Talk:Tim Hunt/Archive 3

Proposed new version of the controversy section
Let's talk about Loki's suggestion. It goes wrong already in the first sentence, in a way that suggests all the problems I've been pointing out. We are in no position to say "Hunt made the following remarks". We would have to say, "In June 2015, Hunt was reported to have said..." We would then have to get into all the details about what he may have actually said and actually meant, and we could not leave any hint that what he actually said was most probably sexist, or, even more importantly, that Hunt outed himself as a "male chauvinist". That is the POV of the people who shamed him, it is not a known fact. I could go on, but the simple problem here is that we would need to include unDUE detail to get this right. Thomas B (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have two possibly helpful suggestions:


 * 1) make a neutral one-sentence statement then explain the details in a footnote. I sense that nobody will agree to this, and perhaps they should't
 * 2) if weight becomes a problem and someone has the biology chops, anything that wins a Nobel Prize surely can be afforded a few more paragraphs of explanation about why his discovery is important and how he discovered it. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with saying he was reported to have said that quote and not that he objectively did. As for the rest: WP:NPOV means we reflect the POV of the sources, not that we take a view from nowhere. While the sources don't agree on a single POV they are pretty unambiguous at least that the reason he was criticized was for sexism, and several of them go on to endorse that conclusion (see JoelleJay's long comment with quotes over at WP:NPOVN for what I mean here). Loki (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're fine with it, why does your most recent edit still say "Hunt said:"? Also, what he was originally reported to have said was simply not the ERC version. That came out later. The version that caused the original offense was much worse. I'm not sure how well you actually understan the story. But the version you're pushing here is much less accurate than the one in the online shaming article. Thomas B (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, I've added the version from WP:NPOVN as suggested above, with the expanded quote as suggested several times both there and here. I personally would still prefer attributing the "online shaming campaign", and I think there's still consensus for doing that, but if there's gonna be a fight about it, I want to start with a version with unambiguous overwhelming consensus behind it before making any significant changes. Loki (talk) 01:30, 5   2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that "online shaming campaign" should not be in wikivoice btw. Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

"you wouldn't want your daughter working for him"
@Elinruby has made a telling remark above. "I've had a look at the BLP now and see that there is plenty else to say about the man, but if you wouldn't want your daughter working for him that seems kind of important too." That is, the explanded version that is now being considered implies that Hunt is not the sort of person you'd want people you love to work for. That is exactly the impression that I am keen to avoid since that is not an image of the man that the balance of the evidence suggests. In fact, the opposite is true (see Fiona Fox's account above.) Thomas B (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I read it before I wrote the comments in the section above. Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) PS I specifically said "daughter" as in the female people you love. Elinruby (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have both a son and a daughter and I wouldn't want either to work for a misogynist. In any case, you seem to be explicitly endorsing a version that essentially says that Hunt is one. I'm against that on WP:BLP grounds since the evidence for a such a strong, negative judgment isn't just very weak: there is good evidence suggesting he is very supportive of women in science and a great person to work with the lab. I'm not going to try to change your opinion of him. I'm only registering that you have formed it on the basis of the misleading information you have gotten here. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears you're consistently having trouble telling the difference between editors offering their personal opinions on Hunt's comments on this talk page, and what's being actually suggested as article content. I don't think Elinruby means to say we should edit the article to tell people you wouldn't want to work for Hunt.
 * (If this is just another way of rephrasing your WP:BLP concerns, I remind you of WP:PUBLICFIGURE yet again. Look at what we say about James Watson for a very similar example of a Nobel laureate who has made controversial comments.) Loki (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm vaguely familiar with the Watson controversy. Is it a comparison you'd be willing to defend in its details? Then I'll go and take a close look and try to tell you how the two cases are (as I recall) very different. If I can show you that Hunt's remarks do not offer a basis for calling him "sexist" in anywhere near the way Watson's remarks plausibly made him appear "racist", will you consider that a reasonable defense of my take on this article? Thomas B (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I quite often act as a fresh set of eyes in noticeboard disputes. This frequently results in condescending remarks that I fail to understand, frequently from both sides. So I decline to argue with you about whether I do or do not understand. Is the text that you reverted in any way not the full toast? I fail to see mitigation where apparently you do. I would also like to note that it's a bit insulting to assume that I would not read discussions in which I am involved. I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do. I have other fish to fry but am trying to shed some light on why the remarks are offensive. If it is as an example of why the text is misleading, so be it, but if I was supposed to be convinced by the post above, I am not, and yes I did read it. Why is this so important to you. anyway?

(ec) and Loki is correct. I have not proposed a version of the article text.Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I will leave you alone. There is no way to arrive at this conclusion if one has taken a half-way serious interest in the case. You have an opinion and a POV and you're entitled to it. But you do not have a contribution to make to a serious biographical article about Tim Hunt.Thomas B (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well. I will be adding this diff to the contentious editing complaint. And news flash, dismissively patronizing me is a good way to get me to take a keen interest in an article. Ok. I will stop trying to determine if the prime minister of Lithuania was a war criminal for a moment, and ask again:
 * why is this so important to you? Do you have a connection to the subject of the article?
 * precisely what is it that you think that I am missing? He was a nice guy? Kind to small children? So was Eichmann.
 * OF COURSE his Nobel Prize is the most notable thing about him. Add some information about that if you are worried about weight. But the sources preclude wishing it away, sir. Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I say, I am disengaging with you. I apologize if my way of explaining why sounded combative and I'm happy to delete the comment from the record. But I will not be talking further about this with you. I wish you and your daughter well. Thomas B (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Already immortalized at ANI. I would prefer answers to the two very simple questions above. Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Un-derailing this
My suggestion to the majority here is that you/we work out the wording without chasing Thomas down any more rabbit holes. This part will require a careful use of sources, but since there is a clear consensus for 2A, I suggest working out the exact wording here pending a close of the RfC.

Maybe Loki can post the last wording that got reverted. Does anyone other have objections to it, or suggestions to make it better?

Also, this concern about due weight that Thomas keeps waving around: it might be somewhat valid. What do other people think? If we add the quote in, we can add in other material to balance this out. What could this material be if we go this route? Elinruby (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You don't have a clear consensus for 2A, consensus is about strength of argument not a simple majority and you appear to be confusing the two. Thomas' concerns are valid, instead of addressing them what we've had is editors berating him for raising them.  You might have a majority to WP:TAG team an edit into the article, which is what appeared to be happening but that doesn't make you correct.
 * I will say that the last edit was an appallingly bad summary of the controversy and you can add my voice to objecting to its inclusion. WCM email 06:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite their wordage, the arguments against are unconvincing. Some editors seem heavily invested in uncovering (their version of) The Truth&trade; surrounding this incident. It is, though, Wikipedia's job merely to report what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying on the matter; and they say quite a lot. Some comments were reported, and there were reactions to that. Bon courage (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop casting aspersions.
 * I don't even know these people personally and I suspect the same is true of them about each other. I have seen some of these user names before, sure, but please relax and take a deep breath. There is no cabal.
 * I myself would give Thomas' alleged BLP concerns a lot more credence if he were willing to civilly discuss ways to address them and still be accurate. But he decided to strew insults about instead. Too bad so sad.
 * Meanwhile, if you will consult the ANI, you will note that discussing is exactly what we are supposed to be doing right now.
 * And I don't know who you think you're talking to, but yes yes yes we've all been around long enough to know that RfCs are not a vote; of course I am taking that into account, along with the fact that while Thomas is invoking policy he is doing so selectively.
 * Policy says that care should be taken: this is us taking care. It also says that Hunt is a public figure and truth trumps everything in a BLP. If you have a specific issue with a specific source feel free to raise it, but all the mud-flinging about dishonest journalists really requires some evidence and I see none. Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As an outside observer, it seems that there are editors concerned with uncovering their version of the truth surrounding this issue and cherry picking their sources to pillory Hunt as a sexist misogynist pig.  This edit is patently untrue.  What was widely interpreted as sexist were Connie St Louis' claims of what he said including 1) thanking the women for making the lunch, 2) advocating single sex labs and 3) partially and incorrectly quoting what he said without the context of self-parodying.  She later doubled down and denied he ever said anything self-parodying.  The controversy blew up on Twitter and his resignation demanded before the full story came out. Misrepresenting the controversy on a WP:BLP is a serious concern and the issues Thomas has raised are very valid.  You should listen rather than shouting him down, which is what you have been doing and continue to do. WCM email 07:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize he feels he is righting great wrongs and apparently so do you. This is tedious.
 * Again, been there, read that. Not interested in further replying to your insults; I've been called worse by better. I'll check on all this tomorrow sometime to see if you have stopped attacking other editors yet.
 * Could somebody please copy over Loki's edit for discussion? Thanks. I think that would be a step we could take to move forward on this. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny that, WP:GREATWRONGS came to my mind when I saw what you were advocating and you showed your POV with remarks above denouncing Hunt as sexist. You are indeed tedious, if you want a serious discussion, drop the attitude that you'll ride rough shod over anyone who disagrees.  WCM email 08:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this?

Controversy
In June 2015, a toast made by Hunt at a conference for women in science attracted criticism, with many arguing that his comments were misogynistic. Hunt said:

"It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. 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. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?"

"Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me."

Hunt apologized for his comments, which he called "jocular" and "ironic", though "inexcusable". The controversy led to an online shaming campaign, Hunt's resignation from several key research and policy positions (including the European Research Council), and a temporary withdrawal from public life and professional activities.


 * Loki (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess? That's what you tried to change it to, right? My copy-editing fingers twitched a little but that was a quibble. As for content, without going too deep into sourcing at this very second, at least two of those sources support his PoV, right? i think "online shaming" should be in quotes. It looks like "when online shaming is shameful" would be a reference for that. Four references in a row is too many but if that's one of the four, moving it to follow "online shaming" would help with that, also, and there is always grouping them. Superficial scan of references found no problems with RS. I dislike long blockquotes of offensive material, but this seems to be a case for one if we are being told we just don't understand. Then just the facts. That's all I have on content right now. Will look harder later. Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe too fast a scan, ok, three out of the four have "public shaming" in their title and presumably are about shaming; do they all mention Hunt? I suggest moving the two that best support that Hunt was shamed to follow "online shaming" in the text. Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've already pointed out this edit is incorrect, what was denounced as sexist and misogynistic was Connie St Louis' claims of what he said, rather than what he actually said. You're implying it was his actual remarks that were denounced.  In fact, when the full facts emerged the prevailing consensus was that people had rushed to judgement but by then he'd been forced to resign by UCL and sacked by ERC. WCM email 09:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox?
Just a suggestion for the people who think the section should be expanded. There are four days until the page is unprotected. Why not start working on it in a H:SANDBOX? I promise to stay away and let you work it out among yourselves. You may as well get a proposal into shape that you think can pass muster. Thomas B (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You've already broken that promise many times Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

European Research Council
Somewhere around here WCM and Thomas were claiming... something... about the ERC not being a government entity, with some sort of swipe at as a topping. Could someone explain that to me nice and slow? Thanks. I need to go work on some other stuff now. I'll be back. Elinruby (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked what the source of this quotation was and got vague and incoherent replies. First it was a "government" transcript, such a vague reply I took to mean the South Korean Government, the second reply mentioned the Independent.  Thomas guessed it was the leaked ERC transcript, whose accuracy is disputed.  He still hasn't named the source.  Now this is an example of unhelpful behaviour which is both childish and completely unnecessary, so could you please stop it. WCM email 09:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My advice to all is to let the RfC run to conclusion, then the consensus that emerges can be implemented and everybody can move on. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They locked they article so the argument could get worked out on the talk page versus edit summaries. I don't think the admin who did that quite realized the level of IDHT that is in play here but I think we are supposed to at least try. That doesn't mean we can't do other things also. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not a great page-protect in my view, but the RfC is at least a way forward which is somewhat immune from any 'flood the zone' tactic. Bon courage (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had 39 notifications about this page this morning. I see the ugliness has also escalated Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that my question is apparently "childish", eyeroll. So,, please check me on this, since collegiality is apparently difficult for some. It is not the case that they don't realize that the ERC is part of a government, which is what boggled *my* mind; they dispute that the ERC transcript is where the quote came from? Do I have that right now? Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Counterproposal
My view is still that this event should be covered as briefly as it is in the current version. The reason is that the only detailed and fair account would look more like:


 * In June 2015, while attending the World Conference of Science Journalists as a keynote speaker, in Seoul, South Korea, Hunt was asked to give an impromptu toast at a luncheon celebrating Korean women scientists. Three journalists in attendance immediately decided to “call out” what they perceived as the sexism of his remarks. On Twitter, they reported that he had presented himself as a renowned "male chauvinist" who had “trouble with girls” and that he had suggested that men and women should work in seperate labs. An online shaming campaign of the “sexist scientist” who found women in the lab “distractingly sexy” began, and he was quickly forced to resign from positions at UCL and ERC, and withdraw from public life.


 * It later became clear that his remarks had been ironic and that his aim with the toast had been to praise, not belittle, women in science, while drawing attention to familiar foibles of human beings, scientists included. Far from being known as a "misogynist” with “Victoriaran” attitudes, as had been originally reported, Hunt had a well-established reputation among his colleagues and students as a suporter of women in science and, throughout a career spanning half a century, had never been accused of any wrongdoing.


 * Despite this, the controversy persisted for many months, until he moved to Japan when his wife, fellow scientist Mary Collins, was offered a position there. Even today, however, many people, remembering only the early days of the controversy, associate the episode with endemic sexism in science. Those who are familiar with the whole story are more likely to view it as as cautionary tale of the dangers of online social shaming.

Like I say, I'm not seriously proposing this, because it feels like a completely inappropriate apologia for Hunt in his own bio. What is being proposed above, however, is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of him, rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him. Thomas B (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Some people have taken the last remark as impugning the motives of editors who are proposing to include contested details about the incident, without taking a position on who was right (and who was wronged) but just presenting both sides. I want to emphasize that I'm talking about how this section will appear to the reader, especially one who is familiar with the events. Unless we explicitly defend him, it will seem like the reason for including all this is just to immortalize an embarrassing thing that happened to him because someone didn't share his sense of humor. If anyone takes my remark about the "appearant reason" personally, this is a misunderstanding of my intention with it.--Thomas B (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you felt the need to say I'm not seriously proposing this and to note that what you wrote feels like a completely inappropriate apologia, then I don't see how posting this here is going to move the discussion forward anyhow. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is why I didn't put it in the disucssion. I'm trying to illustrate a problem. My serious counterproposal is the status quo: two sentences that neither defend nor attack Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed version:
Here is my proposed version of what the controversy section should look like condensed and modified from the full version on the Online shaming article:

In 2015, Hunt was involved in a highly publicized controversy at the World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Seoul. At a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt gave a speech at short notice. This version of the remarks follows that recounted by an EU official:

The remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature, resulting in an intense online backlash. As a consequence Hunt resigned from his position as an honorary professor with the University College London (reportedly under the threat of being sacked if he did not do so ) and from the Royal Society's Biological Sciences Awards Committee. Hunt stated that the remarks were in jest, and that they had been taken out of context as the remarks had originally been reported without the "now seriously" portion. A number of public figures and scientists, including those who had worked with Hunt suggested that the backlash against him was disproportionate. Hunt said that he had been "turned into a straw man that one lot loves to love and the other lot loves to hate".

Obviously there's a diversity of opinions about what this section should look like, and we're never going to have a version of this section that everybody will be 100% happy with, but I think this probably closer to the consensus in the above RfC than the version that is currently in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Modified section based on Basboll's comments, with additions marked in bold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've left you a message on your talk page. I don't think you should modify your proposal in light of the discussion. That will be too confusing. Thomas B (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, reverted to old version and made new version new section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

New version (as proposed by Hemiauchenia)
With additions in bold. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2015, Hunt was involved in a highly publicized controversy following remarks he made at the World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) in Seoul in June 2015. At a lunch for female journalists and scientists, Hunt gave a speech at short notice impromptu toast. This version of the remarks follows that recounted by an EU official:

Three science journalists who attended the conference decided to publicly report a partial version of Hunt's comments on Twitter. The remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature, resulting in an intense online backlash which some described as an act of public shaming. As a consequence Hunt resigned from his position as an honorary professor with the University College London (reportedly under the threat of being sacked if he did not do so ) and from the Royal Society's Biological Sciences Awards Committee. Hunt apologised and stated that the remarks were in jest, and that they had been taken out of context as the remarks had originally been reported without the "now seriously" portion, though Hunt also stated he "did mean the part about having trouble with girls" saying "It is true that people - I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it's very disruptive to the science because it's terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field." A number of public figures and scientists, including those who had worked with Hunt suggested that the backlash against him was disproportionate. Hunt said that he had been "turned into a straw man that one lot loves to love and the other lot loves to hate". Following the controversy, Hunt later that year moved to Japan following the appointment of his wife Mary Collins as director of research for the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.

A suggestion (as proposed by Wee Curry Monster)

In 2015, Hunt was involved in a controversy sparked on Twitter by tweets from the science journalist Connie St Louis. These alleged Hunt had made sexist and misogynist comments during an impromptu toast that had greatly offended his hosts. It was later alleged he had behaved inappropriately when challenged at a "Sexism in Science" seminar led by Deborah Blum. In response to the controversy Hunt was told to either resign or be sacked from UCL, he later also resigned under pressure from the ERC and the Royal Society. In all three cases Hunt was pressured to resign without having a chance to explain his version of events. It later emerged that his impromptu remarks had been well received by the host, other claims made in the tweets were inaccurate and Hunt did not attend the "Sexism in Science" seminar; he had in fact attended another lecture than finished much later. Hunt clarified his remarks were a self-deprecating joke, which he acknowledged as inadvisable and apologised for any offence cause but that his remarks had been taken out of context. This was corroborated by the Russian science journalist Natalia Demina (also present at the lunch) who had contradicted St Louis' account from the start. An audio recording by Demina caught the end of the speech catches Hunt praising the contribution of Korean women to science, followed by laughter and applause. A number of public figures and scientists, including those who had worked with Hunt suggested that the backlash against him was disproportionate and Hunt was known for being an advocate women in science. Hunt said that he had been "turned into a straw man that one lot loves to love and the other lot loves to hate". Following the controversy, Hunt later that year moved to Japan following the appointment of his wife Mary Collins as director of research for the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology.

Discussion
The first sentence is okay. But I think the second sentence should be more along the lines of: "After attending a luncheon at which Hunt was asked to hold an impromptu toast, three science journalists decided to "call out" what they they perceived as the sexism of his remarks." I then think St Louis's highly misleading account should be quoted (i.e., that he seriosuly suggested single-sex labs and admitted to having a reputation as a chauvinist); #distractinglysexy should be described and the consequences for Hunt's career should be noted (he was forced to resign from UCL and fired from ERC); and the corrected account of his remarks should then be presented (i.e., that he was joking about single-sex labs and was being ironic about being a "monster"). Then a sentence about how he and his wife went on with their lives, moved to Japan, and returned to the UK after a few years. That's what happened to Hunt; i.e., that's what should be in his biography. But I want to be clear that this is only if we decide that such details should in fact be in his WP:BLP. My first impusle is still to leave it at the status quo.Thomas B (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A few points: Loki (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think because the journalists continued to maintain the version they remembered was correct, we should probably not say they reported a partial version of Hunt's remarks. They don't seem to think it was "partial" at all, they seem to think they have reported all the relevant information.
 * We should be more specific about who thinks it's public shaming. "...which some described as..." is weasel words.
 * I would like to break up the quote before the "now seriously" portion because that part and whether it was actually said or not is important, and as currently written it's buried in the paragraph. (Plus in general I think more paragraph breaks would help with the flow here.)
 * I don't think Hunt's quote about "being turned into a straw man" is really WP:DUE. I'm usually not a fan of long quotes in this situation: we should either paraphrase his quote or leave it out. In this case, we've already essentially paraphrased him from stronger sources, because we already say that many people thought the backlash was disproportionate, so I think we can just leave out this particular quote.

did RSNP deprecate The Times or something? fiveby(zero) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC) which goes more towards biography of Hunt rather than description of the episode. At the same time it is unsupported opinion from the authors. Difficult content, but appreciate the WP:BESTSOURCES look at it. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Couple of points.
 * What everyone describes as the ERC transcript isn't a verbatim record, it was compiled ex post hoc as the best of their recollection. In fact even those who support Hunt can't agree exactly on what was said, Deborah Blum and Connie St Louis insisted it wasn't accurate.  It's not been officially published it was leaked to the Times.  For example the single sex labs quote, the ERC transcript missed that he'd said labs would be the worse for being single sex.
 * The controversy erupted over what the three alleged he'd said:
 * Thanking the women for making the lunch.
 * It was claimed he'd offended the hosts
 * The speech was quoted out of context including the claim he'd advocated single sex labs.
 * The first two claims are demonstrably untrue. If you're going to summarise the controversy in brevity you have to acknowledge the outrage was based on demonstrably untrue claims and a distortion of what he'd said.
 * I have offered a suggestion.
 * If I make respond to Loki. If we were just considering remarks reported on Hunts speech then I'd tend to agree with you that we could give some thought to not saying they reported a partial version of Hunt's word.  However, so much of what they claimed has proven to be untrue I do not think that would be appropriate per WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * If it were a minority opinion ref public shaming of Hunt I would agree, however, it isn't, it's not a mainstream view. Attribution in the circumstances is unnecessary.
 * I don't wish to dominate the discussion but there are in fact multiple different accounts of what he said, all differing slightly but, Connie St Louis, aside supporting what Hunt claimed. A separate consideration of all accounts before including a quote might well be appropriate.  If you are to include the quotation, then it needs the clarification it was an officials recollection after the event and not a verbatim record. WCM email 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that the more we get into the weeds about who said/claimed what, then we're essentially left with a version that's the same length as the version present in the online shaming article, which basically everybody agrees would be WP:UNDUE on such a short biography. Sacrifices need to be made for the sake of brevity. The Observer piece states objectively that Hunt also pointed out that, initially, his remarks about women in science and their alleged tendency to weep had not been fully reported, so I have no issue with taking the EU official's version at face value. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a reliable source (can someone please point to it?) to support a statement that a part of the full quote is disputed, then I think it's quite important to note it somehow. I'm sure this can still be done succintly. NicolausPrime (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also be interested in seeing the source for the claim that the journalists stood by their original reported version as it isn't explicitly mentioned in online shaming version that I was drawing from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Yesterday Oransky and Blum said they could not recall enough to confirm or deny the additional quotes from Sir Tim, but did not contradict them. Ms St Louis denied that he said “Now seriously”. “He definitely didn’t say that, it would have changed the whole context,” she said. She also stood by her claim he had thanked the women for lunch."
 * The actual source is . I meant that it wasn't mentioned at all in Online shaming, not that it wasn't in any of the sources cited in that section. That section has like 25 references so it's not trivial to search through. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thomas B linked this editorial by one of them above: . Loki (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the day prior to The Times reporting the leaked report and is responding to Hunt's article in The Observer, the quote in The Times article is her response to the leaked report. If you are going include that St Louis stood by her account then you also have to include:"...Connie St Louis, a journalism lecturer at City University London who was present at the toast, said it had met with a “deathly silence” and “nobody was laughing”. She has stood by her account. But in a recording of the end of Sir Tim’s toast, made by the Russian science journalist Natalia Demina and passed to The Times, the Nobel laureate can clearly be heard to say to an audience of female scientists and science writers: “Congratulations everybody, because I hope, I hope, I hope — I really hope — there is nothing holding you down, especially not monsters like me.” A peal of laughter is then heard from the audience. Several eyewitnesses said that the speech was followed by sustained applause. A source close to Sir Tim confirmed the authenticity of the file. Demina has also released a picture she took of the toast which appears to show both Sir Tim and others in the room laughing."
 * and all of the conflicting eyewitness accounts. Why is "Congratulations everybody, because I hope, I hope, I hope — I really hope — there is nothing holding you down, especially not monsters like me.", from an audio recording, not part of this "full quote" everyone is opining about? fiveby(zero) 03:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the key thing is the words as reported caused the reaction, and Wikipedia should say that. There were further rounds of reaction to later claims and counterclaims about the report's accuracy (notably the 'now seriously' question), and Wikipedia should say that too. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, or maybe your words as reported differs from the RfC question? St Louis tweeted [this on 8 June. Hunt resigns from UCL, Royal Society and the European Research Council 11 June. The leaked EC official's version was made known 25 June. Which words caused the reaction? I'm just trying to understand what the "full quotation" of the RfC means. You can quote the tweet and say that caused outrage, but you can't "quote" the EC version and say that caused outrage. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]](zero) 06:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. The first reactions were caused by the tweeted words; subsequent reactions were also to additional stuff which emerged. In my understanding, what happened was:
 * Hunt said words
 * Four journalists (Deborah Blum, Ivan Oransky, Charles Seife, and Connie St. Louis) decided what he said needed coverage, and that St Louis' twitter account should be used for a tweet
 * Media storm and resignations follow
 * Subsequent wording emerges creating a partial backlash.
 * But I think there's too much detail there, I think we could do worse than follow the example of probably the best of our WP:BESTSOURCES (it being peer-reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP), namely:
 * It sidesteps the cruft and gets to the nub: Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think evaluating that source will take us outside the policies and guidelines (and you shouldn't listen to me about building content anyway) so unproductive. I'll point out though, that if this is the best of the best, then isn't the answer for the above RfC 2B? Also i'll quote the following paragraph "What should we make of such cases? The most obvious point is that many of those who took part in this public shaming acted reprehensibly by subjecting the shamed to threats, insults, and abuse. This is clearly morally objectionable. In addition to this, the consequences for the shamed ended up being severely disproportionate. Neither Stone nor Hunt did anything to warrant losing their jobs or suffering such deep distress."
 * I think evaluating that source will take us outside the policies and guidelines (and you shouldn't listen to me about building content anyway) so unproductive. I'll point out though, that if this is the best of the best, then isn't the answer for the above RfC 2B? Also i'll quote the following paragraph "What should we make of such cases? The most obvious point is that many of those who took part in this public shaming acted reprehensibly by subjecting the shamed to threats, insults, and abuse. This is clearly morally objectionable. In addition to this, the consequences for the shamed ended up being severely disproportionate. Neither Stone nor Hunt did anything to warrant losing their jobs or suffering such deep distress."
 * That is indeed some scholarly opinion about the incident. It may be worth adding (with suitable attribution). I'm all for relaying what quality sources say. But in order to add reaction you need to say what's being reacted to. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this version is succint and to the point. It doesn't get bogged down in the minutiae of the various accounts of what Hunt said, and focuses on the impact of the controversy on Hunt. It's much better than the version currently in the article, and It's basically what I was going for in my versions. I disagree that this version actually counts as 2B as proposed by the RfC, as it doesn't explicitly mention shaming in any way. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In any case, if there's a need to elaborate on who said what exactly and who disputed whose account, I think an explanatory footnote would be the right place to do it. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the version being proposed doesn't meet our requirements for a BLP, because none of it objectively covers the fact that the tweets and subsequent comments by Connie St Louis were proven to be inaccurate to the point of being falsehoods. Hunt didn't advocate single sex labs, he didn't thank the ladies for making the lunch, he didn't upset the hosts; who were in fact so delighted with what of the hosts described as a "warm and funny" speech that they asked him to give a further address that evening.  By failing to give this context, it utterly fails WP:BLP giving an unbalanced account.  If you really want to get to the pith of the matter you could go something like:

In 2015, Hunt was asked to give an impromptu toast at a lunch sponsored by the Korea Federation of Women's Science and Technology Associations, during the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul. A controversy erupted on Twitter due to tweets reporting the contents of the speech by the science journalist Connie St Louis. Subsequently as a result of a media frenzy Hunt was compelled to resign from UCL, ERC and the Royal Society,. Hunt later apologised for any offence caused but asserted his remarks were a self-deprecating joke and later acknowledged the pressure of the controversy had led to him considering suicide. The controversy caused colleagues of Hunt to also resign in protest at his treatment, he also received support from female colleagues asserting Hunt was known as an ally and advocate for women in science. It later emerged that the initial coverage was grossly inaccurate, corroborating Hunt's account and later coverage acknowledged Hunt had been unfairly treated. The controversy sparked debate about sexism in science and the role of social media in online shaming of individuals.


 * Part of the problem is that there seems to be a fixed obsession with including the full ERC quote. If you omit it you can edit the controversy down into a much more compact form.  Open your minds to thinking about not including the quote. WCM email 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A request: every time you find yourself repeating an argument or assertion that you have made (and especially that you have made multiple times) already in the discussion, consider carefully what role it would play in the consensus-forming process to repeat it one further time. JBL (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * OK then, let me put it this way, what purpose does it serve giving prominence to the false narrative that nearly drove a vulnerable man to suicide without explaining that it was a false narrative? What purpose are you serving by ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM.  And what purpose does it serve including a quotation when there is no accurate transcript from which to draw upon?   You know what if someone gives a good reason then maybe, just maybe I will STFU.  WCM email 21:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where do the sources say the narrative was false? Its effect on Hunt isn't really relevant here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and whether or not the version that best matches the sources is something Hunt would like on the internet or not isn't really our concern.
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB aren't very relevant here because we have plenty of good secondary and independent sourcing on this. (I agree we shouldn't take either quotes from St. James or Hunt at face value, but we're not doing that.) WP:BLPGOSSIP isn't relevant because our sources are reliable, we have good reason to believe that the information in them is true, and it's undeniably relevant to this article. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is specifically only about a person noteworthy only for one or two events and is therefore also irrelevant. The relevant policy in this case is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which says, as I've quoted several times: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
 * We do have good reason from multiple sources to believe that the EU official's version of the quote is most likely to be the correct one. It was reported latest, part of it is backed up with a recording, and the most recent sources on the matter mostly report that version and not earlier versions. To the extent there's still doubt over its accuracy, we can handle that by attributing it, because everyone involved agrees that something much like it was said and it's this that was the core of the controversy. Loki (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like to suggest for you to retract this comment and indeed reduce your involvement in this discussion. At some point someone may go to ANI in this or another dispute and refer to this post to make a case that you're severely misunderstanding at least four BLP policies. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have certainly been here long enough to know that the formation of consensus does not require that you personally be satisfied with the outcome. If you cannot accept that reasonable people can and do have different views from you on the questions under discussion here, you should step away before it becomes necessary to seek administrative intervention.  --JBL (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The effect upon Hunt is very relevant and puts the onus on editors to make sure they are reporting this fairly and giving due prominence to the significant views on the matter as they are known now. It seems that editors here want to turn back the clock to June 2015 and not include what is known now.
 * I've been here long enough to know that consensus is about strength of argument not unanimity amongst a small group of editors who refuse to acknowledge the flaw in their argument. We do not have good reason to believe the ERC quote is the "correct" one, like all accounts of the controversy its a flawed record because it was based on the memory of one official.  Also its never been published officially, it was leaked and as such it should be treated with caution.
 * There are plenty of sources that demonstrate much of what Connie St Louis said was false. I find it unreasonable given the weight of evidence that this is still being denied.  Hunt did not advocate single sex labs, the reception to the speech was positive, he didn't thank the women for making the lunch.  This was St Louis embroidering her selective quotation to make a point.  WP:BLPGOSSIP is very relevant because the controversy is based on what Connie St Louis said on social media.  WP:AVOIDVICTIM is relevant because you're again making Hunt the victim of this controversy by failing to include the information that St Louis' claims were false.  WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPRIMARY are relevant because all of the sources are being used to simply quote what Connie St Louis said and that's what is being relied on; you're simply ignoring that the sources in the main debunk what she claimed.  You've added a degree of separation by quoting a source but still relying on the original commentary by St Louis.  Were you reporting what sources said about the controversy it would be different, they're simply being used to window dress St Louis' original tweets.
 * I've done nothing to warrant a visit to ANI, in fact I urge you to drag my ass there because the more sunlight on this episode the better. WCM email 08:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "It seems that editors here want to turn back the clock to June 2015" &larr; our best source is from 2020, and editors are discussing that, so this is wrong. Are there more recent? You seem completely fixated on dubious details from dubious sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hypatia
And for completeness the other – slightly earlier – 2019 journal source is It says and Again, I suggest this is golden sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing golden about it, its Karen Adkins' opinion. Flawed in that it is based on many presumptions and it ignores the fact that Connie St Louis' account was not accurate. You seem incapable of separating WP:FACT from WP:OPINION. WCM email 09:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see: we have peer-reviewed scholarship on one hand, and the opinions of a Wikipedia editor on the other. Which is Wikipedia going to follow? Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh, do you think you could stop the childish jibes please. WP:BIASED clearly comes in to play here, Hypatia may be a peer reviewed journal but it very much does have a position and a stance. NPOV is achieved by reflecting the range of opinion in the literature and not giving undue prominence to biased sources.  You seem to think these two articles should definitely define content.  You are wrong. WCM email 10:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Continually asserting you are right without any evidence is not going to be a winning argument. NPOV is not a negotiable policy and guides us to lean on the WP:BESTSOURCES to achieve the neutrality we must have. Editors are discussing those sources and consensus is forming. Any more golden sources would of course be welcome! Bon courage (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

« Laissez-moi vous parler de mes problèmes avec les filles &hellip; »
Another source: which is yet another source for the Hunt words as reported, but is mostly an analysis of the social media/traditional media response. It does have the tidbit the Boris Johnson was mixed up in the "reinstate Tim Hunt" campaign. Bon courage (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A source for the remarks of Connie St Louis, not for the actual remarks of Tim Hunt. There is a difference. La plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. WCM email 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the intent of question 1 of the RfC, to demonstrate what sparked the controversy, or to represent, as best we can what was actually said at the luncheon? I think this change in language on the talk page from "full quote" to "words as reported" is great: "Quotes are sacrosanct". I like this source so far (hard slogging with the language tho), rather than the two "shaming" papers i prefer this media response/journalism look, but of course with all three the author's intent differs from that of this article, biography of Hunt. fiveby(zero) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "words as reported" or "according to one account" (as Billingham & Parr say) is the form of wording to go for, since the precise words seem to be Rashomon-like in nature. There appears to be no dispute between these three sources about what happened, but they all have their different takes: Billingham & Parr seem to think the response disproportionate for example, Adkins seems to think Hunt got his dues, Andrianasolo takes a more analytic view. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should stay out of these kind of content issues and stick to bibliographic-type tasks. If reading biography outside of WP and saw for instance a citation here to the first paper, a couple of philosophers arguing the morality of public shaming i would throw the work in the trash. What the hell, where are the citations to the primary sources? I think you are absolutely correct though for WP (i'm just not going to be very happy as a reader with the result) Anyway, i think this one is probably the best of the three, but not as useful a citation for readers being in French. fiveby(zero) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Rochat
Philippe Rochat considers that Hunt fell into an indulgent "amalgam trap", in Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Other sources

 * – This contains a fairly full account of events
 * – This contains a fairly full account of events

The Forbes retraction
I'm going to withdraw now (I really am!) until the ANI discussion (including the question of my ban) is closed and will wait a few days after the page is unprotected to see what ends up actually happening with it before getting involved again. I'm seeing that people's views here are in fact changing as they look more closely at the events and the sources. That's encouraging.

To wit, I was recently reminded of what I thought at the time was going to be a more pivotal moment in the debate. Back in July of 2015, a Forbes writer contritely and unequivocally apologized to Tim Hunt and Mary Collins "for unfairly characterizing him in this article as sexist and denouncing what now appears to be a selectively-edited account of his luncheon comments."

Unfortunately, it didn't do much good at the time, but it is precisely this sort of insight that I hope editors who are new to the issue (or only half-remember it) are open to as they learn (or relearn) the details. As the Forbes writer also noted: "Certainly under the magnifying glass the last six weeks, no accounts of misogyny or sexist behavior have been uncovered against the Nobel laureate; to the contrary, he has been widely heralded by collaborators, former trainees, and students worldwide as most supportive in the career development of women scientists." With that, I will withdraw and hope for the best. Thomas B (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Again, this seems to suppose Wikipedia is here to answer the question IS TIM HUNT SEXIST? It's not, our job is merely to reflect what the most reliable and authoritative sources are saying about the incident. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And the majority of sources that now cover the event say not, the majority say it was a Twitter storm caused by inaccurate and sloppy journalism. WCM email 19:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources don't even attempt to answer the question "IS TIM HUNT SEXIST?", is the point of what BC said. The sources say that he made some comments, there was a backlash to his comments after they reported publicly, and as time went on and more detail came out about his comments, more people defended them and him. However, there's plenty of people even after all the information came out who still have negative opinions of the comments and of Hunt.
 * Those are all facts about a sequence of events. They are not value judgements about the character of Tim Hunt. Our job as an encyclopedia is to report those facts about that sequence of events, and if readers want to use those facts to make their own value judgements about Hunt, that's not our problem. Loki (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The piece linked is by a WP:FORBESCON and therefore self-published and generally unreliable anyway, and doesn't really say anything about how professional journalists reacted. Loki is right that even when the full context of the comments came out, much of the subsequent reporting suggested that while the social media reaction was overblown and Hunt didn't deserve to be crucified for his remarks, they were still inappropriate and showed poor judgement, not that they were fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a wonder, when we have some good sources, why shitty sources (Daily Mail, blogs, tweets, Forbes ...) keep being raised. Bon courage (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the public backlash was against what was reported not what he said. There is a repeated and wilful refusal to acknowledge that basic fact. And there is very few people who continue to hold negative opinions about Hunt personally.  WCM email 08:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have the Hypatia article and several editorials saying otherwise about the second part. Which also suggests you're wrong about the first part as well. Loki (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the Hypatia article is quite detailed about how Hunt's "defenders" have tried to minimize the incident by anomaly hunting and spinning unimportant details in the reports of the sexist remarks, and re-framing things as an attack (specifically) on Connie St Louis. Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of questions. Can you point to the source of the claim that the organising committee demanded an apology from Hunt.  It seems rather strange after thanking him for such a warm speech and requesting a further address at the closing dinner.  BTW it isn't just 12s of audio, its 60 s of audio and the testimony of the Russian scientist Natalia Demina.
 * My second question, is that based on your personal opinion, are you suggesting the Connie St Louis was the subject of a witch hunt and your concern here is to rehabilitate her reputation? WCM email 10:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the luxury of not having to form a "personal opinion" on the Hunt incident; I'll instead focus on having opinions on (a) what the best sources are, and (b) how to summarise the knowledge in them to build the Encyclopedia. I recommend this as best practice. As to the sources for the Hypatia article – you'll need to contact the author about that if you're personally curious.As to "witch hunt", the Hypatia article has material on that, describing how culture warrior types tried to shift the debate into a "saintly white man good, black woman bad" framing by quibbling about details while ignoring the main matter at hand. But it's really irrelevant for this article, which is on Hunt, not Connie St Louis. Bon courage (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If I may paraphrase your comments based on the sources you recommend, you consider the best sources are solely feminist orientated publications that have a distinct bias and anything else is a "shitty source" (your words). Interesting. WCM email 12:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The criteria are more: WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDY, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:BESTSOURCES. I'd have thought feminist sources would be quite good for discussions around sexism? Bon courage (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A further thought, why are we giving prominence solely to Connie St Louis and ignoring Natalia Demina? Is the latter not the right kind of feminist? WCM email 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Who? Is this a person mentioned in the sources? (And, to repeat, this articleis on Hunt, not Connie St Louis. She seems irrelevant to the article content in my view). Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't know who Natalia Demina is and consider her irrelevant? When I read that comment, my jaw literally hit the floor. I can't see how anyone familiar with the controversy wouldn't know who she is. Natalia Demina is a Russian Science journalist who was also present at the lunch and has completely contradicted everything that Connie St Louis said. Her name repeatedly comes up in sources.  How can you comment if you don't know the basic facts? WCM email 12:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not "familiar with the controversy" if being "familiar" means being conversant with stuff in bad sources. The only consideration here is what high-quality sources are saying about it, for the purposes of writing Wikipedia. If there are high-quality sources discussing this person, then produce them. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC); amended 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've expressed a number of opinions here on the talk page about fully "quoting" Hunt, "official" govt. transcripts, "best of the best" or "golden" sources for which i would have expected an effort to ensure they were informed opinions. I think underlying the policies and guidelines concerning sourcing you have pointed out above should be some assumption that editors in fact do some research and read the available sources and to exercise good editorial judgement. You haven't proposed any text from these sources you have brought up, and i have only looked at the first three so far, but they are not high-quality, nor best, for the simple and obvious fact they are not biography of Tim Hunt. The authors have other agendas.
 * Another policy is WP:BLP, for which i think an underlying assumption should be that editors realize they are researching for and writing biography. It does plainly state tho "take particular care". That imposes a burden on editors and in my opinion editors should be willing to meet that burden before contributing. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should say I am not familiar with the controversy other than what I have read in RS. So I haven't, for example, bothered to delve into what Boris Johnson or Milo Yiannopoulos were saying, although some sources have mentioned them. It was apparent early on in the discussions there was an EU report of the words in question, and that this article was missing any hint of what words triggered the controversy. That omission was already discussed at NPOVN. Evaluation of sources is "informed" by their quality, not by whether or not they correspond with some dubious ideas gleaned for bad sources. So I disagree the sources are not of high quality. Sure they have their own ideas to essay, which we might take or leave (leave, probably), but they also to varying degrees outline the actual event in question. We re considering what is now a historical event, and academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources for these.I have not proposed text yet partly because I don't want to overwhelm the page with options, partly because I wonder if the RfC shouldn't finish first, and partly because I'm still reading and thinking about it; just today on my bike ride I was drafting possible sentences in my head! Bon courage (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)