Talk:Joel Seligman

September 2017 - EEOC complaint
In recent days there has been extensive coverage by reliable sources (RS), including newspapers (e.g., Democrat and Chronicle) and national magazines (e.g., Mother Jones (magazine), The Chronicle of Higher Education), of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint filed by several former and current faculty of the University of Rochester, whereat Seligman is President and CEO. The EEOC complaint involves the University's investigations of, and responses to, allegations of (1) sexual harassment by a current University faculty member against students, and (2) alleged administrative retaliation against those making the allegations. Joel Seligman has been quoted numerous times in those RS regarding not only the EEOC complaint, but also the underlying charges. Although the matter is ongoing and evolving, it has already acquired what can fairly be characterized as major media coverage, with even the chair of the University's Board of Trustees, Danny Wegman (Chairman of the Wegmans chain of grocery stores), publicly commenting. As such the matter has become a notable aspect of the article's subject, and should in some manner be included here.

Please provide your opinions/comments/concerns/etc. here. I will begin work on what I hope will be, or at least become, appropriate prose, and add it to the article over the next few hours. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we usually include unproven (negative) allegations in BLPs, even really well sourced ones? ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. This ongoing event/incident has received, and continues to receive, widespread media coverage. Seligman has made numerous public statements about it, and it has now become a major event of his presidency. I tried to include only objective facts that are not only supported by RS, but appropriate for an encyclopedia entry - public events, public statements, and the like. Unlike the earlier entry - which was not written by me - I did not include the names of any of the individuals named in the EEOC-filed complaint. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest centralizing discussion at University of Rochester; there's a thread there with two additional editors working through the issue. It's a slightly different take since the subject of these two articles is different but there's immense overlap and it makes more sense to me to have everyone working together in one place to find consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And now that I've reread your text in this article I think it's a pretty good start. I like the general tone and focus and it appears to evade the BLP issues completely.  Can it be shortened and adapted for the main university article? ElKevbo (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will jump over to the University article to see what is happening there...JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

January 2018 - Resignation
Before this gets too far, let's open a discussion now. The single-edit IP editor 128.151.189.198 deleted a passage from the "Resignation" section. That passage - 'perception among students and faculty of a failure in leadership' - represents an element of Seligman's resignation that is explicitly included in the reliable source (RS). This perception, which is evident in a large number of non-RS not cited here, is more importantly also implied in Seligman's own publicly-released resignation letter, not cited by me because it might be considered an inappropriate primary source.

I believe the passage removed by the IP is encyclopedic. As presented in the RS it reflects an underlying, truthful and important component of Seligman's presidency at UR for the past several months, and thus is directly related to his resignation. If there is consensus to remove the passage I will of course go along with that. However, although I am willing to assume good faith, a single edit (without edit summary) by an IP with apparently no talk page and only a single edit (this one) to their 'name' sure smells to me a bit like NOTHERE, COI, etc. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

October 2022
I just reverted a string of edits that, in apparent violation of WP:PROMO, removed reliably-sourced and notable content. The article was stable and well-sourced, and that version has been restored. I suggest to the IP that they engage here to explain precisely why their desired content is preferable, and specifically why the well-sourced and notable content should be removed. Also, they should identify any WP:COI they might have with the article subject. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)