Talk:Tim Hunt

---

Name

He changed his name to "Tim Hunt" and was already knighted as "Sir Tim" not "Richard Timothy".

Marriage query

He is not really Tama Janowitz's husband, is he? Wikikiwi 23:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. This Tim Hunt lives in England, not Brooklyn.Sayeth 13:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sexist comments

The sources cited say that his comments were sexists. Please leave this wording unless there other reliable sources that state otherwise. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

what is usually done is to say something like "... made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media ..." --ChristopheT (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never been crazy about that wording, which sounds awkward to me, but I can go along with it. It's way better than "some people consider sexist", which doesn't say who "some people" are. I put in this wording, please don't change it without discussing here first. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was not going to change anything ... ChristopheT (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you would, since it was your suggestion. That was meant as a plea to all involved editors. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This change of wording to "made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media" is fine. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page and discussing it :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

it kind of feels good to agree on stuff with other people ;) ChristopheT (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to find the record of the whole Hunt's Talk (the real source). All journals cite only one or two sentences. No one have opportunity to judge himself the context of these controversial sentences.Mkotl (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

While in general I don't disagree that it's better to have more context than less, is there any context you can imagine that might make his remarks less appalling? —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! I think this was a joke (I believe his explanation), the record could confirm that. Maybe it's not the best joke... but if some lady being the head of the laboratory would said something like this: "Let me tell you about my trouble with boys … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry." What would you find it sexist? Would the people criticizing Hunt's talk do such a rumpus?Mkotl (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I see there have been over 100 edits of this page since the comments. When did Wikipedia become a tabloid magazine? Can we put a hold on this page until the dust settles, and then be--you know--encyclopedic about reporting what happened? In a fair and unbiased manner? At the very least, we should put one of those warnings about the article needing some work to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards. (I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate since I don't contribute to Wikipedia much.) SchighSchagh (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• The section could definitely stand to be tweaked. Right now it's a little bit like a newspaper in how it's written and some of the wording (specifically the word "problems") is pretty loaded with a bit of inherent bias. I'd posted this suggestion on the BLP/N page, but I'll post it here as well:

On 9 June 2015, Hunt gave a speech entitled "Creative Science—Only a Game?"" at the 2015 World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, delivered at a lunch for female journalists and scientists. During the speech Hunt remarked upon his reputation as a male chauvinist and endorsed gender segregated laboratories. Hunt also commented upon past interactions he has had with female scientists, stating:

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry."

This only goes over the very first part of the section but that's the first thing that caught my eye. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I see someone was busy doing a hatchet job without noting that he meant the comments to be ironic (as the sources even state!) and light hearted. After all, his wife is a professor of immunology who he met in a lab. It's a failed joke that the media ran. Second Quantization (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are you talking about myself or on the article? If you're talking about my edit, this was mostly my way of trying to deal with the first part of the section in question and it was just something I threw together in about 1-2 minutes. It's not meant to cover the entirety of the whole shebang since that's going to take a lot of editing overall and to a degree the lead sentence has its own problems. It is not intended to be the entirety of the section. If it's the article, then I have no true opinion on that. However at the same time I'd like to warn you to assume WP:GOODFAITH about other editors, since using the term "hatchet job" can come across as rude. Just from what I've seen of the whole shebang (which I do think is a little over the top) it looks like this started when one of the attendees started posting about the remark, saying that it offended them, so I think that people including it in the article are more looking at it from that perspective. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment was about an earlier version of the article, Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ahh.. gotcha. You really have to make sure that you're clear about that! I didn't think it was about me, but I've had people do that on here before, so yeah. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Basically I have an issue with the word "problems" in the article because as I stated above, this word is pretty loaded with negative connotations and sets a tone before the section has even started. Now assuming that this was meant to be a serious remark (which I doubt it was) the word "problems" already assigns a judgement to everything. I'm aware that my rephrasing of the opening to the section has its own issues, but at the same time I think that almost anything would be better than saying "problems". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

″was told by a senior [at UCL] that Tim had to resign immediately or be sacked". The exact name and position of this official should be added to the article. Unfortunately, I do not know it. Anyone up to the task? Fedja (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The name of the UCL official involved does not appear to have been revealed as has been commented on in this article in the Standard which I've already referenced in the article. We can only add the name if it has been revealed in a reliable published source.

"We can only add the name if it has been revealed in a reliable published source." This is a decent policy, no question about that. So, let's change the request to "Add the name of any official taking part in forcing Sir Tim Hunt to resign as soon as it appears in a reliable public source". My rationale is that regardless of your point of view on what Prof. Hunt did, these people should be subjected to the same "public judgement" he was subjected to by their actions. Fedja (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This whole article, at the moment, seems to be pretty far away from WP:NPOV in that it talks almost entirely about those in favour of his actions, whilst calling into question, or leaving out entirely, other sources of information. Particularly, Connie St Louis is attacked ad-hom, which says nothing about what actually happened, and the details of the letter sent to him by the Korean Federation (which are available) are omitted, even though these talk about the problems the actual people he was talking to had with what was said, and instead we hear about one anon source talking about another anon attendee's reaction. I would suggest including something from the public statement/press release from KOFWST and removing the "most telling" from the bit about Ms. St Louis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsdan (talk • lsdan (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)contribs) 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The letter from KOFWST is already included in the article. I think someone has already removed the words "most telling". There only seems to be one sentence about Connie St Louis as the article currently which doesn't read to me like an ad hom attack. Please could you advise which other sources of information you think should be included or alternatively do just go ahead and add it yourself.Dahliarose (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundancies

There are three descriptions of his work with cyclins and CDKs -- first in the second paragraph of the 'career' section, then again in the third paragraph of the same section, and again in the 'honors' section, with the citation from the Nobel committee -- and none of these descriptions shows any awareness of the others...

Could someone familiar with Hunt's work perform the consolidation? Epikoros (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP matters

A couple of days ago I wrote an article for Hunt's wife Mary Collins, and then yesterday removed the name of her non-notable ex-husband cited to a gossip-laden Daily Mail article. From this article, I've now twice removed unnecessary references to the ages of their minor children, and previously their names were removed by another editor. When I first edited this article yesterday, the controversy section was 75% as long as the section describing his entire academic career. FireflySixtySeven reverted my removal of some of that material, which is fine, but in the process reintroduced other minor errors.

Hunt's comments and their fallout are obviously notable, but this is not the village stocks. Editors interested in this article, please be more careful about BLP issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I restored the quote you removed from the article - I cannot understand why you would want to suppress the quote which caused the controversy while discussing reactions to the quote. I think in light of his remarks, the fact that he has two young daughters is important - WP:BLPNAME isn't violated if their gender and ages are mentioned. Finally, Mary Collins' ex-husband does not need to be notable to warrant mention in her article, and Daily Mail should be fine for an uncontroversial detail like the name of an ex-spouse. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth @Opabinia regalis: I agree with your analysis here. --ℕ ℱ 19:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl in the above thread has a good analysis of why the original first paragraph of that section was a problem. The current version is somewhat improved.

Naming a non-notable ex-spouse of many years prior who has nothing to do with the current issue, simply because a bad paper published some clickbait ("juicy", apparently), is a bad idea. It's certainly a poignant observation that their children are young women, but poignancy is not really encyclopedic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Earlier today an IP attempted to blank the entire controversy section. Bad idea, but I notice that section has metastasized since I posted this comment two weeks ago about WP:UNDUE. It's now even undue-er. This is not a newspaper; if you want to document every public comment pertaining to this incident, Wikinews is thataway and looks like it could use some attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the whole thing could be summarised in a few sentences. He made some offhand comments, there was a social media campaign, he was then forced to resign, then there were a number of statements criticising his treatment as disproportionate. --ℕ ℱ 00:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Widely described as sexist

At one time we had consensus to use the wording "made contoversial comments that have been critized as 'sexist' im the press/media" (see section "Sexist comments" above). I'm going to change this back until we have consensus here on the talk page to change it to something else. Please discuss here before changing. My problem with "widely described as sexist" is that none of the cited sources actually says this. (If I missed it, please supply a quote). Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point @Kendall-K1: --ℕ ℱ 19:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Married to Collins

Why does "who is married to Professor of immunology Mary Collins" belong in the "Women in science incident" section? It's already mentioned in "Personal life" and I don't see what it has to do with the incident. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's directly relevant as the source indicates. Enough that they mention her 11 times. She's a professor of immunology in the same university as Hunt. Second Quantization (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Boris Johnson info

Someone with writing skills should add the info about Boris johnson defending him. It's relevant since others have attacked him, now someone is defending him. Also there are a few other persons, female scientists Lady this and Dame that that also work in medicine and whatnot that have recently defended him saying something along the lines he's always been very supportive in the advancement of careers of other young staff both male and female. Also some online articles/blogs by females defending him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.253.190 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although I don't want to turn this into a laundry list of those on each side. I did add "Several female scientists and commentators defended Hunt" so it's clear that Donald isn't the only one defending him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Korean press release & Donald blog

I made 2 edits to the page. Coverage was Anglo-centric. Added the press release from the Korea Federation of Women's Science and Technology Associations. This can be viewed, including in English, via the homepage: direct linking currently not apparently possible. You wait to see a green N and the date, click there, download PDF.

Secondly, I removed a statement which appeared to be suggesting that Athene Donald supported a petition for Hunt's reinstatement by placing a link on her blog. That link was put in the comments section by a commenter: that a comment is allowed does not mean the commenter's views reflect those of the blogger. However, as her blog post reiterated her support of Hunt, I did not delete the citation of the blog post. Hildabast (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed the blog ref, because it isn't needed; the quote is in the other ref. We shouldn't be using blog sources except as needed for statements by the blog's author. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Transcript of speech

The Times have now published a transcript of the relevant section of Tim Hunt's speech which puts the whole affair in a completely different light. The Times article is behind a paywall but there is a report in The Independent. I have limited internet access at the moment. Is anyone able to incorporate this into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 June 2015‎

I am a bit uncomfortable about that, because, "the new leaked transcript forms part of a 'mission report compiled by an official' and is not being treated as a verbatim transcript.", because the transcript is disputed (by Connie St Louis, in the Independent article you linked), and because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I think if we express these uncertainties clearly, it is probably OK. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the very concern you highlight is something I attempted to address in my edits, which have unfortunately been reverted. Saint91 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The transcript was first published in The Times. Here's a link to the article but its behind a paywall. The Times is unlikely to publish such a transcript unless they have good evidence that it is correct, and is going to be a more reliable source than Connie St Louis.

New evidence has now been made available in another article in The Times. Here's the relevant extract:

"The official wrote, in a document suppressed by the commission: “I didn’t notice any uncomfortable silence or any awkwardness in the room as reported on social and then mainstream media.”

The official added that his neighbour, a woman from the Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology and an organiser of the conference, responded positively. “Without being asked, she said she was impressed that Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech (her words). Later she told me that all other Korean lunch participants she talked to didn’t notice or hear anything peculiar in Sir Tim’s speech.”

An article in Nature by a female scientist who worked with Tim Hunt also testifies to his character and I think this link needs to be included too.Dahliarose (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't see why Connie St Louis writing in The Guardian is a less reliable source than some entirely anonymous individual reported in The Times. Big newspapers can and do lie/mislead their readers. Given that we don't know the truth, we should simply present both points of view.

2. I'm very reluctant to include an unnamed individual at the EC reporting what an unnamed individual at the KRCST is supposed to have said. In fact, I can't even find an example of an organisation called the "Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology". There is, however, a Korea Federation of Women’s Science and Technology Associations which hosted the event and it stated in a letter that: "As women scientists we were deeply shocked and saddened by these remarks, but we are comforted by the widespread angered response from international social and news media: we are not alone in seeing these comments as sexist and damaging to science. Although Dr. Hunt is a senior and highly accomplished scientist in his field who has closely collaborated with Korean scientists in the past, his comments have caused great concern and regret in Korea... old prejudices are still well embedded in science cultures. On behalf of Korean female scientists, and all Koreans, we wish to express our great disappointment that these remarks were made at the event hosted by KOFWST. This unfortunate incident must not be portrayed as a private story told as a joke." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/16/sexist-scientist-i-was-being-honest.html

3. I wouldn't object to the the article in Nature - but it's just another example of people he knows who have come out to support him. That's already mentioned in the article, so it's largely redundant. Saint91 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

According to The Times article Connie St Louis only disagrees about the words "not seriously". The other two journalists did not dispute the version reported in The Times. This is what the article says: "Ms St Louis disputes that Sir Tim said “now seriously”, but the two other journalists with her have not contradicted the report. It also is in agreement with Tim Hunt's account of the affair in The Guardian in which he states he used the words "not seriously"." I don't know about the Korean organisation but Wikipedia articles are reliant on secondary sources. If the organisation has been wrongly named then no doubt it will be corrected in another source. The Nature article is important because it testifies to Hunt's clumsy jokes but also the support that he has received from the many female scientists who have worked for him. Dahliarose (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edits which contest the bias present in this article

Nonsenseferret has reverted a substantial amount of vital info.

The edit communicates several important points:

1. UCL say they did not force Tim Hunt to resign. They claim he resigned before they could get in touch with him.
2. Journalists present claim that during the lunch break, Tim Hunt said he was being "honest", rather than joking.
3. The Korean women belonging to the scientific federation which hosted the event also said his comments were not a joke, but rather that they were disappointed by old prejudices.
4. The accuracy of the transcript of the speech published in The Times has been disputed by another journalist.

Erasing these points means large sections of the story are not being told.

As to Nonsenseferret's reasons for reverting the edit:

1. Connie St. Louis is a journalist who reported on the event she witnessed. If the anonymous official's account's is included in the article, so can St Louis' disputing that that is what was actually said.
2. While I appreciate that the controversy section is getting rather long, I think it's important to ensure that we write a balanced account which tells the whole story, rather than one that is obviously biased in favour of Hunt. Since prominence is a legitimate issue, you are free to edit in more about his scientific work in other sections. There seems far too little information on that in the article at present. But I hope we can agree that adding to those sections is the approach we should take, rather than erasing vital info which brings balance to the controversy section.

Thank you for reading. Saint91 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I’ve tweaked some wording and added a reference to improve the article as one describing an ongoing controversy that is not yet resolved. As a side issue, I was surprised to see that there is no Wikipedia article about Connie St. Louis, given her high media profile. For this controversy (if for no other reason) she deserves her own bio page. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nonsenseferret, I can’t see why you don’t count the Daily Mail as a legitimate source – it is a national newspaper and it published an article that added to the debate. And the reason why I added 'reported to have said' is because, as far as I know, there is no audio recording of what he actually said, and therefore the debate revolves around what he and others, including crucially Connie St. Louis, reported that he said. (I know that when giving talks, even from a written script, that it is easy to deviate by a few words from what is intended, such that what is actually said on the day can be subtly different. How do you be sure that this is not the case in this instance?) Wally Tharg (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail doesn't have a widespread reputation for factual accuracy and shouldn't be used as a source for contentious information on BLPs. As I understand it those words weren't the ones disputed by anyone. If they were we should make it clearer than using weasely words like "reported that". We don't have to be sure, we just go on what the reliable sources say. I disagree that St Louis meets any of the notability guidelines for inclusion here, there really hasn't been significant coverage about the details of her life or academic contributions such as would establish WP:GNG (and see also WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BLP1E). --ℕ ℱ 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your justification and explanation. I agree that the Daily Mail isn’t the most rigorous source – hopefully a more reliable discussion will appear in a quality publication sometime soon (but I’m not betting on that being The Guardian!). Perhaps we should wage a campaign (or design a bot) to purge Wikipedia more generally of references to articles in the Mail about living persons, or any other topic come to that, if we think it’s that unreliable. (Consistency is important.) As for Ms. St. Louis’ notability, I struggle with this in general. She has contributed on Radio 4 (a reliable source?), where even the continuity announcers get Wikipedia pages without question. The notability bar for authors and academics in general seems to have been set a lot higher than it is for sportspeople, for example. (Will review if and when she gets a chair.) The reason I thought it informative to mention St. Louis in this context is that she seems to be one of the major protagonists in the public downfall of a notable person, just as it might be to mention Gavrilo Princip (otherwise a nonentity) in an article about Archduke Ferdinand ... ;--) Wally Tharg (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just one small point re Gavrilo Princip - I think the thing that makes his case very different to St Louis is the depth of coverage and attention to his biographical details, such as shown at Serbia: Belgrade's monument to Franz Ferdinand assassin. He isn't notable to wikipedia because of what he did, or because Belgrade gave him a monument, but because many reliable sources think him important enough to devote a lot of attention to his biography. --ℕ ℱ 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please DEFINE honourary professorship

This is going to be tough, because the news reports I saw didn't explain. But what is the honorary professorship position? I'm used to thinking that an "honorary" position is one you don't really have, more or less; but in London it might be different. So details like whether he has a salary, office, lab, how long he works there daily, etc. are all highly desirable for anyone to understand what is at stake. Are students impacted by this? Etcetera. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In Britain, an honorary position is one you don't get paid for, but it may well have duties and privileges. But it would need some research to find the duties and privilege Hunt's professorship. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has details of the various honorary positions at UCL and the application process. Titles are normally awarded to people doing collaborative research. The main benefit would be remote access to digital sources such as scientific papers through the online library.Dahliarose (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Daily Mail article on BBC Radio interview

I've had this removed

On the 10th of June, one female scientist interviewed on BBC Four characterised his 37 word remark as a five minute diatribe, saying "He just ploughed on for five to seven minutes, actually... It was really shocking. It was culturally insensitive and it was very sexist."

Note that this is quoted by Sarah Harris (daily mail) as well as Guy Adams above).

BBC ref is here - June 10 "he just ploughed on for about five to seven minutes" - this is a matter of public record.

The fact that the sentence is 37 words is a matter of public record.

@Nonsenseferret: -- Aronzak (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake, they're the same article, the first is embedded in the second article. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Removal of content

I have removed a number of statements where we are citing an organisations press release that has not been the subject of independent commentary in secondary sources. If it wasn't commented on independently, then we have no objective way to assess the importance of the statement as regards including it here, and to do so is pretty much down the line of original research. --ℕ ℱ 21:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you about the removal of the statements from the various organisations. I was somewhat concerned about the insertion of the Korean statement for the very same reason, and my initial thoughts were to include the other statements for the sake of balance. However, as you say, none of these statements appear to have been published so it's best to leave them out. Dahliarose (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

further removal of comments

I have removed some further comments which were re-reverted by original author and described as "critical". Nothing on wikipedia editing is critical, what we've got is a decision about what is due and undue level of detail. The situation about his comments overall is really a pretty small footnote on a significant scientific career. The level of detail we already have is undue and recentism. The text as it stands clearly establishes the various points of view. Ie he was making a light hearted comment not intended to cause offence, but it did in fact cause offence. That is not disputed by any of the independent sources. --ℕ ℱ 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that removal[1], Nonsenseferret. Hunt later said he regretted that phone message he recorded for BBC Radio 4 Today programme, so a long quote from it is certainly undue weight.

I think there are two easy ways to resolve the issue of due weight. One is to wait for hindsight, after a few weeks or months, we will better be able to judge which details are worth keeping. Second is to make the scientific biography longer.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, it would be much easier to judge in a few months time. One of the problems we have is that this incident has been the subject of comment on various internet forums. Therefore I predict a lot of effort to spin this content in either direction which we will have to keep an eye on in the meantime. --ℕ ℱ 12:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what this article looks like in a few months' time, when this whole sorry business has blown over. Hopefully by then the controversy section will have been cut down to the length it deserves. Right now, as others have noted, it's got much more content than the section about Hunt's actual scientific career; making him seem almost like a person famous for making allegedly sexist comments who happens to be Nobel Prize-winning scientist, rather than the other way around. (See James Watson, another Nobel winner who's made plenty of controversial statements over the years, for an example of a better balanced article - it rightly focuses on his scientific career first and foremost.) A lot of the material in this article at the moment seems trivial and recentist; for example, do we really need to include the opinions of Brian Cox and Jonathan Dimbleby on the matter? Arguably not. Robofish (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the main argument for including comments by Cox and Dimbleby was that they were the subject of independent comment beyond their original published source. By contrast many of the statements which I have already removed were in the nature of press releases or comment by individual, which was not the subject of detailed coverage in independent sources. Cox was interviewed on a radio show, then his comments were reprinted prominently in countless national newspapers and at least two national television news networks. Similarly Dimbleby's resignation has been reported in many reliable sources not only the national press in the UK but it seems around the world too. That seems to me a reasonably objective argument to include them. --ℕ ℱ 21:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of removing content to balance an article - I think expansion of the other sections is what's important here. As intimated by my question about honourary professorship, we know something of how he lost it but we have little idea of what it is in the first place! Wnt (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

use of 'defenders' heading

I've just undid some changes including the change of a heading from wider reaction to defenders. I think that is a problematic change because it does not fairly represent the statements that were made under the heading. As far as I can see, nobody condones or defends the comments that were made. There does seem however to be a view that the comments were taken out of context and the reaction was quite disproportionate. I don't think that is exactly a defence in the sense most people would understand it.--ℕ ℱ 12:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue Weight

This article is Extremely unbalanced. That this one minor controversy should outweigh his Nobel work is laughable at best. The entire section should be reduced to a few sentences. Expanding his Nobel work so that the rest doesn't look like an attack page is not the correct way to improve the article. Arzel (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)