Talk:University of Rochester/Archives/2017

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on University of Rochester. 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/20151109231238/http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp to http://www.naicu.edu/member_center/members.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210041157/http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workforceindustrydata/index.asp?reg=fin to http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workforceindustrydata/index.asp?reg=fin
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916131307/http://www.rochester.edu/maps/river_campus/index.html to http://www.rochester.edu/maps/river_campus/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016045950/http://www.rochester.edu/its/ncs/documentation/network/documents/URWirelessCoverageCampusMapcampuswide.pdf to http://www.rochester.edu/its/ncs/documentation/network/documents/URWirelessCoverageCampusMapcampuswide.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314003908/http://www.rochester.edu/college/aah/facilities/galleries to http://www.rochester.edu/college/aah/facilities/galleries
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507123325/http://enrollment.rochester.edu/admissions/living/diversity.shtm to http://enrollment.rochester.edu/admissions/living/diversity.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020140324/http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf to http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414023413/http://www.rochester.edu/athletics/Facilities/facilities.php to http://www.rochester.edu/athletics/Facilities/facilities.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP violations
I encourage editors (especially GGfactchecker) to discuss and reach consensus on how much, if any, of the recent news about allegations that have been leveled against a faculty member can and should be included in this article. Editors interested in discussing this or adding this material must be familiar with WP:BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening this discussion - I hadn't seen it before and was a bit too busy to research the edit history of the article to see your reversions from before. Is complete elimination of anything mentioning this your view on the best way forward? Or are you open to some compromise on how to cover this. I understand recentism charges, but on the other hand it is quite an all-consuming thing here on campus, and covered in the two big national higher ed news outlets (Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle). How much coverage, if any, do you think it should have? There seem to be two editors, at least, who think it should be mentioned in some way, so reverting doesn't seem to be the most polite way forward, I think! Altenmaeren (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that completely omitting all mention is necessarily the way to go (although I will advocate for this if nothing more comes of this and it has no lasting impact). I think the way to thread the BLP needle is to focus on the controversy and place it in the larger context of these controversies in U.S. higher ed i.e., this is not merely a local issue but part of a much broader national issue affecting many disciplines and many institutions.  But we still have to be very careful about the unproven allegations made against one person and I don't think that just omitting his name really meets the spirit or letter of BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the deletion of the entire section is fuled by the ideology of victim-blaming more than anything else. I also don't fully understand the potential BLP violation. Answer me a simple question ElKevbo, who is this living person you are talking about? Since the alleged offender is not named here,it should have satisfied the WP:BLP. Thank you Altenmaeren for chiming in. ElKevbo 's original suggestion on WP:DUE makes some sense. Instead of deleting the entire section, he should have suggested more perspectives to be added to the section. I personally don't agree his interpretation of WP:BLP, but because the sensitivity of the material, I have since deleted the name of the professor involved. So who are you talk about when you say there's a potential WP:BLP violation? GGfactchecker 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing others' content, particularly someone who is edit warring without communication and potentially in violation of one of our most important policies, is not my job. This is a sensitive issue and there's no reason why we have to rush to put it in the article especially when we don't know if there will be any lasting impact.  This encyclopedia article encompasses the entirety of the history, organization, infrastructure, finances, and personnel of this organization; only the most extraordinary events and important facts merit inclusion, not just the most recent or most controversial.
 * And you don't dodge or fulfill BLP by just omitting the person's name; that's quite disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't demonstrated good faith nor given any constructive suggestions other than insisting the deletion of the entire section. You invited other editors to weight in, and many did. So your bullying behavior begs the question: Are you using the royal "we" here? Is this an imperial war that you are waging? GGfackchecker (talk)GGthefactchecker 01:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:GGfactchecker, any more playing of the man rather than the ball, and I will block you, which will do your cause, whatever it is, no good. And you misspelled your name in your signature. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that this page has now been protected. It seems to me, however, that the ongoing sexual harassment story should be included here in some way, and in a timely manner. The widespread coverage by reliable sources indicates to me notability, and that coverage now includes Slate (magazine) and Nature (journal) - the story has thus acquired international attention. Let's bounce around some candidate text and try to establish a consensus. If successful, I assume an administrator (Drmies?) can then be requested to make the addition. I'm unsure where exactly such material would best fit into the article (perhaps as a sub-heading to the Student Life section?), but here is a preliminary passage, with citations to reliable sources, to start the ball rolling...


 * Sexual Harassment and EEOC Complaint
 * On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed by eight current and former faculty members of the University of Rochester with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complaint includes allegations of sexual misconduct/harassment perpetrated by a current University of Rochester faculty member, and reprisals by the administration of University president Joel Seligman against the complainants.   The university responded publicly that the allegations were "thoroughly investigated and could not be substantiated."  The public disclosure of the EEOC filing, and the responses to it from the University administration, resulted in a contentious on-campus Town Hall meeting  and an on-campus rally protesting against the responses of the University and Seligman to the allegations of sexual harassment and reprisals made in the EEOC-filed complaint.

JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a good start. I think it could be improved by explicitly noting that the institutional incident(s) has achieved national prominence in part because of the larger national discussion about sexual assault, harassment, and sexism on university campuses and in many (most) academic disciplines.  ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a good start. In the NY Times today, too, it's worth mentioning.Altenmaeren (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article seems to no longer be protected, so I will add the above text, with additional citations and new information included about a related hunger strike. Any editor who wants to revise it in any way - including placing it at a more appropriate location in the article, as I am still not certain about where in the article it is best suited - should of course feel free to do so. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I moved it to the history section.  Would it be helpful to add a sentence about the number of faculty complainants who have or plan to resign in relation to these incidents?  One who has already resigned is a former dean, former vice provost, and is a member of the National Academic of Sciences.  I think that adding this material may help convince readers of the gravity of the situation.  On the other hand, I worry about making the coverage in this article too long in comparison to all of the other important material that has to be in an encyclopedia article covering the entire history and organization of this university. ElKevbo (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a much better location, so thanks for making the move. I understand your conflict - presenting significant elements (i.e., the voluntary departure of prominent faculty) without rendering the section verbose. I do not know, at least at the moment, how to effectively do that. The good news is that some of the citations, including the original Mother Jones article, reported those faculty departures, so perhaps that would ease the task should you or someone else give it a try. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was disconnected over the weekend. I think this looks good. Ideally someone will expand the history section a bit at some point so that it isn't so overwhelmingly about this case. I updated the Richard N. Aslin entry - he's the prof who resigned. Does the sentence there look suitable, or something close to it? Altenmaeren (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe so. Names need not be included explicitly, but perhaps something along the lines of "senior faculty have voluntarily left the University in protest of...," with citation (as you did with the Aslin article), might work. Go for it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I went to the U of R, I was personally acquainted with the professor subject to these allegations, and I knew several students who were working with him on research projects. I've also read the wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Knowing the humanist, feminist, scientific spirit of the department, to omit the name of this predator would betray the principles my school stands for. 68.100.137.38 (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no question that the name of the alleged predator is readily available from pretty much all the cited RS, of which there are many. You might therefore have a solid justification to include the name (see WP:DUE). I suggest that you follow the spirit of WP:BOLD and edit the article accordingly, being prepared of course for the possibility of subsequent reverts and discussions. I feel obliged to note, however, that "betray[ing] the principles my school stands for" is unlikely to be a compelling argument to support such edits. Whatever those principles might be, they are simply not relevant to the encyclopedic policies and mission of WP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)