![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Somewhere around "did imaging research with Purdue University professors.[2] She first learned about the Event Horizon Telescope in school in 2007", it might probably be worth mentioning that his father, Charles Addison Bouman, is working on image and signal processing as a professor in the very same uni. -- Ehitaja ( talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
References
An anon disagrees. Let's see the exact words: Quotes from and links to twitter account of MIT CSAIL "Verified account
@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Here's the moment when the first black hole image was processed, from the eyes of researcher Katie Bouman. #EHTBlackHole #BlackHoleDay #BlackHole (v/@dfbarajas)" and
"MIT CSAIL Verified account
@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Scientist Katie Bouman just posted about the moment when "the first image I ever made of a black hole" was processed.
Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #smalldetails http://bit.ly/2G3CUUo
Both these include the same photo of Bouman sitting in front of the computer as the image is being processed. I suppose it could be argued that the photographer was the first person to see this stage of the black hole image, but that would be merely pedantic. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Photos circulating on social media after Wednesday’s announcement referenced the hand-over-mouth incredulous look from Bouman, as she watched that first image come together. In her social media post, Bouman wrote, “Watching in disbelief as the first image I ever made of a black hole was in the process of being reconstructed.”
MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab posted in response: “Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #small details.”
MyanmarBBQ You restored this text
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Katie_Bouman&curid=60462526&diff=892233937&oldid=892233719 which says Bouman was responsible at MIT for an algorithm used in creating the first images of a
black hole, published in April 2019
. While there are RS which make this claim, they are incorrect and have been corrected by other more reliable sources (NYT), including specifically being contradicted by other members of the team. Her contributions to the project are significant, and she deserves credit for them, but wikipedia should not be reporting information which is factually incorrect in a misguided effort to give her that credit.
ResultingConstant (
talk)
03:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
BLP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If possible the Article should mention it. The reason is extreme-right trolls are alleging that Bouman is a Jew, and that this "identifying quality" is the reason for the "Jew Media" to give her disproportionate credit and attention for the accomplishment of many. If feeds into the "trope" of the "tribal" nature of Jews. If she's not Jewish, that would quickly dispel the allegation, and if she is, well tackling it head on seems best to me, vs. hiding the information and looking complicit. Tym Whittier ( talk) 04:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
|
I've spent the last few hours reading and doing research and it's pretty obvious that Dr. Katie Bouman's actual contributions to the project were minor, in terms of the time she participated, the amount of work that she contributed and how much her contribution achieved the goal. She contributed less time than most, the amount of work was less than what most people did, and her significance of her contributions towards achieving the goal were less significant than others. Minor, minor, and minor, vs. she was THE ONE THAT DID IT. She is listed as a "contributor" and not a "member". And yet the Media has her virtually single-handedly doing this project herself, a "victory" for Women in STEM, etc... aka "The Narrative". When Mainstream Media takes radical departures from the truth, I and millions of other people rely on Wikipedia to maintain encyclopedic standards (vs. "popular media" standards). With that said, the arc of this Narrative hinges on whether or not "the Media" foisted all the credit on the unwitting Katie Bouman, or if she either actively or passively allowed the bulk of the credit of the that which rightfully belongs elsewhere to go to her. Was she actively or passively complicit in the deception, or an unwilling, inactive victim of it? So, in terms of looking for RS, I'd be looking for articles that indicate statements that she made prior to the news breaking, and also how much effort she has put into "setting the record straight", as those types of stories could be illustrative on exactly who Bouman is, and what role she has played in the deception. In concrete terms, if you were a relatively minor player in a very large effort like this and a reporter interviewed you either before, during or just after a "great discovery", how much effort would you put into accurately describing your role in the project? Would you exaggerate your role? Allow a reporter to believe that it was more significant than it was? Would you contradict the Reporter if they indicated the erroneous belief that YOU were the person who most-deserves the credit for the discovery? This is my starting position for the analysis. In short, did Bouman actively or passively allow some Reporter, or Reporters, to believe that she contributed more than she did, or did these same Reporters carefully script what is tantamount to a "Big Lie" so that the world could believe that this woman somehow accomplished something great, all on her own? This is a critically important juncture in the narrative, and one in which encyclopedic standards should be applied, and not "popular media" standards. Tym Whittier ( talk) 07:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
MIT CSAIL have have issued a clarification thread here: [1] Their tweets were the source for most of the recent media coverage leading to this article.
Kazu Ikayama (credited at [2]) has also issued a clarification on Bouman's role on the team here: [3]
What is clear from these statements is that while the Bouman-led 2016 algorithm was not used to create the final image, it inspired image validation procedures in the final paper. Ikayama describes her contribution to the whole imaging group as "tremendous", and her original algorithm as "foundational". He also characterizes tweets from MIT CSAIL as "misleading" and articles about her as "misleading or even sometimes wrong".
Finally, in a presentation ( [4]) from Michael Johnson, EHT Imaging Lead (per [5]), Johnson names Andrew Chael and Kazu Ikayama as having developed imaging libraries (eht-imaging and SMILI, respectively), and having lead the development of that software. He adds that Bouman had a "huge role in these results".
Andrew Chael himself has issued a clarification on his twitter: [6]. He clarifies that while he lead development of the eht-imaging library and wrote much of the code, Katie was a "huge contributor".
All of the team's statements relating to the extensive media coverage emphasize that this was not the work of a single algorithm or person.
I hope that these clarifications can be used to produce the clearest article for Katie Bouman. The social media response, articles, skepticism and discussion has been unclear and confusing.
192.222.248.139 ( talk) 16:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I know that Bourman created Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors (CHIRP) c. 2016 to potentially create images of black holes. I also know that Bourman led the creation of the algorithm that allowed for the image of the black hole to be taken. However, has there been any recent confirmation that CHIRP was indeed the program that was used to capture this image? Also, are there images (either of Bourman or of the black hole in M87) that can be used in this article? Starsandwhales ( talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
CHIRP appears to be an RML algorithm (Regularized Maximum Likelihood) that contrasts with CLEAN. Four imaging worked independently, two using RML methods, two using CLEAN methods. Andrew Chael also seems to be on the RML team with Bouman, not the CLEAN team.
The CHIRP algorithm has nothing to do with the Chirp wikipedia page linked here in talk. Jmckaskle ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The CHIRP algorithm has a clear citation path in the literature. Please see Bouman et al. (IEEE, 2016) Computational Imaging for VLBI Image Reconstruction for a detailed treatise and exposition of CHIRP used for VLBI. Soyapencil ( talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe it is pertinent to state again, that while Bouman's computer science work helped in this discovery, as they were trying different algorithms, her personal work was not used to create the famous image. This is an overt inaccuracy currently on the wikipedia page, as its stating that she specifically created the photo. The line "Bouman was responsible at MIT for an algorithm used in creating the first images of a black hole, published in April 2019" must be changed to reflect reality. As per the New York Times, "In their eagerness to celebrate her, however, many nonscientists on social media overstated her role in what was a group effort by hundreds of people, creating an exaggerated impression as the photo was shared and reshared." "While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." 174.54.4.54 ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC) [1]
Currently the article indicates that her last name is pronounced /baʊˈmæn/, which would indicate that the second syllable is stressed (this is confusing because IPA is different in this way from American dictionary style). At 1:20 of her Ted Talk, she pronounces her name with the stress on the first syllable. Unless there's some reason to think she now pronounces it differently or something, I'll change this in the article. Q·L· 1968 ☿ 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Tataral insists that the title of Bouman's position (Associate in Computing and Mathematical Sciences) should not be capitalized. In customary U.S. usage, the title of a specific position occupied by a given person would be capitalized when placed adjacent to their name. Also, Caltech's website capitalizes it on Bouman's individual page. Tataral cites to Wikipedia guidelines in their reversion note, but I find no authority for this particular change after reading those guidelines carefully. Charlie GALVIN ( talk) 21:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Tataral There's no need to be passive aggressive about it. For academics, it seems to be the norm to capitalise the title of positions. See examples Larry E. Overman, Eric Jacobsen, Sarah E Reisman, Jeff Paris, Julia Gog, Ana Caraiani, Clément Mouhot. You see it quite a lot of other areas like politics ( Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, David Cameron) to denote the title.
Now, it comes down to how you write it. "Katie Bouman is expected to be an assistant professor of X" should be lowercase because it's used generically but "Katie Bouman is expected to be Assistant Professor of X" should be capitalised because it's a specific title.
See here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Titles_of_people
"Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
Unmodified, denoting a title | Modified or reworded, denoting an office |
---|---|
Richard Nixon was President of the United States. | Richard Nixon was the president of the United States. Richard Nixon was a president of the United States. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. Mao met with American president Richard Nixon in 1972. A controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned. Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States. |
Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). |
Louis XVI was a king of France. Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began. The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded. |
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan."
Pkin8541 ( talk) 23:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with me? The term professor is used generally in the article professors in the United States so it is not used as a person's title in the whole article. It's not the same if it's someone's title.
I don't understand why you're just repeating me.
I said: Now, it comes down to how you write it. "Katie Bouman is expected to be an assistant professor of X" should be lowercase because it's used generically but "Katie Bouman is expected to be Assistant Professor of X" should be capitalised because it's a specific title.
This is literally agreeing with you that if you say "an", then it's a general title and no capitalisation. In the second phrase, it should be capitalised because it becomes her title.
Pkin8541 ( talk) 10:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The focus of the article should be on this person as a scientist. Her scientific work was sufficiently notable for her to be hired by Caltech, so that also suggests that her work is sufficiently notable for mention on Wikipedia. The social media frenzy related to this person is likely short-lived, and coverage of it should not dominate this article, if it is even worth mentioning at all. It is probably best to wait for a while to see whether this still seems to be notable after time has passed. OtterAM ( talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as trimming the section, the portion of OtterAM's revision that trims from "Sara Issaoun..." to "CLEAN algorithm" and replaces it "This algorithm was one of several used to verify the image of the supermassive black hole inside the core of the galaxy Messier 87." seems like a good way to excise facts not particularly relevant to this bio and focus on information on Bouman's work. Any objections? Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me "Media controversy" should not have its own subheader, partly for due weight, partly because it appears there's description of her scientific work currently mislabeled by the subhead. I suggest we remove the subhead and just make it a short paragraph. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit until this is off the Main Page and sufficient time has passed, but I still think the discussion of the media still focuses too much on negative aspects. I am thinking of reframing this as so: "Bouman received significant media attention when a photo showing her reaction to seeing the first images of the black hole went viral.(reference to NYT article)" OtterAM ( talk) 00:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an extraneous external link on the article to a page
and should be removed from this topics external links. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
She said it herself on Facebook: "I'm so excited that we finally get to share what we have been working on for the past year! The image shown today is the combination of images produced by multiple methods. No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all. — with Chi-kwan Chan, Shoko Koyama, Maciek Wielgus, Lindy Blackburn and Kazu Akiyama." https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213326021042929&set=a.10211451091290857&type=3&theater WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also see this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/science/katie-bouman-black-hole.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0wz1BbUTNaGABTKgbUVglPemM_MS9U6ULMZienS62PQLCA6ilgFiUp7mQ should we nominate the page for speedy deletion? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
"While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but all of the over 200 contributors are not inherently and automatically notable ( Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited). The article presents no proof that she played an outsize role compared to the over 200 other contributors to the project. The notability criteria for scientists set out in WP:PROF are fairly high; she is a postdoc who is expected to become an assistant professor later this year. I don't find any notable publications in Google Scholar either, so it's clear that she is very far from passing WP:PROF. I believe this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E and that the appropriate solution is to have a section on the public reaction and coverage of the image of her in the article on the Event Horizon Telescope article, and a redirect from this title. Of course, it's entirely possible that she may become independently notable at some point in the future. -- Tataral ( talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not she should have Wikipedia article is a stupid discussion.
WP:NOTABILITY says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
This page satisfies all criteria. Pkin8541 ( talk) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"was responsible for the first visualisation of a black hole using the Event Horizon Telescope."(a claim that is strikingly reminiscent of the claim in the deleted Clarice Phelps article that she personally discovered an element which turned out not to be true). The whole thing apparently started when MIT posted a misleading tweet which they since deleted, and resulted in some rebukes from other researchers involved. For example, one of the researchers involved in the project, Sara Issaoun, said:
"There are more of us. Katie's algorithm, despite the media's stance, was not used to produce this image. There were three algorithms used and combined to form the final image, and a team of 40 scientists part of that aspect of the project (including myself and more women)."She isn't mentioned in the fairly long list of the most senior people in the project either, [6] so by all accounts she didn't play such an outsize role as the article claimed. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein wrote that
"Many of us agree that the way people reported Bouman’s contributions were overblown and in fact nobody seems to care that it made her relationship with her collaboration difficult".
"It's not a matter of making her lesser because she is a woman, it's a matter of describing her scientific contribution in an accurate manner and not blindly be part of a (possible) media hype, only in order to be "on the right side""[my translation].
It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.See also WP:ATHLETE which makes everyone who has ever set foot on a professional sports team for a single game worthy of an article etc. Wikipedia does not care about the argument that Bouman should not have gotten the coverage she did . We only care that she did in fact get it. The discussion that she shouldn't have gotten the coverage is perhaps a valid topic for some other reliable media navel gazing article - ironically if that article were written, it would only increase her notability for our purposes. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there precedence for one person getting 2 DYKs? I thought the policy is that each article is only allowed one? 🤔 The first is: ...that at the age of 29, imaging scientist Katie Bouman presented her algorithm used to create the first images of a black hole (pictured)? but then another says ... that imaging scientist Katie Bouman first learned of the Event Horizon Telescope in 2007, while still in high school, and joined the project six years later? And this is on 2 days. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Somewhere around "did imaging research with Purdue University professors.[2] She first learned about the Event Horizon Telescope in school in 2007", it might probably be worth mentioning that his father, Charles Addison Bouman, is working on image and signal processing as a professor in the very same uni. -- Ehitaja ( talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
References
An anon disagrees. Let's see the exact words: Quotes from and links to twitter account of MIT CSAIL "Verified account
@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Here's the moment when the first black hole image was processed, from the eyes of researcher Katie Bouman. #EHTBlackHole #BlackHoleDay #BlackHole (v/@dfbarajas)" and
"MIT CSAIL Verified account
@MIT_CSAIL Follow Follow @MIT_CSAIL More Scientist Katie Bouman just posted about the moment when "the first image I ever made of a black hole" was processed.
Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #smalldetails http://bit.ly/2G3CUUo
Both these include the same photo of Bouman sitting in front of the computer as the image is being processed. I suppose it could be argued that the photographer was the first person to see this stage of the black hole image, but that would be merely pedantic. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Photos circulating on social media after Wednesday’s announcement referenced the hand-over-mouth incredulous look from Bouman, as she watched that first image come together. In her social media post, Bouman wrote, “Watching in disbelief as the first image I ever made of a black hole was in the process of being reconstructed.”
MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab posted in response: “Just to clarify, this was the first image *ANYONE EVER MADE* of a black hole. #small details.”
MyanmarBBQ You restored this text
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Katie_Bouman&curid=60462526&diff=892233937&oldid=892233719 which says Bouman was responsible at MIT for an algorithm used in creating the first images of a
black hole, published in April 2019
. While there are RS which make this claim, they are incorrect and have been corrected by other more reliable sources (NYT), including specifically being contradicted by other members of the team. Her contributions to the project are significant, and she deserves credit for them, but wikipedia should not be reporting information which is factually incorrect in a misguided effort to give her that credit.
ResultingConstant (
talk)
03:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
BLP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If possible the Article should mention it. The reason is extreme-right trolls are alleging that Bouman is a Jew, and that this "identifying quality" is the reason for the "Jew Media" to give her disproportionate credit and attention for the accomplishment of many. If feeds into the "trope" of the "tribal" nature of Jews. If she's not Jewish, that would quickly dispel the allegation, and if she is, well tackling it head on seems best to me, vs. hiding the information and looking complicit. Tym Whittier ( talk) 04:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
|
I've spent the last few hours reading and doing research and it's pretty obvious that Dr. Katie Bouman's actual contributions to the project were minor, in terms of the time she participated, the amount of work that she contributed and how much her contribution achieved the goal. She contributed less time than most, the amount of work was less than what most people did, and her significance of her contributions towards achieving the goal were less significant than others. Minor, minor, and minor, vs. she was THE ONE THAT DID IT. She is listed as a "contributor" and not a "member". And yet the Media has her virtually single-handedly doing this project herself, a "victory" for Women in STEM, etc... aka "The Narrative". When Mainstream Media takes radical departures from the truth, I and millions of other people rely on Wikipedia to maintain encyclopedic standards (vs. "popular media" standards). With that said, the arc of this Narrative hinges on whether or not "the Media" foisted all the credit on the unwitting Katie Bouman, or if she either actively or passively allowed the bulk of the credit of the that which rightfully belongs elsewhere to go to her. Was she actively or passively complicit in the deception, or an unwilling, inactive victim of it? So, in terms of looking for RS, I'd be looking for articles that indicate statements that she made prior to the news breaking, and also how much effort she has put into "setting the record straight", as those types of stories could be illustrative on exactly who Bouman is, and what role she has played in the deception. In concrete terms, if you were a relatively minor player in a very large effort like this and a reporter interviewed you either before, during or just after a "great discovery", how much effort would you put into accurately describing your role in the project? Would you exaggerate your role? Allow a reporter to believe that it was more significant than it was? Would you contradict the Reporter if they indicated the erroneous belief that YOU were the person who most-deserves the credit for the discovery? This is my starting position for the analysis. In short, did Bouman actively or passively allow some Reporter, or Reporters, to believe that she contributed more than she did, or did these same Reporters carefully script what is tantamount to a "Big Lie" so that the world could believe that this woman somehow accomplished something great, all on her own? This is a critically important juncture in the narrative, and one in which encyclopedic standards should be applied, and not "popular media" standards. Tym Whittier ( talk) 07:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
MIT CSAIL have have issued a clarification thread here: [1] Their tweets were the source for most of the recent media coverage leading to this article.
Kazu Ikayama (credited at [2]) has also issued a clarification on Bouman's role on the team here: [3]
What is clear from these statements is that while the Bouman-led 2016 algorithm was not used to create the final image, it inspired image validation procedures in the final paper. Ikayama describes her contribution to the whole imaging group as "tremendous", and her original algorithm as "foundational". He also characterizes tweets from MIT CSAIL as "misleading" and articles about her as "misleading or even sometimes wrong".
Finally, in a presentation ( [4]) from Michael Johnson, EHT Imaging Lead (per [5]), Johnson names Andrew Chael and Kazu Ikayama as having developed imaging libraries (eht-imaging and SMILI, respectively), and having lead the development of that software. He adds that Bouman had a "huge role in these results".
Andrew Chael himself has issued a clarification on his twitter: [6]. He clarifies that while he lead development of the eht-imaging library and wrote much of the code, Katie was a "huge contributor".
All of the team's statements relating to the extensive media coverage emphasize that this was not the work of a single algorithm or person.
I hope that these clarifications can be used to produce the clearest article for Katie Bouman. The social media response, articles, skepticism and discussion has been unclear and confusing.
192.222.248.139 ( talk) 16:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
References
I know that Bourman created Continuous High-resolution Image Reconstruction using Patch priors (CHIRP) c. 2016 to potentially create images of black holes. I also know that Bourman led the creation of the algorithm that allowed for the image of the black hole to be taken. However, has there been any recent confirmation that CHIRP was indeed the program that was used to capture this image? Also, are there images (either of Bourman or of the black hole in M87) that can be used in this article? Starsandwhales ( talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
CHIRP appears to be an RML algorithm (Regularized Maximum Likelihood) that contrasts with CLEAN. Four imaging worked independently, two using RML methods, two using CLEAN methods. Andrew Chael also seems to be on the RML team with Bouman, not the CLEAN team.
The CHIRP algorithm has nothing to do with the Chirp wikipedia page linked here in talk. Jmckaskle ( talk) 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The CHIRP algorithm has a clear citation path in the literature. Please see Bouman et al. (IEEE, 2016) Computational Imaging for VLBI Image Reconstruction for a detailed treatise and exposition of CHIRP used for VLBI. Soyapencil ( talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe it is pertinent to state again, that while Bouman's computer science work helped in this discovery, as they were trying different algorithms, her personal work was not used to create the famous image. This is an overt inaccuracy currently on the wikipedia page, as its stating that she specifically created the photo. The line "Bouman was responsible at MIT for an algorithm used in creating the first images of a black hole, published in April 2019" must be changed to reflect reality. As per the New York Times, "In their eagerness to celebrate her, however, many nonscientists on social media overstated her role in what was a group effort by hundreds of people, creating an exaggerated impression as the photo was shared and reshared." "While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." 174.54.4.54 ( talk) 00:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC) [1]
Currently the article indicates that her last name is pronounced /baʊˈmæn/, which would indicate that the second syllable is stressed (this is confusing because IPA is different in this way from American dictionary style). At 1:20 of her Ted Talk, she pronounces her name with the stress on the first syllable. Unless there's some reason to think she now pronounces it differently or something, I'll change this in the article. Q·L· 1968 ☿ 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Tataral insists that the title of Bouman's position (Associate in Computing and Mathematical Sciences) should not be capitalized. In customary U.S. usage, the title of a specific position occupied by a given person would be capitalized when placed adjacent to their name. Also, Caltech's website capitalizes it on Bouman's individual page. Tataral cites to Wikipedia guidelines in their reversion note, but I find no authority for this particular change after reading those guidelines carefully. Charlie GALVIN ( talk) 21:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Tataral There's no need to be passive aggressive about it. For academics, it seems to be the norm to capitalise the title of positions. See examples Larry E. Overman, Eric Jacobsen, Sarah E Reisman, Jeff Paris, Julia Gog, Ana Caraiani, Clément Mouhot. You see it quite a lot of other areas like politics ( Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, David Cameron) to denote the title.
Now, it comes down to how you write it. "Katie Bouman is expected to be an assistant professor of X" should be lowercase because it's used generically but "Katie Bouman is expected to be Assistant Professor of X" should be capitalised because it's a specific title.
See here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Titles_of_people
"Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, grand duke, lord mayor, pope, bishop, abbot, chief financial officer, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:
Unmodified, denoting a title | Modified or reworded, denoting an office |
---|---|
Richard Nixon was President of the United States. | Richard Nixon was the president of the United States. Richard Nixon was a president of the United States. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. Mao met with American president Richard Nixon in 1972. A controversial US president, Richard Nixon, resigned. Camp David is a mountain retreat for presidents of the United States. |
Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). |
Louis XVI was a king of France. Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began. The French king, Louis XVI, was later beheaded. |
Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles: OtagoSoft vice-president Chris Henare; team co-captain Chan."
Pkin8541 ( talk) 23:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you disagreeing with me? The term professor is used generally in the article professors in the United States so it is not used as a person's title in the whole article. It's not the same if it's someone's title.
I don't understand why you're just repeating me.
I said: Now, it comes down to how you write it. "Katie Bouman is expected to be an assistant professor of X" should be lowercase because it's used generically but "Katie Bouman is expected to be Assistant Professor of X" should be capitalised because it's a specific title.
This is literally agreeing with you that if you say "an", then it's a general title and no capitalisation. In the second phrase, it should be capitalised because it becomes her title.
Pkin8541 ( talk) 10:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The focus of the article should be on this person as a scientist. Her scientific work was sufficiently notable for her to be hired by Caltech, so that also suggests that her work is sufficiently notable for mention on Wikipedia. The social media frenzy related to this person is likely short-lived, and coverage of it should not dominate this article, if it is even worth mentioning at all. It is probably best to wait for a while to see whether this still seems to be notable after time has passed. OtterAM ( talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as trimming the section, the portion of OtterAM's revision that trims from "Sara Issaoun..." to "CLEAN algorithm" and replaces it "This algorithm was one of several used to verify the image of the supermassive black hole inside the core of the galaxy Messier 87." seems like a good way to excise facts not particularly relevant to this bio and focus on information on Bouman's work. Any objections? Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me "Media controversy" should not have its own subheader, partly for due weight, partly because it appears there's description of her scientific work currently mislabeled by the subhead. I suggest we remove the subhead and just make it a short paragraph. Innisfree987 ( talk) 20:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit until this is off the Main Page and sufficient time has passed, but I still think the discussion of the media still focuses too much on negative aspects. I am thinking of reframing this as so: "Bouman received significant media attention when a photo showing her reaction to seeing the first images of the black hole went viral.(reference to NYT article)" OtterAM ( talk) 00:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There's an extraneous external link on the article to a page
and should be removed from this topics external links. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
She said it herself on Facebook: "I'm so excited that we finally get to share what we have been working on for the past year! The image shown today is the combination of images produced by multiple methods. No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all. — with Chi-kwan Chan, Shoko Koyama, Maciek Wielgus, Lindy Blackburn and Kazu Akiyama." https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213326021042929&set=a.10211451091290857&type=3&theater WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also see this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/science/katie-bouman-black-hole.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0wz1BbUTNaGABTKgbUVglPemM_MS9U6ULMZienS62PQLCA6ilgFiUp7mQ should we nominate the page for speedy deletion? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
"While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo ( talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but all of the over 200 contributors are not inherently and automatically notable ( Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited). The article presents no proof that she played an outsize role compared to the over 200 other contributors to the project. The notability criteria for scientists set out in WP:PROF are fairly high; she is a postdoc who is expected to become an assistant professor later this year. I don't find any notable publications in Google Scholar either, so it's clear that she is very far from passing WP:PROF. I believe this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E and that the appropriate solution is to have a section on the public reaction and coverage of the image of her in the article on the Event Horizon Telescope article, and a redirect from this title. Of course, it's entirely possible that she may become independently notable at some point in the future. -- Tataral ( talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not she should have Wikipedia article is a stupid discussion.
WP:NOTABILITY says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
This page satisfies all criteria. Pkin8541 ( talk) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"was responsible for the first visualisation of a black hole using the Event Horizon Telescope."(a claim that is strikingly reminiscent of the claim in the deleted Clarice Phelps article that she personally discovered an element which turned out not to be true). The whole thing apparently started when MIT posted a misleading tweet which they since deleted, and resulted in some rebukes from other researchers involved. For example, one of the researchers involved in the project, Sara Issaoun, said:
"There are more of us. Katie's algorithm, despite the media's stance, was not used to produce this image. There were three algorithms used and combined to form the final image, and a team of 40 scientists part of that aspect of the project (including myself and more women)."She isn't mentioned in the fairly long list of the most senior people in the project either, [6] so by all accounts she didn't play such an outsize role as the article claimed. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein wrote that
"Many of us agree that the way people reported Bouman’s contributions were overblown and in fact nobody seems to care that it made her relationship with her collaboration difficult".
"It's not a matter of making her lesser because she is a woman, it's a matter of describing her scientific contribution in an accurate manner and not blindly be part of a (possible) media hype, only in order to be "on the right side""[my translation].
It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.See also WP:ATHLETE which makes everyone who has ever set foot on a professional sports team for a single game worthy of an article etc. Wikipedia does not care about the argument that Bouman should not have gotten the coverage she did . We only care that she did in fact get it. The discussion that she shouldn't have gotten the coverage is perhaps a valid topic for some other reliable media navel gazing article - ironically if that article were written, it would only increase her notability for our purposes. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there precedence for one person getting 2 DYKs? I thought the policy is that each article is only allowed one? 🤔 The first is: ...that at the age of 29, imaging scientist Katie Bouman presented her algorithm used to create the first images of a black hole (pictured)? but then another says ... that imaging scientist Katie Bouman first learned of the Event Horizon Telescope in 2007, while still in high school, and joined the project six years later? And this is on 2 days. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)