5 ms·

Her name is Katie Bouman. She can also be addressed as Dr. Katie Bouman.

elliotec 8y ago
She should be referred by her proper title. Can and should.
dvtrn 8y ago
Sure. But in a published headline, one ought to be addressed by their formal title. Differences exist between casual conversation and publication. A distinction I shouldn’t have to point out as one that exists.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  In the headline? They call her "Dr" just a few sentences into the article. The rule of headlines is to use as few words as possible, and every one of them should be necessary. I've never heard that formal titles MUST be used in headlines, and indeed in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. Shaquille O'Neal has a PhD and I've never seen him referenced as Dr. Shaquille O'Neal, in a headline or otherwise (and no, I'm not joking, this is apparently real). I don't think this is an attempt to minimize her accomplishments, unlike many of the comments here in this very thread.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    I agree with you, however the difference is that her Dr is relevant to the article, and Shaq's Phd usually isnt.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      Neil deGrasse Tyson has a PhD in astrophysics and isn't typically referred to as "Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson" in headlines either. Same for Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and many others. Titles simply tend to be dropped in headlines and casual conversations; they certainly aren't universally used, or even close to it.
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments? I personally think they should all be addressed by the titles they've worked lifetimes to earn, that anyone who holds a formal title such as Doctor should be addressed as such in a non-casual/non-informal environment, but I'm also willing to entertain that this is a possibility for why the difference may exist between Dr.'s Sagan, deGrasse-Tyson, and Bouman. And yes, there are probably, most likely others that are far less nuanced and charitable. Would you be willing to entertain that viewpoint?
        jimbokun 8y ago
        "Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments?" Nope. I think you are now beating a dead horse with this argument.
        dvtrn 8y ago
        May I take it with me to the grave. I think someone who is, in fact, a doctor ought to be addressed as such. Regardless of their gender. Apparently that is a problem for some in this community which is a damn shame.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Note that I didn’t say she MUST be referred to as doctor. You did. I said ought, because the accomplishment is worthy of merit as a scientific achievement and in this scenario I think it’s quite proper the doctor is formally addressed as Doctor, it’s highly relevant and germane to the topic in the article. My statement isn’t an assertion of requirement on the part part of the BBC. This is just opinion and really ought not be looked upon as something incendiary or contentious.
- slantyyz 8y ago
  Looking at the style guide, looks like the title may have been dropped because the length was already longer than 55 characters? I couldn't find a formal rule related to titles in headlines. As long as the BBC is consistent (and not biased because of gender or other factors), I don't think it's a big deal. From the BBC's style guide[1]: Doctor Use the title Dr (always abbreviated) for doctors of medicine, scientific doctors and church ministers who hold doctorates - but only when it is relevant. So it would be Mr Liam Fox. But do not use Dr for politicians who have a doctorate in politics, history etc. Surgeons should be referred to as Mr/Mrs/Ms. headlines Index-level headlines must be 30-39 characters long, including gaps - usually five to seven words. Story-level headlines can be up to 55 characters (a little longer as long as key words are within the 55) and should aim to include key terms to attract search engine referrals. Avoid the US convention of using a comma in place of the word "and" (eg: "Crowe, Roberts in Oscar triumph"). If the attribution is clear, there is no need for quotation marks (eg: I’ve had enough, says Smith). Any quotation marks in a headline must be single. Headlines might appear without an accompanying summary, so keep them simple. A cryptic headline, out of context, may be meaningless. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20131010112740749 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201310101127407...
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    I appreciate you taking the time to go and find what BBC’s editorial standards are for formal titles in their headlines. It’s entirely possible you’re right and this is why it was dropped, I should have gone and looked for their style guide the way you did. May have found my own answer much sooner but thanks nonetheless for that bit of information.
    - slantyyz 8y ago
      Given that it was the BBC, who in my mind would take a "stuffier" approach to these things, I was curious what was in their style guide. This is an assumption, but I would think that all the recommendations in their style guide were put in there with at least some consideration.

She should be referred by her proper title. Can and should.

Sure. But in a published headline, one ought to be addressed by their formal title. Differences exist between casual conversation and publication. A distinction I shouldn’t have to point out as one that exists.

CydeWeys 8y ago
In the headline? They call her "Dr" just a few sentences into the article. The rule of headlines is to use as few words as possible, and every one of them should be necessary. I've never heard that formal titles MUST be used in headlines, and indeed in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. Shaquille O'Neal has a PhD and I've never seen him referenced as Dr. Shaquille O'Neal, in a headline or otherwise (and no, I'm not joking, this is apparently real). I don't think this is an attempt to minimize her accomplishments, unlike many of the comments here in this very thread.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  I agree with you, however the difference is that her Dr is relevant to the article, and Shaq's Phd usually isnt.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Neil deGrasse Tyson has a PhD in astrophysics and isn't typically referred to as "Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson" in headlines either. Same for Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and many others. Titles simply tend to be dropped in headlines and casual conversations; they certainly aren't universally used, or even close to it.
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments? I personally think they should all be addressed by the titles they've worked lifetimes to earn, that anyone who holds a formal title such as Doctor should be addressed as such in a non-casual/non-informal environment, but I'm also willing to entertain that this is a possibility for why the difference may exist between Dr.'s Sagan, deGrasse-Tyson, and Bouman. And yes, there are probably, most likely others that are far less nuanced and charitable. Would you be willing to entertain that viewpoint?
      - jimbokun 8y ago
        "Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments?" Nope. I think you are now beating a dead horse with this argument.
        dvtrn 8y ago
        May I take it with me to the grave. I think someone who is, in fact, a doctor ought to be addressed as such. Regardless of their gender. Apparently that is a problem for some in this community which is a damn shame.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Note that I didn’t say she MUST be referred to as doctor. You did. I said ought, because the accomplishment is worthy of merit as a scientific achievement and in this scenario I think it’s quite proper the doctor is formally addressed as Doctor, it’s highly relevant and germane to the topic in the article. My statement isn’t an assertion of requirement on the part part of the BBC. This is just opinion and really ought not be looked upon as something incendiary or contentious.
slantyyz 8y ago
Looking at the style guide, looks like the title may have been dropped because the length was already longer than 55 characters? I couldn't find a formal rule related to titles in headlines. As long as the BBC is consistent (and not biased because of gender or other factors), I don't think it's a big deal. From the BBC's style guide[1]: Doctor Use the title Dr (always abbreviated) for doctors of medicine, scientific doctors and church ministers who hold doctorates - but only when it is relevant. So it would be Mr Liam Fox. But do not use Dr for politicians who have a doctorate in politics, history etc. Surgeons should be referred to as Mr/Mrs/Ms. headlines Index-level headlines must be 30-39 characters long, including gaps - usually five to seven words. Story-level headlines can be up to 55 characters (a little longer as long as key words are within the 55) and should aim to include key terms to attract search engine referrals. Avoid the US convention of using a comma in place of the word "and" (eg: "Crowe, Roberts in Oscar triumph"). If the attribution is clear, there is no need for quotation marks (eg: I’ve had enough, says Smith). Any quotation marks in a headline must be single. Headlines might appear without an accompanying summary, so keep them simple. A cryptic headline, out of context, may be meaningless. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20131010112740749 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201310101127407...
- dvtrn 8y ago
  I appreciate you taking the time to go and find what BBC’s editorial standards are for formal titles in their headlines. It’s entirely possible you’re right and this is why it was dropped, I should have gone and looked for their style guide the way you did. May have found my own answer much sooner but thanks nonetheless for that bit of information.
  - slantyyz 8y ago
    Given that it was the BBC, who in my mind would take a "stuffier" approach to these things, I was curious what was in their style guide. This is an assumption, but I would think that all the recommendations in their style guide were put in there with at least some consideration.