Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Clarice Phelps

< Template:Did you know nominations
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)

DYK toolbox

Clarice Phelps

(
)
Clarice Phelps
Clarice Phelps
 II. 
 II. 
 III. 
 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 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. AndrewπŸ‰(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. AndrewπŸ‰(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... AndrewπŸ‰(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? GMGtalk 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? GMGtalk 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". GMGtalk 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.AndrewπŸ‰(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. AndrewπŸ‰(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. GMGtalk 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. AndrewπŸ‰(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. " AndrewπŸ‰(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.[1] 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.[2]))
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.[3] 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. AndrewπŸ‰(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.
AndrewπŸ‰(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 clichΓ© 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"β€”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.
AndrewπŸ‰(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. AndrewπŸ‰(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.)[4] 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:
AndrewπŸ‰(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[5] 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)
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. AndrewπŸ‰(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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarice_Phelps&oldid=1022618994"