Talk:Katie Bouman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Father

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)

Do you have a source for this? (And I presume you mean 'her' father) Da5nsy (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Da5nsy or if you want an article where they mention both him and his daughter. Or just google his name... it is not that hard to get this information.Garnhami (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

it's in the ref name="bangert" which I just added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

"Was the first person to see a visualization of a black hole." yup it's in ref name="bangert"

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

1. EHTBlackHole #BlackHoleDay #BlackHole"

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)

All we've got from this photo is that the black hole image was in the process of being generated, or had finished being generated, when she posed for the camera. This doesn't tell us what happened before that, it doesn't confirm that when the image appeared she was the only person looking at it. If she was working in a shared lab with colleagues in the room, as the picture and presence of a photographer suggests, it's very hard to imagine that after working on this project for years, they weren't particularly interested in seeing the image as it was generated.

As a figure in a breaking news story, let's not add a compelling detail into the mix without a source that says it 100% clearly. --86.185.141.184 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit comment of the anon's 3rd reverts says "respectfully disagree about "first to see visualisation" if the source is just the photo captions, Wikipedia should not spread this compelling detail today without a source" No, it's not just in the photo captions. The text of the article says

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.”

So the anon has almost proved that somebody else could have also watched as the photo was being processed. That's could have with no call out from MIT to them, no photo of them watching it, no actual proof that the processing was able to be viewed by others simultaneously, nobody who claims to have viewed it at the same time. BTW the mention of the 200 others who participated in the project was in the same sentence. Perhaps my argument here seems pedantic, but how else do you address the anon's pedantic comments.

I'll suggest that somebody else review the evidence in the article [1] and revert the anon. He can't revert again without going over WP:3RR. I only have 2RRs so could do it myself, but perhaps I'm too annoyed at his silly arguments to make a rational decision. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We've got three likely possibilities: she watched the image appear alone, she watched it appear alongside other members of her team (perhaps everyone's laptop was viewing the same feed), or someone else saw it appear first before sharing it with her. The source you're quoting here would fit all three situations.

It's a small detail, but with people cynically asking why Bouman alone seems to have been singled out for press attention, we shouldn't throw an exciting narrative tidbit into the mix (that she was the first human to see a black hole, and implicitly was in charge of generating the image and determining who saw its output) if it might not be true. --86.185.141.184 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

use of Bouman's algorithm in the image

MyanmarBBQ You restored this text https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

• https://twitter.com/SaraIssaoun/status/1116304522660519936 " Katie's algorithm, despite the media's stance, was not used to produce this image. "
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/science/katie-bouman-black-hole.html "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."
• https://twitter.com/sparse_k/status/1116785804133715971 "Many articles implied that her algorithm from 2015 was specifically used to get the first reconstruction of a black hole when many of us generated the first images simultaneously with many different techniques; this was probably from misleading tweets by @MIT_CSAIL on 4/10", "We didn’t use exactly her algorithm from her TED talk, but her work was foundational along with a lot of other contributions in building the final procedure for all imaging pipelines. It even doesn’t mean that her original one is worse than the ones adopted in our paper."

Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not jealous, and I'm not crying. She is a big part of this achievement. She should be proud. She should get recognition. so should the other 200. But we should not state things that are factually untrue, that we KNOW to be factually untrue. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't want to hear this from an IP Myanmar, but the talk page is not a place to launch your culture war. We're speaking about reality here. We nnow have directly contradicting statements, immediately after each other. The line that she is responsible for the image must be removed.174.54.4.54 (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Religious/Ethnic Identity

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) It would distort the biography to add that kind of stuff for some ulterior motive of fighting right wing trolls. Unless secondaries carry it. However, I'm glad you said this as it likely explains a recent rash of gang-like behavior in a slew of related articles. -- GreenC 05:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC) AFAIK it is standard Wikipedia Policy to include this kind information on any biographical Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC) It is not, unless it's something that's central to a given person's identity. Extreme caution shall be used where any biographical content is gleaned or inferred from the chan boards. Placing scare quotes around assertions doesn't clean it up. BLP applies everywhere, including here, and Wikipedia is not obligated to amplify misogynistic or ethnic trolling, correct or not, aimed at somebody. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC) How is this trolling? And why are other people allowed to discuss this question, but my edit (on this talk page) was deleted, and I have been warned (for creating a talk page entry!)? I don't even understand why this is considered anti-semitic n the slightest! More like anti-Nazi to assert the existence of Jewish scientists...--Adûnâi (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Critical Juncture in the Narrative

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)

Could you source your assertions here please? If you believe her role was secundary, could you provide the sources which permit you to write this? It is definitely an interesting subject, but we cannot just rely on individual assertions, we need references.Nattes à chat (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is sourced to popular media because it is the only available reliable source. It just comes as a consequence that most articles about semi-notable women focus on the sexist narrative by the media. wumbolo ^^^ 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by your use of the term "sexist" and how it applies in this situation. I would assume that a woman that goes unmentioned when her achievements are significant would be considered "sexist", but I'm not sure how that word applies in this case when a relatively "not-noteworthy" woman has her not-noteable contributions elevated to the point where the story appears that she did the whole thing by herself. Not sure what word would be used to describe that, but "sexist" does not come to mind, unless the current definition of the word has evolved to the point to where it would now apply to something like this. Also, the term "semi-notable" may not even apply to Bouman as the details of the situation come out and begin to solidify, and her "noteworthiness" may have more to do with how the Media arbitrarily elevated her to a status that she did not earn or deserve, and very little to do with the actual work of the project. Again this is all long-term strategic thinking, the primary point being that if it's eventually determined her contribution was relatively minor, what role she may have played in the "hype" becomes a critical point in the arc of the narrative. In short, was it foisted on her, or did she encourage it?Tym Whittier (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

To some extent the article mentions the "controversy on whether the role Bouman played was overstated by the media", referencing an article in The New York Times. It's a shame that this article was kept, and it's really emblematic of the tabloidization of science communication. The project and discovery she worked on clearly deserves an article, but as she wrote herself: "The spotlight should be on the team and no individual person. Focusing on one person like this helps no one, including me." That is a very sensible position, and it would have been better both for her, for science and for Wikipedia to have a detailed article on the discovery itself rather than singling out one of, as I understand it, over 300 people who contributed to it. Indeed this kind of tabloidization harms science, as pointed out by some of the scientists interviewed in the NYT article in question. --Tataral (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

MIT CSAIL and Kazu Akiyama clarify Bouman's Contributions

MIT CSAIL have have issued a clarification thread here: Their tweets were the source for most of the recent media coverage leading to this article.

Kazu Ikayama (credited at ) has also issued a clarification on Bouman's role on the team here:

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 () from Michael Johnson, EHT Imaging Lead (per ), 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: . 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)

Currently the article says that the algorithm she helped developed was one of several to be used. However all across this talk page there are statements saying that the algorithm was NOT used. Which is it? Should the article claim one thing when there are many sources saying otherwise, and the sources that DO say the algorithm was used are said to be incorrect by other sources? What are facts its so confusing!!! 138.9.176.188 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

In the source scientific paper authored by the scientists it states “Blind imaging procedures have long been used to reduce the risk of group bias. Prior to the 2017 observations, we organized a series of "imaging challenges" that used synthetic data to assess how conventional and newly developed imaging algorithms would perform for the EHT (Bouman 2017).115 Reconstructing images independently in these challenges helped us identify which image features were likely intrinsic, and which were likely to be spurious.” So it would seem she is directly credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.214.124 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I understand, you are saying that the science paper says the algorithm she helped create was used for testing trials to determine which algorithms should be used for the real data. (I have not taken the time to read the paper, so I'm just going off of my understanding of what you say. Might be wrong here...) However, according to the sources 192.222.248.139 listed, some people are saying in the end the algorithm Bouman helped develop was indeed NOT used for the real data. Other algorithms developed by the other teams were used instead. Is that right? 2600:1:990F:233C:0:52:DB45:9301 (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Her algorithm was not used to render the image. It was used to verify the data produced by the other algorithms, to ensure that the image they produced was correct. So, while her bits were not included in the actual image we see, they were used in part of the larger processes which created it. Per statements from others on the team, some algos were selected to render, and others to verify, which does not reflect on the quality or usefulness of any of the algos. since the verification algos had to agree with the image algos, her algo would have produced largely the same image ResultingConstant (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the confusion surrounds the number and development of the algorithms. She created an algorithm in 2016 called CHIRP. This algorithm was not used but is an RML type algorithm. It needed further refinement which is the 2017 algorithm she is credited for and this was incorporated into the software library Chael coded on github which is why the ‘850000 lines of code’ stories arose by some online sources. I believe this part from the paper should support this assessment when taken in conjunction with the first part in my last comment (as she coded some of the github code as already mentioned) : “For the RML reconstructions in this Letter, we used two open-source software libraries that have been developed specifically for the EHT: eht-imaging109 (Chael et al. 2016, 2018, 2019) and SMILI110 (Akiyama et al. 2017a, 2017b, 2019). Appendix A gives definitions of the regularizers used throughout this Letter, as implemented in these libraries.” Ultimately 4 algorithms were used and 2 were RML methods to which she contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.113.214.124 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

CHIRP

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)

She did NOT create CHIRP. Better look it up, e.g. in wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp ).--Rosember (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Sorry for my superficial contribution. The link is completely unrelated to Bouman's work. I was too fast while checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosember (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was more than one algorithm used and the image released was a composite of multiple algorithmically produced images. Bouman was a member of one of the imaging sub-teams. There were over 200 imaging team members. Not sure why so much focus is on Bouman for the black hole image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:A2E:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

My guess is, that as a young good looking woman she was much more attractive to the media (sex sells) than the ongoing reproduction of the one single low resolution photo of a black hole that was the only illustration of a scientific sensation. The article should be converted to highlight her as a media phenomenon rather than a leading contributor to the event horizon project (which she most probable wasn't IIRC the official presentation of the image).--Rosember (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This comment by Rosember on the media's perception of Dr. Bouman is unrelated to the integral content of the article currently marked as AfD. Please consider the core principles of Wikipedia set out in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion).Soyapencil (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

a) Nothing in your guess is true (e.g., this "Low resolution photo" is not a photo and has a magnification power of about 1 billion X). b) This page is not for such guesses. More of this sort of thing and you risk a ban. P.S. "Bouman was a member of one of the imaging sub-teams." is a misrepresentation of her role, which was much more significant than that. -- Jibal (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There were 4 independent imagining teams, without data or results sharing between them. If her team didn't provide any results, the 3 other teams will still be in agreement. Possibly the CHIRP based approach provided higher resolution than others tho. I am still in a dark in terms of how biased the results of CHIRP are (she claims they are unbiased because of patch source randomization, and it can be measured), so can't tell if the higher resolution is actually really higher resolution. 81.6.34.246 (talk) 11:54, 11 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)

Dr. Bouman's works did not lead to the Famous Image

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)

References

"while Bouman's computer science work helped in this discovery,... her personal work was not used to create the famous image." Not accurate. The paper in question states: "For the RML reconstructions in this Letter, we used two open-source software libraries that have been developed specifically for the EHT: eht-imaging" followed by three references: Chael A., Bouman K., Johnson M. et al 2019, Chael A. A., Johnson M. D., Bouman K. L. et al 2018, and Chael A. A., Johnson M. D., Narayan R. et al 2016.

You will note that all three papers have Katherine L. Bouman as an author. Yes: her work was used, and credited. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

my one and only point was that her works did not create the specific image, which was a minor edit war a couple days ago from conflicting sources. Of course, of course, of course, her work was used in research and development. 2601:982:4200:A6C:296D:D6BA:82F0:DD6C (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

IPA

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)

Capitalization of Academic Position

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)

Try here. Natureium (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A Big Difference Between Wikipedia And Some Other Publications Is That We Don't Randomly Capitalise Words Just Because We Want To And When There Is No Need. In particular a description such as "an assistant professor of computing and mathematical sciences" doesn't need any capitalisation. (I mentioned Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), but I should also have mentioned Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people which addresses this topic more directly). --Tataral (talk) 05:11, 13 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:

• When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
• When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
• When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:

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)

1. The wording used in the article was specifically "an Assistant Professor of Computing and Mathematical Sciences at the California Institute of Technology". Capitalising every word like that just makes it harder to read.
2. MOS:JOBTITLES clarifies that capitalisation is recommended for "a formal title for a specific entity" and mentions two examples: President of the United States and King of France. Positions as assistant professors (or equivalent positions in other countries such as (scientific) assistants) aren't "specific entities" in the same way as the offices of President of the United States or King of France are. Considering how often we deal with academic job titles in Wikipedia articles they would probably have been mentioned specifically if they were to be capitalised. Think of it in this way: Is it even possible to entertain the idea of having an article on the office itself, as a specific entity? MOS is generally taken to mean that academic ranks shouldn't be capitalised – there is ample precedent for this. The article professors in the United States doesn't capitalise the rank of assistant professor either. --Tataral (talk) 05:21, 19 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)

Please read my comment again. A job as an assistant professor, much like a job as a doorman or as an editor or as a journalist, is not a "specific entity" like King of France or President of the United States (note the articles on these specific entities). --Tataral (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

focus

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)

This should be discussed in detail before removing major parts of the article, e.g. why did you remove the link to her TEDx talk? There you get to hear her speak about a scientific topic, hear her voice, see her. An encyclopedia is not limited to printed words.

I'll revert your removals until folks get a chance to discuss them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy shit!! Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement. Why you removed many content from main article?? MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've warned MyanmarBBQ for the above - attributing motives in that manner isn't acceptable. Acroterion (talk)

I did not remove the mention of her TEDx talk, and you would see this if you read the full page, not just the section that was removed. However her participation in the EHT and her up-coming employment as a Caltech faculty member are much more notable. (Almost anyone can give a TEDx talk). @MyanmarBBQ: It is unclear to me who you are calling a "bro," me or Smallbones? If you look at my edits, I am trying to keep this bio of a living person looking like it should for a professional scientist. However, in either case, WP:AGF. OtterAM (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this article is two clicks from the Main Page at the moment, so we should try to keep the article professional looking (i.e. not too much emphasis on social media controversies), in order to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Do the "social media controversies" belong in the lead? No, I don't think so. Do they deserve a line somewhere? I'd say that yes, they do. Multiple news organizations covered the creation of what was essentially a conspiracy theory intended to discredit her. It's an ugly development, but if we don't describe it, we are doing our readers a disservice. And given the long history of sexist harassment online, we have every reason to think that the event will be a data point of lasting relevance. More broadly speaking, the biographies of scientists do not confine themselves merely to "the science", narrowly considered. Our page on Alan Turing doesn't just cover Turing machines and his model of morphogensis. Professionalism, far from suggesting that we omit this material, leads us to include it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not categorically against adding it, but the text should be short and restrained. The social media aspect may look important today, but next week it might seem quite minor. However, the scientific role this person plays is likely to continue to be significant. @XOR'easter: if you can draft a sentence like this to add to the material on Bouman's personal life, that might help. OtterAM (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the goal of being "short and restrained". I will try drafting something when I have more time later today (writing a short thing can be so much trickier than writing a long one). XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I of course agree it should only be covered in accordance with due weight but I'm not sure what her personal life has to do with it. The sources indicate she was harassed about her professional work, to the point her colleagues at work felt obliged to make public responses. WP:NPOV requires us to reflect those sources accurately; it's not appropriate for WP editors to revise the narrative to suggest it only affected her personal life. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

OtterAM, two requests. First please keep in mind that a Wikipedia biography is not intended to mirror a person's professional biography as it would appear on, say, their academic institution's page. It is meant to be an encyclopedic account of their life, as far as we have reliable sources to describe it. If there are sources on more than a person's research papers and awards, a WP bio will include that. To that end, please don't keep removing large chunks of reliably sourced material that does not violate any WP:BLP policy solely because you don't view it as encyclopedic. We have a discussion going here on how best to cover it, with several editors expressing the view that this is encyclopedic material; please continue to collaborate with that conversation to reach consensus rather than impose your preferred version. Thank you for your collaboration. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops one more: please do make sure that all information you add is reliably sourced. See particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Just being appointed as assistant professor at Caltech is definitely not sufficient for notability per WP:PROF. One needs to hold a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Assistant prof is a along way from named chair. So notability can only arise from significant impact in their scholarly discipline or substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. But it likely boils down to her being mentioned a lot in the media over this and therefore becoming a kind of media figure. Let's just stop talking about notability, it does appear very strange to non-Wikipedians that we are so obsessed with notability and the exact reasons for it. Micronor (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed trim I

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)

Sounds good to me. We don't need to track the timeline of every statement and clarification. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, since you're working on this at present, do you have thoughts on the accuracy of this proposed language? If it's accurate (I'm honestly not qualified to say), it seems preferable to me to say what she did do, rather than what she didn't. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Innisfree987, I've just been cleaning up the expression and removing what looks like redundancy or irrelevancy. I can't access the Washington Post article [2] OtterAM uses to support "This algorithm was one of several used...".

Where do we stand now on whether her algorithm played a role in acquiring the published image? Presently, I have us saying, "Though CHIRP was not used in acquiring the first image of a black hole in April 2019 ..."

Her colleague, Kazu Akiyama, says "We didn’t use exactly her algorithm from her TED talk, but her work was foundational along with a lot of other contributions in building the final procedure for all imaging pipelines. ..." [3]

Her old lab at MIT, CSAIL, say "That algorithm was intended to take a picture of a black hole, but didn’t create the final image." [4]

I have blundered into this without catching up on the talk page discussion. All, please feel free to revert any of my changes that contradict consensus - or any you disagree with, for that matter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is really helpful, thanks for these cites. I'll take a stab at rephrasing to state only what role she did have. There's no encyclopedic reason I can see for saying things she didn't do. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that Innisfree987. Good call. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed trim II

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)

Agreed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In absence of objection, I'll go ahead and remove it now. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I am not sure I agree. Like it or not, there was significant media controversy, and I'm not sure that editing it out of the record is a valuable edit. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to delete the account of the controversy, only whether it should be marked with a subheader. Since no other topic in the rest of the entry has a subhead, it seems to me that a subhead for this would put disproportional weight on the topic and be inconsistent with WP:DUE. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:20, 18 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)

Agree, per WP:NOTNEWS. Ideally, one sentence about her unwittingly becoming the "face" of the project, and a second sentence about the response from her colleagues to the furor. It would also be nice to describe her contributions to the project in a accurate but less awkward manner (i.e., talking about what she didn't do versus what she did do). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

EHT external links

There's an extraneous external link on the article to a page

• on stuff covered by the already-linked Event Horizon Telescope topic
• that doesn't mention Bouman

and should be removed from this topics external links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

How important really was Katie Bouman in the black hole imaging? Wasn't there many people involved? Does she really deserve her own Wiki article?

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)

I'm not sure that you understand how science works. Every major achievement takes an enormous team of collaborators to carry out. The LIGO collaboration that led to the discovery of gravitational waves included more than 1,000 scientists at 90 institutions If we used the criteria that in order to be noteworthy, a scientist would have to do all the work themselves, no scientists would have a Wikipedia page. Dr. Bouman's contribution was significant and the attention and praise she has received for those contributions puts her high in the ranks of a noteworthy scientist. Webmz (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your extremely condescending opening sentence. I am in fact a scientist with more publications & citations than Katie (though she is younger, so it's not a fair comparison). You say "If we used the criteria that in order to be noteworthy, a scientist would have to do all the work themselves, no scientists would have a Wikipedia page" but no one said that a scientist has to "do all the work themselves" to be noteworthy for a Wikipedia page. There was ~200 authors on the paper but only 1 got a Wikipedia page because of it, and that was Katie. Was her work that important? You raise a good point that she has received a lot of attention and praise, but does she satisfy the criteria for "notable academics"? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Two things stand out about Dr. Bouman - her work with the EHT, and her role as lead author of the CHIRP algorithm. (1) I believe we've already established that her contribution to the EHT project was no more than the many other people who worked on it, and who don't have their own Wikipedia pages. (2) As far as CHIRP goes: there is a computer scientist (Alex Krizhevsky who developed an algorithm/technique (AlexNet) that caused a significant advancement in AI/Machine Learning, since 2012! He has been cited over 30,000 times! But he does not have his own Wikipedia page. He's only mentioned in the Wikipedia page on AlexNet. So my vote is to delete Dr. Bouman's page, but possibly dedicate a section to her in the CHIRP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshafique (talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 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)

If you think this page is speedyable, you don't have a good understanding of WP:SPEEDY criteria. I'm confident it would easily survive an WP:AfD as well. As to the exact role of her contributions to the image, that's already being discussed above and the article can be adjusted to reflect consensus on that as necessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue at this point it doesn't even matter (from Wikipedia point of view) what her contributions are. She easily passes WP:NOTABILITY Coderzombie (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to us what she did. She could be the subject of media coverage for standing in one place for 3 days, and if she passes the WP:GNG, the article won't be deleted. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Standing in one place for 3 days sounds like a "single event", and in this article WP:1E it suggests that in cases like this the event would get a Wiki page, not the person itself. I am skeptical about whether or not Katie passes the notability criteria for an academic. She doesn't satisfy criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 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)

You can't just unilaterally redirect a page that's being actively edited by many people. Natureium (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to redirect the page for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned the case of Alex Krizhevsky above. I think it's a good practice to follow when an academic gains notability due to some paper they wrote. I support the deletion of Dr. Bouman's page, redirecting to the CHIRP (algorithm) page, and perhaps dedicating a section to her. Fshafique (talk) 04:52, 15 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)

No, it's not a "stupid discussion", it's a perfectly legitimate and normal discussion on Wikipedia, it's something editors here engage in every day, and that is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia operates. We routinely critically evaluate the notability of topics because we are an encyclopedia, and for scientists we have generally set the bar for notability high in the relevant guideline, WP:PROF.

While it's true that a subject can become notable only due to media coverage, there is an important exception: we generally don't create articles on people notable for only one event per WP:BLP1E/WP:1E, so media coverage doesn't automatically, necessarily and instantly mean that a subject is notable overnight. When the article was created the coverage of her was just a few hours old, and it didn't demonstrate that her scientific contribution justified singling her out among over 200 other contributors, so at that point it was particularly legitimate to ask questions about notability. Under WP:BLP1E/WP:1E the normal thing to do in that situation on Wikipedia would be to have a section on the public reception/reaction to the discovery in an article about the discovery itself, where the media coverage of the image of her could be mentioned. (Some of the more established scientists who were part of the project, people like Sera Markoff or its leader Sheperd S. Doeleman, were clearly independently notable, but that's another matter.)

The question of what her exact contribution was and whether it justified singling out her contribution among the contributions of around 350 contributors to the project[5], and how to present it, is a legitimate one – particularly when the original version of the article claimed, extremely inaccurately, that she "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 should be possible for Wikipedia editors to discuss notability and to critically evaluate claims (particularly when the early claims were quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL) based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability and verifiability without being shouted at. The discussion of her notability and role on the German Wikipedia (de:Diskussion:Katie Bouman) seems to have been much more civilized. An editor named Uwe Rohwedder nailed the issue with his comment: "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].

Since last week there has been more coverage, so I'm less inclined to argue that she fails GNG now, although I'm still critical of the way WP:PROF is so easily ignored. What's the point of WP:PROF then? It's also somewhat problematic that her current GNG-derived notability is itself to a significant degree the result of a prematurely created Wikipedia article that essentially became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wikipedia's concept of notability and the specific guidelines on how notability is to be interpreted have been developed over nearly two decades, and are based on broad consensus. It doesn't help science, it certainly doesn't help us women, and it doesn't help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia if we can't evaluate new articles based on existing standards of notability and verifiability without being called "stupid." --Tataral (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Except notability was already evaluated at AfD. If you think the discussion was not closed correctly (note: this is different from saying you disagree with consensus reached in the discussion), you could I suppose request a deletion review. Or if you have an issue with the PROF standard you could take it to that talk page. But in any case an entry’s talk page is not the venue for challenging notability; there’s nothing anyone could do about it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion was started before the AfD; I'm merely replying to an allegation that it was "stupid" or somehow not acceptable to discuss her notability in the first place, whether here or on AfD. An article's talk page is a perfectly normal venue for informally discussing the subject's notability and other matters related to the article, including the exact nature of her scientific contribution (which wasn't well understood by many people a week ago) and how to describe the public reaction to the whole thing. --Tataral (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Tataral I don't think the Clarice Phelps dig is really appropriate. CP's page originally said Phelps was the first African-American woman to contribute to the discovery of an element - which is true, as far as the author of a book on Superheavy elements who spoke to Phelps' and other discoverers of superheavy elements is concerned. The challenge with Phelps' page was finding an appropriate source. This page said Bouman contributed to a program that was used to create the first direct image of a black hole. I recognise you get frustrated by women scientists being on this site. Maybe there are other more productive ways you could edit?Jesswade88 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tataral You fundamentally misunderstand the point of WP:PROF. It is not meant to increase the requirements for notability above WP:GNG. It is meant to be an alternative, for those who are important in their field, but aren't getting coverage in mass media. 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 argument when the discussion was started was that this was a case of WP:BLP1E, it wasn't really an argument that she shouldn't have gotten the coverage in the first place, but that there wasn't sufficient coverage outside of the single event to justify a biography since she also didn't pass WP:PROF. There is also a major difference in terms of coverage of her between the situation now and the situation when the article was created and nominated for deletion, which is also why I said I'm less inclined to question her (GNG) notability at this point. Also, when I say Wikipedia editors should be able to discuss and evaluate claims based on sources without being called "stupid" or worse, it isn't just about notability, it's just as much about how we accurately describe her role. Many articles have now been written on the topic of the media coverage itself, e.g. the NYT article cited in the article, or this interesting article in Quillette [7] --Tataral (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Keyti Bouman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Two Did You Knows?!

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)

The first was pulled because it was false. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)