Talk:Lawrence Krauss

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence M. Krauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071149/http://cualumni.carleton.ca/grads/krauss-lawrence-m/ to http://cualumni.carleton.ca/grads/krauss-lawrence-m/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed allegations

Re this edit: After reading the BuzzFeed article, it has WP:BLP problems because it contains allegations that have not led to a police investigation or court case. The allegation is denied by Krauss, although he doesn't deny meeting the woman. It needs a lot more coverage and evidence to be included in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me remark that, according to the section WP:PUBLICFIGURE of WP:BLP, including a section about the sexual harassment allegations would be OK if there were multiple sources; that is, I agree that according to WP:BLP this needs more coverage, but setting the bar to the existence of a police investigation or court case goes beyond WP:BLP --Theunbeliever (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Me Too movement has led to a slew of allegations of this kind. The problem is the Burden of proof (law). The woman involved has made the allegation on BuzzFeed and doesn't seem to have gone to the police. BuzzFeed isn't a substitute for the legal system. At the moment, it all comes down to one person's word against another's.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about multiple reports of sexual misconduct by multiple women, not about a single accusation by one woman. There are also official stances of two institutions. Independently of that, according to WP:BLP, these allegations may be covered in the Wikipedia page, as long as there are multiple reliable sources about the allegations. For a public figure, the bar to report allegations is lower; no need, as far as I can see in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, for a police report / police investigation / trial. See example there: Example: 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.--Theunbeliever (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Advice from an SPA using a throw-away account to right great wrongs is not helpful. The story has just started and this is not a catastrophic incident that requires coverage in Wikipedia right now. In a couple of months there may be further developments beyond gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I was particularly concerned by the first allegation, which is so serious that it would warrant taking it to the police. Allegations like patting on the bottom, making lewd comments etc may be very unacceptable for the woman, but they are not usually a police matter. Problems with WP:DUE here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think this a problem of WP:DUE: I understand that the suggested approach to correcting WP:DUE is to balance what other users wrote with other sources or by editing (e.g., you could have added that Krauss denies the accusations, etc.), not to delete what those users wrote, unless it is the only viable option. Notice that in the example of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the politician does not commit a crime by having an affair (although the wife may not be pleased), and it is not even required that the affair actually happened. Yet, the news of the scandal belong on Wikipedia.--Theunbeliever (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq: (1) I agree that there is not urgency and that it is good to wait for more sources to report the same so to meet the criteria of WP:PUBLICFIGURE; I will not edit the page until then (Please note that I was not the anonymous user who also felt it was appropriate to add a section about the accusations). What I did wrong was not to wait for further sources, and not to report that Krauss denies the accusations. (2) Please forget for a moment the issues related to my status of SPA; is my interpretation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE correct and the standard of police investigation or court case stated by ♦IanMacM♦ instead incorrect? (3) The only way this falls under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is if you do not consider BuzzFeed mainstream (which you may, of course); I did not do original research or report my opinion; I reported what BuzzFeed wrote. (4) Why do you speak of this as of gossip? We are talking about a serious journalistic investigation, with interviews of people, access to email records (including official confirmation by the two institutions), and the possibility given to Krauss to address the accusations.--Theunbeliever (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly gossip. I think Buzzfeed isn't usually considered a reliable source.GliderMaven (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed did not use to be a reliable source. It has become one. Please see BuzzFeed.--Theunbeliever (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, and no 7 edit account is going to make me believe otherwise.GliderMaven (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have misunderstood what you meant by I think Buzzfeed isn't usually considered a reliable source. If you mean that it is not up to the standards of the most reliable sources, it might be. My point is that its standards have greatly improved over the past years, especially for in-depth investigations like this one. See BuzzFeed#News and BuzzFeed#Awards_and_recognition. In this sense, putting a BuzzFeed report in the gossip category just because it is on BuzzFeed is unjustified, in my opinion.--Theunbeliever (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Which bit of my reply didn't you understand?GliderMaven (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The part where you seem to need to be convinced by me personally, which you understandably are not (that part I did understand!). Did you check independently whether your beliefs about the reliability of BuzzFeed are up to date? If so, I have nothing to add (and I do understand it would not make a difference to you anyway, even if I had something to add).--Theunbeliever (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait, Buzzfeed isn't reliable? That article was written by two award-winning journalists, one of whom has his PhD and teaches investigative journalism at UC Berkeley and Santa Cruz. Also, focusing on Buzzfeed itself commits the genetic fallacy. The article itself is extremely well-sourced, based on official documents, 50+ interviews, and the testimonies of ~13 eye-witnesses. That sounds quite credible to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.249.128 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison to article about Judge Roy Moore

Gee, big surprise. All the material about the allegations are being removed from this article while everything alleged against Judge Roy Moore remains and is defended. Wikipedia is BULLSH*T. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Allegations against Moore were national headline news for months, reported and investigated by many WP:RS publications. Furthermore, the allegations of Moore's repeatedly harassing young women under the age of consent are more serious than those against Krauss, basically that he made sexual advances to women who were angered by his behavior. (One complainant says he threw her down on a bed but admits she departed unraped from the encounter, and Krauss disputes her account of the event.) Buzzfeed's list of complaints against Krauss includes for example "There was even one particular creep of a professor who once told me he thought differently of me compared to other students and asked me to dinner: a situation so disturbing that it left me upset for weeks afterward."

When reliable media sources conduct some actual background investigation into the claims against Krauss, then Wikipedia will (although considering BLP issues) report those stories. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN applies to the Roy Moore allegations. At the moment, most of the coverage of the Laurence Krauss allegations is merely repeating what BuzzFeed said. Personally, I find it problematic when people make allegations of this kind in public without going to the police. If there is a good deal of coverage of the allegations, they should be noted in the article, along with the denial by Krauss.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And when the allegations against Moore were first showing up in the news and almost immediately on Wikipedia, it was everyone repeating what one source, the Washington Post, said. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"national headline news for months" - So what? Doesn't change the fact that once they were made, they were immediately posted to the article about him. No one cited BLP to remove the information. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry if Wikipedia policy on BLP was violated on another article, but it will still be good to try to uphold it everywhere we can. Also, having WaPo as the only source is different from having BuzzFeed as the only source. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think one has to distinguish between reporting facts and reporting allegations. One would care about other "reliable media sources [to] conduct some actual background investigation into the claims" only for the former; if it is about reporting allegations, it would be enough that such allegations, potentially even from an unreliable source (I am talking generally, not saying nor denying that BuzzFeed is a reliable source), created a scandal that was the subject of articles of mainstream media. I understand it is not Wikipedia's or Wikipedia contributors' role that of judging the seriousness of the allegations, particularly in the case of a scandal. E.g., in the example of the politician given in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, some (including some Wikipedia contributors) may think that an affair is just an affair and who cares, and some others (including some other Wikipedia contributors) may think that it is a very serious act that makes the politician unworthy of holding a post; Wikipedia would just report that there was a scandal due to allegations, with proper balance between the views expressed in mainstream media. It is clear that I am new to Wikipedia, but this is my understanding of the mission of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I am wrong. In the specific case, as also User:ianmacm writes, in order for the allegations to be correctly reported in the Wikipedia article, it would be enough that the scandal is reported (not necessarily corroborated, I would say) by more primary or secondary mainstream sources.--Theunbeliever (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of BuzzFeed as a source

I don't think we should base our idea of BuzzFeed's reliability on the Wikipedia article BuzzFeed. From a recent (2017) story that has some bearing on the question: "BBC and The Economist top the list of outlets that are trusted by every ideological group, while BuzzFeed and The Rush Limbaugh Show are at the bottom." In fact, according to the article's graphic display, BuzzFeed is the only news source that is distrusted more than trusted by every element of political spectrum. Also, fewer than 40% of the respondents had ever heard of BuzzFeed at all. [1] HouseOfChange (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Let me just comment that, while obviously there is a correlations between reliability and trustworthiness, it might be that there is a source that is reliable (that is, fact-checking proves it to say the truth) but that is not trusted (yet), for example because it is a bit of a mix of good journalism in some sections (say reports), and silliness in other sections (say, funny kitty videos), or because it has still a bad reputation because of its past, although things have changed since. For BuzzFeed, see for example https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/:For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting [..] Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories.--Theunbeliever (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe the consensus here is also "it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories."HouseOfChange (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Do you doubt that there are allegations? Or are you interested in knowing whether those allegations are true? I am asking because the allegations themselves have spread and have consequences (like the cancellation of events or participation / the withdrawal of invitations) that are, I'd say objective, so that overall the scandal is significant independently of whether the allegations are true--Theunbeliever (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts there are allegations. The BuzzFeed piece tries to turn each allegation into the worst possible reflection on Krauss. For example, they repeatedly mention a campus ban by CWU against Krauss, more than a decade ago, but fail to mention ASU's statement that no student or staff member filed a complaint against Krauss in the many years he has been there. The article also gives a false impression that Perimeter Institute banned Krauss from its campus, but there is a difference between being banned from a campus and not being invited to give a talk. Harvard has never invited me to give a talk, but I don't think I am banned from their campus. These are just two examples of the gossipy, hit-piece nature of the BuzzFeed article. A more measured account of one or more accusations, balanced by responses from Krauss and others, would be an appropriate source for the material we now have four new SPAs craving to see in this article.HouseOfChange (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This is now old news, but apparently people often ask the Noticeboard if Buzzfeed is reliable source, and mostly they say it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Buzzfeed&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=5l6uwwn8gw3w6xz4gdvhlu8eq HouseOfChange (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going through that search. Nonetheless, I disagree with your assessment that BuzzFeed is mostly judged not to be a reliable source. I went through the 26 hits that the search you link to gives back. I would summarizes what I found in the following way:

• The most critical opinions of BuzzFeed are old, like this one Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#BuzzFeed, that further connects to even older opinions
• Several people point out how BuzzFeed (News) journalistic standards has increased in recent years, specifically for original reporting/investigations
• Original investigative reporting is often judged as backed-up by good enough journalism standards to be judged a quotable source
• Several Wikipedia articles cite BuzzFeed
• Some people indicate the importance of distinguishing between BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, and between about-kittens articles and journal reporting
• Some indicate that it might be best to judge case by case (in the sense of, article by article), and taking into account context, rather than simply classifying the whole of BuzzFeed as RS or as not RS
• When BuzzFeed reports on news originating from another source, it is better to go to the original source

Overall, I think that the general opinion that emerges is in line with what we had discussed above, and maybe summarized as follows (please correct me): BuzzFeed has improved its journalistic standards in recent years, publishing articles that may be directly cited when a more established reliable source is lacking (which is the case when we deal with original investigative journalism); it is "recommended to check other sources to verify their stories" (when possible, I'd say).

Let me further point out that standard RS cited BuzzFeed in the specific case of this scandal, and I do not think any of them pointed out an underlying lack of credibility of BuzzFeed (please correct me if I am wrong). If it was the case that BuzzFeed is inherently unreliable, wouldn't/shouldn't have they stressed it? I'd say that if these RS really judged BuzzFeed as unreliable, then not pointing out such lack of credibility would go in the direction of undermining the status as RS of those same RS. Looking at it in another way: if these RS, employing professional and respected journalist, judge the BuzzFeed article worth mentioning / quoting / citing in this delicate matter without even mentioning the possibility of it being unreliable, isn't it a sign that we can cite it ourselves?--Theunbeliever (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We are citing it ourselves, although its gossipy tone and slanted presentation make it useful to cite more journalistic sources when they are available. I was hoping some RS would do independent reporting on one or more of the allegations, but Krauss is too small a fish to interest many.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

sexual harassment

This section needs to be added, at least under 'sexual harassment claims', you can put in his official denials but it is an incomplete article without this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminK1234 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

add it. you guys tried to protect Shermer for years with your garbage and here you are again.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/asu-responds-to-lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.226.115 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting the existence of the BuzzFeed article. We are waiting for corroboration by a reliable source of the allegations in the BuzzFeed article. Even if you were dissatisfied with other articles, that is no reason to violate BLP on this one. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

So, if multiple reliable sources report what an alleged unreliable source is reporting, that's not good enough? Lots of Wikipedia's going to have to go bye-bye, then. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So Fox News is not a real source? What will it take? What if the New York Times reported it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.226.115 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FoxNews isn't THE source if the source it cites is buzzfeed. Use buzzfeed! https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations --Christofurio (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed is not a reliable source, according to consensus here on talk page, see the sections above this one. We are waiting for reliable source to do some vetting of BuzzFeed claims, so that we can link claims to that reliable source, rather than letting Wikipedia promote a very slanted piece of clickbait in BuzzFeed. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You clearly have an agenda. How is the article slanted? By your logic, the stories on Weinstein, Spacey, etc are slanted hit pieces too.

So the "majority" of this thread thinks Buzzfeed is not a worthy source. How about all the things he has been uninvited from? Those are facts with sources.

Regardless of who reported it, it's reverberating and affecting his career. He has been placed on paid leave by ASU, his talks have been cancelled, and several science/skeptic organisations have distanced themselves from him. I think that is has gotten big enough that it should be included in his wiki.David Moussa (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP: criteria and procedure

Several days ago, an article in BuzzFeed reported claims of sexual harassment against Lawrence Krauss. Very quickly, a number of SPAs appeared to try to add information from that article and links to it into this bio. Unfortunately, the article itself has a number of problems, reflected for example in its false claim that Perimeter Institute has "restricted him from their campuses." (According to PI, they decided in 2012 not to invite Krauss to speak there, in response to someone's complaint made in 2009.) The article seems tailored to do maximal damage to Krauss's reputation, as one would expect from clickbait journalism that thrives on scandal.

The consensus here so far is that BuzzFeed is not a reliable source, but that if some RS reports on one or more of these claims, giving Krauss and others a chance to respond, then that article would be something we would use and link to when reporting those claims. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe you found the information about Krauss not being invited to speak to the Perimeter Institute — rather than being “restricted” — in that very same BuzzFeed article (BTW: Did you read the same emails they said they read? How do you know that in those exchanges some people from the Perimeter Insitute, or other sources of BuzzFeed, did not use the word “restricted”? Why does “restricted him from their campuses” need to be necessarily an exaggeration totally due to BuzzFeed?). The consensus was that it was better to *also* have another source besides BuzzFeed. I’d say that, in the case another RS were to report the allegations in the way you describe, it would be a disservice that of not linking *also* to BuzzFeed: they would have been the ones to do the original reporting, triggering a number of events. I can understand to some extent your desire to avoid ‘supporting’ or ‘endorsing’ BuzzFeed, which in many aspects you might consider as the opposite of Wikipedia, but please do not let that distract you from the goal of Wikipedia of recording how things have actually happened, including how a scandal has built up.—Theunbeliever (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes the Buzzfeed article is my only source for the statement that Krauss was not invited rather than restricted. But that information is buried in the article's text, and the incorrect statement that they banned him is prominently placed. Let's wait to see how clear and inclusive our still-hypothetical RS article is before making a decision on linking to BuzzFeed. I assume that article will have a link to Buzzfeed.

My goal here is to honor BLP, not to defend Lawrence Krauss. If you look at other articles I edit, you can see me defending the principle of BLP on other articles, most recently Naomi Wu, against putting gossip that has not been vetted by RS into her biography.

In fact, this is a problem for many Wikipedia biographies, based on my few years here. People come to an article expecting to read some version of angry gossip that they heard from their friends. Not finding it in Wikipedia, they attempt to insert it and accuse others of bad faith for wanting to wait for a reliable source to weigh all sides and deliver a balanced account. (p.s. I am not accusing you, Unbeliever, of doing that, just saying that it happens, and has happened for example on this talk page.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the allegation is "he patted my bottom and made a lewd remark", it is very tiresome for the woman involved if it happened but probably not a police matter. If the allegation is more serious, such as rape or attempted rape, child sexual abuse etc, it is problematic if it is aired in public without going to the police. The presumption of innocence and the Latin maxim Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat have not been abolished by the Me Too movement on social media, although you might sometimes think they have, given the way parts of the media behave.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent development wrt "Misconduct allegations against Krauss"

Arizona State has stated that it has begun to review allegations made public recently by Buzzfeed on their side. Also, a number of organisations have dismissed him from future talks, including the American Physical Society and the American Humanist Assoc.

Given that organisations have acted and there is an active investigation by Arizona State, shouldn't the BLP reflect these developments? And if not, can it be clearly stated with citations point by point why for future reference (the current state of this talk page can be described right now as a pile of frustration and confusion).

Thank you.

ABsamma (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ABSamma

Hi, sorry I missed seeing your question here. I tried to create some text, based on your draft, in the section below. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The allegations are still unfolding and being judged, so I believe anything more than two or three sentences is giving undue weight to the sources. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft of addition to article, please comment.

Someone added a long section to this article about the BuzzFeed article (and someone else reverted it). I propose that we use this talk page to try to draft something that respects BLP and also includes some references people can use if they are looking for this information. I regret that no secondary reliable source has vetted any of the claims about Krauss, but here is my effort to create a useful summary that respects BLP and WEIGHT.

Several news sources. report the appearance of an article in Buzzfeed which alleges that Krauss has engaged in sexual misconduct. Krauss himself calls the BuzzFeed story "slanderous" and "factually incorrect".

Soon after the article was published, several organizations canceled scheduled talks by Krauss. Krauss' own university, Arizona State, stated in the wake of Buzzfeed's article:

ASU has received no complaints from ASU students, faculty or staff related to Lawrence Krauss. The university has initiated a review in an attempt to discern the facts. We encourage anyone who has concerns about faculty, staff or students to report those concerns.

Please comment or improve. Thanks.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello, that long section was probably mine. Nice to see we're talking about this, with a draft no less. Yes it has everything and it includes 'one' of Krauss' reply (there's also a reply he made via email in December though again, there's no corroborating evidence he actually DID write this email). Given the reaction of many organisations to the news, I think it would be remiss if we didn't add even a sentence about what's happening. We can expand the addition when ASU comes back with the results of its investigations.

ABsamma (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ABSamma

Thanks, ABsamma. I wanted to wait for some WP:RS to look at validity of claims, for example the claim that Krauss intentionally grabbed a woman's breast at the exact moment he knew he was being photographed, (a claim that the woman herself has never made or supported, and which the photo doesn't show) but that three bystanders are so convinced they saw that they petitioned three different institutions to act against Krauss. But I think it is better to have something rather than nothing in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP doesn't really allow you to report claims. Anyone can claim practically anything. Nor really should we go down the rabbit hole of reporting people that may simply be investigating claims. And, while I'm sure there's claims, Wikipedia needs to stay out of the business of simply repeating claims unless something more concrete comes from it.GliderMaven (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if my edit, made in good faith, was in violation of BLP. Because people keep coming to the article to try to insert this material, typically people basing their edits on gossip networks plus BuzzFeed who hope to damage Krauss as much as possible, I wanted to put something there that gave a more balanced view. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the picture is clearer now. Repeated claims from a single source is an adequate reason. Will refrain from adding until we get something more concrete. Thanks all ABsamma (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)ABSamma

OK, This Is Ridiculous

As of right now, 11:11 PM EST on the 3rd of March, 2018, every single hit for the name "lawrence krauss" on the first page of Google references the sexual misconduct allegations - be they defending against the claims or reporting the consequences of the claims - save three:

• His faculty page at ASU
• His Twitter account, which has not had a new post since February 20, two days before the BuzzFeed article (which came out a week ago yesterday)
• This Wikipedia article

Some of those other sources which do mention the allegations but are not the BuzzFeed article (which references not just the allegations, but his sourced defense of Jeffrey Epstein, who was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted in an American court of law):

• Salon
• Gizmodo
• 12News - the NBC affiliate for Phoenix, Arizona
• Inside Higher Ed
• cleveland.com

In full disclosure, Al Franken is a good friend of a good friend of mine. He was one of my first followers on Twitter. I just the other day sent my friend a private message on Facebook congratulating her on his complimentary mention of her in his book Giant of the Senate. I worked on his campaign in 2008, and I still consider it one of the proudest accomplishments in my life that I played however small a role in his very narrow electoral win. He was accused via a Facebook post, and in his initial response, while he indeed said, "All women should be heard," he also said regarding the incident, "I remember it differently." A quick check of the history of his page shows there was an entire paragraphs-long section on his page regarding the allegations within 24 hours of the first allegation, despite the fact he was - and fortunately continues to be - a "living person."

With regards to "Undue Weight," that is also very flimsy. Franken had been one of the original writers of Saturday Night Live and had been an occasional cast member for 15 of the first 20 seasons. He had written and starred in a movie made through Paramount Pictures. He had written four bestsellers. He had had his own radio show, and he had done USO tours. And he had been a very vocal Senator with numerous TV appearances for almost eight and a half years, with a famous amendment named for him. Most Americans had heard of Franken prior to the allegation. As of right now, I promise you there are thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of people in the English-speaking world who know of Krauss simply, "He's that atheist guy who's being accused of sexual misconduct."

And there is nary a mention anywhere on this Wikipedia page. A proposed two sentence addition is heavily in dispute. Comparatively, Franken's page now has a longer section (with a link to an even longer article) devoted to the two weeks in late November 2017 that ended his Senate career than to the 20 years from 1975 to 1995 that made him enough of a celebrity to be a viable Senate candidate in the first place. "Undue Weight" INDEED!

I'm not saying Franken's article should not mention the allegations. It should. And I won't argue it's "Undue Weight." Rather, I would add more information to the section on SNL, but I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. And I don't because of stuff like this.

As someone with over 20 years' experience as a journalist, of course I understand American libel law. It's not libel to say Krauss has been accused, and that ASU is investigating. If he files a libel suit that is well worth mentioning, as it will be if he wins. But not even mentioning it?

This is why Wikipedia has become a joke and is not considered a credible source, and why so many well-meaning editors have grown tired of contributing good information. It is, let's just say, a "hostile posting environment." JCaesar (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's bias, plain and simple. Always has been with Wikipedia and always will be. Were Krauss a Christian and conservative, the allegations would have dominated the article the same day they became public and any and all objections to it would have been suppressed, ignored, and/or silenced. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Al Franken is neither a Christian nor a conservative. It's bias, but not that kind. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I also admire Al Franken, and am sorry that he resigned in response to Russian-bot-fueled denunciations of some incidents where he thought he was being funny. Wikipedia BLP nevertheless continues to be valid. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Add the allegations material NOW

Multiple sources are reporting on these allegations. ASU is "reviewing" them. His appearances at events are being cancelled because of them. This is a MAJOR, noteworthy matter. It belongs in the "article." Stop this garbage of protecting him because he's a liberal and atheist instead of a conservative and Christian. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Al Franken is neither a Christian nor a conservative. It's bias, but not that kind. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

There was undeniable evidence of Franken's misconduct as well as his admissions. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And there is undeniable evidence of some of the things said against Krauss (such as his support of convicted hebephile and friend of Donald Trump's and Bill Clinton's Jeffrey Epstein), and if you check what I said above about Franken, he didn't admit anything. All that is neither here nor there. Yes, Wikipedia's editors are undeniably biased, but not against Christian conservatives exclusively. I have a degree in evolutionary paleontology, and if you compare the list of criticisms against Stephen Jay Gould's work in his article to the list of criticisms against Richard Dawkins - Krauss' buddy, who has himself had numerous sourced, provable misogynistic accusations - it's pretty different. There's a bias, but it's not against Christian conservatives. Or at least, not exclusively against them. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is Wikipedia is a boys' club for Randians. That means atheist, yes - as Krauss and Dawkins are - but it also means libertarian. Christian conservatives get swept up with that broom, but so do liberal Jews, Catholics and nontheists. We're all in the same boat together. And it's disgustingly obvious. And they will use all kinds of excuses - from BLP to WEIGHT - to justify, but their justifications are pathetically transparent. -- JCaesar (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a major noteworthy matter. This is a C-class article of low importance except that it demonstrates whether Wikipedia does or does not live up to policies such as BLP and WEIGHT. Suggesting that those of us talking about policy are secretly an old-boy's club of randy and Randian atheists really doesn't improve the debate. Speaking just for myself, I would be an unwelcome outsider in any such club. There's quite a lot in the aggressive tone of the atheist movement that I dislike, as a mildly agnostic mostly lapsed Christian. If you are aware of violations of BLP in articles of people you prefer to Lawrence Krauss, why not go try to improve those articles instead of demanding that we violate policy on this one also? HouseOfChange (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Why don't I improve Al Franken's article? Because that would involve me either A.) cutting down the sexual allegations section - which would make me a hypocrite, given that I've been saying the allegations against Krauss are noteworthy, sourced and reported in multiple places, or B.) adding to the sections about the other 66.5 years of Franken's life besides the last two weeks of November 2017 going into early December, which I don't want to do, because as I thought I had made very clear - and as I said on my User Profile page years ago - I as an editor have been made to feel unwelcome here. Look... I don't care Krauss is an atheist. I didn't really know who Krauss was until last night (although I had heard of The Physics of Star Trek but not read it).

But I just finished reading the linked-in-the-BuzzFeed-article Skepchick blog post about Jeffrey Epstein, along with Krauss' rebuttals, which he has never denied were him since someone first made them in 2011. It is not libelous to say, at the very least, he had an association with then-convicted hebephile Epstein, he was quoted in the Daily Beast as defending Epstein, and someone claiming to be him then doubled down on the Daily Beast defense in multiple comments. It is not libelous to say Rebecca Watson had reason to believe that person to be Krauss, and that she Tweeted that she believes the allegations to be true. Just as it's not libelous to say the infamous photo of Franken appeared to show him groping or pretending to grope Leeann Tweeden's breasts, just as it's not libelous to say Roy Moore (or perhaps his ghostwriter) said in his book he met his wife when he was in his 30s and she was in high school, just as it's not libelous to say Richard Dawkins publicly admitted to being the author of the infamous "Dear Muslima" letter, just as it's not libelous to say Bill Cosby had admitted drugging women in court testimony years ago, and on and on.

If nothing else, Krauss' alleged defense of Epstein (which is literally: "sure, I knew he was an ephebophile, but as a scientist, I need more information before I can be sure he would be a hebephile") should be troubling and very noteworthy. It is very clear Wikipedia simply applies different standards to some BLP's than it does to literally all others. And it is not lost on this democratic socialist Democrat nontheist-celebrating-Lent what kinds of LP's are given that wide berth. -- JCaesar (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think a section about "Association with Jeffrey Epstein" or "Defense of his friend and major donor Jeffrey Epstein" would be notable and NPOV, maybe suggest a draft on this talk page? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a transgender atheist and I think this censorship is completely outrageous. We are really protecting him from numerous allegations of sexual assault, reported widely in RS, because of pro forma statements from ASU (the only one of the last three universities for which Krauss taught that did not sanction him for sexual harassment of its undergrads) about the need to 'learn more' before turning their suspension of Krauss into a termination. There is no way to prove or disprove the charges against Krauss (same is true of charges against Cosby and Weinstein). But RS believe the allegations of the women are reliable and notable enough to publish, so even if WP agrees, we can and must publish them. Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You could be a transgender kangaroo for all anyone cares. It still would not give you any special status to breach Wikipedia policies about WP:BLP. This article does already contain allegations against Krauss--they have not been censored or ignored. Our Wikipedia project is to create a great online encyclopedia. Your desire to shame and expose wrongdoers has a conflict with that and also with WP:NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspension of honorary membership of board of Centre for Inquiry

Hi, which do you prefer: to remove

"During December 2011, Krauss was named as a non-voting honorary board member for the Center for Inquiry"

(which is a fact, listed under Honors; shall we remove a fact?) or to add something to it along the lines:

"As of March 6th 2017, such membership has been suspended."

? (which is also a fact https://twitter.com/center4inquiry/status/970667817216471041; at the moment the Centre of Inquiry seems to not to want be associated with Krauss: shall we not accommodate for such a desire?)

In the second case, would you like to provide evidence / a citation?

Sorry, this is slightly provocative, but this just goes on to show that, albeit I do understand the importance of WP:BLP, several people who intervened here are right that the scandal (not necessarily the accusations) is real and it has factual repercussions. It is clear that there is no need to hurry to apply changes to what is expected to be an encyclopedic entry; on the other hand, Wikipedia is expected to be up-to-date and to reflect the state of the world, when possible. I think that the draft by HouseOfChange was a decent compromise--Theunbeliever (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone already added the news of the suspension of the membership. I left the addition of the news, but I have removed the text associated with it because of the undue weight given to the fact.--Theunbeliever (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am British and looked at the article Aled Jones to see how his suspension from the BBC was handled. The Wikipedia article does mention it, as it received a good deal of reliably sourced coverage in the UK. However, the article does not dwell on it or mention it in the WP:LEAD. This is why I made this edit, which was subsequently reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi ianmacm, I agree neither the suspension from the Centre for Inquiry nor the leave from Arizona State University are at the moment appropriate for the WP:LEAD; this, even if they were mentioned in the main text. On the other hand, the comparison you make seems to suggest that it would be appropriate to include the suspension and the leave (plus, arguably, his resigning as chair of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) in a section in the main text. Do you agree? Notice that, in particular, his being put on leave by the Arizona State University is being covered pretty extensively by news outlets.--Theunbeliever (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that we should disregard any comments saying that Krauss is getting special treatment here because he is a skeptic/atheist etc. This fails to assume good faith. Due to the way the media works nowadays, it is possible for people to come forward and say that a person in the public eye has behaved "in an inappropriate way", which varies from the tiresome "he patted my bottom" to the illegal "he raped me". WP:WELLKNOWN applies here. There is no outright ban on mentioning allegations of this kind, but they need to be placed in context and comply with policies such as WP:DUE. I think that the article Aled Jones has got it about right, and the main worry with Lawrence M. Krauss is the lack of independent verification of the BuzzFeed allegations at the moment. This could take several months to reach a clearer picture, as it did with Aled Jones. I'm still not convinced that the details of the BuzzFeed allegations need to be in the article at the moment, but they could be mentioned briefly and in some sort of context if it stops constant edit warring and people asking why they are not in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources e.g. NYT

March 7, the allegations against Krauss got a new airing in several reliable sources including the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/science/lawrence-krauss-arizona-state.html

Rather than link from the bio directly to the trashy article in BuzzFeed, we should link instead to NYT or other reliable sources. (Most if not all the RS have links to BuzzFeed for those who want that information.) None of the RS vetted any of the accusations. Krauss's response to the BuzzFeed piece, also linked from NYT article, deserves some citation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

ASU's statement references campus disruption but reports no new findings, the investigation continues. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The NYT is a blue chip source, but it is basically repeating the BuzzFeed allegations, which is what other media outlets have done. This has become a noteworthy matter due to the amount of media coverage, but the allegations are still in dispute and denied by Krauss himself.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that topic is notable and belongs in bio. My suggestion is that we link to NYT and other sources that make an attempt at neutral presentation of facts rather than leading with a link to Buzzfeed.HouseOfChange (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think we agree that the scandal deserves room in the article. I feel that not linking to the BuzzFeed article is a disservice, but it is not a strong feeling. If you rather feel that a more neutral presentation can be achieved by rather citing the NYT and other reputable sources, but not BuzzFeed directly, I am OK with it. Notice that, if you do not link directly to BuzzFeed, I suggest you do not directly link to Krauss' response either (his response is linked in the NYT article too).--Theunbeliever (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I say cite both. Buzzfeed broke the story, and NYT picking it up lends the story legitimacy. -Jordgette [talk] 23:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the story, which was based on a draft I wrote earlier, before the NYT or Krauss's public statement. We had hoped that other RS would investigate some of the BuzzFeed claims, but so far ASU is the only group doing this, and they have no report so far.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating sexual harassment section

The situation has changed in the past few days, so although current version of sexual harassment section is closely based on my draft a few days ago, I suggest a clearer, updated draft, with more attention to NPOV and less prominence to BuzzFeed article:

In a February 2018 article that Krauss called slanderous" and "factually incorrect,” BuzzFeed reported a variety of sexual misconduct claims against Krauss.

In response to the BuzzFeed article, Arizona State University stated that it had received no complaints related to Krauss from students, faculty or staff during his decade as a professor there, but would begin an internal investigation, calling for anyone with concerns to come forward and express them. Without waiting for further verification, some organizations canceled scheduled talks by Krauss, Krauss resigned from the position of chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors, to avoid "[distracting] from the ability of the Bulletin to effectively carry out [its] work.” On March 6, 2018, ASU placed Krauss on paid leave “to avoid further disruption to the normal course of business as the university continues to gather facts about the allegations.”

In a public statement linked to and quoted by the NYT and others, Krauss apologized but stressed that the BuzzFeed article "ignored counter-evidence, distorted the facts and made absurd claims about me."

HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This gives undue weight to his response. I count 10 words about the allegations and 90 words about his defense (which is not NPOV), with 76 words about the fallout. Most of the RS reporting has been on the allegations, and the references list doesn't reflect that. It also isn't right to both start and end with an LK quote, especially given there are no quotes relating to the allegations. Either start with the allegations and end with his defense, or start with his defense and end with the allegations. And only one LK quote. -Jordgette [talk] 17:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive, nonbitey feedback. I will look for a useful summary of the allegations in order to add them. They are hard to summarize. For most people accused of sexual misconduct (w.g. Trump or Weinstein) have one strong theme (grab 'em aka assault, or threats or underage girls)... but if there is a common thread to the complaints about Krauss it is that he made women angry by behaving (they felt) as if they were sex objects rather than colleagues. Once Krauss became a wide topic of gossip, more people were angry that he hadn't been "taken down." It's interesting that there is a mirror image problem for Naomi Wu, where a gossip circle of bros all "know" she deserves to be taken down.HouseOfChange (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel that details of the allegations are necessary at this time; I would just like to see less attention on his defense, with one quote instead of the two bookending quotes. At the moment, the section has the appearance of non-NPOV IMO. -Jordgette [talk] 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I made the changes you asked for: including a summary and moving Krauss's response out of first sentence. For NPOV, the negative material that needs to be balanced is not just the allegations but also the catalog of Krauss's public humiliation. (For example, does his resignation from a board need to appear in two different sections of his bio? It isn't that notable.) So I think we can and should let readers hear a balancing response from Krauss.HouseOfChange (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I think this reads less clearly than it could be. It (1) omits Krauss's apology for making "others feel uncomfortable" which I think is significant; (2) it also scatters related material (denials) rather than grouping it together; (3) it fails to actually say where the allegations came from (multiple women, students and ex-colleagues); and (4) it unduly and needlessly emphasizes Buzzfeed (mentioned in text three times, and "NYT" once). The following version reads much clearer (and the refs are correctly formatted):

A February 2018 BuzzFeed News article contained allegations of sexual misconduct against Krauss over a ten-year period; the allegations, which came from multiple students and faculty members, ranged "from offensive comments to groping and non-consensual sexual advances." Krauss called allegations "libelous," "absurd," and "factually incorrect"; in a lengthy statement, Krauss wrote: "Has my language or demeanor sometimes made others feel uncomfortable? Clearly yes, and for that I sincerely apologize. Nevertheless, the BuzzFeed article effectively paints a false picture of me and my relationships with others through a mosaic constructed largely out of anonymous hearsay and a web of often vague innuendo." In March 2018, Arizona State University placed Krauss on paid leave while it conducts an internal investigation. The university said that as of early March 2018 it had received no complaints related to Krauss from students, faculty or staff. In the wake of the allegations, some organizations canceled scheduled talks by Krauss, and Krauss resigned from the position of chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.

References

--Neutrality^talk 23:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You raise good points, and I like your proposed changes. Do you want to add them? HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's getting better and better. The three-sentence quote with the apology seems overly long at this juncture; we should be able to keep the section as short as possible without affecting NPOV or leaving out anything important. I suggest using: Krauss called the allegations "libelous," "absurd," and "factually incorrect," and in a lengthy statement, he described the article as "a mosaic constructed largely out of anonymous hearsay and a web of often vague innuendo." -Jordgette [talk] 00:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

More good ideas, but one quibble--Krauss called them "slanderous" not "libelous." (IANAL and have no idea how this matters. An IP who followed me here from another article changed "slanderous" to "libelous" in addition to inserting opinions into another direct quotes from another RS.) I think if we are minimizing quotes from Krauss, that his apology adds more informational value than the mosaic/hearsay quote.HouseOfChange (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

How about the below as an amendment to the above (it shortens it while retaining the meaning):

Krauss denies the allegations, calling then "absurd." In a lengthy statement, Krauss apologized for "language or demeanor [that] sometimes made others feel uncomfortable" but accused BuzzFeed of defaming him through "anonymous hearsay and a web of often vague innuendo."

References

--Neutrality^talk 00:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very good as it currently stands. Thanks to all. -Jordgette [talk] 05:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I just found my ass handed me because I suggested (god forbid) that we let due process take its natural course. One FB user said she knew one of his accusers and that it was solid. However, that still leaves me wondering if a lynch mob is gathering or Kraus's chickens have come home to roost? There's one thing being an insensitive asshole (who should be given a stern talking to) and quite another being a serial rapist. Kraus, from the allegations seems to be somewhere between. Still, it's good to know Wikipedia is trying to be neutral! Smidoid (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne

Re this edit: it's one person's opinion in a blog, and doesn't go into any detail about why he reached the conclusions. Coyne says "I don’t like trial by social media" and then does exactly that. If Krauss gets disciplined or fired by his university, fine, but Coyne's opinion doesn't count for much unless it is part of a formal investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's perfectly in conformity with policy to cite Coyne for his opinion on this matter. The reason we can't use Coyne as a source is that his opinion is based on a factual predicate--three additional women, not named in the Buzzfeed article, who say Krauss attacked them--that doesn't appear in the RS. Hopefully these women can find the courage to report their allegations to an RS. But until then we can't publish it or Coyne. Steeletrap (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding the allegations to lede

The guy was suspended from his positions in the academic and skeptic communities. Numerous women have made allegations of assault or harassment. Krauss was banned from campus by two of the universities he previously worked for because he harassed undergrads.

The statement from ASU about the need for "more information" is pro forma. There is no way to prove who is telling the truth in most of these allegations, just as there is no way to prove or disprove the allegations against Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein. But clearly, this is a notable story by all of the encyclopedia's criteria, based on the story's mention in reliable RS like NYT. IT deserves lede mention and I will work strenuously to keep it in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ASU could easily have gained virtue-signaling credit, as others did, for denouncing Krauss with no investigation. The length of this article's lede was 239 words before you added an additional 128 words devoted exclusively to the WP:RECENT allegations of sexual harassment. IMO, this is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. Please discuss and get consensus on the talk page (where many of us have already considered how to express these events in a way that follows Wikpedia policy) rather than continuing to make controversial edits with aggressive edit summaries. I hope your working "strenuously" to edit the lede of this article will not include the sock-puppeting that got you suspended in the past. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to write an op-ed about how numerous "unproven" allegations against Krauss, Weinstein, and Cosby should be disregarded. But RS (WAPO, NYT) disagree. Every recent google news mention of Krauss focuses on this controversy. The Washington Post even felt compelled to place a disclaimer on an op-ed (an obituary to Stephen Hawking) published by Krauss, in which the Post noted the scandal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/15/the-time-i-took-stephen-hawking-to-a-cowboy-bar/

The original addition to the lede I made was excessive and I cut most of it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way: it's cute how you are inclined to believe the allegations of socking against me--for which there was no direct evidence, only guesswork, and hence the banning editors expressed uncertainty to me about the "verdict" and gave me unusually short suspensions--but dismiss out of hand eyewitness testimonies of a dozen women. Steeletrap (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Allegations are not proof. As I've said before, if he gets disciplined or fired over the allegations, fine, but the WP:LEAD should not hype them at the moment and they are adequately dealt with later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

He was disciplined for sexual harassment by two previous universities. (Did you even read the original Buzzfeed article?) Steeletrap (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Krauss has been around a long time and has done a lot of things. Per WP:BLP, more than half the lead cannot be devoted to the recent issues. Working strenuously to insert a reasonable amount of due material is one thing, but edit warring for this much WP:RGW is not. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree and cut the thing down to 45 words. In light of the career implications of the (numerous) allegations, that is quite reasonable. I refer you to the ledes of Bill O'Reilly, Bill Cosby, and Weinstein, all of whom did "a lot of things." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Improving previous consensus version

In the past, we had good success drafting difficult text on this Talk page. Right now, the article includes solid information including many links concerning the allegations. I (and others) just reverted a recent attempt to add some POV, Synth, and poorly sourced material. But do others think there is material missing from our coverage of these stories that should be added to the article? Bearing in mind the issue of WP:WEIGHT? Or should we wait for new information to emerge from WP:RS before making changes?

See also Wikipedia:Five_pillars esp. Points 1 and 2: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

At this juncture the article doesn't need the words breasts or genitalia, but I am open to other details that have been reliably reported. -Jordgette [talk] 02:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with proposed additions which were reverted:

• Consensus version describes allegations with direct quote from WP:RS. Proposed change, claiming that Krauss touched breasts and genitals is not supported by any RS. Buzzfeed article cites claim that he touched someone's breast, but also notes this claim was investigated by two institutions and supported by neither.
• Attempted introduction of POV by changing quote from RS, cited above to passive voice "Krauss has been accused of sexual harassment or assault by numerous women."
• Factually incorrect, ungrammatical, and POV addendum to ASU's statement that during Krauss's decade there nobody had complained about him: "in contrast to two of the previously universities for which Krauss had worked". At CWU, two students complained (one only after solicitation from administrators) that Krauss had made them feel uncomfortable. Perimeter Institute, which is not a university where Krauss previously worked, but a physics institute where he gave a talk in 2009, received one complaint, whose nature has never been specified, from a woman who could not have been an undergrad since they have no undergrads. In 2012 or 2013, Perimeter Institute responded to that complaint by uninviting Krauss from giving a talk there.HouseOfChange (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sexual harassment stuff

Now that ASU has fired Krauss from one of his roles (because of the scandal) and concluded that at least one of the allegations of assault is true, I have expanded this content. Steeletrap (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ousted from post as director of Arizona State University’s Origins Project for sexual assault

Placed on administrative leave and booted from his project. Significant milestone deserves a mention. Was surprised to see editors immediately dismissing this as gossip and unreliable sources. All over the news now multiple sources as well and finally his career is in jeopardy. People should be following up on stuff like this especially if you're going to say it is just gossip. Kind of a big deal. I just hope his victims are recovering okay as I know what it's like to be sexually assaulted as well.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/university-finds-prominent-astrophysicist-lawrence-krauss-grabbed-woman-s-breast

http://www.statepress.com/article/2018/08/sppolitics-lawrence-krauss-replaced-as-director-of-the-origins-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satendresse (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Already in the article. —PaleoNeonate – 00:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it quite possible this document has been falsified.

@BryanGaensler: You wrote in your edit summary "Krauss has updated his CV to show his Foundation Professor role has come to an end. See https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7c8797_f17848368cc447988f5ccbd1ac033b59.pdf. Departmental directory has not been updated. This is a minor edit"

First the easy part: If an edit is controversial - as this one obviously is, having been changed back and forth at least twice - it is not "minor" and should not be tagged as such.

On the document you reference in your summary: I do not have the technical expertise to identify its location, who put it there, or how it may have been altered. Maybe you know about all that, and maybe you don't, but I'm pretty sure the document does not qualify as a reliable source. If and when the ASU website - or any other RS - supports the edit I have just reverted, I will be happy to support it as well. Until then, please do not try to make it again. Thank you for your reasonable consideration.

Dayirmiter (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is why we must indeed wait for secondary reliable source reports and avoid primary sources like this one. —PaleoNeonate – 10:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be an anyone-can-upload site and therefore completely fails WP:RS and WP:BLP. The document may or may not be valid but it cannot be used at Wikipedia in that form. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If you go to https://www.lawrencemkrauss.com/cv, you will see that the PDF that I referenced is linked to directly from there. Surely the person themselves and the CV they have posted themsekfes qualifies as an RS. BryanGaensler (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks legit to me. Good work, I'd say. Dayirmiter (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@BryanGaensler: I think the principle of assuming good faith is very important in the relations of Wikipedia editors and I want to acknowledge my failure to practice that in this section. I was shocked at the idea somebody might alter a document to influence an article and let that figment of my own imagination - which turned out not to be the case - overcome the assumption of good faith. I apologize for this to the community at large and to BryanGaensler in particular, whom I thank for following through and helping to show me the error of my way here. Dayirmiter (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit

My edit was reverted with no explanation other than "discuss on talk". I was adding material directly from the BuzzFeed source, specifically

1. mentioning Krauss's past academic positions at Yale and Case Western in the lede
2. mentioning that Case Western and the Perimeter Institute both received and acted on sexual harassment complaints against Krauss.

I'm not clear what is controversial about these edits; they are both clearly relevant to Lawrence Krauss and directly from a reliable source (in fact one that is already used in this article). I particularly think that the Case Western and Perimeter incidents provide a more full picture of the sexual harassment findings against Krauss, whereas restricting it to ASU only (as the article did before my edits) presents a picture that this may have been a one-off incident. ASU only learned about and investigated the incident there in response to BuzzFeed's investigation, whereas Case Western and Perimeter both investigated and came to conclusions about his sexual harassment back in 2007/2008. I think both incidents are in fact better supported by the source, since Krauss acknowledges the Case Western complaint in the cited article.

And I really don't understand what complaints there could be about #1.

Therefore, I will restore the edits I made. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ashill: There are hundreds of true, well-sourced facts about Krauss that do not belong in this bio. The article already contains 4 paragraphs about sexual allegations against Krauss, including mention of and link to the BuzzFeed article. The items you add are stale news from that article, items that have never gotten wide coverage or interest. To present them in a balanced appropriate way would require much more space than those items merit. The CWU item is based on one student who said Krauss made her feel uncomfortable, and a second student who was solicited by CWU administrators to complain about him. He was restricted from campus in 2008 and invited to return in 2009, according to the BuzzFeed article. The PI matter was based on a complaint against Krauss in 2009, which resulted in no action until a 2012 decision not to invite him to speak there. It seems an exaggeration for Wikipedia to refer to these incidents as "variety of sexual misconduct claims against Krauss." Furthermore, Krauss's response to these stories states that both CWU and PI continued to invite him to their campuses, contrary to the BuzzFeed story. But these are very trivial stale stories that do not merit the length of discussion that would be required if we were to present them in a balanced, NPOV manner. That is why I am restoring the article to its stable text, except for the change you want to make to the lead. If you still feel the CWU and even more minor PI items should be added, perhaps we should seek wider comment from other editors. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 21:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange I think that removing all mention of the CWRU and Perimeter Institute history, or at least that there were multiple institutions that found that he had committed sexual harassment, as mentioned in the sources, is whitewashing to present the impression that only ASU found that he violated policy, pure and simple. There can certainly be discussion about how much detail to go into in reporting what the sources say.

The language about a "variety of sexual misconduct claims against Krauss", while entirely accurate, was there before my edits and I agree it could be better; I thought that my edits made the language more specific and more reflective of the sources. I've edited the text in the body, removing the "variety" language and restoring (or adding, depending on your perspective) explicit mention of CWRU and Perimeter. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please AGF that my motivation is to improve Wikipedia, not to whitewash Krauss. You have once again added material that has never before been in the article because it is trivial, complex, and poorly understood. It is accurate to say, and the consensus version has long stated, that "BuzzFeed reported a variety of sexual misconduct claims against Krauss." It is inaccurate to remove that full stop and append "which had been investigated by Case Western Reserve University in 2008 and at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics." This implies that all the claims made by Buzzfeed had been investigated by CWRU and by PI, which is completely false. It would be accurate to say something like "Among the claims reported by Buzzfeed were two complaints against Krauss during his time at CWRU and one by a woman who attended a seminar he gave at PI in 2009. The Buzzfeed article states that, as a result, both CWRU and PI restricted Krauss from their campuses, a claim Krauss disputes as untrue." The BuzzFeed articls also does not state that CWRU and PI conducted "investigations" aside from the active attempt of one CWRU official to recruit a student to give evidence against Krauss, who had apparently annoyed them by leaving for the greener pastures of ASU. whatever restriction was placed on Krauss in 2008, BuzzFeed notes it was lifted in 2009 when Krauss returned to CWRU to give a seminar there. When PI decided in 2012 to uninvite Krauss from giving a lecture there, Buzzfeed says it resulted from a review of their policy, not from an investigation of the complaint someone made against Krauss in 2009. In order to give a balanced presentation of these confusing and fairly trivial events, you need to use more space than they merit. Thanks to PaleoNeonate for agreeing with my earlier explanation. I do not wish to edit war with Ashill by removing for the third time inaccurate and defamatory material he has just reinserted for the third time into this article. Relying on the wisdom of Wikipedia, I hope some other page watcher will weigh in both on the talk page and in the article to improve it. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A problem that I see is that these are allegations. While such can certainly affect one's reputation to a point where reliable sources do mention it (and we should, consequently), this is a university's investigation's point of view, not a court case with a conviction. As such, we should simply report about it, taking care not to exaggerate. When sources conflict, it's also difficult, we ideally should report about what multiple sources said. Considering that organizations, companies and universities also want to preserve their reputation, they do what has to be done, including changing a director, etc. Which we already mention, too... —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange: My mention of whitewashing referred to the effect on the content. I apologize for seeming to question your motivations; I did not intend to.

Thanks for the point about the wording I added inadvertantly suggesting that all three institutions investigated all complaints; I've cleaned that up.

I think a large part of my reaction is the fact that there was a ton of detail on the ASU investigation (including the newsy evolution of the case, instead of an encyclopedic description of the outcome) with no mention of the CWRU or Perimeter cases. I've tried to edit to reflect these concerns. I've also trimmed more unnecessary-I-think detail: we don't need to say in the text which news organizations reported a public statement when it's referenced already. I've also rejiggered sentences to organize the paragraphs by topic; the section read like sentences were added as each new news story came up so was redundant and a bit difficult to follow.

PaleoNeonate: It is inconsistent with the sources to describe these as mere allegations. There were allegations which were subsequently investigated at three institutions (that we know of); all found him the equivalent of guilty in their internal processes. I think the article is quite clear that these were allegations at universities, not allegations in a court of law. There has of course been no formal criminal allegation or finding of guilty (that I've seen mentioned in sources), but the Wikipedia article doesn't claim or suggest otherwise (and, appropriately, doesn't use the word "guilty"). The Science article says it was a preponderance of evidence test; I think that is important to conveying the significance, so I put that explicitly in the article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• The main focus of the BuzzFeed article is its collection of multiple women's complaints about LK. Foregrounding CWRU and PI incidents in our introduction of the BuzzFeed story is inappropriate. Also, conflating the trivial incidents at CWRU and PI with the investigation done by ASU creates a false impression of equivalence. The CWRU and PI stories have little importance to the article or to the career of LK.

• Let me say more about how misleading it is to present them as if CWRU and PI conducted investigations similar to the one by ASU, or that the claims against LK that were reported to CWRU and PI in 2008 and 2009 are similar in character or severity to other claims reported by BuzzFeed or investigated by ASU. The only independent source for the CWRU and PI claims is the BuzzFeed article (plus Krauss's response to it[3].) At CWRU, LK allegedly made two undergrad women feel uncomfortable, by making a comment about there not being many women in the physics department and inviting one student to dinner. One woman complained to CWRU about what she experienced as LK's inappropriate behavior, and a second woman was then recruited by CWRU to make a second complaint against him. LK's restriction from the campus seems to have been brief and mild, starting sometime in 2008 and ending sometime in 2009, when he was invited back to give a seminar. This is in keeping with the fairly tame nature of the "offenses" charged, as are CWRU's positive statements in 2008 about Krauss.[4] At PI, where LK gave a talk in 2009, one staff member complained that he had sexually harassed her by "inappropriate communication." There was no "investigation" of this complaint, nor was there any investigation several years later, when, after LK had been invited to give a talk at PI, a PI staff member told his potential host about the existence of the 2009 complaint. It is unfair and WP:SYNTH to manipulate these minor events more than a decade ago to make a case that LK was "investigated" at CWRU and PI and found to have committed bad behavior on a par with grabbing a woman's breast. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  Your view appears consistent with mine when reading those articles. I also have concerns in relation to the plausibility of some of the material, but I won't expand about these because they would be original research, so irrelevant on WP. —PaleoNeonate – 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly supports nilogony/nihilogony/cosmogony from nothing

He confuses 1. nothing, 2 zero and 3. the null set.

He expresses himself via rhetoric and persuasion; not mathematics.

Not all atheists believe in the existence of nothing, and in the decay/expression of entropy of it as a universe.

Topogony is a different theory for example. Any solvable algorithm of topological algebra pre-exists. A small region of a pretopological space decayed via Big Bang into the universe.

Topogony is one out of many theories. Watch: Before the Big Bang 4 and all the other episodes on YouTube.

The unfairness of Laurence is that he entangles atheism strictly to nilogony and not to other theories. Topology has nothing to do with religion; so he has no excuse. Also the claim: "I was generically open towards any no-deic cosmogony" won't do, because we have to evolve physics with specific approaches. People judges us for what we specific say and do; and only specifics can be understood by others being communicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:6C00:E915:B450:FF3D:AB2 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Have any reliable sources reported on this? -Jordgette [talk] 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrections to factually incorrect material, and additional information

The editor continues to revert back to incorrect information, and also to remove cited information that clarifies the mission and activities of the origins project foundation, which distinguish it from the earlier origins project. This foundation was not created until after ASU ended the ASU Origins Project. The editor instead insists that the foundation was created after Lawrence Krauss's appointment as director was not renewed. This is not the case, as negotiations with the university about the new foundation were carried out after the ASU Origins Project was terminated. In addition describing the mission of the origins project foundation was made in response to request for clarification by several readers. Removing this material reduces the clarity and accuracy of the article. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional outlet, we're don't host self-promotional mission statements. If you have a neutral, third party source that describes the organization we can use that, but the self-description will not work. The fact is that the independent org was only founded because ASU didn't want to work with Krauss on it any more, and if we mention it at all that needs to be reflected. Where did these 'several readers' request this clarification? I can't find anything on those lines. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Several things here.. First, the language "removed" is an unnecessarily charged term, and isn't consistent with the information in the rest of the piece. At the end of a five year term on July 1, 2018, ASU did not renew Krauss for a third term. "Removed" suggests he was removed from his position before his term ended. Moreover, ASU then terminated the Project, and only after that was the new foundation established, with a somewhat different mission and activities. The causal connection to the creation of the new foundation was the termination of the old project, not Krauss' directorship. What needs to be reflected is that the old program no longer existed and then the new program was created. It did not, for example, compete with an ongoing program

Second, regarding the mission of the new foundation. The mission of the original ASU origins project is described in the article, so it seems appropriate to describe the mission of the new organization, which is not identical. Moreover, the description of the activities of the foundation in the article as it was is factually incorrect. It describes only public lectures, but not online programming, and not travel experiences. Since the mission of the original project is mentioned in the article it makes sense to describe the mission, and at least correctly the activities of the new organization.

As for readers requesting this, here is the content of an email that was recently received "Your wikipedia page talks about the ASU's Origins Project, which was renamed to the Interplanetary Project and was then canceled. No mention of the Origins Project or what the relation is, if any. This is confusing - because it's the same or similar name, it feels like it should be the same, but there is a missing link there." 142.167.54.113 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you associated with the organization somehow? How did you get access to this email? MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

yes I am. I can ask the author of the email to reply to you directly if you would like. The new version, with the offending sentence about removal having been removed, is an improvement, but the problem is, as the author of that email indicated, it leads to confusion about the new foundation, which has the same name. To remove confusion, it might be reasonable to state simply that in 2019 an independent non-profit foundation called The Origins Project was created, and Krauss has served as its President. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read over WP:COI and WP:PAID - you have been violating Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

how.. I was not paid to make corrections? I was just trying to clarify the article in response to an email about it. And I engaged in the talk page in response to guidance from Wikipedia to do so in order to correct articles.. Nothing else intended. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how to otherwise ensure accuracy and clarity. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

thanks for your attention..signing off now.. I will try and inform other people who have problems with the page to deal with it themselves. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have added in a sentence in the summary talking about the termination of the ASU Origins Project and added the phrase "following sexual misconduct allegations against Krauss". Do you think it is neutral to put this in TWICE in the summary.. it is mentioned 3 paragraphs later in the summary.. It is best to either take that phrase out since it appears almost immediately below or remove the entire sentence about the creation of the new project as it was yesterday. This is certainly far less neutral than it was before. 142.167.54.113 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor removal of factual information

A section was added to the activism section describing the writing by this individual since 2021, with 7 references. The editor removed this section, given below, which makes this article out of date. This revision does not make a value judgement claim, which would require a third party reference perhaps.. It simply says that the individual has written extensively on these subjects and then gives 7 referenced examples.. It doesn't say that writing about this subject is good or bad, or that the individual is good or bad for having written them. It is a highly referenced addition to a section describing the activities of this individual. Not including it means the article is not up to date, since most of the activism in the past 2 years is described here. This seems unwarranted. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

All 7 of those references were to articles written by Krauss, none of which supported the overall point of the addition. Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids combining primary sources in this way, see WP:SYN. If secondary sources have not taken notice of this direction in Krauss's writing, neither should the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

the references specifically refer to the topics described in the addition, free speech, academic freedom etc.. Would the addition of this third party reference make a difference? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-krauss-returns-as-a-free-speech-champion/ It seems a bit ridiculous to require a third party's opinion about simple facts.. The articles referenced explicitly describe the issues the addition discusses...there is no subjectivity here.. no attempt to aggrandize Krauss.. it is simply to bring that section up to date. But if you require a third party reference, there it is. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the addition of unreliable sources such as self published blogs will not help. It is better to omit trivia or be 'out of date' than to compromise fundamental content policy. MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

OK.. it is good to have a discussion here instead of a debate.. so I appreciate this. But my question is this.. The 7 articles referenced clearly demonstrate Krauss's activism has moved into this area. In what way can this be mentioned without compromising fundamental content policy? 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

If and when a reliable secondary source notes it, we would follow how the secondary source described it - potentially. The simple fact that a source exists doesn't guarantee inclusion. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It is offensive for you to argue, as you have in other replies that the few actions I have taken, including adding the net thrust of Krauss's articles for the last 3 years, which is neither promotional or demotional but just factual represent an effort to promote. Just because in your mind you have decided there is a POTENTIAL for COI doesn't mean there always is .. yet your actions and inclusions can be viewed to be the opposite a promotional.. I.e. biased.. or simply ridiculously based on some rule number rather than logic. If the Wikipedia addition said, Krauss has a dog, and the reference was a picture Krauss posted of himself having a dog, would you argue that one needed a secondary source from a verified news agency to verify that Krauss had a dog? Moreover, as some sort of punishment you have put this new warning label on a piece which as far as I can tell contains almost all material given by another assortment of people.. That shouldn't be there.

Moreover, while you claim to be somewhat unbiased, note for example that TWICE, not once, in the article the same reference to a statement Krauss made about Epstein is quoted.. Is it that important compared to the net body of his work described in other section headers that such a statement need be quoted twice?!! In the Career, read: " In 2011, Krauss defended his association with Epstein, saying "As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people." Then in a whole section with a caption "Relationship to Jeffry Epstein", again making it seem as if this is equally important as the sections "Career" "Scientific Work", "Activism" etc--a clear bias presumably on your part.. One finds, "In 2011, Krauss told an interviewer, "As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people...I don't feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it." It might be argued that you, or whoever else has managed these things in the piece, has a COI..

If you really want Wikipedia to be what you suggest you want, you might consider the logic of what is there and whether it represents facts, and also not assume that anything that might not be negative is promotional, while anything that might be negative must be unbiased. You should examine the content itself and see if it is reasonable.

It is clear that any attempts I make to simply correct errors or improve or update the facts in this article or others will be rebuffed by gatekeepers like you who have lost sense of what the purpose of gatekeeping is... so you will be happy to know I will not be editing this or any other Wikipedia page from now on.. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you tried to add 'Krauss has a dog' based on a primary source I would oppose that, not because I thought it was factually incorrect, but because it is trivia that doesn't belong in an article. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The way Wikipedia editors know what is and isn't worth covering is by taking cues from secondary sources. As to the Epstein stuff, that is what secondary sources have decided is worth covering, and so too will the article as a consequence. MrOllie (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks.. I didn't mean that having a dog was anything more than trivia..my point was that the evidence of what krauss is doing is given by what krauss is doing, and if one is talking about Krauss' activism, then the articles in wall st. journal etc.. give evidence of that.. As for the Epstein stuff.. you missed the point. It is covered.. but in a short article the same perjorative paragraph is repeated twice, unnecessarily.. Anyway, not sure if it is worth continuing this discussion at this point if you don't read carefully what I am saying. I try and read carefully what you are saying. I also think the warning note you added to this page, which has been up for at least a decade I expect, and which is the product of many different people, is unfair.. but again, it seems you are the boss...and appeals to reason don't always seem to work. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have read and understood what you have been writing here, I simply do not agree. MrOllie (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of awards from award section

Numerous times the same editor has removed various or all awards since 2016 from the awards section, even when these have been added by different individuals, and even when these same awards appear in the wikipedia entries for other well-known individuals. The argument given is that these awards are not notable.. No rational is given as to why these awards, including the Freedom from Religion Emperor has no Clothes Award, given once a year to an individual by a national organization, the Lifetime Achievement Award by Marquis Who's Who, given to a tiny fraction of the thousands of Who's Who awardees, and the Monaco Voice 40 over 40 award, given to notable individuals including Buzz Aldrin and Cherie Blair in the same year as awarded to this individual, are less notable than the previous awards. The editor's actions as a gatekeeper appear to interfere with overall balance and currency of this wikipedia entry. 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a place to build a long list of nonnotable awards - and there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus not to build lists of awards where the individual awards lack independent Wikipedia articles. As a COI editor, you should not be trying to force awards into this page - honestly, you should not be editing it at all. That some other article is listing something it shouldn't would be a reason to fix the other article, not to break this one as well. MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Look.. I understand your desire to try and ensure the standards of Wikipedia... but I don't understand why and on what basis you decide what awards are notable, and if various people have added them, and there are even wikipedia items listing the awards and recipients (I.e. Freedom From Religion Foundation) don't you think you should be a bit less cavalier about removing them? 142.68.40.241 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's easy. Does the award have its own Wikipedia article? If not, then the award is non-notable. -Jordgette [talk] 23:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I just added a section on this to MrOllie's Talk page after he reverted my edit. Sorry I didn't see this before. In short, I believe the award I added clearly is notable. amertner (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The available sources don't support notability. If you tried to make an article it would almost certainly get deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Article's COI tag

The article has had a COI tag since 2021. This talk page doesn't seem to mention it and it is not clear from the history who this editor is supposed to be. Is this concern now resolved? Can we remove the tag? To me, the article looks quite NPOV. Ashmoo (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The current COI tag was added in November 2023, just a couple months ago in response to IP editors and single purpose accounts who were trying to whitewash the article for a while. So long as that doesn't start up again, we can probably remove the COI tag. MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems it has started up again. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tons of articles get abuse from IP editors and the like. But the template says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", and not "random IP edits are making questionable edits". Those are quite different things.

I've removed the template, which seems appropriate if this is the best reason for adding it. Arp242 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)