Talk:Kirsten Banks

Editor with name "Kirsten Banks"

Hi, I see from the edit history on this article that an editor with the name "Kirsten Banks" added some information. If that editor is actually Kirsten Banks, please be aware that it's against WP policy for someone to edit an article about themselves as it's considered a conflict of interest. If you have information you'd like someone else to look at and consider adding to your article, please make a post on this talk page. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2019 (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) 00:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Kirsten Banks discovered evidence that could indicate Indigenous Australians knew about the existence of planets a millennium before Galileo? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/21/im-following-the-footsteps-of-my-aboriginal-ancestors-the-first-astronomers I was flabbergasted – this could be evidence of our people knowing that Earth is a planet along with the others in our night skies, orbiting around a bright hot star called the sun, a millennia before the likes of Galileo(and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Comment: Created by new contributors at an editathon celebrating the birth of Rosalind Franklin. Gnangarra 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Created by Dr JBW (talk) and Neurochellebee (talk). Nominated by Gnangarra (talk) at 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC).

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Kenneka Jenkins

• Comment:. Not reviewing, just some comments:

• 1. The source supporting the hook was written by the subject of the article. It does not back up the hook, but simply says "could be evidence", whereas the hook implies there is concrete, undisputed evidence. The publication is a general newspaper and it doesn't appear as if this has been subject to any scientific peer scrutiny at all. Also, no evidence is given to show that the "discovery" that "indigenious Australians knew about the existence of planets" has been attributed to the subject of the article.(Many ancient communities knew about the existence of planets - was it really not known until last year that indigenious Australians did as well?)
• 2. There is a cleanup template on the article disputing whether the subject is notable. This issue should be dealt with before any DYK review is done.
• 3. The user KirstenBanks, who is apparently the subject of the article, has edited it. She has added content, and in another edit removed the notability cleanup template mentioned above, although that edit was reversed by another user. There seems to be a Conflict of interest issue here.Felixkrater (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • 1. It was only recently been accepted that Australian Indigenous people knew anything and the level of Indigenous peoples understanding of the sky is in just the last 5-10 years being explored scientifically. Sadly this is a common issue right across Indigenous Australian subject were the prevailing scientific/social commentary is of that of the justifications for "terra nullus" and Wikipedia has become a voice for prioritising the worst of those works. Yes the source is a newspaper rather rather than a scientific journal because newspapers are interested in the human aspect where as scientific journals are just the science on the people. It looks like when I put the CQUOTE template there was formatting error that dropped the source. The said I added it back where the line was asking citation as that was it was originally, also I have adjust the hook to say "could indicate" it was my error because I have encountered many articles that are definitive about the subject, its a most fascinating subject area explore and learn first hand from Elders.
  • 2. I agree notability has been established, with a Nation/Internation newspaper article about Banks, being a subject expert invited onto National TV news program Q&A (Australian talk show), plus other sources.
  • 3. Yes it does appear to be a COI edit but only two edits, first one being inclusion of an Infobox and the second removing template, agree not a good look but sound edit I would have removed it as well. In both edits there was any changes to the article substance, and no vanity edits. I have contacted the event organisors that created the article to approach her about COI and encourage her to work on broader subject areas related to astrophysics. She wasnt one of the participants at the event and it appears she had followed policy and placed some requested articles in the Astronomy request for articles page and when one happened about her she just did a bit of gnome work.
  • @Felixkrater: thanks for the feed back I hope tthis addresses your concerns. Gnangarra 03:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Gnangarra:, thanks for your reply, but unfortunately your comments don't entirely resolve things:
    • HOOK: Your addition of "could" is good, but Kirsten Banks wrote the article being cited as a source herself. For neutrality, it would better if you could find a reference, in a good quality publication, where someone else acknowledges that she is the one who made the discovery and that what she claims is valid. Also, in her article she is talking about the orbiting of the planets, not the existence of them, so even if you still want to use that article to back up the hook, you would need to change the wording of the hook to reflect what she says in the article.
    • Notablity template: If you want to discuss the notability issue, it would be better to do that on the articles Talk page rather than here. It is not a discussion I'm going to get involved with, but the removal of the cleanup template should be done by a third party, not someone involved with writing the article, or anyone with a personal connection to Kirsten. There are only five sources given, so it would be better if you could find a few more - the more good sources you have, the less likely anyone is to contest it, and additional info in other sources might give you ideas for alternative hooks. They don't have to all be online - do you know of any articles about her in print sources that you could cite?
    • Just to note that I was just making some comments, I'm not planning to do a DYK review for this nomination, I will leave that for someone else. Good luck with it, as you say, making information about minority groups and less-known topics more widely accessible is something Wikipedia is good for. Felixkrater (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• As the above was comments rather than a review, full review now needed by a new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: In response to the above comments: I have put in bold those points which I believe still need to be addressed in my review. The first point about the meaning of the hook has been resolved, I think, because the word "could" has been added. The concern about Kirsten possibly authoring her own biographical article was dealt with when it was made clear that Kirsten herself has not made edits which affect the neutrality of the article, or which affect the validity of citations in general. So I am satisfied with the hook, content, citations and neutrality. Most of the citations are of course about Kirsten, but are written by other people. It would be good to bear in mind also that this article is not about astronomy; it is about a person. A DYK review is not about judging the subject's views. Storye book (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I really think we need a better hook. I'm sure the indigenous Australians knew about the existence of the planets, it's their understanding that the Earth should be included among them that, if true, is the remarkable fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth. I agree with what you say, however at the moment we've got a safe hook whose citation is OK. A hook about earth being a planet is about an extrapolation or working theory, so it would have to be worded carefully. A direct quote from Kirsten, maybe? Storye book (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth where is this nomination holding? Does it need a new hook? Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs a new hook. Even the Neanderthals knew about the existence of planets I guess. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we are here to discuss our own opinions about indigenous peoples or Early Man and their relationship with astronomy. This is about a biographical article. It so happens that my own personal opinion would question Kirsten Banks' interpretation of evidence and at the same time I do not agree with some of the opinions on Man-and-astronomy voiced here. But personal opinions on Man-and-astronomy, including mine, are irrelevant here. If you don't like the hook, then just propose another hook please? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I made some minor copyedits to the article to reduce promo. I agree that ALT0 does not pass verification. By my reading of her article, she doesn't say that Indigenous Australians knew about the existence of planets a millennium before Galileo; it's not questioned that they knew about the existence of planets. Her point seems to be that she thinks that they knew that Earth was a planet like the others–not that planets existed, but that Earth was one of them. All of that aside, the only source that seems to discuss this theory is her. I don't think we should put this on the main page when the only source of a novel theory is the proponent of the novel theory. By contrast, this source seems to be a good one for a hook about Emu eggs. I'd propose one but I don't really understand what the source is talking about, except it involves astronomy and Emu eggs, and that sounds hooky to me. Finally, there's a CC-BY-SA image in the article of the subject; should it be used for DYK, too? – Levivich 16:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich (and others), the emu is explained here Emu#Cultural_references: "Many Aboriginal language groups throughout Australia have a tradition that the dark dust lanes in the Milky Way represent a giant emu in the sky." But I don't see a direct connection to Kirsten Banks. This source says Kirsten discovered her ancestors are Wiradjuri; "Wiradjuri share similar traditions with the nearby Kamilaroi ... In Kamilaroi traditions, the rising of the celestial emu, known as Gawarrgay, at dusk signals the time the female birds begin laying eggs. ..... When she learnt about the Emu in the Sky, she became fascinated. This inspired a new quest for Banks – to share the astronomical knowledge of her ancestors." Unless the hook is something about that - that Kirsten Banks was inspired to share the astronomical knowledge of her Australian Aboriginal ancestors by learning about the emu in the sky? I'll think about it more - and perhaps put the info about emu eggs in Australian_Aboriginal_astronomy#Astronomical_calendars. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

just a little note on a side issue when talking about Australian Aboriginal you are talking about 300+ unique countries spread across an area bigger than Europe. When you compare Kamilaroi with Wiradjuri its like comparing Italy with France, within Wiradjuri like within italy there are difference between those of the high country and those of the low coastal lands. Kirsten and many others are right out on the cutting edge of astronomical knowledge for each of the 300 plus cultures that existed pre-colonial contacts. Gnangarra 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• ALT 3 -- ... that astrophysicist Kirsten Banks was inspired to learn about her Wiradjuri heritage while working training at the Sydney Observatory? -- its well sourced, and little more conservative but still an important aspect of her life, its an occurrence/event that many Indigenous peoples can relate to and not just in Australia. Gnangarra 12:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• . I'm happy with this. Thank you, Gnangarra. Storye book (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I like ALT3 and that takes care of my concerns above. I wanted to suggest:
  • ALT4: ... that Wiradjuri astrophysicist Kirsten Banks teaches Australian Aboriginal astronomy at the Sydney Observatory? Source "Kirsten speaks regularly at Sydney Observatory, has presented at numerous conferences and loves to present Aboriginal Astronomy workshops..."
  • ALT5: ... that learning about the Emu in the Sky inspired Wiradjuri astrophysicist Kirsten Banks to teach Australian Aboriginal astronomy at the Sydney Observatory? Source "How a celestial emu inspired Kirsten Banks... When she learnt about the Emu in the Sky, she became fascinated. This inspired a new quest for Banks – to share the astronomical knowledge of her ancestors." – Levivich 17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Levivich. I am happy with ALTs 3, 4 and 5. I think all three are equally good, and they check out. I have struck out the original hook to prevent confusion. I suggest that we leave it to the promoter to decide which hook to choose, otherwise this conversation may run and run. Storye book (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• ALT5 isn't mentioned in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I added to the article: "Learning about the Emu in the Sky inspired Banks to share Aboriginal astronomy with others." Does that work? – Levivich 22:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

happy with alt 3,4, or 5 Gnangarra 00:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Levivich. But all that part about teaching it to others at Sydney Observatory is not in the article. Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Oops, I missed that part. I added "...at the Sydney Observatory, where she teaches Aboriginal astronomy workshops" to the article. What do you think? – Levivich 21:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I looked closer at the article and see that many sources are self-promotional. Footnotes 2 and 3 in particular practically say the same thing. Even The Guardian source is not a Guardian article, but a piece by the subject herself. If you take out all the self-promotional sources, I'm not sure that you have a GNG here.
• I'm striking ALT5 because it is not clearly stated in a reliable source, but is being cobbled together here. I agree with Gnangarra that ALT3 is the most "conservative", and have tweaked the hook based on the source. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: I'm unclear what's unreliable about Cosmos (Australian magazine)? Let's try this:
  • ALT6: ... that learning about the Emu in the Sky inspired Wiradjuri astrophysicist Kirsten Banks to teach Australian Aboriginal astronomy? Source "How a celestial emu inspired Kirsten Banks... When she learnt about the Emu in the Sky, she became fascinated. This inspired a new quest for Banks – to share the astronomical knowledge of her ancestors." – Levivich 22:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• As I said, ALT3 is fine. I'm just questioning all the non-RS sources that are padding the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Some the confusion is the sources say Kirsten Banks, but when you look deeper, source #1 - is by Gemma Conroy, #2 by ABC Q&A program, #3 is by Australian Indigenous Astronomy, #4 the Guardian is by Kristem but its about IndigenousX not her specifically her, #5 is cosmos magazine, #6 is one of her works. #7 Q&A show, 8 The Drum - tv news show, 9 ABC new by Anna Hartley, 10 is by Sarah Basford Studentedge, 11 Sage Business(AGF) as its behind a wall. In case there isnt any padding by non RS. #4 is the borderline source as its the subject writing about another event. Gnangarra 07:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say that I also wondered whether there was sufficient independent, reliable sourcing. The sources are:
  

• Careers with STEM, which is a magazine "produced by Australian specialist STEM media company Refraction Media", "distributed to all Australian high schools". It looks independent and reliable. It is attempting to promote STEM subjects to students, but is not trying to promote the individual people it writes about.
  
• Banks appeared on Q&A as a panellist, so the Q&A website has a profile of her, as they do of many of their panellists. Most are notable, but not all are in WP terms. I don't think that appearing on Q&A and having a profile on its website contributes to WP notability, although the profile is a useful source of information about her.
  
• It's not clear who is involved with the Australian Indigenous Astronomy website, nor who wrote the profile of Banks which appears on the website, so I don't think that can be considered either independent or reliable.
  
• The Guardian source is, as previously noted, written by Banks, so is not independent.
  
• Cosmos Magazine is both independent and reliable, and is about Banks.
  
• The ABC News source is independent and reliable, but is not about Banks; it quotes her, and describes her as "Astrophysicist Kirsten Banks .... a Wiradjuri woman as well as a University of New South Wales astrophysicist".
  
• The Student Edge source can probably be considered independent and reliable: its 'About' page [1] says it's "the largest member-based organisation of high school, TAFE, VET and university students in Australia ... A website was built with the sole aim of helping students navigate their way through student life and better prepare them for adulthood, with no hidden or political agendas. ... We improve and enrich the lives of students by: Inspiring them to get motivated and do something great with their lives, through: Articles on living well, solving student challenges and achieving life goals; Stories and videos featuring successful Australians." Their values include "Accountability - Because ownership means taking responsibility." and "Integrity - Because without trust there is nothing."
  
• Banks also appeared on The Drum, and that link shows her appearance - it's not about her.
  

So the sources which I think can contribute to WP notability are Careers with STEM, Cosmos Magazine, and Student Edge, all national, independent and reliable. They have some quotes by her, but are also about her. Perhaps just enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Appearing on or being quoted in 2SER, Triple M, NITV, ABC's Q&A, The Drum, ABC News, and Play School as a subject expert is moving towards WP:NACADEMIC#7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing that excellent analysis. I agree 100%; it's not a slam dunk, but there's WP:THREE in there. – Levivich 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly meets WP:THREE. Restoring tick for ALT3 per Storye book's review. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)