Talk:Tim Hunt

---

Is Hunt's "online shaming" a neutral fact?

In re Mvolz's edit here: [1]. I don't think it is merely some people's opinion that Hunt was the target of a shaming campaign. The controversy is about whether he deserved it. #distractinglysexy was a completely open effort to ridicule Hunt for what he (was thought to have) said. Also, it's not exactly true that his "remarks went viral". His remarks didn't leave the room until a journalist transcribed them (selectively) and tweeted them, with the intention of shaming him. The online shaming article explains this very clearly.--Thomas B (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

PS It was Mary Collins, Hunt's wife, not Hunt, who got a new job in Japan, occasioning the move.--Thomas B (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, nobody had a recording of the presentation (hard for me to believe that in a meeting of journalists nobody recorded it), so it wasn't a transcript, it was somebody's recollection. Are there any sources to the contrary? --Nbauman (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. "Transcribed" was a poor choice of word. As Deborah Blum explained it, she, St. Louis and Oransky reconstructed Hunt's offending remarks from their "notes" immediately after the event. [2].--Thomas B (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This is common practice when no controversy is expected. Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Controversy section both too short and non-neutral

Honestly, ideally we wouldn't split off this incident into a separate section at all. But no matter where it is we should at least describe it in enough detail that a reader knows what he actually said. There's no possible justification for ignoring such a major part of the controversy.

I also don't see the words "online shaming" in the sources from anyone, even Hunt himself. I see a lot of "criticism", some "backlash" and one mention of a "vicious social media campaign", so to summarize all this as "online shaming" doesn't seem neutral to me. Loki (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit because your version is simply too long and detailed and therefore gives the event too much weight in his bio. And the exact wording of his remarks is actually not a neutral fact but was a point of contention throughout the controversy. Presenting it neutrally requires the level of detail in the linked article on online shaming. It is not appropriate in WP:BLP about a Nobel-prize-winning scientist.--Thomas B (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert because, looking at the page history, it appears the "consensus" you're talking about is basically just you. I'd like to get some more eyes on this article because I really can't believe you've kept this section so short when there are plenty of reliable sources for WP:WEIGHT.

I also don't believe for a moment that presenting it neutrally requires the level of detail in the other article. It would be truly extraordinary if that was the case. And that's not even to mention that the appropriate place for that level of detail, if it exists anywhere, is this article. It's an incident about Tim Hunt, it's not primarily about online shaming and yet somehow it's all over there instead of here. Loki (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please notice that you're adding what looks like a direct quote from Hunt without providing the source. But those words are actually only the recollection of an EU official, who cannot be a considered a neutral observer. This is a really tricky issue that I've been through many times and it always ends up the same way: with the short statement and a link to the detailed recounting of the whole debacle in the online shaming article. I'm reverting again, pending resolution here and at the notice board.Thomas B (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Link to the NPV notice board discussion here.[3]

Controversy (after NPOV notice board discussion)

In line with the discussion at the NPOV notice board[4], I have added three scholarly sources (Hypatia, STP, and EJP) and described his remarks as "allegedly sexist". I don't think much more detail is warranted, but I'm willing to hear suggestions. If we are unable to resolve it here, I suggest we take it to WP:BLPN. There seem to be a lot of people who would like to hang this incident on Tim Hunt and therefore give a lot a space to it in his bio. My view is that this misunderstands the event (which merely used Hunt as an occasion for much broader activism) and violates WP:BLP. For the most part, this is not something Tim Hunt did; it is an unfortunate thing that happened to him. Thomas B (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Parts of those sources (esp. Hypatia), and other academic sources, cover the incident as something that Hunt did to many women in science, and casting it solely as an instance of online shaming is non-neutral. Adding "allegedly sexist" is an improvement. I think we should start with his allegedly sexist comments, mention the criticism, mention the online shaming, and then mention the resignations. This broadly follows the chronological order. I agree we should keep it as brief as possible, but most sources I see include at least a brief quotation of his remarks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I really don't think there is way of describing this as a bad thing Hunt did to anyone. But what sort of description did you have in mind? Let's deal with it concretely as something that can be put in a sentence or two. Thomas B (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand your disagreement. I'm holding off on drafting language while others weigh in on the broad strokes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a fine line here that I am trying to enunciate. I have a daughter and felt the quote like a slap in the face, which was why I suggested the indirect quote. However there is value in a "just the facts" attitude, and given the multiple academic sources it's not undue. But if we're doing "just the facts" then the sythy "online shaming" should be better spelled out. Taking a step back from my initial personal reaction: Were there problems with women lab partners in his career? It sounds like there may have been. The quote should definitely be discussed -- what possessed him to think it was ok to say that in the first place? -- and not as some sort of online shaming witch hunt. It also sounds --bearing in mind that all I know about this man is from the NPOV noticeboard -- eerily specific, so I don't know that I agree that he didn't do anything *to* anyone. Within his field, the identities of his female lab partners would be known, yes? A) how do you think they felt about that toast and B) would this controversy have been associated with them? I am betting that they were blamed for his resignation, even. I have my hands full with other shizzle, but that's my input from the "I have a daughter" point of view. Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, IMO, there is no neutral way of quoting what he said. It was (likely) misreported in St Louis' original tweet and then corrected by Hunt and the ERC (both of whom of course had something at stake.) That's why I don't like quoting it here. Thomas B (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary's recent version is an improvement. I wonder if we can't have "online shaming" in wikivoice, rather than "widely described". In the sources you consulted, Z, was shaming commonly mentioned? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The sources I consulted were mostly the ones already cited, as well as a few others. Shaming was commonly mentioned, as was controversy (which is more neutral, so I left it in wikivoice sans quote) Zanahary (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

How would you feel about "The controversy led to an online shaming campaign and Hunt's resignation ..."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me Zanahary (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The recent changes by Zanahary and Firefangledfeathers don't seem to understand the reasons for the dispute we've been having. First, there is no neutral source for any statement about what "Hunt said", and any statement about what he said would need a great deal more context in order to represent his toast fairly. Also, the new version makes it sound like he caused a controversy that then subsequently led to his shaming -- but this begins with him being publicly shamed with a distorted report (on Twitter) of what he said. As usual, we're going down a road that will end with an account, while neutral and balanced, is WP:UNDUE in Hunt's WP:BLP. It will become the full story that is presented in the linked article. If you're going to insist that this is necessary, I want to get input from WP:BLPN.Thomas B (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

TIME Magazine, which I think I cited, quotes him without caveat. Zanahary (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Time wasn't there. They were just repeating the quote that was circulating at the time. Not even Hunt knows exactly what he said. The controversy began with Connie St Louis tweeting him out of context. All of the statements from Hunt and Collins about how "stupid" his remarks were were attempts to be diplomatic and move on, not admissions that the shaming was warranted. Thomas B (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If TIME reports a quote as "he said...", then I think that counts for something. They have an editorial process that involves checking facts and quotes. As for the "stupid" stuff... I don't see what you are saying. Are you saying his apology shouldn't be included? Zanahary (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, his apology was coerced, as usually happens in shaming incidents. Including it here, makes it sound like an admission of wrongdoing, when it is really only regret over the whole mess, to which his contribution was being a bit loose with his words in making some unprepared remarks.

As for Time's fact-checking, the piece you cite is clearly only relating the Guardian interview. It is a piece about the controversy (they are telling their readers what he is said to have said) not about what he said. This was contemporaneous journalism, for which a WP:BLP article cannot become a WP:COATRACK. Thomas B (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources on his apology being coerced and his true feeling being only regret over the affair if you want to make that argument. I've seen no source say or suggest that.

The TIME piece isn't telling readers what's been said—it's telling readers what happened. It doesn't introduce the quotation as alleged or anything similar. Same with this BBC story that TIME links to.

I'm not saying I know what happened, or that it's definitely inclusion-worthy. But these are reliable sources reporting without caveat that he said this. Zanahary (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it at not being worthy of inclusion. Like I say, if you want to insist on including the words and his apology, I think we should take it to WP:BLPN. Thomas B (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

if you want to insist on including the words and his apology

I get that you're passionate about this but I haven't done or said anything to remotely suggest that I insist on including his words and apology. Zanahary (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's great. I'm still thinking about the difference between "interpreted as" and "allegedly", but I think I can accept that too. And "led to" is fine as an improvement over "forced". Settled? Thomas B (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I reach across the torn gulf of earth between us and, gritting my teeth, resign to a compromise in the fight of my life. Zanahary (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine. :-) Thomas B (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The compromise has worsened the NPOV of the article. I'm worried the participants here aren't factoring in the views of the respondents at NPOVN, where multiple editors expressed the need to not forefront the shaming aspect. Not quoting or summarizing Hunt's comments makes this article far less informative, and doing so while spending so many words on the shaming and resignations leads to a version that is unbalanced compared to the sources we're using. Zanahary, care to ungrit your teeth and come back to this side of the gulf? I encourage a re-read of the NPOVN discussion, and we may want to copy the two proposed versions over there for more eyes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My teeth-gritting comment was a sarcastic response to what I saw as Thomas B’s overestimation of my stubborn passion on this topic. I gave it a stab, and now I’m stepping out. Zanahary (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the stab. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Shall we take it to WP:BLPN? Thomas B (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

One noticeboard at a time is enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I assumed we were done at NPOVN. Thomas B (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I pasted the proposals there for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I just left a parting final comment there. I think we should be discussing your proposal here. Thomas B (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree we should move the NPOVN discussion back over here at this point, so I'll ping the participants from over there who aren't yet present: @Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, and Bon courage.

It also seems like we had a pretty solid consensus over there for something very close to the version I originally tried to add, so I'm going to go edit the page to conform with said consensus. Loki (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of processology here. Consensus seems clear; let's just implement it. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP we should err on the side of leaving it out until the issue is resolved. I've reverted. Thomas B (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to post the version agreed to at NPOVN, but I do think we should continue discussion on how to tweak it (e.g. whether we should include the full quote). BLP requires that we keep out content that doesn't have consensus, but that version ("version 2" at NPOVN) does have consensus. I think only one editor has expressed clear opposition to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought @Elinruby was against that version, precisely because it was "shocking" and implied that Hunt's firing was "good". (That obvioulsy suggests that it had a slant.) @JoelleJay made a similar point, albeit while voting in favor. Hunt's remarks were presented as "blatantly sexist". Given how the incident actually unfolded, and where it finally landed, this simply can't be how we summarize it. Thomas B (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not sure I can point to any policy that supports my position but my first gut reaction was jfc I hope that (daughter) never has a boss who makes a toast like that about *her*. At that point I proposed an indirect quote. Analogously, I didn't think we should be calling Canadian indigenous people "savages" even in a quote. I was over-ruled because apparently it demonstrates the racism behind the residential school system, which has already been officially declared a genocide...

Anyway, beyond that hot take, a more dispassionate answer is that we should stick to exactly the facts. But apparently there is some doubt as to what he actually said? And just-the-facts doesn't really go with "online shaming campaign" which seems syth-ish to me. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the quote then perhaps we shouldn't put quotes around the reported remarks. I've had a look at the BLP now and see that there is plenty else to say about the man, but if you wouldn't want your daughter working for him that seems kind of important too. If I wind up being the only person on a particular side of this, feel free to proceed without me as I have all sorts of Nazis and imperialists I am far more worried about, but this here is a clarification of my gut reaction, in case it is helpful to anyone. Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's possible "online shaming campaign" is not the appropriate verbiage for other reasons (I think it's fine), but I searched, and both academic and lay sources describe it as a shaming, and has even been studied in academic papers as an instance of public shaming, both in general and specifically online. Zanahary (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my position as well: I think the abridged quote isn't acceptable because it only includes the worst part of his comment without further context, and readers would likely be (at best) confused why we describe it as if the comment wasn't "that bad" and why Dawkins would ever support something like that. The fuller quote shows Hunt's claim that it was just a "joke" is at least somewhat defensible. I do think the whole incident is significant enough to warrant more than a short paragraph, considering it (and even the Twitter hashtag response) is the topic of multiple academic works on top of news reports. There are very very very very few Wikipedia biographies of contemporary people that have this level and quality of sustained coverage of any aspect of the subject's life, so more details on it are surely DUE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I would be fine with the fuller quote. To answer Elinruby's question, there was some controversy over the original journalists quoting part of Hunt's remarks without quoting the "now, seriously" line. The journalists compared notes and confirmed their transcription, and a government official later released his own transcript, which matched the parts the journalists had quoted. The official's transcription isn presumably the one we would use as the fuller quote. I don't think there's any doubt about the accuracy of the quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Something I read made me think otherwise but I am in and out of this between other things. Not worried about the quote marks then, and if the remarks are considered verified, hmmph as misogyny goes that really is pretty bad. Elinruby (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Same! If I'm wrong, and there are sources out there raising doubt about the quote, I want to be clear that I'm fine with paraphrasing, attributing, footnoting, or whatever. I just don't think it's sensible to not given any explanation of the content of the remarks. The sources, including the highest-quality ones, do so, and so should we. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Co-signed. I think attribution should be there though, since it was a matter of some discussion in reliable sources. Zanahary (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed new version of the controversy section

Let's talk about Loki's suggestion [5]. It goes wrong already in the first sentence, in a way that suggests all the problems I've been pointing out. We are in no position to say "Hunt made the following remarks". We would have to say, "In June 2015, Hunt was reported to have said..." We would then have to get into all the details about what he may have actually said and actually meant, and we could not leave any hint that what he actually said was most probably sexist, or, even more importantly, that Hunt outed himself as a "male chauvinist". That is the POV of the people who shamed him, it is not a known fact. I could go on, but the simple problem here is that we would need to include unDUE detail to get this right. Thomas B (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have two possibly helpful suggestions:

1. make a neutral one-sentence statement then explain the details in a footnote. I sense that nobody will agree to this, and perhaps they should't
2. if weight becomes a problem and someone has the biology chops, anything that wins a Nobel Prize surely can be afforded a few more paragraphs of explanation about why his discovery is important and how he discovered it. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying he was reported to have said that quote and not that he objectively did. As for the rest: WP:NPOV means we reflect the POV of the sources, not that we take a view from nowhere. While the sources don't agree on a single POV they are pretty unambiguous at least that the reason he was criticized was for sexism, and several of them go on to endorse that conclusion (see JoelleJay's long comment with quotes over at WP:NPOVN for what I mean here). Loki (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're fine with it, why does your most recent edit still say "Hunt said:"? Also, what he was originally reported to have said was simply not the ERC version. That came out later. The version that caused the original offense was much worse.[6] I'm not sure how well you actually understan the story. But the version you're pushing here is much less accurate than the one in the online shaming article. Thomas B (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've added the version from WP:NPOVN as FireFangledFeathers suggested above, with the expanded quote as suggested several times both there and here. I personally would still prefer attributing the "online shaming campaign", and I think there's still consensus for doing that, but if there's gonna be a fight about it, I want to start with a version with unambiguous overwhelming consensus behind it before making any significant changes. Loki (talk) 01:30, 5 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "online shaming campaign" should not be in wikivoice btw. Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP noticeboard

I have raised this at the WP:BLPN noticeboard[7], emphasizing that we also need guidance on the immediate question of procedure, i.e., should we keep introducing and reverting the material under dispute, or settle it here first? Thomas B (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Consensus has already been established in two different places, there's really no need to go to a third. It's not like any of the rest of us are ignorant of WP:BLP. Loki (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what they say. I can only make my case. You are proposing to violate WP:BLP. I am trying to prevent that. Thomas B (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already posted the section of WP:BLP that specifically instructs the opposite, but if you'd like, here it is again:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

(That's WP:PUBLICFIGURE, for reference.) Loki (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this has now been escaleted to the adminstrators' noticeboard, and I've made my statement there, I'm going to step away from the discussion here. Thomas B (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But (see below) the negative information you want to include is false. Thomas B (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It certainly isn't false that he was accused of sexism, the sources corroborate that heartily. Similarly it's pretty easy to source that the remarks were widely (though not universally) interpreted as sexist. It would be much more difficult to source that he is a sexist, but we should avoid saying that in Wikivoice anyway per MOS:LABEL. Loki (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I say: see below. Thomas B (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not true: "Hunt became the subject of controversy after making the following comment ... These remarks were widely interpreted as sexist."

Like I say, I'm not sure how well some of you understand the event, and I appreciate that it seems like this way of putting it is objectively true, but it just isn't. The controversy began because a completely different (and clearly biased) report of his comment was posted on Twitter and it was on the basis of that tweet that he was "widely" (and mistakenly) considered to have said something sexist. He was not the primary subject of the subsequent controversy (as even his original shamer tried to point out) -- rather, the controversy was about sexism in science and, when it became clear how badly he had been treated, the problem of online shaming. Eventually, even the backlash against the shamers became the focus of controversy. Hunt's toast was merely the unfortunate occasion to take up a whole bunch of social problems that he, it turns out, had nothing to do with. He simply isn't a "sexist scientist". Thomas B (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Another Source on the Controversy

I have just discovered that Fiona Fox included a chapter on the incident in her book on media scandals in science. Here's a quote from the TLS review:

Fox includes a chapter on Sir Tim Hunt, the British biochemist and Nobel laureate who attracted worldwide condemnation in 2015 for his comments about his "trouble with girls" in the lab. Fox does not defend his ill-judged attempt at humour; indeed, at the time she took the opportunity to set up interviews and op-eds from senior female scientists who "wanted to use the row to draw attention to the barriers facing women in science". Yet she also publicly expressed her view that Hunt was "the wrong poster boy for sexism in science".

She points out, for example, that "there was a noticeable difference in response between the female scientists we approached who knew Hunt and those who did not. The former group insisted that he was not sexist. Those who did not know him were furious". She also learnt "how he had fought a successful campaign to have a nursery established at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology and had tried to do the same (albeit unsuccessfully) at the Francis Crick Institute - something Hunt, characteristically, never thought of bringing up himself".

Though Hunt had issued an apology, Fox adds, "it was about the furthest you could get from the kind of slick, stage-managed apologies that we hear from politicians and celebrities with huge PR machines". Yet she was unimpressed by "the suggestion made by several of his friends of drafting a slicker, more rehearsed apology for him", and instead set up an interview that would allow "people to hear his authentic voice". The initial rush to judgement, when institutions publicly disassociated themselves from Hunt, did indeed give way to a less one-sided debate, though eventually he and his wife - the equally distinguished scientist Mary Collins - decided to leave the UK.

Source: Mathew Reisz, "Catching runaway scare stories," Times Literary Supplement, 17 June 2022.

I have ordered the book and will add the citation once I've confirmed the contents. I will probably also use it to rework the section in the online shaming article. It does not look like it will support the effort to expand the section here. If this review is accurate, it suggests precisely the opposite. Thomas B (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Quotations from the book that would support not expanding:

...it was other journalists who would later reveal that his toast had been reported selectively.

By then I didn’t need much more persuading that Tim Hunt was the wrong poster boy for sexism in science, and I went on the record with that view. Some suggested I was too quick to draw that conclusion but, as I pointed out, I took several days longer to arrive at my conclusion than it took many commentators to decide the opposite. And unlike others, perhaps, I had made about ten calls to women I knew who had worked closely with Hunt, all of whom confirmed what I was now hearing from multiple sources – that he was incredibly generous with his time in mentoring young students, irrespective of gender. His investment in these students arguably made a material difference to their careers.

Quoting an account by a female advisee of Hunt's: ...it is grossly unfair that Tim should be considered, and treated, as an emblem of this sexism or gender discrimination.

Despite huge media scrutiny and a desperate search for more examples of Hunt’s sexism, the accounts that were emerging painted a picture of a far kinder and more generous figure...

When I quizzed senior staff about whether they believed Hunt had or would allow any sexist views to cloud his judging, they said they did not.

A follow-up article revealed that the EU official also said Hunt’s remarks were well received, contradicting his accusers’ claims of an uncomfortable silence (or even a ‘deathly silence’ as one described it on Radio 4) and that one of the luncheon’s organisers, a woman from the Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology, told him ‘she was impressed that Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech’.

If there are any lessons to be learned – and I am not entirely sure there are – I would argue that, in the age of global social media, science press officers should use the Tim Hunt affair to reflect on the right balance between the need to respond quickly, the duty of care they owe to any figures involved, and the importance of establishing the facts as early as possible.

...at the time, I wrote that although the ivory tower of science might still feel closed to many women, adorning its gates with the head of Dr Hunt did nothing for equality. I still feel that way six years later. Zanahary (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: 2015 remarks

In the section on Hunt's remarks on women in science made in 2015:

• 1. Should a full quotation of Hunt's remarks, as is done at Online_shaming#Tim_Hunt_controversy, be included?
• 2. How should the event be described?
  • 2A: The event should be primarily described as a controversy, as well as mentioning online shaming (example version)
  • 2B: The event should be primarily described as an episode of online shaming (example version)
  • 2C: The event should be primarily described as a controversy with no mention of online shaming. (example version)
• Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• Support inclustion of full quotation and 2A or 2C. I think that including the full quotation gives greater context as to the controversy surrounding his comments. I think also that the primary framing as "online shaming" is WP:UNDUE given the coverage surrounding the issue. The "online shaming" angle seems prominent enough that it could be mentioned, but I'm non-committal about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• The version currently in the article is cryptic almost to the point of absurdity, and clearly violates WP:NPOV by presenting one side of a controversial situation in wikivoice while relegating the other point of view to a "misinterpretation". For this reason, versions close to the example of 2B are totally unacceptable. Including the fuller context is certainly necessary. One way of accomplishing that is including enough of the quote to understand what the discussion is actually about. So put me down as broadly supporting inclusion, along the lines of either 2A or 2C. I also endorse Elemimele's comment below. --JBL (talk) rewritten on 18:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Full quote & 2C. I think the full quote is necessary both to understand what he's accused of having said, and also his defenses to those accusations. Partial quotes eliminate either important parts of the remarks allegedly considered sexist or his followup remarks that support his defense that the allegedly sexist comments were intended as a joke.

I don't think the sourcing really supports this being called an "online shaming campaign". The majority of sourcing both at the time and afterwards uses phrasing more like that he was criticized for sexist comments, or accused of sexism, or something along those lines. Calling it an "online shaming campaign" without attribution is taking Hunt's POV in the dispute in a very stark way. (Though, I wouldn't mind it being called an online shaming campaign with attribution; if a closer needs it, my full preferences are 2C > 2A with attribution > 2A without attribution > 2B.) Loki (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Full quote.
  2. 2A > 2C > 2B. I think mentioning the online shaming is fine, but phrasing it as a shaming campaign would not be without attribution.
  Here are some elements I think could be included (not saying all should be, that they're in the proper order, or that they're all equally important to mention):

• Hunt made a remark, and a portion of it was quoted that provoked widespread allegations of sexism.
• Hunt claimed the remark was part of a satirical joke, and this intention is seemingly supported by the full text of the quote.
• The incident spurred the twitter hashtag #distractinglysexy and prompted wider discussion of sexism in science.
• Hunt apologized for his comments, or at least for making comments that could be easily misinterpreted out of context.
• Hunt resigned from some positions.
• There has been backlash against the shaming.
• There continue to be articles framing the comments as sexist even with the full context.
• Some of these later articles reference earlier statements Hunt had made that are considered sexist or at least oblivious, as well as an interview after the incident where he elaborated on the "crying" part of his comment.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Full quotation and then 2A or (2nd choice) 2C for neutrality in line with the sources. Not sure why this RfC is needed when consensus was plain anyway. Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC); amended 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I often find opening RFCs makes the consensus crystal clear to outside observers, and removes any wriggle room for editors with minority views trying to assert that there is "no consensus". Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2A; I have no strong feelings about whether there should be a full quote. I'll clarify in discussion below. Elemimele (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 2A I am also perplexed after reviewing the discussions above why this RFC was started. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  It was started because one user has been aggressively filibustering and spreading discussion across multiple fora. An RfC serves to centralize discussion and limit the extent to which one user can wear everyone else down. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? I'm going to assume you mean me. The only forum I've taken this biography of a living person to is WP:BLPN. Thomas B (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies; to clarify/correct, the discussion has been spread (by you and others) across multiple fora, and you have been aggressively filibustering (in those multiple fora). --JBL (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. We'll see how it ends up. I think many of the changes being proposed are unkind to Tim Hunt (some of them quite intentionally). As I understand the incident, he deserves better. I think it's important enough to warrant a little of what you describe as "aggression" (I call it compassion). I don't like to see people bullied and shamed. Thomas B (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  You have said this (or very similar things) many times over the last two weeks, across many different fora. That's part of the filibustering I mentioned; please stop. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think I may. Looking forward to seeing what happens. Thomas B (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2A but only if "online shaming" is attributed > 2C - I personally prefer 2C but 2A is the policy-based choice since there was indeed enough coverage for notability. I am perhaps negatively influenced by Thomas B's behaviour, also. It is however important that we attribute and preferably quote "online shaming" however; the phrase has more than a whiff of incel about it. This episode was not a tempest in a teapot; if anything it is a fine illustration of the way that nice guys can be part of the problem too. If we are going to provide the full quote, and I think we should, I support adding material in other sections. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 2B is all we need. It's time to drop the stick and leave this man alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention of the quote. I remember the controversy well, there is dispute over what was actually said, as such repeating the quote is rather one sided and putting one party's words in wikipedia's voice. I also seem to recall the claim it "spoilt" the conference was disputed, rather the remarks were considered by the hosts as "light-hearted and jocular"; remembering text is a frankly crap medium for conveying nuance. 2B because it accurately describes the controversy; the mention of online shaming is a view widely held in the literature. I have to say I that think User:Thomas Basboll was correct in opposing the mention of the quote but perhaps over zealous in edit warring but I understand the dilemma of being the lone editor against a WP:TAG team imposing their view. WCM_email 08:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You think the govt. transcript is disputed!? Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no source quoted for the quotation in question in the version of the article I looked at. Your faith in my powers of clairvoyance is touching but misplaced. The original controversy involved the quotation being lifted out of context and was disputed over its accuracy (emphasis added). In any case, many commentators in the literature point out the disputed quotation was lifted out of context and when placed in context most would agree it was not sexist, nor did it reflect a sexist attitude. As you appear to wish to enter into a nit picking contest no transcript is 100% accurate but that is irrelevant to my comment. The thrust of my comment is twofold. One the quotation is out of context, text being a poor medium for explaining the wider context of a jocular remark that was actually well received at the conference. The second being that the existing wikilink to an article that fully explains the context is a much better way of addressing the controversy. I also consider Thomas' comment that the article doesn't have the space to put the quote into context has merit. As such my recommendation is still 2B. Feel free to respond further but in the context of the thrust of my argument rather than nit picking over detail. WCM_email 11:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

But the proposed "quote" includes the missing context ("now seriously") which was at issue, yet you oppose its inclusion. So, huh? Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Which then doesn't explain the controversy was engendered by a quotation taken out of context. What was widely condemned as sexist, was the remark taken out of context, further amplified by the person who made that claim later denying that what Tim Hunt said the words that put it into context. The edit implies that the full text was denounced as sexist, when it was the partial quotation that led to controversy, whilst the initial light-hearted and jocular remark was well received. We still haven't included the false claim made at the time, which was another allegedly sexist remark that he'd thanked the ladies for making lunch. And also ignores other remarks by Hunt, which people desperate to pin the sexist label upon him also took out of context. WCM_email 13:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the journalist who broke the story Hunt did not say "now seriously". Nor, she claimed, did he praise women: "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, nor did he praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had; things would have been so much better."[8] The ERC representative's version (which was leaked, not released by the ERC, and is therefore by no means a "government transcript") is therefore in dispute. It cannot be presented as what "Hunt said". It can only be presented as (in line with) what he claimed to have said and would then need to be balanced by what he was alleged to have said. (With no record of what he actually said being available to settle it.) Also, please notice that if Hunt's story is correct, then St Louis misheard him, and, by her own account, would not have thought there was anything to report if she had heard him correctly. "Things would have been so much better." To my knowledge, she never retracted her version of events. So they remain disputed. The so-called "full quote" is POV. Thomas B (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall there were two other elements to the controversy, one being the claim that Hunt thanked the women for making lunch, the second being he advocated single sex labs, neither of which he actually said. Interesting, could Bon courage please give us the source for this quote. Was it the official Korean Government transcript as you indicated. WCM_email 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The "now seriously" stuff was covered (at least) in The Independent source. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You previously claimed the source was an official Government transcript when I pointed out that what was said was disputed and tried to infer it wasn't. So what is the source. WCM_email 07:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I assumed Bon Courage is talking about the ERC report. (Which is the basis of the quote in 2C.) You're right about the rest. Also, it was originally reported that everyone sat there in "stony" silence as he rambled on and on for 5-7 minutes. "No one laughed," it wasn't humorous at all, etc. It's good to be reminded of how St Louis was telling the story before it was challenged.[9] Thomas B (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

He said it was a Government transcript, which I took on face value. It apparently wasn't, I just wonder how many people are basing their comments on that claim. I also seem to recall there was a film of the toast, with Hunt's joke being well received by the audience. WCM_email 07:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a film, but, yes, there is a brief audio recording of the end of the toast (one sentence, I think), followed by laughter and applause. It looks like we'll be spending a few weeks relitigating the whole thing. Like I said at the start, I'm happy to do so, especially if we can produce a half-way orderly talk-page section that can be referred to when it (inevitably) comes up again. My prediction, as I've also been saying all along, is that we will end up realizing that only 2B is both NPOV and BLP compliant, and that the online shaming article can cover the rest in its details. Thomas B (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2C, slightly inclined against full quote. The "online shaming" take appears to be mainly original research. Further comment that the incident should be covered briefly and non-sensationally, including Hunt's assertion that it was intended as a joke. (To clarify my tone, I take Hunt's assertion at face value, although I also think that jokes like this create an unfriendly environment for women scientists.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Full quote to give the reader the whole context, as one of the major points of contention is that it was taken out of context by the media.
  2. 2A or, less preferred, 2C. If 2A is chosen, the "online shaming" framing should be attributed to satisfy WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1. No full quote of his actual remarks exists. Only contested partial versions, taken out of context, recollected by variously interested parties, are available. Thus, 2. B.Thomas B (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You keep saying that, then you never provide any additional context. If you are talking about "but seriously", we get that he said that. As Loki said, okfine, the sexist remark was a sexist joke. In my own opinion that's actually worse. Please at least try to understand the privilege that allows him to joke about the "problem" with "girls". My friendly suggestion to you is that you stop denigrating reliable sources, which only makes you look desperate, and demonstrates why a topic age ban is needed. Then take a look at WP:1AM, which would seem to apply here. Elinruby (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a sexist joke, it was a self-parody. My friendly suggestion to you is to open your mind to other possibilities. WCM_email 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

source? Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

[10] for one, there are plenty more. WCM_email 07:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Already read that one. Good argument to for writing this up as a past outrage du jour Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

Next. Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, you demand a source but you've already seen sources, which you find an excuse to ignore and continue with the sexist narrative. A pattern of selection bias is emerging. [11] The Guardian, presumably you'll find a reason to dismiss as well. WCM_email 08:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Full quote, 2A. Wikipedia must demonstrate some self-awareness here, and ensure we do not participate in the same shaming behaviour. Social media acted as both a trigger and an amplifier for what was effectively some gotcha journalism. He said a dumb thing, and suddenly he's Andrew Tate. The incident is absolutely on-topic for his biography given the amount of coverage and its significance to his life and career, but it's clear that the sources do not support a summary that insinuates a WP:LABEL of "sexist". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Question 2 is very difficult to decipher without the full context of the arguments that have been taking place in at least three different fora over the last few days. Is it possible to add links to examples of what the section might look like in each of the three cases (with an understanding that this RfC is not designed to pick one of those three examples, but rather to settle a big-picture framing question whose details are to be worked out later)? --JBL (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've clarified the language and provided some example versions. Hope this helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful; I've tweaked the wording very slightly and made it so the three links go directly to the section, I hope that's all right. (I will take a look and update my !vote appropriately at some point.) --JBL (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"Satirical"? he was mockingly channeling someone else? If so yes, by all means, we need the full quote. If he was speaking as himself, then I still say the remarks are horrifying. "Just a joke" on the other hand is what every misogynist says when called out, changes nothing. You do not jokingly diss the professionalism of colleagues even if they are "girls". The nursery idea is nice but it is in and of itself misogynistic to think that this disproves misogyny; are men not responsible for their offspring? Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has claimed that he was speaking as or for someone else.

(And yes, that is basically my personal opinion on the "just a joke" defense here: it's reasonably clear that he was making a joke, and it's reasonably clear that the joke he was making was sexist.) Loki (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note that you are openly declaring that the section should present this as a "clearly" sexist joke. We do not have a basis for that. Thomas B (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say that in Wikivoice. I've said multiple times that "sexist" in Wikivoice is a MOS:LABEL that would require much strong sourcing than we have. What I'm saying is that it's my personal opinion that the comments were, in fact, sexist, and that the extended context where he makes clear that he was joking does not make the comments not sexist. Loki (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You are basically saying that we should say that Hunt told a sexist joke once, but that we should do it in more weasely way. I'm against that. Thomas B (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been awhile, so I don't remember how this is normally done, but I don't think it's helpful for people who are already involved in the dispute to comment during the RfC. It'd be nice to be able to easily see the outside opinions.Thomas B (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a separate discussion, and the closer won't consider previous discussions, so everyone who wants their opinion to be taken into account has to comment. Loki (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I also think it's telling that this RfC wasn't tagged to the biographies category, which is where I've been saying the discussion belongs. We already have coverage of the event at Wikipedia. The question here is how this fits into Hunt's WP:BLP.Thomas B (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I... totally agree, actually. I'll add that to the RFC tag. Loki (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The more people drawn to this discussion the better, as it's a complex issue. Personally I think it's important to recognise that there are two separate stories here. Firstly there is the original story that Hunt made some outrageously sexist remarks, which attracted a lot of media attention; there are plenty of sources, and we have to tell that story. Secondly, after the story "went viral", there was a sort-of backlash of people saying this had become exaggerated, and he was being excessively attacked, with questions of trial-by-media, and the true character of Hunt himself. This second wave of media interest was quite as large as the first, and really cannot be ignored. Hence I'm voting 2A. I'd say 2B and 2C are both completely unacceptable suppressions of different parts of what actually got reported. As to the quote, I don't really care whether it's there, because I think the story can be understood without knowing the actual words; but the words were so widely-discussed that they could reasonably be included. It's important we simply tell the story of what happened, and what got said about it; we have to be careful not to colour the story with our own moral viewpoints. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Hunt made some outrageously sexist remarks, which attracted a lot of media attention." This is not supported by the sources. Hunt made some remarks, which were reported (tweeted) as outrageously sexist ("Victorian"), this generated some outrage on Twitter, which was then picked up in the media. The online shaming article gets this right; I don't know why we'd want Hunt's own WP:BLP to spin it more negatively. Thomas B (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, now you're splitting hairs. There is no doubt that he made the remarks about three problems with girls in the lab (falling in love with them, them falling in love with you, and crying when criticised). Although they were tweeted, the tweet-texts have been reported by reputable sources with good editorial oversight[12] who will have checked that they're credible, and Hunt himself has apologised for saying them, and been reported as doing so.[13] There is also no doubt that the actual words were seen as sexist by reliable sources (implying also that they are sexist by the standards of general society). For example, the Royal Society at the time distanced itself from Hunt's views explicitly saying it wanted women fully integrated into science[14]. Okay, the Royal Society didn't say explicitly "We are distancing ourselves from sexist remarks". Instead it said explicitly it was distancing itself from Hunt's remarks about women in science, and explicitly that it believed we should include women, indeed, everyone, fully in science. It's stretching WP:SYNTH well beyond breaking point to argue that we can't read these two sentences together and make a link. No rational, sane person could possibly interpret the RS's statement as anything but meaning that the RS felt Hunt's remarks were sexist. And the RS wasn't tweeting.

Also, there's a complete lack of logic in what you're arguing. To imply that the remarks weren't sexist, but were only reported as sexist, and also write that "This is not supported by the sources" is a non-sequitur because the very sources that you're saying don't support it are the sources that are reporting it. If the sources didn't say it, we couldn't say the remarks were reported as sexist, but because they did, we can, and should!

Hunt's actually a good bloke, who's done a lot of good in his career, including for women. The furore got completely out of hand, and a lot of people wrote a lot of stuff about him that was based on nothing much more than wild conclusions they'd leapt to on the basis of no real evidence. That's where the whole online shaming thing came in. But we don't do Hunt, or anyone, any favours if we pretend the story isn't what it is: Hunt said something stupidly sexist, without thinking it through properly, got pilloried for it wildly even though there are a hell of a lot of people in science who are far more sexist than he is, and there was a subsequent backlash of people trying to set the record straight. It was a big splash in the pond that is women-in-science, but there have been many other splashes too. Let's tell the splash how it happened, and let history decide.

Disclosure: I have met the guy, but it was nearly 4 decades ago, so I don't consider myself to have a COI. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have some reservations about the way you put it, but much of what you say is of course correct. My view is that there is space to do the story justice in the online shaming article, or in a separate article on the incident (actually my preference), but I think it will be almost impossible to keep it WP:DUE and WP:BLP at the same time here. It looks like we're going to find out. I hope you stay involved when the article is unprotected. Thomas B (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. I don't think Tim Hunt is a sexist. And I don't think he expressed, intentionally or otherwise, any sexist views with his toast, which he understood and intended to be, since that is what he was asked to provide, a toast to women in science in Korea. There are people who think all that can be true and the remarks can still be described as "sexist". I don't understand that logic, but I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them. Many of the women present understood that, as Fiona Fox reports. Thomas B (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're quite correct Elemimele in that it is a complex issue, it does need new input and the simplistic nature of some of the edits is part of the problem. However, I think some of the details in your comments are incorrect. The furore was kicked off by Connie St Louis and much of the coverage was based on her and Deborah Blum's tweets. The Connie St Louis tweets are still available and a number of claims were made about what he said, including that he'd thanked the women for making the lunch, suggested single sex labs were needed, she suggested the remarks were met with stony silence by an outraged audience and finally she partially quoted him completely out of context. Twitter being what it is a furore blew up and very few people actually took much notice of what actually happened; too many memes with the hashtag #distractinglysexy. Institutions being what they are immediately distanced themselves from Tim Hunt.

Editorial oversight I feel is a red herring, there are plenty of examples of papers printing stories that later prove to be incorrect and newspapers often have to print retractions or clarifications - eg the very article you linked to has one. It was only later a more nuanced story came out, including the fact that the remarks were clearly self-deprecating and had in fact been well received by the audience (incidentally both Connie St Louis and Deborah Blum continued to claim the ERC transcript was inaccurate and that he never praised the role of Korean women in science). Tim Hunt acknowledged the remarks were ill-advised and apologised for any offence caused, clarifying they were intended to be self-deprecating humour and in part reflected his own experience of meeting his wife in the lab. A more accurate comment is that Hunt said something stupid that could be misconstrued as sexist but wasn't.

What you term the second phase of the story, the backlash, was primarily led by female colleagues who were outraged that someone they saw as an ally was being treated badly. One of the chief critics being Louise Mensch who felt that feminism wasn't served by pillorying Tim Hunt. Also when people took a closer look at Connie St Louis, the accuracy of other reports was questionable and it turned out that her CV had been greatly exaggerated in order to obtain her own university position; interestingly that actually led to the institution she worked for standing by her. WCM_email 11:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Some pretty serious accusations there (which also seem irrelevant to this article) which are likely to need admin attention/redaction per WP:BLP unless you can provide an impeccable source pronto. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WCM is not saying anything that isn't common knowledge among anyone who is familiar with the case. Thomas B (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate threats and you really should stop being so combative pronto. As Thomas notes I haven't said anything that isn't common knowledge amongst anyone who followed the story. The CV was first investigated and appeared in the Daily Mail [15] and she had in fact claimed to have worked for the Mail. It was widely reported in other media and as a result City University had to take down her CV, with calls for her sacking the university stood by her. The comments out the so-called stony silence was completely blown out of the water by the recording showing it received warm applause. I find it amusing you're demanding I provide multiple cites for every comment when you can't even provide a cite for your quotation. I have to ask do you know much about this story? WCM_email 12:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Only what I read in reliable sources (and that does not include the WP:DAILYMAIL !!) Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, though you can't always believe what you read, I probably read about it in the Times when it happened.[16] Thomas B (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you might have read it when the Grauniad was shamed into reporting it and other media picked it up; the Daily Fail does have its uses. Thing is, if you only read what you ideologically identify with it inevitably leads to confirmation bias. Try being wider read, its good for improving your editing. A further suggestion is reading the full comment (eg it being picked up by the wider media) instead of trying to point score. WCM_email 13:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong, City University quietly got rid of her a year later [17] when the dust had settled. But hey its the Daily Fail so it can't be true and she's still gainfully employed ... WCM_email 13:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This all fancifully OR-ish and quite irrelevant. The only relevance to Hunt is seemingly that St Louis was subject to an online shaming campaign too, by those who thought she'd misrepresented him.[18]. Bon courage (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly right, as was already clear in with the Hypatia article (so its not OR). That's why this is not about Tim Hunt (and doesn't belong in his BLP) it is a classic online shitstorm. It should all be in an article called 2015 WCSJ Online Shaming Incident. Thomas B (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What people do and what happens to them are part of their biography. Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What is important in a BLP is to accurately report what they did and what happened to them, not double down on inaccurate original reporting. And it important not to WP:LABEL someone as sexist and misogynist when they are not. Equally where an event is complex and nuanced, delegation to a dedicated article is appropriate. WCM_email 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Straw men fallacy, since nobody is proposing such labels. The job here is to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on the topic. Retrospective peer-reviewed scholarship, for example. Blog posts and the WP:DAILYMAIL, and - yes - "original reporting" not so much. Bon courage (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What Tim Hunt "did" was to be mistaken for a misogynist, after which a storm happened to him. It is WP:BLP policy to be careful about preserving the most miserable things that happen to people online: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (WP:AVOIDVICTIM) Thomas B (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at that source via the Wikipedia library, it makes a passing reference to the backlash against her. I would also condemn abusing anyone on social media. But that isn't what this was about, for example [19] Ms St Louis claims were forensically skewered by investigation by Louise Mensch. The fact is the original reporting of this story was seriously flawed based as it was on a flawed and inaccurate acoount. I find it intriguing you seek out sources to confirm your own narrative rather than seeking sources which challenge it, equally you find excuses to ignore material which challenges it. WCM_email 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A blog by Louise Mensch? Seriously? What is the point of bring these crappy unusable sources here? Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, you really should try reading, Louise Mensch links to all mainstream sources and she is utterly forensic in ripping Ms St Louis' claims to pieces. I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think. WCM_email 13:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The job here is to relay accepted knowledge as relayed in reliable sources. If you want to read/believe blog posts and tabloids go for it, but don't let that backwash here please. I'll stick with journals thanks. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to bad sources to tell either part of the story. The Guardian, for example, reported the original remarks and the furore that they were sexist, and also reported that Hunt had been pilloried.[20]. The Guardian and other serious newspapers are ideal sources for this very public story. I personally believe we have to tell both sides of it because (1) Hunt's actions started the whole thing, and (2) he did find himself on the end of a lot of publicity whose fairness has been questioned in good sources, and (3) the entire story became a large event in his career, and in science. It's also not entirely right to pin the whole thing on the original tweet and the reputation of the tweeter. The story moved well beyond the tweetsphere. I can't support this with reliable sources, so I'm moving out of Wikipedia territory here, but like many scientists, the whole thing blew up in my mail-box, in my facebook account, across copious bits of social media, with St Louis barely mentioned, but Hunt's words spread abroad. I suspect this would have happened whoever tweeted, and in a conference of that sort, someone, sooner or later, would have relayed what he said. This is very much Hunt's story, not St Louis's. Elemimele (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you and others who want to give a lot of space to it in Hunt's bio work out exactly what you want to put in the article. In principle, much of what you say here is correct. In practice, I fear it's going to be impossible to include without unbalancing his BLP. But let's see what you come up with. Then I can offer my factual corrections concretely. I still think it should be worked out here on the talk page (or in a sandbox) before any change that may be unfair to Hunt is made to the article. Thomas B (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elemimele That all seems eminently reasonable. A sequence of events happened and were reported in a load of decent sources, Wikipedia can follow that. I'm at a loss to understand why this should be so difficult. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One solution I've been thinking about is to balance the coverage we give to this incident with an account of his excellent reputation as a mentor, colleague, teacher, and promoter of science. There's already some of that in the article. But if we make it independently clear that Hunt is a decent human being (and not at all a misogynist) then the uproar over his unfortunate remark may warrant more detail. Thomas B (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Elemimele and for your personal comments. I'm not evenly remotely suggesting we use a blog as a source, it's simply a handy reference for a talk page discussion nothing more. Your Guardian source is fine but it really doesn't tell the whole story. The whole controversy blew up in a few hours whilst he was on a plane and by the time he landed his reputation was in tatters. It was basically down to the Twitter storm started by Connie St Louis whose reporting was simply not an accurate reflection of what was said. Even when the evidence emerged much later she still doubled down on her account and in the furore engendered by the controversy people simply took little notice of that evidence. It wasn't what he said, it was what it was claimed he'd said. I dare say had the reporting been more accurate, his remarks would have been seen as cringeworthy but not a resignation matter. His choice of a self-deprecating joke was ill-advised, it could easily be misconstrued. WCM_email 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"whose reporting was simply not an accurate reflection of what was said" ← Hunt explicitly had no problem with the accuracy of what was reported. Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like very peculiar private views. Wikipedia, on the other hand is based on published reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We all understand that you think this. That would be fine, except that it is possible to both understand the issue and disagree with you, you know. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage and Nemov, could you please clarify your position on question 1 in your !votes above? (Even if you're neutral towards inclusion of the full quote, I think explicitly saying that will be helpful for the closer.) Loki (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"you wouldn't want your daughter working for him"

@Elinruby has made a telling remark above. "I've had a look at the BLP now and see that there is plenty else to say about the man, but if you wouldn't want your daughter working for him that seems kind of important too." That is, the explanded version that is now being considered implies that Hunt is not the sort of person you'd want people you love to work for. That is exactly the impression that I am keen to avoid since that is not an image of the man that the balance of the evidence suggests. In fact, the opposite is true (see Fiona Fox's account[21] above.) Thomas B (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I read it before I wrote the comments in the section above. Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) PS I specifically said "daughter" as in the female people you love. Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have both a son and a daughter and I wouldn't want either to work for a misogynist. In any case, you seem to be explicitly endorsing a version that essentially says that Hunt is one. I'm against that on WP:BLP grounds since the evidence for a such a strong, negative judgment isn't just very weak: there is good evidence suggesting he is very supportive of women in science and a great person to work with the lab. I'm not going to try to change your opinion of him. I'm only registering that you have formed it on the basis of the misleading information you have gotten here. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears you're consistently having trouble telling the difference between editors offering their personal opinions on Hunt's comments on this talk page, and what's being actually suggested as article content. I don't think Elinruby means to say we should edit the article to tell people you wouldn't want to work for Hunt.

(If this is just another way of rephrasing your WP:BLP concerns, I remind you of WP:PUBLICFIGURE yet again. Look at what we say about James Watson for a very similar example of a Nobel laureate who has made controversial comments.) Loki (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm vaguely familiar with the Watson controversy. Is it a comparison you'd be willing to defend in its details? Then I'll go and take a close look and try to tell you how the two cases are (as I recall) very different. If I can show you that Hunt's remarks do not offer a basis for calling him "sexist" in anywhere near the way Watson's remarks plausibly made him appear "racist", will you consider that a reasonable defense of my take on this article? Thomas B (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I quite often act as a fresh set of eyes in noticeboard disputes. This frequently results in condescending remarks that I fail to understand, frequently from both sides. So I decline to argue with you about whether I do or do not understand. Is the text that you reverted in any way not the full toast? I fail to see mitigation where apparently you do. I would also like to note that it's a bit insulting to assume that I would not read discussions in which I am involved. I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do. I have other fish to fry but am trying to shed some light on why the remarks are offensive. If it is as an example of why the text is misleading, so be it, but if I was supposed to be convinced by the post above, I am not, and yes I did read it. Why is this so important to you. anyway?

(ec) and Loki is correct. I have not proposed a version of the article text.Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I will leave you alone. There is no way to arrive at this conclusion if one has taken a half-way serious interest in the case. You have an opinion and a POV and you're entitled to it. But you do not have a contribution to make to a serious biographical article about Tim Hunt.Thomas B (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well. I will be adding this diff to the contentious editing complaint. And news flash, dismissively patronizing me is a good way to get me to take a keen interest in an article. Ok. I will stop trying to determine if the prime minister of Lithuania was a war criminal for a moment, and ask again:

• why is this so important to you? Do you have a connection to the subject of the article?
• precisely what is it that you think that I am missing? He was a nice guy? Kind to small children? So was Eichmann.

OF COURSE his Nobel Prize is the most notable thing about him. Add some information about that if you are worried about weight. But the sources preclude wishing it away, sir. Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I say, I am disengaging with you. I apologize if my way of explaining why sounded combative and I'm happy to delete the comment from the record. But I will not be talking further about this with you. I wish you and your daughter well. Thomas B (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Already immortalized at ANI. I would prefer answers to the two very simple questions above. Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Un-derailing this

My suggestion to the majority here is that you/we work out the wording without chasing Thomas down any more rabbit holes. This part will require a careful use of sources, but since there is a clear consensus for 2A, I suggest working out the exact wording here pending a close of the RfC.

Maybe Loki can post the last wording that got reverted. Does anyone other have objections to it, or suggestions to make it better?

Also, this concern about due weight that Thomas keeps waving around: it might be somewhat valid. What do other people think? If we add the quote in, we can add in other material to balance this out. What could this material be if we go this route? Elinruby (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't have a clear consensus for 2A, consensus is about strength of argument not a simple majority and you appear to be confusing the two. Thomas' concerns are valid, instead of addressing them what we've had is editors berating him for raising them. You might have a majority to WP:TAG team an edit into the article, which is what appeared to be happening but that doesn't make you correct.

I will say that the last edit was an appallingly bad summary of the controversy and you can add my voice to objecting to its inclusion. WCM_email 06:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite their wordage, the arguments against are unconvincing. Some editors seem heavily invested in uncovering (their version of) The Truth™ surrounding this incident. It is, though, Wikipedia's job merely to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on the matter; and they say quite a lot. Some comments were reported, and there were reactions to that. Bon courage (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions.

I don't even know these people personally and I suspect the same is true of them about each other. I have seen some of these user names before, sure, but please relax and take a deep breath. There is no cabal.

I myself would give Thomas' alleged BLP concerns a lot more credence if he were willing to civilly discuss ways to address them and still be accurate. But he decided to strew insults about instead. Too bad so sad.

Meanwhile, if you will consult the ANI, you will note that discussing is exactly what we are supposed to be doing right now.

And I don't know who you think you're talking to, but yes yes yes we've all been around long enough to know that RfCs are not a vote; of course I am taking that into account, along with the fact that while Thomas is invoking policy he is doing so selectively.

Policy says that care should be taken: this is us taking care. It also says that Hunt is a public figure and truth trumps everything in a BLP. If you have a specific issue with a specific source feel free to raise it, but all the mud-flinging about dishonest journalists really requires some evidence and I see none. Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it seems that there are editors concerned with uncovering their version of the truth surrounding this issue and cherry picking their sources to pillory Hunt as a sexist misogynist pig. [22] This edit is patently untrue. What was widely interpreted as sexist were Connie St Louis' claims of what he said including 1) thanking the women for making the lunch, 2) advocating single sex labs and 3) partially and incorrectly quoting what he said without the context of self-parodying. She later doubled down and denied he ever said anything self-parodying. The controversy blew up on Twitter and his resignation demanded before the full story came out. Misrepresenting the controversy on a WP:BLP is a serious concern and the issues Thomas has raised are very valid. You should listen rather than shouting him down, which is what you have been doing and continue to do. WCM_email 07:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I realize he feels he is righting great wrongs and apparently so do you. This is tedious.

Again, been there, read that. Not interested in further replying to your insults; I've been called worse by better. I'll check on all this tomorrow sometime to see if you have stopped attacking other editors yet.

Could somebody please copy over Loki's edit for discussion? Thanks. I think that would be a step we could take to move forward on this. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Funny that, WP:GREATWRONGS came to my mind when I saw what you were advocating and you showed your POV with remarks above denouncing Hunt as sexist. You are indeed tedious, if you want a serious discussion, drop the attitude that you'll ride rough shod over anyone who disagrees. WCM_email 08:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean this?

Expanded controversy section

Controversy See also: Online shaming § Tim Hunt controversy In June 2015, a toast made by Hunt at a conference for women in science attracted criticism, with many arguing that his comments were misogynistic. Hunt said: It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me. Hunt apologized for his comments, which he called "jocular" and "ironic", though "inexcusable". The controversy led to an online shaming campaign, Hunt's resignation from several key research and policy positions (including the European Research Council), and a temporary withdrawal from public life and professional activities.

Loki (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess? That's what you tried to change it to, right? My copy-editing fingers twitched a little but that was a quibble. As for content, without going too deep into sourcing at this very second, at least two of those sources support his PoV, right? i think "online shaming" should be in quotes. It looks like "when online shaming is shameful" would be a reference for that. Four references in a row is too many but if that's one of the four, moving it to follow "online shaming" would help with that, also, and there is always grouping them. Superficial scan of references found no problems with RS. I dislike long blockquotes of offensive material, but this seems to be a case for one if we are being told we just don't understand. Then just the facts. That's all I have on content right now. Will look harder later. Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe too fast a scan, ok, three out of the four have "public shaming" in their title and presumably are about shaming; do they all mention Hunt? I suggest moving the two that best support that Hunt was shamed to follow "online shaming" in the text. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already pointed out this edit is incorrect, what was denounced as sexist and misogynistic was Connie St Louis' claims of what he said, rather than what he actually said. You're implying it was his actual remarks that were denounced. In fact, when the full facts emerged the prevailing consensus was that people had rushed to judgement but by then he'd been forced to resign by UCL and sacked by ERC. WCM_email 09:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

European Research Council

Somewhere around here WCM and Thomas were claiming... something... about the ERC not being a government entity, with some sort of swipe at Bon courage as a topping. Could someone explain that to me nice and slow? Thanks. I need to go work on some other stuff now. I'll be back. Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I asked what the source of this quotation was and got vague and incoherent replies. First it was a "government" transcript, such a vague reply I took to mean the South Korean Government, the second reply mentioned the Independent. Thomas guessed it was the leaked ERC transcript, whose accuracy is disputed. He still hasn't named the source. Now this is an example of unhelpful behaviour which is both childish and completely unnecessary, so could you please stop it. WCM_email 09:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

My advice to all is to let the RfC run to conclusion, then the consensus that emerges can be implemented and everybody can move on. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

They locked they article so the argument could get worked out on the talk page versus edit summaries. I don't think the admin who did that quite realized the level of IDHT that is in play here but I think we are supposed to at least try. That doesn't mean we can't do other things also. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It was not a great page-protect in my view, but the RfC is at least a way forward which is somewhat immune from any 'flood the zone' tactic. Bon courage (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox?

Just a suggestion for the people who think the section should be expanded. There are four days until the page is unprotected. Why not start working on it in a H:SANDBOX? I promise to stay away and let you work it out among yourselves. You may as well get a proposal into shape that you think can pass muster. Thomas B (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)