Talk:Lawrence Krauss

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  sexual harassment  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent development wrt "Misconduct allegations against Krauss" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Draft of addition to article, please comment. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Al Franken is neither a Christian nor a conservative. It's bias, but not that kind. -- JCaesar (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OK, This Is Ridiculous 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suspension of honorary membership of board of Centre for Inquiry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources e.g. NYT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jerry Coyne 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sexual harassment stuff

message: 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)
replies: text: Already in the article.  —PaleoNeonate – 00:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ousted from post as director of Arizona State University’s Origins Project for sexual assault 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Looks legit to me. Good work, I'd say. Dayirmiter (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it quite possible this document has been falsified. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cool. Have any reliable sources reported on this? -Jordgette [talk] 13:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  He explicitly supports nilogony/nihilogony/[[cosmogony]] from [[nothing]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of awards from award section