Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Redundancies

There are three descriptions of his work with cyclins and CDKs -- first in the second paragraph of the 'career' section, then again in the third paragraph of the same section, and again in the 'honors' section, with the citation from the Nobel committee -- and none of these descriptions shows any awareness of the others...

Could someone familiar with Hunt's work perform the consolidation? Epikoros (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Widely described as sexist

At one time we had consensus to use the wording "made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media" (see section "Sexist comments" above). I'm going to change this back until we have consensus here on the talk page to change it to something else. Please discuss here before changing. My problem with "widely described as sexist" is that none of the cited sources actually says this. (If I missed it, please supply a quote). Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point @Kendall-K1: --ℕ ℱ 19:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Boris Johnson info

Someone with writing skills should add the info about Boris johnson defending him. It's relevant since others have attacked him, now someone is defending him. Also there are a few other persons, female scientists Lady this and Dame that that also work in medicine and whatnot that have recently defended him saying something along the lines he's always been very supportive in the advancement of careers of other young staff both male and female. Also some online articles/blogs by females defending him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.253.190 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of those on each side. I did add "Several female scientists and commentators defended Hunt" so it's clear that Donald isn't the only one defending him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Married to Collins

Why does "who is married to Professor of immunology Mary Collins" belong in the "Women in science incident" section? It's already mentioned in "Personal life" and I don't see what it has to do with the incident. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's directly relevant as the source indicates. Enough that they mention her 11 times. She's a professor of immunology in the same university as Hunt. Second Quantization (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Korean press release & Donald blog

I made 2 edits to the page. Coverage was Anglo-centric. Added the press release from the Korea Federation of Women's Science and Technology Associations. This can be viewed, including in English, via the homepage: direct linking currently not apparently possible. You wait to see a green N and the date, click there, download PDF.

Secondly, I removed a statement which appeared to be suggesting that Athene Donald supported a petition for Hunt's reinstatement by placing a link on her blog. That link was put in the comments section by a commenter: that a comment is allowed does not mean the commenter's views reflect those of the blogger. However, as her blog post reiterated her support of Hunt, I did not delete the citation of the blog post. Hildabast (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed the blog ref, because it isn't needed; the quote is in the other ref. We shouldn't be using blog sources except as needed for statements by the blog's author. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP matters

A couple of days ago I wrote an article for Hunt's wife Mary Collins, and then yesterday removed the name of her non-notable ex-husband cited to a gossip-laden Daily Mail article. From this article, I've now twice removed unnecessary references to the ages of their minor children, and previously their names were removed by another editor. When I first edited this article yesterday, the controversy section was 75% as long as the section describing his entire academic career. FireflySixtySeven reverted my removal of some of that material, which is fine, but in the process reintroduced other minor errors.

Hunt's comments and their fallout are obviously notable, but this is not the village stocks. Editors interested in this article, please be more careful about BLP issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I restored the quote you removed from the article - I cannot understand why you would want to suppress the quote which caused the controversy while discussing reactions to the quote. I think in light of his remarks, the fact that he has two young daughters is important - WP:BLPNAME isn't violated if their gender and ages are mentioned. Finally, Mary Collins' ex-husband does not need to be notable to warrant mention in her article, and Daily Mail should be fine for an uncontroversial detail like the name of an ex-spouse. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth @Opabinia regalis: I agree with your analysis here. --ℕ ℱ 19:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl in the above thread has a good analysis of why the original first paragraph of that section was a problem. The current version is somewhat improved.

Naming a non-notable ex-spouse of many years prior who has nothing to do with the current issue, simply because a bad paper published some clickbait ("juicy", apparently), is a bad idea. It's certainly a poignant observation that their children are young women, but poignancy is not really encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Earlier today an IP attempted to blank the entire controversy section. Bad idea, but I notice that section has metastasized since I posted this comment two weeks ago about WP:UNDUE. It's now even undue-er. This is not a newspaper; if you want to document every public comment pertaining to this incident, Wikinews is thataway and looks like it could use some attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the whole thing could be summarised in a few sentences. He made some offhand comments, there was a social media campaign, he was then forced to resign, then there were a number of statements criticising his treatment as disproportionate. --ℕ ℱ 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Transcript of speech

The Times have now published a transcript of the relevant section of Tim Hunt's speech which puts the whole affair in a completely different light. The Times article is behind a paywall but there is a report in The Independent. I have limited internet access at the moment. Is anyone able to incorporate this into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2015‎

I am a bit uncomfortable about that, because, "the new leaked transcript forms part of a 'mission report compiled by an official' and is not being treated as a verbatim transcript.", because the transcript is disputed (by Connie St Louis, in the Independent article you linked), and because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think if we express these uncertainties clearly, it is probably OK. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the very concern you highlight is something I attempted to address in my edits, which have unfortunately been reverted. Saint91 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The transcript was first published in The Times. Here's a link to the article but its behind a paywall. The Times is unlikely to publish such a transcript unless they have good evidence that it is correct, and is going to be a more reliable source than Connie St Louis.

New evidence has now been made available in another article in The Times. Here's the relevant extract:

"The official wrote, in a document suppressed by the commission: “I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media.”

The official added that his neighbour, a woman from the Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology and an organiser of the conference, responded positively. “Without being asked, she said she was impressed that Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech (her words). Later she told me that all other Korean lunch participants she talked to didn’t notice or hear anything peculiar in Sir Tim’s speech.”

An article in Nature by a female scientist who worked with Tim Hunt also testifies to his character and I think this link needs to be included too.Dahliarose (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't see why Connie St Louis writing in The Guardian is a less reliable source than some entirely anonymous individual reported in The Times. Big newspapers can and do lie/mislead their readers. Given that we don't know the truth, we should simply present both points of view.

2. I'm very reluctant to include an unnamed individual at the EC reporting what an unnamed individual at the KRCST is supposed to have said. In fact, I can't even find an example of an organisation called the "Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology". There is, however, a Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations which hosted the event and it stated in a letter that: "As women scientists we were deeply shocked and saddened by these remarks, but we are comforted by the widespread angered response from international social and news media: we are not alone in seeing these comments as sexist and damaging to science. Although Dr. Hunt is a senior and highly accomplished scientist in his field who has closely collaborated with Korean scientists in the past, his comments have caused great concern and regret in Korea... old prejudices are still well embedded in science cultures. On behalf of Korean female scientists, and all Koreans, we wish to express our great disappointment that these remarks were made at the event hosted by KOFWST. This unfortunate incident must not be portrayed as a private story told as a joke." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/16/sexist-scientist-i-was-being-honest.html

3. I wouldn't object to the the article in Nature - but it's just another example of people he knows who have come out to support him. That's already mentioned in the article, so it's largely redundant. Saint91 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

According to The Times article Connie St Louis only disagrees about the words "not seriously". The other two journalists did not dispute the version reported in The Times. This is what the article says: "Ms St Louis disputes that Sir Tim said “now seriously”, but the two other journalists with her have not contradicted the report. It also is in agreement with Tim Hunt's account of the affair in The Guardian in which he states he used the words "not seriously"." I don't know about the Korean organisation but Wikipedia articles are reliant on secondary sources. If the organisation has been wrongly named then no doubt it will be corrected in another source. The Nature article is important because it testifies to Hunt's clumsy jokes but also the support that he has received from the many female scientists who have worked for him. Dahliarose (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail article on BBC Radio interview

I've had this removed

On the 10th of June, one female scientist interviewed on BBC Four characterised his 37 word remark as a five minute diatribe, saying "He just ploughed on for five to seven minutes, actually... It was really shocking. It was culturally insensitive and it was very sexist."

Note that this is quoted by Sarah Harris (daily mail) as well as Guy Adams above).

BBC ref is here - June 10 "he just ploughed on for about five to seven minutes" - this is a matter of public record.

The fact that the sentence is 37 words is a matter of public record.

@Nonsenseferret: -- Aronzak (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake, they're the same article, the first is embedded in the second article. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Please DEFINE honourary professorship

This is going to be tough, because the news reports I saw didn't explain. But what is the honorary professorship position? I'm used to thinking that an "honorary" position is one you don't really have, more or less; but in London it might be different. So details like whether he has a salary, office, lab, how long he works there daily, etc. are all highly desirable for anyone to understand what is at stake. Are students impacted by this? Etcetera. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In Britain, an honorary position is one you don't get paid for, but it may well have duties and privileges. But it would need some research to find the duties and privilege Hunt's professorship. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has details of the various honorary positions at UCL and the application process. Titles are normally awarded to people doing collaborative research. The main benefit would be remote access to digital sources such as scientific papers through the online library.Dahliarose (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content

I have removed a number of statements where we are citing an organisations press release that has not been the subject of independent commentary in secondary sources. If it wasn't commented on independently, then we have no objective way to assess the importance of the statement as regards including it here, and to do so is pretty much down the line of original research. --ℕ ℱ 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about the removal of the statements from the various organisations. I was somewhat concerned about the insertion of the Korean statement for the very same reason, and my initial thoughts were to include the other statements for the sake of balance. However, as you say, none of these statements appear to have been published so it's best to leave them out. Dahliarose (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

further removal of comments

I have removed some further comments which were re-reverted by original author and described as "critical". Nothing on wikipedia editing is critical, what we've got is a decision about what is due and undue level of detail. The situation about his comments overall is really a pretty small footnote on a significant scientific career. The level of detail we already have is undue and recentism. The text as it stands clearly establishes the various points of view. Ie he was making a light hearted comment not intended to cause offence, but it did in fact cause offence. That is not disputed by any of the independent sources. --ℕ ℱ 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that removal[1], Nonsenseferret. Hunt later said he regretted that phone message he recorded for BBC Radio 4 Today programme, so a long quote from it is certainly undue weight.

I think there are two easy ways to resolve the issue of due weight. One is to wait for hindsight, after a few weeks or months, we will better be able to judge which details are worth keeping. Second is to make the scientific biography longer.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, it would be much easier to judge in a few months time. One of the problems we have is that this incident has been the subject of comment on various internet forums. Therefore I predict a lot of effort to spin this content in either direction which we will have to keep an eye on in the meantime. --ℕ ℱ 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what this article looks like in a few months' time, when this whole sorry business has blown over. Hopefully by then the controversy section will have been cut down to the length it deserves. Right now, as others have noted, it's got much more content than the section about Hunt's actual scientific career; making him seem almost like a person famous for making allegedly sexist comments who happens to be Nobel Prize-winning scientist, rather than the other way around. (See James Watson, another Nobel winner who's made plenty of controversial statements over the years, for an example of a better balanced article - it rightly focuses on his scientific career first and foremost.) A lot of the material in this article at the moment seems trivial and recentist; for example, do we really need to include the opinions of Brian Cox and Jonathan Dimbleby on the matter? Arguably not. Robofish (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the main argument for including comments by Cox and Dimbleby was that they were the subject of independent comment beyond their original published source. By contrast many of the statements which I have already removed were in the nature of press releases or comment by individual, which was not the subject of detailed coverage in independent sources. Cox was interviewed on a radio show, then his comments were reprinted prominently in countless national newspapers and at least two national television news networks. Similarly Dimbleby's resignation has been reported in many reliable sources not only the national press in the UK but it seems around the world too. That seems to me a reasonably objective argument to include them. --ℕ ℱ 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of removing content to balance an article - I think expansion of the other sections is what's important here. As intimated by my question about honourary professorship, we know something of how he lost it but we have little idea of what it is in the first place! Wnt (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexist comments

The sources cited say that his comments were sexists. Please leave this wording unless there other reliable sources that state otherwise. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

what is usually done is to say something like "... made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media ..." --ChristopheT (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never been crazy about that wording, which sounds awkward to me, but I can go along with it. It's way better than "some people consider sexist", which doesn't say who "some people" are. I put in this wording, please don't change it without discussing here first. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not going to change anything ... ChristopheT (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you would, since it was your suggestion. That was meant as a plea to all involved editors. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This change of wording to "made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media" is fine. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page and discussing it :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

it kind of feels good to agree on stuff with other people ;) ChristopheT (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to find the record of the whole Hunt's Talk (the real source). All journals cite only one or two sentences. No one have opportunity to judge himself the context of these controversial sentences.Mkotl (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

While in general I don't disagree that it's better to have more context than less, is there any context you can imagine that might make his remarks less appalling? —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I think this was a joke (I believe his explanation), the record could confirm that. Maybe it's not the best joke... but if some lady being the head of the laboratory would said something like this: "Let me tell you about my trouble with boys … 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." What would you find it sexist? Would the people criticizing Hunt's talk do such a rumpus?Mkotl (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see there have been over 100 edits of this page since the comments. When did Wikipedia become a tabloid magazine? Can we put a hold on this page until the dust settles, and then be--you know--encyclopedic about reporting what happened? In a fair and unbiased manner? At the very least, we should put one of those warnings about the article needing some work to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards. (I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate since I don't contribute to Wikipedia much.) SchighSchagh (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• The section could definitely stand to be tweaked. Right now it's a little bit like a newspaper in how it's written and some of the wording (specifically the word "problems") is pretty loaded with a bit of inherent bias. I'd posted this suggestion on the BLP/N page, but I'll post it here as well:

On 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"" at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists. During the speech Hunt remarked upon his reputation as a male chauvinist and endorsed gender segregated laboratories. Hunt also commented upon past interactions he has had with female scientists, stating:

“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."

This only goes over the very first part of the section but that's the first thing that caught my eye. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I see someone was busy doing a hatchet job without noting that he meant the comments to be ironic (as the sources even state!) and light hearted. After all, his wife is a professor of immunology who he met in a lab. It's a failed joke that the media ran. Second Quantization (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are you talking about myself or on the article? If you're talking about my edit, this was mostly my way of trying to deal with the first part of the section in question and it was just something I threw together in about 1-2 minutes. It's not meant to cover the entirety of the whole shebang since that's going to take a lot of editing overall and to a degree the lead sentence has its own problems. It is not intended to be the entirety of the section. If it's the article, then I have no true opinion on that. However at the same time I'd like to warn you to assume WP:GOODFAITH about other editors, since using the term "hatchet job" can come across as rude. Just from what I've seen of the whole shebang (which I do think is a little over the top) it looks like this started when one of the attendees started posting about the remark, saying that it offended them, so I think that people including it in the article are more looking at it from that perspective. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment was about an earlier version of the article, Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ahh.. gotcha. You really have to make sure that you're clear about that! I didn't think it was about me, but I've had people do that on here before, so yeah. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Basically I have an issue with the word "problems" in the article because as I stated above, this word is pretty loaded with negative connotations and sets a tone before the section has even started. Now assuming that this was meant to be a serious remark (which I doubt it was) the word "problems" already assigns a judgement to everything. I'm aware that my rephrasing of the opening to the section has its own issues, but at the same time I think that almost anything would be better than saying "problems". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

″was told by a senior [at UCL] that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked". The exact name and position of this official should be added to the article. Unfortunately, I do not know it. Anyone up to the task? Fedja (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the UCL official involved does not appear to have been revealed as has been commented on in this article in the Standard which I've already referenced in the article. We can only add the name if it has been revealed in a reliable published source.

"We can only add the name if it has been revealed in a reliable published source." This is a decent policy, no question about that. So, let's change the request to "Add the name of any official taking part in forcing Sir Tim Hunt to resign as soon as it appears in a reliable public source". My rationale is that regardless of your point of view on what Prof. Hunt did, these people should be subjected to the same "public judgement" he was subjected to by their actions. Fedja (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This whole article, at the moment, seems to be pretty far away from WP:NPOV in that it talks almost entirely about those in favour of his actions, whilst calling into question, or leaving out entirely, other sources of information. Particularly, Connie St Louis is attacked ad-hom, which says nothing about what actually happened, and the details of the letter sent to him by the Korean Federation (which are available) are omitted, even though these talk about the problems the actual people he was talking to had with what was said, and instead we hear about one anon source talking about another anon attendee's reaction. I would suggest including something from the public statement/press release from KOFWST and removing the "most telling" from the bit about Ms. St Louis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsdan (talk • lsdan (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)contribs) 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The letter from KOFWST is already included in the article. I think someone has already removed the words "most telling". There only seems to be one sentence about Connie St Louis as the article currently which doesn't read to me like an ad hom attack. Please could you advise which other sources of information you think should be included or alternatively do just go ahead and add it yourself.Dahliarose (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

: I agree that this is now very far away from WP:NPOV, pursuing a particular narrative that omits key events while going into great detail of protests about protests, rather than any perspective. As such, it isn't an encyclopedia approach at all, but a detailed primary narrative based on highly selected sources, privileging a particular point of view. It needs to be shorter and more balanced. Hildabast (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember very distinctively an article that quoted comments Hunt gave in an interview some years ago--long before the current controversy, in which he questioned whether the gender imbalance in science is a problem. This seems quite relevant as it shows that his recent comments reflect long held beliefs. Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding the article again. Tibetologist (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

use of 'defenders' heading

I've just undid some changes including the change of a heading from wider reaction to defenders. I think that is a problematic change because it does not fairly represent the statements that were made under the heading. As far as I can see, nobody condones or defends the comments that were made. There does seem however to be a view that the comments were taken out of context and the reaction was quite disproportionate. I don't think that is exactly a defence in the sense most people would understand it.--ℕ ℱ 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps 'supporters'. The problem with 'wider reaction' is that there were plenty of commentators who thought that his resignation was appropriate. With 'wider reaction' as the header this has a POV. Tibetologist (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Make the case for this here using reliable sources. The weight of reliable publications I have seen seem to say he made some silly comments, but the reaction was disproportionate. --ℕ ℱ 09:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tibetologist: You've missed the point with some of your additions. Lots of people made comments, some even in published sources. How can we tell which were the important ones? Well those ones tended to be reported on independently. So when Brian Cox for example said it was disproportionate in a radio interview, we don't cite that interview, we are citing the many independent sources that reported on his comments in the following days as that demonstrates they were widely thought important enough to mention. If you don't have that sort of coverage of comments you are trying to include, that doesn't represent a very strong argument for including them. This article will not descend into everything everyone said anywhere about this incident, that would be clearly ridiculous in the light of a broad consensus that the level of detail is already undue. Further, you have included coverage of the radio interview Hunt made, there has already been some discussion of that here on the talkpage, you'll have to build consensus for including it in detail.--ℕ ℱ 10:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will do a bit more. So only articles about peoples comments not peoples comments. Easy enough. Tibetologist (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Today Program cites a newspaper article. Thus, it meets your criterion it is media coverage and not direct commentary. (Which is what it would have been if I had cited a Radio four page.) Tibetologist (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BRD re-reverting after you have been reverted and asked to discuss changes on the talkpage is not on. No matter how much you really desire to add your change --ℕ ℱ 10:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I did discuss it. The discussion you will see immediately before your comment. You ought to have read this and replied to it before criticizing me. Incidentally, I also deleted the mention of an interview in which he mentioned getting letters of support because this does not match the criterion you mentioned. It is an interview, not an article about the interview. Tibetologist (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have already repsonded to your point on my talkpage - commenting here is insufficient, the point of it is to build consensus by involving other editors. So bold, revert, and discuss. I actually agree with the removal of the point about the letters he has received. However also I would suggested that re the section about his fellow nobel laureate since Sir Paul Nurse is both reported to have said he should lose the post and he shouldn't lose the post, we should probably just remove that paragraph altogether.--ℕ ℱ 10:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I found several articles that said the opposite. The main issue though is apparently that you have a problem with the radio four quote. The issue for me is that this article goes to some length to insist that he did say 'now seriously' even though some people in the room said otherwise. The point is certainly whether or not he was 'serious' in making his comments and his radio four comments, which I heard when they were aired, made it very clear that he was 'serious'. So, in order to maintain NPOV the article needs to delete the whole discussion of the 'now seriously' or it needs to include the evidence from the Radio Four interview. BYW, I would support shortening the entire section to a sentence or two, but it must be a NPOV sentence. I fail to see how the Major of London's opinion on this matter is of any importance and that is the sort of thing that should go if this section of the article is shortened substantially. Tibetologist (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Times of today's date (13 July) carries the story, which I cited in my edit, about Paul Nurses comments stating that it was dispproportionate and he shouldn't have been forced to resign. Regarding whether Hunt did or did not say "now seriously" - St Louis seems to stand alone in asserting that he did not - those comments were in an article written by her and not commented on, as far as I could find by others - by contrast, the weight of reliable sources do not seem to question it and the transcript from the Times and mentioned in other publications seems to confirm that he did. We should not include commentary of St Louis credibility which has been mentioned in various sources, when this isn't at all about her, but I think knowing that there have been such comments should make us a little circumspect in this particular aspect. Regarding whether to include the long quote from the Today interview that Hunt gave - see the comments by @Hroðulf: in the section above that to include it is undue, which I agree with. --ℕ ℱ 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Also in response to your comments about what is and isn't "important" - it is best to base such a decision objectively based on how widely those facts have been reported by independent reliable sources. What you or I think of the fact that Boris Johnson said something is neither here nor there. The fact that his comments were reported on many times by reliable sources both nationally in the UK and beyond presents a prima facie case for their inclusion. --ℕ ℱ 12:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And one final point about NPOV - some people assume that this means we should give equal weight to both sides of a disagreement. This isn't the case - we should decide on the prominence to be accorded to each based on the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Examples of this sort of weighting are frequent in articles about science - some people believe that children should not be vaccinated due to the health risks. Sometimes these views are reported in reliable sources - however our articles about vaccines should not give their argument equal prominence with the overwhelming consensus of reliable scientific sources. --ℕ ℱ 12:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the fact that vaccinations don't carry health risks weighed in favor of the matter, i.e. truth is not simply a popularity contest among media outlets. Let us say that it is widely believed that he said 'now seriously' and a verifiable reality that he defended his comments on Radio Four. Neither thing is really very important but do bear on the question of whether he 'meant' what he said. I have tried to shorten the discussion and both quotes in a way that I hope you will agree is NPOV.Tibetologist (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that summary is npov. As I stated above there isnt consensus to include reference to the interview, and your use of language such as "nonetheless" puts a clear editorialising slant on the summary which doesn't reflect the weight of reliable sources. --ℕ ℱ 12:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How about you have a go then? But, to simply say 'he didn't mean it' certainly is POV since he publicly defended his comments. Tibetologist (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue Weight

This article is Extremely unbalanced. That this one minor controversy should outweigh his Nobel work is laughable at best. The entire section should be reduced to a few sentences. Expanding his Nobel work so that the rest doesn't look like an attack page is not the correct way to improve the article. Arzel (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, you can see my attempt at suggesting a short summary above. If we draft a replacement here then we can gain consensus for it --ℕ ℱ 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree: the recent controversy should not outweigh his Nobel work. -Slugfilm (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, a lot of the coverage of Sir Tim relates to this incident. If you don't want it to look like an attack page, make sure that the coverage of the incident is fair. Personally, I think most of what is there at the moment is fair. I would question the inclusion of information about the Radio 4 Today piece without further context. Specifically:

• The piece was based on a phone message he left while on his way home from Korea. He may not have realised what people thought he had been saying, meaning that he didn't give any clarification at this stage, unlike his later comments.
• We might want to check if a more reliable source agrees with this... but Louise Mensch's blog says "This broadcast, however, appears to have spliced the words “I was only being honest” away from where Sir Tim actually said them and put them after comments about crying (where women aren’t mentioned) to make it appear “I was just trying to be honest” referred to his views on women rather than about his own life"

Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• As a bystander from abroad I'm surprised that this topic (60% of this article !) has not died away yet. In a few weeks the hunt will be over, it will be almost forgotten, everybody will focus on his noble Nobelprize-winning work and most of the remarks on this topic can be deleted. Hartenhof (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also important to note - the section in question gives *very little weight* to recent findings showing Hunt's remarks were reported wildly out of context, as reported over the last week in The Times. [2] [3] [4] Hence, much of this section is based on misreporting about his actual remarks. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the undue weight problem. Also a lot of the content in the existing section is not about Hunt himself but about UCL's treatment of the affair which doesn't seem very relevant in a biographical article. I wonder if the UCL content should perhaps go into the Wikipedia article on University College London. I think the best solution in the long run would be to link to articles that summarise the whole affair rather than having to document it in detail here. There is a good summary [5] in this article on the Real Clear Politics website. However, I'm unclear of the status of this website as a reliable source. Perhaps in the long run there will be other similar articles that could be cited. Dahliarose (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics is an American political blog widely considered to be right-wing. There's no reason to expect them to be well-informed on the issue. This specific columnist, Cathy Young, is known for right-wing commentary and has a very specific, non-mainstream view of feminism. Discussing what people like Young and Louise Mensch (!!) have to say about this topic is very much not in scope. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article should not express personal opinions on the subject. It should be about what the sources say. The political slant of a source should not have any bearing on whether or not its reliable, especially for a non-political biographical article. My question was really whether online news websites should be regarded as reliable sources. Dahliarose (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to Opabinia that Wikipedia is not RationalWiki and the rule of thumb here is NPOV, not anti-right-wing POV. Nor do I agree with the assessment that Cathy Young is the extremist you make her out to be. Young is a journalist with clear libertarian (and perhaps center-right) leanings. By contrast, Connie St. Louis, the reporter who is the source of the "blatant sexism" narrative about Hunt's talk, is a journalist with a clear left/feminist POV. Why having a political POV puts Cathy Young beyond the pale as a source, but not Connie St. Louis is perplexing, unless one believes Wikipedia should have a particular political slant. The biases of these and other sources of course should be taken into account when aiming the article toward WP:NPOV coverage of the issue. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should be careful to continue to avoid using St Louis' articles as a source for this very reason. Using other reliable sources that have commented on what she said is reasonable however. --ℕ ℱ 22:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think St. Louis, Young, and Mensch are all usable as sources, with due precautions for bias and balance. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No I'm going to disagree with that. If no independent reliable source thought the details of their commentary important enough to mention, then I don't think there is much of an objective case to mention it here either. --ℕ ℱ 23:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no independent recording or transcript of the entire speech, and so far, no source that doesn't have a dog in the fight. Nonetheless, the controversy has entered the news, so some attempt at a account of what was said is necessary, balanced between conflicting sources, is necessary. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There is rarely a 'necessity' to do anything other than summarise what independent reliable sources say about a subject. --ℕ ℱ 23:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What are "independent reliable sources"? Frankly, gaming the system around that issue seems to be routine on Wikipedia these days. ("Doesn't agree with my views" = "Unreliable source".) This was quite blatant in the remarks about Cathy Young, above. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

On another note, I've seen via Twitter that Alice Dreger may be putting together a panel of historians of science to thoroughly cover the Hunt affair, so there may be further developments on this story. I think that this affair, like the "Shirtstorm" controversy in Matt Taylor's bio does take up undue weight in the article, but may be a notable enough event in itself to break out into its own article. Another cause of the undue weight issue in this article is that the article was underdeveloped to begin with with regard to adequate coverage of Hunt's scientific work and career, when the controversy broke out, leading to a great deal of material on that issue being added relative to the actual biography length. Once again, "presentism" rears its ugly head. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Following up on this, note that Tim Hunt's Nobel Prize biography is quite extensive, and between that and other publications, there should be plenty here to build an adequate bio around. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Louise Mensch

I'm unsure how to source newspapers in Wikipedia.

Louise Mensch recently wrote in the UK's The Sun saying that Hunt had been fired over a lie https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/625254444150689792 because surfaced audio of the event has the audience laughing after his comments http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4501733.ece Mensch also claims that the comments had been edited to be unkind to Hunt. http://reason.com/archives/2015/07/23/sexist-scientist-tim-hunt-the-real-story/ I don't have access to all of the sources, so I can't write about it.

Do with it what you will.

Willhesucceed (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In terms of sourcing for Louise Mensch's revelations, I think the London Times links I've given in the previous section are best - those unarguably meet the criteria of WP:VERIFIABLE. (One of the links I give is to a Typepad blog, but I give that because it reprints The Times article without the impediment of a paywall.) Albeit, I will note that the Louise Mensch/Natalia Demina-authored article reads a bit like an opinion piece, even though The Times quite clearly puts it under "News". The other story, which quotes the Mensch/Demina piece is unambiguously a news piece.

Louise Mensch's longer Storify is here. [6] I suppose this might constitute a primary source, which cannot be used as a main reference per Wikipedia's "no original research" rules, but I believe is OK to reference alongside a reliable secondary source, such as The Times articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, considering the continued slide of news organisations, half of Wikipedia's current events articles would have to be substantially rewritten if opinion masquerading as news were to be excluded. That's neither here nor there.

I know Wikipedia regularly sources WSJ articles (which are behind a paywall), so that isn't an issue. We just have to be able to verify what the contents of the The Times' article actually are, and I'm sure we can track those down online somewhere. I'll see what I can do about that later.

The whole subsection appears to need rewriting, actually. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Shortened replacement proposal

Noting the removal of an inappropriate post and comments about its inappropriateness. Thread header edited to reflect current contents. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The only way to improve the article is by shortening the topic about the bad joke incident to only the most necessary. And that's what's being discussed here. Hartenhof (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A productive way forward would be to draft a short replacement here and seek consensus to apply the change to the article. --ℕ ℱ 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In June 2015, at a conference in South-Korea for women in science, Hunt made a joke about female students that on social media was considered as utterly sexist and got a lot of media attention. The Royal Society dissociated immediately from his remarks. He had to resign as a honorary professor at University College London and also the European Research Council forced him to step back. He resigned from the Biological Sciences Awards Committee of the Royal Academy as well. Prominents as Boris Johnson and Jonathan Dimbleby stood up for him, just as many female scientists and students. Hunt apologized to the Korean hosts of the conference and to all he might have insulted. He emphasized he had only been joking and requested to consider his remarks in the context of his lecture. A petition to restore his position at UCL, signed by 29 female scientists, was rejected by the administrator, who stated that rehabilitation would send out a wrong signal.

Now it's up to you to find consensus about this and to add the links and references you need. I'll only be watching, since I am only a bystander from abroad. ;-) Hartenhof (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling it a "joke" is not NPOV - it is either WP:OR or a term that presents only Hunt's view of his statements. The tone of the rest of the paragraph is also slanted in Hunt's favor - "had to", "forced him to", etc. - these shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe the report that Hunt's statement were meant as a joke, rather than his sincere views on women in science, is the emerging consensus view. Where there's still a very large area of disagreement is whether his remarks were acceptable even in the context of self-deprecating joke, and how well-received the statements were by the original audience. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this sort of disagreement is why it will be very hard to compress a summary of the whole thing into a size that is proportionate to the rest of the article. However, there are definitely plenty of reliable sources that talk about this incident. Therefore, I think the best approach may be to move the vast majority of content about this incident into a separate article called something like Tim Hunt's remarks about women in science at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists. On this page (his biography) we would just have one or two sentences on the incident and deliberately not try to say whether the remarks were sexist and/or intended to be a joke. We might just say that they were perceived to be sexist and leave the linked-to article to explain the rest.

To me, the question is when to make such a move. If we had done it a few weeks ago, we might have had a lot of inexperienced editors adding new content here that was more appropriate there. But now most of the fuss has died down, it may be appropriate to do the move.

Yaris678 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with creating a spin-off article. The detailed material consisting only of day-to-day news coverage is not appropriate for an encyclopedia in any sort of article. --ℕ ℱ 10:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Only time will tell if the controversy is more than a transient news event: if it comes to stand as a iconic example of unscrupulous agenda-driven journalism, or turning point in resistance to social media outbursts - with similarities to Gamergate - if for instance 'timhunting' becomes a verb. If so then the flux of information is worth recording. Otherwise it will be a footnote in Hunt's career: "Hunt's retirement was precipitated by misrepresentation of a speech.. and hasty social media reaction to reporting.. etc"Cheesusfreak (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific about what makes it inappropriate. Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of different subjects. If your argument is Wikipedia is not a newspaper, you might want to consider the essay "News coverage does not decrease notability." Yaris678 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Section name change

Reading through the "Remarks about women in science" section, wouldn't it be better to change its name to "Controversy"? His speech was taken out of context and is just one huge controversial issue from the backlash to the revelation to it just being in good humor. GamerPro64 03:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The change you propose subtracts clarity rather than adding anything. The word controversy is generally to be avoided in BLP articles as it implies a value judgement that the subject of the article has done something notorious, the wording as it stands is neutral and descriptive of what the section is about. --ℕ ℱ 12:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Controversy implies negativity. I looked into Barack Obama wiki page and could not find a "controversy" section relaying the stupid claims on him being Muslim etc. (I repeat, those seem to be nutty things, but nobody puts it in under "controversy" just because some people said it) Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia preferred style is to avoid Controversy sections. Ashmoo (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 World conference remarks POV

This section suffers from very bad POV. At the moment, 90% of the section is for people supporting him. Most of the sources for people who complained about him remarks come from supporters and are rather dismissive. For example, the "wider reaction" section is completely supportive, which would make a reader of this article wonder how there was a controversy if everyone supported him. The section should not be building a case to "prove" he is sexist, but it should fairly portray both the hostile reaction he received and the reaction from Hunt and his supporters. That said I think the whole section should be reduced, as per UNDUE. Ashmoo (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The content is dictated by the sources, and the articles published in reliable secondary sources were all fairly supportive once the full context of his speech was known. Are there are any reliable sources that you think should be included that are currently missing? Dahliarose (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would echo the comments of Dahliarose - it is a false reading of NPOV to suggest we should always represent both sides of a debate 50/50 regardless of how widespread each view was. The mainstream media seem largely in agreement on this one. Even the Guardian which at first seemed four square behind the criticisms of Hunt later printed an editorial apologising for their inaccurate reporting and jumping on the social media bandwagon. --ℕ ℱ 20:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be adding false balance, but the problem with the article as-is, is that (nearly) all of sources are opinion pieces from Hunt's defenders or interviews with the man himself, but it is never established in the article exactly what he is defending himself against. If the only sources are supporter's opinion pieces, that is fine, but then the text should make it clear that this is the perspective of the supporter, rather than state it as an established fact, as it is now in some cases. I came to this article knowing almost nothing about this controversy, and quite honestly, after the reading the article, all I really learnt it that their are some wikipedia editors that really want the world to know that he was unfairly treated. Ashmoo (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite hard to get a clear picture of what happen, but after some more research, it seems like Connie St Louis might have been the initial or one of the initial "complaintants", if that is the right word. She has articles in both Scientific American and the Guardian. These could be used to get a clearer picture. Ashmoo (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• On the contrary editors have worked hard to remove opinion pieces as sources despite some editors wish to add them indiscriminately. It is not an opinion piece if an independent reliable source from the mainstream media prints a news article reporting that an influential person made a public comment on a current issue - that is one step removed independent coverage of the comment. So for example, when Brian Cox made a comment in interview on BBC Radio, this was widely reported in independent newspapers, which we cite in preference to the original radio show. If nobody had independently reported the content of their comment it wouldn't be worth including. By contrast, the piece by St Louis was exactly an opinion piece, which I found no independent commentary on. Also, it would be quite wrong for us to include details of her opinion piece here without reference to the concerns about her credibility which were widely reported in the press. I don't think that is a direction that anyone wants to take the article in. --ℕ ℱ 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Name

He changed his name to "Tim Hunt" and was already knighted as "Sir Tim" not "Richard Timothy".

Marriage query

He is not really Tama Janowitz's husband, is he? Wikikiwi 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. This Tim Hunt lives in England, not Brooklyn.Sayeth 13:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

He met his wife while directing her studies

I think its important to mention that Dr. Hunt "met his wife, Prof Collins, 56, while directing her biochemistry studies at Cambridge University".[7] Based on his statements afterwords, he was referencing this fact. I think this bit of context is very important to understanding what he meant by his "joke". Unfortunately, User talk:Nonsenseferret has removed my edit. I suspect it is because he doesn't like the source I used, the article The Timothy Hunt Witch Hunt I am fine with changing the source, but I definitely think this information should be included in the article, and in particular in the section "Remarks about women in science". Danski14^(talk) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you mention are appropriate for sourcing a BLP. I really don't think that throwing more irrelevant facts into the already too long section is helping anything. --ℕ ℱ 19:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree -- I think this is an important part of the story, and judging by the amount that has been written on the subject, I don't think the section is necessarily ``too long". I am also not comfortable using DailyMail as a reference for this, and the "Tim Hunt Witch Hunt" piece (while obviously very thoroughly researched) is not NPOV, and I suspect would be removed. If someone could find a better source, that would be appreciated. Based on what I have linked together, it seems he met Mary Collins while she was an undergraduate at Cambridge. I can see why they haven't advertised this fact publically, because faculty-student relationships are frowned upon by society and in many cases go against university policy. Danski14^(talk) 20:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this piece, "He met his wife in the laboratory while she was married to another man". If I find any better refs I'll post them here. Danski14^(talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

ℕ, I usually appreciate your comments, but here I must also respectfully disagree. You invoke WP:BLP in effect against one of its core purposes: to protect living people against defamatory or misleading content. That Hunt's comment referenced his own life has been reported in a number of locations, including by journalist Jonathan Foreman [8]: "This was clearly a reference to the fact that he himself had fallen in love with his wife while they were working together. Hunt later explained in a statement to the Guardian, “I certainly did not mean to demean women but rather be honest about my own shortcomings.” This statement could easily be attributed to Foreman. By failing to note this we create a false context for Hunt's comments and effectively malign him. -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

New interview with Tim Hunt

A new interview with Tim Hunt has recently come to light in which he talked about the Korean affair while at a conference in Hungary. The interview can be found here. The relevant section starts at around 25 minutes. A transcript is available here. I don't think the interview on its own can be used as a source, but it's possible there is coverage in a Hungarian newspaper. Does anyone speak Hungarian? Dahliarose (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Louise Mensch Unfashionista article as a source

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unfashionista_-_Tim_Hunt on the subject of whether this is a suitable source in this context. --ℕ ℱ 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Source for what info? I didn't see anything that could be used to improve this article. I do find the word "appreciate' before applause an odd rating. Women are taught to smile, to pretend they are happy, to such an extent that it changes the shape of their face making it difficult to know exactly what the overall audience was thinking. Could have been relief! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the reference doesn't serve any purpose as the page stands right now. That's not to say its not an important reference, though. According to a widely read piece by Michael Fordman [9], "Hunt’s partial rehabilitation has largely come about thanks to the dogged investigations of Louise Mensch...She did some checking on Twitter and soon found that the two main witnesses for the prosecution contradicted each other. Then she began a more thorough investigation of Hunt’s offending comments and the lack of due process involved in his punishment by various academic and media institutions. The results of her exhaustive research, published on her blog, Unfashionista.com, encouraged an existing groundswell of support for Hunt from scientists around the world but most important from Hunt’s own female colleagues and former students." Danski14^(talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The laughter and ``appreciative applause" seems like an unimportant point, but it is important because it contradicts the widely-reported statement of Connie St. Louis that: "After he’d finished, there was this deathly, deathly silence. Very clearly, nobody was laughing – everybody was stony-faced". Thus the veracity of St Louis's Twitter posts (which were used as primary sources by news agencies, and were part of the Twitter 'firestorm') have been called into question. Danski14^(talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just realized the post in question [10] is more recent than what Fordman was talking about, so ignore my previous comment. The author / blog is important, but not necessarily the post that was referenced. My understanding is that blogs are usually not considered reliable sources on WP in general. Danski14^(talk) 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded the wav recording from the site - I believe WP:NFCC covers a 13 second recording (under 30 seconds) of a speech by a public figure.

The most critical reason for inclusion of that snippet is that, as I believe it to be genuine, it is the only impartially recorded record of some of the remarks made, and some of the reception.

Body worn video is actively promoted by Obama - because objective, independent recordings are difficult to later tamper with. By contrast, Witness testimony is known to be subject to conscious, and unconscious biases.

The recording should be included, because it demonstrates an inability for early media reports to fact-check basic details of the story - or attempt to acquire independently recorded evidence.

I think Unfashionista.com should be referenced for now.-- Callinus (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see the point of your argument, but, and it is a big but, that sort of argument is also used by people trying to create articles to prove the truth of UFOs and other such. All the secondary sources are getting it wrong, look we've got this primary evidence of photographs and recordings and we need to show the truth of the thing. The media have behaved badly in this case, but getting to the truth of the thing is somewhat outside the scope of what wikipedia can be. --ℕ ℱ 01:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources dispute the veracity of UFO photographs (see List of UFO-related hoaxes) - in individual cases as well as the UFO phenomenon (See WP:FRINGE).

Do you have any reliable source disputing the authenticity of this recording? If you can't find any reliable source that disputes the veracity of this recording, then I suggest that it's both authentic, and a clear indictment on press standards of early reports. -- Callinus (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Except, if I may be so bold, you are missing a huge big significant point. Wikipedians never have to question the veracity of recordings, that isn't their job. Such is the job of people engaged in original research, and never the twain shall meet. Encyclopedic writing consists in merely summarising what independent secondary sources say about such evidence, and that's a fundamental distinction that is central to everything that is done here. Some never get it unfortunately. --ℕ ℱ 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"independent secondary sources" - The Guardian admitted that they failed their own journalistic standards. The Times says that early reports were wrong because of a recording. The Times states they are reporting on "a recording that shows his toast was received with appreciative laughter" which demonstrates that early reports on a "silence" had details wrong. The 13 second recording shows the ending remark was met with laughter. Cathy Young states (unpaywalled) that the Times report is the same recording.

On July 18, The Times published a new bombshell: a 12-second recording of the final moments of Hunt’s remarks that Demina had discovered among her materials from the conference and turned over to the newspaper with Mensch’s help.

With The Times and Young both reporting this as factual, it is not OR to report that both sources treat the recording as authentic. With no source disputing the authenticity of the recording, then The Times and Reason should be sufficient.

With The Times and Reason treating the recording as authentic, and no reliable sources disputing the claim, then it is VER that the recording disputes the factual claim that there was "silence" -- Callinus (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The recording was published on The Times website (paywall) in this article. The recording specifically states that it is courtesy of Natalia Demina and should not be reproduced without the permission of The Times. I do not think it should be on Wikipedia as that would be a breach of copyright. The article also states that " A source close to Sir Tim confirmed the authenticity of the file".

"breach of copyright" - a 13 second recording is covered under NFCC - it is less than 30 seconds, which is a common length of non-free samples of public speeches and songs. - WP:NONFREE "Spoken word clips of historical events, such as speeches by public figures, may be used when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the speaker/author." -- Callinus (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by Natalia Demina, the person who made the recording. The length of the recording is irrelevant. Fair use determines that you can use an extract from a recording. That is very different from using a recording in its entirety. Dahliarose (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edits which contest the bias present in this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nonsenseferret has reverted a substantial amount of vital info.

The edit communicates several important points:

1. UCL say they did not force Tim Hunt to resign. They claim he resigned before they could get in touch with him.
2. Journalists present claim that during the lunch break, Tim Hunt said he was being "honest", rather than joking.
3. The Korean women belonging to the scientific federation which hosted the event also said his comments were not a joke, but rather that they were disappointed by old prejudices.
4. The accuracy of the transcript of the speech published in The Times has been disputed by another journalist.

Erasing these points means large sections of the story are not being told.

As to Nonsenseferret's reasons for reverting the edit:

1. Connie St. Louis is a journalist who reported on the event she witnessed. If the anonymous official's account's is included in the article, so can St Louis' disputing that that is what was actually said.
2. While I appreciate that the controversy section is getting rather long, I think it's important to ensure that we write a balanced account which tells the whole story, rather than one that is obviously biased in favour of Hunt. Since prominence is a legitimate issue, you are free to edit in more about his scientific work in other sections. There seems far too little information on that in the article at present. But I hope we can agree that adding to those sections is the approach we should take, rather than erasing vital info which brings balance to the controversy section.

Thank you for reading. Saint91 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I’ve tweaked some wording and added a reference to improve the article as one describing an ongoing controversy that is not yet resolved. As a side issue, I was surprised to see that there is no Wikipedia article about Connie St. Louis, given her high media profile. For this controversy (if for no other reason) she deserves her own bio page. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nonsenseferret, I can’t see why you don’t count the Daily Mail as a legitimate source – it is a national newspaper and it published an article that added to the debate. And the reason why I added 'reported to have said' is because, as far as I know, there is no audio recording of what he actually said, and therefore the debate revolves around what he and others, including crucially Connie St. Louis, reported that he said. (I know that when giving talks, even from a written script, that it is easy to deviate by a few words from what is intended, such that what is actually said on the day can be subtly different. How do you be sure that this is not the case in this instance?) Wally Tharg (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail doesn't have a widespread reputation for factual accuracy and shouldn't be used as a source for contentious information on BLPs. As I understand it those words weren't the ones disputed by anyone. If they were we should make it clearer than using weasely words like "reported that". We don't have to be sure, we just go on what the reliable sources say. I disagree that St Louis meets any of the notability guidelines for inclusion here, there really hasn't been significant coverage about the details of her life or academic contributions such as would establish WP:GNG (and see also WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BLP1E). --ℕ ℱ 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your justification and explanation. I agree that the Daily Mail isn’t the most rigorous source – hopefully a more reliable discussion will appear in a quality publication sometime soon (but I’m not betting on that being The Guardian!). Perhaps we should wage a campaign (or design a bot) to purge Wikipedia more generally of references to articles in the Mail about living persons, or any other topic come to that, if we think it’s that unreliable. (Consistency is important.) As for Ms. St. Louis’ notability, I struggle with this in general. She has contributed on Radio 4 (a reliable source?), where even the continuity announcers get Wikipedia pages without question. The notability bar for authors and academics in general seems to have been set a lot higher than it is for sportspeople, for example. (Will review if and when she gets a chair.) The reason I thought it informative to mention St. Louis in this context is that she seems to be one of the major protagonists in the public downfall of a notable person, just as it might be to mention Gavrilo Princip (otherwise a nonentity) in an article about Archduke Ferdinand ... ;--) Wally Tharg (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just one small point re Gavrilo Princip - I think the thing that makes his case very different to St Louis is the depth of coverage and attention to his biographical details, such as shown at Serbia: Belgrade's monument to Franz Ferdinand assassin. He isn't notable to wikipedia because of what he did, or because Belgrade gave him a monument, but because many reliable sources think him important enough to devote a lot of attention to his biography. --ℕ ℱ 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I also made some formatting edits and Nonsenseferret reverted them wholesale, claiming they were spin. Firstly, I would remind Nonsense of WP:GOODFAITH. And I am genuinely surprised by their characterisation of the edits, since I made no content changes, but just put similar statements together and converted long quotes into summaries. A paragraph break was also reverted. I am at a loss as to how that is considered "spin". My only aim was to reduce the repetition in the article, and get the size of the section down a bit (as many editors have recommended on this talk page), since it seems to unduly focus on one week in the life of this man who is notable for many other things. I'll re-do the changes one by one, and hopefully we can address the issues separately. Ashmoo (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

nonsenseferret, I see you again did a wholesale revert of my edits. My intention after your original mass revert was to make the changes one by one to see exactly what the problem was. I see your point about the word "colleagues" (although I don't necessarily agree). But I see you also reverted the small formatting change. I would like to discuss the changes on this talk page. I am not seeking to insert any particular point of view into the article, but just to reduce and clarify a lot of the text which has repetition and unneeded verbiage. Ashmoo (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

happy to discuss, if you want to propose new edits the best way would be to create a new section at the end of this page as it is clearly a new topic and will help others get involved. If you make changes which are reverted, then it isn't ok to just start remaking the changes, the revert is an invitation to discuss not edit war. The selective removal of material is likely to be controversial since most of it is either supportive or critical. I think a condensed version could be written as was suggested on this page below, but I think it would be much better to draft it and get other editors to look at it on this page first. --ℕ ℱ 11:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I restarted editing them one at a time thinking my second attempt was the less controversial edits. I was trying to be obtuse or edit war. Anyway, I've added a new section to the bottom to resolve these proposed changes. Ashmoo (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Controversy section proposed changes

I see the section on the controversy is starting to expand again. Here are some proposed changes to consolidate a few of the separate facts and make the section more of a summary of what happened and less of random facts aimed at hinting towards a conclusion.

First, there are 2 paras that basically say both Brian Cox/Paul Nurse, thought that Hunt's comments were ill-considered but the reaction was extreme. I don't see anything unique in either that they should both be spelled out in full and propose this merging:

Physicist and broadcaster Brian Cox, and Paul Nurse, head of the Royal Society who shared the 2001 Nobel prize in medicine with Hunt, both criticised Hunt's comments, while also stating that the response was disproportionate.

Further down there is this paragraph:

In a letter to The Times a group of 29 staff scientists, students and postdoctoral fellows, both male and female, who had worked with Tim Hunt, wrote in support of his character. They described how his help had been "instrumental in the advancement of many other women and men in science beyond those in his own lab" and how he had "actively encouraged an interest in science in schoolchildren and young scientists, arranging for work experience and summer students of both genders to get their first taste of research in his lab." They urged the ERC and UCL to "reconsider their rush to judgment".

Firstly "staff scientists, students and postdoctoral fellows, both male and female, who had worked with Tim Hunt," just means "male and female colleagues and students" doesn't it? The extra details seem needless and you really have to read it twice to figure out that it just means that. And I think the quote should be changed to a summary as the quote doesn't really add anything except a bit of color, which isn't really needed given the messy state of this section in general.

In a letter to The Times a group of 29 of Hunt's colleagues and students, both male and female wrote in support of his character. They described how his help had been instrumental in the advancement of many other women and men in science and how he had arranged work experience for students of both genders. They urged the ERC and UCL to reconsider.

Ashmoo (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone thought it very important to add Paul Nurses' comments when they seemed to be only critical. When it turns out they were more supportive now it seems someone wants them removed? I really don't think the length of this section is a problem, so cutting bits out really achieves little. What would be helpful is to have more detail added to the scientific discoveries that Hunt has made, after all, if it was worth a Nobel prize then this is something that really deserves a bit more substance. --ℕ ℱ 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand your first statement. Am I supposed to defend or support this other unnamed editor? Leaving aside the arguments about the overall length of the section, I'm not proposing to cut things out, but just to merge parts that basically say the same thing. Merging them will add clarity, in the example of switching the whole sentence which just says 'colleagues and students'. Ashmoo (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also a letter from Paul Nurse in the Telegraph on 12th July in which he clarifies that he did not think that Hunt should have lost his position at UCL (Nurse was misreported in The Telegraph the previous day). Should this reference be included? I agree that the priority is to include more content about Hunt's career rather than this single event in his life.Dahliarose (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The article already says that Nurse felt he shouldn't have been sacked and provides a cite. Do you feel that isn't enough? Ashmoo (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tim Hunt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated start class for the following reasons: No photograph Lacks inline references Some information on research interests, but could be expanded and references required Lacks appropriate subheadings and paragraphing, reorganisation useful External links present which could be used to expand article Espresso Addict 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)