Talk:David M. Sabatini

Orphaned references in David M. Sabatini
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of David M. Sabatini's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hay": From Mammalian target of rapamycin:  From Apoptosis:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing lawsuit
I have removed coverage of the ongoing (as of May 2022) lawsuits. Although it is covered in the Boston Globe and briefly in Science, I believe that this is marginal for a WP:BLP. I will mention that Sabatini and the lawsuit are covered sympathetically in the substack of Bari Weiss, but that similar sources have been determined to be self-published sources by the reliable source noticeboard; a similar article is in the Daily Mail, which is deprecated (and which we certainly cannot use in a BLP). We could take by WP:RSN or WP:BLPN if anyone wants to try to make a policy-based case for inclusion of the lawsuits. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Reporting facts is not being "sympathetical", it's just being objective. Hiding facts, on the other hand, is being unobjective.
 * The notice for self-published sources obviously targets self-published random people who have no expertise in the field they wrote about (science, history...). But the notice also says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"
 * I think it's safe to consider that any professional journalist, who published articles on mainstream (and considered by Wikipedia as reliable) medias, is an expert on journalism and facts reporting, and should be considered as a reliable journalistic source; Barri Weiss is a professional journalist, she published on many mainstream medias considered by Wikipedia as reliable, and she now self-publishes her works (and other journalist's works) on her substack as a professional journalist. What's the matter?
 * You keep deleting the only part of the article suggesting that, based on documents and testimonies consulted by a professionnal journalist, Sabatini could be unfairly accused. Therefore, the David Sabatini's wikipedia page is currently biased.
 * For reference, here is the part you deleted and that I think should be reinstored (the form can still be improved, but informations reported here and chronology are important):
 * In October 2021, Sabatini filed a lawsuit against the Whitehead Institute, its director Ruth Lehmann, and his accuser, a former junior colleague with whom he claims to have had a consensual relationship. According to Sabatini, he was the victim of false claims made to “exact revenge against a former lover.” Sabatini's attorneys denied the new allegations that had been made against him.  Material evidences and testimonies from a dozen of colleagues show that Sabatini received various text messages from his accuser in 2020, mentionning her feelings for him and suggesting she was asking for a serious relationship with him, to which he did not respond positively.  In December 2021, the accuser filed a civil lawsuit claiming that Sabatini coerced her into sex and that his laboratory had a “toxic and sexually-charged” environment. 94.238.133.6 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * IP User, if you'd like to get additional opinions from people with more experience in BLPs, we could take it over to WP:BLPN. I do not think that there is much chance that you are going to find a consensus for including the Bari Weiss source (but I could be wrong).  Including the lawsuit is marginal, and I think there are arguments for and against.  I'd be happy to make a post over there if you'd prefer, but it sounds like you might prefer to do so yourself. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make a post (or anyone who wants to), but if you do please include the part of the notice I quoted for interpretation and my point being: can we consider journalists as experts in reporting facts?
 * I think it is also worth to bring to the attention this quote from the substack article I sourced: "This account is based on interviews with Sabatini, more than a dozen colleagues of both Sabatini and Knouse, legal filings, text messages, emails, and documents obtained exclusively by Common Sense." All indicates that a serious journalist work have been done, and that other journalists didn't have access to all of the elements.
 * But I disagree that including the lawsuit (and references to material evidences and testimonies who supports Sabatini's version) is marginal, as the article now depicts Sabatini as guilty without even telling his side of the story. 94.238.133.6 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

the lawsuit in question is supportive of the living person in the article.

BLP policy is there to defend the article subject, rather than to defame him.

if the article says he was fired without mentioning that he's Suing back for unfair dismissal, this is a blatant violation of the BLP policy Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe we can include the WP:SPS in a WP:BLP. See WP:BLPSPS.  The coverage of the lawsuits in reliable sources does not make the subject look better, in my opinion.  See the Allegations section in the old version Special:Diff/1088792862 for what this might look like.  I am not strongly against re-adding this material, but I think the article is better off without it unless/until a resolution is reported in reliable sources.  Apologies for inadvertently removing your comment in my previous edit -- I'm not sure quite how I managed that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, others, I have now posted a short, neutrally worded notice to WP:BLPN, with a link to this discussion here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not evaluated the other sources but just a quick note that Russ Woodroofe is Bari Weiss's substack and probably nearly every substack, cannot be used for anything relating to a living person other than information about Bari Weiss (or whoever's substack it is) that does not concern a third party and is not unduly self serving. Since this is an article on David M. Sabatini, it cannot be used here. Note that, even if Bari Weiss was writing about a lawsuit of her own, we still couldn't use it since lawsuits by definition must involve some other party and in addition, it's not plausible that someone talking about their lawsuit wouldn't be considered unduly self-serving. It does not matter whether someone is a professional journalist or has written for reliable sources. Even if someone is a journalist currently working for a media organisation well recognised as a reliable source, we do not use their self published material about living persons if we're only citing their self published material. This applies even if that self published material is part of an article/story/research/whatever that was published by a reliable source. We only use the material which is published by a reliable source with their own editorial control. Sometimes some reliable sources may mention the self published material, if they do we might be able to use that reliable source, and in some cases it may be okay to add a link to the self published material in addition provided we aren't citing stuff that isn't mentioned in the reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nil Einne's comments about reliable sources, to wit,  We only use the material which is published by a reliable source with their own editorial control. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also User:YechezkelZilber, your understanding of BLP is completely wrong. BLP is about protecting all living persons on Wikipedia. It does not matter whether they're an article subject, indeed some of the worst BLP violations are ones which affect people who are not article subjects since the info may lack context or be undue information about a non notable living person. While concerns are lessened when the subject isn't named, they can't be ignored as long as it's it's likely they can be identified. This does make covering defences even when they are well covered in reliable secondary sources a delicate balancing act since often they will include claims about living persons. (For example if someone claims they were forced to confess or the subject's partner was the killer, this has implications for the police or for the subject's partner.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think in general having a notice on the lawsuit would help make this a less one sided article. Right now it appears as if the allegations have been proven and the dismissal was valid. Showing the other side of the story and facts would definitely help balance this. There are a number of additional sources for the lawsuit happening such as . In general the reporting around this issue appears very one sided for something that is still up for debate. 2001:9E8:3612:B00:7C03:A4FF:FE0E:E796 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the lawsuit entirely for several reasons, but am not entirely sure that this was a correct thing to do. Reasons:  First, the sources are a little weak for an ongoing lawsuit.  This isn't exactly the situation of WP:BLPCRIME, but that guideline is somewhat related.  If we were to include it, we probably couldn't say much more than that there was a suit and countersuit.  Second, in my opinion the lawsuit does not make him look better.  One might interpret it as an attempt to intimidate or retaliate against the junior colleague, and indeed the second Boston Globe source so interprets pretty explicitly.  (My main concern about removing it is actually that it might tend to whitewash the article.)  Third (and weakest), the lawsuit is likely to be a magnet for editors wanting to add the Bari Weiss or similar sources, which as editors experienced in Wikipedia guidelines ( and ) have said, we cannot use.  This would not be a reason to remove significant coverage, but as it is both marginal and likely to cause trouble, it seemed to me that we were better without it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is, to put it mildly, bollocks. WP:SPS does not say that self-published sources are banned outright for all purposes on Wikipedia. While I understand the conservatism of WP:BLPSPS, in this case to simply write off Bari Weiss’s post because she self-published it is an overreaction. As User:94.238.133.6 noted above, Bari Weiss is a professional and respected journalist with a strong track record, who happens not to work at a major outlet any more. Potential credentialism aside and her independence notwithstanding, her work is clearly in itself a serious investigation, citing numerous sources. Her story has been publically confirmed by others with a connection to the institution in question (1, 2) and has started to be covered by other, actual news outlets (3, 4).
 * As an analogy, a self-published academic work would likely be okay under WP:SPS if a respected, peer-reviewed journal subsequently positively reviewed it or cited its articles, for example. (At least one journal I know of was edited and published by a single person independent of any institution but became an immensely valuable resource within its niche.)
 * Besides which, what I added to the article yesterday (subsequently reverted by User:Russ Woodroofe) does not say more than that Bari Weiss claimed these things in an investigation. Even if the non-self-published sources now citing the Substack post are not sufficiently neutral, there’s no doubt they have wide circulation and Wikipedia should at least acknowledge the existence of the claims in a suitably hedged manner.
 * I say that those objecting to this even being mentioned in terms of ‘there exist claims that …’/‘a lawsuit is ongoing in which it is alleged by x that, while counter-lawsuit y claims that …’ are using Wikipedia bureaucracy to prevent verifiable facts being published (whatever their reasons, perhaps entirely innocent). Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: The section on "Allegations of sexual misconduct" currently takes up roughly 1/3 of the prose (not including the lead). Said section also includes several exact dates or months, a level of specificity absent anywhere else (save birth date). Per WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION, do sexual misconduct allegations truly represent one third of the weight of all coverage in reliable secondary sources, or is there perhaps WP:RECENTISM afoot and disproportionate coverage granted towards a juicy scandal? Per WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, there is no rule or guarantee that all verifiable facts about a subject must be included in an article. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for slow response. Yes, that is a good note.  The current text was built up over time by lots of different editors, with the usual associated problems.  What do you (and other editors) think of the following streamlined version for the "Allegations" section?
 * "In late 2021, following an investigation by an outside law firm of concerns surrounding sexual harassment, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute fired Sabatini, and he resigned from the Whitehead Institute.  Following this, MIT placed Sabatini on administrative leave while it conducted its own investigation.  MIT's investigation concluded with a recommendation to revoke tenure, at which time Sabatini resigned from his position at MIT.


 * In 2022, Sabatini was under consideration for a position at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. After significant protests from students and some faculty over the sexual harassment allegations, he withdrew his name from consideration.   "


 * Obviously, the sentence in the lede also badly needs streamlining, probably to a single sentence. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Really diving deep into the rulebook to find a reason not to include this, hu? -- Seelefant (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

[reliable source aka NYT mentioning lawsuit] - perhaps this helps in at least covering the fact that he has sued. Might be other useful information.Slywriter (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hiding the lawsuit from lede
per BLP policy, we must be careful not to pay negative information in biographies of loving persons.

hiding the subject's lawsuit denying the allegations is defamatory.

if the allegations are in the lede, the denials being the as well. Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A brief one-sentence summary that he lost his positions is in the lede. The details go in the body.  The lawsuit is surely a detail.  (I'm still not convinced that the article is not better without that detail while the process is ongoing, but I see arguments both ways.)  The version of the article that you are trying to push also has a mild grammar and some moderate referencing problems. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding accusser's name to pages that deal with the results of sexual accusations
on the page David M. Sabatini there is a large section describing the effects of sexual accusations on his career and life. This information has been published in the most widely read periodicals, such as New York Times and Science Magazine. Included in these periodicles was the person whom accused David, and the lawsuits, libel and the like, that are ongoing. I included the accusers name in the Wikipedia section, however it was initially removed because WP:BLPNAME, which discusses when to omit and include names. In that policy 'When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.' - and as such Science Magazine is the most widely read scholarly journal in the Scientific arena, and which includes information about the person.

- Therefore Wiki's own policy supports the inclusion of the accusers name in this case, however the last 2 times I've tried to include an edit with the information it has been deleted. How can this be remedied. This seems like a source of accuser-bias in the editorial system, which could be use nefariously to harm the reputation and careers of any accused. Carlos Ruiz 112 (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:David Sabatini, my fault for putting the incorrect wikilink on the editor's talk page. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Carlos Ruiz 112, I see no encyclopedic value in naming an alleged victim who is not otherwise a public figure. The Boston Globe source wrote ""The woman, whom the Globe is not identifying because she is the alleged victim...". Although Science chose to name her, please note that WP:BLPNAME goes on to say Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. What value is provided to the reader? What is the purpose of stating where she works now? Schazjmd   (talk)  16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed the name of the alleged victim when it was added a second time. While it has been reported in the Boston Globe (in its later coverage) and in Science's later coverage, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of a name is generally higher.  Note that WP:BLP protections apply to all living persons in all articles, and WP:NPF says that material like this should only be included when it is connected to a persons notability.  As the victim is probably not notable, I read this as saying that her name should not be included at all. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming this person is a victim before the accusation is verified places the burden of proof on the accused, and is allowing reputable sources like Wikipedia to be used to do reputational harm to individuals. That is a shame, didn't think Wikipedia took that stance. Today I learned something. Carlos Ruiz 112 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)