Talk:Serena Auñón-Chancellor

Space Station Hole Controversy
Several versions of the article (e.g., this one), include a section "Space Station Hole Controversy" along the lines of the following:

Space Station Hole Controversy

The Russian government has stated it may press charges against Aunon-Chancellor for allegedely drilling a 2mm hole in the ISS, causing danger to the crew and the station. They maintain they have evidence of the crime.

NASA states that the possibility that one of its astronauts could have been involved in creating the pressure leak is non-existent. NASA has indicated that it knew the precise location of all of its astronauts before the leak started and the moment it began. None of the US astronauts aboard the ISS at the time of the incident were near the Russian compartment where the Soyuz was docked when it started leaking air. The US shared this information with Russia when Roscosmos began its investigation in 2018.

One editor continually deletes this, and there seem to have been a couple other editors in the past. Several other editors have re-added it in one form or another (some less encyclopedically than others).

I confess I originally removed it once, too; but at that time the claim and its refutation by NASA was not widely reported, and the one source for including it appeared suspect.

At this point, I think the claim, and its refutation, have been widely reported, and that it ought to be included in the article. For one thing, many readers may come across the story somewhere and come here to see the status, and it's particularly important to include it if for no other reason that to have the NASA refutation. I'm not for a moment suggesting that Auñón-Chancellor did anything wrong; but both the accusation and NASA's refutation have been very publicly made (e.g., ) and reported in reliable sources (e.g., ); and it's appropriate to include that here.

I think the nose-count of editors restoring it show a pretty clear consensus for its inclusion, but in an overabundance of caution I'm starting this discussion to get a conclusive read on this.

A number of IP editors have also constructively edited on this; ping doesn't work for IP editors, so I'll just list them:, , , , , , , ,. By "constructively edited" in this paragraph, I'm excluding unsourced additions (e.g. ) and things that to me read like really off-the-wall claims (e.g. ). If I've missed anyone, feel free to ping them. TJRC (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with your reasoning for inclusion. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with inclusion. Didn't know there was a controversy and I "innocently" added it back! Samw (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning and inclusion. Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of the situation as well as for your response. Zinskauf (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an unsubstantiated rumor and shouldn't be included for the same reason Obama's birth certificate "controversy" isn't in the article on Barack Obama or the modern "Flat Earth theory" isn't mentioned on the article about Earth. Even though both "Flat Earth Theory" and Obama's birth certificate "controversy" have been widely reported they aren't included in the Wiki because to do so goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."Andrew1718 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * NASA commenting on this issue makes it have a reasonable level of notability. Current writeup doesn't accuse her of any crime – it is not sensationalist – instead only mentions the controversy which is definitely notable (it was reported in hundreds of articles). As for the birther movement, there's a whole page on it at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Do you recommend a standalone page for this hole drilling controversy?  GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 17:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I think a stand alone article framing it as a conspiracy theory would be fine. Andrew1718 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm reading GreaterPonce665's comment as rhetorical; he is not proposing a separate article on the accusation; he's positing it to show how absurd your position is.
 * It was most certainly not an invitation for you to resume your edit-warring. TJRC (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin note Looking at the content that was being reverted, it is clear that this is a BLP-exempt matter, even if Andrew1718 has not declared it as such (and I see that they have farther up the page). Sourcing things like that to Yahoo News, an aggregator, in a BLP, and creating a controversy section to enshrine it, is a valid concern. Please step back and think about what's going on here.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm taking a less than favorable look at what looks like canvassing farther up the page. I'll reserve judgment on that until I see how the interactions played out here.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like a fair selection of editors was pinged who had expressed differing opinions, so my concerns about that are eased, but it's still not a recommended practice.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm formally declining the AN3 report. Editors are cautioned to retain perspective, and to respect other editors who express a valid concern for BLP. Andrew1718 was not the only editor to express such a concern. Editors are cautioned not to revert material back into an article where BLP has been invoked as a reason for removal, far less to edit-war to include it.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I wanted to address your points above. I initially also took the position that, as an apparent Russia-generated rumor and nothing more, this had no place in the article. As I mentioned above, I initially removed it myself for that reason. My position has changed due to two things: first, NASA making its own comment on the matter; and second, mainstream reliable sources such as Newsweek (cited above), the New York Times and the Washington Post reporting on it. This, I think makes it a public matter that is worth noting in the article. In addition, for Wikipedia to avoid including it -- most importantly, to avoid including NASA's refutation -- does Auñón-Chancellor a disservice. Anyone who hears something about her and this accusation and comes to her Wikipedia article to learn more should be able to see its being refuted. No one is saying it is true (and for what it's worth, I don't believe it is); but that accusation and its refutation that have been widely reported in reliable sources indicate that it should be included.


 * To take this to an admittedly somewhat extreme extent: if Elizabeth Holmes is acquitted this week, I would still expect her article to include that she was accused of fraud, and then found not guilty.

I agree, and if Serena is found guilty of sabotaging the ISS I would expect that to be included in her article. Perhaps looking at this from the perspective of "is it likely?" would be helpful. Is it possible a NASA astronaut tried to sabotage the ISS and NASA is lying to cover it up? Sure. Is it likely that a NASA astronaut (with all the training and screening that implies) would sabotage the ISS, putting the lives of themselves and their crew-mates at risk for no reason? Not to mention risking the destruction of assets worth more than a trillion dollars? That seems dubious to me. My argument is to simply wait until more actual and well sourced information (and not just more reporting) about the incident is released before Wikipedia publishes such a serious accusation against a living person with so little evidence. Andrew1718 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * On sourcing: yes, the most current inclusions still cite Yahoo News, and I agree that should be improved, instead, citing sources such as those listed above. I probably should have pointed that out.


 * On the Canvassing comment; I see you've withdrawn it, but to make it clear, I included each editor who either added the passage in one form or another or removed it. My sense is that such an editor, if they cared enough to make the edit, may be able to articulate a reason for either its removal or its retention. It's nothing more than an attempt to get editors who already seem to have an opinion on the matter -- on both sides -- to discuss to aid in coming to a consensus here. It was a small enough group of editors that a full call-out was practical. TJRC (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing to short-circuit discussion of an appropriate inclusion, should sources appear that discuss the matter in depth, with names, but it appears to me that editors have lost sight of BLP policy, which demands that rumors not be published here, whether or not they have been reported on. Elizabeth Holmes is chiefly notable for her alleged malfeasance,and that is covered in detail. Raphael Cruz is not known for the silly, but widely report allegation that he's the Zodiac killer, and the article doesn't mention it, correctly. That NASA had to issue a refutation argues against inclusion. We don't report rumors, even if Newsweek does. The Washington Post mentions the allegation only in passing, and the New York Times says "speculated wildly," and doesn't mention Auñón-Chancellor's name at all. Is material reported by the Times as wild speculation fit for a BLP? It is obligatory on you and me to insist that such content be emphatically justifiable. I see no evidence so far that it is, and formally caution everybody concerned to take BLP and editors who cite BLP seriously.
 * As for the appearance of canvassing, I would suggest that BLPN would be a more effective way to ensure wider participation than pinging people who've edited recently.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The incident is not an Internet rumor, it is an accusation made by the Russian government and published in Russia's state-owned TASS news service. We are not being neutral if we ignore it. I understand that how we phrase the accusation and NASA rebuttal may be up for debate - but not the fact that this issue exists. Istwakapviv (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's notable, and has credible sources. We're not claiming it's proven, but it's factual that she has been accused of this. Rebroad (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You may not use the framing "the crime" in a BLP like this, and I am skeptical of inclusion of something called "wild speculation" by the New York Times. Please address BLP concerns constructively, rather than by just reverting material that is disputed. There may be a way that this can be mentioned, but the version that keeps getting reverted is not BLP compliant in its present form, with allegations of criminal behavior in Wikipedia's voice, that are rejected in reliable sources. Please see WP:BLPCRIME.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have brought this up at WP:BLPN.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for participating in the discussion. Per disscusion on the BLP noticeboard (diff), I have restore some content in the article. Thanks. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're still describing it as "the crime." That's not what the discussion endorsed.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Acroterion: Could you please edit it so it isn't so? I'm not a native speaker, so may be I'm not adept enough to understand the slight differences in meaning. I didn't accuse her of anything and cited NASA refutation. Since you have taken enough time to reply here and at the BLP noticeboard (thank you for that), could you please may be take 5 more minutes to update this as well? Thanks. GreaterPonce665  (TALK) 14:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Soyuz-MS-09-Mission-Patch.png