Talk:Chirplet transform

First published reference?
The article says that the first published reference to the "chirplet transform" was in the 1991 article by Mann and Haykin. Technically, however, wouldn't that be the first recorded public reference but not the first publication per se? Presumably, the actual publication of the June conference proceedings came some months later(?) and thus after the Mihovilovic and Bracewell paper?

I realize that Steve Mann is also a Wikipedia contributor and the primary author of this article, and I don't want to step on any toes. It's not my field so I don't know the history personally, and I think it's great that Steve is writing up a description of his published work here. But if there's some sort of priority dispute regarding this transform, perhaps Wikipedia should be careful not to take sides. &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 01:55, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

The June conference proceedings were published prior to the conference, and they were available at the conference. Thus they were published on or before June 3rd, 1991.

Neutrality Disputed
I suggest that an admin flag this article as Neutrality Disputed, since a subjective language is used in this article. I agree with User:Stevenj in their assessment of the article that it should be a scientific description of the Chirplet transform. It should also show more applications in more fields by contributors other than Mann (though his input is very insightful). Aboosh 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article talks a lot about how "great" chirplets are and what they're used for, but doesn't actually define what they are.. 70.113.68.242 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Too Technical, Not Enough Background
Upon reading this article, I still have no clear idea of what "chirplet transform" and "chirplet" actually are. The article reads more like a technical manual than that of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siryendor (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)