Talk:Alessandro Strumia

Single Persons Opinion as "media coverage"

There is a delete/undelete "war" about this sentence at the very end of the article:

• >> Jessica Wade, a physicist at Imperial College, London who spoke at the same conference, rebuked Strumia's claims,[6][7] saying they have "long been discredited"[8] and comparing them to James Damore's controversial memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".[9]<<

Here is my opinion about that: It looks like some sort of "promoting" sentence, focusing on the person Jessica Wade: It is not relevant to the article that Jessica Wade is a physicist at Imperial College. I think it is also not relevant to the article that she spoke at the same conference. I see the point that some people find the specific quote and the comparison relevant, but I do not. If one thinks this is relevant it should be moved to a "MEDIA" or "RECEPTION" section and if there is such a section it can't consist just of a single quote. --77.12.31.18 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The media coverage, which is what we have to base that portion of this article upon, finds her commentary worth including. We accurately summarize the available sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with 77.. Wade is an advocate of more women in physics. An article such as this should not be available as a vehicle to promote her views, albeit by other people. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please see the admin edit summary concerning protection - we need to thrash out the issues on this Talk page rather than edit warring. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Reporting her views is not the same as promoting them. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also agree for the removal of Wade's quote. Her role in this event is not clear, other than being present at the workshop, being an advocate for women in science, and having had her opinion reported by various news sources. But her quote adds nothing substantive other than expressing disagreement. News articles tend to follow a structure where controversial or minority statements are followed by a contrary statement voicing the majority opinion, even if it adds nothing to the news, but Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so I don't see a reason to follow that pattern here. Wade's opinion could find a place in a "reactions" section, where it would come good last (after much more relevant reactions such as the official CERN and Pisa University statements). Udippuy (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In particular I take issue with the fact that Wade's quote not only doesn't add anything, but it is actually false. Strumia presented his own original analysis, which has not "been discredited" before. If she actually criticized his data, his method, his logic/conclusions, or (for the sake of argument) his presentation being the chaotic mess that it is, then that would be a valuable addition to the story. However, her quote does not express anything beyond being offended, which is already fully reflected in the rest of the paragraph. Witbolt (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's not Wikipedia's role the merit of the quote, only if it's relevant enough to be added to this entry. And I don't think it is, Wade represents only herself and is not an authority in the subject. Udippuy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. However, had she been quoted for stating a simple observation (e.g. that Strumia was not wearing a tie), we wouldn't be talking about authority. Instead we would be talking about the information itself being irrelevant. In my view, this is the case here. In the context of his citation argument, the quote is fundamentally beside the point and doesn't add any relevant information. It really doesn't matter, though. The case for including it is weak either way. Witbolt (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about slavishly following the typical structure of a news story. It's about accurately summarizing a feature of the event that was widely reported by multiple sources, all of which decided that her opinion was pertinent. The case for inclusion is solid. If Wade were just the contrarian voice in one news report, I wouldn't particularly care. But as it stands, omitting her amounts to misrepresenting our sources and thereby violating NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You'd be right if this was an entry about the media coverage. In that case, it would be necessary to say that "several news sources reported the opinion of Jess Wade, who was a speaker at the event, claiming that... etc. etc.". That would be true and would make some sense. Just reporting Wade's reaction as if it were relevant in itself is giving her opinion undue weight. Udippuy (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with the phrasing "several news sources reported", etc., or something in that vein. (I had considered editing that sentence to use a "was widely quoted as" kind of phrasing, but I hadn't settled on a good way to do that yet.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias in article

This article seems like it is written by someone heavily biased towards Strumia, and it is sloppy in its citations. It says 'Whipple has recently contested claims..' but this is absurd, Whipple is a science journalist who wrote a popular science article, if anything this point should refer to the actual scientific paper that Whipple's article is referring to. This argument is also heavily cherry-picked, there is plenty of scientific research to back up the reality of sexism in academia and discrimination against women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interlooper (talk • contribs)

I removed that passage per policy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Now the article is biased again. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Now it's compliant with policy again. I also removed this comparison of Strumia with James "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" Damore, since that comparison was not supported by a citation to a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but it was biased, but not now that the statement from Wade has been removed. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wade was quoted by all of the news organizations that the article currently uses as sources; quoting her opinion here is fair. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It was an opinion, that's all, but it was being used to counter the research carried out by Strumia. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion supported by research, but more importantly for present purposes, it's part of the reporting on the incident, which is what we base our coverage upon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So where's the research? No. It's the opinion of someone with a personal agenda, who attended Strumia's presentation and was 'offended' by it. Hardly the type of material we should be including here. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

XOR: First off, it is at the very least highly controversial. Simply calling it "supported by research" reveals your bias. Second, it is presented as authoritative rebuttal. Citations are placed to give the impression of adding weight to the argument. However, both sources are just newspaper articles quoting her without adding anything. This would only be acceptable in a section about media coverage. In its current form, the article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witbolt (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC) — Witbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Both sources"? There are four. They include a fair amount of context-setting and links to further reading. Per WP:PRIMARY, I refrained from adding a link to Wade's own presentation at that conference (the references therein do a fair job of indicating where she's coming from, but this is neither the time nor the place to jump down that rabbit hole).

A claim can be "supported by research" and "highly controversial" at the same time. Research is often suggestive or indicative without being definitive.

In its current form, the article does a decent but unremarkable job of describing Strumia's presentation, the blowback it received and the consequences that followed. Omitting any of these elements would do a disservice to our readers. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case it is neither suggestive nor indicative. In fact, the exact opposite is just as much "supported by research". Using that as an argument without additional explanation is nothing but disingenuous. As is the article.

As for sources: Sorry, I didn't keep up with your adding anything you could find on the web. None of it makes her quote any more relevant, though. Witbolt (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not add "anything [I] could find on the web". You don't want to see me when I add everything I can find on the web. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Current employer

This page pops up in a Google search, but I can't determine if it's his current employer: [1]. Any thoughts on this? 5.81.164.16 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Slides

Why aren't his slides cited in the article? Those are the primary source regarding his talk and are available here.

(redact copyvio link)

They also mention both "theories" explicitly, why aren't we mentioning them in the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanyelCavazos (talk • contribs)

DanyelCavazos in reply to your message on my talk page, that the BBC only quoted him partially is not an issue; also see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since that quote is what the BBC focuses on, we use that; if you have an issue with the BBC news article take it up with them. There is no need to complete the sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Udippuy you may not like it, but that single quote is what the BBC cites and there's a focus on; the material you've inserted is not supported by the source and does not represent the sourcing per neutral point of view policy. Please also see WP:V Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter I understand that that single quote is what many media sources might be reporting, and I have no objections to it being mentioned (among others) in the section of the page dedicated to the controversy; however I don't think it's fair to use a newspaper headline or a twitter quote to summarise the whole work. Newspapers and social media pick on scandals and controversy, Wikipedia strives to be a source of neutral information. I remain of my opinion that it's better to describe shortly what the presentation was about rather than to pick only its most inflammatory (and ambiguous) quote. Udippuy (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Udippuy, the inflammatory quote is why the incident is notable and cannot be glossed over. Being neutral means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; reliable sources, in this case news media, don't focus on the overall content of the presentation but on the quote and so that should be included in the lead; you also need to find a reliable secondary source to support your insertion per WP:V Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter that "the inflammatory quote is why the incident is notable" is your personal opinion: it's just the quote from the presentation short and controversial enough to fit the headlines. But WP is not a newspaper headline. In fact the whole content of the presentation is controversial, not very different in tone from Google's Damore memo. And if you read the full news articles they summarise other contents of the presentation. For example, the same BBC article you quote says: "He told his audience ... that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside". Or: (Strumia quote) "People say that physics is sexist, physics is racist. I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so." Wouldn't be more fair to summarise this? Udippuy (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Women in Science and Technology

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_27 § Category:Controversies_about_women_in_science_and_technology, and fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/14 juin 2006 § Sémantique de la catégorisation

This is a wholly inappropriate category for this article. See the category contents. Any objections to its removal? 5.81.164.16 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why "inappropriate"? It looks like Strumia is mainly (only?) notable for what he said about women in science. Apokrif (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said at the deletion discussion, I think he was notable before this incident, per WP:PROF. That may end up being the consensus view over there. I'm not sure whether the category is appropriate or not; it has a few books and organizations thrown in, so people have at least some of the time used it for "articles relevant to the topic of women in science", not just "articles about people who are women in science". XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The category is basically a list of women (in science and technology), Strumia is not a woman. Would we ever want to place a female scientist in the Men in Science and Technology category? 5.81.164.16 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There are 45 women listed in the category, and one man - Strumia. His place in the list is wholly inappropriate. The intention is to list women of science, not men who have a view on feminist issues. I'll be bold and remove it. 5.81.164.16 (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed it yesterday for the same reason, but was reverted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the removal. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@5.81.164.16: "The category is basically a list of women (in science and technology)" No, it's a list of pages about women in STEM, which is why it contains articles about things which are not women (e.g an organization and a book). For lists of women in STEM, there is another category.

"The intention is to list women of science" No, it's to list articles about women in STEM.

" Would we ever want to place a female scientist in the Men in Science and Technology category?" Yes, if this is relevant (i.e., if this woman is notable for having done something about men in STEM).

Apokrif (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert

@Udippuy: To clarify, the guideline is at WP:BRD—the Bold, revert, Discuss cycle. You made some bold edits, you were reverted, so you should have come to the talk page to dicuss it, not just revert as you did. Still, as to what was unhelpful about your particular edits:

• Your insertion of "controversial" flies in the face of against the neutral point of view policy (although, arguably, so does "discredited");
• The previous long section heading regarding the controversy you reverted to is both unhelpful to readers generally and unnecessary. The watchword, as ever, are "short and simple";
• The source you added: please see WP:PTS and wp:RS.

I have no particular beef with any particular formatting, phrasing that is established on this page through community discussion and consensus, but blind reverting is not the way to proceed. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Hi SerialNumber, thank you for bringing this to the talk page. These are my considerations:

• As for the controversial/ discredited part, I didn't make bold edits, I reverted a bold edit (unsourced, non NPOV, not summarized) that was made by the previous user. The original version of the page said "controversial". You reverted back to the bold edit without coming to the talk page first. "Controversial" seems about right- the WP entry for the Damore memo lists a few scientists on both sides of the debate.
• The expression "anti-diversity" comes with a strong political connotation. The speech tried to prove that there is no sexism in physics, to qualify it as "anti-diversity" is to make a logical jump that implies some background political view.
• Not sure about your third point, seemed a decent reference (even if for some reason it's a Google site, still it claims to be the official page for the Theoretical Physics Group at Pisa University and INFN). But if you think it isn't, I have no problem with it, I'll try to find a better one.

Thanks, cheers, Udippuy (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Actually, he was the one who reverted and you are the one who should be discussing: "Don't restore your changes" as per WP:BRD.

The memo is certainly controversial. "Discredited" is arguably false, see "On the science" in the memo's entry with notable scientists taking either side. As for the title, short is good, but "anti-diversity" is a loaded term.

Mention of Sabine Hossenfelder's analysis

I have some doubts about the part that mentions Sabine Hossenfelder's analysis. While interesting, it was not widely cited in the media; her conclusions don't have any more value than Strumia's and the whole part that mentions them feels like a need to close the entry by reaffirming the mainstream position in the debate. Which is a journalistic device, not something suited to an encyclopedia. I would remove it or just shorten it, without entering in the details of her argument. Any opinions on this? Udippuy (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

it helps a lot to understand the reasoning within the physisits community. hossenfelder cites actual research. which makes the whole story a lot easier to follow. the alternative to cite the research directly for every slide into the article would be a little too much, at least for my taste. as we cannot judge the value its not a bad strategy to cite the different viewpoints and let the reader form an opinion, and with it try to make it neutral. we should not make the strickland error again, jump on twitter instead on what is coming out of the relevant community. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hossenfelder's Opinions are hardly representative of the “scientific community” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:71:F7B5:B42F:E90B:B04D:B8F (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

He wrote an article about it.

https://quillette.com/2019/04/16/why-are-women-under-represented-in-physics/ - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on Pro-Strumia petition

Full disclosure: I am the author of the "Justice For Strumia" statement.

At its present state, the article gives the impression that the petition to reinstate professor Strumia was created by the same person who wrote the blog post in his defense. In reality, the petition is organized by "Science Censored" - a blog by a German academic named Tom Todd, which documents instances of perceived scholarly censorship. After corresponding with Todd, I decided to direct readers of my post to his petition.

I am not sure if this comment is "valid" given that I am personally involved in the case, but I thought it would be of interest to clarify this detail.

Circumstances of Strumia controversy

We should restore the fragment which described the circumstances due to which the whole controversy started.

The current version of the article appears to suggest that the reason were his inflammatory statements. The twitter campaign of Jess Wade was not concerned about the names that appeared in the slides of Strumia, but by its (non-feminist) content as a whole. This is relevant because it's different from the reasons for which he got suspended (naming CERN employees in his slides). Therefore we should note that the investigation started due to activism or a strike on freedom of speech, which was later justified by CERN officials by finding the right paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteranza (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No explanation of what Strumia stated in his presentation

I just came to this article to have a read, and I can't help but notice that the explanation of what he did is extremely thin -- I had to go to another website in order to find what he did.

Why is the entire extent of the explanation of his presentation "Instead, he claimed that male scientists were victims of discrimination."?

This is extremely broad and does not remotely assess the specifics of what he stated - in such a bizarre way I've never seen before on Wikipedia.

Is there any reason that this should not be more in depth? User:Kaptinkeiff User talk:Kaptinkeiff - Keith 22:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Kaptinkeiff! You're completely right, this is why I've took some effort to document the circumstances in which this controversy started (see the above section). I've listened to the talk and viewed the slides (there is a youtube video containing both), but I can't find a flaw in it beside naming a CERN employee. This, of course is different from what you learn from (most) media articles dedicated to this issue. --Masteranza (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Masteranza! I understand you created a Wikipedia account only to edit Strumia's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Masteranza), but I don't think it's appropriate to say you "can't find a flaw" in his presentation when he has been criticised for it on almost all news outlets. Of the "2370" signatories for Justice for Strumia, was a single one notable? The cited page claims to include 1,742 names, very few of whom appear to be academics and even fewer of whom seem to be real if you google them. Further, you can only see the top of the list. Additionally the link to the Justice For Strumia blog is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: you are strongly discouraged from editing this page per our WP:BLPCOI policy, due to your real-life dispute with Strumia that has been mentioned in Le Point: [2] Please respect that. --Pudeo (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: you seem to indicate that I should be satisfied with reading the vague news outlets or the exaggerated and inaccurate (to say it softly) PoJ statement. People who signed this should be ashamed, similarly to the "A Hundred Authors Against Einstein". Adhering to the voice of majority and the media is a lazy, immoral and unscientific way to judge someone - I hope that you agree with me on this one. After reviewing the primary evidence (recording & slides) I have no doubt that Strumia has been treated very unfairly, this is why I participate in this wikipedia entry. Now, what are your motivations? Since, you're here maybe you could tell us firsthand about your part in this whole controversy? Is it possible that your perception of this man was a bit skewed from the beginning when you called him the "head of theory CERN"? This would fit the "patriarchy" picture nicely, wouldn't it? Masteranza (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This comment verges on being a personal attack. Please remain civil. XOR'easter (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Masteranza! It is sad, you missed that in his talk he is referring to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on slide 25 as reason behind modern equity efforts. I think that would be quite relevant. - anonymous 10:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This article has significant issues with unreliable, or not-sufficiently-reliable sourcing. The item in Le Point is an opinion column (which ends with the flourish of comparing Strumia to Galileo, for crying out loud...), and Strumia's own blog is a self-published source. The claim that the arXiv censored him or suppressed his speech is an unverifiable self-serving claim, exactly the sort of thing that WP:SPS says we can't use a person's own blog for. (And since his paper has since been published anyway, it's a moot point, and mentioning it in the article is undue weight.) I looked for citations other than his own CV to support the PhD thesis award and could not find any; there's barely anything on that award at all, which is not so unusual for best-paper or best-thesis awards. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, accusing him on social media is emotionally-laden, POV phrasing, and elicited a response from one of the seminar's organizers is both awkward and so vague it essentially means nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter to be fair the "Particles for Justice" contains a number of wrong and pompous statements, so perhaps it should also be flagged as unreliable? Example: the lie that Strumia "belittled people of color", neither his slides nor the audio recording contain any mentions of people of color nor did he claim that "women are inherently less capable" etc. The information from his own blog falls into WP:ABOUTSELF and it's not an expert opinion of any kind so WP:SPS is not applicable here. Best solution for a concise and proper entry would be (IMO) deleting all, but the first two paragraphs (as for my 11/19/19 edit) in "Talk on gender discrimination". What are your suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteranza (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

All we say about "Particles for Justice" is what reliable secondary sources have written about it, which is right and proper. The information from his own blog does not fall into WP:ABOUTSELF, because it is a self-serving claim. (Parenthetically, he seems given to emotional hyperbole, assertinf for example that he "might now be ... the author of the only scientific publication that cannot be posted on arXiv", which is obviously untrue.) The section would be fine as it is without the sentence referenced to Le Point, which again, is an opinion column and not a suitable source for anything on this matter, and the sentence about the arXiv supposedly censoring him. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Great @XOR'easter:, so if a "reliable" source propagates lies about someone (speaking of personal attacks!) you turn a blind eye and call this "right and proper"? In Le Point, Peggy Sastre has pointed out that Jess Wade "indignation campaign" led to a reaction of CERN officials. This, by itself is hard to verify since User:Jesswade88 has been denying that on twitter, but I find the information likely given that: 1. She is cited in most online articles portraying Strumia sexist 2. Was at the conference with Marika Taylor 3. Her viral tweets predate the CERN and media statements. Yet, I think we can omit this information. We can also do without the supposedly self-promoting claim about arXiv block. However, I strongly recommend that we restore the link to the Le Point article as it shows that he was not the only one who saw his statements misquoted and truncated by the media - I leave you the chance to do it your way. Masteranza (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's hard to verify, it might not be true. Finding it likely yourself is not a good test. And the Sastre piece is clearly an editorial (or maybe more strongly a polemic), and cannot be used to source anything beyond Sastre's own opinions. It certainly is not reliable for sourcing, implying, or even hinting at a causal connection between social media and CERN's actions. And as she seems to be best known as an advocate for the right of men to sexually harass women, it's not obvious that Sastre has much credibility in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, give yourself a chance and listen to the recording and then consider the fact that he was fired for this presentation. He clearly touched a taboo subject where discussion is not welcomed, as did Sastre with the #MeToo movement. Naming the CERN employee is a lame and false pretense (btw. if it was about man giving the position to a less experienced man we would be speaking of corruption in the European science establishment). Nevertheless, I know now that this article is not the right place to write about this obvious causal connection. Most critically minded people who care enough to look at the evidence have already done it and know it.Masteranza (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To me (especially after reading Hossenfelder's deconstruction of his results at http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/10/gender-bias-in-academia-case-strumia.html, which we discuss but don't actually link) it doesn't look like he was correct but misunderstood; instead, it looks more like an instance of him being the sort of naive physicist depicted in https://xkcd.com/793/, with the exception that his naiveté got him into more trouble than usual. But I don't think my opinion should be injected into the article any more than yours should. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I'm glad we've reached some agreement. He certainly got misunderstood, but no one should get into this much trouble as he has for stating the results of his research. The depiction of naive physicist sure is funny, but there's a lot of truth behind this meme. Just recently I've learned that the vast majority of R&D team of one of US self-driving car companies are physicists. Talking about Hossenfelder's argument about the "leaky pipeline" - it looks promising, but it might be wrong. The mystery of the "leaky pipeline" could actually be the result of increased demographics in female physics students (more young female researchers relative to older female researchers), see Fig. 7 and Eq. 2 in Strumia's upcoming paper. In any case I'd like to see those ideas discussed and challanged instead of all this gestapo-like nonsense. My objective here is to keep the article fair and balanced - I'm fine with the current state, but again it would be nice to note that Strumia is not the only one who claims that "PoJ and the media misquoted him or/and trancuated his statements in a misleading way".Masteranza (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter's removals. The article looks appropriately neutral in the resulting state. We cannot use self-published sources on matters of controversy, and editorials by others are also best avoided in favor of just stating what happened without interpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

According to this Quillette article https://quillette.com/2019/04/22/alessandro-strumia-another-politically-correct-witch-hunt-or-a-more-complicated-story/ Alessandro Strumia was very much aware of what he was doing. It seems that he planned to give an incendiary talk to get fired with maximum possible media attention. That media misquotes and misrepresents in such cases is hardly relevant. He was well aware of the consequences of his actions and there is evidence that he did this according to his own political opinions. -- anonymous 18:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)