Talk:George Takei

diagnosis murder?

In the tv section it fails to mention that he was in an episode of diagnosis murder. ?Scraliontis (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Headers in italics

Are the headers under personal life and activism italicized on purpose? 104.241.44.198 (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks for the catch. The original article had the headers italicized in a different section and I just made the new headers the same way without really thinking about it. Good catch and thanks! StarHOG (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[1] Thoughts?

The death of Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier billionaire and convicted sex offender, has become the subject of conspiracy theories. In August 2019, Takei tweeted: "It is disturbing that a powerful billionaire accused of sex trafficking minors, who was already on suicide watch, has died while in federal custody, his many secrets about other powerful men going with him to the grave. This sounds like something that would happen in Russia, no?"

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if every tweet made about current events deserves placement in the article. Takei is pretty active and vocal about current events, this may be a slippery slope. StarHOG (Talk) 12:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this tweet has lasting significance to be included in an encyclopedia article. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

sexual misconduct section

Is there a "statute of limitations" per se on wikipedia for sexual misconduct allegations that went no where? I know of a few articles that mention this, but the accuser never pressed charges or anything, or in George's case, the accuser was kind of debunked. If I were a celebrity like George, it would bother me that this is sticking to my wikipedia page long after it had been settled, debunked, or was no longer in the media and notable. Any thoughts? Is there a wikipedia standard for this? StarHOG (Talk) 12:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The section is well-sourced and basically states the claim lacked any merit. It also includes the retraction of said claim by the claimant. You could argue this lends WP:UNDUE weight to the affair, but given the length of the article, I do not think it does. Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That is my fear, that it is now receiving undue weight since it was retracted. It isn't in the news anymore, and nothing has been done by the accuser or the police or George. I don't think the length of the article really has any bearing on if it should stay or go. I'd like some others to weigh in on this, and I would still like to know if wikipedia has any guidance with this sort of thing. StarHOG (Talk) 21:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It was widely reported, and so I think it is probably relevant to include, but I think the section could be rewritten and significantly shortened. I am going to cut a few lines, but it probably still could use some work. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this section be included in George Takei's Wikipedia page? It seems like a gross injustice to smear the name of a survivor of the Japanese internment camps when the accuser, Scott Bruton, admitted that his false accusations of sexual assault against Takei were racially motivated. Are we to perpetuate further injustice against an Asian American public figure who already suffered so much racism here in the United States just because media outlets ran wild against him without actual evidence? This absolutely trivializes the important issue of sexual assault awareness by turning it into a weapon to smear people of color. It's beyond unjust and shameful. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the section should stay, and as neutral as possible. This is an encyclopedia and people come here to find out about things. It is something that was in the media and is relevant. I don't recall anything in what I read that the accuser said he was racially motivated, can you give a source for that? Regardless of his reasons, it still happened and is relevant. The title of the section should remain as neutral as possible without a POV inserted. StarHOG (Talk) 18:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can provide you the source as I have followed this story very closely since the beginning. In The Observer, journalist Shane Snow interviewed the accuser Scott Bruton. The accuser said, “He [Takei] was 20 years older than me and short. And I wasn’t attracted to Asian men.” He added, “I was a hot, surfer, California boy type, that he probably could have only gotten had he bought, paid for or found someone just willing to ride on his coattails of fame.” The link to this article is here: https://observer.com/2018/05/george-takei-accuser-scott-brunton-changed-his-story-of-drugs-assault/. As you can see in the accuser's own words, documented by reliable secondary sources, he ridicules Takei based on very racist anti-Asian tropes like Takei being "short." He even implied that he found Asian men unattractive. There is another implication that Bruton, as a white male "hot surfer California boy type," is too good and far above an "ugly" "short" Asian man. It is classic racism coupled with the false accusation of sexual assault to ride the coattails of the #MeToo movement. It denigrates the issue of sexual assault and continues to traumatize non-binary and LGBTQ Asian men and women. AsianAmericanAdvocate (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as editors we can't "connect the dots" and then make statements in an article about what we think is true, even if the evidence is overwhelming. It's called Original Research and it isn't allowed. If the accusations were race related then you need to find an independent, 3rd party source that reaches that same conclusion. StarHOG (Talk) 14:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, this seems like an egregious inclusion of contentious material. The title of the section implies Takei committed a crime. This section seems to exist to paint Takei in a negative light, and when there is any doubt we should err on the side of the presumption of innocence. This goes beyond mere Wikipedia policy. This strikes at the heart of what it means to live in a just society.-TrueQuantum (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am removing the Sexual Misconduct section from this BLP. The sources are both conflicting and not high quality for the seriousness of the accusations leveled against Takei. Furthermore, there is no action taken against Takei in a court of law. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME I believe that the policies agreed upon by the Wikipedia community demand that this action be taken. If anyone disagrees with this decision, please feel free to revert my edit but then I would like a formal RfC. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to revert, because I feel it is relevant. It may need re-writing, but it is still relevant. The only reason WP:BLP may come into play is by placing undue weight on the section, but again, I think that can be corrected with a re-write. Additionally, it is obvious from this talk page section that we are trying to come to a consensus on how this information should be presented, just blanking it isn't a solution. StarHOG (Talk) 16:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the topic has received enough media attention that it needs to be addressed in the article, in some way. People will come here to find the facts, and if it isn't mentioned, they'll instead assume whatever they want to be true, and think less of WP for not covering it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Did Takei ever teach acting?

Did Takei ever teach acting formally? I don't see any mention in the article, and Web searching turns up nothing. David Spector (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)