Talk:Tim Hunt

---

RfC: 2015 remarks

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

---

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". For this reason, versions close to the example of 2B are totally unacceptable. Including the fuller context is certainly necessary. One way of accomplishing that is including enough of the quote to understand what the discussion is actually about. So put me down as broadly supporting inclusion, along the lines of either 2A or 2C. I also endorse Elemimele's comment below. --JBL (talk) rewritten on 18:08, 6 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)

• Full quotation (per EU minutes in DOI:10.1111/ejop.12543) or the excepts in the KOFWST statement) and then 2A or (2nd choice) 2C for neutrality in line with the sources. Not sure why this RfC is needed when consensus was plain anyway. Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC); amended 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I often find opening RFCs makes the consensus crystal clear to outside observers, and removes any wriggle room for editors with minority views trying to assert that there is "no consensus". Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC), 11:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2A; I have no strong feelings about whether there should be a full quote. I'll clarify in discussion below. Elemimele (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 2A I am also perplexed after reviewing the discussions above why this RFC was started. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  It was started because one user has been aggressively filibustering and spreading discussion across multiple fora. An RfC serves to centralize discussion and limit the extent to which one user can wear everyone else down. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? I'm going to assume you mean me. The only forum I've taken this biography of a living person to is WP:BLPN. Thomas B (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies; to clarify/correct, the discussion has been spread (by you and others) across multiple fora, and you have been aggressively filibustering (in those multiple fora). --JBL (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. We'll see how it ends up. I think many of the changes being proposed are unkind to Tim Hunt (some of them quite intentionally). As I understand the incident, he deserves better. I think it's important enough to warrant a little of what you describe as "aggression" (I call it compassion). I don't like to see people bullied and shamed. Thomas B (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  You have said this (or very similar things) many times over the last two weeks, across many different fora. That's part of the filibustering I mentioned; please stop. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think I may. Looking forward to seeing what happens. Thomas B (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2A but only if "online shaming" is attributed > 2C - I personally prefer 2C but 2A is the policy-based choice since there was indeed enough coverage for notability. I am perhaps negatively influenced by Thomas B's behaviour, also. It is however important that we attribute and preferably quote "online shaming" however; the phrase has more than a whiff of incel about it. This episode was not a tempest in a teapot; if anything it is a fine illustration of the way that nice guys can be part of the problem too. If we are going to provide the full quote, and I think we should, I support adding material in other sections. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• 2B is all we need. It's time to drop the stick and leave this man alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any mention of the quote. I remember the controversy well, there is dispute over what was actually said, as such repeating the quote is rather one sided and putting one party's words in wikipedia's voice. I also seem to recall the claim it "spoilt" the conference was disputed, rather the remarks were considered by the hosts as "light-hearted and jocular"; remembering text is a frankly crap medium for conveying nuance. 2B because it accurately describes the controversy; the mention of online shaming is a view widely held in the literature. I have to say I that think User:Thomas Basboll was correct in opposing the mention of the quote but perhaps over zealous in edit warring but I understand the dilemma of being the lone editor against a WP:TAG team imposing their view. WCM_email 08:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You think the govt. transcript is disputed!? Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no source quoted for the quotation in question in the version of the article I looked at. Your faith in my powers of clairvoyance is touching but misplaced. The original controversy involved the quotation being lifted out of context and was disputed over its accuracy (emphasis added). In any case, many commentators in the literature point out the disputed quotation was lifted out of context and when placed in context most would agree it was not sexist, nor did it reflect a sexist attitude. As you appear to wish to enter into a nit picking contest no transcript is 100% accurate but that is irrelevant to my comment. The thrust of my comment is twofold. One the quotation is out of context, text being a poor medium for explaining the wider context of a jocular remark that was actually well received at the conference. The second being that the existing wikilink to an article that fully explains the context is a much better way of addressing the controversy. I also consider Thomas' comment that the article doesn't have the space to put the quote into context has merit. As such my recommendation is still 2B. Feel free to respond further but in the context of the thrust of my argument rather than nit picking over detail. WCM_email 11:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

But the proposed "quote" includes the missing context ("now seriously") which was at issue, yet you oppose its inclusion. So, huh? Bon courage (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Which then doesn't explain the controversy was engendered by a quotation taken out of context. What was widely condemned as sexist, was the remark taken out of context, further amplified by the person who made that claim later denying that what Tim Hunt said the words that put it into context. The edit implies that the full text was denounced as sexist, when it was the partial quotation that led to controversy, whilst the initial light-hearted and jocular remark was well received. We still haven't included the false claim made at the time, which was another allegedly sexist remark that he'd thanked the ladies for making lunch. And also ignores other remarks by Hunt, which people desperate to pin the sexist label upon him also took out of context. WCM_email 13:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the journalist who broke the story Hunt did not say "now seriously". Nor, she claimed, did he praise women: "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, nor did he praise the role of women in science and in Korean society. I wish he had; things would have been so much better."[1] The ERC representative's version (which was leaked, not released by the ERC, and is therefore by no means a "government transcript") is therefore in dispute. It cannot be presented as what "Hunt said". It can only be presented as (in line with) what he claimed to have said and would then need to be balanced by what he was alleged to have said. (With no record of what he actually said being available to settle it.) Also, please notice that if Hunt's story is correct, then St Louis misheard him, and, by her own account, would not have thought there was anything to report if she had heard him correctly. "Things would have been so much better." To my knowledge, she never retracted her version of events. So they remain disputed. The so-called "full quote" is POV. Thomas B (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I seem to recall there were two other elements to the controversy, one being the claim that Hunt thanked the women for making lunch, the second being he advocated single sex labs, neither of which he actually said. Interesting, could Bon courage please give us the source for this quote. Was it the official Korean Government transcript as you indicated. WCM_email 07:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The "now seriously" stuff was covered (at least) in The Independent source. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You previously claimed the source was an official Government transcript when I pointed out that what was said was disputed and tried to infer it wasn't. So what is the source. WCM_email 07:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I assumed Bon Courage is talking about the ERC report. (Which is the basis of the quote in 2C.) You're right about the rest. Also, it was originally reported that everyone sat there in "stony" silence as he rambled on and on for 5-7 minutes. "No one laughed," it wasn't humorous at all, etc. It's good to be reminded of how St Louis was telling the story before it was challenged.[2] Thomas B (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

He said it was a Government transcript, which I took on face value. It apparently wasn't, I just wonder how many people are basing their comments on that claim. I also seem to recall there was a film of the toast, with Hunt's joke being well received by the audience. WCM_email 07:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a film, but, yes, there is a brief audio recording of the end of the toast (one sentence, I think), followed by laughter and applause. It looks like we'll be spending a few weeks relitigating the whole thing. Like I said at the start, I'm happy to do so, especially if we can produce a half-way orderly talk-page section that can be referred to when it (inevitably) comes up again. My prediction, as I've also been saying all along, is that we will end up realizing that only 2B is both NPOV and BLP compliant, and that the online shaming article can cover the rest in its details. Thomas B (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2C, slightly inclined against full quote. The "online shaming" take appears to be mainly original research. Further comment that the incident should be covered briefly and non-sensationally, including Hunt's assertion that it was intended as a joke. (To clarify my tone, I take Hunt's assertion at face value, although I also think that jokes like this create an unfriendly environment for women scientists.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Full quote to give the reader the whole context, as one of the major points of contention is that it was taken out of context by the media.
  2. 2A or, less preferred, 2C. If 2A is chosen, the "online shaming" framing should be attributed to satisfy WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• 1. No full quote of his actual remarks exists. Only contested partial versions, taken out of context, recollected by variously interested parties, are available. Thus, 2. B.Thomas B (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You keep saying that, then you never provide any additional context. If you are talking about "but seriously", we get that he said that. As Loki said, okfine, the sexist remark was a sexist joke. In my own opinion that's actually worse. Please at least try to understand the privilege that allows him to joke about the "problem" with "girls". My friendly suggestion to you is that you stop denigrating reliable sources, which only makes you look desperate, and demonstrates why a topic age ban is needed. Then take a look at WP:1AM, which would seem to apply here. Elinruby (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a sexist joke, it was a self-parody. My friendly suggestion to you is to open your mind to other possibilities. WCM_email 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

source? Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

[3] for one, there are plenty more. WCM_email 07:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Already read that one. Good argument to for writing this up as a past outrage du jour Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

Next. Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, you demand a source but you've already seen sources, which you find an excuse to ignore and continue with the sexist narrative. A pattern of selection bias is emerging. [4] The Guardian, presumably you'll find a reason to dismiss as well. WCM_email 08:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

When I say "source" I mran one that hasn't been officially declared so biased that it can only be used with in-text attribution. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any privilege demonstrated except for the freedom to say stupid things and suffer the consequences. skarz (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Full quote, 2A. Wikipedia must demonstrate some self-awareness here, and ensure we do not participate in the same shaming behaviour. Social media acted as both a trigger and an amplifier for what was effectively some gotcha journalism. He said a dumb thing, and suddenly he's Andrew Tate. The incident is absolutely on-topic for his biography given the amount of coverage and its significance to his life and career, but it's clear that the sources do not support a summary that insinuates a WP:LABEL of "sexist". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't the "full quotation" from the unnamed EC official, which begins: "This is the transcript of Sir Tim Hunt’s speech, or rather a toast, as precise as I can recall it: ‘It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me... (em. added) Should cite Whipple, Tom; Waterfield, Bruno (June 24, 2015). "Leaked transcript shows 'sexist' scientist was joking". The Times. (it's their source). fiveby(zero) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the "Now seriously" portion should be included as part of the full quote. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I do think the quote should be attributed. I agree that the EC official's version is merely the most likely version to be accurate and not verified beyond a doubt. In particular, Thomas B's mention above that the journalist that originally broke the story explicitly denies the "now seriously" part, with a source, has brought me from being comfortable with attribution of the quote to actively thinking that it should happen. (But I do still think we should go with the EC official's version as the full quote, as the sources seem to have settled on that as the most likely to be accurate version.) Loki (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's difficult to figure out what to do here, but there is much argument on this talk page from editors who have seemingly not read the available sources. Everyone commenting about an EC "report" or "quote" should have at least looked at The Times article, as far as i am aware they are the only ones to have seen this leaked document and know their source. I think it is also important for the reader, whatever is done, to cite The Times. It's just barely possible one might actually click on the ref and expect WP to be providing the correct citation. fiveby(zero) 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

2A. The questions we need to be asking are: did this event indeed happen, is it will documented, and what were the results. Cut out all of the emotional hyperbole. It's absurd to think that one screw up becomes the biggest talking point of his career. How much attention does it need? skarz (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Full quote for question 1, 2A if "online shaming campaign" is attributed ("campaign" connotes some degree of organization and persistence, unlike "social-media firestorm" or other language in that vein); 2C is also acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• No "full" quote", no "online shaming" I think there are some very good reasons to reevaluate the RfC question as it applies to quoting: first is just a general principle that WP editors should strive for accuracy. Second that BLP instructs to take care and to try and get things right. Third the special duty writers have concerning quotations. Last this particular episode i think calls for particular care and attention to detail. Wikipedia should not state or imply that it can report what exactly was said at this luncheon, a "full quotation" or a "version", and i really don't see the need to try. Something can and should be done so the reader can better understand the episode, but i think breaking up this "full quotation" into parts is best. Hunt is the subject of the article and the speaker quoted. Looking at what he has said, what he has admitted and apologized for i think are instructive, and allows for a partial quotation to help the reader. What Hunt has said he did say at the time i think can be made into a faithful quotation. Some have maintained that providing the EC official's version somehow provides proper context but i do not believe that is so. What provides the proper context in this article is Hunt's own perspective on the episode and issues. You don't write from his POV but surely you should know what it is and present it to the reader. Which leads into "online shaming". Nothing should be done in this article "as is done" in that article. That is what everyone else wants to comment on, this is biography and while Hunt's perspective is not the sole concern it is necessary and inadequately present in the discussions and proposed versions. fiveby(zero) 20:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hunt's own perspective is the least valuable one in this article per WP:ABOUTSELF. It fails the first two clauses very badly: it's clearly self-serving and it heavily involves claims about third parties (Connie St. James, among others).

  If we're going to introduce the concept of online shaming to this article, it should be based on third party sources (Jon Ronson, for instance) that describe the incident as such. Hunt's own description of this incident is not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• 2C Looking at the linked article only, shaming online does not appear to the biggest part of the controversy. Senorangel (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Full quote and 2A. Since it wasn't a part of the RfC question, I'm not sure we'll walk away from this with consensus on whether or how to attribute the quote, but I would like to keep discussing that part; I'm presumptively pro-attribution. I would honestly prefer partial quoting for weight/balance reasons, but I'm doubtful we can reach consensus on how to do so, and full quotation is an improvement over the status quo. Coverage of this controversy is common in reliable sources, and most quote all or part of his comments. I'm 2A because there are reliable sources, mentioned here and in prior discussions, that focus partially or primarily on the controversy in the context of online shaming, but they're not so predominant that we should only present the controversy through that lens. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:19, 6 March 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)

You are basically saying that we should say that Hunt told a sexist joke once, but that we should do it in more weasely way. I'm against that. Thomas B (talk) 06:53, 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)

The more people drawn to this discussion the better, as it's a complex issue. Personally I think it's important to recognise that there are two separate stories here. Firstly there is the original story that Hunt made some outrageously sexist remarks, which attracted a lot of media attention; there are plenty of sources, and we have to tell that story. Secondly, after the story "went viral", there was a sort-of backlash of people saying this had become exaggerated, and he was being excessively attacked, with questions of trial-by-media, and the true character of Hunt himself. This second wave of media interest was quite as large as the first, and really cannot be ignored. Hence I'm voting 2A. I'd say 2B and 2C are both completely unacceptable suppressions of different parts of what actually got reported. As to the quote, I don't really care whether it's there, because I think the story can be understood without knowing the actual words; but the words were so widely-discussed that they could reasonably be included. It's important we simply tell the story of what happened, and what got said about it; we have to be careful not to colour the story with our own moral viewpoints. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"Hunt made some outrageously sexist remarks, which attracted a lot of media attention." This is not supported by the sources. Hunt made some remarks, which were reported (tweeted) as outrageously sexist ("Victorian"), this generated some outrage on Twitter, which was then picked up in the media. The online shaming article gets this right; I don't know why we'd want Hunt's own WP:BLP to spin it more negatively. Thomas B (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, now you're splitting hairs. There is no doubt that he made the remarks about three problems with girls in the lab (falling in love with them, them falling in love with you, and crying when criticised). Although they were tweeted, the tweet-texts have been reported by reputable sources with good editorial oversight[5] who will have checked that they're credible, and Hunt himself has apologised for saying them, and been reported as doing so.[6] There is also no doubt that the actual words were seen as sexist by reliable sources (implying also that they are sexist by the standards of general society). For example, the Royal Society at the time distanced itself from Hunt's views explicitly saying it wanted women fully integrated into science[7]. Okay, the Royal Society didn't say explicitly "We are distancing ourselves from sexist remarks". Instead it said explicitly it was distancing itself from Hunt's remarks about women in science, and explicitly that it believed we should include women, indeed, everyone, fully in science. It's stretching WP:SYNTH well beyond breaking point to argue that we can't read these two sentences together and make a link. No rational, sane person could possibly interpret the RS's statement as anything but meaning that the RS felt Hunt's remarks were sexist. And the RS wasn't tweeting.

Also, there's a complete lack of logic in what you're arguing. To imply that the remarks weren't sexist, but were only reported as sexist, and also write that "This is not supported by the sources" is a non-sequitur because the very sources that you're saying don't support it are the sources that are reporting it. If the sources didn't say it, we couldn't say the remarks were reported as sexist, but because they did, we can, and should!

Hunt's actually a good bloke, who's done a lot of good in his career, including for women. The furore got completely out of hand, and a lot of people wrote a lot of stuff about him that was based on nothing much more than wild conclusions they'd leapt to on the basis of no real evidence. That's where the whole online shaming thing came in. But we don't do Hunt, or anyone, any favours if we pretend the story isn't what it is: Hunt said something stupidly sexist, without thinking it through properly, got pilloried for it wildly even though there are a hell of a lot of people in science who are far more sexist than he is, and there was a subsequent backlash of people trying to set the record straight. It was a big splash in the pond that is women-in-science, but there have been many other splashes too. Let's tell the splash how it happened, and let history decide.

Disclosure: I have met the guy, but it was nearly 4 decades ago, so I don't consider myself to have a COI. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have some reservations about the way you put it, but much of what you say is of course correct. My view is that there is space to do the story justice in the online shaming article, or in a separate article on the incident (actually my preference), but I think it will be almost impossible to keep it WP:DUE and WP:BLP at the same time here. It looks like we're going to find out. I hope you stay involved when the article is unprotected. Thomas B (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

PS. I don't think Tim Hunt is a sexist. And I don't think he expressed, intentionally or otherwise, any sexist views with his toast, which he understood and intended to be, since that is what he was asked to provide, a toast to women in science in Korea. There are people who think all that can be true and the remarks can still be described as "sexist". I don't understand that logic, but I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them. Many of the women present understood that, as Fiona Fox reports. Thomas B (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems like very peculiar private views. Wikipedia, on the other hand is based on published reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We all understand that you think this. That would be fine, except that it is possible to both understand the issue and disagree with you, you know. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're quite correct Elemimele in that it is a complex issue, it does need new input and the simplistic nature of some of the edits is part of the problem. However, I think some of the details in your comments are incorrect. The furore was kicked off by Connie St Louis and much of the coverage was based on her and Deborah Blum's tweets. The Connie St Louis tweets are still available and a number of claims were made about what he said, including that he'd thanked the women for making the lunch, suggested single sex labs were needed, she suggested the remarks were met with stony silence by an outraged audience and finally she partially quoted him completely out of context. Twitter being what it is a furore blew up and very few people actually took much notice of what actually happened; too many memes with the hashtag #distractinglysexy. Institutions being what they are immediately distanced themselves from Tim Hunt.

Editorial oversight I feel is a red herring, there are plenty of examples of papers printing stories that later prove to be incorrect and newspapers often have to print retractions or clarifications - eg the very article you linked to has one. It was only later a more nuanced story came out, including the fact that the remarks were clearly self-deprecating and had in fact been well received by the audience (incidentally both Connie St Louis and Deborah Blum continued to claim the ERC transcript was inaccurate and that he never praised the role of Korean women in science). Tim Hunt acknowledged the remarks were ill-advised and apologised for any offence caused, clarifying they were intended to be self-deprecating humour and in part reflected his own experience of meeting his wife in the lab. A more accurate comment is that Hunt said something stupid that could be misconstrued as sexist but wasn't.

What you term the second phase of the story, the backlash, was primarily led by female colleagues who were outraged that someone they saw as an ally was being treated badly. One of the chief critics being Louise Mensch who felt that feminism wasn't served by pillorying Tim Hunt. Also when people took a closer look at Connie St Louis, the accuracy of other reports was questionable and it turned out that her CV had been greatly exaggerated in order to obtain her own university position; interestingly that actually led to the institution she worked for standing by her. WCM_email 11:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Some pretty serious accusations there (which also seem irrelevant to this article) which are likely to need admin attention/redaction per WP:BLP unless you can provide an impeccable source pronto. Bon courage (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WCM is not saying anything that isn't common knowledge among anyone who is familiar with the case. Thomas B (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate threats and you really should stop being so combative pronto. As Thomas notes I haven't said anything that isn't common knowledge amongst anyone who followed the story. The CV was first investigated and appeared in the Daily Mail [8] and she had in fact claimed to have worked for the Mail. It was widely reported in other media and as a result City University had to take down her CV, with calls for her sacking the university stood by her. The comments out the so-called stony silence was completely blown out of the water by the recording showing it received warm applause. I find it amusing you're demanding I provide multiple cites for every comment when you can't even provide a cite for your quotation. I have to ask do you know much about this story? WCM_email 12:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Only what I read in reliable sources (and that does not include the WP:DAILYMAIL !!) Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, though you can't always believe what you read, I probably read about it in the Times when it happened.[9] Thomas B (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you might have read it when the Grauniad was shamed into reporting it and other media picked it up; the Daily Fail does have its uses. Thing is, if you only read what you ideologically identify with it inevitably leads to confirmation bias. Try being wider read, its good for improving your editing. A further suggestion is reading the full comment (eg it being picked up by the wider media) instead of trying to point score. WCM_email 13:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong, City University quietly got rid of her a year later [10] when the dust had settled. But hey its the Daily Fail so it can't be true and she's still gainfully employed ... WCM_email 13:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This all fancifully OR-ish and quite irrelevant. The only relevance to Hunt is seemingly that St Louis was subject to an online shaming campaign too, by those who thought she'd misrepresented him.[11]. Bon courage (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly right, as was already clear in with the Hypatia article (so its not OR). That's why this is not about Tim Hunt (and doesn't belong in his BLP) it is a classic online shitstorm. It should all be in an article called 2015 WCSJ Online Shaming Incident. Thomas B (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What people do and what happens to them are part of their biography. Bon courage (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What is important in a BLP is to accurately report what they did and what happened to them, not double down on inaccurate original reporting. And it important not to WP:LABEL someone as sexist and misogynist when they are not. Equally where an event is complex and nuanced, delegation to a dedicated article is appropriate. WCM_email 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Straw men fallacy, since nobody is proposing such labels. The job here is to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on the topic. Retrospective peer-reviewed scholarship, for example. Blog posts and the WP:DAILYMAIL, and - yes - "original reporting" not so much. Bon courage (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your straw man fallacy, I'm not remotely making any such suggestion, merely pointing to a convenient means of finding relevant sources. And yes some of those so fixated on making these changes have already denounced him as a sexist misogynist. Retrospective peer reviewed scholarship would be a distinct improvement over dredging up the ancient and infamous Radio 4 interview, which anyone even remotely familiar with the case would acknowledge as flawed evidence. Now do you think you could dial down the rhetoric and actually discuss content; that would be peachy. WCM_email 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The 'fixated' editors would be those arguing against consensus, straw-manning, scraping up shitty sources and edit warring, I suppose. I just have a mild interest in ensuring NPOV here after seeing this raised at a noticeboard. With the RfC, we're getting there. Bon courage (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What Tim Hunt "did" was to be mistaken for a misogynist, after which a storm happened to him. It is WP:BLP policy to be careful about preserving the most miserable things that happen to people online: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (WP:AVOIDVICTIM) Thomas B (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked at that source via the Wikipedia library, it makes a passing reference to the backlash against her. I would also condemn abusing anyone on social media. But that isn't what this was about, for example [12] Ms St Louis claims were forensically skewered by investigation by Louise Mensch. The fact is the original reporting of this story was seriously flawed based as it was on a flawed and inaccurate acoount. I find it intriguing you seek out sources to confirm your own narrative rather than seeking sources which challenge it, equally you find excuses to ignore material which challenges it. WCM_email 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A blog by Louise Mensch? Seriously? What is the point of bring these crappy unusable sources here? Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, you really should try reading, Louise Mensch links to all mainstream sources and she is utterly forensic in ripping Ms St Louis' claims to pieces. I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think. WCM_email 13:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The job here is to relay accepted knowledge as relayed in reliable sources. If you want to read/believe blog posts and tabloids go for it, but don't let that backwash here please. I'll stick with journals thanks. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to bad sources to tell either part of the story. The Guardian, for example, reported the original remarks and the furore that they were sexist, and also reported that Hunt had been pilloried.[13]. The Guardian and other serious newspapers are ideal sources for this very public story. I personally believe we have to tell both sides of it because (1) Hunt's actions started the whole thing, and (2) he did find himself on the end of a lot of publicity whose fairness has been questioned in good sources, and (3) the entire story became a large event in his career, and in science. It's also not entirely right to pin the whole thing on the original tweet and the reputation of the tweeter. The story moved well beyond the tweetsphere. I can't support this with reliable sources, so I'm moving out of Wikipedia territory here, but like many scientists, the whole thing blew up in my mail-box, in my facebook account, across copious bits of social media, with St Louis barely mentioned, but Hunt's words spread abroad. I suspect this would have happened whoever tweeted, and in a conference of that sort, someone, sooner or later, would have relayed what he said. This is very much Hunt's story, not St Louis's. Elemimele (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you and others who want to give a lot of space to it in Hunt's bio work out exactly what you want to put in the article. In principle, much of what you say here is correct. In practice, I fear it's going to be impossible to include without unbalancing his BLP. But let's see what you come up with. Then I can offer my factual corrections concretely. I still think it should be worked out here on the talk page (or in a sandbox) before any change that may be unfair to Hunt is made to the article. Thomas B (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elemimele That all seems eminently reasonable. A sequence of events happened and were reported in a load of decent sources, Wikipedia can follow that. I'm at a loss to understand why this should be so difficult. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One solution I've been thinking about is to balance the coverage we give to this incident with an account of his excellent reputation as a mentor, colleague, teacher, and promoter of science. There's already some of that in the article. But if we make it independently clear that Hunt is a decent human being (and not at all a misogynist) then the uproar over his unfortunate remark may warrant more detail. Thomas B (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Elemimele and for your personal comments. I'm not evenly remotely suggesting we use a blog as a source, it's simply a handy reference for a talk page discussion nothing more. Your Guardian source is fine but it really doesn't tell the whole story. The whole controversy blew up in a few hours whilst he was on a plane and by the time he landed his reputation was in tatters. It was basically down to the Twitter storm started by Connie St Louis whose reporting was simply not an accurate reflection of what was said. Even when the evidence emerged much later she still doubled down on her account and in the furore engendered by the controversy people simply took little notice of that evidence. It wasn't what he said, it was what it was claimed he'd said. I dare say had the reporting been more accurate, his remarks would have been seen as cringeworthy but not a resignation matter. His choice of a self-deprecating joke was ill-advised, it could easily be misconstrued. WCM_email 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"whose reporting was simply not an accurate reflection of what was said" ← Hunt explicitly had no problem with the accuracy of what was reported. Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Tim Hunt: ... I clearly touched a very, very sensitive nerve, completely by accident. I mean, it wasn't really me touching it, it was the journalist who reacted [to] it - you know and er, I would say that her account was not wholly...

Interviewer: Accurate?

Tim Hunt: Truthful ..."[14] Thomas B (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From his BBC interview at the time: "what I said was quite accurately reported".[15] Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Connie St Louis's account was quite inaccurate."[16] Thomas B (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the infamous Radio 4 "interview" when Tim Hunt was door stepped at the airport and another example of remarks taken out of context. I'm almost tempted to use exclamation marks, since that has long since been debunked. One wonders why someone claiming to be very familiar with the controversy would refer to it !!!!! WCM_email 15:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

'Infamous'? You can listen to the whole thing to ensure Hunt's words are in context. I am not aware of any RS 'debunking' this. Bon courage (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Then you lack the competence to edit seeing as Elemimele provided a source earlier [17]. I presume you find the Grauniad acceptable? WCM_email 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No 'debunking' there. He regretted recording the message for them, he says. That's understandable. Bon courage (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

I think we're just trying to persuade you that Hunt didn't actually think the reporting was accurate. If you're going to hold him to something he said under great stress, despite (what I think is) a clear statement of his view of the situation after the dust cleared, I don't know what to say, other than that is precisely what WP:BLP would have us think carefully about when writing about the event in his own bio. Let's be charitable.Thomas B (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

He obviously disagrees with the account in some respects (e.g. he thought his jokes got a non-hostile response). But nobody seems to be disputing the actual words, except one or two Wikipedia editors it seems. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The "now seriously" is disputed by the shamers. In any case, I think you just granted that it was wrong (of you) to say he "had no problem with what was reported". I hope you'll take that into account when you propose edits to the article going forward. Thomas B (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

""had no problem with what was reported"" ← I never wrote those words. The straw manning and bad faith here is off the scale. If you think the 'now seriously' bit is seriously disputed (I don't) we could consider adding further commentary about that. It seems to be the hinge for a second round of commentary of the this-changes-everything kind, e.g. from Richard Dawkins.[18] Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh? "Hunt explicitly had no problem with the accuracy of what was reported." [19] It's been a long time since I've been in one of these disputes. I think I'm going to step back for a while; I'm starting to remember what it's like! LOL. We'll see what happens when the closers weigh in and the article is unprotected. Fun times! Thanks for sparring. Thomas B (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You keep promising that Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage and Nemov, could you please clarify your position on question 1 in your !votes above? (Even if you're neutral towards inclusion of the full quote, I think explicitly saying that will be helpful for the closer.) Loki (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is my amended outline of details (in some rough order) that could be included (plus a few sources):
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
  • Including the twitter hashtag #distractinglysexy.
  • Much of the outrage was spurred by this partial version of the quote.
• Hunt claimed the remark was part of a satirical joke, and this intention is seemingly supported by a report of the full text of the quote.
  • The "full text" is disputed by St Louis and Deborah Blum.
• The incident spurred wider discussion about sexism in science.[20]
• Hunt apologized for his comments, or at least for making comments that could easily be misinterpreted out of context.
• Hunt resigned from some positions.
• There has been backlash against the shaming.
  • Hunt has been defended by some women colleagues.[21]
  • Backlash against the shaming has centered on the (allegedly) incomplete and context-limited nature of the initial report, and much of it focuses on St Louis herself.[22](neocon outlet)
• There continue to be articles framing the comments as sexist even with the full context.[23](https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12456)
  • Some of this discussion points out that jokingly repeating sexist tropes, even if the point is to make fun of them, can still be harmful and sexist, and not being able to recognize when it's inappropriate to make such jokes is indicative of more entrenched, institutionalized sexism.[24]
  • 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.[25]

I would say that source-wise, we should rely on retrospectives that at least acknowledge a "full text" version of the comments exists, and preferably provide analysis of it. So rather than summarizing what contemporaneous news sources said immediately following St Louis's report, we should summarize how the secondary sources--that emerged after further possible context was provided--describe the early timeline, with citations to both the secondary sources and the original news pieces they discuss. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good breakdown. Personally I would prefer all this to be included, as I think this incident has received enough coverage that it's definitely WP:DUE. If we had to cut it down, I think I'd go mostly per what you have listed as top level bullets here, while cutting the sub-bullets. Loki (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that, its a distinct improvement on the discussion what we've had so far, however, if I may a couple of points have been missed.

The original controversy raised by the Twitter storm had 3 components:

1. It was claimed that the Hunt had made a patronising sexist comment about the women making the lunch; this was simply untrue it was made up
2. It was claimed that the speech was met with a stony silence and his hosts were greatly offended; again this was untrue, the speech was met with warm applause, the hosts thanked Hunt for improvising such a warm speech and asked him to give another speech in the closing dinner.
3. Connie St Louis quoted part of the speech out of context.

The Twitter controversy was thus based on two lies and a quotation taken out of context. It wasn't the case that what he said caused the controversy so much as what was claimed he'd said; the lunch remarks causing as much controversy as the trouble with girls quote.

The controversy was later amplified by Deborah Blum backing up Connie St Louis' version of events and claimed that Hunt behaved inappropriately in her sexism in science seminar. In fact Hunt didn't attend that but was in a different lecture in his field.

Hunt himself made matters worse by apparently confirming the veracity of St Louis' claims in a voice mail left from the airport.

The remarks weren't simply denied by Hunt, Russian science journalist Natalia Demina challenged the accusations against Hunt right from the outset on Twitter, [26]. What is claimed to be a verbatim transcript, the ERC transcript, isn't. It was written ex post facto[27] by an ERC official asked to make a record of what was said. AFAIK it was never released, it was leaked to the Times which appears to be the sole source of the quotation. It was based on that official's recollection of what was said, its accuracy is denied by St Louis and Blum. There is no South Korean Government transcript as one editor claimed.

Whilst there are people who've defended Connie St Louis, I think we have to acknowledge that Connie St Louis' conduct brought much of this upon herself. Her account could charitably be described as sloppy journalism, when evidence that contradicted her account emerged she doubled down and continued to insist on its accuracy. When inaccuracies and investions in the CV that got her job at City University were uncovered, she attempted to divert attention by lashing out claiming a former colleague had taken credit for her work.

Defended by some women colleagues is more than a bit of an understatement, there was an outpouring of support from his female colleagues. Hunt is well known in the scientific community as a lifelong supporter and mentor of female scientists. There are three examples alone in the "neocon" article you linked.

I don't think you can add the WP:WEASEL word "allegedly" incomplete and context-limited nature of the initial report, there is no allegedly about it, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You might also acknowledge that Tim Hunt is described as socially awkward and less than worldly and was extremely nervous about giving that speech. You might also consider that he was nearly driven to suicide by this controversy and did not as Ms St Louis claimed want the to take the spotlight and somewhat self-indulgently allowed it to remain fully focused on him. Remember that with any BLP there is a vulnerable human being at the centre of it.

If I may be allowed to suggest the best way of breaking this down is to properly evaluate the evidence piece by piece. WCM_email 11:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a reprise of the sleuthing-from-unreliable-sources to Reveal The Truth™ problem. It's all much simpler: look at what the best sources say, and relay that. In short, Hunt was reported as saying something, and various reactions and consequences followed. It's not hard. Bon courage (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nod. This is nauseating. Just kidding! That makes it ok to say that right? But I'm seriously...I edit wars, genocides and coups, all of it without this much name-calling. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you -- JoelleJay and WCM -- have the combined knowledge and individual civility to write a very good section (or whole article) about the incident. But the sheer amount of points you're both making seems destined to violate WP:BLPBALANCE. Would it not be better to begin by working together on the already long section[28] in the online shaming article? Or perhaps, as I've suggested before, creating an article on the 2015 WCSJ sexism controversy (note that, in a search for common ground, I've deliberately not called it a "shaming" controversy.) On the face of it, the event seems as notable as the Hypatia transracialism controversy (which is also listed and linked in the online shaming article). Once we have agreed on what the full account of the event should be at Wikipedia, we can decide how much of it belongs in Hunt's BLP. Thomas B (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There's an RfC that will determine that, so best not to try and do an end run around what it decides (whatever that is). Bon courage (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I understood the RfC to be focused on what should go in the Hunt bio. My suggestion, independent of what is decided here, was for people who know something about the event (and have the required patience) to work on it in a space where there is room for all the details. Whatever they come up with can certainly inform the few sentences that there's space for here. Thomas B (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we start a talk page section outlining the high-quality sources we could use for each aspect and see what that tells us about their relative weight. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a good sense of the high-quality sources (as does WCM). I think the tricky thing is getting agreement on what story they tell. So, in my opinion, if we're going to start a new talk page section, the best thing to do is to just start drafting the actual sentences we want to put in the article. I'm sure we can source each of them. I'm just still not quite clear on what you want to go in the Tim Hunt article (as distinct from the longer version that will remain available -- and linked -- elsewhere on Wikipedia). Thomas B (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Korea Federation of Women’s Science & Technology Associations (KOFWST)

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.[29] Bon courage (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Good find, and good source. Loki (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added this to the more extensive version on the online shaming article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

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. WCM_email 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

+1 to expanding the discovery of cyclins. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

I've replaced this version with Hemiauchenia's which is a much better starting point. I would have removed the last two sentences of LokiTheLiar's version because the content was not supported by the sources. fiveby(zero) 14:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. WCM_email 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources for expansion

Hi everyone. The RfC close recommended expanding the non-controversy parts of the article. Here are some sources that might help:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. A 2010 article, including interview material, in the Daily Telegraph. Some biographical detail on his work just before retiring from Cancer Research UK.

Full citations
References

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

The only source I've found that discusses Hunt's career in any real detail is his Nobel prize autobiography [30], though I am unsure of how appropriate it is to lean on as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Speech Reception

I see my edits concerning neutrality have been reverted. The stated objection:

This is undue, both in length and in contents. KOFWST asked him to apologise, so acting like the conference organisers were totally fine with his comments is disingenuous

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. WCM_email 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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

[31] 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)

A little more science-y:

Prognostic importance of cyclin E1 expression in neuroblastic tumors in children. Authors: Taran K; Katarzyna Taran MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, Medical University of Lodz, Pomorska 251, 92-213 Lodz, Poland, e-mail: dr.taran.patho@gmail.com. Owecka A Kobos J Source: Polish journal of pathology : official journal of the Polish Society of Pathologists [Pol J Pathol] 2013 Jun; Vol. 64 (2), pp. 149-52. Publication Type: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Language: English Journal Info: Publisher: Polish Society Of Pathologists Country of Publication: Poland NLM ID: 9437432 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 1233-9687 (Print) Linking ISSN: 12339687 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Pol J Pathol Subsets: MEDLINE Imprint Name(s): Original Publication: Kraków : Polish Society Of Pathologists, 1994- MeSH Terms: Biomarkers, Tumor/*analysis Cyclin E/*biosynthesis Neuroblastoma/*metabolism Oncogene Proteins/*biosynthesis Child ; Child, Preschool ; Cyclin E/analysis ; Female ; Humans ; Immunohistochemistry ; Infant ; Infant, Newborn ; Male ; Neuroblastoma/mortality ; Neuroblastoma/pathology ; Oncogene Proteins/analysis ; Prognosis Abstract: A number of studies have indicated that cyclin E plays an important role in a variety of neoplastic processes. In our study we evaluated cyclin E1 expression and the possible prognostic value of this protein in neuroblastic tumors in children. Cyclin E1 expression was investigated by means of immunohistochemical analysis of 25 neuroblastic tumor tissue samples. We found a significant correlation between high cyclin E1 expression and deaths due to neoplastic disease. The mean values of cyclin E1 indexes in fatal cases were twice as high as in other cases. The results indicate that high cyclin E1 expression may have prognostic importance in neuroblastic tumors in children. Substance Nomenclature: 0 (Biomarkers, Tumor) 0 (CCNE1 protein, human) 0 (Cyclin E) 0 (Oncogene Proteins) Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20130801 Date Completed: 20131118 Latest Revision: 20191112 Update Code: 20240104 DOI: 10.5114/pjp.2013.36016 PMID: 23900874 Database: MEDLINE Complete

and

Are We Prepared for the CDK4/6 Revolution With HR+/HER2− Breast Cancers?: The Importance of Patient Adherence to Adjuvant Therapies. By: Azoz, Seyla, Peters, Martin, Jones, Graham, Breast Cancer: Basic & Clinical Research, 11782234, 11/28/2023 Database: CINAHL Complete

Cancers continue to represent a leading cause of death and major health care burden globally.[ 1] Thanks to enormous and sustained research efforts, many effective therapeutic solutions are now becoming available, including CAR-T, gene therapies, vaccines, and myriad chemotherapeutics.[ 2] In the case of breast cancer, one of the holy grails has been to identify small molecule chemotherapeutic and chemopreventive agents with high efficacy and ease of manufacture. Using precision medicine approaches and targeting the pathways governed by the cyclin-dependent kinase receptors, spectacular breakthroughs have recently been made through CDK4/6 inhibitors which promise to revolutionize prevention and treatment of HR+/HER2− breast cancers.[ 3] No less than 3 effective agents have been fast tracked through regulatory approval: Palbociclib, Abemaciclib, and Ribociclib, the latter being designated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as a category 1 preferred first-line treatment.[ 4] Such is the excitement that the entire class has been characterized as "game changing" for oncology patients.[ 5],[ 6] Such expectations however need to be tempered by one of the historical barriers to chemotherapeutics which, while well understood, remains a major obstacle—that of patient medication adherence.[ 7]

These are from Ebsco. I am wildly unqualified to write the explanation of the importance of his discovery, but I am absolutely positive that somebody did do that fifteen or so years ago. And cell growth is also involved in healing, isn't it? 21:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

one more

A pancancer analysis of the oncogenic role of cyclin B1 (CCNB1) in human tumors

A pancancer analysis of the oncogenic role of cyclin B1 (CCNB1) in human tumors. By: Dai, Peng, Xiong, Lecai, Wei, Yanhong, Wei, Xiaoyan, Zhou, Xuefeng, Zhao, Jinping, Tang, Hexiao, Scientific Reports, 20452322, 11/20/2023, Vol. 13, Issue 1 Database: Academic Search Complete

Aberrant levels of the G2/M cyclin cyclin B1 (gene CCNB1) have been associated with multiple cancers; however, the literature lacks a focused and comprehensive analysis of the regulation of this important regulator of cell proliferation in cancer. Through this work, we performed a pancancer analysis of the levels of CCNB1 and dissected aspects of regulation and how this correlates with cancer prognosis. We comprehensively evaluated the expression and promoter methylation of CCNB1 across 38 cancers based on RNA sequencing data obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). The correlation of CCNB1 with prognosis and the tumor microenvironment was explored. Using lung adenocarcinoma data, we studied the potential upstream noncoding RNAs involved in the regulation of CCNB1 and validated the protein levels and prognostic value of CCNB1 for this disease site. CCNB1 was highly expressed, and promoter methylation was reduced in most cancers. Gene expression of CCNB1 correlated positively with poor prognosis of tumor patients, and these results were confirmed at the protein level using lung adenocarcinoma. CCNB1 expression was associated with the infiltration of T helper cells, and this further correlated with poor prognosis for certain cancers, including renal clear cell carcinoma and lung adenocarcinoma. Subsequently, we identified a specific upstream noncoding RNA contributing to CCNB1 overexpression in lung adenocarcinoma through correlation analysis, expression analysis and survival analysis. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the expression and methylation status of CCNB1 across several forms of cancer and provides further insight into the mechanistic pathways regulating Cyclin B1 in the tumorigenesis process.

smdh

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)

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)

revert of importance of cyclin

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)