Talk:Clarice Phelps/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

When can we publish this page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello fellow editors, what do we have to add to this article to get it moved into the main space? I am very grateful to everyone who has helped turn this article around. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsure, she still seems to be notable for being part of a team, not really in her own right.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

November - considering we just had another DRV. Futhermore - present sources do not quite establish GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't you mean "not before November"? She really needs to actually do something and have it written up. RSN knocked back the "first black woman" claim and there's still a lot of needless padding in this thing, eg: the YWCA award simply should not be in the lead and probably not even in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be more accurate, yes.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be really fantastic to see this page for this notable and important woman of colour to be published Srsval (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

At least a plurality of WP editors (a majority of those showing up in these type of discussions, I guess anyway, believe the subject doesn't pass wp:GNG (arguing a quasi gov'tal lab can't be relied upon in its giving partial credit re a breakthru to a nuclear chemistry technician, national news relaying the same ditto, so on).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

For the opposite argument, should anybody be interested, consider: Some folks on English-language Wikipedia, such as myself, essentially feel an encyclopedia not limited-to-paper ought be ***open to all ideas*** (hat-tip link) receiving sufficient notice in secondary sources, period. We tend to be “creatives” who feel that too limiting a spirit given intellectual inputs impedes their value as generators of what ultimately might become “great” observations / creations. The other camp (which ought be described by one of its members) are more practical. They focus, I imagine, more on the short term, feeling that I dunno too much miasma cripples an encyclopedia’s function of its delivering existing knowledge in the here and now while privileging the tried-and-true over whatever's fringe or mundane. Of course, the two together really form a dialectic and balance one another, I suppose. In any case, a number of contributors to Wikipedia perceive certain natures of media coverage as not “serious” enough, these Wikipedia contributors’ being /prescriptive/ about what the public /should/ go to the online encyclopedia to learn about, rather than their being /descriptive/ of what can be shown that the public /does/ go to the online encyclopedia to learn about. Thus despite Ms. Phelps’s “passing” Wikipedia's general notability guideline via various media covering her Wikipedia biography's deletion, etc., she was /not/ granted an English-language Wikipedia biography. Indeed, after notice of the bio's Wikipedia deletion took place, a Wikipedia administrator — a so-called “Wikipedian-in-residence” at an institution in the city of New York — gave preliminary OK to another short draft specifying Phelps had helped prepare material for transformation to the soon-to-be-discovered element, after which this Wikipedia administrator added its mention of an award Phelps earned for educational activities locally. This second effort at a biography, however, was quickly deleted as a “re-post,” with the argument that majority opinion from earlier editing discussions concerning the matter ought remain considered the Wikipedia community's ongoing consensus.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Tip, since you keep doing this: read WP:TLDR. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

No, its about treating all subjects the same. When (and if) she becomes independently notable in her own right (say in the saw Hawkins or Arnold are) then we can have an article on her. But when a person becomes more notable for not having a Wikipedia article then for the work they do I start to worry.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Kit Chapman's new book Superheavy: Making and Breaking the Periodic Table is being published in a few weeks time, and it reportedly has an entire chapter discussing Tennessine and mention's Phelps' involvement. If that provides a new source that meets GNG then I'd think that would be a good opportunity to publish. https://twitter.com/ChemistryKit/status/1124298136850259968

Maybe, but three is still the issue of she must be independently notable, not notable as part of a team.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

True—but where's the article for the team? Tennessine#Discovery? If so, material should be added there—and if part of a notable team there should be a redirect at both Clarice E. Phelps and Clarice Phelps. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

We would end up with hundreds of redirects, then the political fanatics would start creating redirects from every town councillor to the town's article etc. We've got a big enough maintenance problem with BLPs without adding to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, I have to admit to never being all that sure about redirects, Its not as if this is all she has done (as I said there is an argument for an article about the wikicontrovery, which received moire coverage she she alone has). So I am not sure what we should in fact redirect to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If she is a significant part of a team that is notable I don't know why we wouldn't have a redirect. If she were notable for being part of this Wikipedia controversy then that's a different issue really - and there would be a better case if the best sources on the subject weren't written by the person who had originally created the article. Really the sources need to be improved and expanded on, to try again, whether one agrees with the AFD and DRV. There's nothing currently anywhere else that one could redirect to - so that's entirely academic at this point. It's hard to argue that she's notable for her work with Tennessine when there's nothing on that page that mentions her, or the team. Nfitz (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have just explained why we wouldn't have one. Even just this one team was pretty big, so we would open the floodgates to have redirects for everyone who worked on it, and that in turn opens the floodgates to even more in other areas. Just Jesswade's articles alone contain a lot of errors, so we really don't want to have to be monitoring large numbers of redirects for potential article creations or recreations. That has already proved to be a problem in some other instances, including one Indian actor whose name I forget. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is if she was significant member of the team...she would be significant (and hence notable). She is at least (as far as I can tell) as notable (or not notable) for her work with the United States Navy Nuclear Power Program, with the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the discovery of... well why go on. She seems to have been part of many teams, on many programs. Do we only redirect to one out of many?Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Sitush. WP:Redirects are cheap and seldom do any harm. However the point is moot, as there's literally nothing to redirect this particular article to at this time. Open the floodgates! Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of things it could be redirected to right now, as Slatersteven notes. I think you're completely missing my point - it is nothing to do with WP:Redirects are cheap. Go down that road, by all means, and I could add 25,000 redirects in a month, each one being a UK councillor. Are you going to keep an eye on them all? Someone has to. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you that there's anything that it could be redirected to now. I don't even see her name mentioned in another article - let alone anything that would support a redirect. Other article's might be improved later that would allow for a redirect, but I don't see anything now. (Or perhaps my search is failing somehow). Nfitz (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about future hypotheticals.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought you and I were indeed talking about the future. But Sitush said "plenty of things it could be redirected to right now" - and I don't believe they are correct about that. Nfitz (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This draft doesn't belong in the main space at this time. Her notability has been decided in no less than two AfD discussions, two deletion review discussions, and one speedy deletion, all of them taking place in 2019 and resulting in three deletions of the article and the WP:SALTing of the article to prevent recreations, and any attempt to recreate the article again in the near future in defiant violation of those discussions would surely be viewed as disruptive. As many editors have commented on, her only possible claim to notability at this point would have to be derived from the deletion of her Wikipedia article as a result of her lacking notability based on professional merits, so that would have to be the main focus of any potential article. I, and other editors, sincerely believe that we would be doing her a huge disservice by writing an article about her that would inevitably have to focus on that. This draft is unsuitable as it continues to highlight her work that was already found in four different discussions to be of a non-notable nature, while only mentioning the Wikipedia article controversy, her only claim to possible (if dubious) notability, with a single sentence at the end of the article. --Tataral (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• I see that a new article has been added which surely goes a long way to establishing notability. A reference from Chapman's new book, which is now out, would go a long way. Has anyone got access to it to assess if it could be referenced to improve the article? Nfitz (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• That article is, yet again, mostly about her WP article being deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And is even more trivial then most, it being about his book, and no even this controversy. Yes again (as I say below) it is not us who are ignoring her work, its people like Chappamn, and the author of that article, who cannot be arsed to actually write about her.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:THREE. List the three here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have the book/ebook by Chapman, lying right beside me and AFAIS, Clarice Phelps has been mentioned over a single occasion. A footnote, has been appended (over Chapter 12), after

  .... His name was James Harris. And he was the first African American to discover an element.

  which mentions:-

  He was not the last. In 2009, Clarice Phelps aided in the purification of berkelium, which led to the discovery of element 117 and confirmation of element 115. You can read more about that in Chapter 20.

  Interestingly, Chapter 20 talks about the broader story of purification over Oakridge in a sub-part and mentions several names like Julie Ezold, Joe Hamilton et al but not Phelps.
  Chapman's marginalization of Phelps in the book, to a mere footnote, despite ranting over Twitter and other venues, speaks volumes about the overall issue. Also, no mention of her being the first African American woman, either and Chapman even safely evades giving a definite answer to the issue of whether other African Americans have been ever involved in these areas! Effectively, she has been turned into a PR-vehicle. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Why its not our fault she is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

T also think this may be a useful lesson about notability (and maybe needs mention in policy) if an author writes to you about something, never assume he has actually written anything. I am actually very annoyed at the way this has been manipulated, and in such a dishonest way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It is all rather bizarre. I always figured that she was borderline on being notable, with the self-published aspect of the ORNL material being troubling. I tend to think that the coverage to April barely pushes it over the mark. I'm surprised there's really that much controversy here, though I can see the logic of arguments from both sides. I'm struggling between that she's notable, but under-reported due to the systemic racial and sexual bias that we know exists in society, or that they simply aren't notable. But then I look at what else exists. A few days ago Joseph F. Ambrose appeared on the front page of Wikipedia ... and I look at that article, and I ask what in there is there to establish notability, that isn't WP:ONEEVENT (assuming that being caught in a nationally-published photo even qualifies as that). But not only has no one ever questioned that - but the article makes it to the front page of Wikipedia (see May 24 of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 2019). Nfitz (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment on Mr Ambrose, this is not the place to discus his notability (or lack of it). But I will say that notability is governed by coverage, not merit. Moreover (as I say above) even the man who (literally) wrote the book on the subject clearly did not really see her as deserving more then a footnote (and that cannot be called being notable). Yes it is bizarre, that so much publicity was generated based upon (what can only be described) as the over selling (being generous) of the contents of a book. All she was notable for was what the book does not even claim (except as an afterthought, and even that is not the main claim), despite the author implying it did, and the wiki controversy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, Umm. His photo appeared under the Picture of The Day section which (AFAIS), is not concerned about relevant article quality. ∯WBG^converse 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of GodricTrue, though how can thousands, if not millions of people see that, and not one person questions the notability (and I say this as an WP:Inclusionist!)? Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, this article is not about him.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. If I can understand how that article is notable, perhaps I, and others, can understand why this article isn't. We can move the discussion elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

As they are not about the same kind of person the reasons may be different (that is why we have different kinds of notability requirements). This should be discus over at the notability board, not here. But here maybe one clue, why have you not nominated the other article for deletion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'm surprised you'd suggest trying to learn why an article might be notable by AFDing it, rather than asking around others who seem to understand why articles aren't notable. Sorry, I thought it was a simple question ... the longer this goes on, the more I start to wonder if the primary issue here is indeed WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What has that got to do with it? I did not suggest you try, I said the reason why you would not might give you a clue why others have not. I pointed out that he is not a scientist, and so may well meet different notability criteria then Miss Phelps does not. As far as I can tell no one who has said Ms Phelps fails notability have said anything about Mr Ambrose's notability, and (again) THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO TALK ABOUT IT, as has been pointed out below, other stuff exists is not a valid reason for inclusion. If you think he is not notable take it to his talk page, if you think he is notable stop asking us to (in effect) prove he is (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Talk pages are for discussing the article they are about, not anything else, I also ask you to AGF, as such this is a distraction that takes us no further forward. As has been said (multiple time), Ms Phelps has to have been noted by RS for her achievements, not for something someone else did she was part of (or in the case of the wiki controversy something she did not participate in). The fact the (literally) book on the subject gives her one line should be clue enough why she is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What it has to do with it, is that it does raise the question that WP:BIAS might be an issue here. Also they both seem to be notable for the same reason, a peripheral mention in the media. One as a bystander in a photo in a news article, the other as an example of bias in a news article; that there may not have (originally) have been bias in the original decision becomes moot. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, you were un-Tbanned days ago and you are again migrating to the same territory, despite being in a different namespace.

When we send a featured photo to main-page, we don't give a damn about the corresponding article. This is not SO difficult to understand, right?

If you feel that the subject is non-notable, just launch an AfD, Twinkle is your friend. Even I might (after I manage to evaluate the scenario) but shall I see you talking any further about Ambrose, over here, expect to find yourself at AN. ∯WBG^converse 15:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No it does not, please read wp:agf, If there is any evidence of bias you need to show which editors have chosen to keep that article, whilst deleting this one. So have any editors been involved with both these articles? If not there is no bias, just a different set of standards in operation on a different subject used by different people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I assumed they were talking about systematic bias, which is very likely the case, not what is evidently assumed to be bad faith in the responses and threats. cygnis insignis 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And it still does not demonstrate it, as I said he is not a scientist and so may well meet some criteria that does not apply to Ms Phelps (and which we may not be aware of). Which is why its irrelevant here, as none of us have edited that article. Trying to -play the "bias" card is a distraction that demonstrates nothing about Ms Phelpes (or a war veterans) notability. I am now asking (formally) for this off topic distraction to be hatted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven the WP:BIAS article is a redirect to WP:Systemic bias. I'm not understanding why you are referencing WP:AGF and needing to show which editors because I mentioned systemic bias; surely that's now how systemic bias works. 00:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Because that is how users enforce systematic bias. cygnis insignis 08:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

poignancy

I restored an edit because I thought it pertinent, a reply to my final comment in the muted discussion above, but this was reverted by the contributor as the discussion was closed (hatted) (as they had earlier requested). As a starting point to the next discussion, this was the response:

Because you have to show that bias is in fact in operation, a mere accusation based on one dodgy article is not enough. There may well be systematic bias on Wikipedia, that does not mean it is in operation here, after all not all cops shoot black men. That is why I link to AGF , I do not (and should not have to prove I am not biased in order to be listened to, any more then you should have to. If there is an problem with an uneven application of notability this is not the place to discuss it (as I said) and using it to justify inclusion is a case of two wrongs do not make a right. The existence of band articles is not a justification for more bad articles, but for deleting the existing ones. There is nothing more to be said, we are making the same points over and over again. This is my last post about this. I do not think notability has been established, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this begs a reply, or at least provides context to POV at the end of the discussion. cygnis insignis 17:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It was posted after the close (due to an edit conflict) and thus was removed for what reason. Nor is there any need or reason to re-open a debate that was closed less then 12 hours ago for being off topic.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Engaging in debate is not how I choose to contribute here, context and multiple POVs is what I edit. cygnis insignis 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we close this, it is not about improving the article, in fact I am not sure what its point is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert rationale

To anyone interested in discussion, I just restored an edit that seems valid, but without understanding the rationale for removal, and note it cited the BBC? What am I not understanding. cygnis insignis 19:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverted for the second time because, "because it is a clearly false statement - if you cannot see that, you should not be editing". I admit I assumed that the edit was good because it was an established user, restoring a false statement is pretty bad. I might self-report, after having a word with the user (maybe checking whether reverter is correct first, sound like they know what they re talking about). cygnis insignis 19:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I do and I was already typing a rationale. See next section and please self-revert. You should have known it was wrong simply from reading the existing draft text, which makes it clear that she was part of a large team. Unfortunately, there is now so much citogenesis etc that it is likely to be years before Phelps' notability on the basis of this claim can be reliably established. Wade has shot herself in the foot. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just read the article, that is exactly what it said. I don't think you description of the contribution is accurate. I will see if I can find about who this Wade is. Please reduce the number of unnecessary adjectives, hard to see what your point is or the urgent concern about reverting two editors who currently disagree, the contributor and myself.cygnis insignis 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wade is the WP article creator first time round. I am not sure what article you have read to which you refer - the draft, the BBC one, the Chemistry World one? It doesn't really matter: if you know the history of this from the first creation, some of which I outline below, you'll know that neither Jesswade88 or Kit Chapman can be considered reliable on the matter. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

He has an 88 in the username, am I going to find some white nationalists are behind this, exposing why I should not be editing here?? cygnis insignis 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade is a woman, and I think the 88 is more likely a reference to her year of birth. --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thank you cousin, I'm reminded to never make sarcastic comments here, it was a reaction to being told I should not be here at all (because I really enjoy most of it). Cheers. cygnis insignis 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem lies with this half-quote: The Oak Ridge team (including Clarice Phelps, the first black American woman to discover an element) ... <- She didn't discover the element. Today the leading team for element discovery is in Dubna, Russia, led by physicist Yuri Oganessian <- His team did with the assistance of the ORNL team. The ORNL team purified Berkelium which was a necessary element for Oganessian's team to discover (or more accurately create, since it was already know to exist) the element. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored without the quote. There was no reason to revert the edit, as the rest of the edit was gnomish cite template improvements and bundling. BBC Science Focus is an RS, and it directly supports the cited statement attributed to KC. There's no reason not to have that source there as part of the bundle. – Levivich 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

[ec, does no-one pause for thought} Ah, that I understand, she was part of a team that made it possible for the second to complete the discovery, because it is not something you can pull together in the garden shed. All this First To stuff never bears scrutiny, very likely it was women who discovered the first elements and they were certainly 'black'. cygnis insignis 20:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that with the publication of his book those sources now look rather ill informed and dated (and RS can go out of date an new information emerges).Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

More pointless source additions

There is no point adding non-independent sources to this draft. Justifying them as (paraphrase) "they do no harm" misses the fact that they do no good either. The issues with this article in its various forms have related in large part to whether or not the subject is notable and such sources have been rejected time and again. Continually trying to add them is not going to improve the chances of the thing being reinstated as a full article when consensus has so recently and so frequently been that they are unsuitable. Some people just do not seem to want to learn from past mistakes or abide by consensus. - Sitush (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've removed this and really should remove the Chemistry World claim also. Chapman and Wade are clearly unreliable sources for the claim.

Going back in time, at the DRV for an earlier version of this article, a tweet by Chapman was cited where they claimed Phelps was the first black woman to be involved and that this was stated in his forthcoming book. This supported a previously uncited (and seemingly uncitable) claim made by Wade but raised the question of how Wade knew what was in a book that had not even hit the shelves. When the book was published, it turned out that it did not say what Chapman or Wade claimed. Thereafter, this draft saw the insertion of the BBC source by Chapman that I have just removed: that source says she was the first black woman to discover an element, which is something we already know to be untrue because the element was discovered by a large team in which Phelps was not even a major player in publication terms. We also know that Chapman has been ranting a bit about the issue, per the earlier tweets, and that Wade has also been ranting a bit and essentially forum shopping by trying to get mentions of her opinion in various news publications etc. Wade has next to no understanding of how we are supposed to operate on Wikipedia, despite her 600+ article creations, and I am afraid that the Chemistry World interview merely makes a bad situation worse, yet again.

Neither Chapman nor Wade, nor anyone connected with the two, should be considered reliable for the claim in future. They're on a mission and no longer independent. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

And now it has been restored with the quote. We do not need another source for her involvement in the project at some level (WP:OVERCITE) and should not be using one that is patently incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The you disagree with Chapman's conclusion does not make him an unreliable source. BBC Science Focus and Chemistry World are reliable sources, as is Chemical & Engineering News. I think we should follow the sources, not the opinions of editors. "Patently incorrect" is your opinion, not supported by any reliable source. In any event, the sentence in our article is one attributed to Chapman, and the sources cited are each an example of Chapman making the claim, published by a different publisher (himself, C&EN, and Science Focus). I don't see what the problem is. – Levivich 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not how it works. We've already shown that Chapman has contradicted himself, that Wade is an activist with a sometimes sketchy understanding of sourcing, and the sources are the writers thereof, not the publishers. Those sources, like the earlier news sources written by Wade, are de facto not reliable for the claim. It is indeed patently incorrect that she discovered an element - it is not my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing me/ my motives here, again. Kit Chapman researched and wrote a book - he was simply documenting history. I’m hardly an ‘activist’ for wanting to improve women’s representation on wikipedia, and am pretty sure I understand sources. Jesswade88 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You have a BEM for your activism and, no, there is nothing wrong with activism per se. Chapman's book does not say what he or you claimed and, as you well know, you have been criticised (correctly) for poor and outright wrong sourcing. The Chemistry World interiew also demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding how Wikipedia is intended to work. I've said nothing that is wrong here and you've hardly been backward about criticising other people and their motives. However, the point of my criticism is directly related to the content under discussion: we've already noted over the past few months that there is a citogenesis issue. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

BEM? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

BEM = British Empire Medal - the lowest/most common civilian award of the UK. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Language is a fascinating construct. For example 'lowest ... civilian award' may be technically correct but by placing emphasis on its position in a hierarchy the description serves to diminish its value without explaining what its for. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary fortunately. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I linked to the article and explained what I thought the award was given for. "Lowest". "highest" etc are terms used in Indian articles - Bharat Ratna etc - so something probably rubs off on me from that; I also said "most common". Several of my relatives have been awarded the BEM, and a couple got the rather more obscure and probably "lower" but one-off Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal and later variants. I have several BEM recipients among my customers (chairpeople of resident's associations etc), four MBEs that I know of, 3 OBEs and a life peer - probably a typical mix. Sitush (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I would not have guessed that. I would have understood OBE, I've seen enough British TV for that (Kindly Call Me God). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This draft also discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Is this really what WP ought be about, w rgd blp talkpage discussions about their subject's notability coming across really as wp:Attack pages?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree about Chapman, he only included a one line footnote about phelps which does not make the most important claim. Yet went on to make claims (or at least imply things) that are not true. In fact this whole issue revolves around his claims, that his own book did not support. I do not think it was advocacy so much as generating a storm for the purposes of publicizing his book.

Wade88 I am not sure about, as I know nothing of her work here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So are we keeping this thing in here or not? I am getting fed up of people from the Women In Red project indiscriminately enabling poor contributions by Jesswade88: how is she supposed to learn what our standards are if people keep driving a coach and horses through them? - Sitush (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss an editor, or a WikiProject. – Levivich 05:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to report me. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

That is not a cooperative attitude, no one wins with this kinds of attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oak Ridge Today

Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I can tell Oak Ridge Today is not affiliated/associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's just a local paper for Oak Ridge, Tennessee and East Tennessee.[1] But if that's not enough, IUPAC has this on their website[2]: [Clarice Phelps] is the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a new element, tennessine (Element 117). I'd rather have these two sources[3][4] in the article next to such a statement then Kit Chapman's tweet. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the mess of citogenesis caused by this article when it was live, I am wary of trusting a local news source. IUPAC is probably better but, honestly, we've had this discussion before at the AfDs and deletion reviews - it is now almost impossible to determine whether the chicken or egg came first and "involved with" is an incredibly minor claim to notability. Extrapolating from a statistically small random sample of four articles which I am on record as having looked at, there could well be hundreds of errors in Jess's articles but I will be castigated if I attempt to correct them, and some are so old now that it is pretty inevitable that citogenesis has taken over. The entire situation seems to be a case of doing well-intentioned things in haste and repenting at leisure. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the source could be used for an attributed statement; i.e., Chapman and ORNL say she is the first AA woman..., etc. – Levivich 05:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes but it isn't going to make her any more notable because of the underlying issues. I'm afraid this is a complete disaster and we (Wikipedia) have done Clarice Phelps a deep dis-service. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Not every sentence in an article is about proving notability. – Levivich 06:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that, too, but this thing is not going to get over the bar unless notability is shown and I think Jess is failing to appreciate that, just as she has failed to appreciate WP:OVERLINK, WP:OVERCITE, WP:RS, WP:OR and lord knows how many other policies and guidelines. I may be wrong but it seems to me that she keeps returning to this with stuff about the "first" claim because she believes it does get it over the bar. It is a waste of her time and that of everyone else and will just lead to another major row if it is not kept in check. If I've misunderstood her intentions then, fair enough, I apologise but I really doubt that I have. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality over quantity, both in sources and articles. Its getting tendentious now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• What is the problem with using a source (and hypothetically a source from Phelps' own lab)? Why should it be removed under WP:RS, as is being repeatedly done?

Such a source would be WP:PRIMARY. As such (and for that reason alone) it would fail WP:RS. This is no claim that it is unreliable or inaccurate in its content, merely that we exclude it from the secondary sources we would require to meet WP:N or WP:V.

And none of that is any reason to remove it. We are permitted to use non-RS sources in articles, and they often have a valuable supplementary role. This is not to excuse sources that are "utterly useless", but to recognise that there is a wide continuum between RS and the unusuable, and that there are many sources, such as this, which add to the article and belong as part of it, even without being usable for the strict RS-requiring uses.

Also see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Global ban on non-RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem (as I see Sitush's stance) is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and given the fact that the (literally) book on subject does not contain such a claim (even after the author implied it did), a lot of users (and I am one) are dubious about the claims province. Thus we see it as an extraordinary claim requiring an extraordinary source to support it. As Sitush implied this rush to create this article (and now the rush to overcite it) without first confirming all the details with RS has done Ms Phelps chance of an article no end of harm. Users need to let the dust settle and wait for extraordinary sources to repeat claims.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how the claim is "extraordinary". Given the history of who has been able to participate in science, it seems entirely mundane to me. Frankly, all I see is special pleading to exclude anything Chapman has said or written on the topic. He said that his book mentioned her by name. It does. He said that it has a chapter on tennessine. It does. The book's mention of Phelps is in a footnote. So what? The book doesn't use the exact phrase "the first African-American woman involved in discovering an element". True. That's why it's good to have a specific statement by the author himself clarifying that point (though one would presume that if he knew of an earlier one, the book would have mentioned her as well). The IUPAC and Oak Ridge Today sources do make that point and satisfy every appearance of reliability, and the idea that they are somehow getting their information from a deleted Wikipedia article stretches plausibility beyond breaking. Nor do I see how two sources would amount to over-citation. (Murray Gell-Mann has that many footnotes just to establish that he graduated high school and went to Yale. Alan Turing#Family has three footnotes in its first sentence; Richard Feynman#Early life has four. So does Yuri Oganessian#Personal life. A website and a news item do not a coat-rack make.) I was never convinced of Phelps' wiki-notability in the first place, and I'm not convinced of it now. But now I am seeing a biographical claim dismissed for lack of sources, and sources dismissed because they make a biographical claim. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have agree with you, if this was being created now, the problem is there was a lot of (what looked to me like) promotionalism for his book going on. A book that would not (in and of itself) been been enough to have established notability (despite the authors implication). So some of us are now concerned that this is a case of circular referencing (not to out article but his initial claim). Thus it is best if a really top line source makes this claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Added to this is the fact that no major source has really picked up on her (still) despite what should be a major claim to notability. And we still have the fact that source like this [[5]] made no mention of the claim. In other words the claim only surfaced as a result of this wiki article, and attempts to keep it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources that have picked up on the claim seem to me entirely proportionate with the significance of the claim (considering the qualifiers "involved with", "part of the team that" or however you want to phrase it). It's not a headline-grabber like the achievement of, say, Mae Jemison. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A few users have published personal attacks on other collaborators and disputed the claims of published authors, there is too much invested in obstructing this article; circular reasoning is all you can expect and I suggest not wasting your time or patience on attempting discussion. cygnis insignis 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I see as the problem with the Oak Ridge Today (ORT) story:

1. ORT makes the "first" claim [6], attributed to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) ("the lab said Tuesday").
2. The ORNL press release in question [7] makes the "first" claim by quoting International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
3. IUPAC makes the "first" claim [8] in its own voice, without quoting it from or attributing it to any other source. But I recognize the language in the IUPAC write-up as coming from this Wikipedia draft. Compare IUPAC's third paragraph about her navy service with [9] and [10]. Compare the sentence in our draft ... was part of a three-month process to purify 22 mg of berkelium-249, which was shipped to the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and combined with calcium-48 in a fusion reaction ... with IUPAC's ... was part of a three-month process to purify berkelium-249, which was combined with calcium-48 in a fusion reaction at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research.. I'm not saying they're plagiarizing, as there are only so many ways one can phrase certain phrases, but I am saying it raises questions about cytogenesis. That said, it's also possible that they read it here and then confirmed it before publishing the claim. IUPAC and ORNL are very solid sources for the claim, so, if they ratify it... well, just because it's cytogenesis doesn't mean it's not true. For this reason, I am not yet ready to say "let's say she is the first in Wikivoice", but I think it's fine as an attributed statement. ("According to ORNL, IUPAC, and Chapman...", which, in my view, is good enough to say, "She is considered to be the first..." in Wikivoice. Because that much is indisputably true. Whether she is in fact the first, she is definitely widely thought to be the first.) – Levivich 16:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

In reporting of her involvement in the discovery of a new element, Phelps is noted to be as the first who was known to be a woman of colour. cygnis insignis 16:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC) tweaked 17:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where consensus is, but it seems the sources are sufficient to support a sentence along the lines of: ... [According to some, Phelps is / According to X, Y, and Z, Phelps is / Phelps is considered to be / Phelps is considered by some to be] the first [woman of color / African-American woman / black woman] [to be involved with / to be part of a team that worked on / to help with] [the discovery / the confirmation of the discovery] of an element. What do our skeptics say? – Levivich 17:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never said we cannot say that, I in fact I added something must the same myself a while ago [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with According to IUPAC, ORNL and Chapman, Phelps is the first African-American woman known to have been involved with the discovery of an element. Specifics are better than "some". XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI the press release has been published in The Oak Ridger, the paper of record for Oak Ridge, TN. [12] (IMO, the analysis for the Oak Ridger piece is the same as for Oak Ridge Today, so I don't think this changes much.) – Levivich 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

And another. "first African-American woman to be associated with the discovery of an element" – Levivich 02:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Link returns "access denied" here. This sort of stuff is all a complete waste of time anyway because of the citogenesis issue. We're at the point where it seems she is going to have to be notable for something else or we alter the criteria. It's a classic example of why Wikipedians need to act responsibly when editing, thinking of the wider implications of what they write - not something that mattered much 15 years ago but the reach of WP (and mirroring, plagiarising etc) is massive now. - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said a while back, she may now be notable, for this controversy, not as a scientist.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That was considered in prior deletion discussions. I refer you to my previous response - Wikipedians need to act responsibly when editing - in questioning whether such navel-gazing is appropriate in the case of a BLP. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes hence my comment "As I said a while back", or in translation "in other conversations". I did not say she was I said she might be. And consensus can change, we do not say "I HAVE SPOKEN!". I would also point out that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that not being able to access a source is not a valid objection to inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Here's a cached version of the source Levivich mentioned. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This rather nicely sums up the problems, she was thw first to have "helped" "contributed" and now its "associated with". But at least she now makes the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush:, if the cached link Richard provided doesn't work, here is the same story at MSN. – Levivich 14:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

lack of news or books

I have done another google search on both news and books. I am still finding almost nothing about her. This is the most recent [[13]], again its not really about her. This (apparent) lack of real notability still rings alarm bells with me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess you missed this link [[14]] from MSN. You and Sitush have made your opinions very clear, repeatedly. Jesswade88 (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did, but this looks like the same article from the above thread, so its not in fact new.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Boom

Thank you, Physics Today. "Clarice Phelps purified the berkelium-249 that was used to produce element 117, tennessine. She is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element." Ready to request recreation at DRV? – Levivich 17:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A picture caption, from an article in which she is mentioned twice, once in a paragraph with another researcher, and the photo caption. Again which part of this is not trivial coverage?Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this quote summarizes one aspect of the reduced coverage that individuals get for these discoveries: According to Ezold, 61 people from Oak Ridge played a role in the discovery of tennessine, an equal mix of operations staff, support personnel, and researchers—including Phelps, who is thought to be the first African American woman to help discover a chemical element. That doesn’t fit into the textbook narrative of brilliant individuals working solo to forge new elements. I don't know that this is enough to push the article over the top at DRV, it really depends on who sees it. I also had the misfortune of glancing at the author's name for the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent developments

It can be seen from the discussion on Women in Red that there have been some important recent developments on this case. She has been Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Clarice_Phelps nominated for the IUPAC Periodic Table of Younger Chemists and she has been highlighted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory as the first African American woman involved in discovery of an element. This article explains in particular that together with Nathan Brewer "Their inclusion on the “Periodic Table of Younger Chemists” follows an international competition conducted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Younger Chemists Network (IYCN), the press release said. Phelps was selected to represent the element einsteinium, and Brewer represents tennessine, the press release said." The article also provides links to related reports. There's also Phelps receives international honor for research, outreach. More background here and here if it's needed.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Much of this is not new, and again being mention in connection with other people makes you no more notable then they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Brewer probably also deserves an article as I suggested on WiR. But in the articles quoted above Phelps receives special attention, not only for the discovery of einsteinium but for her work at Oak Ridge and her project leadership. She was also btw involved in the discovery of tennessine, with which Brewer has been associated. I am expanding the draft article along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well no more (for example) then the other 10 more younger chemists (not that that is in fact a new claim).Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, these are quite old developments. I brought up the IUPAC listing back in July, and the ORNL claim (which predates ORNL's making it) has been hotly debated since April/May. Your WT:WIR link was lacking a second pair of brackets, I've added them in for you. Having read through the WT:WIR thread (the first one), I find myself remarkably stunned to (for the first time ever) be in agreement with something David Eppstein has said. The hyperbole surrounding the article subject has soured me as well, and it has come across as tokenism. Fram is, as ever, spot on. That said, I can think of far less deserving subjects that have articles, and so that's why I've been in favour of restoring Phelps' article. And yes, I know that OSE is a weak argument. In any case, this won't go anywhere without a DRV. Any admin foolish enough to take individual action will be dragged straight to ArbCom, and that has already lead to a desysopping once. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ohh I agree we do have articles on people less deserving, but then we have articles on people less deserving than the average nurse. The problem is notability, or to be more precise issues that have little to do with the specific merits of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As for notability, it seems to me that if Oak Ridge has repeatedly highlighted her achievements, including the IUPAC Periodic Teble award, and has also pointed out that she is a pioneering African American, then she does seem to be worth covering on Wikipedia. Quite apart from the academic criteria for notability, she has been covered widely in the press, far more so that many of those porn actresses and pop signers who plaster the Wikipedia walls. Since early May the article has been considerably expanded and now contains a lot more detail, backed by many valid references -- even if quite a few come from Oak Ridge where she works.--Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

See wp:primary. But I am not sure she has been covered that widely in the press, the Wikipedia controversy was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been quite a number in addition to those on the article's deletion. The fact that she is a scientist seems to be a problem. For most people, inclusion in a variety of reports such as those below would normally be considered sufficient for general notability:

• YWCA Tribute to Women finalists and special award winners, 30 July 2017
• Phelps wins YWCA Tribute to Women, 19 September 2017
• Podcast: Scientists share what it takes to make a superheavy element, 24 April 2019
• ORNL scientist recognized globally for research and commitment to diversity, 7 August 2019
• The overlooked element makers, 30 September 2019

--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Of those only 2 are solely about her. One is not exactly in depth (and is an old source from 2017. The other comes up as a dead link.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They don't have to be "solely" about her to be SIGCOV. And "old source"–2017? Say what? It shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage that pre-dates the Wiki controversy. None are coming up as dead links for me. You wrote, I am not sure she has been covered that widely in the press, you've got to be kidding. She was covered in Chemical & Engineering News, Physics Today, Chemistry World, BBC Science Focus, Slate, Forbes, Daily Dot, Fast Company, Undark, the Wire and that's not even counting the local Oak Ridge press and the Washington Post. – Levivich 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No but it does have to be more then one paragraph about her.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability [emphasis added] Nevertheless, most of the aforementioned sources have more than one paragraph about her. – Levivich 18:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Highlighted by the Daily Mail

The issue with this article has been mentioned by the Daily Mail, so it may be about to be going more mainstream: [15]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

perhaps, but it might be worth pointing out the daily Myth has had a bit if a history with Wikipedia, and thus this may just be part of that. I will add this just looks like a rehash of old material buy other people, as the figure of 50 pages nominated for deletion (including this one, which has not AFD last week). But this may well be a good example of why the Daily Myth is no longer an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Case in point, the article claims last week, 50 of Dr Wade's entries were flagged by Wikipedia editors for not being prominent enough to stay on the site. The "editors" in question are this blocked webhost and this banned sockpuppet. – bradv🍁 19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

At least one of which was not created by Dr Wade [[16]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Similarly in the Telegraph: [17]. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet again, Dr Phelps is more notable for this article than for her work. Also seems to refer to the same incident above, which was dealt with quickly and rapidly. An SPS troll that was blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this now deleted article falsely claimed that she had a PhD and it turned out she only has a bachelor's degree from 2003, so she's no "Dr." --Tataral (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Highlighted by ChemistryWorld

ChemistryWorld: Female scientists’ pages keep disappearing from Wikipedia – what’s going on?. Jeblad (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Check "This draft has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" near the top of this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

its called why are RS only covering these people now? But at least this new article does acknowledge the problem is with lack of coverage of these "notable" women in the media.Slatersteven (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's from July. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a good mind to soapbox now....Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

31 January 2020 Deletion review

I'm a little surprised it wasn't mentioned at this talkpage that it was going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question - Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review does not require notification on draft talk pages and the notification at the AFD page was there but only on the first one. Kaldari? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize so many people were going to be interested in this. My apologies if I did the deletion review incorrectly. Kaldari (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari: The original deletion discussion occuppied ~50 editors, had 15000 words written on it, and you didn't realize so many people were going to be interested?! ——SN54129 15:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Clarice Phelps

 II. 

 III. 

[[File:|133x150px|

 IV. 

]]

 IV. 

• ... that Clarice Phelps (pictured) was repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia?

• Reviewed: President Clinton
• Comment: See DRV for the most recent consensus finding about moving this to mainspace. I've listed just four authors per these stats as I don't want to break the nomination but maybe we can add more.

Created by Jesswade88 (talk), Hodgdon's secret garden (talk), Kaldari (talk), and Levivich (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

• The image is non-free and not usable on the main page. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clarice Phelps.jpg. GMG^talk 18:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The image is public domain, like all the other Oak Ridge images which we are using (see Actinium, for example). GMG's contrary view lacks consensus and is not held by any of the parties such as Oak Ridge or the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• I've replaced the image to use one which appears on a DoE website: DOE Celebrates Black History Month. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. No apparent policy or sourcing issues. No apparent plagerism. EarWig's shows a lot of results but nothing of concern. The hook is a bit off. Please choose something about her life. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• What does "a bit off" mean? C&C should please clarify their objections. We will have some time as this was put forward as a picture hook and the pictures have now been deleted too. I'm putting some feelers out to get a replacement... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: After all the trouble to get her here, I think we should focus on her and not on this stupid controversy we created. I think we should avoid navel-gazing and recognize her for once. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with C&C. A hook like this glosses over some of the other things we can talk about (like being in the Navy before her discovery? appearing on the IUPAC's Periodic Table of Younger Chemists?) The Wikipedia thing, in my opinion at least, should be something we use as a last resort, especially since it's pretty meta. epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I found this interesting: She is the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element. I think this is probably the most directly hook-worthy fact. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you might be able to make a compromise if we can keep it concise: e.g., ... that X walked on the moon, scaled mount Everest, cured cancer, and then was deleted from Wikipedia? GMG^talk 20:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Follow the sources", right? Pretty much all the independent secondary sources were written after her page was deleted, and either mention the deletion, or focus on the deletion. Based on what the RSes are writing about, her page deletion (meta or navel-gazing as it might be) is part of her notability, if not the core of it. I agree with GMG's suggested compromise. How about:

ALT1: ... that Clarice Phelps (pictured), the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, was deleted twice from Wikipedia? Levivich 20:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I can get behind this but can we avoid saying that a human being was deleted. The article about her was deleted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ping Levivich. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pong Coffeeandcrumbs. I'm good with "... that the article about Clarice Phelps ...", or something similar. – Levivich 01:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, if I suggest it, I cannot review it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

something something dyk bureaucracy Hey guys! How about:

ALT2: ... that the article about Clarice Phelps (pictured), the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, was deleted twice from Wikipedia? – Levivich 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Or: ALT3: ... that Clarice Phelps served in the engine room of the USS Ronald Reagan, was the first black woman to help discover a chemical element, and the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia?

Maybe that's too many words. – Levivich 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hooks ALT2 and ALT3 are cited in-line and interesting. QPQ is done. Good to go. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Levivich: If we're looking to go with Alt 3, we could really use some more careful wordsmithing: that Clarice Phelps served in the engine room of on the USS Ronald Reagan, and was the first black woman to help discover a chemical element, and but the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia? GMG^talk 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, ALT3 is technically short enough. But if you add ALT4, I will give a green means go. Caution you though, that "but" is going to be seen as POV; "and" is more NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know I agree that conjunctions are clearly POV. It is constructed as a juxtaposition. When contrasting "good thing, good thing, bad thing" or "A thing, A thing, B thing", the word but should be used, asand implies they are the same "type of thing". GMG^talk 14:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, look at it from the deleting editor's point of view. The version he deleted had neither the USS Ronald Reagan nor proper sourcing for "the first black woman to help discover a chemical element". Saying "but" at least implies that the article was deleted in spite of this information. That was not so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If we have a longer hook which adds to the deletion issue then the word "but" is quite appropriate.Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the "and/but" argument and don't really have a strong opinion. Pinging authors Jesswade88, Hodgdon's secret garden, and Kaldari for input on the hook. Levivich 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been nudging people to get more images loaded and this has started to happen. The subject has loaded a stack of images onto Commons. The bad news is that attempts to delete them are now being made, such as this. But the deletion discussion for the original image is not settled as it seems that there are contradictory OTRS tickets. It's amusing that Wikipedia claims that it is not a bureaucracy and ignores all rules but we should wait for this to work itself out before advancing the DYK, as we're bound to get an image through the gauntlet eventually. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree about waiting a bit to let the OTRS/copyright issues get sorted out so the article can have a picture (hopefully more than one). Levivich 17:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If someone is in contact with the subject, as I suspect @Jesswade88: may be as she was aware of the new uploads in under an hour, and she is active on social media, the easiest way to get an image in short order would be to ask her to take an actual selfie, that is legitimately own work, not available elsewhere online, and has the original meta data intact. But we cannot have the subject simply collect images of herself from hither an yon and upload them as her own work. GMG^talk 17:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As GMG is now trying to delete the new images too, we're better off sticking to the original image, which is supported by a clear official statement of its public domain standing. We're now back on track with that, thanks to Levivich's local upload. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Objection - African-American and Black are no where near to being the same thing, and the article has never claimed that Clarice Phelps is the first black woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element. In case it's not clear, I am referring to Alt3, not Alt1 and 2, both of which correctly state African-American. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Mr rnddude, see the timeline of quotes of the "first" claim at Talk:Clarice Phelps#Weighting and accuracy. Some sources say AA, some say black. In the December 11 podcast interview, Phelps herself uses both terms when discussing the claim. In this particular case, since the subject and the sources use both terms, I think we can use either term. "Black" is shorter; I think "AA" is used by a slight majority of sources. – Levivich 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Our article does not claim first black woman, and none of the three cited sources supporting the claim say first black woman either. All three state African-American, as does IUPAC. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

While that is true, the talk page thread I linked to lists 14 sources that have the "first" claim, seven of which use "black", and eight of which use "African-American" (one source–Phelps herself–uses both). There is an ongoing discussion about exactly what our article should say and which sources should be cited. Your input on the talk page on that would be welcome. (I don't actually have a preference which we use, I just don't think either one are "wrong" or "right", since the sources are split and Phelps uses both.) Let's agree the hook and the article should use the same terminology. But I'd invite everyone reading this to go over to the talk page and cast a !vote about whether the language used in the article and the sources cited should be changed or not, so that we can establish durable consensus for concrete language. - Levivich 21:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I could be wrong, but I only count 4 sources (of the 14) that use "black woman", as opposed to "black American woman" or "African American woman", and one of them is the Daily Dot, which is hardly a reliable source for chemistry. "African American" is a more narrow claim and also more plausible. Many elements were discovered in pre-historic times, likely by black people. Personally, I would favor using "African American woman", as the article does. Kaldari (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

OK I was going to suggest additional hooks in response to the feedback above and below, but what I'm coming out with is way too wordy and needs copyediting to make it crisp. Any suggestions/improvements on:

... that Clarice Phelps served as an NCO aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, was the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element, [and/but] the article about her was deleted twice from Wikipedia? Levivich 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, please give this hook a number and it is too long. Use this tool. We want below 200 characters (not counting "(pictured)" and "..." but including "?"). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to let someone else take a crack at further hook suggestions. Levivich 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note, while the Commons deletion discussion (as of this time, trending keep) may take over a month to be closed (judging by their backlog), our FFD process takes 7 days. I've uploaded a local copy of the image (File:Clarice Phelps ORNL headshot.jpg), which is now at FFD, and so I'd ask this nom remain open for seven days until that discussion closes so we can potentially have a picture for this nom. Levivich 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• comment - Inasmuch as the controversy over her blp's inclusion appropriately pertains more to wikipedia than to her, any bluelink to it ought redirect, say, to a subsection in whatever the WP omnibus article about Wikipedia controversies (eg - where would this fully-referenced news quote of Dr Jess Wade, physicist from Imperial College London, best fit: "Writing her [Phelps's] page was constantly inspirational"? w/in the article about phelps? or w/in one about wikipedia controversies?).

  So maybe a DYK w rgd Phelps might more optimally reference Phelps's community activities (diff) followed by note of her scientific career including her assist on the super-heavy elements milestone. For example, see this 2019 blurb by TEDxNashville.

  Clarice Phelps
  Program Manager, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  "Clarice Phelps is a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Lab who previously served in the United States Navy as an NCO in the Naval Nuclear Power Program. With a combined 16 years of experience, she has worked on the separation, purification and processing of radioisotopes for private and commercial entities. Clarice is dedicated to STEM initiatives and ensuring that access to STEM education is available to under-represented communities. In 2019, she was recognized by the IUPAC's (International Union Of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Periodic Table of Young Chemists for her commitment, public engagement, and being an advocate for diversity. She is the first African- American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element, Tennessine." https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/35429

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Primarily the alts but also the shorter initial proposal. Sorry, but so-called "inclusionist" Wikipedians should not be rewarded for feeding misleading narratives to "reliable secondary sources" about how Wikipedia's systemic bias against Black women had anything to do with this page's deletion, and unsourced claims to the contrary have no place in the article itself, let alone on the main page. Many of the "inclusionist" editors who argued against the page's deletion are just as likely, if not more likely, to argue against deletion of articles on old white men, and apparently favour removing our inclusion criteria that, if removed, would work far more to the benefit of said old white men (and their locally operated snake oil companies) than to victims of systemic bias who are in fact notable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the claim that it was deleted twice (per community discussion, systemic bias, or anything else) is technically misleading, even if it is sourced; one AFD ended in deletion, an editor disruptively recreated the page contrary to that consensus, and it was speedily deleted a second time as a result. I might as well ping User:TonyBallioni, since editors are discussing essentially badmouthing him on the main page of the encyclopedia without ever having notified him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've stricken the above because enough people have been painted (both on- and off-wiki) as racist/sexist for saying the article didn't meet our inclusion criteria, and given how absurd that claim is I see no reason to believe that opposing the current DYK nomination wouldn't draw the same kind of retaliatory action. I don't need that kind of hassle right now, so I'm withdrawing my opposition. Great "inclusionism", guys. (And let's be clear, it is almost all "guys" -- specifically white men who have no sincere interest in combating systemic bias -- whom I was addressing with the above; I have not now, nor have I ever had, any strong opinions one way or the other on whether we have an article on this particular chemist, and my issue has rather been with the contentious behaviour of certain Wikipedians.)Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I won't cast a formal oppose, but I share Hijiri88's sentiments regarding the inappropriateness of this hook. We should not be throwing those who !voted to delete in prior discussions under the bus by implying that they were culpable agents of systemic bias. Oh, and this is navel-gazing. One can easily construct a satisfactory hook that doesn't throw anyone under the bus. Lepricavark (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

In light of the opposition, we need new hook suggestions. I am still willing to review any new hooks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs has made many edits of the article and seems too involved to be a reviewer. Per H2, we must "Use common sense here, and avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. " Andrew🐉(talk) 17:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record – regardless of C&C giving up their role as reviewer to offer up a hook – C&C had not edited the article prior to conducting this review. Your "concern", Andrew Davidson, is manufactured horse manure. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Good, that frees me up to suggest a hook:

ALT5... that the IUPAC recognized Clarice Phelps and Nathan Brewer in the Periodic Table of Younger Chemists in part due to their contributions in the discovery of tennessine?

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a relatively good hook, save perhaps for "in part due to" which kills some of the hookiness, but I think that ideally the hook should focus on Phelps alone. I may as well contribute an

• ALT6:
  ... that Clarice Phelps is a nuclear scientist recognized as the first African-American woman to be involved in the discovery of a chemical element?
  Simple, short, and to the main point. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not personally opposed to ALT6 as presented above, but I think we should note that it (and other alts like it) carry the implication that both "at least one African-American man" and "at least one woman who was not African-American" (and even "at least one Black woman who was not American") have been involved in the discovery of chemical elements in the past.

Everyone knows Marie Curie discovered two elements, so the second is fine, but not being a chemist myself I am not comfortable speculating on how many African-American men and Black women who weren't American could have been "involved in" the discovery of various chemical elements. See this for an example of how messy such things can be, where popular media sources deliberately use overly specific classifiers because they don't want to do the research to find out whether it would be okay to say that someone was "the first Asian American to play a leading character in a Star Wars film" and have to tag "woman" onto it.

Moreover, there is also the fact that "African-American" is generally perceived as a more polite synonym for "Black", but by calling her "the first African-American woman" we are not only using a polite euphemism but also implicitly stating that it would be wrong to call her "the first Black woman" (because, for instance, there have been one or more Black British women who have been "involved in" the discovery of chemical elements in the past). I don't want to get into an argument over whether it's not okay ("OR", to use a phrase that gets thrown around a lot on Wikipedia talk pages by people who really should know better) to assume a source is saying "African-American" simply to be polite and not to distinguish "American of Black African ancestry" from "person of Black African ancestry" based on a Google search of discoverers of known elements to determine that no "Black women who were not American" have been involved in said discoveries in the past and just write "Black", but I would also question the appropriateness of assuming that sources aren't just being polite and do in fact mean to distinguish "African-American" from "Black". (I also wouldn't be surprised if, say, no African-American men had been involved in the discovery of a chemical element in the past but a Black man from a country other than America had, and "reliable sources" that clumsily use "African-American" to refer to Black people regardless of whether they are American decided to dub her "the first African-American woman" even if she is in fact "the first African-American" with no "woman" qualifier being necessary.)

There's also the fact that I don't feel particularly inclined to go and do any of that googling myself: does anyone else here?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

James Andrew Harris. As for white women, Marie Curie was the first; there have been others; two worked with Phelps, for example. not being a chemist myself I am not comfortable speculating on how many African-American men and Black women who weren't American could have been "involved in" the discovery of various chemical elements ... yes that's exactly right. Don't speculate. Thankfully, we don't have to speculate, we have a source. 14 sources, actually, but the best one is IUPAC. They are chemists, and they're the international body that officially recognizes new elements and sets the standard for the periodic table of elements, and so they don't need to speculate. This is Wikipedia: we follow the sources, we don't second guess them with our own speculation or original research. Levivich 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So ... you're saying that you also don't know if any Black women who weren't American had been "involved in" the discovery of chemical elements prior to Phelps? (The quotes are not scare-quotes -- my problem is that the wording is vague, and so verifying based on original research that no Black women who weren't American had ever been "involved in the discovery of a chemical element in some way" would be virtually impossible, so a reliable source would be needed explicitly verifying or falsifying as much.) You have my gratitude for pointing out Harris, but I don't know why you needed to draw attention to the fact that there have been other white women, since I didn't ask that question. The fact that many of our sources are written by chemists is irrelevant, since chemists are just as likely as anyone else to use "African-American" instead of "Black" based more on politeness than precision -- I don't think it is a good idea for us to be implying that she was not "the first Black woman to be involved in the discovery of a chemical element" unless we can confirm that she was in fact not. (Also, I find it a little weird that you of all people are saying I shouldn't be talking about stuff outside my field when you were talking down to me about stuff inside my field, about which you clearly knew nothing that you hadn't learned from Wikipedia, just two months ago...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the predicate of "which" is "stuff", not "my field"; I don't know if you know stuff about Japanese language and literature that you didn't learn from Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: First, African-American isn't a euphemism. Second, the specific wording used by the sources wasn't just made up out of thin air, it's actually been researched. Do you really think the IUPAC and Physics Today would make such a statement without knowing what they were talking about? James Andrew Harris was the first African-American to help discover an element. And neither of them are the first black person involved in the discovery of an element, as it is quite likely that many elements were originally discovered in Africa by black people in pre-historic times, such as gold and silver (as discussed by physics author, Kit Chapman). Regardless, the hook as written is well supported by the article and the sources cited, which is what matters. Frankly, you seem to be much more interested in the politics of this article than the article itself, but I'll assume good faith for the time being. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: My ping failed because your signature doesn't match your username :P Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

First, African-American isn't a euphemism. Yes, it is. People mistakenly use "African-American" as a polite word for "Black person of African descent" or even "Black person from Africa" all the time. This of course does not relate to Phelps herself, but it might relate to others, so the problem is that we should ideally be able to find sources that actually say she wasn't "the first Black woman...". Second, the specific wording used by the sources wasn't just made up out of thin air, it's actually been researched. That is the assumption, yes. Do you really think the IUPAC and Physics Today would make such a statement without knowing what they were talking about? Again, maybe they're just being polite, which has nothing to do with accuracy or reliability: the IUPAC does not use the phrase "first Black woman" anywhere on their website.[18] And neither of them are the first black person involved in the discovery of an element, as it is quite likely that many elements were originally discovered in Africa by black people in pre-historic times, such as gold and silver (as discussed by physics author, Kit Chapman). Huh. That's actually quite a good point. I withdraw my ... non-opposing query, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Re the suggested hooks above, maybe WP's own "DYK" w rgd this blp's deletions--tho "navel gazing," sure!--would be a find way for the Community "consentaneously" to go out of its way to draw attention to where in a certain instance various advocates successfully mounted a publicity campaign in their addressing the scientific field &tc blah blah blah's ersatz systemic wp:BIASes. What the hey.
  If it was solely up to me, though, I'd pick Alt5 'cos it's seemingly more complimentary to the subject of the blp than merely referencing that she'd been the source of former discussions hereabouts IMO--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In a side note to Ms user:Hijiri88: Yeah it's true it's my opinion that inasmuch as Wikipedia-isn't-written-on-paper my own !voting position defaults to If there are multiple sources covering certain subjects, even those whose import is questioned by many (or else even are often thought pseudo-scientific in nature), let's go ahead and Keep. ((Also, for what it's worth, I'd think it might be perfectly reasonable for WP not to host articles on either of the youngish researchers Clarice Phelps or Nathan Brewer, too. Be that as it may, that ship has sailed.[19]))

As for ah "the Tertiariacy" ((by which I mean us & other encyclopedias ha ha ha))'s performing "due diligence" about things we cover, that's perfectly reasonable and ok too, in my opinion, even if we must do what equates to our ah "originating research" to come to these conclusions [eg say Should there be just loads of, yes, completely independently sourced and arguably extensively ah um 'researched' material built upon or naively reviewed among folks holding onto whatever leapsoffaith premises of the flat earth society hey maybe an academic encyclopedia might reasonably choose to give the same short shrift in its coverage compared to something not outta left field].
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: Umm ... what does any of the above have to do with what I wrote, and if it has nothing to do with what I wrote then why did you ping me? The closing statement of the DRV you link actually would appear to support my initial, long-ago withdrawn, contention that this petty, vindictive, slimy and toxic "deletionist Wikipedians tried and failed to destroy this article" malarkey should stay off the main page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Colleagues, I encourage you to suggest hooks for consideration. We needs a hook that will gain consensus, and, respectfully, we need hook suggestions on this page more than we need commentary about the article subject or the deletion controversy, or anything else.

Personally, I still like ALT0 the best, because it's the most click-bait-y, and I think that's what makes a good hook. The purpose of a hook isn't to summarize the article, it's to entice the reader to click on the bold link and read the article, and I think ALT0 does that best of those that have been presented so far (including my own), and it's sourced and otherwise complies with DYK criteria. I do not read ALT0 as throwing anyone under a bus or otherwise being critical of the deletion decision–it's just an interesting fact: there are not many articles whose subjects are notable (at least in part) for having their WP articles deleted. This a unique hook and an excellent candidate for the bottom slot.

That's my pitch for ALT0, which is the one that was suggested in the nom. I understand not everyone will be in favor. To those who are not: which other(s) do you prefer, or can you suggest more?

Thanks to everyone for their participation here! Cheers, Levivich 06:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Have you read through the prior discussions that might lead to the belief that people are being thrown under the bus? We know the nominator, Andrew Davidson, came to this page through the deletion discussions and has a history of making slimy, battleground remarks about "deletionists", including specifically attacking people in relation to this particular article.[20] It is therefore very difficult not to read this as a continuation of the previous disruption, essentially being a "sore winner" by kicking the people who had previously argued against this topic having a standalone article now that external circumstances have resulted in the article making a comeback. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It's no secret I've been an outspoken critic of ARS lately and you, me, and Andrew have been on all sides of all kinds of disagreements in the past, but the battleground is all in the back room, and I think we should leave all the back-room stuff aside and look at it from the reader's point of view. The reader, upon reading the hook, will not have read all the prior deletion discussions, and will not know that Andrew D was the nominator, or be aware of what ARS is, and will not know anything about our deletion processes most likely, and will probably not even be aware that the deletion was a controversial issue at all or understand inclusionist/deletionist. Upon reading the hook, the reader will think that they've never read a hook before that talks about an article being deleted, and they'll want to know what that's about, and they'll click the link. The motivations of the hook-suggester are totally irrelevant to the question of whether it's a good hook or not (it doesn't matter why somebody wrote something, words are words, just like 2+2=4 no matter who writes it or why), and the reader is not going to know any of this wiki-inside-baseball stuff. But all that said, if you don't think ALT0 is the best hook from the reader's perspective, which one do you like better, or do you have any to suggest? Because I'm open to other hooks and I'm sure Andrew D and everyone else is too. Levivich 07:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If the hook must mention the deletion of the article, then ALT2 would be the much better hook, imho. Unless the reader knows who Clarice Phelps is, or why she is notable, then the deletion of the article about her is unremarkable as articles are deleted daily from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. ALT2 is hookier because (one may ask) why in the hell would Wikipedia delete an article on "the first African-American woman to help discover a chemical element"? The news isn't the deletion of an article, it's the deletion of an article with such a claim to significance. If I were benevolent dictator, however, this would not be my first choice. I think that the focus should be on the article subject's accomplishments, not on the background processes of Wikipedia and any controversy it stirred up because it detracts focus from the article subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• My role here is as the DYK nominator. I have a reasonably long and successful record of nominating articles about pioneering women for DYK. These include other articles written by Jess Wade such as Kim Cobb, Roma Agrawal and Abbie Hutty. As an experienced nominator, my priorities include:

1. Making the hook short, punchy and unusual, so that it attracts attention on the crowded and busy main page
2. Having a picture to go with the hook, as this typically doubles the readership
3. Avoiding rambling, clutter and secondary links which tend to distract from the main subject

I still think that the original hook does this best but, naturally, other editors may have other opinions. In considering these, we should give priority to the main authors of the article in question because they have done the heavy lifting and know the topic best. Respecting their views will also encourage them to do more good work. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• The ALT6 hook seems good to me. It meets all the hook criteria and is well supported by the article and sources. Disclaimer: I helped write the article, so I'm not officially a reviewer. Kaldari (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. ALT6 looks fine. (Just spotted this discussion after I was randomly pinged on the article talk page). If people want to move on from the idea that Phelps was not notable, then using a hook implying that her deletion from Wikipedia is the most interesting thing about her is exactly the wrong course of action. If nobody objects then I don't mind signing off ALT6 as good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

cmt - user:Amakuru, also it's of course not dispositive the bio entry was removed to-and-from mainspace but twice (diff) :~) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"twice" is an internal Wikipedia affair not discussed in most of the secondary sources, though. Notability and systemic bias aside, the reason it was deleted a second time was entirely rooted in the disruptive behaviour of the article's recreator and other defenders in violating consensus by recreating exactly the same article after it was deleted at AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Very true, which is all the more reason not to use the "deleted twice" motif in the hook, and to go with something interesting from Phelps's actual achievements.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the "Wikipedia article" section is now very different from when those hooks were originally presented, such that the article text now no longer supports those hooks (it seems reliable secondary sources never supported them). The article text now points out, quite rightly, that the independent sources available at the time the article was deleted didn't mention Phelps. It may indeed be that the article being deleted from Wikipedia was what prompted independent reliable sources to note Phelps's contribution as they hadn't previously (the take-home being that "Wikipedia deletionists helped resolved systemic bias in the real world"), but lacking a reliable source we can't say that in the article, let alone the DYK hook. I'd be quite happy to just recognize ALT6 immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting that Levivich has in the last hour or so edit-warred to insert unsourced and/or Wikipedia-sourced content into the "Wikipedia article" section -- this lack of stability almost certainly disqualifies any reference to the Wikipedia article deletion from being included in the hook. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: Do you have a reliable source for this hook? Moreover, forgive me if I am wrong -- I am not as experienced with DYKs as you are -- but is it standard practice to edit a primary hook after multiple editors have already commented on it and no less than five separate alternates have been proposed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Copy-edits are commonly made to hooks as they flow through the many steps of the DYK process. A formal ALT is only appropriate when you have a major change to the nature of the hook, as otherwise you'd get a proliferation of version numbers which would tend to clutter and confuse. See WP:DYKHOOK, "A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit."

As for a supporting source, the Royal Society of Chemistry, seems adequate.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please, can we move on from these ridiculous WP:NAVEL-gazing hooks mentioning the deletion debacle. I find it frankly astounding, that after so many arguments citing her groundbreaking achievements as reason why she should have an article, and after finally that article is here and ready to be showcased, the best tagline that people can come up with for Ms Phelps is that her Wikipedia article was repeatedly deleted. This is like Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) syndrome all over again - labelled as famous for something that's unrelated to your work and career. We owe it to Ms Phelps to do better than that, and ALT6 is right on the money IMHO - it highlights her major career achievement and why it's groundbreaking.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NAVEL is irrelevant because its point is that self-reference within articles may be confusing when our content used elsewhere. This is not an issue for DYK hooks because they are ephemeral and only appear on Wikipedia's main page, not in other places. The fact about deletion is notable and seems likely to be interesting to the main page's readership. They are reading Wikipedia and so will wonder what there is about this topic that has caused it to be deleted so often. Perhaps they should read it quickly before it is deleted again? This forbidden fruit aspect generally works well as a hook – see Banned in Boston; the Streisand effect; &c.

The alternative suggestion about being the first X to do Y is not so hooky because it's a cliché at DYK – I have done many such hooks myself. See here where a regular set-builder complains that "Hook writers are resorting to superlatives so frequently that it's impossible to build a prep set with varied language. Right now the majority of prep sets have two to three "firsts" each. I'd like to call on reviewers to ask for more interesting hooks about the subject than that they were just the "first"—especially women hooks."

The alternative fact that I liked was the bit about working in the engine-room of the USS Ronald Reagan. That's a bit of a stretch though as she actually worked at monitoring and controlling its nuclear reactor. Presumably that was done remotely as I doubt that she was physically pushing control rods or crawling around "Jefferies tubes". The actual details are probably classified as a matter of military security and so verification may be difficult.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment After much back-and-forth on the talk page, the current version of the article doesn't appear to contain any verification of most of the "deleted twice from Wikipedia" variations on the proposed DYK hook. It barely even says there was an article that was deleted, since the wording used in the article right now is "deletion of a previous draft of its biographical entry on Phelps" and "The [Wikipedia] community consensus was that her biography had to go." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, this seems to have completely ground to a halt, with no further conversation for a week. Although I was involved in the discussions, I don't think there is consensus for any of the variants that include the "deleted from Wikipedia" angle. So again, as I said before, if nobody objects then I will sign off ALT5 and ALT6 tomorrow with a little green tick, as good to go. If people object to that and still don't want those variants, then I think we'd just have to declare the nom as not passing and archive it. Which would be a shame, because personally I would certainly like to see Clarice Phelps featured on the Main Page, now that she's achieved sufficient notability for inclusion here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  PS - or, better still, if someone else wants to approve ALT5 or ALT6 quickly, then I could push it into the set for the 29 Feb (in two days' time), replacing the current image hook there, so that it's featured with a picture on the last day of the American black history month. Hopefully nobody would mind that as a last-minute special-occasion insertion?  — Amakuru (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh scew, that's not going to work actually. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6 already has a special-occasion picture hook for the EFL cup final, so I can't replace that one. Unless we manage to get it into to tomorrow's set, it'll have to feature after the end of black history month then.  — Amakuru (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Women's History Month is in March, so I don't think it really makes much of a difference. Granted, a lot of the anti-"deletionist" rhetoric that has been passed around by the slimy creatures who use "feminism" as an excuse to push their own (toxic, masculine) agenda has been about systemic bias against women rather than systemic bias against African-Americans (ignoring the fact that the article deletion apparently drew attention to the systemic bias in the mainstream media, so it was the "deletionists" on Wikipedia who shone a light on the systemic bias of society as a whole...). I would have personally preferred a February slot to a March one, but still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The main obstacle to progress is the status of the image. There are at least three separate discussions about that which are still open plus an OTRS ticket. There's no rush and so we should wait on the outcome of that matter. Stopping the clock while such discussions are resolved is fairly routine at DYK and the pipeline of nominations is normally quite long – it currently goes back to November of last year, whereas this nomination is not even a month old yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, there's no issue with waiting then if something is actually happening!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• user:Hijiri88, maybe it was I who, trying for generally less-granularity as inherent in wp:SUMMARYSTYLE, contributed the wording "draft" (as well as of "biography"?) mentioned. If so: wasn't referencing the wikiwp:Jargon wp:Draft but believed average readers might understand draft to mean, say, "any of various stages in the development of a plan, document, or picture: a preliminary draft of a report; the final draft of a paper" (per Amer. Heritage Dict.)[21] but was only editing for flow and a multitude of other terms might suffice. (Maybe: article :~).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed the quote that contained the "biography" mention, which I later restored. I have no problem with your other edits, or whatever other person's edit may have removed "article" and "twice" -- I was just making that point to emphasize how the original proposed hook and several of the alts are even more inappropriate now than they were originally. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, user:Hijiri88. As I've alluded if vaguely previously, I'm not that enthusiastic about---tho I admit I'm not all that bothered by it either---phelps's entry's deletion (or um deletions) as a hook. At least, to her blp. Think it'd be a fine one, though, leading perhaps to wade's. (Or else to some omnibus Re diversity-issues-pertaining-to-WP.)

W rgd to biography (above): Now recall, at one point I'd wiki-edited biographical entry that soon enough got more-than-halved to article (then, perhaps, this word choice had gotten changed again, sorta hardta keep track :~).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, while as a card-carrying WiR member I'm happy to work on addressing Wikipedia's systemic bias issues, I'm extremely reluctant to post such content in prominent places where readers (as opposed to editors) will see it and be misled by it. There is a segment of the community (not nearly the majority of WiR members, mind you!) who want to use talk of "systemic bias" to push their own agenda that, if they got their way, it would almost certainly make our biases worse, not better. (I have been trying for years to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women poets from pre-modern Japan, and I'm always appalled whenever an article on a minor character in a TV show survives AFD when, for instance, neither of the early-Heian noblewomen named Fujiwara no Yoshiko currently have articles -- imagine how much more skewed our statistics would be if still more effort was put into creating more and more minor TV character articles!) It seems very, very clear that the motivation behind this DYK nomination was in line with that agenda, and had nothing to with systemic bias, as evidenced by the nominator making it clear that he doesn't think her achievements in her field are as interesting or noteworthy as the fact that he "won" against some imaginary malicious cabal of "deletionists". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is very little we can do about the bias you mention, other than to diligently write the missing articles, as it sounds like you are doing. It's obvious that if we were writing articles strictly in descending order of "importance", we'd do the Japanese poets well before the minor TV characters. But the reality is that the articles we have are those that people have sat down and written. And it doesn't make sense to say that X should be deleted because Y is much more vital and doesn't have an article. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and without any "deletionist" or "inclusionist" bias, such that if Phelps meets the WP:GNG then she's kept, and if she doesn't then she's deleted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• As a fresh example and precedent, we currently have another hook up at the moment which mentions Wikipedia:

• ... that Los Angeles streetwear fashion brand Advisory Board Crystals has released a collaborative T-shirt with Wikipedia and rapper Lil Wayne?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, are you just trolling now? Or are you seriously incapable of understanding how that is not the same thing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: although I probably agree with you that the example mentioned is not equivalent to the Phelps case, it would be helpful if you'd spell out why, rather than launching into personal attacks. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

cmt - user:Amakuru &t al: andrew's reputation around the project - who note was a british WP's hon. mention, per here, for ' positive wikimedian ' of a couple years back - doesn't really compare to characteristics identifiable with, say, the author of this piece (see article @ DailyStormer.su to-which-I-may-well-not-be-allowed-directly-to-link "Woman Says Wikipedia Took Down Some of Her Female Scientist Biographies Because of Sexism") No?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's expected of me here. Pointing out that Andrew is engaged in obvious disruption is hardly a personal attack when the disruption is clearly visible immediately above my pointing it out. The DYK in question was obviously not remotely similar to this one, in that none of the complaints I and others have made about this one (WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:STICK, WP:WEIGHT...) could not be applied to that one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(I've also issued HSG a mild warning over the above veiled neonazi comparison. Andrew's having been noted for some good work he may have done in the past does not justify those arguing with him now being compared to fascists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC) )

Struck poorly crafted remark unaware it was interpretable as comparing wikipedian andrew not, say, to an andrew in Congress, but, to a skinhead named this[22] who's dailystormer.su's founder; in my defense, I had been alluding in-adroitly to difficulties reasonable people might have knowing exactly where understandable suspicions come to an end and instead truly unfounded and fringe-ish conspiracy theories, such as, say, 'the protocols' & their ilk, take off. To try another tack, When parties adopt the standpoint that nefarious forces are out to get them, they open themselves up to extremist rhetoric -- y'know, an eerily hweeeeeeing noise as from an audio feedback loop -- these mirrored standpoints' making a continuous pattern of interlocking spirals of mutual replications (eg "American neo-colonialism" vs "War on terror & usurping weapons of mass destruction" & on & on <sighs>).

Are any among those participating within this DYK discussion fascist? Well, if so, this thread is not the place to determine it but over at an editorial behavior notice board. If certain remarks are beyond the pale, sure, we can specifically call them out. But vague conspiratorial inklings really only distract from whatever the point at hand IMO. It's understandable for this issue to come up, though. We're talking about matters with a whole lot of conflict built right in: Is there bias on wikipedia? /in science? In both, Wade's argued yes, others, no. 'Tis 'ok' arguing one way or ta uther? Pretty open and free discussions about even most controversial of topics is essential to capital-'uy' (ah 'eye'?) Inquiry.

((So - Are noahCarl?/edDutton?/alStrumia? or the author of this piece on vdare.com 'fascist'? Is jessWade? Well, it's not my place to say within whatever the case but I'll proffer this. In my opinion it's the wrong question & better, rather than resort to not-going-to-consider-your-arguments labels, to ask whether some specific argument a party's making specifically might tinge toward fascistic in some way, or something of this nature.))--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC) [with minor copy edits]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there bias on wikipedia? /in science? In both, Wade's argued yes There's a massive difference between saying that there is a systemic bias against women in "science" (really in society as a whole) and consequently also on Wikipedia, and saying that this or that Wikipedian who calls out people for using said systemic bias to push some unrelated agenda is like a Nazi. others, no. I would like you to now point me to any instance where anyone in this discussion has said that there is no systemic bias. Otherwise, I would ask you to please stop casting aspersions and drop the stick already. 'Tis 'ok' arguing one way or ta uther? Pretty open and free discussions about even most controversial of topics is essential to capital-'uy' (ah 'eye'?) Inquiry. That's right. Pity some people want to shut down free and open discussions by invoking Godwin's law -- ironically as an attack against those arguing for the feminist viewpoint that Phelps should be recognized for her own achievements, not for some stupid Wikipedia argument about her coverage in third-party reliable sources as of a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well don't want to forego wp:the last word. Without irony I commend Hijiri88 for yeoman's work helping us understand what condescension's implied were the hook's selector to choose, instead of referencing career achievements or outreach recognitions, mention of what seems oh so important only to us here on wikipedia, that her entry's viability had been the topic of such extended discussion hereabouts.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I was invited to discussion by another editor, although my thoughts are my own): Having read through the article and the above discussion, I do agree that the wording of ALT6 could need some revisions. Yes the sources say she was the "first African-American woman involved", but that possibly discounts multiple other African-American women who may have been involved in the discovery of other elements in direct or indirect ways. With that said, I would support some form of ALT6's hook fact (that she's an African-American woman who was involved in the discovery of an element) over the Wikipedia thing. Think of this way, even as a Wikipedia editor myself, we need to understand that Wikipedia editors are still a niche, and what appeals to us may not necessarily appeal to the general audience (one that admittedly even misunderstands the inner workings of Wikipedia a lot). Remember that we're writing for Wikipedia readers and not editors, and focusing on her article being deleted is downplaying her actual achievements as a scientist. Plus, if I were a general reader, I'd very much be more interested in knowing about her science background than a too tech-focused fact.

In any case, we really need a compromise here on what hook to use, and as much as I understand that some editor here are in favor of ALT0 or a hook that mentions the deletion, consensus is clearly against it at this point. It might be for the best to just drop that angle and focus on the other non-deleted proposals, such as ALT6. Otherwise, after all this effort and all this discussion, the nomination could potentially even be rejected if no suitable hook could be agreed upon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• It has been months since the nomination began with little-to-no meaningful progress over the past few weeks. If no compromise can be reached on a hook to be used within a reasonable timeframe, the nomination will regrettably be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Pinging @Andrew Davidson, Levivich, Kaldari, Hodgdon's secret garden, Jesswade88, GreenMeansGo, Coffeeandcrumbs, Epicgenius, Mr rnddude, Hijiri88, Lepricavark, and Amakuru: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, I'm not sure what you expect from the editors you've pinged. Everyone on that list I think has already weighed in on the hooks in this discussion. Why not just assess the consensus and make a call? Since when do we need a dozen editors to all agree on a single hook in order to promote a hook? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I would have gone with some form of ALT6, but I'm not sure about the precise wording that's needed as it would imply that no other African-American woman before Phelps were involved in element discovery, so I was wondering if a clearer wording could have been proposed. That and if people would be willing to accept ALT6, a variation thereof, or something else as a compromise, because right now people have differing ideas on what hook should be used and there doesn't appear to be consensus either way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: my understanding is that the nomination is currently parked, pending conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_February_22#File:Clarice_Phelps_ORNL_headshot.jpg, so that we know whether the photo can be used for the hook. I was intending to approve ALT6 once that was resolved, but it seems reasonable for us to wait for that, as it does not represent an unresolvable impasse. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. Amakuru, FYI, Img II (and cropped Img III), unlike all the other images of her, comes from US DOE's official Flickr account, and they've marked it PD-govt. It's highly unlikely that one will be deleted, so I think it could be an option even if the images at FFD are deleted.

Narutolovehinata5: the "involved" wording has been discussed to death. The list of 14 sources (a 15th has since come out: youtube video of her tedx talk) that make the claim, with quotes, is at Talk:Clarice Phelps#Weighting and accuracy. The verbiage used in the article and in the hooks is IUPAC's verbiage; there are other formulations ("helped with", "participated in", and so forth). Feel free to suggest a different formulation–I for one have no strong feelings, I think they're all equivalent. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: well that seems a little strange. Looking at the photos, it appears that Phelps is wearing the identical outfit, and it seems likely they're part of the same photoset by the same photographer. That being the case, I'd have thought the objections that persist with respect to photo I would pertain to photo III too - namely that the institution (be it Oak Ridge of the federal government) that is claiming to release the photo into the public domain doesn't actually own the copyright in the first place. It's probably a long-shot in either case, and there's no evidence that anybody from the photographer downwards really cares about this or is likely to reassert their copyright later, but it could in principle happen. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I had been considering going with "helped with", but that would take much of the punch out of the hook. Considering the preponderance of sources claiming the first, would a revision from "considered to be first" to "reported to be the first" a better wording, or is "considered" a more proper option? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: As noted, the article just says she was the first, and that's what the sources say too. Unless you can name and source another African-American woman who was involved with the discovery of an element, it's just speculation and for clarity we should just stick with the current wording of ALT6. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been months since this was nominated, it has just been 31 days, which is not at all exceptional for DYK. In this case, we have had a hiatus because of the deletion discussion for the image, which is still open. We have also had an unusual number of editors turning up to disrupt the proceedings. Narutolovehinata5 says above that "Disclosure: I was invited to discussion by another editor..." but they don't explain who that editor was and why they were selected. They should please make a fuller disclosure. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I asked Narutolovehinata5 for an additional (neutral) opinion off-wiki, since it appears that there's a lot of dispute over the proposed hook, based on the extended discussion above. It seems like most people agree with ALT6, but since you disagree, we are leaving the nomination open for other proposals. I must emphasize that I did not canvass them, but left a neutral pointer. epicgenius (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I am fine with ALT6. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:

(to weigh in): wikipedia's wp:Secondary "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source" constrains from spinning wheels overmuch trying to reinvent the Wheel, in a manner of speaking...although I myself am not an absolute stickler for this policy, thinking that a reasonable amount of due diligence on the part of us wikicontributors is often useful & helpful. But in the present case at least I think it's kind of impractical for us to try and second guess the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry's determination that---- Well, as echoed by phelps herself here @ this youtube's 10:20 - 10:47 marks, tho you/me & even phelps thought . . . . . . .

"..it highly unlikely that there had never been an African American woman that had been involved in element discovery . . . I mean surely there had been somebody by now---I mean you already had James Harris who is the first African American man to be involved in element discovery . . . but this year [edited: Clarice Phelps ---hodgd.. ] was privileged to be announced as the very first African American woman to be involved in element discovery .."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, while I actually am satisfied with the sourcing of ALT6 (assuming it is also properly sourced in the article -- I haven't checked recent edits), I find it somewhat disturbing every time an an editor quotes a general descriptive statement like Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources as though to say that we can't use our Wikipedia:Editorial discretion to analyse and compare secondary sources outside the mainspace, and as though it was ever intended to mean that all content that can be verified in "reliable secondary sources" belongs on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• !vote - I think Alt6's fine. (Could its "scientist" be toned down but an increment?? --> a radiochemical technician named as the first African-American woman involved in the discovery of a new element by the [premiere internat'l body in chem.]?
• With the above discussion and all the input that has been given here over the last month, it appears that ALT6 is the best option there is and the only one that has gained traction among most participants here. I still have reservations about ALT6's exact wording, but consensus here is clear that its wording is suitable and reflects the many sources provided in the article. I understand that the nominator prefers a different hook fact, but this hook fact has not been supported by other editors and thus cannot be approved at this time. Approving only ALT6. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That seems reasonable. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)