Jump to content

Talk:Clarice Phelps/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Weighting and accuracy

Hi all. In regard to weighting, I believe the article focuses too much on her career where the vast majority of reliable sources centers around this Wikipedia article. I'm wondering everyone else's opinions on restructuring the article with a focus on the article's controversy as covered in reliable sources. Also, there is an issue with the claim that she is the first African American woman to contribute to discovering an element. Though it seems likely, I don't think we should be saying it definitively when, of the three sources cited, one of them is a press release from her employer (not secondary/independent), one simply quotes that press release, and the third says "she is thought" to be the first. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree the article controversy section could be expanded beyond the two sentences that it is now. As to the "first" claim, if NASA would be a reliable source for "first person to walk on the moon", why isn't ORNL a reliable source for "first AA woman to help discover an element"? Levivich 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The former was written about in hundreds of independent news outlets and watched by millions. This is her employer, and one of the independent news outlets cited only says "she is thought" to be the first, which leads me to believe we should change it to that. Vermont (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Physics Today: "thought to be the first". Undark Magazine: thought to be the first. WaPo/Jess Wade: "the first African American woman to be part of team that discovered a superheavy element". I have to agree that per WP-philosophy the employer is to avoided for info like that. Physics Today seems weighty to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
ORNL and IUPAC say "first", and I think they're very reliable authorities on the matter, but nevertheless no objection here to adding "thought to be" or some other qualifier to the text. Levivich 15:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that nobody really checked. American people "to contribute to discovering an element" must be thousands of names, and many names may never have been recorded. Again, guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Kit Chapman (the author of Superheavy) researched the claim and found it to be plausible: https://twitter.com/ChemistryKit/status/1123711743094657027. Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This is of course always been the issue, she really was not notable untill this all blew up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think posting a timeline of who published what and where is going to be required, before any solid agreement on whether this claim should be included at all, much less the form of wording. Do people agree that is a sensible way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Dunbarton (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as we need to know what is the most common way to refer to her.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"First" timeline

  1. April 25 Claire Jarvis, Undark Magazine [1] "Clarice Phelps may have been the first black woman to help discover an element ... The nuclear scientist is thought to be the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element"
  2. April 29 Daily Dot [2] "Clarice Phelps likely was the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element ... Clarice Phelps, likely the first Black woman to have contributed to the discovery of a new element ..."
  3. May 1 Kit Chapman, author of Superheavy, tweets "I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams. She is the first African American woman." [3]
  4. May 5 Chemical & Engineering News [4] "... Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element."
  5. June 2 IUPAC [5] "She is the first African-American women to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine (Element 117)." (announcement)
  6. June 3 ORNL "Phelps was selected [by IUPAC] to represent einsteinium and cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity. She is the first African-American women to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine.'" [6]
  7. June 9 Chemical & Engineering News "Clarice Phelps is a chemist at ORNL widely thought to be the first black woman to help discover an element, tennessine." [7]
  8. July 3 Chemistry World "Phelps, who works at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US, is quite possibly the first female African–American scientist to be part of a team that discovered a superheavy element, tennessine" [8]
  9. July 23 Oak Ridge Today "ORNL engineer the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element ... A nuclear engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine, the lab said Tuesday ... Phelps was cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity. She is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine,' the press release said." [9]
  10. July 29 The Oak Ridger "ORNL nuclear engineer Clarice Phelps, of the Isotope & Fuel Cycle Technology Division, is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine, according to information provided earlier this week by the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory ... Phelps was cited 'for her outstanding commitment to research and public engagement, as well as being an important advocate for diversity,' the ORNL release stated. 'She is the first African American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, tennessine.'" [10]
  11. August 7 WBIR-TV "ORNL said she is the first African American woman to be associated with the discovery of a new periodic table element ... 'It was neat to find out later on that I was the first African-American woman to be associated with the discovery of an element,' she [Phelps] said. 'It's an accomplishment that I can really be proud of.'" [11]
  12. August 17 Kit Chapman, BBC Science Focus "The Oak Ridge team (including Clarice Phelps, the first black American woman to discover an element) ..." [12]
  13. September 30 Claire Jarvis, Physics Today "She [Phelps] is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element ... Phelps, who is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element" [13]
  14. December 11 Phelps in a podcast interview "I was announced and had the privilege of being the first African American woman to be involved with element discovery." [14] at 15:23 (discussion of "first" claim starts at 14:10)
  • Personally, I think IUPAC, ORNL, and Chapman, are sufficiently-reliable authorities on the matter (especially IUPAC and ORNL), plus Phelps herself, and BBC Science Focus, and they all state it definitively ("is the first"), so we should state it definitively in wikivoice ("is the first"). That's my !vote, YMMV. Cheers, Levivich 03:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting list. I think there's enough hedging in decent sources for us to use a qualifier, I'm ok with "thought to be" or perhaps "is likely", it should hint "she probably is." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I recall people who have read supererhavy have said it does not in fact include the claim saying ""His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element... He was not the last. In 2009 Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and conformation of element 115"". Its clear a lot of RS hedge their bets, and even the man who (litterly) wrote the book on the subject does not make the claim in the book.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If we're going to do a qualifier, I would suggest "widely considered to be" or "considered to be". Or, alternatively, "According to IUPAC, she is the first ..." IUPAC is the authority on element discovery, and the source of ORNL's statement, and ORNL is the source for many of the other RSes, so I think this claim has been "verified" by IUPAC, and thus could be attributed to them. The reader can decide for themselves whether or not they believe IUPAC. Levivich 16:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If notable at all, she is notable solely for the controversy around the attempt to create a Wikipedia article on her despite a lack of professional achievements and notability. The article needs to reflect that, and to focus on the Wikipedia article controversy both in the body and the lead section. The argument that she "discovered an element" or had any notable role in such a discovery has already been refuted countless times. --Tataral (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Tataral, could you link to one of those times it has been "refuted", and also what about the 14 examples above? Are you saying IUPAC is incorrect in making the claim? What RS disputes IUPAC's claim? Levivich 04:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That she helped discoverer an element has (to my knowledge) never once been refuted. That she is the first African american woman to have does not has been questioned (or at least caveated), not refuted. But it is also true that before the wikistorm she had been practically ignored by the media. Thus we have the bizarre situation where someone might have been notable for an achievement who was ignored until the press could have a rage boner about Wikipedia, at which point they suddenly found her notable. Thus she is in fact more notable for not having a Wikipedia page then for possible being the first African american woman to help discover an element. (Soapbox alert) which says more about the media than it does us.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Her alleged role in the element discovery was found to be of a non-notable nature in multiple discussions (AfD, deletion review); she was found to be a technician who did her job and had a small part in a large project, without meeting the notability threshold based on those activities. Being involved, among hundreds of people, in such an event doesn't mean that she "discovered an element" if she had no particularly important/notable role, demonstrated by reliable sources. We should avoid vague expressions like "'help' discover an element," which only serve to obfuscate her actual role. --Tataral (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Contributing a token of technical expertise to large projects involving multiple participants is how science is done. Lone scientists striking heroic poses looking through a test tube in the rising sun is cute, but it is just folklore. Rama (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No it was not found "not notable", the article was. If two days after the last AFD 15 magazines articles had appeared about her role it would have become notable. IF RS say it so do we, so problem was RS did not consider it (not us) notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PF Bk249 team.png

Because WP hadn't embarrassed itself enough already. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For anyone interested in these and other photographs from OakRidge, please have a look at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge. There are 57 photographs that appear likely to be deleted due to unresolvable issues with copyright validation. --Fæ (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

bio entry rmv'd (but) twice?

  1. "wade" draft rmv'd (via RfD) 4 Feb 2019
  2. "professed-compromise" draft rmv'd citing abv 27 Apr
  3. "rama"[reinstatement of orig. wade]draft rmv'd (ditto; plus its text mvd to wp:Draft space)
    BRB w dates/diffs &tc ok?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is the professed compromise draft 27 April 2019 at the way back machine.
This capture 28 April includes admin action log entry 27 April 2019 Amakuru deleted page Clarice E. Phelps.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Rama's arb evidence pg has a post w this timeline:
  1. 31 August: Page created by Jesswade88.
  2. 11 February: Deleted by TonyBallioni following first deletion discussion. Deletion discussion was endorsed on 18 Feb.
  3. 3 April: Created again by Jesswade88.
  4. 4 April: Deleted again by TonyBallioni per CSD G4 and salted following second deletion discussion.
  5. 26 April: Draft:Clarice E. Phelps was created by Hodgdon's secret garden.
  6. 27 April: Draft moved to mainspace Clarice E. Phelps by admin DGG.*
  7. 27 April: Amakuru deleted the Clarice E. Phelps article as it had been tagged as {{db-repost}} by Tataral and the conditions for that seemed to be met.
  8. 29 April: Rama undeleted the original article at Clarice Phelps.
  9. 29 April: Fram moved the article to Draft:Clarice Phelps without leaving a redirect, after the opening of this case request.
    ____
    *project's draft-reviewer extraordinaire user:DGG (whom I'd characterize as otherwise deletionist at heart if prognosticative of subject's ult. notability via observations of the brewing brouhaha w/in this particular corner of the Zeitgeist) ok'd a draft which had toned down certain claims to scientific notability while also referencing various recognitions of the subject's educational outreaches--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
(Making a general point having been tagged above) - Yes, perhaps it was deleted three or four times, that would depend on the definition. But in any case I think focusing on this sort of detail is beyond the scope of what the Wikipedia section should be discussing. If the Wikipedia episode is worthy of discussion then it should focus on what outside secondary sources are saying about the matter, which was mostly focused on the perceived gender bias on the site, not on the minutiae of who deleted what and when. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm not sure what HSG is saying here. The edit summary, "its happening but twice not dispositive" is not clear to me either. But the issue seems to be the number of time the article was deleted. I went through the details to update the article history above. That template has to be expanded manually but the details are:
Action date link result
PROD 1 February 2019 kept
AfD 4 February 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps deleted
DRV 11 February 2019 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 11 endorsed
CSD 3 April 2019 kept
AfD 4 April 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarice Phelps (2nd nomination) speedily deleted
CSD 29 April 2019 moved to draft with no redirect
DRV 1 May 2019 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1 endorse
DRV 31 January 2020 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 31 restore

So there have been 1 ProD, 2 AfD, 2 CSD and 3 DRV. There were two deletions, as recorded in the deletion log, and also a move to draft without leaving a redirect, which is debatable. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • What I'm also seeing from Amakuru's timeline is that there was a separate draft page which was moved to mainspace and deleted there so that's another CSD and a third deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    user:Andrew Davidson The timeline was posted by HSG not by me, but yes that's correct. There was a recreation at the alternative title Clarice E. Phelps, which I deleted. It's also debatable whether the draftification counted as a third delete of the main article - functionally it's equivalent, as its removed from main space in either case. So mainSpace coverage of Phelps has been removed a total of four times.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Have any reliable secondary sources been found that actually say any number of times "the article" (under whatever number of alternate names) was deleted? I am very tempted to replace the text

The article was created by British physicist and Wikipedia editor Jess Wade on 31 August 2018 before being deleted on 11 February 2019; Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019, before it was again deleted and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted; it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later.

with the the text

The article had been created by British physicist and Wikipedia editor Jess Wade.

and lacking any reliable sources that verify this content I intend to do so.
It seems that secondary sources are unwilling to throw the so-called "deletionist" Wikipedians under the bus for following procedures that are in place for a very good reason (defending the encyclopedia from self-promotion like this) by implying that the article was deleted multiple times despite the subject clearly having been demonstrated to be notable. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the first AFD (the only time AFD was the proper forum, since the first [several?] recreation[s?] was [were?] clearly a violation of policy, making speedy deletion the proper procedure) the reliable independent sources didn't credit, or even mention, Phelps, and so it is entirely possible that by deleting the article the English Wikipedia community drew attention to this oversight on the part of said sources.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not make that edit. Please read the sources cited in the article, which will answer your question. (They go into decent detail about the deletions and deletion discussion. IIRC, Undark, Chemistry World, and Daily Dot are the ones I recall with the most depth.) Levivich (lulz) 03:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: If "the sources cited in the article" support the content in question, why are they not cited in a manner that implies as much? Currently the text in question contains a single citation, which is a link to the page's Wikipedia deletion log, and which I tagged as being insufficient three days ago. I'm not going to read through a bunch of unspecified sources to see whether or not they support the content I have challenged: the burden is on you to do that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is the burden on me? If you’re not going to read the sources, then don’t make significant changes to the content. We have {{fv}} if you need it. Levivich (lulz) 04:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is always on the party wishing to include content, never on the party wishing to remove it. That being said, when I wrote the above I suspected you may have been the author of said text, for which incorrect suspicion I apologize. I am now going to remove the text per not only BURDEN but also WP:BRD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, the above bizarre comment by Levivich made me suspicious that he was the one who added the text in question, so I went to WikiBlame, and found out that it was actually added with this edit. User:Miraclepine is a relatively new editor (account registered in August 2018, but only around 3,500 edits before August 2019), so I'll let the potential user conduct issue fly, but I didn't know the content had been boldly added, without explanation, only a few hours before I tagged it; if I had, I would have simply removed it outright rather than tagging. I will therefore remove it now pending sources and consensus to include it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: To be fair, my favorite part was bringing up Fram. ミラP 04:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean, that's an interesting footnote to the whole affair, but it is not really relevant, and almost certainly would not be supported by any reliable secondary sources (which might give the usernames of those involved but would surely not draw connections to unrelated on-wiki incidents in which they were involved...).
@Levivich: Would you mind actually doing what was requested of you? In response your cite-bombing the content after re-adding it, I opened all of them to Ctrl+F for "salt", "protect" and "draft" -- the fact that the article was protected from repeated re-creation is verified by this source but not apparently any of the others, while the fact that it was moved to the draftspace is not apparently found in any of the secondary sources. Additionally, no source apparently talks about Wade "recreating" the article -- the only one that mentions recreation is the Daily Dot piece, but that just puts the word in scare-quotes and doesn't attribute the recreation to Wade anywhere. This kind of sloppy editing on your part makes me very reluctant to assume that the sources verify the rest of the content.
Could you please add the Daily Dot citation to the "protected from re-creation" text specifically, remove the citation bomb at the end of the paragraph, add the specific citations to the specific content they support, and remove all other content that cannot be found in any of the cited sources? Then we can have a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to cite the Wikipedia deletion log for the dates and the admin status of those who implemented the article deletion...
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
What is a "citation bomb"? Rama (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rama: WP:CITEBOMB. I guess in this case I am using it in a slightly different sense, since it is kinda overkill to call four citations a "bomb", but what I meant was that a string of citations were clumsily tagged onto the end of a paragraph of text, and even though some of the citations probably support some of the content, it is generally unhelpful and should not have been done in the manner that it was.
The fact that Levi blank-reverted without, apparently, checking any of the sources himself, while a talk page discussion was ongoing and both BURDEN and BRD were in favour of keeping the material out, and that he didn't even leave a message on the talk page explaining why he was doing this, are other factors that, while they might justify imprecise use of terminology on my part, certainly make what I did the lesser of two evils. :P
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why we don't use Wikipedia as a citation

Levivich - It took more than a week for any editor to remember that this article used to exist as Clarice E. Phelps at one point as well, but that fact escaped the memory (or perhaps attention) of Andrew Davidson* when they suggested the hook that ... was deleted twice from Wikipedia. The article was in fact deleted at least thrice, twice as Clarice Phelps and once as Clarice E. Phelps. And that is if you exclude draftification as a deletion-process.

Why is that significant? Well for one, that fact did not escape the attention of Katrina Krämer, author of the Chemistry World article being used as a citation: Arguing whether Phelps met Wikipedia’s notability standards – rules that govern whether a person should have a page or not – editors first deleted her page, then restored it, then deleted it again. Her page has been deleted a total of three times. With every deletion, the discussion became more heated. And for two, we do not use Wikipedia as a source for one very good reason: it is trivially easy to fuck it up.

Nearly the entirety of: on 31 August 2018 before being deleted on 11 February 2019; Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019, before it was again deleted and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted; it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later hinges on the improper use of Wikipedia as a reliable source. The only bit that I could verify across any of the cited sources is the deletion of 11 February 2019 which can be cited to the Undark article. As such, I am re-removing it, and reminding you that this is a BLP (read the unambiguous notice when editing that any contentious material not cited to a reliable source must be immediately removed - emphasis in the original). Mr rnddude (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am not chiding Andrew for this error, but using it as an example of how easy it is to introduce an error into an article when citing Wikipedia, even Wikipedia logs, in an article. That error could have very well made it onto the front page of Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with your title. I haven't read the rest of your comments yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification?

Since we’re not using the FV tag and deleting content instead, would any editor(s) who thinks the content fails verification to a secondary source please list the individual facts that they believe fails verification to a secondary source? Thanks. Levivich (lulz) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here you go:
... on 31 August 2018 ... - the best that I could get as to the original creation of the article is from Undark: Phelps’ entry was created last September by Jess Wade.
... Wade recreated it on 3 April 2019 ... - the recreation and redeletions are mentioned in Chemistry World and The Daily Dot, but the dates and actors are not.
... before it was again deleted and and "salted" (protected from creation) by the same administrator who had initially deleted ... - creation-protection is mentioned by the Daily Dot, but the Wikiterm "salting" is not. You removed the struck through portion in your copy-editing, but it failed verification as well. DD: The “move log” read that an administrator had “protected” the page because it had been “Repeatedly recreated” and was “in violation of a deletion discussion that was upheld at deletion review.”
... it was later restored by another administrator on 29 April 2019, before being moved to draftspace three hours later - I found no mention of either this restoration by Rama or the draftification.
That about sums up what failed verification. Oh, and Katrina Krämer's article states that the article was deleted a total of three times. That may be worth including directly. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this. So the final recreation/move-to-draftspace can go (for lack of a secondary source). We can strike the term "salted" and just say creation protected—that’s wiki lingo anyway that I think isn’t really necessary. Everything else looks like it’s verified, except for dates and actors. I don’t think actors are encyclopedically significant enough to include. Do you (or anyone else) object to the primary source log being used to supply dates? Levivich (lulz) 01:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is less-than-ideal to be citing a Wikipedia log even just for the dates, but I can live with it as long as no reference to a section that uses such a source is being made on the main page -- would you withdraw your support for the initial proposed DYK hook and ALTs 1-4 (sorry, I can't seem to find the actual text of ALT4, so I'm assuming just in case that it's one of the Wikipedia article deletion ones) and instead support either ALT5 or ALT6 if I agree to using the Wikipedia deletion log as a citation for the dates? (Note that I actually don't think we need to include all the exact dates -- "September 2018" and "11 February 2019" are more than enough, and they are both verified in this source.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hijiri88, I appreciate your offer of compromise but I have to decline on the principle that we shouldn't be horse-trading content for DYK hook support. The article should summarize the reliable sources, and hook suggestions should be sourced in the article and otherwise follow DYK req's–I know you agree with me on both those points. I'd ask you to support or oppose using the logs for dates based on what you think is best for the reader irrespective of which hooks I support or oppose. In any event, the "Wikipedia article" section hasn't been terribly stable yet. I'm going to take a crack at writing something to see if it has consensus sometime this week, and I'd ask you (and everyone else) to take a look at it (I'll work with whatever the mainspace content is at the time I get to this) and edit it as you see fit.
As for the hooks, I think the hooks proposed so far are all adequately sourced, and I still think the article deletion is a core aspect of the subject's notability based on the number of RSes that discuss or mention the deletion (as opposed to the number of RSes that discuss the subject without mentioning the deletion). Despite the navel-gazing aspect, despite the cytogenesis concern, despite the wikipolitics, because the sources write about it, I think we should write about it. The important thing is to be accurate, neutral, and due, and I trust that the normal consensus process will come out with a "Wikipedia article" section that has consensus and is stable. In the meantime, I still think a deletion-based hook is the hooky-est per my comments in the DYK. I don't oppose ALT5 or ALT6, but I still think ALT0 makes the best hook. I just disagree with the argument that the hook should summarize the subject, or honor the subject, or highlight the subject's major career achievement, or anything like that; I think a hook should entice the reader to click on the bold link and read the article, and whatever gets the most clicks is the best hook (within reason). I also agree with the view that "first..." hooks are overused. For example, I only have 5 DYKs, and 2 of them are "first..."s. I recognize I'm in the minority with ALT0 in the end but that's OK . Because I don't see any sourcing problems with any of the hooks, I think the hook selection is really parallel and separate from the wordsmithing of the section. Levivich (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The article isn't summarizing reliable sources: it is summarizing a narrative you and Andrew happen to agree upon, and have managed to dig up enough sources to present as content in an article (even though the actual article has clearly disagreed with your version most of this time thanks to the CW quote), and have even been trying to push for it to be presented on the main page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok nevermind then. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. Ronald Regan has two reactors "operating the nuclear reactor" seems a bit odd given that Ronald Regan has two reactors. Either she operated a reactor, or the reactors.
  2. Unit listed as Navy Nuclear Power Program. A unit has a commander, and people who are assigned to the unit, under the commander, are considered to be in that unit. This is unlikely to have pertained to an individual Navy nuke. She was nuclear qualified but not properly speaking in the program itself. Her unit would have been the ship itself (after power school).
  3. Non-commissioned officer. Term is technically correct for a petty officer but almost never used in Naval contexts.
  4. D. of E. is very nonstandard phrase used in lede, it's always abbreviated DoE. I fixed this one. Leaving the others for more eyes on.

Cheers -- Bri.public (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that while "D. of E." is probably unheard of, DoE is also not standard. The normal abbreviation is DOE. GMGtalk 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
(1) The object of the verb "operating" is "controls", not "nuclear reactor". "nuclear reactor" is part of an adjectival phrase modifying "controls" (she operated the nuclear reactor and steam generator chemistry controls). That said, the sentence is awkward af and could benefit from a rewrite (2) Agreed, I removed it. (3) Agreed she's probably a PO but "NCO" is what the source says and it's the only source AFAIK that gives any info about rank. (The TAP source says "officer", which is even less specific.) (4) Agreed with using the full name instead of an abbreviation, and yeah I think DOE is correct per [15] [16]. Cheers, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

IUPAC-Solvay International Award for Young Chemists

Recently, Hodgdon's secret garden added a claim that Phelps was awarded the IUPAC-Solvay International Award for Young Chemists, but I could not find any evidence of this being true. She is not listed among the 2019 winners.[17] and the 2020 winners have yet to be announced AFAICT. This claim was cited to [18], which does not appear to mention Phelps. Am I missing something? Kaldari (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, Kaldari: I'd falsely construed this impression from glancing at a webpage. Ms. Phelps is not among the five recipients of $1,000-US each "for most outstanding Ph. D. theses in the general area of the chemical sciences, as described in a 1000-word essay(s)" (to wit: (theUofChicago's) Yuanwen Jiang, (Nat'lTaiwanU's) Sung-Fu Hung, (theUofBristol's) Alexander Fawcett, (FudanU's) Ye Zhang, & (TexasA&M's) Luis Rafael De Jesus Baez). ..Nor of the 2020 Chemistry for the Future Solvay award won btw by Carolyn R. Bertozzi (diff--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article

The current section is incomplete and confusing. I suggest a change to:

(START)

Main article: Jess Wade § Female scientists on Wikipedia
Further information: Gender bias on Wikipedia

In September 2018, British physicist Jessica Wade had written an article on the English Wikipedia about Phelps[1], but this was deleted on February, 11 2019[2]. On April 12, 2019, the Washington Post published an op-ed[3] about, in part, the English-language Wikipedia's lack of coverage given to Phelps' contribution to the discovery of element 117. The column decried discussions among volunteer editors at the site that resulted in deletion of the article on Phelps in February.[2][4][5]

According to an article in the July 2019 Chemistry World,[4]

In Phelps' case, her name didn’t appear in the articles announcing tennessine's discovery. She wasn't profiled by mainstream media. Most mentions of her work are on her employer's website – a source that's not classed as independent by Wikipedia standards and therefore not admissible when it comes to establishing notability. The [Wikipedia] community consensus was that her biography had to go.

The deletion was contested multiple times. By January 2020, there was a consensus to restore it, as by then new sources had become available.[6]

  1. ^ "A deleted Wikipedia page speaks volumes about its biggest problem". Fastcompany.com. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Undark was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ The black hole photo is just one example of championing women in science - The Washington Post
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference CW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Southworth, Phoebe (December 7, 2019). "Physicist accuses Wikipedia editors of sexism after female scientists she wrote profiles for tagged 'not notable enough'" – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
  6. ^ http://en.wikibedia.ru/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_January#31_January_2020

(STOP)

Since this is a controversial article, I am placing the proposed edit here for discussion.--Jose Mathew (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Edited. Normally, I would wait longer, but this article is currently on the main page, so it is important to correct mistakes such as incomplete and/or confusing sentences. --Jose Mathew (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

'Wikipedia article' section - unnecessary?

Does the section about this very Wikipedia article belong in this article at all? This is supposed to be a biography of Phelps, not about Wikipedia. That section seems like navel-gazing self-reference, likely to only be of interest to ourselves. It could be included elsewhere (such as Gender bias on Wikipedia, already linked from this article) but I don't really see that it belongs here. Robofish (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Given (for a while) it is all she was really notable for (as in more column inched given to that in the media than her work), yes it should be here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
shame .. GerardM (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
It may still be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue is definitely important, as multiple major newspapers / journals have covered it. Whether it should be kept here or made a separate article I'm not sure. But it should definitely be mentioned on the article, as it is an important fact concerning her. --Jose Mathew (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I also agree it is significant enough for inclusion based on the volume and depth of coverage in RSes. Navel-gazing isn't a reason to exclude WP:DUE content, and it's not self-reference because it's sourced to independent secondary RSes. Twenty years in, Wikipedia is a large-enough part of the real world that occasionally Wikipedia will unavoidably need to be discussed in Wikipedia articles if we are to give a comprehensive and neutral summary of secondary sources. This article is one of those occasions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the section appropriate. Within my own 'perfect world' it'd be as short as humanly possible .. &, of course, also hyperlink to someplace where the article controversy is covered in more detail)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think the section is appropriate, and the length is not bad. As Levivich said, Wikipedia is a part of the world, which sometimes will mean we end up talking about ourselves. We just have to do so carefully. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Didn't the article use to have something about her being a sort of media sensation as the face of element 117? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Autobiographical source?

An extraordinary amount of this biography, notably all the parts that weren't of interest to the media coverage surrounding the Wikipedia controversy, are sourced solely to an episode of "STEMulating Conversations with Dr. Q (Podcast)". The obvious question to ask therefore, is what level of fact checking, if any, went into the claims made by Phelps in it. Or indeed, which claims were made by her, and which, if any, were from the host. This is a serious issue, because rather obviously, related to the above issue for the headline claim of having a historical first to her name, Wikipedia really shouldn't be allowing the subject of the article be the sole source for claims like "[she] was the only black woman in her division on the ship". Uncontroversial facts, yes, extraordinary career defining claims that have the potential to harm other people, no. I'll repeat what I've said at the reliable sources noticeboard about attribution, the potential problem here doesn't go away if you simply tell the reader this information is coming from this source and let them judge for themselves whether it could be false, if we are even confident this is not simply autobiographical in origin. Crash Dennis (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia-section

This bit:

The deletion was contested multiple times. By January 2020, there was a consensus to restore it, as by then new sources had become available.[1]

IMO we shouldn't include it. It's weirdly reffed and not (genuine) outside WP-coverage, making it uninteresting for this BLP. Also, I'm not sure as by then new sources had become available. is a fair description of the closers statement. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO the entire section needs a rewrite. It's written as a defense of the deletions. That one of two quotes in the article is defending the deletion is giving undue to weight to explaining why it was deleted. Also I disagree with the heavy focus on Wade. IMO this section should be reduced to two or three sentences that say that the article was deleted multiple times, there was controversy, and later it was restored. That said, I agree citing to a WP mirror is inappropriate. However, the content itself (the fact that it was restored to main space) kind of needs to be in there. If we say it was deleted, we have to say something about how it was "undeleted". Earlier versions of this section cited to the deletion review discussion, and another earlier version cited to the deletion log. Personally I think citing to the final DRV will give the reader the useful information they may want (more info about the undeletion) and that's what we should do. We should also have an explanatory footnote that cites to the first AFDs and DRVs. These are primary source documents but if the reader wants more info, that's the place to look. In the body, we should just cite to the usual secondary sources. But to OP's point about that particular sentence and cite, I would include it but change the cite to the DRV at enwiki rather than a mirror. Just embrace use of the primary source since it's vital content and there is no secondary source available (yet). When one becomes available, that should be the primary cite, and the DRV can be linked in a footnote as described above. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
And we have to say why it was deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite see "written as a defense of the deletions." First there is the this happened + opinion of Wade, which is fitting since it was in WaPo, then the quote from CTCW, which seems like a good source in context. That far it's also not unreasonably long, WP-stuff should be as trimmed as possible.
Personally I think we should stop there for now, since afaik there's no media-coverage about the restoration, so it's out of WP:PROPORTION to mention it. The deletion was a big deal, the restoration not, apparently. If WaPo or CTCW notices it, so can we. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
To me, it's just weird to tell the reader that the article they're reading was deleted, multiple times, and the reasons why, and then not say anything at all about how that was resolved, how it came to be that the reader is reading the very article we just told them had been deleted. It's like not telling the reader the end of the story. In Wikispeak, I think it leaves out crucial information that renders the article incomplete and thus non-comprehensive. Somehow we have to tell the reader the end of the story. Curious what others think. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oddly this takes us back to why it was deleted, RS do not care.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
CW cared. Or mentioned it anyway. Perhaps other sources too (editors hostile to the topic, etc). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
What says we're at the end of the story? The closer of the last restore-discussion hints at a possible new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Putting this diff [19] here if there's any opinions. IMO my version didn't imply that the original decision was incorrect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The text "The deletion was contested multiple times. Following a January 2020 discussion, the article was restored." seems to suggest that the restoration was a result of the fact that the deletion was contested multiple times. Which is not the case, as the DRV close explicitly said that "The discussion here is about whether there is enough coverage of Clarice Phelps to satisfy Wikipedia's general and academic-specific criteria for having dedicated biography pages on a subject". The status quo wording correctly asserts that the restoration was a result of a changed situation, and I'm not sure why you want to amend it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Valid objection, yes we do need to say why it was restored.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec)Well, per above I don't think we should use this ref at all, but there is no consensus on that. As I see it, "On balance, while there has been very little discussion of the previous AFD close and a number of sources have been contested, there are two where detailed discussion appears to indicate that they actually satisfy WP:SIGCOV. It's not a slam-dunk and it's only two sources so the article can still be discussed at AFD if folks feel that the sources were still not adequate, but on balance this is a restore from draft." isn't close enough to the current wording in the article, so I prefer shorter to trying to expand. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the rewrite of this section has made it wholly biased to the viewpoint of Jess Wade et al, without even being factual about what she actually did. She was prompted to write this article by chemistry journalist/author Kit Chapman, whose forthcoming book was supposedly going to detail Phelps, including this supposed historical first. As was eventually realised, long after the controversy had abated, it actually barely even mentions Phelps at all, apparently. Clearly it didn't back up the historical first claim though, but one suggestion at the reliable sources noticeboard is that his "I literally wrote the book" Tweet could be read as saying he did the research, as in, he knows it to be true, he just for some reason didn't put it in the book. Since we can source and attribute that Tweet, that could be in this section, especially if, as has also been suggested, he was the expert IUPAC consulted when they supposedly decided Phelps does have a valid claim to this historical first, and thus they became the first reliable source independent of Phelps or her employer to unambiguously state it in print, leading to the recreation of this biography. Nobody actually has any clue that is what they did, Chapman or IUPAC, it is all just speculation, but at least if Wikipedia includes these highly pertinent details here in the section detailing the history of the article, maybe one day and investigative journalist or another historian might find it and ask the questions that need to be asked of Chapman and the IUPAC, and publish accordingly. Crash Dennis (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikibedia.ru/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_January#31_January_2020
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarice_Phelps/Archive_3&oldid=1020640072"