Talk:Ewin Tang

!Read before moving into the main Wikipedia space!
After some discussions with other Wiki editors as well as my own concerns that the article will get AfD, it is best to leave this as a draft for at least a few months so we can wait for further coverage of Tang once her papers on her classical algorithm for the recommendation problem are published. I do not doubt that upon publication, the journal, her university and many notable quantum information scientists will release press statements. Tang is aware of this page and has read it. Thanks! Opto kitty (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Opto kitty: My view is that this article would easily survive AfD should someone be misguided enough to send it there; notability is established by the main Forbes story, the BBC News story, and corroborated by developer.com and quanta magazine. She appears to be notable a) for some great work and b) for doing it at a very early age. On this basis, I cordially disagree with your caution and invite you to reconsider. The article is now on the radar of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and would undoubtedly get support from that quarter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for the words of encouragement! So the status is: Frédéric Grosshans is currently working on expanding the research section to explain the quantum/classical algorithms more clearly as well as include explanations of her newest pre-print paper. Since the notable papers are still in peer-review, there is a very small chance someone might find flaws in her algorithm (I really really doubt it), so I think it is worthwhile to wait for at least the first paper to be published. After communicating with Tang, she would like a bit of time before the page becomes live too. I will keep an eye on that publication date and make sure her page is on main wikispace before it/on the day. Opto kitty (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Opto kitty: Works for me, Opto kitty. If you want a cherry on top, try to get a DYK for the article on publication day ... if so, probably worth engaging with the DYK community sufficiently early. Anyway; good work: thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: This draft has been moved to mainspace as Tang is getting more recognition and it is anticipated that her papers will be published this year. Many thanks to everyone for the help. Opto kitty (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Biological work

Ewing Tang’s work on biological subjects was done early (2012-2014, that is, sh was under 15 at the time), and it is not the reason she is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. I think the corresponding paragraph should therefore be moved into the early life section Frédéric Grosshans (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Yes agreed; her main research area is computer science. Her first experience of research in the biomedical field has now been moved to 'Early Life'. Opto kitty (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Transwoman

Per WP:BRD, @David Eppstein: Ewin Tang competed in her high school's boys varsity in track (see [1], [2]). I was actually hesitant to add this, because I'm not sure how we handle such cases (WP:COP isn't specific). I'm not a fan of any gender-based categories (e.g. Category:Women mathematicians). But then again, we have them and so I guess we do make these categorizations (e.g. Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner), so why not here? --bender235 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Because we require reliable sources to make such claims, per WP:BLP. Inferring that she is trans because she once went by male gender and now goes by female is original research by synthesis. Gender is a highly sensitive subject and we can't just operate by guesswork, even when it seems obvious. See in particular WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Tang has publicly self-identified as female, but not to my knowledge as trans, we don't have reliable published sources, and we don't have evidence that any of this is relevant to Tang's notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. As I said, I'd personally prefer that we would remove all gender-based categories. I was just acting according to the status quo. For the record, though: sexual orientation ≠ gender identity, hence your quote from WP:BLPCAT does not apply. --bender235 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It may not be the same thing as a sexual orientation, but I think it's a similar enough sort of classification in spirit that the same policy should apply. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, without naming names, in case you're interested in participating there. Relatedly, I think Category:Women computer scientists should be added, and should be non-controversial (we don't usually apply such close scrutiny to that kind of category). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)