Talk:Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjmackenzie96, Katharynrose, Slbetts. Peer reviewers: Onlandry, Jjgourley, Kmariemuir.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this topic notable?

I have questioned notability as only this reference: https://nylon.com/articles/black-women-in-academia seems to be independent. All the others are written by her, or are from something she is a part of. Another indpendent writing, or review of her work would prove notability

This appears to now have been addressed (see below). 09Feb2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliumonions (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional Independent References

The article currently includes multiple other independent references:

Reference about Prescod-Weinstein's work as a theoretical physicist: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chanda-prescod-weinstein_n_7574020 .

Reference about Prescod-Weinstein's work as an editor of a literary magazine: https://roommagazine.com/interview/litmaglove-offings-chanda-prescod-weinstein .

If still more independent references are needed to establish notability, here is a popular-science piece describing Prescod-Weinstein's work with Alan Guth on the possibility of Bose–Einstein condensate forms of dark matter: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28632-tiny-dark-matter-stars-would-harbour-particles-that-act-as-one/ . That's in reference to this research paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.103513 , which has been discussed extensively in the research literature since it was published: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?cites=4761346805694717888&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en . 2A07:241:1:1013:0:0:0:1007 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. As mentioned here, I used very few interviews w/ CPW, most are established academic sites. Jesswade88 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This article has been disruptively edited from multiple IP addresses. The edits include comments relating to Taylor Swift. These changes are silly and unsourced. The subject of this article is currently being inundated by these messages on other platforms such as Twitter.

Several of the IP addresses have been blocked by Oshwah. I have added warnings to the talk pages of others and requested temporary semi-protection for this article.

This article was created as part of Women in Red editathon and is being improved in a Wiki Ed course. The disruptive edits are potentially discouraging to new Wikipedia editors who are working constructively to fix a content gap.

Estregger (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Edit

Great work on this article! Well written, well organized, and great information. We especially like the inclusion of a picture.

As far as suggestions for improvement, we thought some structural changes could include adding a section with a list of her publications as well as breaking up the awards paragraph into separate paragraphs. Other changes could include explaining what the NASA STROBE-X experiment is (or the work she is doing for it). We thought expanding on what she spoke about at the Women in Physics Canada meeting could also be an interesting area to expand upon. Jjgourley (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Preferred pronouns

Please note a series of tweets posted by Dr. T'Chanda Prescod-Weinstein at her verified Twitter account @IBJIYONGI on July 2, 2018:

• People who keep editing my wikipedia profile, this is maybe a weird thing to gripe about but I've never actually said that I prefer gender neutral pronouns, and almost everyone in my personal life uses "she" with my permission.
• I know folks want to get people's pronouns right, but unless you can find a place where someone said, "these are definitively my pronouns" please have care about inventing statements on people's behalf about pronouns. That's just as bad as ignoring what people say.
• So it's actually a little bit weird to read people debating this in the comments and announcing that I insisted on something that I have definitely never insisted on.
• Annnnnd of course by bringing this up my profile is probably going to be targeted by trolls . . . lovely.
  

At the risk of inviting such trolls to feast here, I will exercise Wikipedia:Be bold and change Dr. Prescod-Weinstein's pronouns in accordance with her wishes. KalHolmann (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

H-index/cite count material

@2003:C8:9F1F:7400:9854:B422:83EC:B2A6: Please make an effort to discuss your changes instead of restoring them unilaterally; continuing to edit war in BLP violations risks being blocked from editing. To use an arxiv paper on h-index distributions within physics that does not mention Prescod-Weinstein to make claims about whether Prescod-Weinstein's work is impactful is called synthesis, and synthesis is not permissible on Wikipedia. It does not matter whether it is true or it is "common practice in physics", it's just not what we do here. We report the conclusions of secondary reliable sources about Prescod-Weinstein, and not things we might personally view as important but can only be determined by combining sources in novel ways. We are very strict about ensuring these policies are followed for biographies of living persons. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"controversy" section has a clear point of view

The "controversy" section which was recently added violates wiki policy on several counts. In particular it presents as fact the claim that Oluyesi "disproved" Prescod-Weinstein's claims, and also states that she "disparaged" Powell rather than that she questioned his expertise and criticized his claims. This needs to be either deleted or substantially rewritten to avoid endorsing a particular point of view. 18.10.91.104 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The section was deleted, and I agree it was not written neutrally. I have added content about the topic back because it has been reported in WP:RS, and in what I hope is a neutral and balanced way, but if others have better suggestions please say so. I have also added the newly released database she worked on. Melcous (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your version is definitely an improvement on the previous one, I think there are still some factual issues though. The main one is that I do not think characterizing Prescod-Weinstein as the "lead author" of the scientific american piece is accurate: the piece has four authors, and there is no indication that she should be singled out as responsible for the piece. Indeed in her response to the NY times coverage, she emphasized that this is not the case. See https://open.substack.com/pub/chanda/p/signal-boost-the-movement-to-renamejwst?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. Also my read of her response is that the second thing you mention (that we shouldn't honor any government administrators from that period) is more of her main point than saying that he probably knew. 18.10.74.212 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I originally put "co-authored" but changed it because one of the other sources credited her as the main author. I'm happy for it to be changed back if that is more appropriate. On the second point, I think both are worth noting but don't disagree that the second might be more her emphasis. I'm just not sure if it works grammatically to write it the other way around? I'm happy if you or someone else wants to try. Melcous (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraphs about James Webb controversy

This kind of content has been repeatedly inserted and then removed by a number of editors. It was then trimmed down to one paragraph, with an attempt to keep the focus on Prescod-Weinstein, the subject of this article, in as neutral as possible a way. Rather than repeatedly reinserting extra details and paragraphs, can the IP editor please discuss here why it is thought this extra content is necessary or what is considered not neutral about the current content, and see if consensus can be gained with other editors. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Activism

Recent edits have removed contextual information from the discussion of Prescod-Weinstein's activism, claiming that these paragraphs referenced self-published sources and were thus not up to citation standards. However, these sources were published by the article subject, which puts them within Wikipedia policy bounds, and the removal of the additional context biases the article. As the previous edit had stood for more than a year, it is incumbent upon the user who introduced the most recent edits to argue in their favor, given that reversions of those edits are restorations of the prior consensus. Furthermore, the edits to this section were also accompanied by commentary from the same user alleging that mentions of Prescod-Weinstein's public speaking record were promotional. As the original edit had stood for some time without being contested, was within policy bounds, and the new edits by Animalparty introduce bias to the article, the version of the article prior to 16 Feb should be restored. StrangeHoop (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)