Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Final draft text 2

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

---

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

Well, it’s dropped out of the news, his TV and radio shows continue, he is still head of the Hayden Planetarium, and he has three appearances scheduled. I don’t understand the level of detail. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Tyson's still head of Hayden Planetarium.

And Trump's still president.

And Kavanaugh is still a supreme court justice.

Yet allegations of sexual misconduct and falsehoods remain on their WP pages. And rightly so.

O3000's argument seems to be if someone gets away with something, it's not wiki-worthy. I very much disagree. But if this is indeed a Wikipedia criteria, it should be applied to Trump and Kavanaugh as well as Tyson.

And if not, Tyson's numerous falsehoods should also be included in his Wikipedia article as well as noting allegations of sexual misconduct in detail.HopDavid (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an absolutely terrible and incorrect view of developing pages about BLPs and in an encyclopedic fashion. And we've already determined that these "falsehoods" were misstatements that Tyson since corrected and apologized for misstatements. WP is not a court of public opinion and needs to avoid reflecting the immediate public opinion when, at the end of the day, that opinion may no longer matter (as possibly here in the case of Tyson). Asking us to treat allegations the "same" for all is absolutely inappropriate. There are different levels of such. --Masem (t) 18:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The criteria O3000 used was that Tyson still holds his job. And the same is true of Trump and Kavanaugh.

Tyson's admission and apology does not change the fact he repeatedly slammed a public figure with a false story. Year after year after year over a period of eight years.

And the Bush and Star Names story isn't the only false story Tyson has told. By his own admission he acknowledges that Ghazali never wrote that math is the work of the devil. Tyson's cautionary tales against religion are based on invented histories. Most of his falsehoods he has not acknowledged or apologized for.HopDavid (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

By your username , the name of that blog, and names on that blog, there might be some conflict of interest here. We certainly aren't going to entertain BP violations that stem from user blogs. And more from user blogs that may belong to WP editors. If you have an axe to grind with your opinion of Tyson, WP is not the place for that. --Masem (t) 07:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Zero Serenity was a prominent voice in earlier debates on this talk page. And he has an opinionated blog. I dare say everyone has opinions and preconceived notions. If that were the criteria, most if not all Wikipedia editors would be disqualified.

The criteria should be the evidence provided to support claims. I provide plenty of citations and evidence on my page Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Tyson routinely botches basic math and science, however this is harmless bull shitting. A more serious offense is his inventing histories to support his political talking points.

Wikipedia editors sympathetic to Tyson will cite RS. How many of Tyson's flubs have appeared in major news outlets? Well the Bush and Star Names tall tale did appear in many outlets. Forbes and the Washington Post picked up the story on Tyson's ignorance in biology.

Unfortunately most of Tyson's flubs are too dry and esoteric to appeal to the average reader. So they are unlikely to surface in major news outlets. They are verifiable though.

A complete account of Tyson should acknowledge he is a source of misinformation.HopDavid (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

We are not turning this into a hit piece. Please stop trying to push things in that direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather you would turn this into a fluff piece with nothing but praise for Tyson. You would even delete the minimal mention of allegations of sexual misconduct if you could.

Wikipedia misinforms when it presents an incomplete and lopsided portrait of TysonHopDavid (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

WP looks at the long-term view of a topic. Allegations of sexual misconduct that go nowhere and have no long-term effect on a person's life do not need to be documented in an encyclopedic article. That's the whole point of BLP, NOT#NEWS, and RECENTISM. If the allegations did have a significant effect on his life, even if they proved to not be true (as the case was for Kavanaugh's nomination process), then we can add them. But so far, not one iota of significant change has happened with Tyson's career. --Masem (t) 19:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Masem) HopDavid, please do not misrepresent my opinions and motives. I have made it clear that I actually do support coverage slightly (but not excessively) larger than what is currently in the article on the subject of the allegations. What you are trying to do is raise a completely separate issue. You want to make out that he is generally a sloppy scientist. That is not what we are discussing here and this discussion is already overcomplicated enough. It is clear from that January 2016 blog post of yours (that you linked to) that you have a longstanding grudge against Tyson which pre-dates the recent allegations. That grudge should not be pursued in this thread. It is A) your personal issue and B) nothing to do with the allegations we are discussing here. If you really dislike Tyson so much then why are you distracting from discussion of covering serious allegations against him with much more minor stuff about him making some mistakes in public lectures and TV programmes? Now would be a really good time to drop that stick. Please don't push it until somebody requests a topic ban. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tyson has invented histories to support his political talking points and cautionary tales against religion. This is not minor stuff.

Putting the moves on a subordinate is shameful, yes. But in my opinion attempting to rewrite history is a more serious offense. In the long run bad history can be very damaging. It is shameful Wikipedia wants to censor this and push it down the memory hole.HopDavid (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Continuing to make these assertions as a WP editor towards a BLP, given everything we know, is pushing you into an single-purpose account and could lead to you being blocked. Unless you have RSes that make these assertions, you need to stop bringing these up. --Masem (t) 04:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There can be (and is) consensus, despite your lack of understanding or agreement. Consensus is not unanimity. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur there was sufficient weight of opinions expressed to be a consensus that the final draft text should be included. As @HopDavid: said, just because something is no longer on the front page does not mean it is suddenly no longer relevant. This is clearly an ongoing issue and the text should be included. I agree with @ResultingConstant: that consensus is not unanimity. To @Masem: I say that we must indeed treat all allegations exactly the same. For otherwise we are expressing a bias. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I say that we must indeed treat all allegations exactly the same. Can you expand on this thought? Would that mean we give the same imprimatur to the NYTimes and Son of Sam? O3000 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you back to the RS argument again? FYI the NYTimes carried the allegations of sexual misconduct. And they also carried the story of Tyson's false accusations against President Bush. You may liken Sean Davis to the Son of Sam. But Tyson has admitted his story was false. You are damaging your own credibility here.

Now back to treating people the same. You argue that Tyson kept his job therefore WP shouldn't run bad stuff about him. However Trump and Kavanaugh also kept their jobs. And they're living persons. HopDavid (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You continue, time and again, to link to articles about Bush which has absolutely nothing to do with this section. And it now appears that you have a personal attack blog focusing on the subject of this BLP. As I said on your TP, your edits consistently fail to assume good faith amounting to personal attacks. This is contrary to WP:5P4 and does not engender consensus building.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Questioning the bias of editors with whom you have a disagreement is ironic considering you run a attack blog against the subject and apparently have personally interacted with him on your blog. O3000 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

From an admin standpoint, the !votes above would normally be treated as no consensus for action, it is too split in policy reasons. From a practical view O3000 is right in that this story has died out, though with the holidays, the investigations may still be in progress. --Masem (t) 15:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Masem An RFC has already been closed showing consensus for inclusion, this was merely to decide which version to include. Which version has the strongest support? ResultingConstant (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That choice of which text to include is what I am discussing, not whether to include or not. The strongest support to include in that basis is the minimal one. --Masem (t) 16:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all proposals agree on inclusion of at least minimal text. That’s all I see as a consensus. But, some editors keep forcing more detail into the article. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

@El cid, el campeador: I believe you undercounted the support for proposal 1. I see at least 14 supports. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right! I count 13, as well as one "support the gist but too detailed" which I counted as neutral. I also recounted and there are actually 6 opposes, not 5. Still, the same 'gist' ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please give WP:CONSENSUS policy a read rather than WP:!VOTE counting. I agree with Masem that another RfC would probably be closed as no consensus on specific text given the above !votes and properly weighing them policy-wise, (the more minimal proposals could maybe get marginal consensus), but no one should be able to claim consensus on the non-consensus version I just had to revert. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

No version has more support than another, with the only slight edge to a reduced statment. No consensus means we keep the status quo, particularly with·BLP. --Masem (t) 19:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Masem? Do you not see that one proposal has 13 supports and the others have significantly less? And there is no status quo - a single sentence was added after the RfC supported conclusion, as a stand-in until there could be consensus on which text proposal to add. I am very confused what you are looking at here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that a full version got 13 supports and several different types of minimal versions got 10 supports If all you're doing is counting, that makes it tough to change the status quo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): - thank you for the explanation. But again, there is no status quo. The single sentence was added as a stand-in prior to the completion of discussion re which text to include. The single sentence was never intended to remain in the article long-term. Never mind that one version got more support than the others, and opposes to each proposal were people voting support for another proposal. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed. WP:ONUS is still very much in effect, so no one should be edit warring back in these versions beyond the status quo until consensus is gained on something else. There's nothing here that would be such obvious consensus that someone could unilaterally add it at this point.

As a reminder to everyone, this page is under BLP discretionary sanctions. If we get continued problems with edit warring without gaining talk page consensus, we're likely looking at full protection on this page again or more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we involve arbitration or some third-party mechanism here? Apparently everyone is ignoring what actually occurred on this talk page the past several weeks. No one unilaterally decided anything, it's called applying consensus. I'm not sure what other conclusion could have been arrived at. And stop threatening sanctions, you have no grounds at all. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I already discussed casting aspersions issues with you on your talk page, but continued edit warring without gaining consensus is why sanctions can also be invoked. Please undo your edit-warring and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit first to follow onus policy so others don't have to undo it for you.

You're making it very clear you're not familiar with how consensus policy works on Wikipedia, so please carefully read that policy as the way you are trying to apply it here is not how it is done. We already had to protect the page because people were trying to push in their preferred version without gaining consensus, and we're going down again now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

The last I saw was that we had 13 editors wanting to expand the section and 10 editors wanting some version of minimal mention (as we have now). Including some text was endorsed but no consensus was seen for more than is included now. With everything died down, I guess we are waiting to see if things pick up (like allegations turning into lawsuits, firings, etc). Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Since there is an RFC with consensus to include, and the small version as added without prejudice while discussion is ongoing, why is the choice with less support winning? There is no status quo. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Text proposals

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

---

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

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

Final draft text

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. Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering. Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018 which led her to resign from the position days later. A fourth anonymous woman asserted Tyson made inappropriate comments to her during a 2010 holiday party at the American Museum of Natural History. Tyson denied El Maat's rape accusation, and corroborated basic facts around the situation of Allers and Watson's assertions, but claimed his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any misunderstanding or offense. Tyson asked for an investigation into the accusations, and The Museum of Natural History and the producers of Cosmos, Fox and National Geographic, announced investigations.

References

This seems basically OK to me. Just one grammatical comment: The very end jumps from "investigation" (singular) to "investigations" (plural) in a weird way. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks ResultingConstant (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too much detail considering none of the investigations has completed. And, I still don't like the sourcing for the fourth, and am not certain it can be called sexual misconduct. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The text above is well within WP:WELLKNOWN. Take BFN to RSN if you think it is not sufficiently sourced, but since both the site and the author have many creds, I think you are wasting your time. Regarding calling it sexual misconduct, we should follow the sources, many of which say 4 women (and specifically the 4th woman) accused him of "sexual misconduct". [9][10], etc. You can rightly point out that most of those sources are just talking about BFN's reporting - that is more evidence that BFN is in fact an RS for this. WP:USEBYOTHERS. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A point of order: We would not take such a question to RSN while this discussion is still ongoing; any given issue should have one, centralized consensus discussion, not a WP:TALKFORK (which is apt to have a forum-shopping effect at best, and come to completely contradictory conclusions or cause both discussions to come to no conclusion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I support this language. I don't see any reason to not add it today - if there is discussion later, it can be edited (this is a wiki after all..). No reason to hold off inclusion any longer. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as it reads neutrally. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too much in terms of WP:DUE and minimal inclusion mentioned in the RfC so far. WP:NODEADLINE and especially WP:NOTNEWS policy still applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Could you please either !vote on this proposal, or the other, as your !vote is double counted now relative to everyone else who only commented under one of the proposals. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That's the intent of RfCs. If there is something wrong with a specific proposal, an oppose explanation goes there as it would on a proposal with support. If I were neutral on this proposal, then I would not have commented on it here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support 98.165.105.12 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• support this length of text is required to give proper context to the allegations and Tyson's denial. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much detail and undue weight of unverified allegations. See my proposal for minimal inclusion above. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• I think that the "Final draft text" post below is sufficient.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
• Oppose - far too much detail. One or two sentences is all we need here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - it covers the allegations, includes Tyson's rebuttal and mentions that Fox and NatGeo are investigating. Language is also unbiased.Byconcept (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, this version makes it appear as though the allegations were first brought forward in 2018. Thchiya had accused Tyson years earlier and although the 2010 incident at San Francisco’s Palace of the Fine Arts hasn't been confirmed, she had written about it on her blog in 2014. Also, in his facebook post, Tyson didn't ask for an investigation. He simply said he welcomed the investigations announced by NatGeo etc. Perhaps an improvement along the lines of During December 2018, four separate accusations of sexual misconduct were raised against Tyson, first reported by Patheos.[1][2] Thchiya Amet El Maat, who had raised allegations in her blog years earlier, accused Tyson of drugging and raping her while both were graduate students at UT Austin in 1984.[3] Other accusers include Bucknell University professor Katelyn Allers[4][5] and Ashley Watson who claims that inappropriate sexual advances made by Tyson led to her quitting her job as his assistant on Cosmos.[4][5] In a Facebook post, Tyson denied El Maat's rape accusation and corroborated basic facts around the situation of Allers and Watson's assertions, although he claimed his actions were misinterpreted and apologized for any offense.[6][7][8] Tyson also welcomed the investigations announced by The Museum of Natural History and the producers of Cosmos, Fox and National Geographic[9] This is shorter, leaves out the excessive details, and mentions that Thchiya had publically made allegations earlier than 2018.

• Support – this seems reasonable. I will point out that the wording Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018, causing her to resign from the position days later is a bit ambiguous as to whether the sexual advances or making the accusation led Watson to resign. Better wording could be Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018, which had led to her resignation from the position. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done ResultingConstant (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This summary seems to provide about the right level of detail to cover the allegations that have been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post, and many other news outlets. I also support the suggestion to include the material immediately, as WP:BLP and the RfC consensus make it abundantly clear that this content belongs in the biography. Serpentine noodle (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Too much detail, but overall the right approach. This needs to be compressed by at least a third, and the anonymous allegation thing is too iffy to include. I could go create a temporary e-mail address right now and make an anonymous claim about Tyson myself, but that would not make it encyclopedic. If the real world can't verify anything substantive about that fourth claim, then neither can Wikipedia. That said, the general intent and scope of this version is correct, in providing context and giving balance between the allegations, Tyson's response, and what is happening. It's just mired in too much detail. PS: Some of the wording in the anon's original version above (under "RfC Consensus text") is better. A merged version that aims for concision is the right angle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC); rev'd., 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Why do we trust any report for any controversial fact? We don't know who the 4th accuser is, but BuzzfeedNews does, and did the due diligence on our behalf of verifying information, just like every reporter does with every source. This is not some random blog, they are a credentialed and awarded outlet. BuzzfeedNews also knows the recipient of the email. If they had named the source that wouldn't make the allegation suddenly more reliable. To the degree that anonymity makes the source less reliable, we have called it out as anonymous to let the reader know to take that portion with a grain of salt. I think part of the "detail" is required by BLP in Tyson's favor. All of the allegations are not of the same severity, and as you point out perhaps not of the same reliability. We need to give enough to the reader to let them weigh the accusations. At this point that one of the accusations is rape is widely known, if we just say "4 accusations" and don't give the detail, that can lead people to believe there are 4 rape accusations. Could you quote the specific text from above you think is better? Or specific text you would cut from this version? ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  I could be mistaken; but as I understand it, BFN did not communicate with the accuser. They merely saw a copy of an email provided by yet another person. If this is true, it is well below the level of due dilligence taken by the NYT or WaPo. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: you are mistaken, as I have pointed out to you multiple times above. From the article, again : Now a fourth woman has told BuzzFeed News her experience of sexual harassment from Tyson ResultingConstant (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Re: "Why do we trust any report for any controversial fact?" – In point of fact, we don't – not just any report, and not just one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, doubly so for a BLP. That is, we expect to see multiple reliable sources in agreement with each other and other RS not contradicting them. Even then, just because something can be sourced doesn't make it encyclopedic. This is not RumorAndAnonymousAccusationPedia. The non-anon stuff is already well-sourced enough both as to the allegations and the responses that including the iffy anon bit is not useful to do. BuzzFeed is not a high-quality source, and a real journalist wouldn't agree that's news. It's unaccountable smearing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. While lengthy, it appears to have all the elements written in a neutral tone. The alternatives, while shorter and more palatable to some, miss information as detailed in their oppose votes. Ifnord (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We have no deadlines. None of the allegations have been confirmed and some of the aren't even allegations of misconduct. According to this article,[11] one the interactions was simply Tyson looking at someone's tattoo. The supposed victim admits it might not be assault and it took her 9 years for her just to think of it as "creepy". The other so-called sexual assault was a hand-shake. As a WP:BLP, we shouldn't just report every little incident or complaint just because it gets covered in the news. If it turns out that there is merit to these accusations, then we should approach it appropriately. Until then, we should take a wait and see approach.

I know that some people have attempted to compare this to Kevin Spacey or Brett Kavanaugh. The situations are entirely different. With Kevin Spacey, the allegations had a huge impact on his career and life. First off, the allegation prompted him to came out as gay. Second, he was lost his lead role on House of Cards.[12] Third, his movie, The Gore Vidal, was canceled.[13] Fourth, his scenes in All the Money in the World were cut from the film.[14] These are huge and significant changes to his life and career. With Kavanaugh, the accusations reached the highest legislative branch of the US government.[15] Nothing remotely equivalent has happened with Tyson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:. Re "handshake", you forgot about the part about taking off his shirt, playing sexually suggestive music, singing those lyrics to her (do I make you quiver), asking her about "physical release", saying if he hugged her he would just want more, telling her she was too distracting to be a successful in the business, etc. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support the final draft text--yet it should be redacted in a year or two and replaced with a more brief summary or conclusion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. More precise than the other proposals, but I'm not sure that this is completely BLP-compliant. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support the above and oppose the below. It is honestly a little frustrating that we have to rely on voting and stuff. I wish there were objective criteria we could apply. In fact, the community should form a consensus on how allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct should be dealt with in BLP contexts (i.e. depending on the severity, credibility, persistence, volume, with a way to somehow quantify these qualities and arrive at a number) and then simply apply it going forward. Having it out every single time makes no sense.Happy monsoon day 02:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so we use Inductive reasoning and just plug values into:

$\Pr(A_{i}\mid B)=\Pr(A_{i}){\frac {\Pr(B\mid A_{i})}{\sum _{j}\Pr(A_{j})\Pr(B\mid A_{j})}}.$

and the decision is made for us. Apologies for the sarcasm. But Wikipedia, much like the court system, is not yet an WP:Artificial intelligence machine. We still need to debate WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:DUE aspects. O3000 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support the gist of it but trim a little. Cut the Patheos clause, halve the lengths of the four accusation sentences and shorten the "Tyson denied..." sentence to "Tyson denied the rape accusation and claimed his actions have been misinterpreted, apologizing for misunderstanding or offense". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv could you give an example of how you would halve the allegation sentences? Regarding the denial, I think that detail is somewhat important. This case is very unusual compared to many of the other #metoo incidents, in that we have proof/admission that he knows the accusers, and some of the events took place, it is merely how those events are being interpreted which is at issue - Most of the other denials are "I never met them, this never happened" - we need to be clear that that is not what Tyson is saying. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Replace "Ashley Watson, Tyson's assistant on Cosmos, described inappropriate sexual advances he made to her in 2018 which led her to resign from the position days later." with "Tyson's Cosmos assistant claimed that inappropriate advances in 2018 led her to resign". I concede that halving is quite ambitious but the current text is undue. Another example: we could shorten "Katelyn Allers, a professor at Bucknell University, asserted Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 American Astronomical Society gathering." to "A Bucknell professor said Tyson inappropriately touched her at a 2009 astronomy gathering." Details like names of accusers, the name of the society etc. are not important; they are the first things to go when a text is of undue length. We only need to know that Tyson has more-or-less denied all four accusations; the fact that he knows the accusers is not for us to speculate about and not important unless you can show me some reliable sources which comment on it being a groundbreaking denial for the #MeToo movement. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I too think the Patheos bit is unimportant, but it is included as part of a compromise with Masem. I think I would probably support those edits to the accusation sentences, but since this discussion is so far along, I think it would be derailing to edit the proposal (which might make it seem as some support something they do not), or to add another proposal so late in the game. The point is not that his knowing the accusers is somehow groundbreaking, its that it eliminates a whole class of doubt regarding the allegations. And multiple sources have gone into analysis of his denial and what it does or doesn't mean, although we are not currently proposing to use those sources. (These are indeed opinion sources, and we are currently (correctly) sticking just to the facts. But which facts? I think these sources can help us inform on that point, and they go on at length regarding the content of his denial. A single (long) sentence for that is appropriate. ) [16][17] [18][19][20][21][22] ResultingConstant (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a certain constraint based on the format of the discussions, but it's rather unavoidable when trying to get large numbers of people to establish consensus on the precise wording of a text. I'm not proposing changing this suggestion or adding another; I'm simply giving my opinion in full—surely I have the right to do this. I note SMcCandlish makes a similar !vote above, and if enough of us do then there will be consensus for someone to add the proposed text into the article and then shorten it a bit. In any case, with my !vote I'm supporting this proposal as the lesser of the three suggested evils. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Oh absolutely you have that right, I apologize if I came across as implying otherwise. I was just saying that while I would be willing to use that feedback in the actual article, I didn't think I could change the ongoing discussion to take that into account. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support While it does seem a little overlong, it is not egregiously so, and it is the best of the options suggested so far. XOR'easter (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much detail in any event, & none of the allegations has been proven; mention of the number & the names of the accusers, & dates, is plenty. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Definitely the best of the options presented. Contains all the relevant information and the sources are good. Written in a neutral tone. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 1

In December 2018, Fox Entertainment and National Geographic announced investigations of alleged sexual misconduct by Tyson.

References

• Support As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We can add to this when investigations are complete or RS introduce additional info. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer this with Objective's qualification above. It includes the minimal inclusion that a lot of the RfC respondents want while balancing the WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE, etc. issues brought up by others. If issues are substantiated in further investigation, more depth can be considered, but this is about as close to consensus we'll be able to get while balancing the policy issues and satisfying those who want it in right now rather than waiting for events to develop as we normally do for encyclopedic content (as opposed to news content). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not entirely opposed to adding a few extra words or a short second sentence saying something to the effect that Tyson denied or "qualified" claims against him, but it might just be easier to include a source to his statement without additional text for now too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose' No. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What you're doing is - "I lost the RfC, so let's make the addition at small as possible." That's... not how any of this works. Of course people who voted 'exclude' in the RfC will support this after losing - it's gaming the system and it's ridiculous. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is way out of line. And for some odd reason, the RfC is still open. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC, which these comments don't do. Even if I personally don't agree with inclusion before an investigation is over, this is more in line with what most of the people I initially disagreed with mentioned with minimal inclusion, so it's far from gaming. It's how an RfC and consensus-building works. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT how WP works. This is an overly-cautious approach because people don't want to make Neil Tyson look bad. It's gotten completely out of hand, and this is just a farce. It's a farce, it's ridiculous, and the fact that people continue to push for the bare minimum of a mention is just evidence of some strange, strong bias. It's right in line with this ridiculous talk page. The only thing out of line is the continued attempts to censor and destroy mention of these accusations. It's disturbing and gross. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:ISNOT if you're not familiar with how WP works in terms of being "behind-the-ball". The rest is just an attempt to disrupt this talk page with aspersions and completely ignoring the policy implications people do bring up. Please strike that so others don't have to remove such direct misrepresentations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Details provided by the various victims as well as Tyson's response are notable, crucial elements covered by RS 98.165.105.12 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that those details have not been established as encyclopedic or WP:DUE yet (WP:NOTABLE is a little different than that and merely being reported in newspapers doesn't automatically establish due weight). If we're going to go by the claimed consensus of the first part of this RfC, such details go beyond minimal inclusion mentioned there. One can debate the mention of an investigation being due weight either way, but the deck is stacked policy-wise trying to push for more than that at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose The amount of coverage on this item requires more WP:WEIGHT. Additionally Tyson's denial is somewhat required by WP:WELLKNOWN ResultingConstant (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is just a starting point. We can expand once we get back the results of the Fox and NatGeo investigations. We can also expand if the accusations result in criminal charges. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this short version is better then the long version but proposal No. 2 is even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs)
• Oppose This sentence does not provide any of the context necessary to understand the source of the investigation. Serpentine noodle (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Too short. While the first one above is excessively wordy, this is too far in the other direction, providing no context. It ends up becoming a WP:WEIGHT problem in its own way, but implying that the allegations are so likely to be true that we need not even explain them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: too short. We need to include details of the allegations. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Definitely too short. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2

There was another proposal that was missed.

2a - 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 released a statement which denies any wrongdoing.

References

• Support - a little more info than alt proposal 1, but it is still short and to the point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose If we are going to say that no charges have been filed, we also need to say that the most severe allegation (rape) happened beyond the statute of limitations, and therefore no charges are even possible, otherwise it appears to be a judgement about the allegations. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support this one (as well as my own proposal above) if "by four women" is removed. The reason why is that there's a huge delta between a handshake and looking at a tattoo and actual rape. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge While I agree with you there is a big delta in severity between the allegations, the RS have categorized them all as misconduct or harassment, aren't we required by policy to defer to their description? Thats part of why I think we need the more detailed version, so that people can see that delta/gradient. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Also too short, and missing the key fact that Tyson himself asked for investigation. Just compress the first version above to about 1/2 to 2/3 (at most) its present verbosity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and it should include the fact that Tyson has cancelled or postponed any upcoming events. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  That fact only came to light after this was proposed. That's why it's missing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Also, it hasn't been confirmed that the cancellations were a result of the allegations. Byconcept (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be stated that way; just the fact that the cancellation followed shortly after the publicity of the allegations properly represents the source. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose Too short. If we are going to say no charges have been filed as if that is in any way meaningful, we should add that a rape complaint was filed with the Austin PD. The allegations of 3 of the 4 victims are not criminal so criminal charges are not particularly relevan. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a last resort but we need a little bit more detail on the allegations. The four accusations are not the same and as a minimum, the first accusation should be described properly. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Works for me with my comments of support for the previous alternative proposal 1 text. It gives WP:DUE for an unfolding situation to avoid too much WP:RECENTISM while reigning back the proposals that go against the consensus for minimal inclusion. Basically, it avoids the WP:NOTNEWS policy issues of including too much recent events material and sticks to a more encyclopedic approach while linking to sources if finer detail is wanted by readers beyond the current encyclopedic scope. With that, comments on being too short should be more or less adequately addressed policy-wise, especially considering that if more developments come out requiring more details in terms of due weight, this can be expanded upon. We need to stay brief like this if we're going to follow the rough consensus for inclusion from the first part of the RfC though.

Specific details on each the accusations are something better left until after the news settles since detailing each of them right now can get into WP:UNDUE territory pretty easily. It'll probably be much easier to have some distilled content on that when things settle, FOX/NatGeo investigations can be sourced, etc. There's competing aspects within WP:BLP in that regard which this current proposal balances for now. There's potential undue weight in terms of detail, but also qualifying whether some accusations have as much merit as others, seriousness, etc. I don't think that's something we can do right now, so it's better for the events develop first to avoid such recentism mistakes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with ResultingConstant that this version seems to be making a judgment in Wikipedia's voice, and I think SMcCandlish makes a good point about what's missing. XOR'easter (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

References

• Support This will work for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Only to nit on this one, while the implication the talks were cancelled because of the charges in the RSes, no official reason has been given. I mean, its hard to say it was for anything else, but we should be careful on that. --Masem (t) 22:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't particularly think 2b below is a great improvement over 2a since we have to careful about claiming events were cancelled for a reason without attribution, and that addition falls subject to WP:RECENTISM too. If there's some lasting effecting of canceling events rather than a temporary lull in hindsight, then including some information on it would satisfy WP:DUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I prefer this second and shorter version, without going into the graffic details of "drugs and rape". Rowan Forest (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I prefer a short version until we see if anything comes of investigations. I’m still concerned about any mention of a fourth person and the sourcing is very sketchy. Caution is required by WP:BLP, and an encyclopedia has no deadline. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose This story has exceptionally good and massive sourcing. Thisfar too short, not giving enough context for the information given. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I dislike this one less than 2a, but it's not enough of an improvement to win me over — still too lacking in detail. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The significance of MeToo affecting the world of science and science communication cannot be overstated. Proposal 2b does not acknowledge the importance of this development, nor the notable coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post. It omits the nature of the accusations, which is an essential piece of information. Proposals 2a and 2b are inadequate to give proper weight to this development. Start from proposal 1 and perhaps trim where absolutely necessary. Serpentine noodle (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Process

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

Too late, since many people have already commented substantively. And this is in fact a common RfC format for proposing major textual decisions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. But, I have seen such polls in controversial areas become so muddled they had to be restarted. O3000 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there is a risk we might have to restart things, lets just restart things. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's include the shortest version, and then discuss a better alternative here. Leaving any mention out for any longer than we already have is purposeless. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that should reduce the time pressure some editors feel. And, it’s hard to come up with a rationale against this. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering that Tyson has cancelled public talks, likely as a result of this, I think the controversy should be minimally mentioned in the article—though we shouldn't actually state that the cancellations were a result of the controversy. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the minimum as it's hard for anyone to argue against that given the consensus for inclusion. Discussion will continue on final text. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If enough folks would like to combine this into an RfC, I've formatted an RfC at: [23]. I won't add this unless folks feel this makes sense as SMcCandlish has a point about lateness. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Let me see if I understand this. You reopened the RfC claiming that it was closed incorrectly, even though it was essentially a SNOW. You are now essentially claiming this discussion is closed even though you are the most heavily involved editor, and adding your own text to the article. O3000 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Once again you are inaccurately describing things. This seems to be a pattern. You misread the sources, even after having that pointed out multiple times. I did not claim the RFC was closed incorrectly. A Quest For Knowledge did. I agree with your WP:SNOW close, but I re-opened it to allow the process to continue while the issue was being discussed. The text I added was in fact written by Masem (although it is obviously influenced by my proposal). I am not claiming this discussion is closed. I am more than happy to let more discussion continue. But it is very WP:SNOW obvious that a longer version is preferred by almost everyone. Consensus is not unanimity, and yes there is consensus currently. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your reopen was incorrect as it was not according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and the eventual close challenge ruled the close was valid. Adding text during discussion of the text is also incorrect. And please avoid comments like This seems to be a pattern. Patience. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you think this discussion is going to close as anything other than option 1. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The process has been a prime example of how not to gain consensus. There have been over a dozen attacks. (It seems anyone with BLP concerns must be a “fanboy”.) The responses to the proposals are difficult to evaluate as some folks !voted on multiple and some felt they shouldn’t. Those suggesting the text is too short are in two different camps: one wanting more salacious detail and one wanting more detail on the subject’s response. Many comments did not include policy cites. Meanwhile, the story is fading and the subject has yet to receive a suspension or termination. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to piggyback on your comment, it's really difficult for those claiming it's just fanboys defending Tyson to make that stick even if that was appropriate use of the talk apge (and also forgetting this page is under discretionary sanctions for such personal attacks) considering how even most of the people who initially didn't want to include at this time, etc. have given a variety of ways to address this content-wise in terms of policy, cautioned about recentism, etc. Just a reminder to those throwing those accusations out there that such commenters need to be ignored by the closer, so it's not helping the talk page one bit and is risking sanctions to boot.

In terms of process as a more general comment than individual reply, the closer will evaluate the policy-based arguments of the proposals in light of the discussion on inclusion at all. Comments with a simple support/oppose don't get "counted" in WP:CONSENSUS, nor does counting !votes help a whole lot given the policy on it either. That'll all happen when the 30 days are up. There's no rush to try to end the RfC earlier, especially since things are still being fleshed out and commented on by those finding the RfC. Plus, waiting increases the likelihood of new sources coming out that help alleviate some of the WP:RECENTISM issues inherent with this type of topic. Not rushing helps all "sides" in the dispute here, which is in part why RfCs exist. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no RFC running right now. There is a discussion. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

On a humorous note, I’ve never seen any of Tyson’s shows or lectures, and have never been to Hayden Planetarium, despite living less than two miles away during his entire tenure. So, I’d make a pretty bad fan. O3000 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

editing wikipedia to be agnostic

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

Under Early Life, 6th paragraph should read BA instead of AB 68.77.52.168 (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: Harvard uses the Latin form AB. O3000 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson Space Odyssey game

My edit was reverted. The article again says the game is expected to come out in 2018. This is obviously false information. Obviously the game didn't come out in 2018. I mentioned that there are disgruntled Kickstarter supporters and provided a link to the thread of disgruntled Kickstarter supporters. More than a third of a million dollars were donated for what seems to be vapor ware. It seems any negative information on Tyson faces strong censorship efforts. It's somewhat of a surprise that the article mentions Tyson failed to get a doctorate from U.T. and that there are allegations of sexual misconduct.HopDavid (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

We can't use comment sections for "factual" information on WP. Yes, the game has not been released. I can't find any updated news of it. I'd personally suspect the situation on the alleged sexual encounters may have disrupted development for a bit, but that's only speculation. But without any reliable source updating this, it is not our place to talk about failure to come out. We can leave it that the game was expected in 2018, and the fact there's no further updates should tell the reader the date was clearly missed. --Masem (t) 14:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If this has had WP:RS coverage then we can include it but people complaining on a comments section is not good enough to source anything. It doesn't get close to being RS. Also comments sections will always attract some comments of this type whether they are justified or not so they are unreliable sources in both the narrow Wikipedia sense and also the broader, general sense.

I did a very quick Google for reliable coverage of the delay and I didn't find anything obvious. I didn't try very hard so you might well be able to find something that I didn't.

In the meantime I've changed it to say "The game was anticipated for release in 2018". --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My observation is there are disgruntled Kickstarter supporters. The Kickstarter forum page for Space Odyssey donors is not a reliable source? HopDavid (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Posters on a forum can be competitors, one person using many handles, racists, children, trolls, bots, the forum owner trying to make the forum look more active, or any number of other anons. Even if we knew they were actual supporters, it would be a small sampling, and if it was a large sampling, it would be original research for us to use it. We only use reliable sources, not our observations. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Letters from an Astrophysicist Hardcover – October 8, 2019

He has a new book, Letters from an Astrophysicist Hardcover – October 8, 2019, ISBN-13: 978-1324003311, it isn't listed on his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorsm (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

Add new title - Letters from an Astrophysicist - to the books section.

Books

Signing a copy of his book Origins at The Amazing Meeting by the James Randi Educational Foundation, 2008 Merlin's Tour of the Universe (1st ed. 1989; 2nd ed. 1998). ISBN 0-385-48835-1. Universe Down to Earth (1994). ISBN 0-231-07560-X. Just Visiting This Planet (1998). ISBN 0-385-48837-8. One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos (2000). ISBN 0-309-06488-0. Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge (2000). ISBN 1-56584-602-8. City of Stars: A New Yorker's Guide to the Cosmos (2002) My Favorite Universe (a 12-part lecture series) (2003). ISBN 1-56585-663-5. Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution (co-authored with Donald Goldsmith) (2004). ISBN 0-393-32758-2. The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist (2004). ISBN 978-1-59102-188-9. Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (2007). ISBN 0-393-33016-8. The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet (2009). ISBN 0-393-06520-0. Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier (2012). ISBN 0-393-08210-5. Welcome to the Universe: An Astrophysical Tour (co-authored with Michael A. Strauss and J. Richard Gott) (2016). ISBN 978-0691157245. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (2017). ISBN 978-0-39360-939-4. Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military (2018, with Avis Lang). ISBN 0-393-06444-1. Letters from an Astrophysicist (2019). ISBN 978-1324003311. Dd0029 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Done --Masem (t) 15:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

list of Influences in infobox is unsourced and mostly meaningless

NdGT never met Newton or Einstein. All physicists are influenced by them, claiming them as influences is not notable (if he even said that). He probably never met Feynman, and Feynman as a physicist and cultural figure is influential enough in the same general way (e.g. practically all US physicists have read his books) to be similar to Newton and Einstein. It means nothing if Tyson did not say something more specific about the nature of this influence.

Sagan is noteworthy as someone in Tyson's profession, whom Tyson met as a teenager, and whose influence is described in the article.

Suggest deleting the "influences" list, or everyone on it except Sagan. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed, keeping just Sagan for obvious reasons: [24] - DVdm (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson critique on wiki content

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKklcL1WNec

02:33 ...I think I'll only take credit for 02:35 being an astrophysicist 02:36 but cosmologists are a specific subset 02:39 with a specialty as our planetary 02:42 scientists and I'm my interests are 02:45 broader than that without that kind of 02:47 specialty so plus some percentage of 02:50 people will always think you said 02:53 cosmetologist response cosmologists have 02:57 to have some reactions to be ready to 03:01 react when people ask them about their 03:03 latest cuticle I see your Wikipedia bio 03:08 is giving you a little too much credit 03:09 yeah yeah so but that's people getting 03:12 enthusiastic about who and what I am to 03:15 them I guess it's better than the 03:16 opposite problem I have a website that I 03:21 maintain and I'm still amazed at people 03:24 lean to the wiki page rather than to 03:26 things that have some institutional 03:29 authenticity

This might be interesting to consider Kameejl ^(Talk) 21:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Add to personal life. Neil deGrasse Tyson is also an avid fountain pen user who holds and uses an exquisite fountain pen collection. Infojuicer (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Not particularly notable, especially if the only source is a YouTube video. — IVORK _Talk 02:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - clarification of image caption

Could the caption of the image be more clear that the award in question was the "Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication", as the current caption changes the name of the award in a way that could easily be misconstrued as being awarded for scientific research. Danielandrews441 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• This has been done. Alsee (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Please change photo caption of image in the Media Appearances section from "2010 Space Conference group portrait: Tyson with fellow television personality and science educator Bill Nye" to the more complete caption as follows. "2010 Space Conference group (l-r): Tyson with with fellow television personality and science educator Bill Nye, space scientist, Professor of Astronomy at Arizona State and (at the time) President of The Planetary Society Jim Bell, Stanford University adjunct Professor and former Director of NASA's Ames Research Center Scott Hubbard, and retired Executive Director of the Planetary Society Lou Friedman. Sjs560 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Partially -- that much caption is far too long, but I did cut down to just the wikilinked names since we have articles for all 5 people presented. --Masem (t) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Today is his birthday, which makes him 63. 104.3.145.12 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed via WP:PURGE. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Height 1.88M 2A02:C7C:D66D:D800:883:DEC5:AD3C:B9D7 (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a source, and is completely immaterial to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My reverted edit

It's stated in Solar eclipse of June 30, 1973 that he was in the plane. What I wrote here was just writing the same information. Aminabzz (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz, it doesn't say that. It says he was on the commercial cruise of the S.S. Canberra. Adding that information to this article also requires citing the source for that information, and other Wikipedia articles can never be sources. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. I will write it again with the true information Aminabzz (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz, be sure you include a reliable source for it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I did. Aminabzz (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I see the information exists on the article. Was it there even before that wrong edition by me? I don't recall the information was there. If it was there then the re-reversion of my recent correct edit makes a point. But if that wasn't there before then why was my edition again reverted and someone else wrote the information from scratch? Aminabzz (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aminabzz, you can look at the edit history of the article to see what happened. You added content with a source. It was not reverted. I rewrote it per the source to give it more context. I then moved it to a more appropriate place in that section. Schazjmd (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Aminabzz (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)