Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Wax

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| 
 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

Amy Wax

 * ... that controversial American lawyer Amy Wax who argued 15 cases in the US Supreme Court, first graduated from Harvard Medical School?
 * ALT1:... that controversial American academic Amy Wax graduated from Harvard Medical School before becoming a lawyer?
 * ALT2:... that American academic Amy Wax who issued controversial statements on race relations, graduated from Harvard Medical School before becoming a lawyer?

Created by Mhym (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Comment. There was an earlier (first paragraphs nearly identical, except for some deletions by the nom in this second one) version of this page at AFC by an editor other than the nom here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 In some ways that earlier version was better -- it had footnotes for every assertion in the first few paragraphs, while in this version nom took them out. This version also needs grammar cleanup - "the" and "a" and similar words were dropped from the first version, where needed. Also, some facts, like that the subject attended Harvard Law School, were deleted for some reason. I think if the first version is made viewable and this one is improved along these lines this will be better for approval for this category. Also, when in this version nom writes "Amy Wax has been called "notorious..", maybe it would be an improvement to say by whom. Also, it may be a good idea to have the controversy paragraph, which presents only one side, instead comply with wp:npov (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; and switching out "claimed" for "said"; etc.).2604:2000:E010:1100:A066:E3A3:DD44:3FFC (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a stub, not a WP:GA. I agree it can use some work.  That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly.  As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead.  Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities.  I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio.  Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its deletion followed shortly (by mere hours) the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).
 * Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
 * The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
 * Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted. It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with wp:npov. This does not.  To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as providing all the refs and links - I don't have access to those which used to be there. Please help me with this if you have them.  I guess I don't see any vio of WP:NPOV.  Basically, it's all biographical, no opinion based.  As in she said something.  Others didn't like it.  Some people called on UPenn to fire her.  UPenn didn't.  What exactly is non-neutral here?  Reporting groundswell of support of Wax?  I don't know if that happened.  Mhym (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. I've now twice asked the editor who deleted it to restore it (in addition, it its deletion is not controversial, the reason given for deleting it). I've also asked here - maybe an admin here will help. It has more information (her attending Harvard Law, family background, etc). If you read NPOV, you will see that the cherry-picking of those with one view of her statement, while leaving out completely those who support her statement (or her right to make it), is something we are supposed to try to avoid. There are a number of articles pointing out the other camp; in your research you would have seen them. If you want me to, I will do the work. Also, saying "claimed" instead of "said" - as the guideline states - is a sign of not being sensitive to the need for npov. The guideline explains why. Anyway, once we get the original draft, which was more complete and had all the references that are missing, I will be happy to help you get this promoted. BTW - what inspired you to write this article just now (unless it was coincidence), while there was another draft article awaiting promotion (that incident was in the news, but quite a while ago)?2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you can help. I came across critique/praise of her research work, tried to look her up and found no WP article.  I don't care for the controversies and didn't hear them at the time.  But they clearly make her notable, probably more than her research work, unfortunately.  Thus I included the section. AFIK, the wording can be massaged and improved in any way.  That's also why I made a DYK nom - so that other editor help improve on the article while I am no longer very involved.  Mhym (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Great. I am happy to help you improve this article as soon as an admin helps us by restoring for reference the draft that preceded this one, with the relevant text and footnotes that this later version is missing. It was deleted as a "non-controversial" deletion, but since there is now controversy about it being deleted, I hope an admin can restore it (at least long enough for us to look at it to improve this one). Then we can improve this, improve the npov issue, and put this in shape for a DYK for you. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B951:7500:D62B:D57A (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here, see why this was so weird! Just when the draft of this subject was cleared of any question of copyvio, after it had been sitting awaiting for a couple of days for all to see, as it awaited promotion to article status -- that was the very same day of all days that your article was created! And its not as though she was in the news that day, or week, or month. And as you can see, the article that had been put up for review prior to your draft is very similar (except for the last paragraph that yours added).  I will work now to help you to make your draft better, adding the omitted footnotes, etc.2604:2000:E010:1100:D0B2:B1DE:173C:580 (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work! The article is in a good shape now and ready for review.  Mhym (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment: I would recommend against using the word "controversial" in a hook without explaining how she has been controversial. feminist (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Came to suggest the same thing. Taken by itself, "controversial" is confusing because it doesn't define what kind of statements caused the controversy. hinnk (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I agree with the above two comments. I think the article itself is now fine. I added the footnotes from the prior article, so that every assertion has a footnote. And there is now a balance in the controversy section, with views on both sides reflected -- rather than just one side. But as the prior editors point out, the hook could use some massaging (also, the bit in the third hook about race relations isn't quite accurate). 2604:2000:E010:1100:A82D:DCDC:4C65:430B (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - New enough, long enough, inline citations checks out. I prefer the second hook. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've had to pull this from prep for two reasons: firstly, there were objections by other editors above that the word "controversial" shouldn't be used in the hook, and secondly, the nominator appears to have more than five DYK credits (based on their talk page) and appears to have not done a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am the nominator. My last nom was in 2010.  I have no idea what is QPQ, but I am guessing this is a post-2010 invention.  For practical purposes, after so many years, I am a newcomer.  Please WP:DBN!  Mhym (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As your last nomination was before the QPQ rule was implemented, perhaps there could be an WP:IAR case here and ignore that requirement for the purposes of this nomination (if you want to read more about the rule, please read WP:QPQ). However, there is still the problem of the hooks having the word "controversial", which other editors have objected to. One possible solution could be to simply delete the word from the hooks, though I'm not sure if there's consensus that this would solve the issue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am the 2604 IP above. I'm ok with the article, and ok with the hook with the word controversial (it is a hook -- it is supposed to hook the reader in to get them to read more, not explain everything .. as wp:hook says it should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article") or without the word controversial. 2604:2000:E010:1100:A4C1:B86F:6F82:993D (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:BLP. In any case, I think referring to a living person as "controversial", especially on the main page, regardless of whatever really happened, is a very very bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would actually prefer ALT2 which moves "controversial" away from Dr. Wax to her statements. There is no BLP issue in that case, as numerous issues are controversial by their nature, including race relations. Mhym (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. And her comments being controversial is mentioned and referenced in the article itself. And -- get this -- the living person herself (Wax) wrote in the Wall Street Journal that she wrote "a controversial op-ed." I don't see a BLP issue here at all, under the circumstances. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9DA0:73BE:71E9:B67E (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There still appears to be reservations about the use of the word "controversial", and based on the comments by and  above, I'm not sure if ALT2 would be enough to allay those concerns. A new direction may be needed in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was initially in that camp, above. But now am with the majority. Given the points made above. But anyway, how about changing it to "controversial statements regarding Black law school student performance." That's actually probably better. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4C10:48F3:E1AA:BC6A (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As this has been stuck for a while now, can a new hook please be proposed here? One that does not include the word "controversial", due to the concerns raised by other editors. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the time that those reservations were raised by me and others, I've changed my view for the above reasons. And importantly I've pointed out that the subject of the article herself used the word "controversial" to describe her op-ed - making our use of it less than controversial. So, I think the old concerns, which preceded that being pointed out, are addressed now. And propose that we use the below more precise construct:
 * "ALT3:... that American academic Amy Wax, who made controversial statements regarding Black law school student performance, graduated from Harvard Medical School before becoming a lawyer?"
 * I'm not sure about this: sure it may be a self-description, but I'm still uncomfortable with its use either way. In any case, you may need to contact those other editors to see if their reservations can be allayed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I contacted the two of them to see if they still had reservations, given the above. In the meantime, I agree with Mhym and BabbaQ (who had promoted it), with the ALT3 approach. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7DB3:9666:7A65:4DF9 (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While I left talk page messages for the two editors, neither have indicated any continuing concerns since we revised the suggested hook and had the above explanatory conversation (including how Wax herself uses the selfsame phrase). It has been three additional weeks. I would urge reinstating the promotion to DYK that BabbaQ had earlier made, under the circumstances. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8117:60DA:D25F:4958 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Or we could have a second reviewer take a look at the hooks as well; I'm not comfortable with the use of the word "controversial" even if it came from the subject herself, though other editors can still approve it if they think otherwise. Courtesy ping . Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I also have concerns about saying "controversial" in the hook. There is also no context in ALT0 or ALT1 as to why "controversial" is relevant. Considering that four editors are expressing concerns, those two hooks should be struck. ALT2 and ALT3 are marginally better with context, but they do not demonstrate a connection between statements on race and graduating from the school. I might reconsider reworded versions of ALT2 and ALT3. There are also many other facts in the Amy Wax article which could be used for a hook, and I would prefer to have other hooks proposed for this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asked to add some ALTs here due to my interest in female academics. Pinging as the reviewer.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ALT2A:... that American academic Amy Wax argued that the decline of “bourgeois values” since the 1950s has contributed to lower male labor-force-participation rates, opioid abuse, and a rise in single motherhood?
 * ALT4:... that American academic Amy Wax was one of three University of Pennsylvania Law School professors in 20 years to receive a Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching?
 * ALT5:... that American academic Amy Wax graduated from Harvard Medical School before becoming a lawyer?

ALT2A, ALT4 and ALT5 are improvements and no not contain the word controversial. I have struck ALT2 and ALT3 since other hooks are available that do no focus on potentially negative aspects of a living person. I will also ask at WT:DYK if there is a consensus to continue without a QPQ requirement. Flibirigit (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, the nominator appears to be aware of QPQ requirements from the [] nomination in 2012. Flibirigit (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already asked about it on WT:DYK, and said she wouldn't object to the QPQ requirement being waived for this nomination, considering the circumstances. Considering the nom's previous nomination was in 2012 and they appear to have mostly been active when the QPQ requirement wasn't implemented yet, I'd also support waiving it only for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting a proper review for the article and its new hooks now. I apologize for the delay in returning to this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

|}}