Talk:Matt Taylor (scientist)

Controversy

Unless anyone has a viable argument for it's perseverance, I'm going to delete the controversy surrounding the shirt. The validity of adding internet controversy to wikipedia articles have already been rigorously debated already on other topics, and the general contention has always been that it doesn't belong in this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuusieDos (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi DuusieDos. The viable argument for keeping that information in the article is the (in my opinion absurd) amount of coverage the controversy received. Coverage lasted for a few days and covered many different aspects of the debate, making it a well sourcable topic which should be included in this article. It's by no means a huge feature of Matt's career however and I wouldn't be in favour of writing much more than is currently written, especially given the current size of the article. Sam Walton (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi back Samwalton9 I understand your reasoning however I still don't feel that it's relevant. Media coverage does not create viability in itself as the story is just bouncing between different outlets giving the appearance of importance, furthermore this story died relatively quickly compared to many others that are published in the current (read: internet) age and as there is no compelling argument for the shirt actually being sexist, other than easily offended twitterers and tumblrs i feel it should be stricken. I guess an argument could be made to the validity based on his apology, but I don't know. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuusieDos (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 November 2014‎

The noteworthiness of his shirt, tattoos, etc., was not that they were mentioned on Twitter, etc., but that they raised serious comment at reliable sources like the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, media coverage can be deceiving like that! The second point of WP:NOTNEWS deals with this quite well; lots of minor things are picked up on in the news and aren't worthy of coverage here. I believe this went above that and is an event worthy of coverage however, for the following reasons:

• The coverage went on for multiple days - from the day it happened (the 12th) to new stories even come out about it today (the 17th!)
• The coverage has been relatively wide ranging, ranging from joining in with criticism to defending him.
• Very reliable news sources reported on the topic, including The Independent and The Guardian.

Also, we don't need to judge whether the shirt was indeed sexist or not, just report on the major viewpoints expressed in the sources. On a side note, signing your posts to talk pages with ~~~~ is helpful! Sam Walton (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it should report on the major viewpoints. As it stands the article only discusses the charge of sexism; there should be some mention that he has a lot of support and that there are articles expressing that his attackers went too far.

I agree with your arguments. This seems very reasonalbe, though I think it should be said at least once that any further updating of the controversy should be kept on Matt Taylors page and not on the Rosetta mission's page (probably unnecessary, but since it was briefly debated I felt it worth mentioning) 90.185.22.113 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

- I strongly move that the entire episode be deleted. The protagonist was methodically cyberharassed, & bullied online & offline. The so-called "reliable news sources" (without any reflection on what they were doing) merely parrotted & amplified this manoeuvre. It is not the role of Wikipedia to further amplify - & thereby lend legitimacy & credence to - such well-orchestrated (but otherwise perfectly non-notable & trivial) herd movements. Far more centrally still, the episode has nothing to do with the subjects's professional qualifications & recent achievements, surely still the main notability criterion for his inclusion here (or he shouldn't have been included at all). A section like "Personal Life", curiously ad hoc for such a short & recent entry, properly belongs with Frank Sinatra or at least some top public figure, not with a hitherto unknown space scientist whose entry was created a few days ago.

Finally, the mere mention of this episode in an entry (rightly) focusing on his professional qualifications could wreck the subject's future career many years in the future (& yes, this is a relevant consideration when the episode itself is so manifestly irrelevant, & trivial in any perspective longer than a few weeks).

I am hence deleting this unnecessary passage. From what I can tell of a rather questionable recent editing history, this will in all likelihood again be reverted (arbitrarily, in my opinion, & for the nth time), but I will delete it anyway - to make the point, once, & without stooping to some subsequent editing battle.

For Heaven's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, committed to notability - not a gossip tabloid or a people's tribunal. --nielspeterqm (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

nielspeterqm, I've reinstated some content completely unrelated to the above debate, and won't reinstate the rest (yet) if you're just going to edit war it back in. Let me get my position straight, I honestly think the media frenzy over the shirt was ridiculous, totally detracted from what an amazing achievement rosetta was, and wish that a fuss had never been kicked up about it, as much as I can see the points of those saying the shirt was inappropriate. That said, the event received so much coverage that it would be ridiculous not to cover it in the Wikipedia article. We're not here to make sure that everyone is painted in the best of lights and should aim to cover all major aspects of an article subject. I'm not going to repeat why I think the event warrants inclusion because my three bullet points above cover it completely. Sam Walton (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

- To User:Samwalton9. Nope, as I also wrote above, I don't "do" edit wars. However, the new version is already a considerable improvement. It still refers to the event, but indirectly via footnote, & proportions have already been toned down. It remains debatable whether a "Personal Life" section, (tattoos & all) isn't more appropriate to a Lady Gaga article than to a comparatively junior scientist, but under the (admittedly quite particular) circumstances, the present mentions are not unreasonable, at least until time lends further perspective.

As to WP:NOTPROMOTION, goodness knows I'm the first fanatic about that, but would also draw attention to the spirit, if not the letter, of its section 3: "Scandal Mongering". I'm perfectly aware such hasn't been the intention behind creating this article, but it has unfortunately been one of its partial results. Yes, everything here is sourced, everything is out in the public debate, but we also have a responsibility to balance privacy & benefit of doubt with exhaustiveness. Here it is again not immaterial that the subject is neither Lady Gaga nor Bill Clinton, but a relatively unknown & presumably conscientious professional, who has a claim not to have his main qualification & contributions unduly contaminated by a few days' orchestrated bullying & Twitterstorm. If the controversies were repeated, or last for months on end (or if the subject were to run for senior political office) it might be another matter.

So, my proposal is we leave the article as it stands now - & let subsequent editing & contributors work the usual Wikipedia magic & self-organization over time. Sincerely, --nielspeterqm (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, the article should cover all the views and what the sources describe the article and the subject as. In this case, a man responsible for landing a spacecraft on a comet (a rather amazing feat) got into a media cerfuffle over the fact that he wore a politically incorrect shirt. I don't even think it should be on the page, but since it got a good amount of attention and even resulted in a tearfully felt apology, believe that it belongs. I would list a bunch of sources, but I'd probably be listing about 50, and as such, even as ridiculous as it sounds, deserves a mention. However...on the article on the spacecraft which actually got on the comet, it was satisfyingly rejected as not relevant to the spacecraft. If it ends up being about 2 paragraphs long about how sexist and the like Matt Taylor is, then yes, then it's getting out of hand. A sentence or a few describing what happened and why isn't too much to ask. Tutelary (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

- To Tutelary. I don't contradict what you bring up, & much in my previous remarks, including latest reply to Samwalton9 above, would also apply to your remark. Due weight is *precisely* what this issue is all about. A fad media storm, however intense & magnificently sourced, is simply not even remotely proportionate with humankind landing on a comet (including public attention & media coverage of that, for that matter), or with the contributions, achievements, & professional qualifications leading to that feat. If the former event were to gain any more space in the article than in the most recent edit, then much, much more material will correspondingly have to be researched (in sources less mainstream but in no way less relevant or authoritative, on the contrary) & written about the subject's professional contributions, to restore any bare minimum of reasonable balance, & avoid turning the article or Wikipedia into a tabloid recounting the most recent week's fads & scandals. --nielspeterqm (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)