| Revision as of 02:49, 3 December 2007 editLetsnotlie (talk | contribs)108 edits →How about this ?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:50, 3 December 2007 edit undoLetsnotlie (talk | contribs)108 edits →How about this ?Next edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| ==How about this ?== | ==How about this ?== | ||
| Please re-read what you wrote in the morning, and consider suggesting a brief description of the Yale harassment suit that would be suitable for this Wiki page. Then we can discuss what we can agree upon. I have suggested an appropriate level of detail in my edits - a level that remains even more detailed than the details on the scientific aspects. However, you have been unprepared to budge from listing the sordid details. Perhaps you have a personal axe to grind with Schlessinger. If so, WP is not the place. I'm sure we can agree on something that is suitable, but comments such as those you make above are not helping towards this. As I proposed, please suggest a compromise between our respective editing positions, and we can go from there. I think there should be no |
Please re-read what you wrote in the morning, and consider suggesting a brief description of the Yale harassment suit that would be suitable for this Wiki page. Then we can discuss what we can agree upon. I have suggested an appropriate level of detail in my edits - a level that remains even more detailed than the details on the scientific aspects. However, you have been unprepared to budge from listing the sordid details. Perhaps you have a personal axe to grind with Schlessinger. If so, WP is not the place. I'm sure we can agree on something that is suitable, but comments such as those you make above are not helping towards this. As I proposed, please suggest a compromise between our respective editing positions, and we can go from there. I think there should be no harassment section, but had compromised to what was in my last edits of that section. | ||
| Regarding the sordid detail, my point would simply be that there could be 1000 pages of details on Schlessinger's science (as someone who understands his accomplishments to some degree, I would be happy to add a few hundred). But, these are not present because the detail is not warranted for WP. Why, then, is detail of his conquest number, penis size, etc (unless there is an ulterior motive). To mention that a suit was brought is sufficient. | Regarding the sordid detail, my point would simply be that there could be 1000 pages of details on Schlessinger's science (as someone who understands his accomplishments to some degree, I would be happy to add a few hundred). But, these are not present because the detail is not warranted for WP. Why, then, is detail of his conquest number, penis size, etc (unless there is an ulterior motive). To mention that a suit was brought is sufficient. | ||
Revision as of 02:50, 3 December 2007
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Full protect (edit war in progress)
I have protected the page due to the edit war in progress and the BLP concerns in the section about the sexual harassment charge. I have also taken the exceptional measure of commenting out that section in order to avoid problems while the page is protected.
Please take the opportunity to discuss things out on this page, and arrive at a consensus. — Coren 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The sexual harassment lawsuit is sourced to Chronicle of Higher Education, an altogether reliable source in the subject (supported by aq major radio station). i consider this probably sufficient documentation for BLP, assuming they are summarized correctly. I think is is certainly sufficient documentation that commenting it out was unwarranted. It is accepted that we protect what we find. I have no prior knowledge of this matter, but would think it justified only if there were a real absence of documentation. In relevant circles, the Chronicle is read more than Misplaced Pages, and certainly very much more trusted, so we would not be doing any harm to retain it. DGG (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- sorry, I dont know why I thought the Chronicle--it was the Yale Daily News , and local newspapers, which would seem make this another matter entirely. DGG (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is the problem. The 'sources' cited are all blogs that direct to dead links in local newspapers or the Yale school paper. I think there was a Univ. of Hartford one too. Nothing more. Nothing national. Simply sensational small-time reports on a complaint that was never proven.Letsnotlie 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was going too fast, and correcting myself too fast. I couldn't figure out how i had made such an error, so i went over it again, slowly, There is indeed a story in the Chronicle. Harassment by Renowned Researcher Prompts Suit Against Yale. it's a single paragraph in their "news blog", but the story there is their original editorial posting, not blog comments. They report it based on a story in the Hartford Courant, which is not a student paper, but a local paper of national reputation. The newspaper story, with a reporter's byline, is at . that the Chronicle reprinted it put its own reputation behind it.,
- The student paper is one of the most respectable in the country. The story as I mentioned below is reported in the alumni magazine also. And CBS has also reported it. . If anyone thinks i am still being careless, i include the links and one can see for oneself.
- FWIW, I think not all the details here were necessary or appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My view - as outlined below and aimed at with my edits - is that mentioning the existence of the case in WP is reasonable, but including lurid details is not. I cannot access the Hartford Courant article, so do not know whether it includes all the details that were placed on WP page. Whether it does or not, they need not be discussed unless Yale and Schlessinger were proven guilty Letsnotlie 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I've said, I've commented out the section simply while you hammer out the proper wording— I neither take a position about its inclusion nor its contents, and there is no prejudice to restoring it once consensus has been reached. Since the article is protected, I felt the paranoid position was safer re. WP:BLP. — Coren 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sexual harassment charges
The sexual harassment claims simply describe a complaint brought by Mary Beth Garceau. There have been salacious unbalanced reports of these in various media, and the poster has simply cited blogs with the sordid details. Describing the little details of these hardly compares with the broad description of positive things about this top scientist.
Importantly, the case has been settled. BUT, there are no published details about the settlement. The user Truthertruther insists on interpreting an out-of-court settlement as guilt by Schlessinger. Not so. Perhaps Garceau's people discovered that they have no case and settled without compensation. There are no media reports on this. To assume guilt by Yale and Schlessinger is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsnotlie (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Before reinstating this section, I think we need real sources (not the blogs cited by Truthertruther) and some real resolution about the outcome of this case. If Schlessinger is innocent, Truthertruther is guilty of libel.Letsnotlie 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your reasoning is convincing, to me at least. But with regard to "guilty of libel": Maybe, maybe not, but that kind of talk is not going to help with the situation. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:24, December 2, 2007
OK, thanks Dorftrottel. Either way, in the absence of proven guilt it seems appropriate to assume innocence.Letsnotlie 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- the sources seem to include the Yale Alumni magazine. Though editorially independent of the University, , I cannot think it is given to retailing scurrilous gossip about the faculty; although what they published is a one paragraph mention, not a fully article. It is reported in WP correctly. This is more than a blog. DGG (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
DGG (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That source (perhaps the most reliable ?) has the following text as its entire story:
"Another lawsuit against the university was settled out of court in June. Former medical school administrative associate Mary Beth Garceau had sued the university for failing to act on complaints that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor, pharmacology chair Joseph Schlessinger. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed."
A referenced statement of this sort would be acceptable on the Schlessinger wiki page. My concern is that the salacious details are poorly sourced and should not be included. The fact that the case was brought is undeniable. Whether it was a legitimate case is not clear. Letsnotlie 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I have included the section below, but read this first.
It appears that letsnotlie and Hillhealth are the same person who keeps deleting select sections of the Joseph Schlessinger page, either not reporting or heavily censoring an a full report of the facts. (i.e. keeps deleting almost everything remotely perceived as negative). I've taken special care to use the words "alleged" and "claimed" and "the lawsuit stated" as much as possible, but that didn't seem to appease letsnotlie/Hilhealth. The editing history speaks for itself.
What might work out best for this would be for someone higher up to just make a decision on what to include or not include based on the references from the source below, as they see fit, based on the published facts. Editing out the entire section is not giving a full disclosure of the facts.
Yale Universitiy's own newspaper investigated, wrote and published a detailed article about this, which has been referenced in several places in the section below. I believe the following section is written very factually from MULTIPLE bona fide news sources. I am not quoting *ANY* blogger sites, as has been mentioned. See for yourself.
Quoting comments from the Joseph Schlessinger talk page "...Perhaps Garceau's people discovered that they have no case and settled without compensation."
The fact that letsnotlie/Hilhealth who posted above just happens to know settlement information that, as he wrote above, is nowhere in the media, is a good indicator that letsnotlie/Hillhealth are both Joseph Schlessinger himself. (if not, provide the source of this unpublished story...)
I would be interested in commentary on the applicability of the text below by an editor, and Joseph Schlessinger potentially self-editing his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a very odd argument. I offered the statement "...Perhaps Garceau's people discovered that they have no case and settled without compensation." simply to indicate the possibility that (contrary to Truthertruther's claims) the case was not 'settled for an undisclosed dollar amount'. This last statement implies that Garceau was vindicated, and there is no documentation of that. Similarly, there is no documentation that she was not. Thus, we have no information on whether this suit was baseless or brought in good faith. If it was a frivolous suit brought by Garceau because of ill feeling against Yale, it is not reasonable to discuss it in so much detail on the Schlessinger WP.
- Schlessinger has made enormous contributions, and potential personality negatives should be discussed at most in similar detail to his accomplishments.
- I would be satisfied with a one-or-two sentence summary of this suit, but will fight against inclusion of salacious detail. One argument I would make here is that no details of his individual experiments are included. Surely if we are to discuss actions in detail, it would be appropriate to describe the scientific content of his 400 or so published academic papers ?
- I would also like to point out that Truthertruther initiated this page with sole focus on Schlessinger's legal challenges. The page was clearly initiated as a slight on Schlessinger - it ignored his positive virtues, and was intended simply to be negative. My motivation in editing this page has been to reduce this impression, and provide information on his status as one of biomedicine's giants. I shall not dignify the self-editing suggestion with a response.Letsnotlie 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Declined for now. Please take some time to agree on what the section should include first. — Coren 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
The complaint, (which was not proven) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) alleged Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous conversations with her about sex, bragged to her about the number of women he had slept with, claiming the number came to 46, told jokes about penis size and commented on the size of her breasts and style of her underwear.
Mary Beth Garceau also claimed during her first months at the department of pharmacology, according to the complaint, Joseph Schlessinger told her about his sexual infidelity during his business travels. The complainant listed several alleged incidents over the next year, in which Joseph Schlessinger showed Mary Beth Garceau pictures of naked women and, on one occasion, a hard-core pornography Web site.
The complaint also stated that on one occasion, Joseph Schlessinger called Mary Beth Garceau into his office and showed her a photo of a naked woman without a head who Joseph Schlessinger claimed was his wife, Irit Lax, an assistant professor in the pharmacology department. While he was showing Mary Beth Garceau the photo, according to the account, Irit Lax walked in and started yelling at her husband.
Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop the sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the Yale Daily News in an interview that "they'll fight the suit in court." Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court for an undisclosed dollar amount. Truther truther 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's try this Truthertruther
In an attempt to reach a consensus, please provide a quick summary of what you would accept to describe this case - but leaving out the salacious details. I can then suggest tempering it (or not, depending on what you propose), and we might reach an agreement. Maybe then section can end up being reinstated so that the suit is documented here in a way that does not wantonly defame ?Letsnotlie 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) - on my other computerHillhealth 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read your comments...now read mine
I guess you must have bought a new computer today. You can log in to more than one machine with the same username, unless you wish to give the illusion of being different editors. I’m not questioning your contributions. I have added at least a dozen of you major academic accomplishments myself, and you have added many more which is fine; add all you want! Therefore, I did not “ignore your positive virtues.”
I agree that since only you, being Joseph Schlessinger, know the terms of your settlement which was not covered anywhere on the entire internet, but I agree the statement is misleading in a way, I would be willing to change the terminology to “the case was settled out of court under undisclosed terms” which is more truthful. I have already added the phrase “The complaint, (which was not proven)” at the beginning.
The other statements in the paragraph are verifiable bona fide news sources, and the news is the news. I don’t understand why salacious details need to be left out. “Lets tell the truth.” There are sworn, legal depositions on this issue, and I have been careful to use the words “alleged” “The complaint also stated” and “claimed.” Let the people look at everything including the sordid detail and decide for themselves. I don’t see any reason to sugar-coat any accomplishments or shortcomings.
I do not believe that your suggestion of covering this lawsuit in a “a one-or-two sentence summary” is any more doable than covering all of your accomplishments in a “a one-or-two sentence summary.” Please propose something practical.
P.S. If you believed the articles I referenced to be salacious material or slander you should have sued the various newspapers and publications for printing those lies a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How about this ?
Please re-read what you wrote in the morning, and consider suggesting a brief description of the Yale harassment suit that would be suitable for this Wiki page. Then we can discuss what we can agree upon. I have suggested an appropriate level of detail in my edits - a level that remains even more detailed than the details on the scientific aspects. However, you have been unprepared to budge from listing the sordid details. Perhaps you have a personal axe to grind with Schlessinger. If so, WP is not the place. I'm sure we can agree on something that is suitable, but comments such as those you make above are not helping towards this. As I proposed, please suggest a compromise between our respective editing positions, and we can go from there. I think there should be no harassment section, but had compromised to what was in my last edits of that section.
Regarding the sordid detail, my point would simply be that there could be 1000 pages of details on Schlessinger's science (as someone who understands his accomplishments to some degree, I would be happy to add a few hundred). But, these are not present because the detail is not warranted for WP. Why, then, is detail of his conquest number, penis size, etc (unless there is an ulterior motive). To mention that a suit was brought is sufficient.
If we are adult about this, we can reach an agreement. Trying to insult me or identify me doesn't help with the question at hand.Letsnotlie 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Yale Professor Faces Sexual Harassment Suit" WCBS 880 New York as cited in globaldialysis.com
- University of Hartford Media Watch (Nov. 27-Dec. 4, 2006)
- "Yale Professor Faces Sexual Harassment Suit" WCBS 880 New York as cited in globaldialysis.com
- Yale ex-secretary sues for sex harassment.(NEWSWATCH)
- Harassment by Renowned Researcher Prompts Suit Against Yale
- Univ. faces harassment lawsuit
- Univ. faces harassment lawsuit
- Univ. faces harassment lawsuit
- Yale University Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
- Another Lawsuit Against the University...