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)

So, let me get this straight. You (rightfully) won't put this controversy on the Rosetta page, you won't put it on Taylor's page, so where exactly is this extremely newsworthy event going to go, or shall it go down the same bitbucket that everything else showing how deep into negativity feminism goes? 71.131.176.187 (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an undeniable and noteworthy fact that his personal style has been the subject of widespread comment in the media, including a quite lengthy article from Boris Johnson claiming that it shouldn't have been the subject of widespread comment (?!). This should be reflected in the article. Clearly, however, it should not dominate the article or take anything away from his scientific accomplishments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've already moved my position from the shirt incident being completely irrelevant to a point where I think giving it a small note is justifiable. I strongly agree though; that the current edit wherein it's mention as a footnote is an improvement. This is Matt Taylors page. It's not meant to display negative, positive or any other implications of feminism. I get being pissed about this story's hijacking by a woman who was mad about a shirt, but I don't think any more time should be committed to it. DuusieDos (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In Matt Taylor's article, as well as in Rosseta spacecraft's article, a link to Women in science is necessary, explaining that the controversy revolves around the issues that are talked about in that article. Perhaps this controversy also has a place within that article's section "Women_in_science#Recent_controversies".--Kiyarrlls-talk 13:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not only is the controversy not relevant to the Rosetta (spacecraft) article; the Link you propose would only weigh in further on a subject that should be kept minimal. DuusieDos (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft(s) of proposed edit

Draft 1 "In a press meeting as a representive of the European Space Agency, Matt Taylor wore a shirt that was very much not in line with dress code at formal occasions. The issues faced by women in science were quickly brought up, being the shirt in question one filled with semi-naked women. Two women from the field [1] [2] remarked critically that it was an unappropriate shirt, given the difficulties that exist for women in this specific field. Matt Taylor appologized tearfully in the next Rosetta mission public broadcast." what do you think of this specific draft? --Kiyarrlls-talk 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)--

It's not bad overall, but I think "wore a shirt that was very much not in line with dress code at formal occasions" is a little weasel-y for my liking. I think simply stating, without judgement, what the shirt had on it would be fine. I also think, as shown by the sources, that "two women" vastly under-represents the number of people who complained about it. Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the wording of the proposed redraft is abysmal. The existing wording is far clearer and more neutral, though it could be improved, perhaps by adding a (very) few words about the shirt design. There are no obvious grounds in reliable sources for a direct link to the "women in science" article - what is proposed here is pure synthesis, as well as being ungrammatical, weaselly and mis-spelled. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good draft. It's too wordy for something that should merely be a mention, it's heavily weighed on one side, you have at least three spelling mistakes in it, and it lacks any sort of grammatical structure. There's no grounds to twist an article to fit the before mentioned women in science link, and the whole thing smells of lazy propaganda. DuusieDos (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The current version has improved from what it was, yet I see certain problems with it still, which I believed my version resolved.

• It was not his personal life, it was his public life as a representative of ESA, as a scientist.
• The article does not link neither to women in science nor to Women in STEM fields
• His public apology is not included.

Progress is often slow, but it is better that it be slow than non-existent. --Kiyarrlls-talk 01:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

I've reinstated the Boris Johnson quote removed in this edit. Johnson is a very prominent UK politician, the most senior public figure who has commented on the controversy (so far as I'm aware), and his views (one sentence out of a substantial article written specifically on this issue) are sufficiently noteworthy to be quoted, whether you agree with his comments or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See Neutrality, clarity, Boris Johnson etc section below.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

There's currently a crowdfunding project on indiegogo where people can donate money to give gifts to the Rosetta Project scientists. The main premise seems to be that the bad press surrounding the shirt was distasteful and they want to show their support of the team and their scientific accomplishment. While I don't think it's currently relevant, I do believe that if the article is amended to contain the shirt controversy again it should be included as it already has more than 1300 backers giving 17000$+ after three days. 90.185.22.113 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Neutrality, clarity, Boris Johnson etc

The section "personal life" reads:

"His choice of clothing - a shirt design showing provocatively-dressed women - and tattoos were the subject of widespread comment at the time of the Rosetta landing,[8][9] with Boris Johnson commenting that: "There must be room in our world for eccentricity, even if it offends the prudes, and room for the vague other-worldliness that often goes with genius."[10]"

Several problems exist with this part. If the 'controversy' is to be addressed in this article, it must be done the proper way. First it has to explain why some people were offended (ie. what did critics saw wrong with his shirt) so that the reader understands what exactly was the problem, in the eyes of those who thought the shirt was inappropriate (some useful links: [1] -there are many links here; and this [2] by Greta Christina is also useful). Then, it must avoid directly or indirectly 'taking sides' and must present the issue in a purely neutral way: the way it stands now, the section is slanted towards one 'side' because the only person quoted is Boris Johnson, with no opposing view being presented. It also gives undue weight to Boris Johnson - while he is an important personality, he is presented here as the ultimate authority and expert on this issue. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4541 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point about sticking to a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. I do take issue with sourcing from Greta Christina's blog per WP:VERIFY and specifically WP:BLOGS, which generally prohibits blog posts as sources, except blogs and other self-published sources by the individual or company that is the subject of the article. There are opinion pieces from major newspapers and magazines, however, that could be cited as sources of opinions on both sides of the controversy. Also, this controversy should not take up too much space in the article, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:BLP issues. Anything beyond that should go into Shirtstorm (provided the subject of that article proves WP:NOTABLE enough to justify keeping that article). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Greta Christina's blog is not a reliable source as it is self published, and Slates badscience blog is questionable at best as a newsblog. (WP:IRS) Furthermore there should not be added any more space to this controversy if anything; the quote should be removed and the section amended to: "His choice of clothing - a shirt design showing provocatively-dressed women - and tattoos were the subject of widespread comment at the time of the Rosetta landing". Perhaps the apology should be mentioned as it is relevant. It is also worth mentioning that if you're so worried about taking sides so much that anything but a total representation of every opinion won't do, then arguably even writing that the women on the shirts were provocatively-dressed is a breach as what is and is not provocative is subjective. The controversy should; in this article, be mentioned as briefly as possible considering WP:UNDUEWEIGHT DuusieDos (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the status as it is now, is that it does not inform, does not explain, does not clarify the issue. Boris Johnson is definitely non-NPOV, and the quote in question is one of the most non-NPOV of his entire op-ed.--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll edit it to rectify that. It did receive a good bit of coverage and should be mentioned explicitly. Tutelary (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for that edit. That is a step in the right direction.--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll edit it again, but note that WP:BOLD applies. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tutelary (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary Kiyarr First off, sources do not need to be non-NPOV, secondly you cannot just state that something is non-NPOV you have to argue why, and thirdly would you please not just decide to edit something that is being so heavily debated on the talk page. First off; I'm reverting all changes made. This topic should not be explicitly mentioned on Matt Taylors page. It should be mentioned as conservatively as possible and then a link to Shirtstorm should be added for clarity. If the Shirtstorm page does get closed, then it should be more detailed in this article. Secondly please read through the discussion. Thirdly; have a nice day. DuusieDos (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources can be biased, as long as they're attributed. However, with this, my edit was kind of bold and I was iffy to collect sources since there's so many. I was figuring that I read so many and decided to add content to the article. I knew it to be sourced, I just didn't collect them at the time. Second, I don't need to argue anything--only if it's contested. Are you contesting it? If so, why? What's wrong with it? Did I summarize something wrong? Did I misuse a source? Etc? Maybe instead of reverting what other editors have written, you can argue for your own changes. And yes it should, it's achieved its due weight and as such, should be in the article. Shirtstorm is likely to be merged, and we need to be ready for that. And I have. Tutelary (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Boris Johnson quote due to the general consensus that it's too heavily weighed on one side. The article should now be completely impartial, I've also added a link to Shirtstorm for clarity. This way the controversy doesn't take up too much space on Matt Taylor as was discussed, however it's not scrubbed away either as any information one might want should be accessible from Shirtstorm DuusieDos (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary Any edit has to contain reliable sources. If you read many of the posts here, then why did you make an edit that is in such contrast to the general consensus? And yes you have to argue your change, especially considering the nature of the edit. This subject has not met WP:DUE by merit of you thinking so. Furthermore you cannot state as fact that you don't have to argue for your edit, then state that I should; especially given that your edit disregards debate surrounding exactly the subject you edited, also keep in mind the second paragraph of WP:BOLD "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted." DuusieDos (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay

I'd say this is pretty controversial. Me and Tutelary had agreed that certain things should be included. And then DuusieDos reverted those edits. (with some cause)

That is why, Tutelary, that I had not been so bold, I was aware of the easy potential for an edit war.

I think we can go slowly.

I think the situation has improved since a couple of days ago.

I reread WP:NOT "resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions"

What is the definition of "completely impartial"? does it mean obscuring the controversy so it is hardly comprehensible? or does it mean putting both sides of the argument in a concise manner, in a way that does justice to both sides? What I mean to propose is working on the formal, on the words, in a way that we can relay the controversy to a reader, a reader of wikipedia that does not know either side.

So regarding the quote of Boris Johnson the problem was not so much that it was not NPOV, the problem was that it portrayed one side as "prudes" - without the other side of the controversy portrayed at all outside of his quote.

--Kiyarrlls-talk 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to quote the new york times article as an example of what I'm saying could be impartiality in this case: "whether you agree that it is ridiculous to pay attention to an ill-advised shirt when scientific enlightenment is in question, or you view the garment as a symptom of the problem of female underrepresentation in the sciences — and both positions have merit[...]"--Kiyarrlls-talk 21:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I still believe such the edit before that I had done was sufficiently neutral and absolutely took to the sources. I've restored it. It should also be noted that DuusieDos has disappeared after his revision stayed. SPAs' thoughts do count, but it is rather telling. I'll wait for him to come back from his 3 day to explain why we shouldn't let WP:DUE take place in accordance to sources. Tutelary (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the current version isn't exactly great either. Not only is now 40+% of all the space in this article devoted to his t-shirt. It also omits important points like

• the T-shirt was actually made by a women and friend for him to wear
• there was also considerable backslash against those people who were blowing things out of proportion too (e.g. Matt Taylors sexist shirt and the day political correctness officially went mad, Hirsi Ali slams feminism's 'trivial BS', How to Turn a Cool Moment Into a #ShirtStorm and others.)

Of course those points cant be added without writing even more, but its either all or (almost) nothing. If this has to be mentioned at all, I would prefer to do it in a single small sentence that there was something. Otherwise we have to explain every aspects of it to achieve a balanced view, which would then turn this article into a t-shirt debate. StoneProphet (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should overblow this out of proportion. Unfortunately, the merge from Shirtstorm is likely to do such anyways. I made sure to give both sides their equal weight (since they were about equal in coverage). Some thought the shirt was insensitive and dissuaded women, while others thought of it as no big deal in the greater accomplishment. Those were the two dominant overpowering views. The 'made by a woman' remark and the 'blowing out of proportion' I think just adds unnecessary and overt detail to the article. I guess we'll need to see what the merge takes us to. And uh, we have to provide WP:DUE weight towards this topic. It's mandated to be covered because a vast majority of the RS are based on his shirt. So naturally, that section will be a bit longer. Tutelary (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to give both views a mention. However, I think the correct opposite position to the "shirt is sexist and prevents women to enter science" position is not "doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things" but it is "claming that this shirt is sexist and prevents women from entering science is ridicoulus and this whole debate is completely crazy" (as e.g. outlined in the sources I linked). Regarding WP:DUE I would throw in WP:NOTNEWS. I still think this whole thing isnt notable at all, just because it is mentioned in some online outlets. Newspapers want clicks, and they dont get it with "boring" astrophysics but with scandals and nude women. But we are not a newspaper and dont have to give this same the weight. Therefore naturally if this gets mentioned, it should be only be very very brief. Plus if half of the article of this guy is now about him beeing a sexist man preventing women from entering science, this could also be a BLP issue... StoneProphet (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment While I have not changed the article text, I did restore some {{cite web}} templates that were among references lost in a content revert. As part of this, the Boris Johnson article is again cited. If someone specifically wants to remove it, I have no objection. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Other sources felt that the shirt was not important in the grand scheme of the overall project" implies that the shirt was indeed sexists, isn't sourced and doesn't belong. if Tutelary wrote it then please forgive me while I count to ten however I'm not going to go back through the IP's logged to find out where the input happened. It's also worth mentioning (here on the talk page) that the two viewpoints seemingly consists of feminists and the rest of the world which gives credence to what StoneProphet was saying. I have yet to see an argument against the shirt written by an unbiased observer. I'm going to edit the biased passage to a neutral one.Tutelary Someone "disappearing" over a weekend is not indicative of anything other than having a social life and I take offense that this was used as an excuse to dismiss valid arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuusieDos (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the new wording, it feels a bit "off" however it's definitely more balanced than before, also I've moved the sources so they are in the right place and fixed a grammatical mistake. I feel like there should perhaps still be a link to Shirtstorm as long as it exists. If not for anything else then for transparency. Alternative wording might be what's needed, I chose to use abuse because it was already sourced. DuusieDos (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Notable for only one event

I like Matt Taylor, but it seems clear to me that he is only notable for one event. ShirtGate deserves mention in Wikipedia, but I think it should be in the Rosetta article. Fnordware (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there is however a "consensus" there that it shouldn't be included. They insisted that a page be created (because they interpret this event as relating to his personal life and not his public life as Rosetta mission leader)and that led to the creation of two pages shirtstorm and Matt Taylor (scientist).--Kiyarrlls-talk 16:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you mention shirtgate you should note that most people are laughing at the hilarious and hypocritical response of the Feminists. --165.165.67.63 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If we accept that Shirtgate is a notable event, then he is notable for two events: overseeing the Rosetta mission, and the Shirtgate controversy. Additionally, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, so even if Shirtgate is not notable enough to be an article of its own, it can be included in this one. Ultrauber (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Shirtstorm

The emerging consensus at the Shirtstorm AfD seems to be leaning towards merging that article, probably into this one. I've put a BLP notice on that talk page and want to be sure that people here know what's brewing. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Maxine Taylor?

I have removed this phrase: "He has a sister, Maxine." I don't think it's necessary to include it, as the article says nothing about her or why she is notable. Additionally, naming her seems inconsistent with WP:BLPNAME. Thoughts? Ultrauber (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Feltman quote

The article contained Writing in The Washington Post, Rachel Feltman said the shirt, which she described as "sexist", was inappropriate to wear in a workplace setting "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display".. I have removed this for the time being to allow for discussion here about whether it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:NEWSBLOG source for a statement that may be disparaging to Matt Taylor. I argue that the quote does not belong in the article because it is a significant portion of the text devoted to the controversy and it contributes to a tone that is other than dispassionate, see WP:BLPSTYLE. There appears to have been some extent of victimizing Matt Taylor over this controversy and we must be cautious not to further harm him, see WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Lastly, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." per the introductory paragraph of WP:BLP. Even though the quote is correctly copied from the given source, I do not believe that it should be in the article, see WP:ONUS. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote neatly sums up the objections to the shirt. Given that you inserted a direct quote where Tim Stanley says the criticism levied against Taylor was "political correctness gone mad," appealing to some sort of "dispassionate" tone seems, at best, misplaced. I've replaced it per WP:BRD — it was merged in from the Shirtstorm article, where it has been for multiple days without apparent objection. Your claim that there is any BLP issue with a quote sourced to an impeccable reliable source also seems to be misplaced. We cite it as Feltman's opinion, and the opinion of a science writer for one of America's most respected newspapers is inherently credible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It has not been for multiple days without apparent objection on Shirtstorm. I objected to the use of the word "sexist" as soon as I had found that you inserted it, and removed it, leaving a lengthy edit summary. I also removed Writing in The Washington Post because I saw it as giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of a single writer on a WP:NEWSBLOG. You immediately reverted me and I left these comments on your talk page, inviting you to join the existing discussion about "a number of commentators" and to create a discussion about the Feltman quote. You barely participated in the discussion about a number of commentators, never responding to my comment calling for its removal on grounds of vagueness and you did not open a discussion about the Feltman quote on that talk page at all. The only reason I did not revert your reinsertion immediately is because I saw doing that as the beginning of an edit war. Preferring a stalemate to an edit war is not no objection. While Rachel Feltman said the shirt was inappropriate to wear in a workplace setting "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display". as I left it in the old article did fit there, in an article about the controversy, it is not appropriate here in an article about Matt Taylor, where a less-than-careful reader could get a false impression that Matt Taylor believes that women's "bodies are really just there for display". 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote in question is from the "Speaking of Science" WP:NEWSBLOG which is not an impeccable reliable source. From WP:NEWSBLOG, with emphasis added, These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. Further, there very well can be BLP issues with a direct quote even from an impeccable reliable source, see WP:NPF, particularly, Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. Matt Taylor is probably not a high-profile public figure and we must be sure that we do not harm his reputation. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I reinserted the Stanley quote because while you had kept the Feltman quote in its entirety, including the "sexist" that I had previously disputed, when merging the articles, you had reduced the Stanley quote to simply an unsourced "political correctness" with no attribution or citation. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It was an attempt at a paraphrase, but I have no objection to using the direct quote from Stanley so long as you don't object to Feltman's quote. Tim Stanley's quote is not from a news story — it is from a first-person op-ed clearly expressing his personal opinion. News articles are not written in the first person and the column is tagged by The Telegraph as "Comment."

Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such. Note the URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/, whereas the Post's WP:NEWSBLOGs have URLs like so: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/. The difference is not merely semantic, it is clearly editorial — one is in the newspaper's "news" section, the other is under its "blogs" section. Thus, The Fix is a NEWSBLOG, Speaking of Science is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

References