Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Revert by Nonsenseferret

Nonsenseferret has reverted 6 edits by me (and one by AnomieBOT) with the edit summary "disagree with changes, need proper sourcing, discuss on talk to establish consensus".

Perhaps Nonsenseferret would like to explain which changes he disagrees with. I think the only edit where sourcing is an issue is this one.

Nonsenseferret, do you disagree with any of the other edits? Can we put them back? Would you like to expand on your issue with sourcing?

Discussing this edit, Medium is a "citizen journalism" site. I wouldn't want to rely on it too much, especially not the conclusions that the "citizen journalists" draw. However, I think it is safe to believe the quotes that the "citizen journalists" have got from people present are genuine and several of them do say that they didn't applaud or laugh because they were appalled by the the comments.

I didn't provide the URL in the original post. I'm happy to correct that. The article is at https://medium.com/@danwaddell/saving-tim-hunt-97db23c6ee93

Yaris678 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Medium article is not an appropriate source for a BLP, per WP:SPS ("Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people"). KateWishing (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
While Waddell's analysis is very interesting, I also think it doesn't pass as a Reliable Source. It might be worth taking a look at the sources he used and try to dig reliable sources out of them. Ashmoo (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This isn't really information about a living person. It is in an article about a living person, but that is just because this incident has ended up being covered in Hunt's biography article. We are already using the the self-published "unfashionista" site as a source. In both cases we are only using these sources for particular facts, where those facts are particularly relevant. We are not using the sources for any interpretation of those facts. I think that is a responsible way to use self-published sources. Yaris678 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
That is a creative but, in my view, an incorrect argument. Anything that is written in a biographical article may have a strong bearing on the character of the subject. If it didn't it is probably out of scope. Therefore where a matter is contentious, and surely we can see from the great number of conflicting edits on this particular aspect of the biography that this is contentious, then BLPSOURCES applies and this would generally exclude sourcing by tabloids and blogs. In fact I do not think that unfashionista falls within this guideline, and I have raised it at the RS noticeboard as noted above. There has been little discussion about it and I'm not clear where consensus lies.
I was concerned about two main aspects of the changes, the removal of well sourced relevant content and the addition of this content which was sourced to a blog. The capitalization change I have no view on. --ℕ ℱ 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
So you reverted this edit despite having no view on it?
Do you also have no view on these edits, which you reverted?
By "removal of well sourced relevant content", I take it you mean this edit. The content was well sourced, but:
  1. Some of it talked about a transcript, when it later transpired that there was no genuine transcript, only an approximate reconstruction, as it says in our article (at the top of the section on this incident).
  2. Whether or not Hunt said "now seriously" is a bit of a boring detail. Especially boring since we don't know for sure that he did, given that there is no genuine transcript and the recording of the incident starts after the point where the approximate reconstruction has him saying it.
  3. The last bit of the removed content was about the recording of part of the toast. This recording has already been mentioned and this sentence doesn't tell us anything new.
Yaris678 (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had no response to the above.

I've restored those aspects of my edits which no one has expressed an opinion on. Is that OK with everyone?

Does anyone have a strong opinion on the three points I made above about this edit?

Yaris678 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had no response to my question about this edit so I have re-removed the text about "now seriously". Yaris678 (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
~You can't set artificial deadlines for people to respond to you. I've made it clear that I oppose the removal of this well sourced content. You have not shown there is any consensus to do so. The content, and the important articles it cites, clearly have a bearing on the question of whether or not these were intended to be serious comments. If you really thought it was a "boring detail" why are you so determined to try and remove it. Clearly it is significant. --ℕ ℱ 18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No one has set any deadlines. You gave some reasons against my edit. I explained my edit. You didn't respond. I reinstated the edit.
This is how a wiki works.
Consensus is not the same things as getting your explicit consent.
If you would like to address the substance of the explanation for my edit, that would be great. So far, all I've got from you is it that whether or not he said "now seriously" can't be boring because I have removed it. Not the most convincing argument. Would you like to say anything about the reliance of this section on a transcript that doesn't exist?
I recommend that you stay away from an argument that I am determined to remove this text. I could equally argue that you are determined to keep it here. I don't think that gets us anywhere.
Yaris678 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not much of a discussion when you don't even bother to read people's replies - I repeat "The content, and the important articles it cites, clearly have a bearing on the question of whether or not these were intended to be serious comments." These weren't some dodgy blogs. The citations you are removing are from The Times. I share the esteemed national newspaper's opinion that these matters were relevant and important. I do not require any recommendations, but thanks for your kind thoughts. --ℕ ℱ 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So you think it has bearing. Great. But it has since been contradicted. The Times is pretty reliable, but we shouldn't report what they say if it later turns out to be incorrect. BTW, I'm not saying that he definitely didn't say "Now seriously" I'm saying that:
  1. We don't know
  2. Stating that it is supported by a transcript is untrue, given no transcript exists.
We could say "Hunt felt he had made it clear he was joking because he had included the phrase ‘now seriously’ in his statement. The Times reported that inclusion of these words was corroborated by a leaked transcript. It later transpired that there is no transcript of what he said."
Or we could just say "Hunt stated that he used the words ‘now seriously’ and he felt that this made it clear he was joking."
How do you feel about these versions on the text?
Yaris678 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Your proposed edits, none of which are improvements, seem an attempt to cast doubt on the fact of the words "now seriously" were used. In fact nobody is disputing this, and The Times reported on 27 June that even St Louis accepted they were accurate ref. --ℕ ℱ 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Yaris678: From what I can gather, your first proposed wording more closely reflects the debate about Hunt's intentions than the current text. When we have two equally reliable sources that state different views - in this case the existence of an accurate transcript of that part of the speech - then WP:YESPOV tells us to ".. treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." As you're looking for a consensus, I'd suggest you make something like the change you propose (adding in the references, and not removing any), along the lines of "Hunt felt he had made it clear he was joking because he had included the phrase 'now seriously' in his statement.<Observer ref> The Times reported that inclusion of these words was corroborated by a leaked transcript,<Times ref> but Louise Mensch {or a better source if possible} has since stated that there is no transcript of what he said, just a reconstruction.<unfashionista {or other} ref>". Personally, I'd prefer a stronger source to place against the Times, but I'm not seeing any corroboration of the Times' source, which I would have expected if a full transcript really existed. See if you can make any progress that way. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: That's a straw man. Nobody has suggested that a full transcript exists. It is clear from the Times that the unnamed UN source produced a post-hoc "transcript" based on his recollection which corroborates the inclusion of the words "now seriously". The Times article a few days later makes it clear that St Louis accepts this. There is no genuine debate here. There is no reliable source which disputes that these comments were made as a joke. --ℕ ℱ 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nonsenseferret: It seems that the current text suggests that, so it's a long way from a straw-man. It cannot possibly be true that "A leaked transcript published in The Times, provided by an unnamed EU official, corroborated the inclusion of these words in his statement." if a transcript of that part of his speech does not exist, can it? Now can you please focus on the issue, not the other editors: the Times says one thing; everybody else says another. It would be helpful if you could outline your objections to the application of WP:YESPOV to the relevant text in this case. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Your essential point here is totally wrong. There is no inherent contradiction in say that there is no complete transcript, but that a post-hoc partial transcript does exist which corroborates a fact that is now disputed by no one. --ℕ ℱ 21:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, you are wrong in your assertion. There is a contradiction in stating as fact, in Wikipedia's voice: "A leaked transcript ... corroborated the inclusion of these words", if our article has already stated as fact (also in Wikipedia's voice): "There is no transcript of what he said, but part of his remarks have been approximately reconstructed." If your assertion is true then the opening paragraph of the section in our article is wrong. Which is it? That is the gist of the problem with this section of the article and the status quo is not sustainable. I suggest you re-read http://unfashionista.com/2015/10/23/the-myth-of-the-tim-hunt-transcript/ and http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece - noting in particular the disjunction between the word "transcript" in the headline and "report" in the text of the Times article. That in itself ought to be sufficient to make anyone dubious of the suggestion that a genuine transcript exists for anything more than the last few seconds of Hunt's speech. Surely it's not beyond the wit of the editors here to find a form of words that better summarises the real situation than the present bald assertion from the Times? What sort of objection would you have to replacing the word 'transcript' with 'reconstruction', 'recollection' or similar when referring to the "leaked EU report" as reported by the Times? --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have ammended the wording to "A leaked report by an unnamed EU official was published in The Times and provided a post hoc transcript of some of Hunt's words, based on a recollection of the event. This account corroborated the inclusion of these words "now seriously" in his statement." I think you might object to the word transcipt in this sentence, but I think you are according it with a narrower meaning and significance than is normally understood. I think the wording makes it clear now that this was compiled after the event and does not include all of his words. Since we don't have the leaked report, I'm not sure that we know how extensive it was. --ℕ ℱ 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think RexxS's suggestion of replacing the word transcript is an excellent one and have implemented it in this edit. Yaris678 (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you inadvertently included a lot of changes for which there is no consensus, and also which seem to have confused the various reconstructions of Hunt's words which came from different sources. Don't worry, I've made the sentence about the UN official's reconstruction very clear now. --ℕ ℱ 13:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, you ignore the discussion here, until someone changes the page, at which point you undo and claim no consensus. That's not how Wikipedia works.
I have undone your edit. It was not an improvement. It brought back the repetition of the information about appreciative laughter. It made it less clear that the reconstruction we are talking about is the one we have already presented.
Yaris678 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD is how it works. And be aware of WP:3RR. There isn't a consensus for removing that content you have repeatedly tried to remove. You also cant set artificial deadlines for people to respond on talkpages. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines - if discussion is ongoing you do have to wait and give people a chance to respond - it isn't a full time job for anyone. --ℕ ℱ 16:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of BRD, but it doesn't work if you stop discussing things.
Nonsenseferret, would you like to explain why we need to get consensus to remove information that is a repetition of something already stated in the article or why the reconstruction we give isn't the one from the anonymous EU official that is mentioned later in the article?
Yaris678 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I do find the repetition of the point about the recording at the end of both the Controversy over lunchtime toast at WCSJ 2015 and Social media reaction sections to be somewhat WP:UNDUE emphasis on one part of a single event (albeit important) in a biography of an eminent scientist who really should be notable for more than just one press-fuelled incident (does the Times count as social media, BTW?). I can see that NF could argue that the first mention is essentially part of an overview and the second is the detail of it; but I can also see that Yaris has a real point about repetition. Is there any common ground that both of you could live with? My inclination would be to reduce repetition per WP:BALASPS, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if there's a good reason why it really needs to be mentioned in two separate sections. --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You can see the various discussions in the archive of this talkpage, I would be quite supportive of a condensed rewrite of the entire episode. I have appealed for editors both to look at drafting that for discussion (but strictly only if such represents a fair representation of the views of reliable sources), but also to significantly expand the sections on the scientific discoveries, which is after all the most important thing in this biography. One of the problems is this is highly politicized subject. Editors have been in the past either focused on hacking away at any statements that seem to be supportive of Hunt, or the converse. The text has been relatively stable for some time and I consider it to be currently reasonably balanced. There are things that are annoying to supporters and critics of Hunt. Specifically regarding why the comments about laughter have been duplicated, and to be clear these were not added by me. I can see that the first section is a description of all that is known about the comments he made and their immediate reception at the event from a number of sources - that is not from a single source as Yaris678's edits, which I reverted today, seem to suggest. The second section describes more about the aftermath and the order of which things became known. The laughter and the now seriously comments were only highlighted in the media much after the event. You can see this in some of the newspapers such as The Guardian which had to print an editorial to backtrack on their initial position once more became known. --ℕ ℱ 19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And frankly even on an aesthetic level, "The reconstruction of his words by an unnamed EU official corroborated" is an awful sentence. A reconstruction makes it sound like something on CrimeWatch UK. My suggested wording above, is in my opinion much clearer. --ℕ ℱ 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nonsenseferret,
Thank you for this additional information. This helps me see why you are protective of the article as it was before I edited it on the 10th of November.
I agree that it is important to get the balance of the article right and agree that the balance is about right at the moment. However, I also believe that it is possible to improve the article without ruining the balance.
I fear you may have me down as being "anti Hunt". Can I assure you this is not the case? I believe Hunt was telling a joke at his own expense. My best guess is that if I was there I would have got the joke and laughed along. If I'd known about all the work he had done helping female scientist, I might have laughed even more as he cast himself as the villain.
However, there are things that we don't know about the incident and will probably never know. It is better for the article to be honest about the lack of knowledge or else not mention the things which we are uncertain about, rather than give false certainty.
One such thing is the exact wording used.
The words that we use in our first quote are those from an EU official, as the cited Independent article makes clear. A lot of those words were first released by Connie St Lewis, but her version didn't include "now seriously". The first version that was exactly as our given quote is from the EU official.
In terms of how we describe this source of the words, I agree that "reconstruction" isn't ideal. This isn't my choice of words, it comes from Moonraker, as improved by Rjowsey. I think that when we refer to this version of Hunt's words later it is useful to describe it in a similar way to how it was described the first time, so we know we are talking about the same version of Hunt's words. I am open to improving this description. Do you have a suggestion? I don't think "recollection" quite does it, because the EU official was obviously influenced by Connie St Lewis. My best guess is he/she saw Connie St Lewis's words and thought "that's about right, but Hunt did say now seriously, so I'll add that."... that's my best guess... but this is one of those things we'll probably never know.
I see what you are getting at with the fact that the recording only came to light later. I don't think that is a reason to repeat the exact same information, but I could be persuaded to say something about it in the "Social media reaction" section if the purpose is to highlight the delay between the initial twitter storm and the recording becoming public. e.g. if we said "It was only on the 18th of June, 9 days after Hunt's comments, that the recording of part of them (and the laughter and appreciative applause) became public."
Yaris678 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I got the date wrong in the above suggested wording on the recording. I have implemented the change, with correct date, in the article.
Does anyone disagree with my comment above that "The words that we use in our first quote are those from an EU official, as the cited Independent article makes clear."? Does anyone feel that we shouldn't make this clear in the article?
Yaris678 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Yaris678 (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Making some changes to the controversy section

I've made some sections to the controversy section, all sourced where needed or relying on sources that were already there:

  • According to the Guardian article that was already linked, it was Tim Hunt's wife, not Hunt himself, who received the call from "a senior". Also, since the wording for what was in the call was basically word for word what was in the article, and since rephrasing would risk changing the meaning, I have converted the last part of the sentence into a quote.
  • The "social media" reaction had quite some regular media reactions, so I have renamed it accordingly. If there is a more elegant way of putting this, please go ahead, but mentioning social media only was incorrect.
  • The part of the social media reaction that was initially most widely reported was the #distractinglysexy reaction. I have added a sentence, sourced with the initial New York Times online text about it.

Markus Pössel (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version has 'Hunt being subject to "intense, vitriolic online abuse"' as referring to the social media reaction. I see no evidence of this in the source; could refer at least in part to non-social online media once the story had broken. Unless anyone has another source, I'll try to change this so as to remove the misleading association. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, also we have a bit of a timeline inconsistency here. The Radio 4 interview is mentioned after the references that actually are partially in reaction to this interview. Moving the Radio 4 interview up a bit. Also, in the interview Hunt also stated what he meant about the crying part; leaving that out seems unbalanced. Will try to rephrase the sentence accordingly. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Name

I've been in contact with Tim Hunt regarding a proper list of selected articles, and he pointed out to me that he is, having officially changed his name in 2004, indeed called just "Tim Hunt", not "Richard Timothy Hunt". Looking at the article, this is borne out by the references already used in the article, in particular the 2015 "Who's who" article, but also by all the later official bios. Given those references, I will now change the name in the lead. I will leave the box as is, since it is already headed "Sir Tim Hunt", and the "born Richard Timothy Hunt" is also correct. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Connie St Louis

Was there ever a Wikipedia page for Connie St Louis? --Nbauman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, if there was, it'd be deleted pretty sharpish, as she falls a long way short of being a notable academic, and all that you could possibly fill it with would be the ravings of tabloid newspapers about this particular incident. --ℕ ℱ 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Hunt. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone asked me to post this

I haven't read this, and therefore have no opinion about it, but it was passed along to me as something that editors of this page might find useful. Saving Tim Hunt - on Medium.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that article. I think the main thing we learn from it is that several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the comments. Arguably, that should be added to our article.
We also learn that Connie St Lewis didn't deserve the spite that was directed towards her. I don't think our article says anything that suggests she did, so no change needed there.
We also learn that Louise Mensche's blog should be treated as biased... something that most editors of this article were probably also aware of. Interestingly, the only blog post of hers that we cite is one that says there was no transcript... but we still say that the words were "transcribed". Mensch's point that there was no actual transcript is confirmed by the fact that the recording disagrees with the text that has been described as a transcript, so I don't think we can disagree with Mensch on that point.
Yaris678 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I note that no-one else has commented on the Medium article that Jimbo has posted. Would anyone object to me adding "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments", citing that article? Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
here is something else. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess that allows us to postulate as to why Jimbo pasted the Medium link. Maybe he was feeling guilty about re-tweeting Mensche's accusation of bias and wanted to post a link to a page that criticises Mensche. Maybe someone gave him a roasting for the re-tweet and said "look how biased Mensche is!" with a link to the Medium article, and Jimmy couldn't be bothered reading the (very long) article and thought it would be a good idea to post a link to it here so that other Wikimedians can have a look at it and work out for themselves if they want to do something with it.
We don't really know, and it doesn't matter too much. I think the important thing is to work out what we can reliably take from each source. I don't think we can take the first line "The campaign to exonerate Tim Hunt for his sexist remarks in Seoul is built on myths, misinformation, and spin." because the reporting below doesn't support such a strong assertion. However, it does support the three things I mentioned above. One of those things is "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" and that point is much more suitable to be content in the article than the other two points, so I think it is worth putting that point in the article.
Is there something else that you want us to take from the Hilda Bastian blog?
Yaris678 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No it's a blog and we shouldn't use it on a BLP. I just wanted to inform our discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • the stuff emphasizing the laughter is POV spin in postgame bullshitting. We don't need to comment on that one way or the other in this section. Perhaps in the aftermath section where the it-was-a-harmless-joke camp argues that there was lots of laughter, juxtaposed with content from the Medium source. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that making too much of the laughter, when the recording is very brief, would be to fall for the spin of one side. That's why in this diff you can see that I have edited the text to remove the spin. The laughter is there in the recording and we should mention it, but we should also not make more of it than there is. Yaris678 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the description of the laughter of again, to really emphasise how brief the recording is. Does that help to alleviate your concerns? Yaris678 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen something else in the Medium article that it would be worth mentioning. At the moment it just says "A member of the audience tweeted her recollection of parts of this speech on 8 June". It only mentions the name Connie St Louis later, which may leave the audience wondering who she is. Maybe we should say "Connie St Louis (a journalism lecturer at City University London) discussed her concerns about the toast with two other journalists present. It was decided that she should tweet her recollection of parts of this speech."

This may also help with the point I mentioned above that "We also learn that Connie St Lewis didn't deserve the spite that was directed towards her".

Yaris678 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that Medium article reliable?

As discussed here, the self-published Medium article is not a reliable source for a BLP. KateWishing (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That was asserted there, but I think a blanket "not a reliable source for a BLP" is too strong a statement. I think we can trust the quotations and description of the events which are taken from people who were there, unless they are contested by more reliable sources. I think we shouldn't trust the conclusions drawn like "The campaign to exonerate Tim Hunt for his sexist remarks in Seoul is built on myths, misinformation, and spin." - a self-published source does not have the degree of editorial control to be used to support such a statement in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dan here, co-author of the Medium article discussed. I'd say it was reliable :) But I had a chat a few weeks ago with nonsenseferret on his talk page (after I learned that Mr Wales had posted this comment) where he kindly explained I shouldn't directly edit as a participant in all this, which I had no intention of doing really, and also explained why a medium like Medium was not deemed a reliable source. I go along with that, with reservations, but of course it must apply to all blogs/self-published sources like Louise Mensch's blog, cited here, and Cathy Young's Reason article, also cited here. If Reason is a source then Byline should be too, where a summary of our article was published. I'd also ask you to look at our article and the links we give to those who were present at the toast and wrote or spoke about it at the time.
I have a few issues with the page as it stands. I'll post a couple of observations on the 'Controversy over Lunchtime Toast...' part of the page if that's ok, and you can do as you wish with the info. I apologise in advance if others appear to disagree, but I don't think what I point out is too controversial. And hopefully, most of this involves deleting and removing text rather than adding to a section that I appreciate some feel is already too long.
1. The Toast - (on a minor point, it wasn't a lunch for 'female journalists and scientists'. It was a lunch sponsored by an organisation named KOFWST (Korea Federation of Women's Science & Technology Associations) and attended by a mixed group of scientists and mainly journalists.) Major point - the speech was not 'transcribed' by anyone. It currently says it was. This about the only thing Mensch and I agree on. The 'unnamed EU official' you mention was an ERC press officer named Marcin Monko who was sent to Seoul to accompany Hunt. He wrote this quoted recollection in a report one week later. The ERC have told me it was not a transcript and not supposed to be treated as verbatim.
2. Public reaction - 'A member of the audience...' Connie St Louis tweeted after consulting and checking with two other journalists, Deborah Blum (who has a Wiki page to link to) and Ivan Oransky (founder of Retraction Watch, which has a Wiki page). I think this section needs to name them as all other 'reliable' reports do. Re 'These comments without context were widely re-tweeted, but not until a day later, on 9 June.' What is the source for stating they weren't widely re-tweeted until June 9th? Also, CSL's tweet does have some context. It's not true to suggest it's entirely devoid of it.
'Hunt felt he had made it clear he was joking because he had included the phrase ‘now seriously’ in his statement.[39] The reconstruction of his words by an unnamed EU official corroborated the inclusion of these words.[40]'
There is good evidence Hunt only claimed he said 'Now seriously' after he had been told about the report and its contents, so any corroboration could be the other way around (Again why not name the press officer who wrote the report and his role at the ERC? No one denies it was him.) But I reaslise that would in dispute so don't expect it to be included her. I know the 'Now seriously' discussion is considered by some as boring, nevertheless it is highly disputed and that *should* at least be mentioned here. A number of those present at the toast vehemently deny he said it and have gone on the record to say so. See our piece. But also Connie St Louis here ('Hunt now claims he added the words “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society....He did not say this...' http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/stop-defending-tim-hunt-brian-cox-richard-dawkins)
'Two days later, 10 June, Hunt gave an interview to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, in which he apologised and described his comments as "light hearted ironic remarks". Hunt also stated that he "did mean the part about having trouble with girls," characterising falling in love in the laboratory as "very disruptive to the science," and clarified that his comments on women in labs crying when criticised had the background that it was important in science to be able to criticise idea without criticising people – while if somebody "burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth."[34] Hunt went on to say "I'm very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."[29][35]'
The last sentence was not taken from his BBC Today interview, but an email he sent to The Guardian before he boarded a plane back to the UK. Fine to include that as it's reported in The Guardian but at the moment it reads like he said it during his interview, which he didn't. What Hunt went on to say in the BBC Radio 4 Today interview was ' I just meant to be honest, actually.' This par also omits quite a critical statement from Hunt, in light of the furore that followed, that his words had been 'quite accurately reported.' He had been sent a copy of The Times front page, which quoted St Louis's tweeted version of his toast, before his interview and was referring to that.
Might it be better to replace the above par with the transcript (really this time) of what was aired on Today at 8.21am, or an edited version of it, rather than an editorialised version, so people can make up their own mind?
'This was a lunch for women journalists and particularly women scientists and engineers, actually. And I was asked, at short notice, to say a few words afterwards. And I thought it was ironic that I came after three women, who very nicely thanked the organisers for the lunch. And I said it was odd that they — they’d asked a man to make any comments. And I’m really sorry that I said what I said — it was a very stupid thing to do, in the presence of all those journalists. And what was intended as a sort of light-hearted, ironic comment apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience. But what I said was quite accurately reported.
'It’s terribly important that you, um, can criticise people’s ideas without criticising them. And if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from, you know, getting at the absolute truth — I mean, what — science is about nothing except getting at the truth. And anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science. I mean, I’m really, really sorry that I caused any offence — that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean — I just meant to be honest, actually.'
3 - Resignation and reappointments. What are the sources for 'An EC politician called Sir Tim, and demanded he resign his ERC post. Internal ERC documents show deep unhappiness within the scientific council at this interference.' This is pretty contentious (to say the least) and both statements need a source. It's probably only fair to say 'Hunt resigned from the ERC's Scientific Council'. Everything else is disputed. Ditto the UCL resignation but as Mary Collins went on the record to say he was asked to resign I can see why that's included. But while the decision by the UCL executive to accept his resignation was taken without consulting the Council, it's only fair to add the quote from the Council after it met on July 9th: 'Council unanimously supports the decision taken by UCL’s executive to accept the resignation' https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0715/090715-ucl-council-statement
Finally, I endorse Yaris678's suggestion to include: "We also learn that Connie St Louis didn't deserve the spite that was directed towards her".
Danwadd (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
I have a few points to make.
  1. I know this will seem odd, but if you abbreviate "Wikipedia" to "Wiki" you will annoy some people. There are lots of wikis out there.
  2. I agree with nonsenseferret that it wouldn't be a good move for you to edit the article. This is especially true if you start citing your own work, but you can get into grey areas if you edit it at all, so it is easier to just stay away from the article itself.
  3. I also agree with nonsenseferret that it is totally OK for you to contribute here, on the talk page.
  4. Even on the talk page, it is easier if everyone sticks to the facts. For example, I would say "Connie St Lewis has said that Hunt didn't say 'now seriously'" I wouldn't say "Hunt didn't say 'now seriously'".
  5. On that specific point, I have argued before that "Whether or not Hunt said 'now seriously' is a bit of a boring detail. Especially boring since we don't know for sure that he did, given that there is no genuine transcript and the recording of the incident starts after the point where the approximate reconstruction has him saying it." i.e. I think we shouldn't state in the article that he did or didn't say it. The article is perfectly OK if it is silent on that point.
  6. Where I disagree with nonsenseferret (and KateWishing) is their belief that self-published sources should not be used for anything on a BLP. If we look at WP:SPS is says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. 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." nonsenseferret and KateWishing appear to believe that if information appears in a BLP, it is about a living person. The argument is that if it isn't about a living person, it shouldn't be in the article. I don't think it is that simple. For example, is the statement "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" about Tim Hunt, or is it about how a talk Tim Hunt gave was received? Obviously, you could say it is about both. But is is not as clearly about Tim Hunt as a statement like "Tim Hunt told a sexist 'joke'." or "Tim Hunt has been maligned."
  7. Wherever you draw the line, you have to admit that a statement like "there is no transcript of the talk" is even less about Tim Hunt than "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments". So it is a reasonable choice to cite Unfashionita for "there is no transcript of the talk", but refuse to allow Medium for "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments". The strange thing about the article as it currently stands is that it doesn't say "there is no transcript of the talk" - it says "Hunt's impromptu speech was transcribed by an unnamed EU official" and cites three sources, including that Unfashionita article! This is obviously wrong, so I hope that will change.
  8. I would also argue that the statement "Connie St Louis (a journalism lecturer at City University London) discussed her concerns about the toast with two other journalists present. It was decided that she should tweet her recollection of parts of this speech." is also less about Hunt than "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" is. So, arguably, it would be OK to cite your Medium article for that.
  9. The discussions about what can be cited to your Medium article may be moot. In your last post at User talk:Nonsenseferret/Archive 4#Tim Hunt you link to an article you wrote for Byline, which summarises your points. I think Byline may not count as self published. Their manifesto says "Though we accept absolute truth isn’t reachable, aspiring to accuracy is still important. You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. We aim to be an evidence-based site – though one always open to new evidence. Though we don’t editorialise, we believe sustained relationships with a variety of journalists will create a healthy equilibrium of fact-checking and debate." Of course, this is just what they say. Maybe we should post to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, asking for an opinion. Perhaps the Byline article can be cited. I would still draw a distinction between things that are fact (which can be cited in Wikipedia's voice, if relevant) and things which are your opinion (which are much less likely to be relevant, but if they are relevant should not be cited in Wikipedia's voice. e.g. we could say "Paula Higgins and Dan Waddell have stated that...")
Yaris678 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Cheers Yaris - noted most of that (including the 'Wiki' bit :)) What you say makes much sense, including remaining silent on 'Now seriously' etc.
As for Byline, it's been in the news a bit re the Whittingdale story in the UK. Just to clarify from personal experience - posts are published by the authors, but there is often editorial discussion before publishing, including legal matters, approach etc. They don't just let any old person post either - you have to approach, outline the story, before being granted access. Whether that helps, I don't know.
Danwadd (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Outsider here: As far as I know, anyone can publish on Medium, which makes it self-published. Using Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_about_living_people, since the relevant details of the article aren't about the author, this shouldn't be used as a Wikipedia source, in my opinion. From the discussion above, Byline seems like it has an editorial structure, but I'm not sure it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From briefly looking into them on Google, I guess they do, so I'd say Byline is fine as a source for this. Unfashionista seems like a personal blog, so I wouldn't use that as a reliable source (since it's also about a living person). Empamazing (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So we are clear on what you are saying: Is your opinion that the statement "there is no transcript, but the words were approximately reconstructed" is about a living person? Or is your opinion that the nature of the statement is irrelevant and the important thing is that that it appears in an article about a living person? Yaris678 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what the latest is re including detail from our Byline piece, but I have just noticed that someone has slipped in a link to Mensch's Medium piece (the Trish Greenhalgh reference). Given what's been said about using Medium as a source...Danwadd (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The editors of this page might find these two links useful. Danwadd (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

https://www.byline.com/project/50/article/1092 https://www.byline.com/project/50/article/1102

It is incredible!

It's totally and utterly insane that a politically incorrect remark (no matter whether made in jest or not) takes up more space in a Wikipedia entry than the merits of the Nobel Laureate who made that joke. And this is called an enzyclopaedia?

--94.222.154.33 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here to say exactly the same thing, you beat me to it. This fellow is working toward a cure for cancer. I want to know about what he does, when I look up his article. It demonstrates the real limitations of Wikipedia & where its priorities lie. That's why ppl don't take it as seriously as its editors want it to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.9.23 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hear hear! I couldn't agree more. More than a year ago I suggested to strip the whole story down to one paragraph, but it grew and grew since then... I could do it myself, but I'm pretty sure someone else will revert my cuts within a nanosecond... Hartenhof (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A punctuation error in a quote

"And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it."

A comma is missing after "without doubt", and it probably should be "without a doubt", but it's a quote from a badly written newspaper article. Should it be changed?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If it is a correct quote (correctly quoted, that is), one should never change it. But maybe it's appropriate to skip the whole paragraph since the reactions on the Nobel Prize winner's silly - albeit harmless - remark are still overshadowing the information on his scientific work in this unbalanced Wikipedia article. Hartenhof (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Order change

I changed the order of the paragraphs to a more logic one - career first, then personal things, at the end the bibliography. The article remains very unbalanced, with major importance given to one incident, which overshadows this Nobel Prize winner's scientific achievements. When will someone have enough courage to axe most of this non-information, to make Wikipedia look less ridiculous? Hartenhof (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ordering it like this is sensible. You aren't the first person to suggest cutting that section down. However, that is easier said than done. It is a controversial subject and people will critisise a cut down version for missing an important point. I think we may have to choose between a very short, very bland, statement and the level of detail currently present. Yaris678 (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It may be preferable to transfer these paragraphs to a new article about the controversy, leaving only a small reference in the original article. Hartenhof (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggested the same thing in 2015. This can be seen at Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 1#Shortened replacement proposal. At the time, one editor disagreed with the idea and another said only time will tell if it would be appropriate. Well, we've had nearly two years now... so maybe we can judge that it is appropriate. Yaris678 (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I see that I was the one who started the Shortened replacement proposal in 2015. I remember it now... Well, it's 2017 and the dust should be settled... Hartenhof (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The whole section is still on Wikipedia, but today I isolated it from the main story by transferring it to this new article. Hartenhof (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice one. Yaris678 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can see, those consequences from the controversy that do belong into this article, namely the resignations etc. that are an integral part of his career, are now missing from the article. Those are part of his direct biography and should be restored. Markus Pössel (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to restore them, please keep them as short as possible, and don't add resignations from the jobs and honours that never before were mentioned in the main article. Hartenhof (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tim Hunt. 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:

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) 01:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

This Tim Hunt page has 5189 words. The pure text (apart from infobox and categories and-so-on) contains 4335 words, of which 2443 (56%) are still confined to one silly remark that the man once made, almost three years ago. I think this is a devaluation of what Wikipedia should be : an encyclopedia, rather than a website reporting small incidents, human interest or gossip. I tried to do something about it, by moving this entire section to its "own" article (leaving links and a small summary in the original article), but after a year or two it was "speedily" deleted by someone who called himself El cid, el campeador. Obviously this knight was not a very good reader, because he labelled this article as a copyright violation, believe it or not. So... the result is, that the 2443 words about Sir Tim's silly mistake are back in the original article, and will presumable keep dominating the text forever, whatever this once respected Nobel Prize winner may have done, or will do, in his now miserable life... Is there anyone who has the guts to cut the section down to, say, 100 words? Hartenhof (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing sounds an awful lot like a POV. Please take a look at WP:NPOV. Thanks : ) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This is not an article my friend, but a Talk page. Hartenhof (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree this section is ridiculously out of proportion. --ℕ ℱ 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but who is ready to do something about it? I don't intend to put my head on the scaffold for a second time... Hartenhof (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear El cid, el campeador, since it was you who added this gigantic section to the article, you should be the one to provide the shortened version, which is overdue. Thanks in advance my friend. Hartenhof (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hartenhof: - This is a perfect application of wp:SOFIXIT. You've been complaining about something that you yourself can fix just as easily. I did not write the section, but even if I had, I would not have any responsibility to fix anything. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service and no one is at your beck and call to fix things. Especially not me. So please, stop tagging me just in an attempt to harass me into doing work for you. Please. Thanks. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Just a bit teasing you my friend, for adding this huge section to an article about a Nobel Prize winner with a lot of merits and one tiny mistake. I'm still wondering why you did it, but I won't bother you any more if it makes you sad. ;-) Hartenhof (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Added a recommendation to summarize the section about a more than three years old non-event. Hartenhof (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at sources newer than 2015 and I found very few mentions. WP:NOTNEWS and we have to summarize the events and exclude all the trivial details and irrelevant opinions. I'd say a non-section paragraph or, if we include the quote and some other quotes, two paragraphs under a section would be enough. I couldn't find any in-depth retrospective sources, i.e. the most in-depth sources are the ones published very shortly after the event. Also, plenty of the stuff in the article is WP:COATRACK. wumbolo ^^^ 18:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Dear Wumbolo, what you suggest is exactly what I did by removing the coatrack section into an independent article, just in order to focus on Hunt's scientific career and achievements, but someone didn't agree and restored the whole shameful story. See discussion above. Nothing happened since then. Now someone else found it necessary tot add the Category:People involved in controversies about women in science and technology. Hartenhof (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I cut this down, as there seemed to be consensus to do so.--Pontificalibus 07:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal: "Distractingly sexy" online shaming

It seems to me that this article needs only a single sentence about the WCSJ controversy: In June 2015, Tim Hunt's illustrious career was derailed by the "distractingly sexy" campaign. And then we need to write that article, moving half of this one there.--Thomas B (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That campaign is a rather minor aspect of the story. Some reactions definitely belong to this article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be right about the campaign itself. It occurred to me that Tim Hunt is just another case of online shaming, so I've copied all the material from this article to that one [1]. Wouldn't a one or two sentence summary here with a link to there suffice now?--Thomas B (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and implemented the idea so you can see what it could look like. [2]--Thomas B (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed deprecating remark about his title

I've removed this:

[Hunt] has said that he rarely uses the title 'Sir' and that it should not affect his scientific standing.

which was referenced to a BBC interview that is no longer available. [3] Hunt is famously self-deprecating. He doesn't need his Wikipedia article to deprecate him too. It seems most appropriate just to mention the honour and leave it at that.--Thomas B (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposes New Section: Views on Scientific Inquiry

It looks like there's quite a bit of material (mainly in lectures and interviews) out there about Hunt's approach to science. He has ideas about both the philosophy and sociology of science, including somewhat controversial positions on "impact" and "open science". There are even some remarks about gender balance (much more reasonable ones than were attributed to him during the controversy). Are there any objections to starting a new section on this? I imagine the main possible problem will be WP:OR, since there's a danger of it becoming a synthesis of primary sources (i.e., Hunt's own words).--Thomas B (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Tim Hunt Controversy (again)

I followed the Tim Hunt controversy very closely at the time, and I think it's important to keep it both accurate and proportionate in his bio. He's a living person whose life was upended at the time it happened and I think we have to be very careful about how it is retold. The long version in the online shaming article is pretty good, and detailed enough not to mislead. But there's always a danger of unwittingly editorializing in a two-sentence summary. I've given it a shot. I've actually left Wikipedia, but I'm willing to put in some time on this issue. I'm happy to talk about it and I don't think there's great urgency about it. But, at the end of the day, I think it's important to leave no doubt about two points: (1) his remarks were in fact distorted by the coverage at the time and (2) Tim Hunt is not a sexist.--Thomas B (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Every now and then someone adds the "trouble with girls" quote. It's important to keep in mind that it was spun in a wildly inaccurate way at the time and turned out to be much less offensive than it sounds out of context. All this is now known. He was was the target of a shaming campaign, and (though I don't propose to use the word) a victim of one. He was made out to be a sexist though he clearly is not a sexist. Any insinuation otherwise does not belong in a neutral bio. (The online shaming article gives the whole story for anyone who is interested in the details.)--Thomas B (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have once again returned this passage to a neutral but brief statement in keeping with WP:LIVING. The link to the online shaming article with all the details surely can't be considered biased. It is a fact that he was shamed online. There is no way to say more without either providing all the details, which is what the link is for, or favoring one side of the controversy (he was unfairly shamed vs. he was rightly shamed), which violates WP:POV. As always, I'm happy to talk about it.--Thomas B (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Thomas Basboll. The smearing campaign was harmful and unfair to Dr. Hunt, but concealing key details, like who fuelled it or what was the accusation about only makes the article worse. It needs to inform the reader on this matter without making any wrong claims about Tim Hunt. The readers would inevitably want to learn what happened and may learn it from the wrong sources. Concealing the key information only does a disservice to Tim Hunt and to Wikipedia. Lelandykes (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

While we seem to agree about what happened, we unfortunately merely share the same POV, which is not, in this case, WP:NEUTRAL. There's another side to the story. In this article, we should only mention the effect the controversy had on his career, leaving the details to the linked article. --Thomas B (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings at the moment on the level of detailed needed, however I just reverted an addition by Lelandykes because it wasn't reliably sourced. Perhaps propose a change to the wording below and we can work something out? ----Pontificalibus 14:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the link to the "Tim Hunt controversy" section wasn't very informative. (It didn't make clear that there's a whole article on the details.) So I've added a section heading and a "see also" link. I hope that addresses some of these concerns.--Thomas B (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt/Archive_2&oldid=1204153144"