Talk:Matt Taylor (scientist)

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft(s) of proposed edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris Johnson

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

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

Crowdfunding

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

References

I have been trying to do just this, but there is a lot of resistance to it. What I'm unable to work out is precisely why. The pretexts used so far for deleting my edit noting the existence and aims of this petition have been spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

For other editors weighing in on this, please also have a quick read of the discussion at the above IP's talk page where a couple of editors have shared their opinions. Sam Walton (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

For information, the edit I originally made (which I maintain is neutral in tone) was as follows:

"Shortly after the controversy broke, a crowd-sourced fundraising appeal in solidarity with Dr Taylor was set up on the campaign website IndieGogo, seeking to raise $3,000 dollars to buy him a gift. The campaign appeal stated: "Matt Taylor is a project scientist for Rosetta, the first human made object to have ever landed on a comet. He worked for the giant leap. It is a glorious moment for human space exploration and future. Instead of receiving the recognition he deserved, he received tremendous backlash due to the fact that he was wearing a T-Shirt depicting scantily clad women. He was bullied over a t-shirt a FEMALE friend designed for him... Despite Dr Taylor's efforts for humanity, he was bullied to the point which he broke down. This campaign is now aiming to support the entirety of the team, as a sign of admiration and gratitude for their work despite the recent unnecessary bad press."[20] Within days, thousands of dollars had been pledged. On November 20, 2014, it was announced that Dr Taylor did not wish to accept a personal gift, and requested that the money pledged be given to the children's charity UNAWE. As of November 29, $23,795 had been raised (793% of the original target)."

I can see why someone might say it's a bit long, but I don't want it to be edited down into insignificance. I think if the controversy is to be mentioned on this page, there is no excuse for not mentioning this reaction to it. How about the following:

"Shortly after the controversy broke, a crowd-sourced fundraising appeal was set up on the campaign website IndieGogo, seeking to raise $3,000 to buy him a gift. The campaign appeal deplored the treatment of Dr Taylor in the media, and stated its aim "to support the entirety of the team, as a sign of admiration and gratitude for their work despite the recent unnecessary bad press." [footnote]. On November 20, 2014, it was announced that Dr Taylor did not wish to accept a personal gift, and requested that the money pledged be given to the children's charity UNAWE. As of November 29, $23,795 had been raised."

Shorter, anyway. And if the lengthy quotation was seen by some as implicitly priviledging the opinion of the campaign organiser, reducing it should address that.

The coverage of the crowdfund campaign by Yahoo News in their report on the controversy could also be cited in a note if it would help make it seem more relevant: https://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/boris-johnson-condemns--shirtgate--critics-120740592.html

So a consolidated version might read: "Shortly after the controversy broke, a crowd-sourced fundraising appeal was set up on the campaign website IndieGogo, seeking to raise $3,000 to buy Dr Taylor a gift. [reference to yahoo article] The campaign appeal criticised the treatment of Dr Taylor in the media, and stated its aim "to support the entirety of the team, as a sign of admiration and gratitude for their work despite the recent unnecessary bad press." On November 20, 2014, it was announced that as Dr Taylor did not wish to accept a personal gift, the money would be donated to the charity UNAWE. As of November 29, $23,795 had been raised. [reference to campaign page]"

Sorry for not signing posts before now. It was an oversight. 86.168.66.228 (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that this only has one or two sentence mentions in a couple of news articles, I think - at most - "Shortly after the controversy broke, a crowd-sourced fundraising appeal was set up on the campaign website IndieGogo, seeking to raise $3,000 to buy Dr Taylor a gift. [reference to yahoo article]" is all that's warranted. If people want to learn more they can follow the reference, including more information in the article just bloats it. Sam Walton (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with a mention that the funds were redirected to charity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree, because if people followed the reference to the yahoo article, they wouldn't learn anything more. Shouldn't it at least say that there was subsequently an announcement that the money raised would go to UNAWE? 86.168.66.228 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that, objectively, this response to the controversy is far more material than any of the news and comment articles in mainstream media sources, and actually worthy of more coverage than they get. We're talking about over $20,000, a large amount of money, which will end up going to a charity and having a greater material effect on the world than most news articles do. That must be worthy of note.86.168.66.228 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't write our articles based upon the personal opinions of editors, but on what is published in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

None of my personal opinions are in the suggested edit. This may not be of any interest to you, but that doesn't mean it won't be to anyone. Some people probably aren't interested in any aspect of this controversy, and they could say on that basis that there shouldn't be anything at all on wikipedia about it - which I see has been argued. But that isn't good enough. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not a memory hole. Like it or not, this is something that has happened. And my sources are reliable. 86.168.66.228 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a different perspective here. Right now, the controversy over Matt Taylor's choice of shirt at an announcement, which lasted a few days at most, out of a years-long career, is almost half of the text of the article. This is simply too much and I'm trying to reduce it. I would also be content if others expanded the rest of the article to make the same amount of text we have now be a relatively smaller part of an overall larger article. As for your source, a primary source should be okay for a simple, direct fact like "This fundraising campaign raised $X." The problems arise when that fact is in any way interpreted, and both the initial goals of the campaign and the subsequent decision to give the money to charity will need secondary sources. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow the reasoning behind the last sentence. It's on the campaign page that these facts (what its stated aims were, and the announcement that Dr Taylor wants it given to charity) are most thoroughly and accurately documented. In themselves, the facts are as simple and direct as the campaign's existence and the amount of money it will have raised. Only one economical citation is needed to attest to all of them. I sympathise with your view that Dr Taylor's career is misrepresented by the prominence of the shirt controversy, but the trouble with trimming this section is that the nature of public interest in him is actually not misrepresented: to the public, he - as opposed to the Rosetta mission itself, which has its own page - has been remarked upon only really for the shirt. So do be careful trying to remove information from the page. There should be a preference for more information rather than less. If the rest of his bio can be bulked out, all the better. His choice to give in excess of $20,000 which could have been his to a children's charity instead is an episode in his career which is worth documenting anyway, but hopefully some secondary sources will pick it up. 109.150.204.55 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that the same argument for mentioning the crowdfunding campaign page is also used by spammers to argue that their garbage belongs in Wikipedia. Since anyone can make such a campaign, we must require that the campaign be notable enough that secondary sources mention it, lest spammers be able to make such campaigns and justify linking them from Wikipedia. [Formerly 70.133.154.32] 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also come to think it might in any case be better to wait until after this crowdfund campaign has closed (due December 5) before making a fresh edit, just for simplicity's sake. The article will then be able to include the final amount donated to UNAWE, rather than a "so far" figure which would go out of date very quickly. It'll also be interesting to see whether anyone else comes in a view on this during the interim. 86.168.66.228 (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that we probably should wait for the campaign to be over before mentioning it in the article. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality, clarity, Boris Johnson etc

The section "personal life" reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay

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

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

I think we can go slowly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable for only one event

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

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

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

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

Proposed merge of Shirtstorm

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

Maxine Taylor?

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

Feltman quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They why, on Rachel Feltman's page does it specifically say "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog."? The Washington Post, in actual text on their website, refers to Speaking of Science as a blog. This is why I say that it is a WP:NEWSBLOG. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper clearly categorizes the section as "News" as opposed to "Blogs" in its own URL format. Moreover, you haven't addressed the fact that your preferred quote comes from a similarly "questionable" commentary, not a straight news story. This is time-wasting pedantry. We properly attribute Feltman's opinion, it's from one of the most respected newspapers in America and it contains nothing which can reasonably be described as violating BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The URL format says one thing, and the text on a page says something else. Do we trust a technical artifact over a clear statement? 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this to the reliable sources noticeboard, since there has been no discussion here for the past two days. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

References

"Female friend"

IP 86.132.136.166 added "made for him by his female designer friend" below and I reverted it.

Writing in The Washington Post, Rachel Feltman said the shirt, made for him by his female designer friend, which she described as "sexist", was inappropriate to wear in a workplace setting "because it sends a clear message to the women around you -- their bodies are really just there for display".

The reason why I removed it is because:

• It was poorly phrased - it could be read to imply that Rachel Feltman was describing the female friend as sexist, not the shirt.
• It is irrelevant and is only added to attempt to convince the reader that the shirt could not have been sexist because it was designed by a female - which is nonsense obviously because women can be sexist too (not to talk about the fact that some have argued that the shirt while not being inherently sexist, was, when worn in this specific context, sending a sexist message). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:ACDF (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The "female friend" is actually Elly Prizeman, who is the wife of the man who gave Matt Taylor a tattoo of the comet on his leg. Matt Taylor was best man at their wedding. She has spoken to the media, in defence of Matt Taylor. There has also been a lot of public demand for her to make more of the same shirts she made for him. I'm not sure if she qualifies as notable yet, but her company website is going live in the next 20 days and is very likely to be associated with Matt Taylor and his shirt. Big Mac (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

An olive branch: do not quote from opinion pieces about the shirt controversy

I have removed both quotes taken from opinion pieces from the shirt controversy section. I have replaced the Stanley quote with wording adapted from the old Shirtstorm article. We do not need a quote to sum up the criticism when we already have our own words that have been hashed out over many edits in the old Shirtstorm article. Nor should we be quoting an opinion piece to sum up the criticism of the critics when we also have our own words for that, although the latter could do with improvement as the old article did almost use the Stanley quote as a crutch on this. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice job, and as this fades out of the media spotlight, I think it's clear that what we have is all we need. He did something that people perceived as insensitive, he was criticized, some objected to the criticism, he apologized and the apology was accepted. The end, everyone moves on. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That section is still in need of more pruning, since you are right that the spotlight will fade. I'm glad we were able to come to an agreeable solution. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The citation of the Tim Stanley piece seems to have been removed altogether, which concerns me. The majority of references now lead to voices critical of Dr Taylor. "Numbers" of commentators criticised him, but only "others" defended him? 109.150.204.55 (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please help with sorting the citations (in the next section). Right now more than half of the numbered references in the article are about the shirt controversy. I would like to reduce that. Choosing the best, most reliable and neutral sources for each detail would also be nice. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly re-inserted Tim Stanley, I hope there are no objections. 109.150.204.55 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tim Stanley is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. That's the criteria I used for keeping Boris Johnson and Julie Bindel. Still, we should be careful about expanding the shirt controversy too much. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

[And my IP address has changed out from under me. I was previously editing this article from 70.133.154.32 (talk). 70.133.144.10 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)]

Trimming shirt controversy and preparing to bundle citations

The shirt controversy section is still lengthy and has a number of places where multiple citations appear together. The previous arguments have resulted in every statement being extensively sourced. I am preparing to bundle the citations and rearrange them so that no source is used twice. I am opening this thread for discussions of which sources most strongly support which statements. I encourage the use of {{tq}} to quote from the sources. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: removing details of the apology, since quoting "emotional" isn't something I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia, now has us with only two sources used more than once, one of which is redundant with other sources in both places, and one of which is redundant on one statement and apparently unique on the other. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

His Shirt

where I can buy that one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.156.44.21 (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The shirt was made by Matt Taylor's friend Elly Prizeman. It was a one off. The person who designed the material she used stopped making it. However, she has had so much demand to make more of these shirts, that she has set up a Facebook page: Elly Prizeman Ltd - #shirtstorm shirts and has a website in development that goes live in 20 days Shirtstorm|Custom clothing by Elly Prizeman. The material used in the shirt was put back into production, so she should be able to make more of the shirts soon.

In the meantime, she has sold at least one replica shirts on eBay. This one: Official #shirtstorm Dr. Matt Taylor replica went to someone who bid £185.00 UKP, back in December. I would not personally pay £185.00 UKP for a shirt, but I guess the buyer was trying to show support for Matt Taylor.

Matt Taylor was actually the Best Man at Elly Prizeman's wedding and it was her husband, who did the tattoo of the comet on Matt Taylor's leg. I think those facts would have been notable enough to have been included in the #shirtstorm article that got merged into this one. When Elly Prizeman's company starts selling new #shirtstorm shirts, she may well cause some additional publicity about the shirt, and Matt Taylor's name is likely to come up again. Big Mac (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much about the shirt

I guess it's unavoidable that the 'shirt controversy' should be mentioned in this article, since it's rather sadly what this guy is probably best known for. But it seems harsh that this article has more content about that than about his scientific career. Where's all the information about his work on the Rosetta mission? It seems to me that this article should be rewritten to look more like a biography of a scientist, and the bit about his shirt cut down to a couple of lines at most, proportionate to its (lack of) importance in his career. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUE weight on the shirt. It warrants that large of a section because of all the sources reporting on that. If you want to add more stuff about his work, go ahead and do that. Tutelary (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the shirt does need to be mentioned, but I also think that Robofish has some sort of point. I think the problem with the article is that we have one 'Background' section followed by the 'Shirt controversy' section. That structure seems to give equal weight to the background and the shirt controversy.

What I think needs to happen is that the 'Background' section needs to be broken up into some sort of pre-scientist or early-life section and then there needs to be a section for his science career that has subsections for his work as work at Cluster (or a subsection for the Mullard Space Science Laboratory - whichever is most appropriate for this type of article) followed by another subsection for Rosetta (or the European Space Agency). The 'Shirt controversy' content belongs within information about his work on Rosetta, as that is the time that it occurred.

If Matt Taylor goes on to be project scientist for other projects (or be part of other projects) then I think that it will be important for the reader to understand that they are 'post-shirtgate projects'. I think it is also important for the reader to understand that there was no controversy around Matt Taylor during his time at Cluster. That is the context of this event, in my opinion. I think that if we can do something like that, it will put #shirtgate into the correct context. It is an event that overtook a much more significant event in news coverage and was (rightly or wrongly) tied into discussions about the number of women engaged in science.

Having said that, Tutelary is right. More information needs to be added. I found a source that indicated that Matt Taylor's father was a bricklayer and that Matt worked alongside him on building sites, in the summers he was away from University. I've added that into the article. That source also suggested that Matt's father wanted him to get into science, but that factoid was a bit unclear, so I didn't want to include it without finding a better source that explained Matt's relationship with his father better. If we can find more information about Matt's early life, that would be a good way to build up a pre-science section.

I also found a page at ICL that says: "Matt Taylor is soon to depart from MSSL in Surrey, heading for the even more remote location of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico." I've tried having a look for information about what he might have been doing at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, but so far I've not turned anything up. Big Mac (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reorganisation of article

I have looked at WikiProject Spaceflight to see articles for other people involved in science, to see if any of them have a better structure than this article. Ignoring anything that isn't about a person, here is what I have found: FA class:

• Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.
• Joseph Francis Shea
• Glynn Lunney
• Gerard K. O'Neill
• Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)

GA class:

• Neil Armstrong
• Valeri Polyakov
• Mark Kelly
• Jay Barbree
• Lance Bass
• Lodewijk van den Berg
• Raemer Schreiber

More than half of those articles have an 'Early life and education' section. I'm not sure if we can push this article to FA/GA level in one go, but I think that this article should have an 'Early life and education' section too.

I'm not sure if Matt Taylor has done anything notable before becoming a scientist, but we do know he worked with his father doing construction work, in between university breaks. I think it would be good if we could identify sources that show if he did any of that before going to university, of if he was on progress towards becoming a scientist as soon as he came out of school.

If we can find out what he has done before his science work, we can find out if there should be another section or just the one section before his notable stuff.

Ideally, I think there should be a section about Mullard Space Science Laboratory followed by another section about European Space Agency. There is not enough information for subsections yet, but ideally, there should eventually be a subsection within a 'Mullard Space Science Laboratory' section to cover the circumstances of Matt Taylor's promotion to project scientist, and maybe some information about what he did before and after gaining that post.

It looks like the 'European Space Agency' work he has had is only Rosetta project scientist, so far, so I'm guessing we should be aiming to expand to one section there, with a subsection about the #shirtgate stuff.

Anyhoo, I think that is the general outline that we should aim for, and I'm interested to see if any other editors concur or if they have any alternative ideas for improvement. 00:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shepheard (talk • contribs)

Death metal band

It would appear that Matt Taylor used to play in a death-metal band called 'Septic Willies'. Sources Evening Standard and The Register. I am not sure when he was in this band. Big Mac (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Shirtgate" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shirtgate. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Shirtgate until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaioa (T C L) 18:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Without shirtgate, does Matt Taylor warrant a wiki entry?

He has a page because of shirtgate. Without it, he's an average-performing midlevel scientist working for a large agency. Why does he warrant an entry here? 2001:A61:1070:A101:D868:84B2:56:D871 (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Ponyo: I would be happy with whatever consensus decides regarding this recent edit by 185.109.152.41 (who has no other edits) but you may like to consider the edit given your closing remark at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Cahnc and the CU block of Cahnc (talk · contribs) who added it a month ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Shirtstorm isn't an important fact about MT

"Shirtstorm" (which is covered in Wikipedia) is a minor episode in a political movement and an example of online shaming. It is not (unless you can provide reliable sources to demonstrate it) an important part of Matt Taylor's life. It caused him some momentary embarrassment but turned out to have no other consequences. Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, it was one of the earliest prominent episodes of online shaming by social media, so I think it deserves a mention and a link to relevant articles. 86.164.124.91 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, the incident should be in an article on social media. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of Shirtstorm from article

How did we get from a situation where we have "too much" shirtstorm to where it is not mentioned on the article at all? Is there something I am missing here? We should not be biased on Taylor, and this is something that requires a mention somewhere in the article. I do not understand how this passive destruction of information has happened. I have added a short sentence with a link in lieu of a proper section, but ultimately the previous edits should be restored in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who (actively) removed the last mention of shirtstorm. I decided that it wasn't really about him; he was just the unfortunate focus of a political movement at the time. If it had ended his career, or in any other significant way affected his work, I could see why we should leave it in. But it's really just the most embarrassing thing that has happened to him in public. Otherwise, it has had no impact on him or his science.Thomas B (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that there is some credit to the argument that it should be removed for purposes of not perpetuating victimization; from WP:BLP we have this quote: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." However, the alternative argument is in the use in continued disputes section: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." The material I am citing is certainly relevant and reliably sourced, and I feel I was being very neutral in my tone. Furthermore, I do not think that there is off-wiki disputes that I am continuing here; I am simply stating the fact that he was involved in a controversy, and I leave it to the reader to decide their opinion on the controversy. I do not think that the argument that "I decided that it wasn't really about him" is not true; it is without dispute about him, though the current political climate may have lead to an increase in coverage. The concept that "it has had no impact on him or his science" is besides the point; it is a notable incident, it involved him, and it is well sourced. I do not see why it should not be in the article based on these points. Reading through this talk page, it seems like most editors agreed that it should be in the article, but clearly all of them have lost interest in the subject apart from you, which means that you have been the de facto decider of what remains in the article; however, I think in this case you have got this wrong. I will re-edit the article tomorrow, and if you still have a dispute I would suggest we take this to a different location to see the opinion of some other editors.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Let's see what you think should be in the article and I'll try to explain why I think it's WP:UNDUE. To me it is crucial to point out, given what you say here, that he was not "involved in a controversy"; he was publicly humiliated for something that had no other consequences for him, or for science, than the humiliation itself. It's something that he'd probably rather forget and no one needs to know about him. And therefore something that no one needs to learn about him from us. Thomas B (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Taylor_(scientist). Thomas B (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I came here after the post on the BLP noticeboard. I'm in full agreement with Thomas Basboll, especially his note a few paragraphs above: it has "no impact on him or his science". This is an encyclopedia article about a living person. Maybe you could argue that this event should remain on the "online shaming" page, but it is not a defining aspect of this scientist. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus at the noticeboard is going in the other direction. We will have discuss exactly how to work a "brief, neutral statement". Thomas B (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement on Shirtstorm

The discussion at the BLP noticeboard is recommending we add a brief, neutral statement about it. If we decide to go that way, I want to use the following recent account in the New Yorker, from an article about "the shaming-industrial complex" as a basis and source. And I think it should go in the section about his personal life, not his career.

In 2014, a British astrophysicist named Matt Taylor delivered a press briefing about the Rosetta mission while clad in a shirt depicting cartoon women in suggestive attire, a garment that turned out to be a birthday present from a female friend who had designed it. While Taylor was discussing his hand in devising the first spacecraft to land on a comet, many viewers fixated not on his accomplishment but on the sexism that his shirt supposedly evinced. Soon, #shirtgate and #shirtstorm were trending on Twitter.[3]

We could say something like, "In 2014, he was the focus of the online shaming campaign known as "Shirtstorm"." Thomas B (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Saw this at BLPN. This is UNDUE, and should be left out. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. I looked at the revision where it was added back, and all the sources are dated from the same time-frame. It was "in the news" for a minute, and has no historical significance whatsoever, as evidenced by no sustained coverage, and it didn't affect his life or career. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 12:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Isaidnoway. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this now. Is it BLPN or this talk page that has the authority to decide? We still need to hear from Spiralwidget again. At the moment, it's out. Until someone puts it back, I'm of course happy to leave things there. Thomas B (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hello again! Not been here for a little while. Very keen for there to be a mention here of Shirtstorm; I definitely could see it in the personal life section as suggested, though not with the wording that Thomas B suggested just above for reasons I will outline below. I am not advocating a deep mention, but in passing I think it is valuable for the reader. BLP:N clearly agreed a short mention was warrented, and I am tempted to agree. I am happy to escalate if you still think it is UNDUE. I am still not entirely sure why this is a problem- a short sentence will not take away from the rest of the article and in my opinion the episode does not reflect well or badly on the subject- it was just an event that happened, and people are free to make their opinions from the relevant sources. It certainly happened, it is well verified in many sources and I think leaving it out entirely could be considered a form of quiet censorship.

  I would like to edit the article again, with the following wording in the Personal Life section, similar to the wording suggested in BLP:N.

  "Taylor was the subject of controversy known as "Shirtstorm" over artwork on a shirt he wore during a 2014 ESA Press conference regarding the Rosetta craft."

  The reason for the omission of "perceived as sexist by some" is because though that is true, it lends some weight to the opinion that the shirt was sexist by making that suggestion. I think it can be left out. The reason I would leave out the "Taylor apologised" is because likewise that suggests that Taylor did something wrong, and again I think that is up to the reader to decide for themselves.

  I do not like Thomas B's suggestion of ""In 2014, he was the focus of the online shaming campaign known as "Shirtstorm" "" for similar reasons. It makes the suggestion that Taylor was a victim, and again this is suggesting a certain point of view which may not be the conclusion the reader comes to after reading sources. I like my version because each fact seems indisputable and without bias:

  1. Taylor was the subject of controversy

  2. It was called Shirtstorm

  3. It was related to artwork on his shirt

  4. It was worn during the specified press conference.

  Please let me know what you think. I do not know why this is a point of contention; I think we all have more important editing to do rather than bicker over a single line on an article no? I know I am trying to improve coverage of Chinese subjects on wikipedia for example, and I would rather be getting back to that stuff. Will edit the Matt Taylor article at some point in the next week if you do not object. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Good to have you back! I think we should be able to agree on something to put in the section on his personal life, and then perhaps escalate it afterwards to get a thumbs up or down on that. It's a not a huge deal for me, but I do think the right thing to do is to leave it out altogether.

  If it must be mentioned, I'd like to use the New Yorker[4] as a source. The article uses it specifically as an example of "shaming", and the link to Shirtstorm is also in the WP article on online shaming. So I think it should be described as such.

  That said, I see your point that "shaming" and "sexist" both seem like POV language. But I think the fact (if I may use that word) that he was shamed is the only reason to include it at all in the account of his personal life. (Though, like I say, it's ultimately not reason enough, in my opinion.) Thomas B (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Would someone like to outline the effect on Taylor's career of wearing a shirt for an hour? The only reason to mention the fuss is as an example of how the current social media mindset works, and that should be in some other article. Oh look, it is at Online shaming#"Shirtstorm" controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In response to this, it would appear that it was minimal and I am forced to admit that. This article in the Observer from 2 years or so after has no mention of it whatsoever https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/09/rosetta-project-scientist-matt-taylor-interview-comet-european-space-agency , though there is a short section where he talks about how he "can't remember some parts of the project clearly" as a form of "psychological defense" which may be referring to the incident. By all accounts, Taylor appears to continue as a senior scientist at ESA and still continues to wear unusually informal clothing judging by most images.Spiralwidget (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that Guardian source. It gets me thinking that this may one day become part of his biography, but no biographer (or even journalist) has so far taken an interest in this event. I think we have to wait until someone does take an interest. As I understand it, we have decided it hasn't really affected his career; and we don't know anything about how it affected his personal life. Seems like we don't have a basis for including it. Thomas B (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Everyone knows my opinion on this by this point I think, but it seems like the consensus does not appear to be going my way this time and I will freely admit that. I will keep the article on my watchlist and if it is brought up again in media or similar I may propose adding something.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, let's see if anything changes and take it up then. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)