Talk:Tim Hunt

message: In June 2015, a toast made by Hunt at a conference for women in science attracted criticism, with many arguing that his comments were misogynistic. Hunt said:
Hunt apologized for his comments, which he called "jocular" and "ironic", though "inexcusable". The controversy led to an online shaming campaign, Hunt's resignation from several key research and policy positions (including the European Research Council), and a temporary withdrawal from public life and professional activities.
::::: Loki (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe too fast a scan, ok, three out of the four have "public shaming" in their title and presumably are about shaming; do they all mention Hunt? I suggest moving the two that best support that Hunt was shamed to follow "online shaming" in the text. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already pointed out this edit is incorrect, what was denounced as sexist and misogynistic was Connie St Louis' claims of what he said, rather than what he actually said.  You're implying it was his actual remarks that were denounced.  In fact, when the full facts emerged the prevailing consensus was that people had rushed to judgement but by then he'd been forced to resign by UCL and sacked by ERC. WCMemail 09:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Somewhere around here WCM and Thomas were claiming... something... about the ERC not being a government entity, with some sort of swipe at  as a topping. Could someone explain that to me nice and slow? Thanks. I need to go work on some other stuff now. I'll be back. Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked what the source of this quotation was and got vague and incoherent replies.  First it was a "government" transcript, such a vague reply I took to mean the South Korean Government, the second reply mentioned the Independent.  Thomas guessed it was the leaked ERC transcript, whose accuracy is disputed.  He still hasn't named the source.  Now this is an example of unhelpful behaviour which is both childish and completely unnecessary, so could you please stop it. WCMemail 09:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice to all is to let the RfC run to conclusion, then the consensus that emerges can be implemented and everybody can move on. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They locked they article so the argument could get worked out on the talk page versus edit summaries. I don't think the admin who did that quite realized the level of IDHT that is in play here but I think we are supposed to at least try. That doesn't mean we can't do other things also. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a great page-protect in my view, but the RfC is at least a way forward which is somewhat immune from any 'flood the zone' tactic. Bon courage (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had 39 notifications about this page this morning. I see the ugliness has also escalated Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that my question is apparently "childish", eyeroll. So, , please check me on this, since collegiality is apparently difficult for some. It is not the case that they don't realize that the ERC is part of a government, which is what boggled *my* mind; they dispute that the ERC transcript is where the quote came from? Do I have that right now? Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Research Council 

message: Just a suggestion for the people who think the section should be expanded. There are four days until the page is unprotected. Why not start working on it in a H:SANDBOX? I promise to stay away and let you work it out among yourselves. You may as well get a proposal into shape that you think can pass muster. Thomas B (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already broken that promise many times Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox? 

message: With additions in bold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: New version (as proposed by Hemiauchenia)

message: And for completeness the otherslightly earlier2019 journal source is
*
It says
and
Again, I suggest this is golden sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing golden about it, its Karen Adkins' opinion.  Flawed in that it is based on many presumptions and it ignores the fact that Connie St Louis' account was not accurate. You seem incapable of separating WP:FACT from WP:OPINION. WCMemail 09:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see: we have peer-reviewed scholarship on one hand, and the opinions of a Wikipedia editor on the other. Which is Wikipedia going to follow? Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, do you think you could stop the childish jibes please. WP:BIASED clearly comes in to play here, Hypatia may be a peer reviewed journal but it very much does have a position and a stance.  NPOV is achieved by reflecting the range of opinion in the literature and not giving undue prominence to biased sources.  You seem to think these two articles should definitely define content.  You are wrong. WCMemail 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Continually asserting you are right without any evidence is not going to be a winning argument. NPOV is not a negotiable policy and guides us to lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES to achieve the neutrality we must have. Editors are discussing those sources and consensus is forming. Any more golden sources would of course be welcome! Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypatia

message: Another source:
* 
which is yet another source for the Hunt words as reported, but is mostly an analysis of the social media/traditional media response. It does have the tidbit the Boris Johnson was mixed up in the "reinstate Tim Hunt" campaign. Bon courage (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A source for the remarks of Connie St Louis, not for the actual remarks of Tim Hunt.  There is a difference. La plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. WCMemail 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the intent of question 1 of the RfC, to demonstrate what sparked the controversy, or to represent, as best we can what was actually said at the luncheon? I think this change in language on the talk page from "full quote" to "words as reported" is great: "Quotes are sacrosanct". I like this source so far (hard slogging with the language tho), rather than the two "shaming" papers i prefer this media response/journalism look, but of course with all three the author's intent differs from that of this article, biography of Hunt. fiveby(zero) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "words as reported" or "according to one account" (as Billingham & Parr say) is the form of wording to go for, since the precise words seem to be Rashomon-like in nature. There appears to be no dispute between these three sources about what happened, but they all have their different takes: Billingham & Parr seem to think the response disproportionate for example, Adkins seems to think Hunt got his dues, Andrianasolo takes a more analytic view. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I should stay out of these kind of content issues and stick to bibliographic-type tasks. If reading biography outside of WP and saw for instance a citation here to the first paper, a couple of philosophers arguing the morality of public shaming i would throw the work in the trash. What the hell, where are the citations to the primary sources? I think you are absolutely correct though for WP (i'm just not going to be very happy as a reader with the result) Anyway, i think this one is probably the best of the three, but not as useful a citation for readers being in French. fiveby(zero) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  « ''Laissez-moi vous parler de mes problèmes avec les filles'' &hellip; » 

message: Philippe Rochat considers that Hunt fell into an indulgent "amalgam trap", in
*
Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippe Rochat 

message: My view is still that this event should be covered as briefly as it is in the current version. The reason is that the only detailed and fair account would look more like:
:In June 2015, while attending the World Conference of Science Journalists as a keynote speaker, in Seoul, South Korea, Hunt was asked to give an impromptu toast at a luncheon celebrating Korean women scientists. Three journalists in attendance immediately decided to “call out” what they perceived as the sexism of his remarks. On Twitter, they reported that he had presented himself as a renowned "male chauvinist" who had “trouble with girls” and that he had suggested that men and women should work in seperate labs. An online shaming campaign of the “sexist scientist” who found women in the lab “distractingly sexy” began, and he was quickly forced to resign from positions at UCL and ERC, and withdraw from public life.
:It later became clear that his remarks had been ironic and that his aim with the toast had been to praise, not belittle, women in science, while drawing attention to familiar foibles of human beings, scientists included. Far from being known as a "misogynist” with “Victoriaran” attitudes, as had been originally reported, Hunt had a well-established reputation among his colleagues and students as a suporter of women in science and, throughout a career spanning half a century, had never been accused of any wrongdoing.
:Despite this, the controversy persisted for many months, until he moved to Japan when his wife, fellow scientist Mary Collins, was offered a position there. Even today, however, many people, remembering only the early days of the controversy, associate the episode with endemic sexism in science. Those who are familiar with the whole story are more likely to view it as as cautionary tale of the dangers of online social shaming.
Like I say, I'm not seriously proposing this, because it feels like a completely inappropriate apologia for Hunt in his own bio. What is being proposed above, however, is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of him, rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him. Thomas B (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: Some people have taken the last remark as impugning the motives of editors who are proposing to include contested details about the incident, without taking a position on who was right (and who was wronged) but just presenting both sides. I want to emphasize that I'm talking about how this section will appear to the reader, especially one who is familiar with the events. Unless we explicitly defend him, it will seem like the reason for including all this is just to immortalize an embarrassing thing that happened to him because someone didn't share his sense of humor. If anyone takes my remark about the "appearant reason" personally, this is a misunderstanding of my intention with it.--Thomas B (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

text: If you felt the need to say  and to note that what you wrote , then I don't see how posting this here is going to move the discussion forward anyhow. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why I didn't put it in the disucssion. I'm trying to illustrate a problem. My serious counterproposal is the status quo: two sentences that neither defend nor attack Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterproposal 

message: Above the question was asked if there was a source for the "apology" demand & response from the KOFWST. The answer it, it's still available on the KOFWST web site. Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, and good source. Loki (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I've added this to the more extensive version on the online shaming article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea Federation of Women’s Science & Technology Associations (KOFWST) 

message: I see the result of the RFC have been implemented, without taking on board the remarks of the closer relating to WP:PROPORTION
There a number of problems with the simple edit.
The controversy was an example of a social media firestorm started by tweets from Connie St Louis, there are a number of points to that controversy.  What was interpreted as sexist was not so much the speech itself but the way the speech was reported by Connie St Louis and included claims that were untrue and took remarks out of context.  Untrue claims included that he'd advocated single sex labs, thanked the women for making lunch and that the speech was met with a stony silence.  Out of context was the remarks were intended as a self-deprecating joke by a socially awkward and less than worldly individual.
It makes no mention that the social media controversy was engineered in part by 3 people acting together or that from the outset other journalists present denounced the narrative as false.
It makes no mention that even after her narrative was exposed as giving a false picture Connie St Louis simply perpetuated with her claims even after the leak.
It makes no mention of the division in the outrage between those who knew Hunt and were aware he'd always been an advocate for women in science and those who simply went with the social media.
And finally makes no mention there was no transcript and what is widely reported as a quote was written two weeks later based solely on the memory of an official, it is known to include several errors and Connie St Louis herself claims it is wrong.
Finally, and I realise this may be a presumption of bad faith on my part but to balance this expanded section will require an expansion of the article.  Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having "won" and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.  WCMemail 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the absurd addition of a POV tag: such tags can be removed as the result of consensus in an appropriate discussion, and the relevant discussion is the RfC that was just closed. --JBL (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

text: If anything, we might tag the §Discovery of cyclins, since the close indicates that it's underweighted compared to other aspects of Hunt's biography. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to expanding the discovery of cyclins. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I've provided a decent summary of the experimental procedure and the work that Hunt was directly involved with. Further expansion would likely requre discussion of the broader context of the state of cell-cycle research in the 1970s-1980s, but I worry that's getting off-topic for Hunt's biography. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've replaced this version with 's which is a much better starting point. I would have removed the last two sentences of 's version because the content was not supported by the sources. fiveby(zero) 14:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree they weren't supported by the sources (the same content is present in the current version, in fact), but I agree the current version is better. Loki (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that the so-called quote is the recollection of an official created two weeks later.  It was never officially released and there is no official transcript of what was said.  If you insist on having a "quote" you have to put it into context. WCMemail 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Hi everyone. The RfC close recommended expanding the non-controversy parts of the article. Here are some sources that might help:
# A 2022 article in Cells with additional info on Hunt's early cyclin work. It's in an MDPI journal, which some are suspicious of, but this one seems ok to me.
# A 2024 article in Nucleic Acids Research with a little bit on Hunt's definition of Short linear motifs. This aspect of his career is not covered in this article at all, and that other article probably has content that could be summarized here.
# A 2010 article, including interview material, in the Daily Telegraph. Some biographical detail on his work just before retiring from Cancer Research UK. Also available via The Wikipedia Library
 Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've incorporated the first two sources. I couldn't find much in the telegraph article that was was worth citing, though others may disagree. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The only source I've found that discusses Hunt's career in any real detail is his Nobel prize autobiography , though I am unsure of how appropriate it is to lean on as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for expansion 

message: I see my edits concerning neutrality have been reverted.  The stated objection:
Indeed, KOFWST after the media furore did ask Tim Hunt to apologise, feel free to add that as a result of the social media furore that was the case.  However, the fact remains at the time, confirmed by the same anonymous EU official whose quotation is so vital, also confirmed that the speech was well received. They were in fact so pleased with the speech, they asked him to speak again later that evening.  
The suggestion that because they later asked him to apologise after the social media frenzy doesn't change that and to remove it doesn't reflect a neutral tone.  Nor does the text restored offer the full narrative of the social media outrage, because it wasn't just the speech as reported but the untrue embellishments as well. WCMemail 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Recording ‘shows Sir Tim was  joking’, can't force editors to read sources, and "can't fix stupid", which is the best way to characterize content determined by conflict, ANI, and RfC. fiveby(zero) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech Reception 

message: needs to be translated into numbers of patients. And some assessment of impact of the other drugs and conditions involved. And this is just cancers.
Can we pllease stop talking about the speech now?
Thanx Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really confusingly formatted and I don't understand your point here. Cyclins are fundamental how the cell division of all non-bacteria life works, the fact that some people have found uses for targeting them to fight cancer is unsuprising but does not seem relevant to Hunt's biography unless he was specifically involved in the research. It would be like including  mitochondrial replacement therapy on Albert von Kölliker's bio because he discovered the mitochondrion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I grant you the formatting. But see, your analogy may be apt but it is lost on me. You can't have the car without the wheel. That is probably too expansive an analogy but you can't understand cyclin dependent kinases if you don't understand cyclins. Or can you? As you say the connection is unsurprising once you see it, but speaking as the non-scirntist in the conversation, "cell replication cycle" sounded important but abstract to me initially. Rather like the ozone layer or the big bang. Certainly did not say "healing" or "years of life extension for millions of cancer patients". And yes, I realize that that's the leap that is OR and that needs a journal cite. We just need something less specific than these. Or have I just eaten one too many rice cakes? I realize you have biology background so you tell me.Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know this is OR; would someone with the  right vocabulary please source it, because it is far more important than a speech ten years ago 

message: I invite a rewrite if the excerpt is felt to be excessive. I feel the speech is rather excessive actually. But given a few specifics as to what exactly about cyclin is deemed off-topic to the bio of its discoverer, perhaps I can trim off, for example, the list of anti-cancer drugs that it made possible. Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: revert of importance of cyclin