Talk:Hidden Figures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alylope123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking and metric system[edit]

It's a movie I know (artistic licence etc) but shouldn't they all smoke like a chimney? Wouldn't a scientific organisation such as NASA use the metric system instead of the imperial system? (Or do they indeed use feet and miles because pilots use that too and many astronauts used to be test pilots?)--Soylentyellow (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the smoking (you're probably correct), but NASA didn't convert to the metric system until approximately 1990! Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smoking was normal at workplaces around the world, including NASA, until the late 1980s or early 1990s. Photographs and film from the early decades of the American space programme show people smoking cigars, pipes, and cigarettes there.
I visited the historical Apollo mission control room in Houston in 2017 and there was a lingering faint musty smell from decades of cigarette smoke clinging to the walls of the room. O'Dea (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that not showing sufficient smoking in period piece movies is a pretty common mistake. Don't know if that should be mentioned in the errors of every one of those movies.Spitzak (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews[edit]

Put more reviews under the reception section from More sites Col122 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errors?[edit]

A great movie, but did anyone else notice she talked about changing an elliptical orbit into a parabolic one to land the space capsule? While a parabolic orbit would have escape velocity and leave the earth's gravitation system! Rather landing simply requires a slightly more elliptical orbit so the path crosses deeper into the atmosphere, and the friction does the rest. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote [1], from the actual woman mathematician.
Interviewer "You did more than calculations — in the film, you created “new” math to go from an elliptical to a parabolic orbit. Did you think of it as cutting-edge math at the time?"
Katherine G. Johnson: "It was pure math. It was the solution to the problem. That was what we did. That’s why they needed mathematicians." (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That quote proves nothing; Jackson's answer centers entirely on "creating new math" and does not address the issue of "parabolic orbit" at all. We don't know where Shetterly got "parabolic orbit" from; this is one of several slight technical inaccuracies which were added to the story for the sake of drama.From Hidden to Modern Figures, NASA It sounds exactly like a layman's confusion. The reentry path of the spacecraft is still an elliptical orbit; it just is a different ellipse with its apogee (high point) at the orbital altitude, and the perigee (closest point) below the end of the Earth's atmosphere, or the Earth's surface itself. A "parabolic orbit" escapes the Earth's gravity completely. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. The elliptical orbit is converted to a parabolic orbit -- the spacecraft begins following a parabolic trajectory and, much as a bullet fired horizontally, it will descend to the earth and land on it before the parabola's apex is reached. It is not an entire parabola, but it is still a parabolic trajectory. See: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040008247 Mr.Slade (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keplerian orbits are determined by their energies. A parabolic orbit has more energy than an elliptical one having the same barycenter and perigee. The elliptical orbit of the Mercury spacecraft can be turned into a parabola ONLY by adding energy to the Projectile. Retrofire, to the contrary, removes energy from the orbital behavior. Retrofire turns one elliptical orbit into another elliptical orbit which dips into the atmosphere. The research you cited (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040008247) deals with spacecraft entering the atmosphere at "escape speeds". A Mercury would never be at an escape speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not. At best an elliptical arc can be approximated by a parabola, a second order equation, but only if you're only travelling a tiny fraction of an orbit where the gravity direction is constant which is only really true if you're headed straight down, which a spacecraft is NOT. Perhaps NASA doesn't actually understand math? That would explain why they needed women to straighten them out, and women are too nice to correct men's wrong terminology. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the way to justify the terminology is to look at orbital eccentricity. Originally an orbiting spacecraft's orbit is nearly circular, with e=0, and by the time friction has done its magic, the spacecraft's orbit is relatively vertical, falling straight down after its orbital velocity is converted into heat, so the eccentricity will approach 1, where e=1 would be a parabola. However it is still always a technical ellipse (or collapsing ellipse) in the entire sequence. If you want to call vertical freefall a parabola, that is technically correct. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring atmospheric drag, an "orbit" approaches a parabola as it gets very small. If you throw a ball in an arc (in a vacuum) it is often described as a parabola, though if you took Earth's curvature into account it is in fact an ellipse (a very long and narrow one and only a tiny tip of it is not inside the Earth). It is plausible that an orbit that intersects the Earth's surface was called a "parabolic orbit" because that is what the smallest such "orbits" would be called, and the calculations they are doing all rely on the fact that none of the paths are true ellipses or parabolas, as they are effected by drag and the rockets and thrusters. So I can see that this *might* be true. Not a proof one way or another however, somebody who worked on this needs to speak up whether the terminology is what was used.Spitzak (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and character names[edit]

In the Plot section, after the initial mention of characters by their full names, all of the female characters are referred to by their first names (Katherine, Vivian, Dorothy) and all the males by their surnames (Stafford, Harrison, Johnson). I intend to correct this. Juniperpaul (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of character names[edit]

"In 1962, mathematician Katherine Goble Johnson works" ... "Johnson apologizes to Katherine and they ultimately get married." -Hidden Figures Plot

As the story opens, the protagonist's name is actually Katherine (née Coleman) Goble. It isn't until much later in the story (and the real history) that she marries Jim Johnson and takes his surname.

That said, this film is about a real person with historical significance, often referred today as Katherine Johnson.

I'd like to correct the character's name to "Katherine Coleman Goble" in the first paragraph for chronological accuracy but retain its link to the real Katherine Johnson's page.

However, if I also change references to the female characters from their first names to their surnames, I'll be referring to this character as "Goble" until she marries Jim Johnson and then as "Goble Johnson" (differentiating her from "Johnson," her new husband Jim Johnson).

Will this be confusing? What methods have been established to refer to characters whose names change mid-story?

Juniperpaul (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juniperpaul My search of media reports and books show that she is very, very rarely called Katherine G. Johnson or Katherine Goble Johnson.
NASA never uses either. https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography So, calling her Katherine Johnson in the lede is the most suitable, since that has been her name for most of her very long life. And that is how NASA - and the vast makority of books and news reports -- refer to her.
Yeah, the Katherine Johnson article struggles with the Goble and Johnson last name too. Maiden name: Coleman. Married name Goble. First husband died in 1956. She re-married in 1959 and became Johnson. That article refers to her as Coleman until the time she married Goble. Then it starts calling her Johnson although that is NOT correct until 1959.
She did not marry Johnson until 1959. (In 1959, the then-Katherine Goble remarried, to James A. Johnson, who had been a Second Lieutenant in the Army and was a veteran of the Korean War.[25]) Not sure how other Wikipedia articles handle this but Katherine Johnson needs some modification. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From Hidden Figures (book): Starting in World War II and moving through to the Cold War, the Civil Rights Movement and the Space Race, Hidden Figures follows the interwoven accounts of Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson, Katherine Johnson and Christine Darden, four African American women ... https://books.google.ca/books/about/Hidden_Figures.html?id=26mpCgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

Length of plot summary[edit]

Parkwells, with this edit, you stated that the plot summary was too long. But your edit added a lot more. Per WP:Film plot, we should generally keep film plot summaries between 400-700 words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had not finished and will make it shorter - thanks for the reminder.Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Keeping the plot summary under, at, or a little over 700 words is fine. I edit film articles sometimes and a lot of us at WP:Film aren't too strict with the plot length, as long as the summary is not too far over 700. If the film plot is the "over 700 words" exception noted at WP:Film plot, then we are obviously fine with that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic chat

Historical accuracy

How accurate is the film historically?

> In 1961, mathematician Katherine Goble works at the segregated West Area Computers division of Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia alongside her colleagues, aspiring engineer Mary Jackson and informal supervisor Dorothy Vaughan.

I understand West Area Computers was dissolved in 1958, when NACA became NASA, and facilities were de-segregated then. https://www.nasa.gov/content/dorothy-vaughan-biography "In 1958, when the NACA made the transition to NASA, segregated facilities, including the West Computing office, were abolished" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.188.32 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like most historical films, the movie takes a number of shortcuts to keep within a feature film's running time and for dramatic purposes. You mentioned the fact there were never segregated facilities in the post-NACA days. Dorothy Vaughan was already a supervisor in 1949, well before the story in the film starts. Mary Jackson's transition to the wind tunnel group & needing to take classes started in 1953, she was promoted to engineer in 1958. Katherine Johnson got remarried in 1958, also prior to stated start of the film. But all of that is covered in the articles we have on the real women, I don't see the use in belaboring it here. It misses the point of what the film was really about. --Krelnik (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Amazing story, amazing movie. But it really bothered me after I saw the movie that the big "wins" for the woman didn't happen in real life like they did in the movie. Mary didn't go to court and win her spot in the classroom. She asked and they said yes, no fight. Katherine never ran around looking for a bathroom and noone chopped down a sign over the bathroom either. I don't expect the movie to be completely true to the story but it is odd when you read that all the parts of the movie that made you smile and feel good for them, didn't actually happen. The kicker is Katherine's quote, "I didn't feel any segregation. I knew it was there, but I didn't feel it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.163.4 (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Planned Orbits[edit]

The movie states that the mission was scheduled for 7 orbits, but cut short because of the heat shield warning. I can find no evidence of this online and to the best of my memories from the time it was never scheduled for more than 3 orbits. Anybody?

ed

Ecragg (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct! It's in the book, page 223. "She worked through every minute of what was programmed to be a three-orbit mission, ..." but also "The insertion was so good that the ground controllers cleared Glenn for seven orbits." 50.251.33.225 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Popular misconception 213.243.148.109 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further differences from the book[edit]

I added some changes to the "Historical accuracy" section, based on the book. The following are either tidbits left out of the movie (and thus are not "inaccurate") or details which are extremely dubious, but I can't prove it.

  • The book mentions that Dorothy and Katherine knew each other from way back: Dorothy's husband and Katherine's father had both been "bellmen" (aka bellhops aka hotel porters) at The Greenbrier. The Greenbrier was where Katherine's good high school French became fluent, thanks to a French patron introducing her to the hotel's French chefs.
  • Dorothy was also a math prodigy as a child, and she completed high school two years early.
  • Jackson's son (with Mary's help) broke the color barrier in go-kart racing (and won!).
  • The first FORTRAN book came out in 1961. [2] I sincerely doubt the Hampton public library had a copy.
  • Basic quantum mechanics was not in the engineering curriculum at the time.

Plot section contains extraneous material[edit]

Half the plot section is currently about the historical inaccuracies of the film. This should be move under a specific section, since it has nothing to do with the plot summary. Kumagoro-42 07:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film?[edit]

"White savior narrative in film, due to fictional scenes of the white boss standing up for one of the black protagonists."

I see nothing to support this, other than someone's OR assertion that this constitutes the trope in question. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a forum for righting great wrongs. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced in the destination article. Sometimes I move these "see also" links to the reception, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful explanation NRP. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you see nothing to support a link to a tangentially related topic, then follow the link and find out what it says. You should have figured out by now that list articles in "See also" sections mention such films. Otherwise you are engaging in willful obstructionism. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you have a strong desire to add various tropes to various film articles. As you should have noticed, not everyone agrees with all of your additions, especially when the only obvious connection is that someone might think it applies. Please consider using explanatory edit summaries and/or hidden comments explaining that there is a source for the connection. Thanks. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked with other lists and have ensured cross-navigation for these too. Those who remove the links essentially don't like them, and their thoughts on the connection are immaterial per WP:NPOV: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I've actually considered adding a descriptive fragment but have held back because I am not sure if it makes a difference since some people will always be fragile and desire denying the connection. Perhaps I'll do it anyway. Something like "a casting practice that has been noted in <film title>"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not notice your strong opinion here. Yes, one source may mention a trope/situation/whatever in a film. You seem to feel very strongly that we should include that trope/situation/whatever and that anyone who disagrees is "fragile" or simply does not like it.
In the present case, you have chosen to link to White savior narrative in film, based on two sources mentioning it. In other cases, it has been one source (in some instances, it had been zero sources, but that's a different issue). Based on those same sources, you did not link to whitewashing (one of your favorites), but you could have also linked to lots of other articles we surely have: bathrooms in fiction (actually, we might not have that article yet, but I'm sure we'll get there), liberties taken with "true" stories in films, differences between books and their films, Jim Crow in fiction/film, segregation in film, math & sciences in film, single parents in film, gender/science & math, meritocracy, NASA in fiction, John Glenn, ASCII...
I'm not really not sure where to start a broader discussion on this. I think we already killed a category over it and the "See also" is a workaround for the lost category. It that what happened? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is not relevant. If editors are removing links in defiance of sourceable tangentially related content, I am going to restore them. If they were doing that for other lists, I would be restoring them too. I see the motivation in edit summaries with POV tones and talk-page complaining, also POV-driven. The "See also" section is for tangentially related topics at minimum. It is literally at the very end, after everything else, yet fits are thrown over the connection. I am defending against such strong and irrelevant opinions. Some links have been worked into the article body itself by others, and that is completely sufficient.
I have created other lists and added them to "See also" sections. I have done this for a few other lists I've seen, like time loops and films with 100% or 0% Rotten Tomatoes scores. I would love for there to be other articles to be shared. My approach is not finding a film article and then creating lists that could be associated with it. I did do that with Panic Room near the beginning, but for the most part, a list is started if I see an independent list of interest or if I wonder about a common element and then find existing lists for it. To get back to the point, I endorse cross-navigation regardless and ensure that it is quantifiable (meaning I've skipped or removed some entries if someone else seems to have not done it well). It shouldn't be okay to accept a rejection of that quantifiable connection. I don't know anything about deleting related categories here, I actually prefer lists more than categories because it is actually something that can be pointed to (a sourced entry in a list article). If you see something listed with zero sources, let me know, and I'll assess it to source or to remove as an unsourced example. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following your ideological crusade long enough. You keep defending yourself by always quoting the same sources: English language authors who speak badly of Hollywood. But I ask you: do you have a minimum knowledge of Indian language to find out if there is an identical and opposite problem in Bollywood for marketing reasons? If you don't have it, all your stuff is tremendously POV. Lanari Mauro. --82.84.20.74 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SummerPhDv2.0, the above is an example of POV pushing. Lanari Mauro willfully disregards reliably sourced coverage about the topic. Their question about Bollywood is completely irrelevant and inapplicable here, yet they ask it as if some kind of valid point is being made. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can be sure: I'll always willfully disregard your "reliably sourced coverage about the topic" as long as you'll continue to analyze it only from an English point of view. Lanari Mauro. --82.84.17.125 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no analysis being performed, nor should there be. Wikipedia follows by summarizing what sources have written about a topic. The sources about the trope do not bring up Bollywood in any way, much less in a manner that indicates that this trope does not actually exist. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Women in science, Mathematical fiction, African-American women in computer science, Racial segregation and thousands of other articles are "tangentially related"~
The way I see it, the "See also" section is for articles that would be linked to in the text if the article were brought up to GA status. With that in mind, I generally look for topics that would merit discussion in the article. This film received a lot of attention, as has the article. Discussion of the "White savior narrative" in this article would be out of place and over-WP:WEIGHT.
Did two sources mention it? Yes. If that is the standard for inclusion, the "See also section" will need to be much, much longer. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. If a note has to be made explaining why the link is there, that's a good sign it doesn't belong. Appropriate material could be incorporated into the body of the article bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "only tangentially related" here, and that is exactly what WP:SEEALSO says is appropriate. A link does not have to be fully connected to belong, and it is fully connected here, so it more than qualifies to be attached. It could be incorporated into the article body, but until it does, this is the minimum manner of inclusion. WP:WEIGHT also says, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." Please actually read the policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems Erik is determined to keep the link in. Anyone else agree with him? Actually reading the guideline it says, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." not "if it furthers an ideological crusade". --NeilN talk to me 00:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, especially considering that you did not actually read WP:SEEALSO and WP:WEIGHT before. Why are you so determined to make sure that the view of a tiny minority cannot be mentioned here at all? Are you on an "ideological crusade"? How about seeing if it can belong in the article body somewhere? See my comment below. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume I actually know policies and guidelines. Would substituting "ephemerally" for "tangentially" be better? "Why are you so determined to make sure that the view of a tiny minority cannot be mentioned here at all?" is an interesting question if reversed: "Why are you so determined to make sure that the view of a tiny minority is mentioned fairly prominently?" --NeilN talk to me 00:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't know them, which is surprising since you are an admin. You removed the "See also" section and its link because it was "only tangentially related", yet WP:SEEALSO says such a section is "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". You also disregarded what was said in WP:WEIGHT about such a section sufficing for a view of a tiny minority. In any case, I've placed it under the "Departures" section as one of many related details and the criticism stemming from that departure. What does "fairly prominently" even mean to you? The link was originally at the very end of the article. I have no problem with the section having more links, as I added what SummerPhDv2.0 brought up. As previously mentioned, I work on list articles and ensure cross-navigation. Is an editor supposed to shrug off a sourceable connection being removed because of personal disagreement? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote above again. So I used a word in an edit summary that allowed you to wikilawyer. Substitute "ephemerally" for "tangentially". And "Appropriate material could be incorporated into the body of the article bearing in mind WP:WEIGHT" does not mean what you're trying to make it to mean. Finally how many articles have you come across that have "See also" entries requiring notes to explain why they're present? Is that a common practice? No, not even close. --NeilN talk to me 00:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that this link is less than tangentially related to this film? It does not exist as an implication; there is actually commentary about it. The director has responded to the accusations, and his response has been commented on as well. As for descriptions, I rarely add them, so I do agree with that. Can you please assess the current content and determine the current state of inclusion? The point of a "See also" section was not to present it "fairly prominently". It is just the simplest way to include such a link, and I would not have removed other "See also" links to make one more prominent. If it can go into the article body, which I've attempted, then that is fine too. Unless you want to argue that there should not be any mention at all of this trope anywhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are other good tangentially related links to include. It is possible for a link from the "See also" section to migrate to the article body, but it is not always possible since it can be too shoe-horned in. If there was a section about the portrayal of race in this film, then the white savior element could be included as part of that. Well, looking at it now, we could put it in "Departures from the story in the book" section? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has just seen the film and enjoyed it, and has no particular POV axe to grind (I think), I found the "white savior" section to be an apt observation and it is presented in a relatively balanced way, quoting the director's own response. So I think it is important to have it in. The only question I would raise is whether this belongs in the "Critical Response" rather than "Historical Accuracy" section, though there are certainly reasons for it to be in the latter. Lucubrations (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidden Figures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidden Figures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IBM 7090 in the film[edit]

Anyone know where the IBM 7090 that is shown in Hidden Figures came from? If it is a Hollywood mock up, it seems to be very accurate. I know there are 7090 consoles in museums, but I was not aware of a complete, intact machine anywhere. The film also showed a IBM 711 card reader apparently working. Also, despite the door-too-small scene in the film, I believe all IBM equipment of that era was designed to fit through a single standard 29" doorway, because their chairman, Thomas Watson, Sr., would never tolerate losing an order because the equipment could not get through a door. --agr (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late, but the console shown was for the later 7094, rather than the 7090; you can tell by the additional display on top for index register 3, 5, 6 and 7. Compare the pictures at IBM 7090 and IBM 7090#IBM 7094.
FWIW, the 7090 at the facility was actually a Johnny come lately; there had previously been a 709. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

additional locations in Atlanta[edit]

The article mentions only Morehouse College (which as an HBCU advances the theme) and the Lockheed plant / Dobbins AFB in Marietta GA, NW of Atlanta as locations. I started recognizing buildings from the 5 best and worst years of my life at Georgia Tech. The zinger was the modern brick building with National Aeronautics and Space Administration in large metal letters. That IS the "NASA Building" that the Agency built on campus for Techs to work on projects. Typing "Hidden Figures locations at Georgia Tech" into any browser produces half a dozen buildings. Techman1969 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

I think the plot section was better before recent changes[3] by User:Kobebryant2423 but this latest effort did manage to follow the rules and keep the word count under 700 words. I think the Plot section as of 19 November was better. I would appreciate other opinions. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies reverted the article to "pre-Kobe version" (which suggests he didn't think it was an improvement either) but the next day User:Kobebryant2423 again repeated his changes to the plot section.[4] The edits appear to be in good faith but I can't see that they are an improvement, in my opinion. It doesn't help that Kobe hasn't used any edit summaries to try and explain his changes, or what he feels might be missing from the section (and his substantial changes are so much of a rewrite the diff tool isn't able to make the differences clear). -- 109.78.205.46 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the article history I now notice that User:Kobebryant2423 and his extensive plot changes were previously reverted[5] on more than one occasion by User:Psypherium, but at that stage his version of the plot summary was in excess of 1000. I'm going to follow the lead of User:Psypherium and User:Drmies and also revert the Plot section. -- 109.78.205.46 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The writing is really not good:

Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson are three African-American mathematicians who drive together with the car to work at the West Area Computing Unit at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, where they perform calculations for NASA in the Colored Computers Department. At that time, computers were still people with mathematical skills who usually performed previously defined computing steps with pen and paper or simple electromechanical computing machines and thus supported, for example, engineers in their work.

I'm not even complaining about the lack of a serial comma, but "the car" is already bad, and the first sentence is just a concatenation of relative clauses and prepositional phrases. The severely constipated paragraph (which lacks Wikilinks) manages to squeeze out the nugget of information that the women are Black and that "computers" were human ("computer" needs quotation marks). In stark contrast, the paragraph it replaced was economical, relatively elegant for a plot summary, had all the relevant links, provided context for the racial setting, and so on. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Is there a reason "Black" is capitalized in the plot, while "white" is not? Should there be a "neutral point of view" in articles? Gaeliclad (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kobebryant2423, you really need to stop this. The very fact that every single time someone has to fix your problems is plenty of indication that there are problems here. You refuse to even explain what you're doing, you don't seek the talk page--all of this is disruptive. Please stop. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to revert but there was some kind of warning preventing me. Not sure what keyword I tripped.
We've started a discussion, the user has been warned. There is certainly enough to revert to WP:STATUSQUO if he makes any further unexplained changes. -- 109.78.205.46 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create a separete page for Historical errors[edit]

I suggest making a separate page for the historical.. 2600:4040:9969:6200:95F:989:6364:84D8 (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heat shield[edit]

The climax of the film is the possibility that the heat shield would come off. Is that historically accurate? It could be included in the Historical accuracy section. Mateussf (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the light indicating the heat shield was ejected lit up. They kept the retro rockets attached in the hope that would hold it on. I think after it landed they determined that it was the light that was faulty and the heat shield was still attached. Spitzak (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another RS[edit]

This is worth adding somewhere to the article:

  • Haar, Kara (2017-01-30). "'Hidden Figures': 10 of the Film's Stars and Their Real-Life Inspirations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2024-03-26.

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hidden_Figures&oldid=1215694532"