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)

Tim Hunt Controversy (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It occurred to me that the link to the "Tim Hunt controversy" section wasn't very informative. (It didn't make clear that there's a whole article on the details.) So I've added a section heading and a "see also" link. I hope that addresses some of these concerns.--Thomas B (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)