Talk:Joseph Schlessinger

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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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 [12]. 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 ^(talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

References

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, [13], 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

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 ^(talk) 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)

References

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. The timestamp of those two usernames are within one min of eachother. You must have two computers side-by-side, RIGHT? Very...Interesting....

I’m not questioning your academic contributions to the page. 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 hope you don't do that with the 400 scientific articles you write!!!

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)

By the way, Truthertruther, do you know what the terms of the settlement were ? I've only seen it in the two citations I added to your section, and they indicate only that the terms were undisclosed - there was no sense of who capitulated. But, the fact that Yale initially stated that they'd take this to trial makes me wonder.Letsnotlie 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For anyone else interesting in thinking about balance on this page, I encourage you to take a look at the page that Truther truther had set up before I noticed it (Revision as of 21:08, 25 October 2007). Does this seem an appropriate emphasis for a National Academy member who is ranked in the top 10-50 life scientists in the world ? Or, does it suggest a particular motive for WP editing ? Letsnotlie 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Balance on the page

you're a funny one to talk about balance...using two usernames to attempt to edit with different identities on different computers which whose timestamps are 1 min apart from each other....RIGHT! So I'm the one who's biased? At least I'm honest!!

My view on this won't change tomorrow morning. I have made the recommendations you mentioned in your previous note, but as I've already stated: what reason do I or does anyone have to hide the truth? True: you are an accomplished scientist. True: there were serious sexual harassment accusations against you.

You can talk about axe-grinding all you want but the printed facts are the facts, especially when they are properly investigated and reported in legitimate publications. Wikipedia is not some fantasy place where only happy things are reported. I hope for cancer sufferers everywhere this sort of behavior does not translate into your research and teachings. Showing off about achievements, rankings and publications doesn't alter the sexual harassment accusations. Showing off didn't help you during the imclone trial and it won't help you here either. You made mistakes. Fess up to them.

I am flexible about editing this somewhat, and have already done some some of that, but not eliminating it or censoring it or reducing it to something totally vague. Your suggestion for a two line statement on this is not practical. I suggest you re-think it. Besides, whatever I agree on you within this forum, you will probably just change your mind on and change user name, and start deleting the facts all over again.

This will have to be submitted to a senior editor who will have to decide which facts are appropriate to print and which are not. Truther truther 04:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting us nowhere

As I suggested, it would be useful for you to propose a compromise position, rather than just vent here. If you suggest how a reasonable section on this harassment issue might look (with you making a compromise), we can discuss it. In my opinion there should be no such section (that's my 'starting point'). Please suggest the minimum you would accept. Then we can negotiate. Transferring your evident anger towards Schlessinger onto me really isn't helping at this point. I happen to think his research is rather good (groundbreaking, actually), which is why I'm interested in this (and I guess why he gets prizes etc).Letsnotlie 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One other thought. I considered asking my young daughter what her impression was of the Wiki page on this world-famous scientist that I hugely respect. Because of what you've written, I then decided I'd rather she did not see it. Is that what Wikipedia should be about ? It bothers me. The salacious details are not necessary for you to make your point.Letsnotlie 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

you are joseph schlessinger or his agent

I guess someone who uses multiple user names on computers right next to each other always tells the truth!! What also bothers me is that you know settlement details that are confidential and unpublished anywhere on the internet.

Please explain this statement - thanksLetsnotlie 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are biased. I believe you are Joseph Schlessinger himself. My starting point is to tell the WHOLE TRUTH. The good and the bad published facts. What is there to negotiate? You should live up to your name little more.

PS: You should spend more time with your daughter rather than trying to censor and hide the truth. Truther truther 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about consensus - eh ?

Your beliefs are not terribly important, and I would submit that someone that does not understand Schlessinger's science (you, for example) is not completely qualified to decide how emphasis should be divided on this Wikipedia page. I will edit this page according to my thoughts (and I do understand the science). You will edit it according to your views (about which I shall make no judgement). I shall also not suggest who you might be, since I could possibly be as wrong as you are.

Just suggest some text, let us go back-and-forth on edits, make compromises, and use Wikipedia properly. Your suggestions about honesty, parenting, bias, etc are really not relevant (or interesting). I look forward to seeing your suggestion about what we might have on this WP page regarding the harassment suit.Hillhealth 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - meant to ask. What is it that you think I know ? I have to confess I am a little confused. Please clarify.Hillhealth (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of content - please

It would be useful, Truthertruther, if you would suggest a compromise solution that you would accept. We can then discuss what content would be acceptable to both sides of this discussion.Letsnotlie 21:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

compromise

My compromise is to leave the section in full as before, only referencing major news sources and publications. In return you can write about all achievements and all things things academic regarding joseph schlessinger. I do not believe you are a a fair reviewer. Your access to confidential trial data regarding the terms of the outcome of the trial is not available anywhere on the web. (i.e., you posted in this page the exact dollar amount given to settle the trial) This makes me fairly certain that you are either an agent of joseph schlessinger or joseph schlessinger himself.

I feel like I am repeating myself a lot here, because I thought I made this clear on my previous entries. Please re-read my previous entries again if you need. Thanks! Truther truther 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Thanks.

PS the references I am using are legitimate, bona fide news references, (including Yale publications) so there is no good in threatening me by mentioning libel.

This is not a compromise

Please try suggesting a real compromise. Also, can you help me find that 'exact dollar amount'. What are you talking about ?

You seem to want full control of the WP page on Schlessinger, which is a little unreasonable, don't you think ? You started his page for a reason, I suppose (about which I shall not speculate), and you choose an inappropriate salacious tone for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Can you explain to me why you are so fixated on sexual harassment by this one scientist, and not by the thousands of such cases involving others ? I see no posts from you on other such well-known cases in political, academic and other arenas - so yours is no general crusade. You also clearly have no real scientific connection, since your initial posts about Sunitinib etc were factually far from the mark. Why, then, is it so important to quote specifics about the purported events between Schlessinger and Garceau ? Your passion here is (sort of) hard to fathom.

If you suggest a real compromise (or explanation for your focus), I shall try to meet you half way. If you do not, then we will never agree. Please be reasonable.

Finally, I shall not rise to respond to your accusations.Letsnotlie 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I should like to add a quote from the Wikipedia 'Biographies of Living Persons' page WP:BLP for you to consider: "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."Letsnotlie 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm not talking about anything private

If you read my references, you'll see that this is public information from legitimate newspapers. You mentioned that garceau received no compensation for this case. This isn't published anywhere. How did you know that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

how to settle this

First of all, the content on this page during the discussion is prejudicial, and will be blanked when the discussion has reached a compromise. This is not the place to dispute on the merits of the case beyond that necessary for determining whether what is said meets BLP. It is, by the way, against our rules to discuss what may be the real name of someone using a pseudonym on Wikipedia. Please discuss the article, not the editors.

Surely one of you has access to the full courant article. it can not be included in the text, but it can be posted here for the purpose of discussion, and then deleted.

Will each of you please write below what you think is the appropriate paragraph, with the appropriate references. Then I will take a look at it, and invite Coren to do so as well. With respect to the science, it seems to be fully discussed in the article as is. We don't usually go into detail about individual scientific papers. His prizes are listed, his discoveries are mentioned and put in context,, the ISI discussions are cited, which gives a sufficient lead for further reference. I assume the subject articles on his discoveries give reference to the key papers, but it would also be appropriate to give a reference here to one or two of the most cited articles.

There are a few other problems: the references need to be edited according to WP:CITE so they show the source as well as the title. The discussion of the lawsuits ends in 2006. Are there later developments? There is considerable non-neutrality in the section of the lawsuits. Use of direct quotes from the trial or the decision can be so selective as to be prejudicial. There should at the least be a reference to the actual decision, and a clear statement of the final result. Once these are found, I may do some editing there. DGG (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hartford Courant article

Id like to find an article from Schlessinger's point of view for the harassment lawsuit to balance out the article, but I can't find anything. I don't know if he accepted interviews. still googling... --

Per request, here is the Courant article. It isn't necessary to use this reference at all as there are other online references which say the same thing. I agree that direct quotes from the testimony in the article below are out of context and aren't necessary. FYI this is not one of my references, and SECTION 3 of this page only cites WP approved references

Here is the source: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747281/posts

Yale Pharmacology Head In Harassment Suit Hartford Courant ^ | 11-30-06 | KIM MARTINEAU

NEW HAVEN -- A former secretary who claims the head of Yale's pharmacology department subjected her to dirty jokes, lewd comments and pornography has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Yale University in U.S. District Court.

Mary Beth Garceau, 48, who lives in Madison, is suing Yale for back pay and benefits, attorney fees, and damages. She says she was forced to put up with inappropriate behavior from Joseph Schlessinger from the time she began working for him, in 2001, until her decision to resign, nearly three years later. Schlessinger did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

On her first day of work, she says, Schlessinger told a joke to a colleague involving penis size and watched for her response. The lawsuit alleges the harassment got worse. In the months to follow, Schlessinger bragged about the number of women he had slept with, claiming the number came to 46, and commented on the size of her breasts and style of her underwear, the lawsuit claims. The conversations typically arose after Garceau was summoned to his office and asked to sit down, the lawsuit said.

One incident Garceau describes happened while she was trying to schedule an appointment. Schlessinger was angry that a committee had rejected the person he had recommended for a job at the Yale Cancer Center, she says. When she asked him about scheduling a meeting with the director, he answered: "(Expletive) them, I am not meeting with them," the lawsuit says.

"(Expletive) them?"

He answered with a come-on, she alleges: "I bet it would be fun to (expletive) you."

In another incident, she says, Schlessinger asked her to pick him up at home and take him to work so he wouldn't have to leave his car in New Haven during a business trip. She says he greeted her at the door in an open shirt with "no clothes underneath" and asked her to come to his bedroom upstairs and help him pack. She said she felt nervous and afraid but went upstairs because he was her supervisor.

She claims he once showed her pornography on his office computer and, another time, pulled a picture from his desk showing a naked woman without a head and told her it was his wife. At that moment, Schlessinger's wife happened to walk into the office, saw the picture and started yelling at her husband, the suit says. Schlessinger's wife, Irit Lax, is an assistant professor in the same department.

Garceau says she complained to Yale repeatedly about the alleged harassment but when no action was taken, she resigned, in March 2004. She says university officials seemed more interested in protecting Schlessinger's reputation than investigating her complaints.

Tom Conroy, a Yale spokesman, said the university believes there was no violation of law. He declined to discuss allegations in the lawsuit or comment on whether Schlessinger may have violated Yale's sexual harassment policy. The university defines sexual harassment as unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature on campus or off. Violations are punishable by "serious disciplinary action."

Garceau's lawyer, Karen Lee Torre, did not return calls for comment.

A prominent cancer researcher, Schlessinger, along with Dr. John Mendelsohn, president of MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas, earlier this year shared a $1 million Dan David prize for innovative research. Schlessinger is an expert in the field of signal transduction - the biological process that regulates how cells start and stop growing and differentiate.

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Connecticut KEYWORDS: yale Truther truther (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther truther (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand why this page in wikipedia is censoring references from respected and established newspapers and publications such as:

http://www.hartford.edu/daily/media.asp?id=2267 http://www.globaldialysis.com/news.asp?NewsDate=20061201 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29227184_ITM http://chronicle.com/news/article/1350/alleged-harassment-by-renowned-researcher-prompts-suit-against-yale http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19157 http://www.epexperts.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2487 http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2007_07/l_v.html
As we can all see, there are no bloggs being referenced in the Joseph Schlessinger sexual harassment section. Truther truther (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'd suggest (LnL)

If it is really necessary to mention this issue, what I'd suggest is the following:

Schlessinger's former secretary Mary Beth Garceau brought a lawsuit against Yale University, alleging that the University failed to act in response to her repeated complaints about sexual harassment by her supervisor (Courant article ref). The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms.

Truthertruther could suggest the appropriate refs, since he/she seems most familiar with them. See what you think. Letsnotlie (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is without the salacious detail, deletion of Irit lax references, "lightening up" and generalization of harassment accusations and shortened considerably overall

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) who alleged Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous conversations with her about sex, showed her pornographic websites on his office computer, bragged to her about the number of women he had slept with, mentioned incidents of sexual infidelity during his business travels, told jokes about penis size, and commented on the size of her breasts and style of her underwear. Detail of the accusations taken from the deposition of Mary Beth Garceau may be found by referring to the following four articles: ,,,

Mary Beth Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop Joseph Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the 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, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

References

How about this ?

Schlessinger's former secretary, Mary Beth Garceau, brought a suit against Yale University in which she alleged several episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's harassment, despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the The Yale Daily News that "they'll fight the suit in court", but the case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007. Letsnotlie (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

References

that's too short. It doesn't really provide any summary of the incidents. but I have shortened my version down a bit too. There isn't anything else to cut beyond this...

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) who alleged Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography. Detail of the accusations taken from the deposition of Mary Beth Garceau may be found by referring to the following four articles: ,,,

Mary Beth Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop Joseph Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the 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, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

Truther truther (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Comment

There is no need to redefine sexual harassment in this paragraph. Moreover, the allegations are just that - and were never proven (we have no knowledge of the settlement details) - so are only to be found in Garceau's complaint (and reports that quote directly from it with no additional research). I leave it to DGG and Coren to decide whether this is an unbiased source from the WP standpoint, but I do not think it is.

The only verifiable facts that we know here are:
1.That there was a suit.
2.That Garceau initiated it against Yale regarding allegations about Schlessinger.
3.That it was settled out of court.

We have no statements from Schlessinger or Garceau - only those from Yale regarding their denial of any wrongdoing (again not necessarily unbiased). I think we should stick to the facts on this page, and leave out ALL details (since their neutrality is questionable: single source, aimed to win/lose case). Readers can go to the references for the (biased one-way-or-another) details. We do not need a sentence directing readers thus: we do not have such direction sentences anywhere else, and I think people know what the references are there for.

Taking all of these issues into account, I would suggest the following:

A complaint (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her period of employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment, despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007. Letsnotlie (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The most important point here is that allegations of something do not make it true. Newspapers report on allegations and (I guess) that's fine. An encyclopedia does not - it proffers facts.Letsnotlie (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

References

more then just allegations=

I must politely disagree. These are more than just allegations give during an informal reporter interview. These were taken from transcripts from a sworn deposition, with attorneys present. Regarding neutrality, like I said before, I would be happy to give both sides of the story but neither Joseph Schlessinger nor Irit Lax accepted interviews (and they were offered). I have made sure to give liberal use of the words "alleged" and "accused" to show that they haven't been proven.

I don't understand your reasoning for editing the second paragraph at all.

Thanks.  Truther truther (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The fact that you have made sure to use the words 'alleged' really makes precisely the point I am suggesting. They are indeed just allegations, and nothing more. The logical difficulty here is that settling out of court does not constitute an admission of guilt by the defendant. The other parties will have been instructed by their legal representatives not to discuss the case with the media (this is always the case, right ?), so one can also not read anything into the absence of stories from the defendant's point of view - other than from the Yale 'spokesperson', who clearly stated (of course) that nothing illegal was done (but this is not quoted in your paragraph).

Taking this all together, it is clear that one cannot construct a neutral description of the facts in this case by relying on reports (or quotations) based solely on the initial (and not proven/prosecuted) complaint. If there were a verdict, that would enter the realms of verifiable fact. But, there is not one here, so all allegations are - by definition - unsubstantiated. That does not seem to meet the [[WP::BLP]] criteria for inclusion.

But, let's see what DGG has to say about this issue. I shall make this argument, but naturally will defer to those who know WP policies/rules.Letsnotlie (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

TrutherTruther: In addition to the facts, wikipedia is also about compromise, I might add. I have dome a lot of compromising here, and so far, I'm not seeing you compromise at all in your end...Truther truther (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance of compromise

I think it's really more about what is appropriate according to the clear WP:BLP guidelines. As we have been told, we should discuss the article and not the editors. With that in mind, there is really no deal to be made - just an agreement (which can be general) about what does and does not comply with the guidelines. That said, I personally would not add a section at all on this issue. So, there's a compromise - although it's not the important issue. In fact, I think that my recent suggested text represents quite a good compromise for you.Hillhealth (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm afraid I shall have to be Hillhealth now, since my other computer crashed, and I do not remember Letsnotlie password... But I can log in on my other.Hillhealth (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Compromise Indeed!

I don't understand. I ask you for a compromise (ie to include more) and your response is to say that you'd rather not have the section at all? It should be pretty clear at this point that this would not be acceptable. This story attracted the attention of national news sites. Omitting it is not an option. Look at what I wrote again and please reply with a more reasonable proposal.

P.S. it looks like you logged in less than a week ago as both hillhealth and letsnotlie. If you forgot your password, it would be best to use a similar name for consistency, such as letsnotlie2 or others not privy to this, may think that you are two different editors.Truther truther (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I suggest

Reading what DGG has said in your discussion with him on his talk page, looking at the WP 'biographies of living persons' rules that he refers to, and considering what is a fact and what is an unsubstantiated allegation here, the resolution seems pretty clear. What is acceptable to you is not the issue - but what best fits the Wikipedia rules is the key. My view is that the following fits all the relevant criteria and also fulfills your insistence on including this issue on the Schlessinger page (to which I reluctantly acquiesce):

A complaint (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her period of employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment, despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007.

I suggest that we submit this to DGG and Coren and see what they think. If they think it acceptable to add back the details of the unanswered and unsubstantiated allegations from Garceau's complaint (that's all that you want, I think), then I shall have to go along with it. If they do not, then we can stick with this short paragraph ? I believe that this is a reasonable proposal.Hillhealth (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I'm not willing to edit this into oblivion,as you have. I have edited mine further, but this is the shortest version I'm willing to accept.

Your version of the events provides essentially no summary of the news reports. while everything else you have covered has been in great detail. I still consider the following to be a highly censored version of the news reports, but I'll accept it in order to put this to bed. This was not a "complaint," BTW, it was referred to as a lawsuit in every reference so it must be referred to as what it is.

The sexual harassment lawsuit was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University). She alleged in a deposition that Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography which attracted national news coverage. ,,,

Mary Beth Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop Joseph Schlessinger's 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, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

References

Not quite yet

There are still a couple of problems. I'd change yours to the following. Explanations follow the text:

A lawsuit (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her period of employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign her position. A spokesperson for Yale University told the Yale Daily News that the University did not act illegally. “The University does not believe there was a violation of law, and it will defend itself in the suit,” he said. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007.

References

This did receive national coverage

CBS news and Chronicle of Higher Education are definitely national news sources much larger than The Courant (FYI, we agreed to omit the courant a while ago). I've adjusted the wording as such. I'm happy to include the denial but don't feel it is appropriate to further distill the lawsuit any further: As far as saying 'Yale capitulated', do you know something we don't? We don't really know wether it did or didn't. Could you provide a reference saying otherwise?

The sexual harassment lawsuit was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University). She alleged in a deposition that Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography which attracted local as well as national news coverage. ,,,

Mary Beth Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop Joseph Schlessinger's 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 “The University does not believe there was a violation of law," and that "they'll fight the suit in court” Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

References

Re-pasting my comments that you deleted (please don't do that again)

It was a bit rude of you simply to delete my comments/justification for my last edits. I'm re-inserting them below. Please don't delete from this discussion, it's really not appropriate. My comments were:

"First, your 4 refs don't qualify as 'national new coverage' - that's really an overstatement. You have a Hartford univ site (?), a library website, a newswatch on Chronicle of HE website, and brief summary on wcbs website. The Hartford Courant is the 'biggest' source, and that's hardly a national newspaper. National news coverage suggests NYT, SFC, LAT, and other national media. Second, your quote of Tom Conroy either needs to be balanced with the 'denial' as I have done here, or left out altogether (your choice). Stating that they 'said they would fight' but then settled is misleading and implies that Yale capitulated. Finally, the 'details' of the allegations listed in Garceau's 'complaint' (that's what it's called - but lawsuit is fine too) should not be described in the WP page. People can go to the references for summaries of them. As I have explained, in the absence of a guilty verdict (or admission of guilt), these are unsubstantiated accusations. And, we do not need to define sexual harassment on this page any more than we need to define the numerous scientific terms used.Hillhealth (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)"

I do not think that a CBS website and a few sentences in the Chronicle of higher Ed qualify as 'national news coverage'. You could state 'national websites' if you like, but let's be honest here - it's not CNN or the New York Times (as you'd have readers believe with your misleading statements). I also will not agree to inclusion of any details about the complaint unless you can prove to me that Garceau's case was substantiated. These are not facts, but simply her word against Yale's. If you can provide references to them as facts, then include them by all means. If you cannot provide proper sources for their veracity, do not include them. Finally, read again what I said about Yale capitulating, think about it, and ask me your question about that again.

This is how this piece should read:

A lawsuit (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her period of employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign her position. A spokesperson for Yale University told the Yale Daily News that the University did not act illegally. “The University does not believe there was a violation of law, and it will defend itself in the suit,” he said. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007. Hillhealth (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I didn't mean to delete your comments...sorry.

That being said, I think it is common knowledge that CBS ans the chronicle are well-recognized national new services. I believe the piece should read:

The sexual harassment lawsuit was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University). She alleged in a deposition that Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography which attracted local as well as national news coverage. ,,,

Mary Beth Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop Joseph Schlessinger's 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 “The University does not believe there was a violation of law," and that "they'll fight the suit in court” Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

References

CBS News and Chronicle reference is more than just a local news source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education

the entire planet including wikipedia thinks they are national news sources. Frankly, its common knowledge everywhere and I'm surprised I had to reference a wikipedia article to prove it to you... Truther truther (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

1. The Chronicle is the major news service in the American academic world, & is considered authoritative for what it covers, and a source of national significance. . CBS as a Reliable Source of national significance goes without saying, at least for its national service DGG (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Perhaps "salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography" is relatively innocuous, as compared with other possibilities, and appropriate to include. I await Coren's concurrence on this.
3. In general, each term with a link gets linked only at the first appearance.
4. I removed some inappropriately excessive comments from the section on the patent suit. What is left speaks sufficiently.
5. I generally accept the version by Hillhouse, with a little copy editing to come. I think its appropriate weight.
6. I thanks Hillhouse and Truther for their cooperative work, for both versions are certainly superior to the original proposal. DGG (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter: I agree without reservation with all but point 2; I think the details of the alleged harassment is neither particularly relevant nor appropriate to accept at face value. It may be true, or not, but the truth of the matter is not known and will, indeed, never be known.

Personally, I very much like the "not quite yet" version above— "numerous episodes of sexual harassment" is quite clear enough. My two currency subunits. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Hillhealth

I think we are close to reaching a consensus. For me, the sticking point is that I do not think that the statement is appropriate (or verifiable) that "...Schlessinger initiated numerous salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography which attracted local as well as national news coverage."

Apart from the spelling errors (salacious) and poor English (pornography which attracted), it remains clear that these allegations arise only in Garceau's complaint. The complaint is quoted by the article that is cited by the various references used by Truthertruther, but they are most certainly unsubstantiated allegations. There was no verdict...it remains Garceau's word (in the suit) against Yale and Schlessinger's lack of word. I think it's prejudicial.

The fact is that Garceau brought a suit - that can be stated. There are no facts at all to suggest that this was/wasn't justified or frivolous or mercenary or principled. Thus, it is inappropriate to give details of the allegations in an encyclopedia in my opinion (fwiw). Other points are fine (if 2-3 sentences on CHE and CBS website newswatch sections are national news coverage). I shall be interested to hear Coren's thoughts, but would argue that filling Wikipedia with allegations made in suits settled out of court would not best serve those using it to gain information on important issues and facts.Hillhealth (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the principle that quoting allegations from a suit that did not end up in findings of law, especially if that suit was settled out of court, is prejudicial. Anyone can allege anything about anyone in a lawsuit, and settlement is no admission that there was any substance whatsoever.

It is certainly reasonable to say that the suit alleges, for instance, "sexual misconduct" but the gory details IMO do not belong in an encyclopedia article. — Coren ^(talk) 03:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I now agree with Coren on this, for the reason he has given. DGG (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reporting major news stories

I think that stating ..Schlessinger initiated numerous salacious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography which attracted local as well as national news coverage. (PS: I believe the grammar here IS correct...)

This is really the MINIMUM that may be reported, based on the local and national news coverage. This was more than just casual and offhanded statements made by someone giving an off-the-cuff interview here. This was a sworn and heavily detailed deposition that was made, and a lawsuit was filed, and the lawsuit was not dismissed, it was settled.

Regarding letsnotlie/hillhealth comments on "filling Wikipedia with allegations made in suits" is this a problem on other pages in wikipedia? Could you enlighten us with a few examples please?

All we're doing is reporting what the national and local news covered. Joseph Schlessinger didn't give any interviews declining agreeing or disagreeing with this, but if he did, that would have been posted here too.Truther truther (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No--the references are there for the details. We do not reprint this in cases where the accusations are a minor part of the persons notability--Coren has convinced me that it would be a clear violation of BLP. DGG (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm

Grammatically, you need a comma. It was not the pornography that attracted (minimal) attention, but the suit - so '...pornography, which...'.

You must appreciate that Schlessinger will have been instructed not to make statements in this case - as is always the case when one is being sued (rightly or wrongly) - so it is grossly unfair to use his silence against him. I think the sentiment goes 'innocent until proven guilty' - at least that was the plan back in the 18th century.

Regarding 'filling...with suits', my comment was prospective. In other words, if we were to go ahead and do that now - fill all BLP articles with accusations made against them in suits - how would Wikipedia look ? What do you think ? No enlightenment needed...I think we can imagine how awful it would be.Hillhealth (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One last thing...the fact that this suit was settled tells us nothing at all. The suit was against Yale, and part of it concerned the way that Yale dealt with Garceau's complaints. Even if the complaints were baseless and fictitious (and we all know that they often are in cases brought against former employers to get backpay), Yale may not have followed accepted procedure to the letter. So, the settlement does not tell us anything whatsoever about whether we should believe the accusations of sexual harassnment made by this clearly disgruntled employee. Should we use her voice (and hers alone - with no support from ANY other source) to smear the name of Schlessinger on the Wikipedia page ?. As is evident, I think not. Equally evident is that Truthertruther thinks this is a good idea (sadly, in my opinion). So, we have a split decision on this very basic question, and DGG and Coren can give us 'deciding' votes, I hope. I'll accept their collective decision.Hillhealth (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

my "grammar" and response to your comments. You keep bring up things I have already addressed at least once before

Right. A comma. Okay. It's an exaggeration to call the absence of a comma "poor grammar." Don't you think that's extreme, hillhealth? Also, you are mistaken in determining for me that enlightenment isn't necessary. When accusations are dismissed, they may not need to be posted, but in this case it was SETTLED. If you really believe that this is problem being over-reported in wikipedia, I ask, again, that you cite some comparable examples.

Additionally, if this case had "complaints that were baseless and fictitious" as you put it, the case would have been, again, dismissed rather than settled. You are taking a leap of faith (unless you have inside information) that joseph Schlessinger was or was not allowed to give any statement. Freedom of speech goes back to the 18th century too. I'm sure his attorney could have allowed him to say something along the lines of "I deny any and all accusations made by Mary beth Garceau in her deposition" ...if it were the truth. From the news reports, it appears that calls were made to both joseph schlessinger and Irit Lax, and none were returned, and reporters were hung up on in one case.

In the 20th century, we also have protection against slandering someone's character. If the news reports were wrong, Joseph Schlessinger could always sue the reporting agencies such as CBS, the Chronicle and the Yale daily News for slander, if he believed they were propagating lies.

I'm not sure what you mean by "smear the name of Joseph Schlessinger." 99% of this page is lauding Joseph Schlessinger's significant accomplishments. You should know this; you wrote it yourself!Truther truther (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not accurate. Parties in legal proceeding can, and often do, settle before court has any chance to rule on the merits in order to avoid the expense or time of the suit in the first place. In order for a suit to be dismissed it needs to have been judged, something which cannot have taken place if there was a settlement out of court.

Indeed, in almost all cases, out of court settlement include provisions whereby the parties specifically disclaim that any of the allegations were true— and while it might not have been the case with this particular settlement, we can never know since the terms are not public (they almost never are).

As for pursuing legal remedies for slander, you seem to neglect the very significant cost barrier to litigation. Not every wrong is sued for, and not every lawsuit is founded on real wrongs. — Coren ^(talk) 20:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

right. DGG (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Coren's and DGG's thoughts

In the spirit of discussing the article, and not the editors, my response is to suggest that you take a look at the responses that Coren and DGG have pasted above. There is no evidence that any of the accusations are genuine.Hillhealth (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

About the details of the complaint

Now, a final word (from me) on listing the details of the complaint: inappropriate. That there was a complaint needs to be said, and it's reasonable to specify that it was alleged to be sexual harassment.

Contrary to what Truther seems to assert, the fact that those allegations have been made in a court filing does not confer any truth value to them; they are no more reliably true in a plaintiff's brief than they would have been at the water cooler. WP:BLP is very clear that "including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced".

If, and only if, a court had ruled on the merits – or if the defendants had made an admission – could those have been repeated here without risking libel or giving undue weight to the uncorroborated allegations of one person. — Coren ^(talk) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Towards consensus on text...

So, can we go back-and-forth to decide on an appropriate statement. How about this (taken from above):

A lawsuit (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign. A spokesperson for Yale University told the Yale Daily News that the University did not act illegally. “The University does not believe there was a violation of law, and it will defend itself in the suit,” he said. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007.

OR:

A lawsuit (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, who alleged numerous episodes of sexual harassment by Schlessinger during her employment at Yale,,,. Garceau claimed that Yale University did nothing to stop Schlessinger's sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign. The case was settled out of court, with undisclosed terms, in mid-2007. Hillhealth (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Both seem appropriate to me; depending on where the emphasis should be. The response from Yale may not be necessary, as it makes no assertions concerning Schlessinger himself (only about Yale itself). — Coren ^(talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support the second (without Yale response - indeed its relevance to Schlessinger is not clear). Let's see what Truther says.Hillhealth (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

at this point I too would prefer the second. There is no question of a cover-up--the original sources with al the possibly true allegations are linked to and available. And as Coren points out, the Yale response is the normal conventional response, and says nothing at all of any substance. DGG (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I think that the Schlessinger page might need to be re-protected

Truthertruther seems to be making edits that suggest he/she is not happy with how this is going. It might be prudent to protect the page again until things cool down. I have undone the vandalism today.Hillhealth (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that as a rule, qualifying the edits of an editor you are engaged in a content dispute with as "vandalism" is rarely appropriate and usually causes difficulties.

Since I have now been engaged in discussion on the contents, it is no longer appropriate for me to use admin tools on this articles or involved editors— if there is a problem, you'll need to bring it to the attention of others. — Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren, you are perhaps being too reticent. You and I are not disputing it, we are trying to make a compromise. and this is a question of BLP, which any admin can act to keep out of an article. But since you think this way, I defer to you. I am just going to edit the article to the way you (and I) think it ought to be, , and ask someone else to protect it. DGG (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

fixing refs

I see you guys are fixing the refs. Good. But I'm putting back dates. The refs should give sufficient information that the items can be found in print. Many of the previous ones need to be adjusted to do so. DGG (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your question, Truther truther

I know this ruling is a bit long and dense, but here are a few quotes that demonstrate my point. Thought it better here than on the one-line edit summaries (or actualy page).

1."This antibody was created before the named inventors created mAb 108." - on p7, line 7. Remember that the 'named inventors are Schlessinger and colleagues - not the Weizmann crew.

2."Significantly, at the time Schlessinger delivered mAbs 96 and 108 to the Weizmann scientists, he had already published approximately 120 peer-reviewed papers..." page 30, footnote 30. This makes it clear that Schlessinger was giving them the antibodies for use in combination with chemo.

3. Further in that same footnote: "Thus, we cannot impute to Schlessinger knowledge of all of Hurwitz’s relevant prior research at the moment that he provided mAbs 96 and 108 to the Weizmann."

4."Significantly, despite Schlessinger’s testimony that he “knew of” this paper at the time he delivered mAbs 96 and 108 to the Weizmann..." page 31, footnote 22.

5.Page 32 describes the genesis of the antibodies in Schlessinger's lab at Meloy in PA. This is where he went after Weizmann. Be careful about suggesting he 'sold' anything to them... he had his lab there.

6. Important quote: Page 33, 11 lines from bottom: "Bellot testified that by the mid-1980s, when she created the antibodies relevant to this case in Schlessinger’s laboratory at Meloy..."

It goes on (and on). The key is that the antibodies were developed by Schlessinger. The case was really about whether they knew what they could do. Sela et al have no claim (and state none) to 'ownership' of the antibody IP itself, but only to the use of these antibodies in combination with chemotherapy. It's quite a complicated case, and made all the more complicated by the fact that the Imclone antibody is altogether different, and was actually first developed even before this (in about 1983) by Mendelson. I could write a very long section on the actual page about this - but I'll spare you.Hillhealth (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand

And thanks for taking the time to explain it...but explain what is going on on footnote 23. in order to clarify the controversy of the case, I'm considering adding the following text: (unless I'm misunderstanding it) There is no question regarding the antibodies; its the WAY the antibodies were discovered

Joseph Schlessinger stated that the production of the 108 Antibody relied on the use of the CH-71 cell line which were the intellectual property of the Weizmann institute and not released into the public domain. Joseph Schlessinger took CH-71 Cells without permission from Weizmann institute and continued researching them at another institution, eventually producing the 108 antibody. Hillhealth (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

...sorry - I could not add anything till I noticed that you left out the /ref part of your reference, so your signature did not come up, and all subsequent text became part of your ref. I wasn't trying to re-sign your comments (that just happened when I added the reference closure). In any case, that text is really not correct...nothing was sold to anyone, as you'll see below, so this text would be quite wrong and completely unfair. As you'll see, he was just taking his own stuff from one workplace to a new workplace. There was never ANY issue about the way that the antibodies were discovered - it was done in Schlessinger's lab. The only question (in that particular footnote) is whether the IP should be considered to be owned by the Weizmann or Meloy/Rorer.Hillhealth (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Footnote 23

The issue is that of which institution (of the two Schlessinger worked in) owns the intellectual property. That can be a confusing point if you're not used to these things. CH-71 cells were generated by Schlessinger's lab, as affirmed in the following quote from the decision:

"Dr. Etta Livneh (“Livneh”) created CH-71 cells, which are Chinese Hamster Ovary cells genetically engineered to express the extracellular portion of human EGFR. See Bellot WS at ¶ 17. These CH-71 cells had been created by Livneh at the Weizmann before Schlessinger and his colleagues went to Meloy/Rorer." (page 33, line 8 of ruling). Note that he went to Meloy/Rorer to work full time (lock, stock & barrel), not to 'sell stuff' to them.

So, these cells were made in Schlessinger's lab by Schlessinger people (this is actually not a difficult thing to do). The issue discussed in footnote 23 concerns whether it was appropriate for Schlessinger then to take this cell-line with him when his whole laboratory moved from Weizman to Meloy labs in PA. He took a position there, and was running the same type of research lab - continuing the pursuits that he was following in Israel (and continues today). He never sold anything to anyone here. The only way that this commercial company HAD CH-71 cells was by their being Schlessinger's employer, actually. I guess they did pay his salary, but...

The sticky issue here is that anything generated at a university or company is the property of that univ. or company. In principle, Schlessinger should have sought permission to take with him all of the things that his lab generated at Weizman. But, this never happens (in part because the school would never spend the time defining the permission for a million little things). Footnote 23 involves Schlessinger claiming that CH-71 cells (which he had made) were in the public domain, so could not have been patented anyway - therefore permission was not needed. That certainly became true in August 1986 (when the paper describing them was published), which is way before the 866 patent was filed. The lawyer is arguing that they weren't in the public domain really (although this is arguable), so if Schlessinger wanted to patent mAb108 itself (which he did not), he would have had to license it from Weizman anyway (since CH-71 cells were generated there). This is not that important a point, but really was the lawyer stating "you know, you don't/wouldn't own mAb108 as much as you think - that would be Weizmann IP too". The purpose of this interchange (for the Yeda lawyers) was simply to counter the Aventis/Imclone argument that "Schlessinger and colleagues made the antibody, and that was the most important ingredient". Hope this makes sense. It is actually simpler than it seems.Hillhealth (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing

This is an interesting case. It is important to note, though, that no-one is accused of 'doing anything wrong'. To look for misdeeds in this case is really not appropriate. Rather, it is simply an argument about whether Aventis (through Meloy/Rorer) or Weizmann own the '866' patent. There was no criminal act or wrongdoing or theft. Meloy/Rorer filed the patent in question (Schlessinger would not have controlled this), and the decision about who were inventors was likely based on their impression of who did what. Again, no criminal or atrocious act, just an argument about which of a complicated set of possibilities is correct. Apropos this, I would like to bring up a quote from the judge about this, which I think sets the correct tone. From footnote 7: "It is indeed an unfortunate circumstance that the Court ever had to be called upon to make and publish such credibility findings. As I noted at the end of closing arguments: I would like to state on the record that regardless of the decision I reach, it has reallybeen a highlight for me to have as many dedicated and distinguished cientists in my courtroom . . . . [I]t was a professional pleasure for me to meet, even in this formal setting, scientists who are engaged on a daily basis in work which has already had so much benefit for human kind. As judges, we hear a great deal of testimony about nonproductive, if not criminal, activity for which we can have no gratitude. It is a welcome change of pace to hear testimony from people, and I mean this on both sides of the case, who are making such exceptional and positive contributions for the benefit of all of us." Hillhealth (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Trial Section

Okay, I understand what was written, but I'm not sure it is correct to say that "no-one is accused of 'doing anything wrong'" It is still very unclear to me why the verdict went against Joseph Schlessinger. I'd like to add a sentence (or 2) to clearly summarize what the controversy was, and why the judge dismissed Joseph Schlessinger's testimony. You may suggest some, but I'm going to try to put one together too after I give the report a thorough looking over. Truther truther (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that it was not a criminal trial, but a civili trial over intellectual property. He cannot have been found guilyt of anything or for that matter innocent--the trial was indeed over ownership of the patent. That his testimony was not accepted can and should be stated, but it is of the nature of such trials that contradictory claims to contributions are made. I agree that a clearer statement of he whole trial would be preferable to the muddled one here. So give it a try on the talk page. DGG (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be desirable to shorten this section--can someone attempt it? DGG (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

personal life

Following up a comment from Dragonfly67, the two section have been integrated. I think this is the appropriate emphasis. The patent matter and the science needs further integration. DGG (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeda/Aventis/Imclone Patent Trial & Sexual Harassment Trial

why did we change the header from "Yeda/Aventis/Imclone Patent Trial"? It was a trial. The paragraph only talks about the trial. There is no reason we can't label it for what it is. Truther truther (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeda/Aventis etc patent issue: What to do ?

I have been thinking about the suggestions of DGG and dragonfly67 to integrate better the science and patent issue. This is difficult, and I wonder whether it is even really appropriate to focus on this patent issue on the Schlessinger page at all - rather than moving it to its own page under Yeda or Aventis.

The importance of this trial to Schlessinger's bio is not at all clear. Remember that this was a case brought against Aventis & Imclone by Yeda over who owns this patent. Schlessinger was there just to testify about his role (as a former employee of the company that Aventis took over). There was no win, lose (or draw) for him, and the case relates to work that he was doing 20+ years ago - and did not continue. Is this sufficiently notable in Schlessinger's career that it deserves its own paragraph - whereas we have no paras describing details of his academic science discoveries ? I don't think so. Is it typical to include as major parts of peoples' bios court cases in which they have testified (neither as defendant or complainant) ?

Since Schlessinger was effectively there simply to testify in a dispute between Yeda and Aventis, I think this belongs elsewhere, and should be deleted altogether from the Schlessinger page. Truthertruther, if you disagree with this, perhaps you could suggest a more balanced paragraph as an alternative, but one that does a better job of putting the issue into the context of Schlessinger's scientific achievements. I'd be happy to help with this, but the paragraph should stress that Schlessinger was the driving force for understanding the role of EGFR in cancer (and cloning the gene), generated many of the earliest antibodies, and played a critical role in determining that this receptor could/should be targeted therapeutically. The Yeda/Aventis dispute should not be used to reflect negatively, poorly (or positively) on Schlessinger's contributions to this field (which are great, and are clear in the academic and other literature), but centers on who should have the 'rights' to commercialize some of the derivatives.

Let me know what you think.Hillhealth (talk)

P.S. I shall make no further edits to the Schlessinger page for the time being - since my last text (not substance) changes clearly annoyed Truthertruther (sorry - that really was not my intention, I was honestly just trying to make it read better - with fewer repeats of the same phrase).Hillhealth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I kept about half you wording changes one way or another. There is already an article about Aventis to which an account of the trial can be added. Yeda obviously is also worth an article. I am not sure the trial itself needs a separate one. But since he did claim he had by himself developed the idea, it seems reasonable to mention it here also. I think the patent was primarily on using the combination, not the individual components of the therapy? and I think that at the moment his name remains as one of the inventors on the US version at least? We do have several paras describing his scientific work. DGG (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

headings

the repeated changes were unacceptable. I have protected the page for 7 days to stop the edit warring about them. Discuss here. DGG (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will do so again if necessary, or , alternatively, I shall block parties engaged in an edit war. DGG (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Truthertruther. We've been through all this before. Let's just stop where we were 18 months ago? (comment by User:Hillhealth, Sept 19)

Follow up-- it seems another admin had to protect the page again, in a dispute over the Yeda systems section. I agree it belongs with the company, not here.

However, I have removed material from the Plexicon section and started an article for that company; this belongs on their page, not here, and removed a good deal of promotional language and WP:peacock terms. I will do the same for SUGEN. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - thanks. I just shortened the SUGEN section - leaving just bare bones, and directing to the SUGEN section that already exists in the Pfizer WP article, as well as Sutent article and site. That probably suffices? Not clear that SUGEN needs another page for itself.Hillhealth (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

protection

To prevent repeated restoration of material violating the BLP policy, this page has been protected for a few weeks. I reverted to the last sound edit. Any continuing fighting over what is clearly material with undue weight introduced prejudicial links will not be tolerated. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joseph Schlessinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185448/http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=8095 to http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=8095
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016130543/http://www.jutarnji.hr/joseph-schlessinger--borio-sam-se-za-izrael--izumio-sutent--sad-mogu-natrag-u-svoju-hrvatsku/309456/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/joseph-schlessinger--borio-sam-se-za-izrael--izumio-sutent--sad-mogu-natrag-u-svoju-hrvatsku/309456
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416040635/http://www.molecule.org/misc/page?page=contact to http://www.molecule.org/misc/page?page=contact
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129053721/http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2006/61-future-2006-cancer-therapy/87-future-2006-cancer-therapy.html to http://www.dandavidprize.org/index.php/laureates/laureates-2006/61-future-2006-cancer-therapy/87-future-2006-cancer-therapy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715210851/https://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=4&id=1726&tcode=nws3 to http://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=4&id=1726&tcode=nws3

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Schlessinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100225034825/http://info.hazu.hr/corresponding_members to http://info.hazu.hr/corresponding_members
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008214902/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2007_07/l_v.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2007_07/l_v.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)