This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
This entry was created based on the content of my 23 December 2009 Katysblog entry, http://blogs.sun.com/katysblog/entry/katherine_johnson_computer1 which is the Public Domain
Kvgd (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- [dead link] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
Ethnicity:
Should any mention be made of the fact that she is obviously very heavily mixed heritage? The article and most stories treat her as a standard "african-American", yet she has very light skin. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There might be a difference in terms of cultural views between the 60's and today. They might have considered anyone with any African ancestry as "black", while today we would call that person mixed race. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Harizotoh9 -- I'm not sure what to make of the appearance of you answering your own question, but I agree with your initial question and point: her relative significance seems to be due to her being "African-American", and yet she's clearly no more than half-black (and probably more like 1/4). Yes, I understand the "one-drop rule" that used to apply, but given the importance of her ethnicity to her notability, not mentioning anything about its actual make-up is a glaring omission. Bricology (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Harizotoh9 and Bricology, African Americans are very mixed. This is made clear in the African Americans article. In fact, scientists are clear that everyone is mixed these days. Furthermore, the one-drop rule often still applies, which is why Barack Obama is simply called "the first African American President." In any case, Johnson's "relative significance" is about far more than her ethnic/"racial" background; this is abundantly clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing in a way that attempts to lessen Johnson's impact
I've objected to edits by an IP and have stated so on the IP's talk page. Like I stated there, looking here, here and here, one can easily conclude that the IP's Katherine Johnson edits are POV-motivated. Per WP:LEAD, the impact of Johnson's contributions should be made clear in the lead. Her work was crucial to NASA, and we should state so in the lead, which is commonly the only part of the article that readers read. Having the NASA quote in the lead is hardly any different than having the NBA quote in the lead of the Michael Jordan article. But even if we remove the quote from the lead, the IP's edits are problematic because they are actively trying to lessen Johnson's impact. She did not simply "participate in calculating"; she calculated. The WP:Reliable sources state that it's her calculations that made those projects a success. Again, her calculations were crucial. And it's not simply "according to Johnson" that John Glenn requested her to confirm the calculations for his trip. The general literature on her states that John Glenn requested her to confirm the calculations for his trip. So using that one source the IP used, a source that is not as strong as the NASA source, to add "According to Johnson" goes against the WP:In-text attribution guideline because it makes it seem as though it's simply Johnson's claim.
Although I've warned the IP against this type of POV editing, I felt that it's best that I bring the matter to the talk page as well. If I need to take this matter to an appropriate noticeboard and/or have the article WP:Semi-protected, I will do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP replied to me on my talk page; as seen there, I replied back. Regarding the NASA quote, I am open to rewording the lead for that part, but the "crucial calculations" aspect should remain in some way. The infobox aspect was already changed, perhaps by the same person using a different IP, but it's a change that I'm satisfied with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and shortened the lead piece regarding the quote, and moved the quote down. The cited "critical" sentence should not be a problem since it is supported by NASA and the general literature on this woman. It notes the impact level of her contributions and is very much in line with WP:Due. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Followup edits here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Parkwells, regarding this and this, it is not taking away from Johnson's legacy by using the last name "Johnson." The fact that she didn't originally have the last name Johnson does not mean that we are supposed to avoid use of that name for those and similar parts of the article. "Katherine Johnson" is her WP:Common name and we should be using "Johnson" throughout the article except for cases that can cause confusion; for example, this edit you made was fine. See Angelina Jolie and other articles where the person grew up with a name that is different than their common name. We use the common surname throughout the article.
I'll ask editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)