Talk:Tim Hunt

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed new version of the controversy section

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

I have two possibly helpful suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Source on the Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotations from the book that would support not expanding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: 2015 remarks

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

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

Responses

• Support inclustion of full quotation and 2A or 2C. I think that including the full quotation gives greater context as to the controversy surrounding his comments. I think also that the primary framing as "online shaming" is WP:UNDUE given the coverage surrounding the issue. The "online shaming" angle seems prominent enough that it could be mentioned, but I'm non-committal about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• The version currently in the article is cryptic almost to the point of absurdity, and clearly violates WP:NPOV by presenting one side of a controversial situation in wikivoice while relegating the other point of view to a "misinterpretation". Including the fuller context, including enough of a quote to understand what it's about, is certainly necessary. So put me down as supporting inclusion (in answer to 1). The meaning of question 2 is not entirely clear to me (see my comment below). --JBL (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Full quote & 2C. I think the full quote is necessary both to understand what he's accused of having said, and also his defenses to those accusations. Partial quotes eliminate either important parts of the remarks allegedly considered sexist or his followup remarks that support his defense that the allegedly sexist comments were intended as a joke.

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Elinruby has made a telling remark above. "I've had a look at the BLP now and see that there is plenty else to say about the man, but if you wouldn't want your daughter working for him that seems kind of important too." That is, the explanded version that is now being considered implies that Hunt is not the sort of person you'd want people you love to work for. That is exactly the impression that I am keen to avoid since that is not an image of the man that the balance of the evidence suggests. In fact, the opposite is true (see Fiona Fox's account[8] above.) Thomas B (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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