Talk:Michael Shermer/Archive1

Libertarianism

I was just wondering if we could maybe mention his libertarianism which at least according to some reviews on Amazon goes into dogmatism at times. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

Feel free to mention away: it's a Wiki. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 06:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is news to me, so I'm sure interested.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 06:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Don't forget to mention he likes dogs too, and that can result in murderous blood lust. (Son of Sam) ^{— Unsigned, by: ROFLCOPTER / talk / contribs}

Witchhunt

No mention of the witchhunts against him? RW, I'm pleasantly surprised given your hijacking by the pro-A+ and pro-FTBers. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=shermer_33_2 ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.55.215.122 / talk / contribs}

"Witchhunts" is hyperbole, but we don't need to document every piece of A+-related drama. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hyperbole isn't uncommon with these people. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Shermer's standing in the community has been dropping ever since he tried to relate the Kardashev scale to economics, and that goes back quite a while. 2) What makes you think the wiki has been hijacked? We have always been here. EVDebs (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article. I wonder if this has anything to do with the round of accusations against him made by anonymous sources and published on PZ Myers blog? --Damo^Hi 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this section predates the charges by a couple months. Personally, although I find the charges credible, I don't think they quite fit on this page without further information. EVDebs (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations

I understand the section predates the allegation (there are no charges) - that was my point, I wonder if they are related. I don't know whether the allegations are credible or not, since they are anonymous and do not specify where, when, how or with whom the alleged incident took place. Frankly, I agree with the Mr Deity crew who made the point that without evidence one shouldn't go around believing anonymous stories without corroboration and without allowing the other person an opportunity to defend themselves. I'm not sure of the defamation law in USA, but if this took place in my neck of the woods PZ would be in serious shit. You can't just go around publishing anonymous stories that a (mildly) famous person raped an anonymous person, especially when you have an acrimonious relationship with that person, and expect not to get sued. None of this should go in the article though, I agree with that. Damo^Hi 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not real keen to get off on yet another debate over the issue, but I will say that there's a difference between legal determinations and approaching it with logic. I don't know what the legal outcome is likely to be, but logically speaking, it looks pretty bad for Shermer. That, of course, only means something in a civil court with a very smart lawyer for the defense; it certainly isn't enough to convict in criminal court. The whole thing is really complex, honestly, and although the general principle is certainly on-mission, the CYA thing to do is to discuss everything in the abstract without specifically tying it to Shermer, at least until any legal matters have shaken out. That's probably one for essay space. EVDebs (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked for a debate on it, but I didn't see one. I imagine it has all been said before. Definitely keep any mention of this out of mainspace. Damo^Hi 07:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of grinding over the issue over on the Facebook page and in general I have a bad case of SIWOTI syndrome. I have trouble avoiding them when they start. EVDebs (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this quite closely. I find most people who don't support Myers just say, 'Anonymous accusations, don't believe it, Myers is terrible.' By contrast those who support Myers, if they mention the issue have well reasoned arguments for taking the accusations seriously. Below are two, you can find more at Freethought Blogs.

• Michael Shermer: Rapist or Sleaze?
• PZ Myers’ Grenade, and Anonymous Accusations vs. Unnamed Sources: The “Deep Throat” Analogy

There's general agreement the evidence is not strong enough for a criminal conviction. Should we protect the reputation of someone who can't be convicted of a crime? Myers has done enough to warn women and we don't need to do more. The accusations are widespread enough, what we write will make little difference so long as we are fair. Perhaps we should wait a month, see how things pan out then write something careful that doesn't overstate the case against Shermer. Of course if anything new happens there may be a case for writing earlier.

Has there been an increase in traffic to this page since the accusations started? If there has readers probably want reasonable information and there is a case for writing something balanced sooner. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Since I wrote the above it became clear to me that many people in the atheist community have been taking sides, assuming Shermer is certainly innocent or certainly guilty. I therefore support the current position of making clear on the page that we don't know. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Our page on shermer is not important enough for there to be any real traffic to it - but us, the editors here. Secondly, i'm curious what you mean "Meyers has done enough to warn women". Warn them OF WHAT? And while i get PZ is sorta hero of yours, he's not the world's atheist connection. so why his "warning" is sufficient is beyond me. If it's something that need to be addressed, PC, address it. It's really that simple. You can decide what is or is not important enough. I've not followed this one bit, and you claim you have, - so you should be qualified to make those decisions. just write things well, cite them well, and think about what you are writings.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My opinions and research are here. This is the latest version which may include other people's work. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why bring it up on the wiki, here?Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I also haven't been following this at all, but just glanced through a few blogs to get the gist of it. This is definitely not something we should be seen to be taking sides on, but since the allegations are causing something of a stir within the skeptic blogosphere, I don't think it would be unjustified to mention that such accusations have been made. PC's idea to leave it a while & see what transpires before writing something fairly neutral on the subject isn't a bad one. I kindof think we should leave it till there has been some sort of response from Shermer (& not just people quoting things he said in emails etc.) so that at least there are two sides to the story. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

there are some reports that schermer has issued a cease and desist letter to try and halt some of the blog discussions. Anonymous accusers and the pile-on effect notwithstanding, if schermer is on the faculty and in a position of some authority over female students, are the allegations sufficient to warrent his suspension until they are investigated ? I may be out of line with popular opinion but I spent years as a counselor at a university and sexual assaults are nasty things to deal with fairly. Hamster (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't it largely depend on the University? in the recent wake of "non-addressed" verified sexual harrassment claims that are popping up all over the nation (i know my own colordoa U is in a world of hurt cause they never took some women's claims seriously), i would think caution would be to suspect and look into the alligations. but at minium, take them seriously.

And i'm not entirely sure how you can demand a cease and disist on blog discussions. they carry the legal weight of - well - discussions. people talk, and i don't think you can call slander on someone talking about "what they heard". but i could be wrong. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This fundraiser for Shermer's legal costs displays a (partial) copy of what appears to be a cease & desist letter from Shermer's attorney. Shermer has posted on the fundraiser (which he apparently didn't instigate) that he supports the campaign & will indeed use the funds raised for legal action against Myers, insisting on a retraction & apology. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@WfG, of course you can sue for defamation based upon something written on a blog. In this case I would have thought that Sheremer has had his reputation severely tarnished, based upon an anonymous, unspecified allegation where the alleged has no chance to defend himself. Many, many people seem to assume that he is guilty, whereas everyone should assume that the allegations are unsubstantiated, since they are. I suspect that PZ will likely lose most of his assets over this, and rightfully so. --Damo^Hi 21:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I say that until substantial evidence can come forth about the accusation, it should be treated as nothing more than hersay. Zero (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"hersay"? I sure as fuck hope that's just a hugely embarrassing typo.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, would you say that about a rape accusation? I always find it troubling how much weight we do or do not give to accusations. I *feel* as if, indoctrinated into the land of feminism and all* that we give far more weight to male accusitions of trouble/crimes/tensiosn, than to those of women, which we largely write off as "overly senstive". but again, i dn't really know this, it's more just how i see it play out.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OH wait! by "it should be treated", you mean BY US HERE, not by the school, right? cause then i'd agree. :-) I thought at first you meant, "in general". Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I meant by us here. While this is more court of public opinion, I would rather wait until something serious manifested itself. Zero (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a problem with all this. From a quick scan of the net it seems that there are a number of accusations against Shermer. Normally I'd say that we should go with "innocent until proved guilty" and wait for the verdict of the courts. But in this case none of these accusations are going to court - so they will remain forever "accusations". That's not really the best situation for either Shermer if he's innocent of for potential future victims if he's not. I don't see any solution, I just think it's an unfortunate situation.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why PZ would reveal it like that. Wouldn't contacting the police be more appropriate? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

um, not really, no. Cops don't care if you h ave been harassed, they barely care if you've been raped, if it's not Stranger Danger rape. The school may or may not care - and that is where (stat pulled out of my ass) 90% of US harassment cases are dealt with. Courts rarely are involved cause it's uber hard to prove at the level of legal scrutiny. but in a work enviroment, they can put things like a "watch" on you (or warning without consequence... ie "we heard this rumor, if we hear more, it's going to be bad"). even for alligations, they can horse him to take stupid classes on sexual harrassment, etc. so that's where this will likely play out. we should keep our ear open, but i do agree, if the school takes no action, it's really reporting on rumor only.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Contacting the police would also be inappropriate as it's explicitly not what the (alleged) victim asked him to do; if she wanted to contact police, she could have done so herself. Nevertheless, it seems kindof foolish of Myers to publicise this story without seeking legal advice first (I assume he didn't; I can't see a lawyer thinking this would be a good idea). The inevitable legal action will most likely put him in a position where he either has to name his informant or back down completely. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But making the accusation and not going to the police leaves everybody in the worst of all possible worlds.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how this pans out - is Shermer influential enough to induce a Streisand? Osaka Sun (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about Myers. I assumed he was mature and sensible enough to get legal advice before publication, I assumed further his published evidence may not be the whole of his evidence. Then Myers is a hero of mine and I may be wrong, we'll have to see how this pans out. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Myers keeps that webpage up, he looks confident. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone succinctly point out the reasons why we are not mentioning the allegations Myers has made against Shermer on their respective pages? So far it seems the reason is because they might not be true; I would contend that it should be included in both articles but qualified so that the reader understands the allegations are unsubstantiated. This is a notable and developing event; in addition it illustrates a broader tension that has grown in the skeptic/atheist movement. I think it should be mentioned, judiciously of course. Tielec01 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Mentioning that it's underway would be better than pretending it's not happening.

I've just been reading the initial accusation again and it starts out - "At a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me." I'm not sure that I understand the sentence. Especially the "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" bit.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess that it means the same as "couldn't say no," on the grounds that if you can't say no you can't say yes. Peter ^mqzp 08:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The allegation is that he plied the woman with drinks. Before the conversation re-descends into the relative merit of the accusations or of Myers' actions can we thrash out whether or not it should even be mentioned? Tielec01 (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a wording that wont get us attacked by everyone, or is that not important? Peter ^mqzp 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC)No it isn't. You have misread the allegation I am afraid there Tieloc. That was a second story which was introduced to provide collaboration for the first story, which included no more than the line that Weirdstuff mentioned above. In the "he kept filling my glass up all the time", the story teller explicitly indicates that apart from some flirting he was a perfect gentleman. --Damo^Hi 08:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. She says he got her so drunk that friends had to rescue her from the situation, plus she did feel somewhat violated or at least discomfited by his behaviour. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, and thanks for the correction Damo. Peter, I think my contribution to the Myers article mentioning the incident was suitably neutral. Of course, an agreement in principle that the incident should or shouldn't be mentioned has to precede wrangling over wording. Tielec01 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. So if I understand it correctly we should understand "Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent ..." to read something like: "Shermer coerced me into drinking so much that I could not consent...". Which sort of makes sense. Though "coerced" might be a little weighted. (Sorry for derailing the thread - but I see it's picked up below.)--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what people are generally inferring, but it's not stated explicitly. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, it's a two-pronged accusation: Shermer got her drunk to the point of incapacity. Then, after she was incapacitated, he had sex with her. The second part is much worse than the first. It is worse if he manipulated her into getting incapacitated in the first place, but it would still be rape if he just happened to find her already blind drunk and still had sex with her. So I wouldn't focus so much on the 'coerced me into drinking' part as the 'I could not consent' part.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've written a very brief neutral statement. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I"m sure you all are away, but just saying "be careful where you go here". the issue that he kept filling her drink AND SHE DRANK is sounding close to "so she is at fault, or partially at fault". *If* what he did is true, then it stands as a typically male (though women do it) slime dog move that is mostly socially acceptable. I have been told more often than not, that it's easier to get a woman to say yes after a few drinks. Meaning - she probably wasn't goign to say yes BEFORE the drinks. and walking precariously close to rape. I'm still not convinced we need to address this beyond two top dogs (Myers and shermer) having a pissing contest - but if we do, it's important to just state facts - to the extent anyone knows them.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If Shermer did this since he is an expert on the physiology of the brain he understood exceptionally well what effect alcohol would have. He could asses how far the judgement of the woman or women was impaired as he refilled glasses and subsequently. If he repeatedly did this, that hasn't been proved but if he did it he was far more to blame than the woman/women. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Godot says, just state facts to the extent anyone knows them. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure - but the fact we should report is that there are (presently) two sides with somewhat confrontational opinions.

Something I don't understand about Godot's post above is the statement: "the issue that he kept filling her drink AND SHE DRANK is sounding close to "so she is at fault, or partially at fault". I had understood that, according to the PZ Myers side this is exactly what happened - he kept filling her drink and she drank it (as opposed to throwing it away or something.)--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What I was hearing in the talk page here, was dangerously close to "well, she drank the alcohol, so why is this even an issue"."so, she should have stopped drinking, no one horsed her to drink" which then implies that you get what's comming to you if you drink with a guy. He has a right to have sex with you? or you are supposed to know he will try to have sex with you? or just "stop fucking getting so drunk, you stupid women". like i said, it wasn't SAID, but it was coming close... and i was cautioning that we do imply such in anything we say in the article. The penality for being drunk, even if he bought you the drink, should not be unwanted sex.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick scan of this page and I don't see anybody saying anything close to that.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that, nor is there any actual suggestion that alcohol was involved in the rape allegation. That has been inferred from an incident where it looks as if Shermer did nothing wrong, certainly not legally and probably not morally either. Again, just muck raking from PZ. --Damo^Hi 03:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, we don't know whether alcohol was a factor in the alleged rape at all when all that's stated is "Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent". People are reading this as "he got me really drunk" in light of the other woman's anecdote about Shermer's behaviour at another occasion, & that may well be the intended meaning here as well but it's not explicit. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, people are starting to assume it means "MR Sherman (somehow) horsed me to get drunk so that I couldn't say yes or no." But if it doesn't mean that - what else could it mean? And the actual meaning is quite important as that is the heart of the accusation.--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're missing my point. my comments about being careful in how we word things, are not about whether or not her comment meant alcohol, it's how you all were talking *if* alcohol were involved. The very word you used "horsed me to drink" is the key. Whether or not she drank, does not make her the least bit complicit in being pressured for sex (if it happened). A woman or man who drinks does not have to be "horsed" to drink, to assume they will not be hit on, or pressured into sex. When you say "mr. sherman somehow horsed me to drink", you are getting quite close, if not there, to victim blaming. drinking does not equal consent to sex. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I quite happy to use her word "coerced". I don't see how it changes things much. And I've never blamed her and I'm not going to get into that argument.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Shermer suddenly claimed he knows who the accuser is though later he tried to backtrack.

“”In a personal email to me Shermer categorically denies these accusations. If what he said about his accuser gets out, it will be apparent to most all reasonable people that PZ Myers published a bold-faced lie. He recklessly tried to destroy another person’s reputation without regard for fact-checking.

—

1. So was the allegation a total shock to Shermer as he claimed in the legal letter?
2. Alternatively does Shermer know his accuser as suggested in the Loftus blog?

All this could be the undoing of any legal action. If the court accepts that Shermer knows an accuser the court will also accept PZ reported truthfully that someone accused Shermer of this heinous act.

“”Shermer seems to be admitting that he knows someone really did accuse him and PZ didn’t just make it up. That goes against the narrative in his cease-and-desist letters and that most of Shermer’s defenders are using. If he admits PZ was repeating an accusation that was was actually made and acted in good faith, his whole case falls apart without PZ naming anyone.

—

We don't know what will happen next. Still after Shermer's apparent admission and backtrack the whole thing could fizzle out. If there are no legal fireworks those who contributed and are still contributing to Shermer's legal fund could be deeply disappointed.

This is from [1]

Since the 26th August when Jason Thibeault wrote More foot-gunning in the Shermer debacle the affair seems to be fizzling out, neither side is writing very much. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As of 2nd Sept 2013 the Michael Shermer Legal Fund is still asking for funds and accepting funds, they've already reached more than their goal. "Funding duration: August 20, 2013 - September 19, 2013" so we should look out for action after September 19. If Shermer isn't in a strong position to go ahead with legal action what will happen next? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're making assumptions based on very little information & things people have said that are very open to interpretation. I see no reason to believe that Shermer has abandoned plans to pursue legal action. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

friendly edit break

(UI)I am happy for whatever you guys decide, but my position is that this is essentially malicious gossip introduced by a guy (PZ) who doesn't like Shermer. We only have his word that he hasn't just made the whole thing up to smear an opponent. Shermer has categorically denied everything and declared that he is going to sue PZ for defamation. Publishing this sort of muck just lends it an air of credence that it shouldn't deserve. There is no difference between an allegation about sexual assault to one about fraud or theft or violence; without corroboration it is just gossip, potentially disasterous to character and actionable. If the alleger herself comes forward then we might be in a different position, but until then I say ignore it.Damo^Hi 08:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere Myers doesn't strike me as the kind of person you can simply discount as mad or bad, of course the same applies to Shermer. A well worded addition to the article would make it clear that the allegations are unsubstantiated, the reader would be made aware that the incident has occurred but no evidence presented. It might be a bit gossipy but I think the event has been a notable one and, as I have mentioned elsewhere, illustrates a growing tension in the atheist/skeptical movement. Tielec01 (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've only read the basic outline of this, but it seems to me that it would be better to leave this out until more facts come to light. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

+1 for "wait". Because it looks like most of the people here either haven't followed the situation, or are "not very good" at writing (*cough, cough*).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd also go along with holding back until something more develops. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}

Same. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

09:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait. This should be written about eventually. We might as well start asap, to give the text time to build up and improve. --81.175.225.92 (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Damo: as they say on The Other Wiki, assume good faith. PZ has no axe to grind that we know of, and the original accuser has chosen not to reveal herself. That doesn't mean the charges are true, as such, but there is no reason to assume malice on PZ's part. Incidentally, didn't we agree to keep it off the main page until more was known? EVDebs (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what we're trying to agree here, & most people are leaning that way. If anything is to be added to the article(s) at this stage, it would be best drafted on the talk page & agreed on first rather than opening up the article to the kind of edit warring that would likely ensue. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Assume good faith refers to other editors does it not? Anyway, malice was highlighted in the cease and desist letter from Shermer's lawyers which I have read. I don't assume malice, but I certainly suspect it, given that PZ has written the odd story critical of Shermer in the past. I particularly think his telling of the second story has significantly muddied the waters and caused people to make inferences about the first story that are completely unwarranted - you just have to read this talk page to see that. Damo^Hi 20:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence might be more significant than assume good faith at the moment.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

AGF is a good principle in general I think. And I don't think assuming good faith and presumption of innocence are mutually exclusive, since the first is a principle of logic (basically Hanlon's razor without the assumption of stupidity as the only other option) and the second is a legal matter. Or, to put it in a different context: if I was on the OJ jury way back when, I'd have voted to acquit but still thought he was guilty. EVDebs (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have to do either. When you are stating facts, and not taking a position, that is all you are doing. This is what was said by P-zed, this is what the claim is, there is no further evidence of anything in this claim. the internet has gone made taking sides. There you go. WE don't have to take sides, but we can highlight just how much crazy is there with everyone and their dog pointing fingers, making assumptions, calling names, etc. (I don't know if it's unique to femist/atheist stuff, or just internet stuff, but man does this particular group (the atheist skeptical community) love a good drama about feminism.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Godot. We aren't judging anyone guilty or not guilty, merely saying that it happened - which it did.

Here is what I wrote on the PZ page:

"On the 8th of August 2013 Myers accused prominent skeptic Michael Shermer of raping an unnamed woman. The general gist of the accusation is that Shermer fed the woman drinks and then took advantage of her and that he had a pattern of this behaviour. Reports from the blogosphere say that Shermer has sent Myers a letter asking for a retraction and apology, which as of yet, is not forthcoming."

Chop, change, shoot down, ignore or even agree on not mentioning the topic if that's what we all think. Even as I paste this I can see that, as Damo mentioned, I was confusing the original accusation with the second story about feeding women drinks - which I think should be teased apart. Tielec01 (talk) 08

00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

An attempt

What fasinates me is less about the "news" of the event, and more about the whole blogisphere uprising. It's apparently quite the "in thing" to talk about. Some sites are whining about PZ and being a "feminist darling," others are flat out accusing Shermer of rape - without the facts. Focusing on that (and it really needs to be on both this page and pz's page) might give us a real "story" as it were.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm suprised we haven't written a full article on Elevatorgate yet. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

you're right, it really doesn't belong on Dawkin's page - especially that in depth, but it is another of the blog wars... an amusing trend in the atheism/skepticis - feminist overlap. And it has caused quite a bit of a wave of reactions and similar incidents. Would it be one page, or a page for all of last year and 2011's feminist drama. I remember well, the atheist converntion drama where a panel of 5 gents were pontificating on why women were not at the convention, and dismissing the views of the very women they were asking about. That was some amusement, both the reality, and the umm... retellings. And there is the gaff at the convention where ron lindsey, at a convention "Women in Secularism", stood their and demanded to knwo why women were telling me to "shut up" (forgetting the "and listen a while, part). it's all a fun drama land. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of context

Because some people are pushing to add "context", but apparently are unaware of the actual one: The accusation didn't happen in isolation. At that time, there was a wave of heightened awareness of, ahem, "sexual misconduct" in the sceptic/atheist movement. It was triggered by Ashley Paramore ("healthyaddict") making a video about her assault at TAM 2012 in the end of July. This caused quite a stir and other people started coming forward. Karen Stolzow made public her complaints of sexual harassment by Ben Radford and Carrie Poppy disclosed that the way they were handled were one of the reasons she left her position at the JREF. And so on, and so on.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sexual misconduct in the sceptic/atheist movement" has been an ongoing talking point for at least a couple of years now. It should really get its own article. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Zooguard's removal of the lead (RE Myers and Shermer's tension) which seemed a little too POV to me, but I disagree with Weaseloid removing the statement that PZ Myers has not yet issued a retraction and apology for his statement. It's factual and it doesn't seem POV to me. Anyone disagree? Tielec01 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It was inserted with a reference (which didn't mention the cease & desist order) ahead of the references which are actually about the C&D. Plus it seems pretty redundant: we can all see that the blog hasn't been taken down, because we've already linked to that original blog. We can't really draw much of a conclusion from the fact that it's still visible, as we don't know what kind of correspondence or manoeuvrings may be going on behind the scenes. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't leave out the fact that the accuser doesn't like the accused, unless you are assuming guilt. I thought we weren't assuming guilt but just reporting the facts? Like I said, we shouldn't put anything about this in an article, but if we are going to put something it needs to be appropriate. --Damo^Hi 07:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a balance; I could also write that PZ Myers has a history of making accusations too quickly - and point to several incidents but that would inappropriately skew the tone of the section so that the reader assumed that this was one of those events. In my opinion the previous lead skewed the reader to believe that Myers was motivated by animosity - which we simply can't be sure of. Tielec01 (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't be sure of it, but we also can't rule it out. It is a distinct possibility. Damo^Hi 07:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

True, I wouldn't pick Myers as someone who would fabricate a claim just to discredit a person he disliked. Exaggerate maybe, I can imagine he would have been happy to be able to discredit an opponent and perhaps leapt on this quicker than he should have. Anyway this is all speculation, in my eyes the section as it currently stands (prior to being excised) is not a bad effort at an unbiased summary of events. Tielec01 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what other incidents of PZ making accusations too quickly are there? They seem like they would be extremely relevant to this. Damo^Hi 08:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The way it was written presented the rape accusations implicitly as part of the Myers-Shermer feud. The two things should be separated so that readers can decide for themselves: a short section on relations between Myers & Shermer, including what they've both said about each other; then a separate section on the rape accusations. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

One incident that leaps to mind is claiming Randi was a GW-denier, which he isn't, based on a misunderstanding of an (edited) article he wrote. I think it would be inappropriate to include this in the article though. Yes, I'm not aware of the extent of the feud between the two, but if it is notable then seperate sections would seem better to me. Tielec01 (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is best as it stands right now :). However if we are going to go down this road, you simply cannot leave of the picture the fact that accuser and accused have a feud. Maybbe it could be more nuanced than what I wrote, but it has to be in there. Ironically, the article PC linked to in order to support PZ's position actually documents in more detail why we can't just take this accusation at face value. [2] Damo^Hi 08:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

*snort* To further the irony, John Loftus (the author of Debunking Christianity) has a longstanding feud with Myers and FtB. :D So, if you are following that kind of reasoning, the post "documenting why we can't just take this accusation at face value" can't just be taken at face value, either. :p --ZooGuard (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not one word of this can be taken at face value. Obviously. Which is why we shouldn't be writing about this gossip. Damo^Hi 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should be writing about it. it is the drama of the week. it's everywhere on any blog that has anythign to do with atheism, with feminism, and especially where there is overlap. The focus may well be (should well be) on the bloggy mayhem. but it must be written about. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things regarding feuds. One is that although PZ has put some blistering criticism of Shermer out there, I wouldn't call it a feud. I think his positions on Shermer in general have been fairly well-reasoned and I don't think he had malicious intent; therefore, I don't see the issue of a rape accusation being part of any kind of grudge pattern. The other is Loftus. If Loftus has a feud going with FtB, it's one-way; his departure baffled a lot of people at the time and most everyone basically shrugged and said "Oh well, it's a shame, but... moving on...". One thing about Loftus' article particularly bothers me, and that is that he seems inclined to take Shermer's position at face value, which apparently included a smear against the accuser. Overall Loftus seems to be of the Slymepit ilk, even if he isn't actually a pitter. EVDebs (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the critique against the accuser is legitimate? How would you know, unless you take the position that an accuser is beyond question and nobody should ever question their veracity. I don't doubt that Shermer has created some enemies over the years, and perhaps he suspects that one of these enemies is the person saying this stuff about him to PZ. I'm not saying we should accept Loftus' word on this, on the contrary, we shouldn't take anyone's word on it and that includes PZ. Once someone reads an accusation like this it is almost impossible to be "unread" and so writing about it on the pretence of "writing about the controversy or the blog reaction" has the unfortunate effect that anyone who reads it will have their opinion of Shermer forever altered. We are not an encyclopedia, but we are a resource that people trust on certain issues, the skeptical community being one of them. I notice Wikipedia has a shoot on sight policy to all of this stuff and we should have the same policy. Damo^Hi 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. For this case, there is no point in continuing to argue about how to "frame" the story when we have no idea how it will end. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems this issue cannot be discussed in a non-partisan manner. Let's not risk importing a drama-fest here, if it's going to cause conflict I say let it go, I'm sorry for even bringing it up. It's a minor issue, notable only because the reaction has been so vociferous and we can always summarise events once feelings have subsided. Tielec01 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It could be legit, but as I've said elsewhere, assume good faith until proven otherwise. I'm also factoring in Loftus' history and Shermer's general bungling of the whole situation. I think PZ can, in general, be trusted. I don't think Loftus can, because of his history. I'm not sure if Shermer can or can't, but I can safely say that he very well might not realize what his actions entail if he's guilty, since we know the guy has a huge ego; trusting Shermer's word then becomes a case of trying to pick out what he believes he did from what actually happened. EVDebs (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

After all else, why the rush to discredit a claimed rape victim? That's the real problem here - none of Shermer's defenders, least of all Shermer himself, has been willing to address the issue, having gone straight to bluster and threats of litigation rather than trying to actually discuss the issue. Frankly, even apart from the accusation, this whole fiasco over feminism, combined with the glibertarian tone of a good chunk of the community in general, is making the entire community look like a bunch of half-witted science groupies who have never actually taken a science class. EVDebs (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're assuming good faith on both parties here, from my reading the above looks partisan. I don't know anything about Loftus, but PZ has a history of pulling the trigger a little early in some situations. That's not to say this is one of them at all, only that it would be foolish to paint Shermer as a sleaze or rapist at this stage. On the other hand I think it is highly unlikely that PZ would fabricate this story out of whole cloth - clearly something has been said to him about Shermer. The issue has clearly aroused passions on both sides, so let's put it in the parking lot for now and revisit it later with clearer heads? Tielec01 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What rush to discredit a claimed rape victim? What are you talking about? Shermer has denied any wrongdoing, and indicated that he will sue PZ for ruining his reputation. Now, in a blog post written by someone else, there is a suggestion that Shermer has an idea of who this person might be, and why they might say such a thing. What on earth is wrong with any of that, unless you have already assumed that Shermer is guilty? It seems to me that you are starting from the position that he has done something wrong and so you are blaming him for attempting to defend himself. --Damo^Hi 01:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Loftus has backpedalled on "knowing why they might say such a thing", as it contradicted what Shermer's cease-and-desist letter said: that he has no idea what are the allegations. In doing so, Loftus used a wording that is open to some very uncharitable interpretations...

And yes, attempts at attacking the character of the victim are par the course in actual rape cases and rape apology, so Loftus, and presumably Shermer, are (unwittingly?) playing straight into some tropes.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Shermer apparently already has a reputation for being a sleaze, at least in some quarters. His name was mentioned in one of the previous kerfuffles about harassment in the movement. As for Loftus, you can try looking at his behavior leaving Freethought Blogs, such as what he wrote in the comments here. Later, he was one of the founding members of SkepticInk, which started with a very high concentration of, errr, people who have issues with Freethought Blogs and other bloggers over feminism and other stuff.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that Shermer, or any rape accused, has no ability to defend himself by suggesting that his accuser is lying? That is what it is beginning to sound like to me. The mere act of denying the alleged crime is evidence of its commission? Damo^Hi 07:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. (That's an answer to the first question.)--ZooGuard (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My take

tl;dr: Shermer is probably guilty but the evidence is too circumstantial to say so in a legal sense. Here's why I say that.

First off, Shermer's reputation with women has apparently been an open secret for some time among skeptical women. At this point, I think Shermer being an underhanded bastard when it comes to women is really beyond dispute. I also think Shermer does not believe his actions are predatory; if you hooked him up to an infallible lie detector, he'd pass with flying colors. However, it seems likely that if you put him on the defensive, he'll probably say something stupid and self-incriminating anyway. Intellectually speaking, he's better than most other Libertarian skeptics, but he definitely has a huge problem with compartmentalized thinking. Mind you, Shermer is a smart guy... but so was Richard Nixon.

Loftus, on the other hand, is a Slymepitter in spirit, and additionally one of those people who seems to be in the skeptic/atheist community mainly out of smugness. (I didn't know he was involved in Skepticink, but that puts him in the same category as WND columnists for people who can safely be automatically dismissed.) I do not think Loftus is quite capable of thinking logically in this situation.

Myers, I think, has reason to believe he's doing the right thing. We can't confirm this directly because the source chose to remain publicly anonymous, but when PZ published the grenade article, he made very clear he knew the hit he'd take to his reputation and career if he was wrong. He didn't take the decision to publish the accusation lightly, and there are far less self-destructive ways of settling scores.

Now remember this is all happening in the midst of an all-out civil war over gender issues within the community, in which sexual harassment has become an issue that must be addressed, but a large number of skeptics are fighting the need to admit or even discuss the problem tooth and nail, and we know which side Loftus is on. Sure, Shermer can claim the accuser is a liar; as I said above, he probably believes it. And I will freely admit that if I was a prosecutor, I wouldn't touch this case with a ten-foot pole, a welding mask, and a full body hazmat suit. But this is a situation where, when forming an informed opinion, it's very important not to get law and logic confused here, as Shermer himself has done by threatening to litigate the issue. The law might squeak out a settlement for the victim in civil court, but wouldn't come close to a criminal conviction. However, I think a dispassionate analysis of the accusation in light of the facts in evidence leads to one conclusion: Shermer has some splainin' to do, and threatening lawsuits does not make him look good. EVDebs (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that I hope you are never on my jury when I go on trial. One simply cannot go around saying that someone is "probably guilty" based on such flimsy evidence. As for "threatening lawsuits", I disagree entirely. If someone causes irreparable damage to someone else's reputation by telling a story they had better be able to prove that story, or they should be prepared to compensate that person for the cost of the loss of their reputation. I fully expect Shermer to sue PZ, and I expect that, on the basis of the facts we have right now, that he will win and take the large part of PZ's assets. Damo^Hi 08:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, at least twice. You're doing exactly what I said not to do by conflating law and logic. EVDebs (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote. I have no idea how to separate the law from this situation since it is a legal situation and I am a lawyer. It is implicit, or even explicit, in your writing that you think Shermer is guilty of rape. I am simply pointing out, that nothing justifies this position, and that the person (including yourself now) who go around saying it had better be able to justify it, or face a defamation suit, rightfully so. Damo^Hi 08:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I've read it twice and find it unconvincing. I'm not sure what you mean by conflating law and logic; is the implication that the law requires more stringent evidence than logic? Tielec01 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear I agree on what you are saying about PZ, except I think you might be overstating the amount of thought that went into his actions. I don't know anything about Loftus or care - I'm not sure why he is even being discussed.Tielec01 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Loftus wrote a dumb blog post defending Shermer by attacking PZ and the alleged victim, Proxima linked to it, Damo tried to use it to make some kind of point, I answered that by making another point. Since you repeat that you don't know anything about Loftus, see my comment above, there's a link in it.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

EVDebs is saying that Shermer is guilty, but that a conviction on the criminal standard would be unlikely. Damo^Hi 09:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, the question of whether Shermer is more or less likely to be guilty (logic) is separate from trying to predict what a jury may decide in a civil or criminal case (law). The law frequently allows prosecutors to ignore exculpatory evidence, for example, or defense attorneys to crush criminal cases on technicalities. (I don't like using that word because it makes them sound a lot more trivial than they really are, but you get the point.) The point is that I can look at the evidence out there and the overall context of the situation and say "Hm, he's probably guilty", but if we're going to put that in legal terms, that probably wouldn't even get an indictment, much less a guilty verdict. (I certainly wouldn't vote to convict if I was on that jury.) Put it this way -- does anyone with an educated opinion on the matter still think OJ Simpson was innocent of murder? Legally speaking, though, "not guilty" was the correct verdict. That's the difference between law and logic. EVDebs (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So you are talking probabilities then - as in a civil court? Tielec01 (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(EC)We understand all that. I disagree when you say with the evidence out there it is reasonable to assume guilt. If this were a theft accusation, or an assault accusation I doubt you would just assume guilt like this based on a second hand story with no details whatsoever. Damo^Hi 09:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Depends on context. If we were talking about someone with a history of petty crimes, they'd jump to the head of the list of suspects. Again, though, that wouldn't necessarily get a criminal conviction. EVDebs (talk)

(EC)I wonder about the implications of concluding that someone is guilty even if a court wouldn't convict them. Isn't that the whole point of a justice system? It seems akin to saying "Even though I don't have sufficient evidence to prove it, I know X is guilty". Tielec01 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: "isn't that the whole point": Let me repeat a skeptical mantra: "Proof" is for mathematics and alcohol. In reality, there are different degrees of certainty/confidence. The level of certainty required by the state to sic its punitive apparatus on someone is higher than the level of certainty that would make me feel uncomfortable when female relatives of mine are around the guy (and rightfully so). There's also the fact that courts are limited by the specific wording of the law. Spousal rape was not legally recognized by quite some time, for example.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to start building Presumption of innocence. --Weirdstuff (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the information on proof ZooGuard but I was using it in the colloquial sense. The level of certainty required by the state is the level that we have deemed proper to find someone guilty of a crime - do you think that the burden of proof is set inappropriately high? Short of being a victim, perpetrator or witness how can you possibly know what has happened except through properly gathered and interrogated evidence? The justice system is the system we use to make decisions about guilt, it has been custom built for this purpose. Rumours and innuendo are not good evidence; neither is hearsay and there are good reasons why this is the case. I don't want to be too controversial but when EV said there is a difference between law and logic I read it as a difference between law and gut feel. Can we put aside partisan feelings and fashion an article that neither paints Shermer as a definite rapist or PZ as a liar? Tielec01 (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, Damo, i think Debs point is that you can be guilty without a court being able to convict you. Happens all teh time. especially in rape cases. Especially when we live in a culture that does not take things like date rape, seriously. Especially when less than "does not take them seriously", we quite literally blame the victim. Ultimately, Debs is dead on, that the issue here is not Shermer, but how the skeptical community will address the sexism that is rampit in the system. Shermer like jerks are universal at any function you attend. They have just enough fame to bank on it, and just enough sleeze to use it. But the problem for them is that we've started to call their 'sleeze", what it is - rape. And that doesn't sit well with many in the world, not just the skeptical community, because it's been a dating tack for a very long time. I agree with every bit of logic Debs put in. You risk not just your reputation, but your career by posting the "grenade blog", you aren't doing that lightly. There are other people who have come out backing him up, with the same story about the same person, and still others who have a different story about a different person and Shermer. But what really matters is how the community deals with it. Brush it back under the rug? or rip the wound open and start talking about how skeptical men view and treat women. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 14:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the ONLY issue here is Shermer and whether he has been defamed by PZ or not. Everything else is irrelevant. When someone goes around accusing you of a serious crime, you might see that nothing else matters. I don't think that PZ pointing to some ongoing issue at conferences will be enough to generate a defence of qualified privilege. --Damo^Hi 21:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the only issue for lawyers but many of us are concerned about other issues too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to compare this to a boil rather than a wound. This boil needs to be lanced, a great deal of unpleasant material will come out but afterwards our organisations can start to improve. If we try to hide the trouble things will continue to fester. Eventually the truth will come out and then we'll be accused over the cover up as well as over the scandal. The RC child abuse scandal shows us what we should avoid. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

While your analogy is apt, my point is that the problem is larger than this single issue. I think this is just one more "boil" as you say, in an underlying disease that keeps blowing up boils that need popped. Elevator gate, Women in Skepticism conference, American Atheists "why aren't there more women" kafafle... now this? something is festering, and skeptics should be addressing it. some are. some decidedly aren't. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've dug up evidence for yet another boil that could need popping. This involved a man complaining about being the subject of gay gang rape fantasies, in this case both the alleged perpetrator and victim had been drinking. The sexual harassment floodgate has opened, and I add my own trickle Limiting how much a person drinks at conferences reduces the risk either that the person will do something that gets one into trouble or that the person won't know to get away from a situation that is getting out of hand.

There could be a problem with Lawrence Krauss Lawrence Krauss allegedly threatened to sue Jen McCreight to silence accusations of sexual harassment. More names are named.too but we need much more evidence before putting it into any article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Please stop putting reference tags on talk pages.
2. I think you sort of missed the point of that story.
3. Limiting how much a person drinks at conferences? Are you serious?

Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree a great deal needs to be done and a great deal is being done. The Shermer issue will probably warn many men tempted to bad behaviour that their reputations could be on the line. Women aren't by any means the only group that can face harassment. Therefore the American Atheists have decided on a policy aimed at protecting all participants and specifically several minorities are mentioned.

American Atheists does not tolerate harassment of or by conference participants in any form. Prohibited conduct may include but is not limited to harassment related to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces (not related to convention sessions or materials), deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic conduct will not be tolerated. Atheists should have good rules for behavior

PZ Myers feels these rules are reasonable and consistent with civilized behavior. Some people considered thuggish object, this will be a long fight but I feel things are moving in the correct direction. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone on this page, with the possible exception of Tieloc has just assumed that the lady is telling the truth and that Shermer is guilty and that he is an example of the problem of sexual harassment at these conferences. All I can say is that I think if you are ever called to be a juror you should indicate to the judge that you are incapable of having an open mind or assessing the evidence fairly and should be excused. Damo^Hi 21:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law. Damo, one of the reasons women don't come out and tell people they've been raped, is that they are not believed. but the reality is, most women do not make this shit up. So the other way of looking at is, is why should you not believe her? why does shermer get your view of innocence and not her? I'm not making comments about the article, just about society at large. but the things I hear you say, sound very much like what I was told when a guy had sex with me while drunk (we didn't call it rape then, and it's quite different from teh feeligns i had when raped by stranger... never the less). "why would he do that?" "where is your proof?" "are you sure you didn't lead him on?" "you were drunk, how do you even knwo he had sex with you". etc. This was the 80s. it was the norm in college. happened to most all ofmy friends at least once. but the point is, why believe the guy and not the gal? (again, i will not change anything in the article, i'm just talkign about how society views all of this).Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Here we have one story told by an anonymous person on a partisan blog, with no details and no ability to defend himself (and when he does it is pointed to as evidence of his guilt). If the person came forward and said "at this time, this place Shermer did this to me" then there might be reason to think more of it, but until that it is just gossip. Until that happens, I don't think it is fair to even suggest that he is guilty of anything. Ability to confront ones accuser, and know the details of the accusation is vital to natural justice. --Damo^Hi 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, when a person risks losing his/her liberty natural justice is of paramount importance. I am concerned that Cardinal Keith O'Brien may be ordered to spend a long time, the rest of his life even in an enclosed abbey based on unspecified allegations and admissions. Michael Shermer doesn't risk losing his freedom unless stronger evidence turns up. Shermer has access to the civil courts if he hopes he can show more likely than not he is innocent. The trouble for Shermer is that if the civil courts find against him his reputation will be tarnished still further. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like some issues have been conflated here which is perhaps why we are all talking at cross-purposes. For clarity the issue of broader sexism within the skeptical community is only peripherally related to this particular case. Even if Shermer is the victim of malicious rumours with no basis in reality it wouldn't mean that there is no sexism within the skeptical community, and vice versa. I doubt anyone on this page denies the existence of sexism within skepticism, just like we wouldn't deny the existence of sexism within the community at large. However, while this particular incident may be illustrative of the growing tension between two camps of people, it's not like it is the definitive last word on the issue. The incident has to be judged on it's merits and they are very weak at the moment; we are not discounting the alleged testimony of the women in question it's just the evidence that has been presented is tangential and weak. The article needs to reflect that.

TL;DR Just because skepticism has a problem with sexism doesn't make Shermer guilty - more evidence is needed than rumour and innuendo. Tielec01 (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well put Tieloc. Exactly. Damo^Hi 01:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Damo, is anyone involved in this in any meaningful sense nonpartisan? EVDebs (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. --Damo^Hi 04:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You're accusing PZ of being partisan, and using that to impugn his credibility. So, is there anyone involved in this who is neutral, by that standard at least? EVDebs (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand the question. The issue is whether an anonymous story with no details can create the presumption of guilt that you think it does. Nobody is neutral. Shermer says he didn't do whatever he is accused of, but has no way to defend himself, whereas PZ says he has heard that he did. --Damo^Hi 04:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of my question was a somewhat obscure one, and mostly for my own benefit. Oh well. Anyway, here's the problem I'm having with your position. The apparent implication is that it's inappropriate to publicly discuss or even form an opinion on whether Shermer might or might not be guilty because it's unlikely or impossible that the evidence can meet the standard of guilt required in a criminal court. That is what I'm disagreeing with. (Note I did emphasize apparent.) I do think that, in criminal terms, there'd be enough to bring Shermer in for questioning, but not much beyond that, and that is my central position on the matter. I would also note that Shermer seems oblivious to the importance of appearance in a situation like this, as this is why people find the charge credible in the first place. No, the fact that Shermer's first impulse was to threaten a lawsuit is not evidence of guilt, but in a situation where the accuser's appointed agent (PZ) has chosen to accept the legal ramifications, Shermer's response looks an awful lot like a bad faith temper tantrum. Shermer could have done the mature thing and gotten out in front of it, but he didn't. That leads a lot of people to think that Shermer cares more about reputation than setting the record straight. EVDebs (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on this, unless the article is significantly rewritten because we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I'm not saying that because there is insufficient evidence for a conviction we shouldn't talk about it. Rather, I think that without details of who, where, what and when it is entirely inappropriate for anyone to form even a casual opinion as to whether he has done anything wrong or not. Since Shermer has been denied the ability to defend himself, the story is not even worth considering. The common thread running through here, and in other places is to assume that he has done the deed, but that is not an assumption that should stand without being challenged. I gather a large part of the reason for assuming guilt is the issues that have arisen around atheist conventions lately, but this point is entirely irrelevant and should have no bearing on the case one way or the other.

I also cannot think of a better response that Shermer could have made. Here is a person accusing him of one of the worst crimes imaginable and refusing to tell him any details, including even the identity of the person he is alleged to have raped. From the instant the post was written his professional and personal reputation have been severely damaged, probably beyond repair. His only option is to request that it be taken down, retracted and then sue for damages due to loss of reputation. This is what he has done. Damo^Hi 05:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? Really? After having had it explained to you multiple times why a woman might wish to make an accusation such as this anonymously, you still dismiss the accusation out of hand? And you also gloss over the fact that Shermer's past behavior is why people find this believable, and simply attribute it to the overall climate in the community? It's good that you're done, because you're getting very close to bullshit, if not outright dishonesty. EVDebs (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Meh. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then what is the point? You are not discussing, just asserting. Although I am aware of the difficulties in making a claim like this, that does not mean that we should just accept it at face value and assume guilt like you are doing. Alleged past behaviour is also not relevant to the issue of whether he is guilty of this particular incident, surely that is just basic common sense. Like I say, I hope you are never on my jury when I get accused of something. Damo^Hi 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I can safely say the prosecutor would have me voir dire'd the fuck out of there before you had to worry about that. EVDebs (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Osaka's take

I say we should all leave this page until we get more information. I'm beginning to miss HCMs more than this. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree. EVDebs (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Aw it stands the article seems well-weighted to me. Further discussion seems destined to descend into fruitless argument; unless the article changes as Damo said. Tielec01 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Some BoN tries to butt in one month later

Excised from above.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

what's really amazing is that everyone here has been naïve enough to think that Myers constant badgering of those such as Shermer who are atheist because they don't express the right opinion about the economy or gender issues or whatever. This site was originally supposed to be about religion, not criticizing anything that was politically non liberal. At least PZ did defend Pat Condell, when the A+ people claimed that good atheists don't say mean things about muslims. Unfortunately, he's defending their lunacy against Shermer in this case. It's more about hating Shermer's politics than anything else. Believing in unsubstantiated things while at the same time criticizing the religious. How interesting. Quite socially irresponsible of someone on here who claimed you shouldn't report accusations of rape to the police because they won't do anything. Maybe we should just stop reporting crimes altogether. Doesn't sound like a good plan. Not sure what this says about those socially responsible atheists. Hopefully it will be your downfall. Although I do respect Shermer in many ways and would like to see him vindicated.^{— Unsigned, by: 173.22.37.6 / talk / contribs} 02:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A question

I know that doubting anything said by an alleged rape victim is likely to automatically bring wrath down upon me, but the text says - "5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them".

So he has allegedly raped at least six women (with the implication of many more) and not one of them has gone to the police?

If he has apparently raped so many women how come not one of them has resulted in a criminal prosecution or at least an investigation?Coffee (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that comment was in relation to the alleged topping up of drinks, not rape. However, it's possible that the women in question have gone to the police and have been fobbed off. It's also possible that they decided not to go to anyone because it's too embarrassing. It's possible that the comment is an exaggeration. Without more details it's impossible to say much. Tielec01 (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The drink topping stories came later. From the context she's saying that she personally knows five other rape victims. The rest of your points are of course valid, though if one of them had made a complaint to the police and been ignored then it's surprising that this fact has not yet come out.--Coffee (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We're still groping around in the dark here as we don't know for sure what "coerced me into a position where I could not consent" means. At any rate, non-forcible rapes involving drink/drugs are underreported. A lot of women just don't want to go through the ordeal of police questioning & bringing charges in a situation where it'll be just their word against his & there's little for them to gain. I don't find it at all unbelievable that somebody could get away with it multiple times without being charged. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The accusation "Person X has raped six people and none of them reported it to the police" is not necessarily extraordinary, though perhaps a little surprising. Saying "Person X has raped me and five other people I know and none of us has reported it to the police even though our stories are mutually supportive" does sound like an extraordinary claim. In part because this must logically represent an improbable percentage of her close friends. (Or at least acquaintances who are close enough to exchange this type of confidence.)--Coffee (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the account to suggest that the other victims were necessarily her close friends. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I'll talk from experience, which means "emotion", which is poo pooped in the world of "rational responses". Do you knwo what happens if you go to cops to say "I was drinkign with him, and kept drinking, and drank so much I wasn't really in control, and then he had sex with me. I didn't want it, but wasn't really in control, as i said'. They will laugh you out of the precinct. so many people are saying "she didn't go to the cops" as if that's a valid choice. NO COP WILL LISTEN TO YOU IF YOU WERE DRUNK. *maybe* *maybe* if you were passed out, and you can prove you were passed out. but even then, if you were doing the drinking and are not underage, they will likely say "not our problem". You all are debating this, outside of the context of what really happens in our day to day world. Shermer's "way" of getting sex is common and acceptable by society. And almost every woman has been there, in that position, enjoying the drinks, and losing the ability to stay in control. Probably most men have been there - but in our soceity, men want sex, so it's never seen as rape if a man is plied with drink. but the fact is "why has no one gone to the cops" is just ignorant. cops don't give a shit. cops *barely* give a shit about the kinds of "he beat the crap out of me" stranger rapes. This is why I said that when you stop beliving victims, or assume the are not telling the truth, because you are "protecting the assumption of innocence" you do a disservice to women. HOw do you prove any of this? seriously? Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that these allegations are *very* easy to make. How many innocent people would you hang out to dry so that one rapist may be publicly shamed?Wackyvorlon (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that is a huge fallacy. It's not easy at all to make alligations. 1) you put your reputation on the line, 2) you put your career on the line, 3) you put friendships on the line. When people say "women lie about that all teh time", studies suggest this is about as wrong as you get. roughly 3% of all accusations are lies - almost identical to false reporting of any crime, by the way. PZ struggled for a long time to put this out there. as it is, he's being bashed, but the instant it would be found to be false, he's done. gone. some small time teacher at some small time university. He knows the woman making the report, and he must trust her enough to put his rep and job that far out there. Then the "her". to us, she is anonymous. but i guarantee, to the people in this circle? they probably mostly know who she is. Shermer probably knows who she is. Names may not yet have fallen, but they will. so no. "these kinds of allegations" are NOT easy to make. How many innocent victims should be ignored, before you start looking at the claims? isn't that the other side of your story? Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You say the false report rate is about 3%, about the same as for any other crime. But you see, with any other crime we have the presumption of innocence. You are advocating abolishing that principle. Now, are you prepared to be one of those falsely accused? Are you willing to have your life ruined - over a crime you never committed - in order to have this system in place? As for ease of making the accusation, it doesn't seem to have been very difficult for PZ Myers at all. Wackyvorlon (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Strawman much? I don't think anybody has suggested abolishing presumption of innocence as a legal principle. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about the philosophical principle, not the legal one. Wackyvorlon (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well what is this philosophical principal then? If you're suggesting that everyone should presume everyone is innocent of anything unless legally proven otherwise, that's unsupportable. If there wasn't at least suspicion of guilt, no charges would ever be brought against anyone. When you say "with any other crime we have the presumption of innocence", what difference are you actually discerning in cases of rape? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, how do you reconcile "assumption of innocence as a philosophical principle" with a situation where Person A explicitly accuses Person B of a crime (rape or theft or any other)? Either Person B is a criminal or Person A is a liar - you can't assume innocence on behalf of both persons, and which one you assume or suspect of being guilty will depend very much on what you know about these people and the situation. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

All you are doing is walking in rhetorical circles in order to obscure the simple reality of the situation. The proposition that rape allegations, no matter how vague or anonymous, should be believed without question or the application of any fairness whatsoever. That is an absurd proposition. It is comedic that it should see any advocacy here at all. It also reprehensible that one can so cavalierly scapegoat innocent people. I am an atheist and a skeptic, I work on evidence, not gossip. I trust I'm not alone in that. Wackyvorlon (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has made or even implied such a proposition. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)have to

When you have a flat out "presumption of innocence" (which by the way, is a LAW term, not an investigation term), you are saying that the person should not have to answer to charges for which there is no physical evidence. The problem with rape accusations, is there never can be physical evidence. What evidence is there for a rape? especially a date rape? especially a "I was drunk and didn't consent" rape. When most cops talk about rape, they only talk about the violent ones, cause those are the ones that can be sorta proven. We have to have a way to listen to the victim and accept his or her story as is, and then investigate. we have to start trusting victims. or nothing changes. That doesn't mean you can't find them to be liers, in the end. but you can't START with the premise that "it's easy to make false claims". you start with the assumption that she or he is telling the truth, and you go from there. It's a subtle but critical distinction.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that investigators should start with the assumption that a crime was committed?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have appriciated that, thank you very much. I would have appriciated one single cop saying "ok, you were raped, let's try to find the guy" rather than the questions which existed to somehow *prove* i was raped. (really, that's not what they were trying to prove. they were trying to prove i was worthy of their time....). That was 20 years ago, but the girls i work with in our group are saying it's not all that different. **especially** when the victim knows the guy (or i suppose, gal). It is a strange world, cause virtually all rape of this type is he said she said - but you have to listen to teh victim, and believe her - but, in doing so, that means as you say, a particular someone is accused. The current strategy is horrible. And puts women on the defensive to prove their claim, at the time of investigation, not even trial. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No one on the page has advocated that rape allegations should be believed without question. You are over-reacting; the discussion has been whether or not the evidence presented is sufficient for us to imply in the article that the accusations are true. The consensus is that that they aren't - although some editors personally harbour suspicions. The article reflects that consensus; and to my eye is a fair summary of events. Do you have any changes that you would make to the article? Tielec01 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that (only) 3% of accusations are lies sounds to me like it's getting awfully close to the suggestion that we should automatically give accusations more weight than denials. Or that we should initially believe that they are true rather then they are false.--Coffee (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We should, automatically. Doesn't mean we can't find them to be wrong. But we have to start trusting victims when they say "that person did something to me". It does not mean "without question", of course you question. You sit down with them and see if the story makes sense, you look for other times they have lied, if they have, you look for confirming stories from others who have been in similar situations. But you have to start trusting victims. Right now, if you look at any study, the way it is done is to assume the victim is LYING. that is, actually in writing for several major police depts. Assume they are lying, until you find something to support their case. We should inititally believe they are true. When you go into a cop and report your house was broken into, they bleieve first - then they look for disconfirmation. yet when you report you've been raped, they don't believe you. All we are asking for, is to be believed like we would be if the topic was our car being broken into.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But that's what the presumption of innocence is all about. It's down to the person making the claim to provide the evidence.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. What "person" proves that their child was murdered. COPS DO THAT. What person making a claim, proves his house was broken into. COPS do that. What the person does, is report it. and it's believed. Cause that's hwo the law works. You walk in, say "my daugher was killed", they investigate. if you are lying cause you killed her, they find that out. But they take you at your word, at first. That's how it works. EXCEPT FOR RAPE. It really is treated differnetly from any other criminal report you will ever file. I was on TRIAL in the interrogation room. I was challenged at every turn. every word i said was questioned. If i made a mistake, mispoke, said something slightly differently in the questioning - they jumped on it, clearly looking for reasons to not believe me. I had to JUSTIFY my report. Which I didn't have to do when my purse was stolen from my car. Which i didn't have to do when a room mate stole money from our shared house. They took the report, then questioned the roommate. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a dead child then you naturally have evidence for a crime - the body. However, if you say my child was killed by X, then X is due the presumption of innocence. Evidence needs to be produced which overturns that presumption.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you have a dead body. Not everything has evidence to "overturn the presumption". But basically what you are saying is women should just stop reporting rapes that are not stranger danger rapes. Cause there will never be any evidence to prove that i did not say "yes", beyond my word and his. And we are full circle to why women do not trust the system, and turn to friends to say "i don't know what to do - he raped me, but no one cares". Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I have the feeling that there's been a misunderstanding at least of my position here. There are two elements in handling such situations. It is not only about justice for the perpetrator, but also about making the victim whole. Rape is, by its nature, a crime of personal violation. That's a personal feeling. I can't tell someone whether they should feel violated(and by extension, raped) or not. If someone tells me they were raped, that's good enough for me. Something wrong has plainly occurred, and the person needs to be cared for and aided. As for the accused, things can be a lot more complex. There are situations that have transpired, that although I have not been party to I am aware of, wherein person A doesn't want to have sex what person B does. As is often the case when one person wants to do something with someone who is reluctant, person B engages in an effort to change person A's mind. Person A, out of fear of violent reprisal, eventually acquiesced and engages in a sex act. In this situation, Person B is under the impression that although was originally reluctant, consent was eventually given. Thus it was consensual. Person A, however, has a very different feeling. Person A feels raped and violated, only going along with the situation out of fear for safety. It is difficult to pin down the appropriate treatment for person B, as said person was not given a firm, steadfast refusal. So it is by misunderstanding and carelessness driven by sexual urges that Person B has left Person A feeling deeply injured without necessarily intending to do so. Should person B be punished? Furthermore, at what point does advocacy of caution cross into victim-blaming? Surely, women have the power and the agency to choose not to drink alcohol. In these few months refilling a wine glass has been defined as a nefarious act. I do not think I am alone in having believed that refilling someone's glass for them was an act of courtesy, not evil. I think it behooves us to work to minimize ambiguity, I hope you would agree that any situation where one may be innocent accident commit harm to another is very much undesirable. Wackyvorlon (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Balkanization

And so the Balkanization of skepticism continues unabated. There is no victory to be had here. --Wackyvorlon (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "victory". an open dialogue that focuses on the way men at skeptical type conventions, science conferences, etc., behave is a victory in and of itself. One guy saying "hey, dude, maybe no so much with teh drinks any more" to his friends (male or female) is a victory. One person stepping aside to say "what you are doing is bordering on rape, is that really where you want to go?" is a victory. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, there's no victory here. There's no victory for the Roman Catholics over the Child abuse scandal. The longer the movement remains in denial over misogyny problems the worse things will become. At the moment bad publicity over unacceptable behavior at conferences risks weakening the movement more than splits are likely to. We shouldn't set out to widen the split more than necessary but problems need addressing. For those who really want to avoid splitting the movement too far rallying round new conference rules looks like a good idea.

American Atheists does not tolerate harassment of or by conference participants in any form. Prohibited conduct may include but is not limited to harassment related to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces (not related to convention sessions or materials), deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention. Racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic conduct will not be tolerated. Atheists should have good rules for behavior

There are atheist accommodationists who think religion is basically good and those may use this to try to divide and weaken the movement more than necessary. We need to guard against that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What misogyny problems, though? I have yet to see credible evidence that the problem even exists. So far, this is nothing more than a manufactroversy driven by a demagogue(Myers) who has lost all sense of sanity or perspective. Wackyvorlon (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Rape threats to anyone who DARES talk about this stuff, publicly? Rape threats to anyone who dares suggest women have something to say. Rape threats to anyone who dares suggest atheism and skepticism should open up to issues of sexism within their relm. How many women need to tell you there is a problem, before you "see" it? Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the Internet. Evidently you're new here. There are these individuals, called trolls and griefers. They exist only to antagonize, and reacting to their stupidity is only playing into their hands. The rape threats are coming from such people, and women are not the sole recipients. Don't act like this has anything to do with discussing sexism. Neither you nor the subject is some special snowflake that's been singled out. The jackasses harass everybody. The appropriate response is to ignore them, not feed them. Wackyvorlon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. Women are treated differently, worse, more violently than men in these little "pick on" games. And when you don't address it, the trolls get worse. and it's frightening to be on the receiving end. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wackyvorlon, I suggest you follow your own advice as stated in the beginning of this section and stop pursuing this thread. Your last comment is offensively patronizing, and it's been something that has been said again and again in this "debate", on and off-RW. I doubt that any of the users here encounter that sentiment for the first time. In all cases, insistence on that will only antagonize people who disagree with you.

(PS. Proxima Centauri is best ignored, unless she's trying to edit an article. She is a bit... special, and prone to grandstanding.)--ZooGuard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Defamation

This isn't legal advice because I'm nobody here's attorney. This is my observation as an attorney who's handled defamation cases. It is at least irresponsible to repeat claims of this nature except as vaguely as possible, if at all. Problems like this are a lot different when someone's name is dragged into them than they are in the abstract. RW as a community has been incapable of handling its own affairs responsibly since the children took over the schoolhouse several years ago. This is my objection for the the record. I would edit this page were it not for my concern about creating the false impression that I am somehow RW or the RMF's attorney or acting on behalf of the RMF. I am none of these things. 16:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think editing the page would give such an impression. Are you suggesting we limit the relevant content to just a brief mention that PZ Myers' blog includes an accusation against Shermer, with the relevant link, or to take out all mention of it altogether? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The first one is what I would do. Something like: "On ___, PZ Myers posted an article repeating the claim of an anonymous woman that Dr. Shermer engaged in unlawful conduct at such an such event. (link)." 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I'm moving these comments to the bottom of the talk page, as they're likely to be missed here otherwise. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 I have been saying that shit since the first edit I made on this page. --Damo^Hi 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending section again (as I have done 3-4 time previously). IMO it should never have been written. As I have said many times, the prejudicial effect of even mentioning this stuff outweighs its probative effect. Get rid of it, and keep it off the wiki. --Damo^Hi 21:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A thought: "Myers and Shermer have recently come to loggerheads in their ongoing disagreement." With a link to the take down letter. What do you think? Wackyvorlon (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, definitely not like that. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I was being an asshole to horse the tougher issue. I like the cut of Damo's jib for making the prudent decision. Wish I thought of that. 22:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Very many of out articles accuse a range of people of fraudulently making money selling products that don't work or are dangerous. We accuse people of getting money irresponsibly in many ways. We write out articles carefully, stick to what is known and don't get sued. We can't safely write that Shermer is a rapist because that hasn't been proved. We can write that Myers made the accusation because that's common knowledge. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As of 11th Sept 2013 PZ Myers is planning an expensive vacation and reassuring supporters that he expects he will be able to afford it. That means he doesn't expect very heavy legal costs or a crippling legal settlement, I've no idea what defense he's planning. I fear the names of one or more complaining women may come out in the course of legal proceedings despite the women wanting to stay anonymous. I also hope Myers hasn't miscalculated. I expect action some time after 20th Sept when Shermer's legal fund will close. If Shermer's case is weaker than it looks this will be very embarrassing for his camp as donors will expect action. There could be surprises on either side. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Myers planning to attend a conference (not really a "vacation") next summer has nothing to do Michael Sherman. Until actual "surprises" occur in this case (not such people showing signs of going about their normal lives), it's really not worth speculating about. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Shermer has undermined his own case. More foot-gunning in the Shermer debacle Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think this is the right place to chit chat about a legal dispute it's not presently appropriate to cover in the sharticle? You've got your own wiki where you can go into your own speculation about Shermer's alleged conduct, right? Is it that nobody pays attention to you there? How is it that the worst stuff popping up on RW isn't from vandals, butfrom our own homegrown cranks? 14:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Weas is right. Going further, it's not just pointless to speculate about the outcome of a legal dispute neither you nor your go-to source for anti-Shermer info is competent to comment on substantively, it's flat out bad for you and the wiki. Until a judge rules on this or you get a black robe and are elected or appointed to whatever court is hearing this dispute ... 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood this seemingly prevailing concept that legal norms need not be obeyed on the Internet. Wading into anything regarding ongoing legal proceedings is bad enough, but doing so in writing on a website where that information will be preserved for years (if not longer) seems silly to me. - GrantC (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not a news feed. I supported Damo above - if anything is happening then we can wait until the facts are settled. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion...?

Was there ever one? Nothing said in the article, nothing said here for over a year. So far, no charges against Shermer, but hey, no defamation suit either. Isn't it past time to put something in this article about what happened?