Talk:African-American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project

DYK nomination

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) 05:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Blanche Lawrence, "Atom Scientist"

• ... that African American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project included both men and women? Source: Appendix B, "The study team identified 19 African American men and women working on the Manhattan Project as scientists and technicians."
  • ALT1:... that African American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project were hailed as progressive heroes? Source: Landrum, "Although Ebony had been presenting scientists of color as progressive heroes since the late 1940s, the reality of these men and women’s lives was much more complex"

• Reviewed: Khalili Collection of Hajj and the Arts of Pilgrimage

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 20:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC).

• @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Interesting topic! New and long enough, within policy, Earwig finds no copyvios (only direct quotes match). There are more interesting facts in the article than the hooks above. It's interesting that even though there was an executive order prohibiting discrimination, African American workers still faced segregation outside and sometimes within the federal installations. Or maybe showcase some of the accomplishments of the individual scientists. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hi @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH):, here are some more possible ALTs for you. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2:... that the small number of African American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project indicates the structural discrimination that affected them? Source: Landrum These men and women came of age at a time when African Americans increasingly demanded economic, educational, and political opportunities previously enjoyed only by whites. The fact that there were so few of them testifies to the significance of structural discrimination against African Americans and its impact on American scientific research during the early Cold War.

• Further sources describing the ongoing effects of structural discrimination on African Africans in scientific fields include the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020): "A shortage of Black men and Black women also persists in science and engineering, Dr. Dzau noted, which threatens the quality of the scientific enterprise and hampers progress for all... Discrimination, prejudice, and unconscious and conscious bias create exclusionary environments that prevent Black men and women from entering the pipeline and pursuing careers in science, engineering, and medicine. It is critical that we recognize that persistent structural racism and stereotyping still facing African American males and females is a significant problem." The Annual Review of Sociology gives an a deep overview of work in this area. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3:... that the most senior of the African American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project, William Knox, supervised the otherwise-white staff of the Corrosion Section at Columbia University? Source: nps.gov Dr. Knox was a research associate and section leader for the corrosion section of Columbia University's nuclear research team. Dr. Knox was the only African American supervisor in the Manhattan Project. Source: Gortler When the Corrosion Section’s leader left, Libby appointed William head of the all-white section.

• ALT4:... that it was considered impossible for one of the African American scientists and technicians on the Manhattan Project to hold a post at Oak Ridge, Tennessee comparable to his at Chicago's Met Lab? Source: Crocker "Mr. Wilkins in Wigner's group at the Metallurgical Laboratory .... is a colored man and since Wigner's group is moving to (Oak Ridge) it is not possible for him to continue work with that group."

All hooks check out. QPQ done too. These are good to go. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom, Chipmunkdavis, Ergo Sum, and BlueMoonset: per the discussion at WT:DYK#Problem verifying hook currently in queue 3 I have reopened this nomination to allow more time for the issues with criterion D7 to be worked through. I appreciate that Mary Mark Ockerbloom has made some additions to the prose this morning, but with only four hours until it goes live it is better to give the discussion more time. If and when everyone's satisfied with it, it can be repromoted to the queues. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• The critical contributions section is a great addition. My suggestion would be to redo the lead a bit more to better reflect this. Pull all the background information about the Manhattan project out, into a background section in the article body. Open with and have a bit more on the individuals and their roles/contributions to the project. Following this, the existing paragraph on structural discrimination would add context to the contributions, and the last paragraph could be on more recent descriptions/viewpoints. There should also be a section in the body about these descriptions and viewpoints, perhaps "Legacy" as a section title. I would also rearrange the body in this respect, putting the list of individuals and their contributions nearer the beginning of the article, with working and living conditions following this. An additional suggestion is to merge the gallery with the table by putting the pictures in a new first column. Best, CMD (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, thank you for the insightful and specific suggestions. They were extremely helpful in determining how to rework the page. I was reminded too of Diana Wynne Jones comments on writing children's fiction, which I happened to be reading, in which she says we like our stories to be about people. So I have rewritten this with an intent to foreground the people, reworking in particular the lede, background and legacy sections as you suggested. Hopefully the complexity of the context in which people worked and the challenges they faced are still clear. I have moved the gallery up and added some context, but still kept it separate from the table; I tried combining the two previously but felt the photos had more impact when grouped together. @Ergo Sum and BlueMoonset: I think this is ready to be re-evaluated now if you can re-insert it in the queue. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm conflicted because I have been engaged in the evaluation of the hook, so I don't think I should decide whether to promote to prep. I'm also not generally involved in DYK administrative things. I'll leave that to someone more experienced. Ergo Sum 19:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I should ping @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH):, the original reviewer, as well, since it sounds like this might go back to the original DYK review pool first? or does it go back into the queue? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I raised the content issues I feel comfortable evaluating whether my concerns are met. I think they have been, and agree, we do like our stories to be about people. On the hook, ALT3 was used earlier, and I like it for the same reasons, with a link directly to one of the scientists, so approving that hook. Procedurally, this is now back back in the potential prep hooks and someone else will put it back into the queue. CMD (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Amakuru:, can you check and see whether this is now back in the prep queue or not? Has it fallen into limbo? Thank you, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I added it back to WP:DYKNA, so it should be promoted back to the prep area soon. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Milhist Comments

The article could be expanded with relevant information on the contributions of African-American scientists and technicians to the Manhattan project to meet the B2 criterion, as the article currently seems to be overly focused on working conditions. B4 criterion could be met with more careful consideration of encyclopedic tone and rewording spots of possible bias. Shotgunscoop (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Shotgunscoop:, the article has undergone considerable revisions which may address your concerns and make it worth reassessing. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Reevaluated - thanks! Shotgunscoop (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)