Talk:Tim Hunt

---

Someone asked me to post this

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

I am aware of that article. I think the main thing we learn from it is that several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the comments. Arguably, that should be added to our article.

We also learn that Connie St Lewis didn't deserve the spite that was directed towards her. I don't think our article says anything that suggests she did, so no change needed there.

We also learn that Louise Mensche's blog should be treated as biased... something that most editors of this article were probably also aware of. Interestingly, the only blog post of hers that we cite is one that says there was no transcript... but we still say that the words were "transcribed". Mensch's point that there was no actual transcript is confirmed by the fact that the recording disagrees with the text that has been described as a transcript, so I don't think we can disagree with Mensch on that point.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I note that no-one else has commented on the Medium article that Jimbo has posted. Would anyone object to me adding "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments", citing that article? Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

here is something else. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess that allows us to postulate as to why Jimbo pasted the Medium link. Maybe he was feeling guilty about re-tweeting Mensche's accusation of bias and wanted to post a link to a page that criticises Mensche. Maybe someone gave him a roasting for the re-tweet and said "look how biased Mensche is!" with a link to the Medium article, and Jimmy couldn't be bothered reading the (very long) article and thought it would be a good idea to post a link to it here so that other Wikimedians can have a look at it and work out for themselves if they want to do something with it.

We don't really know, and it doesn't matter too much. I think the important thing is to work out what we can reliably take from each source. I don't think we can take the first line "The campaign to exonerate Tim Hunt for his sexist remarks in Seoul is built on myths, misinformation, and spin." because the reporting below doesn't support such a strong assertion. However, it does support the three things I mentioned above. One of those things is "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" and that point is much more suitable to be content in the article than the other two points, so I think it is worth putting that point in the article.

Is there something else that you want us to take from the Hilda Bastian blog?

Yaris678 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No it's a blog and we shouldn't use it on a BLP. I just wanted to inform our discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• the stuff emphasizing the laughter is POV spin in postgame bullshitting. We don't need to comment on that one way or the other in this section. Perhaps in the aftermath section where the it-was-a-harmless-joke camp argues that there was lots of laughter, juxtaposed with content from the Medium source. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that making too much of the laughter, when the recording is very brief, would be to fall for the spin of one side. That's why in this diff you can see that I have edited the text to remove the spin. The laughter is there in the recording and we should mention it, but we should also not make more of it than there is. Yaris678 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the description of the laughter of again, to really emphasise how brief the recording is. Does that help to alleviate your concerns? Yaris678 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is that Medium article reliable?

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

That was asserted there, but I think a blanket "not a reliable source for a BLP" is too strong a statement. I think we can trust the quotations and description of the events which are taken from people who were there, unless they are contested by more reliable sources. I think we shouldn't trust the conclusions drawn like "The campaign to exonerate Tim Hunt for his sexist remarks in Seoul is built on myths, misinformation, and spin." - a self-published source does not have the degree of editorial control to be used to support such a statement in the article. Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dan here, co-author of the Medium article discussed. I'd say it was reliable :) But I had a chat a few weeks ago with nonsenseferret on his talk page (after I learned that Mr Wales had posted this comment) where he kindly explained I shouldn't directly edit as a participant in all this, which I had no intention of doing really, and also explained why a medium like Medium was not deemed a reliable source. I go along with that, with reservations, but of course it must apply to all blogs/self-published sources like Louise Mensch's blog, cited here, and Cathy Young's Reason article, also cited here. If Reason is a source then Byline should be too, where a summary of our article was published. I'd also ask you to look at our article and the links we give to those who were present at the toast and wrote or spoke about it at the time.

I have a few issues with the page as it stands. I'll post a couple of observations on the 'Controversy over Lunchtime Toast...' part of the page if that's ok, and you can do as you wish with the info. I apologise in advance if others appear to disagree, but I don't think what I point out is too controversial. And hopefully, most of this involves deleting and removing text rather than adding to a section that I appreciate some feel is already too long.

1. The Toast - (on a minor point, it wasn't a lunch for 'female journalists and scientists'. It was a lunch sponsored by an organisation named KOFWST (Korea Federation of Women's Science & Technology Associations) and attended by a mixed group of scientists and mainly journalists.) Major point - the speech was not 'transcribed' by anyone. It currently says it was. This about the only thing Mensch and I agree on. The 'unnamed EU official' you mention was an ERC press officer named Marcin Monko who was sent to Seoul to accompany Hunt. He wrote this quoted recollection in a report one week later. The ERC have told me it was not a transcript and not supposed to be treated as verbatim.

2. Public reaction - 'A member of the audience...' Connie St Louis tweeted after consulting and checking with two other journalists, Deborah Blum (who has a Wiki page to link to) and Ivan Oransky (founder of Retraction Watch, which has a Wiki page). I think this section needs to name them as all other 'reliable' reports do. Re 'These comments without context were widely re-tweeted, but not until a day later, on 9 June.' What is the source for stating they weren't widely re-tweeted until June 9th? Also, CSL's tweet does have some context. It's not true to suggest it's entirely devoid of it.

'Hunt felt he had made it clear he was joking because he had included the phrase ‘now seriously’ in his statement.[39] The reconstruction of his words by an unnamed EU official corroborated the inclusion of these words.[40]'

There is good evidence Hunt only claimed he said 'Now seriously' after he had been told about the report and its contents, so any corroboration could be the other way around (Again why not name the press officer who wrote the report and his role at the ERC? No one denies it was him.) But I reaslise that would in dispute so don't expect it to be included her. I know the 'Now seriously' discussion is considered by some as boring, nevertheless it is highly disputed and that *should* at least be mentioned here. A number of those present at the toast vehemently deny he said it and have gone on the record to say so. See our piece. But also Connie St Louis here ('Hunt now claims he added the words “now seriously” before going on to praise the role of women in science and in Korean society....He did not say this...' http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/stop-defending-tim-hunt-brian-cox-richard-dawkins)

'Two days later, 10 June, Hunt gave an interview to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, in which he apologised and described his comments as "light hearted ironic remarks". Hunt also stated that he "did mean the part about having trouble with girls," characterising falling in love in the laboratory as "very disruptive to the science," and clarified that his comments on women in labs crying when criticised had the background that it was important in science to be able to criticise idea without criticising people – while if somebody "burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth."[34] Hunt went on to say "I'm very sorry if people took offence. I certainly did not mean to demean women, but rather be honest about my own shortcomings."[29][35]'

The last sentence was not taken from his BBC Today interview, but an email he sent to The Guardian before he boarded a plane back to the UK. Fine to include that as it's reported in The Guardian but at the moment it reads like he said it during his interview, which he didn't. What Hunt went on to say in the BBC Radio 4 Today interview was ' I just meant to be honest, actually.' This par also omits quite a critical statement from Hunt, in light of the furore that followed, that his words had been 'quite accurately reported.' He had been sent a copy of The Times front page, which quoted St Louis's tweeted version of his toast, before his interview and was referring to that.

Might it be better to replace the above par with the transcript (really this time) of what was aired on Today at 8.21am, or an edited version of it, rather than an editorialised version, so people can make up their own mind?

'This was a lunch for women journalists and particularly women scientists and engineers, actually. And I was asked, at short notice, to say a few words afterwards. And I thought it was ironic that I came after three women, who very nicely thanked the organisers for the lunch. And I said it was odd that they — they’d asked a man to make any comments. And I’m really sorry that I said what I said — it was a very stupid thing to do, in the presence of all those journalists. And what was intended as a sort of light-hearted, ironic comment apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience. But what I said was quite accurately reported.

'It’s terribly important that you, um, can criticise people’s ideas without criticising them. And if they burst into tears, it means that you tend to hold back from, you know, getting at the absolute truth — I mean, what — science is about nothing except getting at the truth. And anything that gets in the way of that diminishes, in my experience, the science. I mean, I’m really, really sorry that I caused any offence — that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean — I just meant to be honest, actually.'

3 - Resignation and reappointments. What are the sources for 'An EC politician called Sir Tim, and demanded he resign his ERC post. Internal ERC documents show deep unhappiness within the scientific council at this interference.' This is pretty contentious (to say the least) and both statements need a source. It's probably only fair to say 'Hunt resigned from the ERC's Scientific Council'. Everything else is disputed. Ditto the UCL resignation but as Mary Collins went on the record to say he was asked to resign I can see why that's included. But while the decision by the UCL executive to accept his resignation was taken without consulting the Council, it's only fair to add the quote from the Council after it met on July 9th: 'Council unanimously supports the decision taken by UCL’s executive to accept the resignation' https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0715/090715-ucl-council-statement

Finally, I endorse Yaris678's suggestion to include: "We also learn that Connie St Louis didn't deserve the spite that was directed towards her".

Danwadd (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

I have a few points to make.

1. I know this will seem odd, but if you abbreviate "Wikipedia" to "Wiki" you will annoy some people. There are lots of wikis out there.
2. I agree with nonsenseferret that it wouldn't be a good move for you to edit the article. This is especially true if you start citing your own work, but you can get into grey areas if you edit it at all, so it is easier to just stay away from the article itself.
3. I also agree with nonsenseferret that it is totally OK for you to contribute here, on the talk page.
4. Even on the talk page, it is easier if everyone sticks to the facts. For example, I would say "Connie St Lewis has said that Hunt didn't say 'now seriously'" I wouldn't say "Hunt didn't say 'now seriously'".
5. On that specific point, I have argued before that "Whether or not Hunt said 'now seriously' is a bit of a boring detail. Especially boring since we don't know for sure that he did, given that there is no genuine transcript and the recording of the incident starts after the point where the approximate reconstruction has him saying it." i.e. I think we shouldn't state in the article that he did or didn't say it. The article is perfectly OK if it is silent on that point.
6. Where I disagree with nonsenseferret (and KateWishing) is their belief that self-published sources should not be used for anything on a BLP. If we look at WP:SPS is says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." nonsenseferret and KateWishing appear to believe that if information appears in a BLP, it is about a living person. The argument is that if it isn't about a living person, it shouldn't be in the article. I don't think it is that simple. For example, is the statement "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" about Tim Hunt, or is it about how a talk Tim Hunt gave was received? Obviously, you could say it is about both. But is is not as clearly about Tim Hunt as a statement like "Tim Hunt told a sexist 'joke'." or "Tim Hunt has been maligned."
7. Wherever you draw the line, you have to admit that a statement like "there is no transcript of the talk" is even less about Tim Hunt than "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments". So it is a reasonable choice to cite Unfashionita for "there is no transcript of the talk", but refuse to allow Medium for "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments". The strange thing about the article as it currently stands is that it doesn't say "there is no transcript of the talk" - it says "Hunt's impromptu speech was transcribed by an unnamed EU official" and cites three sources, including that Unfashionita article! This is obviously wrong, so I hope that will change.
8. I would also argue that the statement "Connie St Louis (a journalism lecturer at City University London) discussed her concerns about the toast with two other journalists present. It was decided that she should tweet her recollection of parts of this speech." is also less about Hunt than "several people present recall not laughing or applauding, because they were appalled by the the comments" is. So, arguably, it would be OK to cite your Medium article for that.
9. The discussions about what can be cited to your Medium article may be moot. In your last post at User talk:Nonsenseferret#Tim Hunt you link to an article you wrote for Byline, which summarises your points. I think Byline may not count as self published. Their manifesto says "Though we accept absolute truth isn’t reachable, aspiring to accuracy is still important. You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts. We aim to be an evidence-based site – though one always open to new evidence. Though we don’t editorialise, we believe sustained relationships with a variety of journalists will create a healthy equilibrium of fact-checking and debate." Of course, this is just what they say. Maybe we should post to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, asking for an opinion. Perhaps the Byline article can be cited. I would still draw a distinction between things that are fact (which can be cited in Wikipedia's voice, if relevant) and things which are your opinion (which are much less likely to be relevant, but if they are relevant should not be cited in Wikipedia's voice. e.g. we could say "Paula Higgins and Dan Waddell have stated that...")

Yaris678 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Yaris - noted most of that (including the 'Wiki' bit :)) What you say makes much sense, including remaining silent on 'Now seriously' etc.

As for Byline, it's been in the news a bit re the Whittingdale story in the UK. Just to clarify from personal experience - posts are published by the authors, but there is often editorial discussion before publishing, including legal matters, approach etc. They don't just let any old person post either - you have to approach, outline the story, before being granted access. Whether that helps, I don't know.

Danwadd (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Outsider here: As far as I know, anyone can publish on Medium, which makes it self-published. Using Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_about_living_people, since the relevant details of the article aren't about the author, this shouldn't be used as a Wikipedia source, in my opinion. From the discussion above, Byline seems like it has an editorial structure, but I'm not sure it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. From briefly looking into them on Google, I guess they do, so I'd say Byline is fine as a source for this. Unfashionista seems like a personal blog, so I wouldn't use that as a reliable source (since it's also about a living person). Empamazing (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So we are clear on what you are saying: Is your opinion that the statement "there is no transcript, but the words were approximately reconstructed" is about a living person? Or is your opinion that the nature of the statement is irrelevant and the important thing is that that it appears in an article about a living person? Yaris678 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the latest is re including detail from our Byline piece, but I have just noticed that someone has slipped in a link to Mensch's Medium piece (the Trish Greenhalgh reference). Given what's been said about using Medium as a source...Danwadd (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The editors of this page might find these two links useful. Danwadd (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

It is incredible!

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

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