Talk:Robert R. Reisz

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Palaeontology: Paleontologists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the paleontologists taskforce.

I just want to express some disappointment with the fact that the allegations of racial abuse, bullying and sexual harrassment were removed from the article on the grounds of "Allegations of this nature require more than a self-published/primary source". The source was the allegations themsleves, which were made by credible and respected scientists who were demonstrably supervised by Reisz. Just because a news organisation hasn't picked it up doesn't mean it isn't worthy of inclusion - they probably only haven't picked it up because of how relatively obscure Reisz is in the public sphere. DJK (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just following the policies of WP:BLP and WP:V which say Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. and Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer., respectively. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources describes Medium as a self-published source, so I'm not sure that there's any ambiguity here given the policies and guidelines. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the allegations be added back in the main article on the basis of the banning of Reisz from the annual meetings of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology? See the report on Twitter. -Mad Maths (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We're certainly not going to rely in any way on a Twitter post by an involved party. EEng 17:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried briefly to find a source besides Twitter and have not yet been successful, this is a good place to look though. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional source: https://thevarsity.ca/2022/11/20/utm-professor-violated-sexual-harassment-policy-failed-to-respect-supervisory-boundaries/ 212.201.100.83 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Related discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive343#Robert_R._Reisz. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ElMikkino, the sources you added here [1] are far from good enough in WP-context, which includes WP:RSSM, WP:MEDIUM, WP:BLPCRIME and the rest of WP:BLP. Please don't add such content without much better sources. FYI ping to @EEng. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since I'm not a Super Mario, I can't see the revdelled diff. Is there something you want me to know about it? EEng 12:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, I wanted a second opinion, but Luigi gave me one. The sources were the aforementioned Varsity and Medium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't know if it helps but here is a press release from the UoT student union on the subject: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/11/29/2563631/0/en/UofT-Professor-found-guilty-of-Sexual-Harassment-and-Racism-but-still-to-teach-classes.html 212.201.100.83 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't use a press release as a source, other than on its own content ("The president of the school's student council called for [etc etc]"). It doesn't move us any closer to the WP:DUE threshold. EEng 13:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What about a varsity article outlining meetings between UTMSU, UTM staff, and other uoft student unions, and changes made to school policies? https://thevarsity.ca/2022/12/16/governing-council-approves-updated-policy-on-sexual-violence-and-sexual-harassment/ PikaBoop (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just the student newspaper referring to itself as a source. EEng 00:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So you people are just OK with this predator having a vanity wikipedia page? Also they are not allegations when the fucking university itself found him guilty. FirozaUofTStudent (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We're following Wikipedia's policies, which are linked above. Only the best sources can be used to level accusations at people - the alternative is to open the encyclopedia up to all kinds of tabloid gossip. You would be better off using your energy to try to get the Toronto papers to cover this - or perhaps specialty publications like Inside Higher Ed that sometimes cover these sorts of accusations. We're not going to set aside one of Wikipedia's most strongly enforced policies, so arguing about that on this talk page won't get you anywhere. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since 2007, apparently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also the student newspaper is literally the only paper to ever report on his allegations, because 1) UofT works hard to protect their reputation and 2) Robert Reisz is a small time professer that nobody knows about. Your dismissal makes no sense and reflects your character as a misogynist FirozaUofTStudent (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Reisz is a prominent and high-profile vertebrate paleontologist. Even if you despise him, describing him as a small time professer (sic) is a total crock of shit. I agree that without RS coverage, the bar for inclusion has not been met. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The internet is vast, so you can find a less misogynist website to write on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, per refs in the article, a WP:AFD is not unthinkable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting idea. David Eppstein -- any thoughts on PROF here? EEng 19:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He has high citation counts in a low-citation field, probably enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. And the AAAS that he's a fellow in is the lesser of the two AAAS's, but still probably enough for #C3. So although deletion would be attractive from the point of view of avoiding the dilemma of either including the harassment allegations with bad sourcing or keeping them out until sourcing improves and being accused of whitewashing the situation, I think an AfD is unlikely to produce a delete outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a source describing any of us as misogynists? EEng 19:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a paragraph quoting a professor as confirming the existence and outcome of the investigation against Reisz at [2], the official record of UT's University Affairs Board, which I think is more reliable than a student newspaper and a press release. But it is still a primary source rather than a secondary one, and "Professor Welsh said..." rather than the university itself publishing a statement that this all happened, so I don't think it's a very good source for a BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed the talk page discussion after adding it back in. I would say that REVDEL is a pretty bad read because of UNDUE. The governing council's meeting report is similar to a government's summary of meeting minutes. Is it primary? Sure. Is it reliable? Oh yes. The fact that governing council mentioned the case and reference Varsity's publication, by name, confirms that Varsity's reporting is accurate. A combination of sources by Varsity and governing council's report would meet the threshold for verifiability. An academia's credibility hinges on being trustworthy and ethical. The outside investigator found not just sexual harassment allegation to be substantiated, but also academic misconduct around authorship. The credibility "house of cards" come crashing down if their credibility is gone (see Francesca Gino for related accusations). Reisz is an academic and these allegations took place while he was performing work duties. This crossed the bridge from UNDUE into DUE. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same sources already rejected repeatedly (see above). I've once again removed the material. EEng 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they were not, since the official record of UT's University Affairs Board was added. 2A02:8109:9E00:3910:1094:83B8:CF33:1CC9 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source, which we can't use for an accusation like this. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I m sorry but how does that work. The claim being "The University conducted an investigation following allegations of misconduct" how can the record of an official meeting form the university where they acknowledge conducting this investigation not be a source? This is mind-boggling. 2A02:8109:9E00:3910:1094:83B8:CF33:1CC9 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not mind-boggling. What the (primary) source says is that

the University had received formal complaints of harassment and inappropriate supervisory conduct against Professor Robert Reisz from two former students, that the University had retained an external party to investigate the complaints in a fact-finding investigation, and that the investigation found that a number of the allegations were factually substantiated. She indicated that the University determined that on a number of occasions Prof. Reisz’s supervisory practices did not meet the standards expected of a University of Toronto faculty member and/or breached university policy.

Even if we accepted primary sources, formal complaints of harassment and inappropriate supervisory conduct .... a number of the allegations were factually substantiated is not ...

official complaint ... alleging sexual harassment and supervisory misconduct ... most of these allegations against Reisz were factually substantiated.

... which is the latest text that's been stuck into the article. EEng 15:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]