Talk:Clarice Phelps

Article based on English Wikipedia

This article or parts of it were created based, in whole or in part, on this version of the English Wikipedia article. The complete history of the article can be found there.

Cotroversial article

Since the Simple Wikipedia follows closely what happens on the English Wikipedia, I thought I would mention that this article has been very controversial and that there is currently an arb case relating to it. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Better source required for "first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of an element"

I've tagged this claim as requiring a better source, since although the IUPAC would ordinarily be considered an impeccable source, there are reasons to question its reliability for this specific claim in this specific context. For a start, there is the fact it is highly likely, given the purpose and nature of the PTOYC section of the IUPAC website, that if there was any editorial oversight of the submissions for nominees, it would only be at the level of checking the credentials of the submitter, or their source of information. This was not a journal paper for example, there are no named authors or reviewers. In this instance, absent confirmation, it seems highly likely that submitter or source would be chemistry journalist/historian Kit Chapman, who Tweeted that he literally wrote the book on superheavy element discovery and stands by the claim. Which is a problem, since it was only later discovered, according to editors posting on English Wikipedia who have seen it, the book doesn't back up his claim at all. What of course also brings doubt to this whole issue, is the controversy that erupted around Engkish Wikipedia's two deletions of Phelps' biography and ensuing media coverage, itself heavily reliant on and featuring Chapman, both occurring before this IUPAC source and indeed before Champan's book was published. It is extremely odd therefore, that the IUPAC haven't mentioned this controversy anywhere that I have seen, if they genuinely intended this publication decision (inherent within it their desire to honour/recognise) to represent a significant development within it. As it would be, and is, given it seems to be what some Wikipedia editors have used this source, and this source alone, not Chapman, to definitively stake Phelps' claim in Wikipedia, and therefore, if you believe certain media pieces on the subject of Wikipedia's faults, assuring her place in the history of science. Personally speaking, I don't see why anyone would be using Wikipedia as a definitive source for science history, but if they do, it would be wise to reassure themselves they are documenting history, not shaping it. One long standing means of ensuring that is the case, is having the highest regard for a cautious approach to assessing the reliability of claims, both at the level of publisher and specific claim/context. If an otherwise impeccable source appears like it is an outlier for an extraordinary claim with significant potential impact, it has to be asked why that is. Absent specific contradictory evidence, if Chapman is found likely to be the sole source of the claim, he should be attributed, and if it cannot be sourced to the book he claimed it would appear in, it should be questioned whether it should appear here at all in any form. Other than Chapman and the IUPAC, when screening for reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects, it seems there is nobody out there making this claim without some form of qualifier. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)