Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

(Process core)

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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. Despite denying the allegations, Fox and National Geographic announced that they would launch an investigation into the manner. 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.

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. 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)
    •  Done Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 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)

References

• 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 Not having the allegations of him at all makes the page look biased and whitewashed. It warrants at least a mention in his personal life section. The proposed inclusion is fine, though it should mention Tyson's response to the allegations too. The fact that there's a Forbes article discussing the allegations and his career proves that, whether true or not, it is a notable part of his life story (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2018/12/10/how-sexual-misconduct-allegations-could-cost-astrophysicist-neil-degrasse-tyson-millions/#7169cd694ebe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byconcept (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 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

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. In December 2018, Fox and National Geographic announced that they would investigate the matter, which Tyson encouraged.

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.