without traction. Katelyn Allers said that Tyson inappropriately touched her and looked under the shoulder of her dress to examine her tattoo during a photo-op. Ashley Watson was Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, and said that Tyson invited her over to his home for wine and cheese, took off his shirt, asked her about "release", said she was "too distracting", and made her uncomfortable with other things he said and did; Allers resigned from her position two days later. An unnamed fourth woman said that at an office holiday party, Tyson made inappropriate comments towards her and asked her to come back to his office with him. Tyson wrote a response saying that he had had an intimate relationship with El Maat during school, but denied raping her; El Maat says they were not in any relationship. On the Allers and Watson allegations, Tyson corroborated many of the basic facts of their stories, but said that his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense and asked for an investigation into the accusations. Fox and National Geographic, the producers and broadcasters of Cosmos, and The American Museum of Natural History announced that they were conducting an investigation into the accusations.

References

Sourcing for a “fourth woman” is extremely weak. I think it should be omitted unless something else appears on this. I also agree with Masem on Patheos as most of the sourcing in RS derived from their article. O3000 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm in the minority about the inclusion at this point, but accepting that: at this point, where nothing has happened and Fox/NG are still investigating, that gets far too much detail about the accusations. That Amet El Maat claimed rape, and that the other two claimed inappropriate sexual advances should be sufficient at this point (and I agree the 4th shouldn't be mentioned since very few seem to consider that close to credible). I will still assert that Patheos' role here is important, particularly if as you've just said, they were the only ones to take Amet El Maat's claims at the start. The fact that ohter sources only picked it up after the two others came to Patheos has implicit factors to this story. --Masem (t) 16:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I will compromise on the inclusion of Patheos. But I disagree on the 4th being weakly sourced. Yes, not as many sources report that aspect, but that is because that aspect came out after the initial spike. Buzzfeed (used in my proposal) "Nobody Believed Neil deGrasse Tyson's First Accuser. Now There Are Three More.", , The atlantic [11], Scientific American [12], USA Today [13], essence, complex, bet, forbes, fox (Tyson's employer), and more. Thats not weakly sourced. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In late 2018, Tyson was accused by four women of sexual misconduct in a story originally broken by Patheos and subsequently widely covered in the media. Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her in 1984 when they were graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin. Katelyn Allers said that Tyson inappropriately touched her and looked under the shoulder of her dress to examine her tattoo during a photo-op. Ashley Watson was Tyson's assistant on Cosmos and described inappropriate sexual advances at Tyson's home; Allers resigned from her position two days after the alleged incident. An unnamed fourth woman said that at an office holiday party, Tyson made inappropriate comments towards her and asked her to come back to his office with him. Tyson wrote a response saying that he had had an intimate relationship with El Maat during school, but denied raping her; El Maat says they were not in any relationship. On the Allers and Watson allegations, Tyson corroborated many of the basic facts of their stories, but said that his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense and asked for an investigation into the accusations. Fox and National Geographic, the producers and broadcasters of Cosmos, and The American Museum of Natural History announced that they were conducting an investigation into the accusations.

References

Is Complex Magazine RS? And, no one has published the actual email in which the fourth woman made allegations. Do we know that this was “sexual misconduct”? We’re trusting Buzzfeed, and they’re trusting whomever showed them the email, who’s trusting that the unnamed woman sent the email. This sounds like a game of Chinese whispers. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is trusting the accuser, who showed them her own email. that is not a game of telephone. Its the same as any other reported trusting their source. For our purposes, it is alleged sexual misconduct, because the sources describe this allegation in the same context as the other accusations and the general umbrella term used by the sources is "sexual misconduct". As for complex, discount it of you want, the rest are strong enough to support it. Now a fourth woman has told BuzzFeed News her experience of sexual harassment from Tyson. In January 2010, she recalled, she joined her then-boyfriend at a holiday party for employees of the American Museum of Natural History. Tyson, its most famous employee, drunkenly approached her, she said, making sexual jokes and propositioning her to join him alone in his office. In a 2014 email shared with BuzzFeed News, she described the incident to her own employer in order to shoot down a proposed collaboration with Tyson.

So, there’s one source, Buzzfeed, which is using one source, unnamed, showing them an email from another source, unnamed, and we don’t actually know what it said. This is a BLP and I wouldn’t use that in a non-BLP. If the other three didn’t exist, we couldn’t use this. So, we can’t use this to support the other three. Let’s use the allegations that are supported by RS that directly spoke with the accusers. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Let’s use the allegations that are supported by RS that directly spoke with the accusers I agree. so lets use buzzfeed who directly talked to the 4th accuser - as is obvious from reading the quote above. Buzzfeed is using one source (A) who is they know but did not name, and A showed them an email written by A, and Buzzfeed described the content of that email for us. That is an exceptionally common pattern for new sources and wikipedia. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed did not speak to the accuser. They saw an email, they claim. And Buzzfeed itself is a sketchy source. Not for a BLP. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Now a fourth woman has told BuzzFeed News her experience" I'm not sure how you can repeatedly misread that. BuzzFeed News received a 2016 National Magazine Award in the category of Public Interest.[38] Other awards won by BuzzFeed journalists include a 2014 National Press Foundation award,[39] 2015 Sidney Award,[40] 2017 British Journalism Award,[41] and 2018 George Polk Award.[42] In addition, journalist Chris Hamby was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting.[43] BuzzFeed News is a member of the White House press corps.[44]. and the particular author of this story Azeen Ghorayshi has reported extensively on harassment in science. She got her bachelor’s degree at UC Berkeley, where she studied molecular and cellular biology, and a master’s in science communication from Imperial College London. She has previously written for the Guardian, Newsweek, New Scientist, Wired UK, Nautilus, and Mother Jones. Ghorayshi won both the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award and the Clark/Payne Award for young science journalists, and was a finalist in the Livingston Award’s national reporting category for her reporting on sexual harassment in science. and https://nationalpress.org/award-winner/azeen-ghorayshi/ keep moving those goalposts. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• • (Only to point out that Buzzfeed News is considered an RS for BLP, where as Buzzfeed (sans "News") is not if the material is contentious). --Masem (t) 18:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Just to clarify, this story is from BuzzfeedNews, so are you agreeing that this is reliably sourced? (your other objections notwithstanding)ResultingConstant (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed the RS is there, just up in the air in whether inclusion is needed at this time. --Masem (t) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just a quick question, where would we add this information? Would it be its own section or put in the personal life section? PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hrm, personally I think a second level section under career would be the best place. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal life. We still have no info that his career is affected. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I was debating which to answer. So far it is not affected true, but the investigation is from his employers, and with the exception of the oldest event, all of the allegations involve employees or place of work. But I can see the argument either way. My main concern with Personal life is that that section is currently so short (although I think much of the fluff elsewhere in the article could be moved into personal life to balance it better) ResultingConstant (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This type of logic is why I'd rather wait to see before including it if at all, but on the basis there is support to include it, it should be left at personal life until it has an impact on his career. It can be moved if that happens. --Masem (t) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This Forbes article [14] provides reference for listing 4 victims. Also, it lists 2 employers investigating misconduct as well as highlighting how his income is dependent on reputation. His employers doing formal investigations and publicly acknowledging it is a direct impact to his career. The rape accusation goes back years and includes a police report. It only became relevant when it affected his career after two colleagues came forward and hisemployers launched independent investigations. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Forbes contributor sites are not RSes. --Masem (t) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) this is actually a legit staff article, the URL was misleading. --Masem (t) 20:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Could you clarify what you mean by contributor site? ResultingConstant (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken that the link was a contributor site, but Forbes has staff articles which are vetted, and contributor articles which are not and thus not RSes. They say this in the byline. --Masem (t) 20:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, the Forbes article is not enough on it's own. To much speculation in it. PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As Masem noted, it is a vetted staff article and a reliable source. And it's certainly not on its own as virtually every source has noted his employers are investigating him. --2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that an employer is investigating. I have a serious problem in a BLP assuming that means a career effect. O3000 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't assume anything. We report what reliable sources have said and they say he is being investigated as part of his employment. How are you pretending it's not career related when three victims relate workplace misconduct?2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I said there is not yet indication that it affects his career. Please read WP:BLP and take it to heart. An encyclopedia should never get in front of a story. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Now you are inventing a bar that we never hurdle. These victims came forward in the context of the workplace. It's workplace misconduct and workplace investigations that are being reported in the reliable sources. "Personal life" stuff like the effect it has on his marriage, which he touched on in the facebook post, are not being reported. As such, this is career related, not personal. We follow reliable sources which report this as workplace and career related with no mention of any personal fallout. There is no sourcing that indicates this impacts his personal life, only professional. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you forgot the word alleged. O3000 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't know how attribution works? We attribute rather than using WP:WTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Guess I missed the source that reported the guilty verdict. Seriously, Let us be careful. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Any text added to the article without consensus will be reverted. I suggest that for those who are in favor of adding this to the article begin by addressing the arguments against inclusion first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There already is consensus (with objection), note the RFC above that was closed in favor of inclusion (by an opposer) ResultingConstant (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

RFCs generally run 30 days and are usually closed by someone uninvolved in RfC. Neither of these were followed so that makes the close out of process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. fine then the RFC is reopened. but the WP:GAMEs that are being played here are stupid. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The RfC close was affirmed at AN.[15] But, as the closer, I only closed for inclusion – not for text. So, concentrate on gaining consensus for text. Your claim that game playing exists is not useful. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Propose a minimum text. Opposing any/all text is game-playing and defying consensus. There must be a minimum text as a starting point that can be added now so please propose it (or better, add it). 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So far, all I've seen is overkill text propositions. We do not need any of the details of these accusations as those can be taken care of in the sourcing if readers want more detail. A couple sentences is fine. Maybe something like:

• In late 2018, Tyson was accused by four women of sexual misconduct. No criminal charges have been filed, but FOX and National Geographic are investigating the claims. Tyson denies any wrongdoing and has released a statement to that fact.

That's along the lines of what I feel should be entered at this time (with the appropriate sourcing of course.) Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reopening the RfC is against consensus of the RfC review at AN[16], a waste of editor time, and the accusation of WP:GAME is a violation of WP:AGF. Please let us concentrate on the text since consensus for inclusion is obvious. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I think the fact that one of the allegations is rape is important. No criminal charges are likely to ever be filed as the alleged criminal acts are beyond the statue of limitations (as discussed in several sources), so I think that clause should be dropped. The Planetarium is also investigating the claims. I think more detail needs to be added to the denial/apology, saying he claims a consensual relationship with the rape accuser, and corroborates the basic facts of the other accusations, but says that his actions are being misinterpreted. (As opposed to other denials which we have seen in similar cases where the denial is more along the lines of "I never met her, and this never happened") ResultingConstant (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that way about "allegations." This should be very short and we don't need a bunch of quotes. The rape issue could be true but it could also be a horribly wrong lie. They are all allegations and it is being looked into by the organizations listed to check their validity. We are not a news service that has to print things instantaneously. We can wait for any further developments imho and keep this short and to the point, and if our readers (who are not stupid) want more they can follow the sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• • I can only re-iterate what I've already said. RfCs usually run 30 days and are supposed to be closed by an uninvolved editor (usually an admin). Further, the closer is supposed to be based on the strength of the arguments, not by the number of !votes. As far as I can see, all three of these principles were violated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You can repeat this all you want. But, a challenge to the close was made at AN, where it belongs, and the close was affirmed. This is a waste of time. O3000 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If we have to add something (by consensus) but no details yet affirmed, then I suggest the following - less on the specifics, more on the who/where/when. This also helps avoid victimization. (eg particularly around El Maat who's case in some of the lit is begged to be questionable. Rather just lay out basic facts until the investigation may merit more).

During December 2018, four separate accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson, first reported by Patheos. Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.(Vox) Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering.(NYTimes/WAPost) 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.(NYTimes/WAPost) A fourth anonymous woman asserted Tyson made inappropriate comments to her during a 2010 holiday party at the American Museum of Natural History.(BFN) Tyson commented on the first three charges, corroborating basic facts around the situation but claiming his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense. Tyson asked for an investigation into the accusations,(VF, Slate) which are currently being conducted by The Museum of Natural History, as well as both Fox and National Geographic, the producers of Cosmos.(CNN)

(Parens) are the sources used above already. --Masem (t) 02:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Masem:. I mostly support this version. Do you think anything more needs to be said regarding Tyson's denial of the rape, as the version you have implies he corroborated the facts of that allegation. Perhaps something like "Tyson denied raping El Maat, but corroborated the basic facts of the second two..." or something? The fact that he says they had a consensual sexual/dating relationship, and she said they did not have any at all seems somewhat important, but I can survive without it. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better. Just keeping it as terse without judgement at this point. --Masem (t) 04:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Restating for clarity: During December 2018, four separate accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson, first reported by Patheos. Thchiya Amet El Maat accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.(Vox) Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering.(NYTimes/WAPost) 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.(NYTimes/WAPost) A fourth anonymous woman asserted Tyson made inappropriate comments to her during a 2010 holiday party at the American Museum of Natural History.(BFN) Tyson denied El Maat's rape accusation, and corroborated basic facts around the situation of Allers and Watson's assertions, but claiming his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense. Tyson asked for an investigation into the accusations,(VF, Slate) which are currently being conducted by The Museum of Natural History, as well as both Fox and National Geographic, the producers of Cosmos.(CNN) --Masem (t) 04:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I am putting together your proposed text with the refs to stage for inclusion/final tweaks. Since we are specifically mentioning the story being broken by Patheos, should that be included as a reference? How about a link directly to Tyson's denial? Both are linked eventually through the other sources we use, but it might be convenient to give people a direct path (and also more chances that info will be available in the future as links rot). ResultingConstant (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes and yes. RSes have pointed to both, so my preferred way is to include both the weaker RS and at least one clear RS that is pointing to that and treating the weaker RS as legit. --Masem (t) 16:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the proposed addition as far too lengthy and detailed. One or two sentences, as many have suggested in the RfC, is all that is needed at this time. Just source it well for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUE "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Pick a few random sentences from the article, and think about how many sources back that statement, and how many sources back the content above. He likes wine, he was on the big bang theory, he was in a batman cartoon, or stargate, he made a PA for PETA, His comments about genetic differences or black history month, etc This event has massively more weight in the reliable sources than any of that fluff, and policy MANDATES that our article reflect that weight. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd also add that because one of the accusations is rape (an actual crime if it were true), we need to be as concise but clear about that, which then necessitates speaking to minimal details of the others. If it were just inappropriate actions, we could simplify it down until it proved out. --Masem (t) 16:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: by that logic potentially the Watson allegations would force the additional detail (to the level in your proposal) as well, as he was her employer/supervisor/coworker, and California (where Cosmos is produced and filmed) has enhanced sexual harassment laws (although I don't think any RS have explored that particular facet, so we couldn't go into that within the article. ). Although the penalties are civil and not criminal, it was still potentially a violation of the law (vs the Allers or anonymous allegations which would likely be just "bad behavior", but unlikely to cause criminal or civil issues). https://www.employees-lawyer.com/sexual-harassment-law-california/ (obviously not an RS for article purposes, but it does give a nice overview of the relevant laws in CA) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not post musings about what you personally think may have been violations of laws by a living person. Stick to RS. O3000 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I personally think the text is just the right length and detail, though at this point I'm more or less happy to support any addition (no matter how short) as long as it gets included somewhere. Irandill (talk) 13:30, 12 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.

Current inclusion

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.

---

My only issue with the current edit on his page is that it doesn't include that he denies the rape allegation, making it seem as though he acknowledges the drug/rape while denying intentional wrongdoing. A sentence or two which separates the Amet accusations from the rest of the women would be all that's necessary. Byconcept (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And I thought this was an encyclopedia, silly me, seems here more like a supermarket tabloid. Vsmith (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is precedent on the Peyton Manning article in which his sexual assault allegation are completely censored from that article. It was determined that he was too beloved to have his unflattering actions be mentioned in the article. Go read it, its on the talk page archives. PaulSampson79 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

First, it has nothing to do with this case. Second, for years we ignored Tyson's sexual assault allegation until 3 other victims came forward a few weeks ago and it garnered widespread coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:09, 16 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.

Minor correction required

There's a minor point which ought to be corrected in the section recently added to Personal life, rather than 'reported by Patheos' it should read 'reported by David G. McAfee on Patheos', as Patheos is just the hosting blog site for what is essentially an independent journalist. Perhaps User:Swarm could look at that and judge whether that would be an appropriate improvement. Many thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

But it looks like several authors reported it. (unless "David Gee" here [17] is the same as David G. McAfee). It's fine to leave it that the reports were first published by the Patheos site. --Masem (t) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's the same journalist who broke the story. He was namechecked in some of the reports, some of them just mentioned Patheos. Mramoeba (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to naming the author, and indeed it seems more appropriate since Patheos doesn't have an editorial board as such that signed off on this. (Although as I said previously, I am ok with dropping the patheos bit all together as these allegations have been independently researched and reported. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I will stress the need for Patheos to be mentioned because no other work considered the initial accusation (the one in 2017) significant to report on; only until two others came along as listed in Patheos did other sources look into it. It's OR to go into why this is important within the article, but it is implicit that the lack of recognition from more mainstream sources throws some weight on how much these accusations were taken by mainstream press at the time. That is, if the NYTimes were the first to report these accusations, there would be a much stronger belief they may have been true. Additionally, assuming that we do not expand this part any more, the reader can see how the previous allegations were first reported in 2017 by Patheos. --Masem (t) 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: under that logic, it seems that you should prefer using the authors name to show that it was not Patheos as a site, but this individual who took the allegations seriously and broke the story individually? ResultingConstant (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the name if its confirmed the above point between the two seemingly different authors. --Masem (t) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:Earlier you described Patheos as a Christian website. Your words: "They didn't approach WaPost, NYtimes, etc, they went to this Christian website." David G. McAfee is an atheist. Patheos is home to writers of many different beliefs. Several people corrected you but I still haven't seen you acknowledge your error.

And your comment made me wonder about WP's general criteria for RS. Does being Christian disqualify a news outlet as a Reliable Source? Is it your belief that agnostic or atheist writers are immune to error and confirmation bias?HopDavid (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Masem, it's the same author, the contact email goes to davidmacafee@ymail.com, besides on several of the David Gee posts he signs off with a full name anyway, such as here Mramoeba (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)