Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 7 October 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. University of Florida (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bulgaria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zuse

and no mentioning at all of Konrad Zuse ? first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer (Z3) in 1941

Dates of Life

I added the dates of birth and death back into the first paragraph even through these are now available in the info box as well. Formatting similar to Albert Einstein. The info box is a very nice touch though. Good work!

• Ok. I was formatting similar to Douglas Adams. I think they look fine in both places. --Ben Brockert < 01:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Nonprogrammable versus electronic

How about non-programmable, electronic, digital computer? That's what it was. The reason the ENIAC is still regarded as the first computer is because it's the first programmable (well Turing complete, to be precise) computer. Atanasoff did impressive, significant work, but the sweeping generalization first electronic digital computer ought to be modified with non-programmable or turing-complete in order to be most accurate and NPOV'ed. The sweeping statement sounds like something the John Atanasoff website might claim in their zeal to promote their man.

In any case, I love the info box (as I said before), but there is no need to revert Icairns change to reflect more factual accuracy. I have merged both of your changes. This makes the claim as simple as possible, but no simpler. There is no desire for an edit/revert war here, however. I'm just an outside observer just trying to be in the spirit of NPOV.

Happy editing.

-SocratesJedi 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could just use no capation or just a caption like "John Atanasoff in XXXX" like Albert Einstein's formatting (as I quoted above earlier). That might be an elegant way to deal with it and just let them read the article's text for a brief summary of the ABC-ENIAC dispute? I think it's a good solution. Thoughts? -SocratesJedi 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would claim that "electronic digital computer" is not overreaching, but accurate as a basic description. ENIAC, the machine most often cited in place of the ABC, was programmable in only the most rudimentary sense, requiring re-wiring to re-program. It didn't use a stored (paper tape) program like the Harvard Mark I relay logic computer, for example. And ENIAC used decimal rather than the more versatile ABC binary design. But I would agree that the more detailed description certainly should be in the text for clarity. --Blainster 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between the ENIAC and the ABC I thought I had learned while helping rewrite this is that of the Turing completeness of the ENIAC while the ABC seems more specific to solving Diff Eq's, wasn't it? I'm actually slightly concerned that the textbox is a bit too wordy right now, but I'm happy to leave it as it is until someone finds a better or more elegant solution to le problem de textbox. Anyway, if you have better ideas, be bold. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous February 8 2005 "multiple additions" was me. Thought I was logged in. I moved the 'non-programmable' bit to a subordinate place for now--Blainster 10:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

→ Seems the primary contributor has a real issue with Mauchly/Eckert? Probably not appropriate for NPOV -- after all, Atanasoff's machine was never even fully functional (which is why no patent), and the final ENIAC was dramatically different from the ABC. Atanasoff never even stepped up to make claims until the Honeywell lawyers cajoled him. Because this article is about him, his accomplishments should be championed, but not exaggerated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juela (talk • contribs) 06:42, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

This thread is over one year old. Your points have been addressed in this and associated articles on ENIAC and the ABC. --Blainster 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

George Stibitz references needed

Since we have something about the ENIAC controversy over the first person to actually build a computer, perhaps we should also have something about the controversy involving George Stibitz too? He designed a calculator that worked via relay switches which based on my preliminary research was built almost a full two years before Atanasoff released the ABC. I'll update this myself in a day or so (no time now), but if you're interested please do it yourself! I found information initially at: ... So. Knock yourself out. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American-Bulgarian

Perhaps you can explain why the country order is in this sequence. Anyway, Atanasoff was born in the USA, so I redacted that term and put a note about his Bulgarian father in the awards section where it explains the attention from Bulgaria. --Blainster 11:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VMORO has reverted to Bulgarian-American without explanation. In the USA people born there are not usually regarded as hyphenated, unless there is a particular cultural context. That use is normally for immigrants (otherwise we would all be hyphenates!). This is not a big deal with me, and I see that he is frequently into revert wars elsewhere, so I will let it rest. --Blainster 22:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Odd Points of Interest

1) Did anyone read the bio of Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, who described his invention of the PCR reaction while cruising the Pacific Coast highway? Well John Atanasoff thought up his computer design in an incredibly similar fashion. Frustrated by his inability to solve the computer puzzles, he hopped in his car and drove absently drove ~200 miles in a frigid cold night from Ames past the Illinois border to a roadhouse. Here he stopped and once inside everything crystallized: the binary logic circuits, the regenerative refreshing of capacitor memory, etc. He realized that digital circuits were less affected by voltage fluctuations (errors) than analog circuits would be.

2) During John Mauchly's testimony at the patent trial, he cited his invention of a railway flasher as evidence that he had previously thought about a binary logic device!

Would either of these stories (from the Mollenhoff bio of Atanasoff) be of interest here? --Blainster 11:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certianly interesting to me. Since they have cites, they would be good additions to the article. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just be sure to add the book under references if you add those stories. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Burks references make much of the railroad flasher. It was one of several extant Mauchly constructions presented at trial as the only remaining evidences of Mauchly's contemporary thinking about digital circuits; this and the other devices from the 1930s exist today (and still work!). Mauchly did not claim to have "invented" this device as Blainster writes above. Flip-flops and counter circuits were both widely known prior art in digital electronics in 1940 (having been invented starting in 1919): it is prima facie inaccurate to state that John Mauchly was unaware of digital electronics principles prior to meeting Atanasoff, and such was not the ruling of Judge Larson in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand. Robert K S 06:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Atanasoff and the NOL Computer

The popular biographies have glossed over some interesting parts of A's activities during the war. Von Neumann got him to head a project to build another computer, for NOL. Mauchly was actually a consultant to this project, and the information definitely flowed from Mauchly, not to him. The hardware lead on the project, Calvin Mooers, tells the story in the Annals. So I question the existing sentence in the wiki: " Mauchly visited Atanasoff multiple times in Washington during 1943 and discussed Atanasoff's computing theories, but did not mention that he was working on a computer project himself. Mauchly's own government work, he said, was too highly secret to reveal." Atanasoff had top security clearance.

1. "The Computer Project at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory," IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 51-67, April-June, 2001. (details Atanasoff's well-funded but unsuccessful second computer project in 1945-1946)

________

So I've updated the page to include the NOL computer.

Calvin Mooers goes into depth about A and M. He describes why they never built anything at NOL in 1945. Atanasoff was basically evading making any decisions on what type of computer to make. Apparently the engineers would ask for a decision and he would deliberately change the subject (Sometimes to the topic of making goat cheese, he recalls). A. never talked about his ABC to the staff at NOL, saying it was out-dated. I tend to agree. Von Neumann was not happy when he found out that Mooers had deserted the project. He pulled the plug.

Meanwhile, in reading about Atanasoff, I've learned that he was a very prolific inventor and had dozens of patents (just not any in computers.) For example in 1937 he invented a way to measure the viscosity of eggs without breaking them - using a pendulum. Should this be in the Wiki? --Zebbie 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alteration to Opening Paragraph

I do not agree that Atanasoff can be considered the father of the electronic digital computer in any real sense - if you consult sources other than Burks, the arguments against may become clear. I will reference my moderation to the opening paragraph in a couple of days when I have the necessary books to hand.--Deknyff 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is some difference of opinion, primarily with regard to whether the definition of the term "computer" requires programability, or did sixty years ago. But there are plenty of references other than Burks to support the assertion, from both detailed sources (Mollenhoff) and general references (World Almanac and Encarta). --Blainster 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I found and corrected a number of problems with the opening paragraph. In no sense was Atanasoff a "prominent computer scientist" in his lifetime, despite his invention of the first electronic digital computer at Iowa State and his brief tenure as head of an unsuccessful computer construction project for the Naval Ordnance Laboratory during World War II. The occupation "computer scientist" can't have been said to have existed in the mid-1940s; both Atanasoff and Mauchly are better described as physicists, which more accurately portrays their breadth of interests, researches, educations, employment positions, and job titles. With regards to the above remark, I agree with Blainster that there are additional sources that may refer to Atanasoff with the honorific "father of the computer"--but these sources may not hold to the standard of objectivity and neutrality we'd like to preserve in Misplaced Pages; the term "widely" presents problems I won't get into. Suffice it to say that more accurate and encyclopedic would be to cite the Honeywell v. Sperry Rand decision, wikilink to it, and use the judge's own language. Finally, no human can be the "father" of a computer in any literal sense. Would Clifford Berry be the "mother"? Robert K S 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Parentage

It should be mentioned that ONLY his father was Bulgarian... It's HILARIOUS to put an USA citizen on the page that represents Bulgaria, come one now... you guys must have another brain to replace this scientist... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastermindsro (talk • contribs) 2007-04-29T12:23:57.

Fair use rationale for Image:John Atanasoff.gif

Image:John Atanasoff.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed, but could be improved by uploader with more specific information. Robert K S 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Rock Island

According to Iowa State lore, Dr. Atanasoff had his binary epiphany in Rock Island because it was the closest place to Ames that offered liquor by the drink (i.e., bars) in those days. The story is right there on his memorial plaque, but I don't know how one cites a plaque. Cranston Lamont (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"of Bulgarian origin"/"of Bulgarian ancestry"

Editors have been repeatedly inserting references to Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage in the lead of this article. First, the facts. Atanasoff was born near Hamilton, New York and raised in Osteen and Brewster, Florida before moving to Ames, Iowa and later to Maryland. He spoke with a soft Floridan accent throughout his life. Atanasoff had never been to Bulgaria, except once as an old man, in the midst of a larger European vacation to Germany, Yugoslavia, and Greece in 1970, when he spent a week in Sofia and another week touring the rest of the country, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences presented him with the Order of Cyril and Methodius (Mollenhoff 152). Atanasoff's name was of Bulgarian origin, but Atanasoff can not be said to have been, as Atanasoff was not from Bulgaria.

Can Atansoff be said to have been of Bulgarian heritage or ancestry? Only paternally: his father John emigrated to the U.S. at the age of 13.

Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage is such a miniscule part of his identity as a physicist, a teacher, and an inventor that it does not bear mentioning in the lead. Having a father who was from Bulgaria isn't what made Atanasoff notable; it is an incidental, not a defining, detail. I have no problem with a section of the article mentioning Atanasoff's late-life recognition by Bulgaria and his travels there, or his father's origin being mentioned. But the lead sentence? Pure boosterism. Robert K S (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Monshuai has re-added the "Bulgarian ancestry" to the lead once more with the following edit summaries: "Actually in his biography John Atanasoff states that he is a Bulgarian first and foremost. He was also a member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the C&M order. Furthermore Bulgaria was the first country to recognize him as the inventor of the digital computer. At the ceremony he said he was proud to be Bulgarian and honoured by the recognition. Defining!" What JVA said in his biography or in a speech for a Bulgarian audience (please produce citations for these, by the way) doesn't define his notability. He isn't notable for Bulgaria finding him to be notable. My problem with stating flatly and without qualification that Atanasoff was "of Bulgarian ancestry" is that it simply isn't true; Atanasoff's mother was not of Bulgarian ancestry. Since his ancestry is complicated by this fact, it can't be truncated and placed in the lead. Again, we should take no issue with the article describing Atansaoff's later-life identification with the Bulgarian people, who were kind to him and continue to cherish him as a national hero, if such an identification can be properly cited. But any boosterism Atanasoff may have himself displayed must not be transplanted into an encyclopedia article about him. Robert K S (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Apcbg reverts again with this edit summary: "Being Jewish American isn’t what made Leonard Bernstein notable; being Italian-American isn’t what makes Nancy Pelosi notable; yet that appears in their articles' leads." Let's deal with Pelosi first. Her lead sentence is currently "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (born 1940-03-26) is currently the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives." This is a fitting lead, as it states simply what Pelosi is notable for without padding the sentence with irrelevant fluff. Only later, in the third paragraph of the lead, does it mention her ethnicity: "With her election as Speaker she is the first woman, the first Californian and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Here, the context is significant; she is notable for each of these firsts. A lead for Pelosi that was written something like "Nancy Pelosi is the Italian-American current Speaker of the House" muddles the point with irrelevant detail. As for Bernstein (whose lead sentence reads "Leonard Bernstein (1918-08-25 – 1990-10-14) was a Jewish American conductor, composer, author, music lecturer and pianist."), his upbringing in a Jewish family is not irrelevant to his work output (Kaddish Symphony, e.g.) and his career (Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, e.g.), and it is only one modifier that does not require extensive qualification. Leonard Bernstein is very much notable for being Jewish and for the influence that his heritage exerted on his music. By contrast, his "Bulgarianishness" was not a factor in Atanasoff's work or career; he was not "raised Bulgarian"; he was not the "first Bulgarian" to accomplish any feat for which he was not also the first person; and his ancestry is complicated enough that it requires a caveat that taken all together distracts from the point. The Bulgarian-boosters don't seem to get it. This article is about writing a clear, concise description of John Atanasoff, it is not about assigning credit to a Bulgarian "native son" (whose "nativeness" requires more explanation than a single adjective in order for it to be completely truthful), and, by extension, to Bulgaria. I've come up with a lot of good reasons why mentioning Atansoff's ethnic heritage doesn't belong in the lead sentence, but those who keep restoring this absurdity haven't offered one good reason why it should be there, because in order to do so, they must answer this question: How did the fact that Atanasoff's father was from Bulgaria contribute to Atanasoff's invention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer? Robert K S (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One more point on this matter and then I'll have said enough. For those who are not aware, the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style has a clear guideline that speaks to this very issue. It says that the lead should mention the subject's nationality but that ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Robert K S (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is too hair-splitting. This article is not about the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, it's about Atanasoff. I don't say his ethnic ancestry must be in the first line, but your removing it from the lead section altogether is going too far, and seems to have more to do with your arguments with another user in this talk page here, and with your perception of possible Bulgarian-boosting rather than with the issue at hand. Indeed, you have failed to explain why don't you apply your approach to others i.e. How did the fact that Pelosi's parents were Italian-American contribute to her becoming Speaker of the House? How come Schwarzenegger's being Austrian-born is okay to appear in the very first sentence in his article? Some 'Austrian-boosters' probably? Sorry Robert, I am not going to reversals but, in my opinion, your double standards and attitudes are distinctly biased on this occasion. Apcbg (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger's Austrian birth is both relevant as his nationality and for his political career as it disqualifies him from the presidency per the U.S. Constitution. (It is also part of his overall superficial identity--his accent, his looks, etc. It would have been notable even had he never gone into politics. He was famously told, while still in his bodybuilder years, that he could never become a box office star because American audiences would not accept a foreigner in lead roles.) The Pelosi question is the wrong one; the point is that her Italian-American heritage did not hinder her from becoming Speaker of the House. Ethnicity and religion have always been of notable importance in American politics, because politicians in democracies must represent their constituencies in order to be elected to office, and the traditional constituencies are ethnic and religious. Persons from minorities ethnic, religious, or otherwise have a more difficult time achieving office. Ethnicity became less of an issue for European ethnicity constituencies (Irish, German, etc.) in the latter part of the 20th century as European immigration abated, but is becoming more of an issue for growing ethnic constituencies like Mexican-Americans (see, for example, Bill Richardson, whose article's first major section is rightfully "Lineage", or Mitt Romney, for whom "Religious background" is the second major section). In any case I would oppose mention of Pelosi's ethnic heritage in the lead sentence or lead paragraph of her article, despite the fact that she talks about her Italian family and upbringing in her stump speeches, because it would be a distracting detail until it was put in the context of her being the first Italian-American Speaker. I think I outlined this point pretty clearly above. I don't have any "arguments with another user in this talk page". I seek the same standards for all Misplaced Pages pages. Robert K S (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert K S, going by your logic Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is relevant as Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize his achievements. This reaches much further than your comparitively irrelevant statements regarding politcians whose ethnicity is defining since that's what got them into office. That is in no way even remotely as important as the fact that Atanasoff's ethnic background got him the Bulgarian support, both political and scientific, to be awarded the C & M medal for his achievements at an official ceremony in Bulgaria. Furthermore, this happened in the middle of the Cold War, and was regarded at the time as a gesture of scientific solidarity and peace that reached beyond the iron curtain in order to recognize the achievement of a beloved member of the Bulgarian diaspora. It was symbolic of the permeability between east and west and those ancestral ties that bound people across national borders and political spheres. That said, I will advise you to be very careful, for I deal with your type quite often and utilize the services of the Misplaced Pages administrators to overlook biased actions that do not represent NPV. Finally, when someone like Atanasoff defined himself as Bulgarian first and foremost at the award ceremony, it is clear that you are not the one who then decides that this is not important. As stated, his ethnic background stimulated his ethnic Bulgarian nation to support and honour his achievements when the USA still had not done so. It took the latter country another 20 years to follow in the footsteps of Bulgaria regarding this very defining act! This reality makes his ethnic Bulgarian ancestry exceptionally relevant, notable, defining and for all argumentative intents and purposes, crystallizing...--Monshuai (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above by Monshuai has a number of fine points and a few confused statements. I'll deal with them one-by-one:

• "Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is relevant as Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize his achievements." I agree that Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize Atanasoff and that such should be mentioned in the article. But is Atanasoff notable for having been recognized in the style of so many Paris Hiltons who are "famous for being famous"? No--he is notable for his work on the ABC and for his involvement as a witness in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand, which invalidated a patent that, if found enforcable, would have changed the face of the computer industry, as it would have given Sperry Rand and IBM a dual monopoly on the invention of the electronic digital computer. People have not written books about Atanasoff because he spent a couple of weeks in Bulgaria giving speeches, or because his father was from Bulgaria.
• "...irrelevant statements regarding politcians..." All of my statements involving politicians were intended to helpfully explain why User:Apcbg's counterexamples were not applicable. I agree that they are not directly relevant to how Atanasoff's ethnicity should be handled in this article. The "since that's what got them into office" statement shows a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote, actually inverting my argument. To repeat, from the Manual of Style: ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
• "...was regarded at the time as a gesture of scientific solidarity and peace that reached beyond the iron curtain in order to recognize the achievement of a beloved member of the Bulgarian diaspora..." If such a statement can be attributed and sourced (i.e., who said such a thing and where is it written?) then it would be a good thing to put in the article (minus the "beloved", which is POV, unless part of a direct quote, from Sendov or whomever else). Trying to compress such an idea into a statement of Atanasoff's ethnicity in the lead sentence, however, is both a disservice to the expression of the fuller idea and reads as boosterism ("Yay Bulgaria!"). I would also oppose any addition of such material that was unsourced and unattributed. "Was regarded", without saying who did the regarding, is pure peacock.
• "I deal with your type quite often and utilize the services of the Misplaced Pages administrators" We have a disagreement about how the lead sentence should be written. The way to resolve it is through discussion, which is what we're doing here. If you believe Misplaced Pages administrators will be able to assist and provide interpretation of the MoS section I've quoted, then I think you should bring this discussion to their attention.
• "...when someone like Atanasoff defined himself as Bulgarian first and foremost at the award ceremony, it is clear that you are not the one who then decides that this is not important." It is quite the contrary. Michael Jackson's lead does not read "Michael Jackson is the King of Pop"; Howard Stern's lead does not read "Howard Stern is the King of All Media". Self-proclamation is not a standard for an encyclopedia to follow. (Did John Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" make him a Berliner?) I have no problem with a section in the article that discusses Atansasoff's identification with the Bulgarian people--properly cited--but Atanasoff's opinion of himself doesn't determine the lead sentence of his article.
• "This reality makes his ethnic Bulgarian ancestry exceptionally relevant, notable, defining and for all argumentative intents and purposes..." Well, again, I ask, is Atanasoff's notable achievement that Bulargia gave him a medal, or is it that he invented a computer? Winston Churchill was awarded honorary American citizenship, but is he notable for that, or is he notable for his role as British Prime Minister during WWII? Notability is determined by the acts and accomplishments that celebrated individuals were awarded for, not for the awards themselves.

The article could be much improved with a section about Atanasoff's Bulgarian recognition. Why not channel your energies into writing that, rather than battling for Bulgarian boosterism in ways that are glaringly in violation Misplaced Pages guidelines? You seem to be an expert on this aspect on Atanasoff, and I might be able to assist. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor try, Robert. I'm not wasting my time, sorry you are unable to look objectively at your one-sided approach. Your desperate effort to demonstrate how special the cases of Pelosi and Schwarzenegger are really amuses me, for those were just two names that came to my mind; hundreds of articles on Americans of various origins mention ethnic ancestry in the lead section, often in the very first sentence indeed. So much for your POV endeavour. Apcbg (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pelosi and Schwarzenegger aren't special cases--they follow the MoS guidlines. Austrian was Schwarzenegger's nationality: he was born there. Italian isn't mentioned in the first sentence of Pelosi's article, and when it is mentioned, in the third paragraph of the lead, it's with regard to her being the first Italian-American Speaker of the House. Robert K S (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Pelosi is not Austrian, and Schwarzenegger is not Speaker of the House. And theirs, like hundreds of other articles on Americans of various origins mention ethnic ancestry in the lead section -- following the MoS guidelines no doubt -- yet Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry has no place in the lead. Your pretended explanations won't fool a baby. Apcbg (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Robert K S (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The difference is that they are all US nationals. Apcbg (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you find articles where you think the rule is being misapplied, you can post something to my talk page, and I'll go and argue the cases over there, too. The pages you mention are at present in conformity with the guidelines. (Austrian is a nationality for Schwarzenegger, and Pelosi's ethnicity is mentioned with regards to something notable about her--as it should be so in the Atanasoff article as well, in some deeper section, not in the first sentence.) That the guidelines may not be followed on some other pages is not a reason that they should not be followed here. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know of no such articles. The rule is well applied in all of them, it's only here that you are attempting to abuse the rule in order to suit your POV that Atanasoff's ancestry should be removed from the lead section. Apcbg (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If conciseness, relevance, and anti-boosterism are POVs, they are POVs I am happy to espouse. Cut the fat, get the to point, and don't use articles to further nationalistic agendas--that's what I'm about. Atanasoff was a physicist who built a computer and was involved in a notable commercial court battle. The Bulgarian recognition was an epiphenomenon. It's worth mentioning in the article, but it doesn't make Atanasoff's ethnicity directly relevant to his notability. I've said this six ways from Sunday and I'm still not sure which part of my logic you disagree with. Robert K S (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that liberal in applying labels or I might have said that yours is rather a 'nationalistic anti-Bulgarian boosterism'. Relevance? What's the relevance of your bringing in Bulgarian recognition in your response to my comment? I never even mentioned Bulgarian recognition. Your bringing it in is fallacy not logic — surely Bulgarian recognition is no reason for removing Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead section. Apcbg (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no anti-Bulgarianism in my observance of the MoS guidelines. I've repeatedly said I think Atanasoff's Bulgarian ties and recognition deserve deeper coverage in the article. I might even be able to assist in improving such sections. I was referring to the mobius-strip reasoning elaborated by Monshuai above in bringing up the Bulgarian recognition. According to Monshuai, Atanasoff's ethnicity is directly relevant to his notability because he was recognized by the Bulgarians for inventing the ABC. No, I say: he is not notable because the Bulgarians gave him a medal. He is notable for the thing that they gave him the medal for. If the Bulgarians never gave him a medal, this article would still exist. If he hadn't invented the ABC, it wouldn't. Any mention of Bulgarian anything in the first sentence of this article places undue weight on something incidental and can only serve to obfuscate and confuse. The new reader to this article shouldn't have to ask himself within the first sentence, "Wait, was this guy Bulgarian? Did he make something Bulgarian?"--he wasn't, and he didn't, and Bulgaria-boosting shouldn't be the focus of this article. Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the recognition given to Atanasoff by Bulgaria helped him win the patent dispute. The Bulgarian authorities researched his achievements and created a huge array of evidence to support his claim that he was the inventor of the world's first digital computer. This compilation of ethno-politically motivated evidence was used in the patent related dispute. Furthermore, it prompted the USA to do the same much later when he recieved a medal by George Bush Sr. In essence Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry helped him get the recognition he deserved. This is not about whether Bulgaria per se helped him invent the computer, but about the fact that his Bulgarian ancestry helped him achieve the status and official recognition that no one, including the American courts, would give him until the Bulgarian nation decided to lend a helping hand. Remember, the People's Court of Bulgaria recognized him as the winner in the patent dispute in order for him to be eligible for the order. As Monshuai said, this is indeed defining and notable without doubt, because this article may very well not have been written about Atanasoff if the "other" party had won the patent case without the support of the Bulgarians, their government and supreme court. Rober K S, I am not a Bulgarian so I don't know what your issues are with these people, nor do I car all that much, and I'm sure you are not a bad guy. However, what I can say is that it seems that you have something against the Bulgarians and therefore trying to hide Atanasoff's ancestral background. I'm sure you realize that this could get you into trouble since your arguments do seem biased and in my opinion not nearly as solid as those of Monshuai a few paragraphs ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.112.124 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gug. For the last time, I think the article could be improved with a section about the Atanasoff-Bulgaria connection, including his ancestry (properly explained, not just stuffed into the lead as boosterism), his recognition, and anything else that can be properly sourced. There's nothing anti-Bulgarian in keeping a lead that is in line with MoS and sticks to matters relevant to the subject's notability. Please provide a source re: the Bulgarians researching Atanasoff's case and assisting with providing evidence in HvSR. It's news to me and strikes me as a theory of the utmost unlikelihood given that the Bulgarians wouldn't have had access to any evidence that wasn't available to attorneys scouring file cabinets in Ambler, Ames, Philadelphia, and Maryland. Robert K S (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)This discussion thread went too messy; I wished Bulgarian recognition were deiscussed separately as it certainly can be no sound reason for removing Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead section.

Robert, your insistence that it's appropriate for hundreds of American biographical articles to have ancestry mentioned in the lead section, albeit not so for Atanasoff, demonstrates nothing but your biased attitude. As that attitude has already been amply demonstrated in your comments above, there is no need to continue. Subject closed. Apcbg (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As per MoS, ancestry should be mentioned in the lead of biographical subjects only for whom it is directly relevant to the subject's notability. I assert that Atanasoff's ancestry bears no direct relevance to his notability as a computer inventor and subsequent patent trial witness. Those who assert that it does have confused Atanasoff's recognition for his accomplishments with the accomplishments themselves as a reason for his notability. Apcbg's position seems to be that it's fine to include ancestry (which, for most Americans, including Atanasoff, is not as cut-and-dry as one national heritage) in the lead of biographical articles willy-nilly. The problem with this is that it promotes "claiming" and boosterism, which degrade the presentation of encyclopedic material. Robert K S (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not distort my position. I never wrote if 'it's fine to include ancestry'. I just observed the fact that ancestry is included in such leads (with less than cut-and-dry cases of three relevant nations involved too). Your idea that Atanasoff should be excepted to suit your selective boosterism sensitivity is ridiculous. I am really not wasting more time, and I trust that the present aberration would be corrected earlier or later as some reasonably neutral editors get involved; happens in Misplaced Pages all the time you know. Bye, Apcbg (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misrepresented what you said. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and it's possible that there are many other articles that do not conform to the MoS. You can post links to them to my talk page and I'll bring up the issue there, too. I've already explained why the examples you provided conform to MoS:

• His being brought up in a Jewish household is directly relevant to Leonard Bernstein's notability as he wrote (lots of) Jewish music and conducted an orchestra in Israel. Atanasoff did not make anything "Bulgarian" or do anything notable in Bulgaria, so his ethnicity is not directly relevant to his notability.
• "Austrian" is a nationality for Arnold Schwarzenegger; he was born there. MoS calls for an individual's nationality to be introduced in the lead of biographical articles. Obviously, for persons of complicated nationality (e.g. those who obtain citizenship in three or more countries throughout their lives), trying to cram all such information in the lead sentence may not be appropriate. In the case of Arnold, "Austrian-born" does not considerably complicate the lead. Maria Callas also fits this pattern. Her nationality is no more complicated than calling her "an American-born Greek". Atanasoff was not born in Bulgaria and was never a citizen of Bulgaria, so his nationality should be appropriately identified in the lead as "American", not "Bulgarian".
• Nancy Pelosi's ethnicity is not mentioned in the first sentence of her lead, and is only mentioned in the lead at all with reference to a notable achievement (being the first Italian-American Speaker of the House). No such similar reference can be made of Atanasoff. (He was not "the first Bulgarian-American" anything for which he was not also the first person.) Just as I would oppose Nancy Pelosi's lead reading "Nancy Pelosi is the Italian-American Speaker of the House", I oppose Atanasoff's lead reading "John Vincent Atanasoff was a Bulgarian-American physicist".

I can helpfully keep clarifying this as long as you have doubts or questions about my reasoning. I am disappointed that I have not satisfied you that I am interested in applying the rule across the board in an unbiased way. Robert K S (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something I posted in the conflict of interest discussion page that showcases Robert K S's biases:

Unfortunately 'YOU = (plural)' missed the point I was making. In the Nancy Pelosi article it states, "With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Indeed, the key words are, "first Italian-American" None of you criticized this, nor have you criticized such statements in other articles either. Yet according to your above arguments regarding Atanasoff, one can conclude that Pelosi's Italian background is also not the key to her notability. The fact that she is Italian was not " the reason why did/does great work". That quote and interpretation of MoS comes directly from EdJohnston. Or as Robert K S states, where is the evidence that because of "genetic heritage they were notable for such-and-such accomplishments". Unfortunately his original statement examines Atanasoff's notability only, as he has firmly stated that it does not apply to Pelosi. As you can see I placed the words "" and "" in a direct quote from him in order to showcase his subjectivity by highlighting the fact that he should have applied his opinion and intepretation of rules to the Pelosi article as well, which he instead vehemently defended as an model article that adheres to MoS. That's where his bias is obvious and his anti-Bulgarianism apparent. From his support of the Pelosi article, one can only deduce that he feels Pelosi's genetic heritage is both the agent/catalyst and more importantly the undeniable reason for her achievements and notability. Said another way, he (and the rest of you involved in this herein discussion who support his bias) is/are saying that in fact her Italian heritage is the reason she became a notable human being. Your bias will be neutralized, and others who are indeed neutral will clearly see and at present do agree that the Atanasoff article should and WILL be treated the same way that the articles of other notable personas are treated. I will not allow you or anyone else to demonstrate hypocrisy and variable rules that are applied subjectively 'here and there'... The rules will be the same for each and every article! There are two options at this moment of time: (A) Either those other 'people' articles will be re-edited under the objective lens of a consistent editorial microscope, or (B) the Atanasoff article will have the Bulgarian-American portion included. Pelosi being the first Italian-American speaker is no more pronounced a truth than Atanasoff being the first Bulgarian-American scientist of prominence. He is also the first Bulgarian-American inventor who gained international notability and the first Bulgarian-American to receive the "United States National Medal of Technology, the highest U.S. honour conferred for achievements related to technological progress." Due to his achievements he is also many other Bulgarian-American firsts!--Monshuai (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

why not fix the Nancy Pelosi article instead of repeating the same mistake here? Be BOLD! harlock_jds (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Monshuai's remarks above, which are a welcome return to good faith discussion of the issue.

• I'm not going to say anything more about Nancy Pelosi or the others. I've outlined why I think she and the other examples fall within guidelines, so I don't plan on making changes to the other articles. If anyone believes that they are not within guidelines, then yes, as Harlock says, those issues should be taken to their respective articles' talk pages. Boosterism in one article is no justification for boosterism in another article; two wrongs do not make a right.
• Referring to Atanasoff as a "Bulgarian-American", in the lead or elsewhere, is a statement of limited honesty, as it neglects Atanasoff's maternal lineage. The only completely honest way to handle Atanasoff's ancestry is to say that he had a Bulgarian father. I think the article already does this well. If Atanasoff's mother's ancestors' lineages can be verifiably sourced, they can be added too. (One editor added that she was was of Irish descent, but when I asked that editor what his source was, he told me he had seen it posted to an Irish Nationalism message board .)
• If Atanasoff is indeed the first notable scientist of Bulgarian ancestry, and if such a statement can be attributed and verifiably sourced, I have no problem with such a statement appearing in the article. Does it belong in the lead? I'll leave that up for discussion. Does it belong in the first sentence of the lead? No. Books haven't been written about Atanasoff because he had a Bulgarian father. Books have been written about Atanasoff because he built a computer and testified at a patent trial.

Robert K S (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note is that i can not find any biographies that calls him a 'Bulgarian-American'... the strongest statement i can find is 'Bulgaria-Descended' (from www.johnatanasoff.com). Honestly i think this may be notable enough to include in the lead off section (reading something like American of Bulgarian descent, not 'Bulgarian-American') if it is true that he is the foremost scientist (or one of the foremost scientists) of Bulgarian descent (which i would agree is the case). harlock_jds (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

johnatanasoff.com is a source with a boosterism agenda: "Modern Bulgarians need, among many other things, a well-grounded national confidence. The source of self-confidence is our history and the talent of people with Bulgarian blood in their veins." Is Atanasoff notable for inventing a computer and testifying in a patent trial, or for having a Bulgarian father? Is the mission of Misplaced Pages to forge unbiased, neutral-point-of-view content, or to bring self-confidence to Bulgarians? If Atanasoff's Bulgarian descent is to be mentioned, and an Irish nationalist "claims" Atanasoff through his mother, does the lead then become "John Vincent Atanasoff was an American physicist of Bulgarian and Irish descent? If Atanasoff's mother had both Irish and English ancestry, do we now list three ethnicities? The objective way to handle ethnicity, the way that prevents unfettered multiplication of nationality name-checks, the way to keep an article free of boosterism, is to follow the MoS guideline. Robert K S (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

my point was that even a site pushing the Bulgarian/Atanasoff connection didn't refer to him as 'Bulgarian-American' so I don't see how this article could ever do so. As for the rest we'll agree to disagree, clearly the fact he had a Bulgarian ancestor is relevant in his life and i don't mind it being mentioned in the lead (as it is one of the first things you learn about him when reading about him) but i don't feel strongly enough about it to push it into the article, esp since it's mentioned later on. I'm not sure why his mother keeps on coming up... clearly she wasn't a recent immigrant to the US and her ansestory isn't notable enough for even a passing mention in any source i can find (except for how long her family had been in america).harlock_jds (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "it is one of the first things you learn about him when reading about him"--this depends on what you mean by "one of the first things". In the book that deals most personally with Atanasoff (Mollenhoff), it shows up at the end of a foreward and then again in chapter 2. In many technical articles that give brief biographical sketches of Atanasoff, it is not mentioned at all. In boosterish presentations of Atanasoff, it is highlighted foremost, as if having Bulgarian heritage is the most siginificant thing about Atanasoff. This is the type of skewed presentation I've specifically been combating. Since the lead was scanty in comparison to the whole article size and deserved to be extended per the MoS guidelines on lead sections, I've added a paragraph to the article which develops Atanasoff's career and recognition and also mentions Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage. Robert K S (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It has already been shown that throughout Misplaced Pages many articles exist that describe Chinese-Americans, Italians-Americans, African-Americans etc where the notability of the person is in no way more related to his/her ancestral lineage than that of John Atanasoff. Various administrators working on said articles agree across the board that these peoples' ethnicities as XYZ-Americans must be mentioned in the articles. Even so, a few people here such as Robert K S have shown a very biased attitude towards Bulgarians, and therefore believe their perspectives should only be applied to this article and not to others. Thus it is their view that it's not OK to call someone a Bulgarian-American, but it is OK to call someone else a Chinese-American or an Italian-American. This is evidence that they simply do not want to get into heated debates with editors and administrators of other nationalities, especially those whose lineages stem from larger countries. Why is that? Are they intimidated by bigger countries whose Wikipedian populations have significant human ressources and therefore more influence and ability to defend their perspectives? Does Robert K S therefore enjoy mutilating the articles of small countries such as Bulgaria simply because he feels there won't be as much opposition to his prejudiced actions? Or does he just have something against Bulgaria, its people and its national heroes? It should be of no surprise that Atanasoff is indeed a Bulgarian heroe. Kids learn about him in school, TV programs highlight his professional achievements and year after year people in the country celebrate his birthday. There are Bulgarian books written about him and even the yearly national John Atanasoff Science and Technology Award given to talanted researchers in Bulgaria. Strangely, Robert once said that there were no books written about Atanasoff in Bulgaria. This shows that he simply says things without having the least bit knowledge of the Bulgarian language and therefore minimal concept of what Bulgarian literature exists regarding its national heroe(s). Does this sound like an objective and impartial Wikipedian editor? See his above comments for more information and judge for yourself. Anyway, more intriguing is the fact that the only momument built in Atanasoff's honour also resides in Bulgaria. It has no counterpart elsewhere in the world, including the USA. The said statue was erected specifically in his ancestral country because he is notable for being the first Bulgarian-American to become a globally famous inventor and scientist. That is also why Bulgaria was the first country to recognize his invention and bestowe him with the first national award for his scientific achievements, the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius a striking 20 years before America did so. One should also note that the only institutions and streets named after him are in Bulgaria, not in America. Indeed it is obvious that his connection to Bulgaria is much stronger than the connections other famous personas have with their ancestral lands. It should also be noted that the Bulgarian populace has largely helped make Atanasoff famous. This is not only because they supported and recognized him as the inventor of the digital computer before anyone else did so, but also because through their actions Atanasoff's name has been repeated in national media outlets. Everybody in Bulgaria knows his name and can list his achievemments, while no one in the USA , excluding a fraction of the IT oriented professionals there, has even heard of him. Robert K S may not like to admit this, but his actions thus far are extremely partial. Perhaps he needs to edit Michelle Kwan's article, remove any mention that is Chinese-American and then move on to a few thousand other ones before he comes back to this one.--Monshuai (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai's arguments still boil down to "Atanasoff is beloved in Bulgaria, therefore his ethnicity is germane to his notability." The nation of Bulgaria did not assist with Honeywell v. Sperry Rand and played no role in that trial. I'm not going to spend a tremendous amount of energy debating this further, but will, instead, summarily revert boosterism and will continue to request the temporary full protection of this article. Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't blindly revert edits to this article, and please don't continually "request the temporary full protection of this article" - that's just being disruptive and you'll end up blocked. It's pretty obvious from the above discussion that this is a content dispute. If you cannot come to agreement, at least go down the path of dispute resolution - Alison 00:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, this is not a content dispute. It is uncontested that Atanasoff was a Bulgarian American. The question here is, is this article going to adhere to guidelines designed to keep articles free of boosterism, or is it going to be a boosterism piece? Robert K S (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening to a word I'm saying here. In short; quit using rollback inappropriately and quit repeatedly requesting full-prot at WP:RPP - Alison 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, I ask that you retract the above, which portrays me as having repeatedly used rollback to revert Monshuai, when in fact I did so once. Someone reading this thread in the future might get the wrong idea without checking the edit history. Robert K S (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It does no such thing. You misused the rollback function in a content dispute. Please don't do that again - Alison 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm - and this and this count as multiple abuses of Rollback on the John Vincent Atanasoff article - Alison 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out that since I posted the above comment, Robert K S has made two revert edits without responding to my premise and/or contributing to the discussion page in any way, form or fashion. The information/analysis I provided above was intended to clarify the current predicament and apparent revert war that Robert K S seems to want to start or has seemingly already started. He has also been using coercive tactics to intimidate Wikipedian editors who don't agree with him by "telling" them that he will have this article locked unless they accept his prejudices. Upon careful evaluation of the situation and after conducting an analysis of the edit dynamics over the last 2 years, it would seem that Robert K S has assumed that he owns this article. His behaviour is a clear example of the disruptive territoriality described in WP:OWN. Luckily, administrators who look into the article will be able to compare reverts made with or without contributions to this discussion page. As such it serves as primary evidence detailing the evolution of the circumstances at hand. In other words, some editors follow the rules and clarify their positions before making edits, while others such as Robert K S do not do so when the evidence is stacked against them. They simply make threats! Such behaviour clearly does not live up to Wikipedian ideals.--Monshuai (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that and I'll say to both of you, please don't edit war over this or you will be blocked per policy. Note that the '3' part of 3RR is not a requirement for being blocked; disruptive edit-warring is. Both of you need to resolve this here - Alison 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am neither American nor Bulgarian.) I have read all of the claims above. I have also taken about 20 minutes to check Atanasoff as he is treated on the Internet. I am keepng in mind that I am only seeing articles available in English (and could not read them in any other language, except French, even if they were available.) The WP:MOS section that is linked above appears to be quite clear: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Well, clear for WP; "should" and "generally" allow for there being exceptions, without establishing any guidelines for such exceptions. Nothing about what made Mr Atanasoff notable had anything to do with Bulgaria. Bulgaria did acknowledge some of his work before the same acknowledgement came in America. The country claimed him first. Bulgaria has also, according to some of the preceding statements, given him greater prominence than has occurred in the US. However, the fact that he is well (or, at least "better") known in Bulgaria has nothing to do with basis for his notability. Atanasoff was born in the US, educated there, and did his research there. There is nothing of Bulgaria in his work, and it is for his work that he is known. I can find nothing that says he spoke, read or wrote Bulgarian, or that he was even in the country except very near the end of his life. Unless I missed something, I would tend to agree that Bulgarian-American in the lede is stretching the matter, as is the use of a Cyrillic version of his name. To put this lengthy reference to his ethnicity in the lede gives it undue weight. Bielle (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion Bielle, especially so because you have presented it in a very polite manner. Still the question remains, what do you think of the thousands of other Misplaced Pages articles and their respective administrators who have allowed African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, etc to be presented in the leads of articles when a majority of personas therein have even less connections to their ancestral lands than John Atanasoff? Thanks again Bielle. :) --Monshuai (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual answer to such a question is a blunt reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, except that its subsection on precedence in usage suggests that there is sometimes merit in checking to see how articles with similar concerns have handled the question. I am just speaking of the lede for both Atanasoff and the other examples below. Some examples of "Hyphenated Americans" given in the preceding sections are: Leonard Bernstein, born and educated in the US, is in his WP lede an "American composer, conductor"; his Russian Jewish ancestry comes up only in the following section about his early life. Nancy Pelosi's only identification as "Italian-American" is a qualifier in the lede to her list of firsts. (I don't know enough about American politics to be sure, but perhaps not giving her nationality is because all members of the US Congress have to be US citizens.) Michelle Kwan who was born in the US is identified in the lede as an "American figure skater", with a pinyan name; both her parents were from Hong Kong. Arnold Schwarznegger is different in that he is identified in the lede as "Austrian American"; however, unlike all the others, he wasn't born in the US, but in Austria, and was schooled in Austria; he didn't come to the US until he was 21. So far, calling Atanasoff "American" in the lede is consistent with the examples. I don't know about "hundred" or even 'thousands" of others, nor do I have the time to check for that many. I have looked at: Werner von Braun (born in the "German Empire" and came to the US as an adult) is "German American"; Henry Kissinger is a "German-born American" having been born in Bavaria and naturalized as an American in 1943; Danny Kaye appears as "an American . . ." though his parents were Ukrainian Jews; Shing-Tung Yau is a "Chinese American mathematician" who was born in China; Danny Thomas is an "American . . ." born in the US to Lebanese parents; and, last, because it is late and the list I could check is almost endless, Rita Wilson an "American actress" born in the US to a Bulgarian father who was born in Greece and a Greek mother.

The precedent appears to be that the form "XXX American" is used in the lede when the subject was born somewhere other than the US. When the subject was born in the US, the form in the lede is simply "American". This isn't a personal argument for me. If the examples I have pulled at random are not representative, then that will become clear soon enough. If they are, then I would suggest that Mr Atanasoff be a plain "American" in the lede, and his Bulgarian heritage be given proper weight in the sections on his background. If we knew his mother's ethnicity, we could credit that, too. Bielle (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's List of Chinese Americans defines the meaning of the term. It clearly states that Chinese Americans are "original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants." The word "descendents" seems to be rather clarifying! A few examples below:

-Michael Chang: http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Chang (It clearly states in the lead section that he is Taiwanese American even though he was born in the US.

-Anna May Wong: http://en.wikipedia.org/Anna_May_Wong (Clearly states that she is a Chinese-American actress in the lead even though she is born in Los Angeles, California)

As you can see Bielle, you are incorrect when you say that those born in America are not called XXX-Americans. I am not sure how you could have missed this.

The fact of the matter is that I have no problem saying that John Atanasoff is an American physicist in the first sentence as long as it is stated in the second or third sentence that he is the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in the fields of science and technology in the USA. This is no different than the case of Nancy Pelosi being the first Italian-American to be a Speaker of the House. It should also be known that I suggested this to Robert K S over a year ago, in essence proposing a compromise, call it a partial departure, from both of our original positions. I will kindly extend this offer to him one more time in the hope that he will be more reasonable than he was in our past discussions.

I will be listing many examples of XYZ-Anericans tomorrow. What I've given above is just the tip of the iceberg or the icing on the cake if you will. As for now it's time for me to go to bed. Good night or good day wherever you all may be.--Monshuai (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

“Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” If Atanasoff’s notability did not derive from his being Bulgarian American, then it did not derive from his being American either. Therefore, it is equally appropriate or not so to mention that he was an American or that he was a Bulgarian American in the lead. As it is not disputed that he was Bulgarian American, that ought to be mentioned in the article’s text I believe, if not in the lead then perhaps at the point saying that his father immigrated from Bulgaria.

“... is stretching the matter, as is the use of a Cyrillic version of his name.” His Bulgarian family name is originally written in the Cyrillic alphabet; I cannot see what’s wrong in including this information in the article, and the usual place for that seems to be just after the first occurrence of the name, together with the IPA transcription to which it is relevant. Apcbg (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Apcbg "Ethnicity" is different from "nationality". Atanasoff's nationality is American, and that is what appears to belong in the lede. As for using "Bulgarian American" in the same place it says that his father emigrated from Bulgaria, that's unnecessary duplication: one or the other, but not both, would be this editor's choice.

@Monshuai I think I already noted I had made a random selection of names, and fully expected there would be counter-examples. I was only surprised I did not find any in my research. I am struggling here to articulate what appear to be the differences, because there are differences, even if it isn't as simple as "born in the USA". It is something like the fact that the subjects are given two affiliations where both are significant in what has made them be notable. For the actress Wong, for example, the fact of her Chinese (and Asian) roots are significant in what she achieved, in what she was "permitted" to achieve. For the tennis-player Chang, his Taiwanese roots made him a visibly unusual figure in American, and even world, tennis circuits, so that his ethnicity was well recognized during his career. This would also be true of all, or almost all, African Americans. And Nancy Pelosi's political campaigns, as I recall, had a focus on her Italian heritage. What is there about having had a Bulgarian father that had any visible or acknowledged or known or even suspected effect on Athanasoff's notability?

I suspect there are enough inconsistencies in WP that we'll soon have a list too long to read, and have proven nothing that we have not already said. So, when looking for precedents has given us no clear answer, the only WP guidance remains “Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” As for saying that Athanasoff "is the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in the fields of science and technology in the USA", we would have to have a reliable source saying just that before we could include it. Bielle (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Bielle, you believe that for people such as Anna May Wong ethnicity is notable because of "what she was permitted to achieve." In essence, you are suggesting that race plays a part here. Your premise is that those people of non-white racial backgrounds can be called XXX-Americans, while those who look similar to the majority do not have this right. I hope you see the irony in your statements. After all, you are valuing the notability of people's ethnic affiliations based on how others, and yourself, subjectively judge/view their physical appearance. You further highlight your perspective by saying that Michael Chang was a Taiwanese American because he was a "visibly unusual figure". Again, your message is that those who look different should be treated differently. Let me repeat this because I find it unbelievable: The more white and thus the less "visibly unusual" an American person looks, the less they can be called an XXX-American because that, in your words, makes their ethnicity less important and less notable. Your conclusion is that whiter looking people are more American, and thus less XXX-American. Do you see the problem there? I realize it's not your intention, but that perspective is about as subjective and non-scientific as it gets. Not only is it a prejudiced way of "seeing" things, it is also confusing the concept of an ethnic background with that of a so-called racial background. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. Likewise, ethnic affiliations and the notability of those affiliations is not directly tied to physical appearance.--Monshuai (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai I would ask that you reconsider carefully what claims you have made above about what I believe. Most of what you have written needs to be deleted and the rest moderated. It is full of outrageous commentary and vile accusations that are only tangentially related to what I have presented. You have me taking some racist position that I didn't say and do not espouse. I was telling you what I found on WP, not what I believed or what I thought "ought to be" in any social sense. Indeed, it is not only "not my intention", it is not even in the same universe of possible intentions. It does appear to be true that those who are visibly identifiable as belonging to a specific ethnic group, even when born in the USA, appear to be more likely to have a description of "XXX American". In many cases, what these people have achieved, given the racial tensions in America in the 19th and 20th centuries is all the more significant because of what they had to overcome to get there. That is in keeping with the directive that ethnicity is included when it is a factor in the subject's notability. Nowhere do I claim that it is right or just that ethnicity should be such a factor; nowhere. I am observing what I have read in article after article. It is your conclusion (not mine) that this means that "whiter looking people are more American", and it is complete nonsense, unscientific and subjective. I am not confusing either race or nationality with ethnicity. You have completely mis-stated my comments and, in doing so, have furthered no discussion with respect to the concern at hand. If Atanasoff's ethnic heritage is in some acknowledged way pertinent to his scientific achievements, then his heritage belongs in the lede. Otherwise, to the extent that we have reliable sources to confirm his heritage, it belongs in the section(s) on his background. Bielle (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, your tone sounds very threatening, whereas I have been rather polite and I specifically stated that I do not believe critical points of your statement were intentional. Look it up! Further still, if you believe that I have misrepresented your statement then you need not worry. After all everyone can read it and judge for themselves. On top of that, it is most certainly not your right to censor anyone whose opinion you do not agree with. That's unacceptable, especially since it seems to me that you are using your emotional reaction as both an excuse and incentive to disregard the flaws in your own argument. You see, as a Wikipedian I have a responsibility to analyze what you have written and deduce what I feel are your intentional, or in this case unintentional assertions. You clearly talk about observable physical differences and tie them into your concept of notability. Did you really expect that I wouldn't notice? Simply put I have used your statement to show that what you have written is in fact ironic and not very well articulated. Speaking of that I am roused to ask three related questions: (1) Did you not say that you were struggling to articulate the differences between someone such as a US born Bulgarian-American and a US born Chinese-American? (2) Was your follow-up comment not anchored in the concept that there are such differences? (3) Did you not then characterize Michael Chang as being a "visibly unusual figure"? I'd hate to state the obvious, but you are applying two sets of rules to two ethnic groups. In other words, you are using what intellectuals often refer to as contradictory principles, otherwise known as double standards. Based on this evidence, it is apparent that you are frustrated simply because you are pulling at breakable strings when sculpting your argumentative basis, which is both a symptom and a consequence of using the said double standards when attempting to prove your points and not the direct result of having to deal with someone such as myself who has the ability to critique what you have written in the first place. By telling me that my comments should be erased you are in effect suggesting that Misplaced Pages should not have free speech and/or contributors with advanced reading, comprehension and debating skills lest someone have the ability to point out where you are mistaken. Well guess what Bielle, I will not stand for that. So here comes another critique courtesy of myself... Your bullying tone and your conviction that censorship is an appropriate tool in Misplaced Pages, shows me that you (A) do not consider the perspectives of others to be equally valid or deserving of public recognition as your own, and (B) that you were not objective from the onset of entering this debate. Nor have you satisfactorily justified your use of double standards for one ethnic group relative to another. Why should Bulgarian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans etc be treated differently in Misplaced Pages? Is that not a form of prejudice and/or discrimination in itself? I should also make you aware that I have composed a lengthy rebuttal disproving your other points as well, which shall be posted later in the discussion as a positive mechanism to evolve our understanding of the matters at hand and thus make this dialogue maximally crystallizing. Finally, should you feel the urge to threaten and attempt to intimidate me again, first take a deep breath and then take note of the fact that on three separate occasions I have specifically said that I do not accuse you of deliberate partiality. However I do hold you responsible for not identifying, correcting or even admitting it. We are all guilty of making mistakes. That is without question! It is however up to us to not be guilty of making them a second, third or fourth time. My advice to you, please be cultured and kind enough to keep this a civil discussion and do be more vigilant when composing your next reply.--Monshuai (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading through this discussion, I'm becoming increasingly embarrassed of being Bulgarian myself. The point that Atanasoff's relationship to Bulgaria is circumstantial, and not really linked to his notability, has been clearly explained by both Robert K S and Bielle. Meanwhile, Monshuai's contributions, while admirably passionate, are often condescending (how is telling someone "I deal with your type quite often" conducive to holding a sensible discussion?), and altogether biased. In the summary of one of your recent edits you say This time as many Bulgarians will be mobilized as need be to overcome prejudice. Maybe if enough of the Chinese Communist Party was "mobilized" it could edit the article on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 so as to to "overcome prejudice"? I know that's probably an inappropriate example, but my point is that the question at hand is a pretty objective one. In an ideal world where emotions or personal affiliations did not play a role, the answer shouldn't depend on the nationality of the person answering. The points made by both sides have been hammered to death so I won't reiterate them. According to Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and according to the vast majority of examples presented, and according to an independent observer (i.e. someone whose priority is simply to accurately inform the readers of Misplaced Pages), there is no clear justification to call Atanasoff "Bulgarian-American". There is also definitely no justification to have his name spelled out in Bulgarian after his actual name. He obviously didn't have a Bulgarian passport or any other such document, and I don't see why the Bulgarian spelling would be either informative or relevant to any given reader.

After numerous transitions Bulgaria seems to have a somewhat confused self-identity, which may be typical of a small country that is relatively unknown. In order to overcome this, we as a nation have selected a number of entities upon which we base out national pride. Some of the main ones are:

• Yogurt: apparently ours is world-renowned. It definitely is different to regular yogurt, though surprisingly the only places where people seem to have heard of it are Japan and Korea - some company or other has done an unusually good job at marketing it there.
• World Cup 94: after a lot of blood, sweat and tears, we beat Germany to come 4th.
• A folk song by Valya Balkanska is one of just 27 pieces of music sent into space on the Voyager Golden Record, which is really quite a good accomplishment in terms of representing us to the universe.
• We sent two men, Georgi Ivanov and Aleksandar Aleksandrov, into space...well, technically, Russia did the "sending into space" bit.
• John Atanasoff, the guy who invented computers, was Bulgarian. At least that's the notion instilled in most children from a young age in order to get them feeling patriotic - later on some go on to find out in fact he was only sort of Bulgarian.

I know this list might seem irrelevant, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that there is comparatively little to grasp at in terms of defining ourselves to the world. Therefore it's only natural that we try to really milk any of these achievements for everything they're worth (esp. yogurt). There's nothing wrong with feeling patriotic and reminding ourselves that some good things have come out of our country, and telling our friends about it. But there's no point in stretching the truth so far that it undermines Misplaced Pages's commitment to objectivity. It's just not the right place. Maybe instead of wasting our time in revert-wars we should instead concentrate on doing something notable ourselves? Tomatoman (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman, I value your opinion even though I do not agree with it. You see, unlike Bielle, the person you refer to as being neutral, I do not want to censor those with whom I disagree. More on this later, as first I want to cover your other comments. You say that Bulgarians are instilled with a sense of Atanasoff being Bulgarian. You make it sound as though the populace is indoctrinated. The problem with that notion is that Bulgaria has not been controlled by a Communist oligarchy for more than 20 years now, and therefore its populace have access to the outside world including all the global media that any other populace has access to. In other words, the information at their disposal is no less complete than that of other "free" and "democratic" nations. Thus your primary premise is defective. Also your example of Tiananmen square is not directly applicable to the situation at hand. The Communist Party of China attempts to censor information about the politically motivated massacre, similarly to how Bielle attempted to censor my comments. That is the only connection I see herein and not the one you implied. As I stated earlier you suggested that Bielle was the objective observer, simply because he/she says she is. I imagine you realize that this is no way to evaluate neutrality. What is required is a retrospective analysis of what this person has written. When that is done it is clear that Bielle (A) believes that censorship of opinions she/he does not agree with is a correct course of action, like your "beloved" Chinese Communist Party and (B) that these opinions are thus less valuable than her/his own. She/he also applies double standards when considering descendents of different ethnic groups born in the USA. The reason for this is because she claims they are "visibly unusual". Does that demonstrate Bielle's neautrality? Further more, the administrator involved in the discussion clearly noted that both sides made good points and this was in her opinion a content dispute. Did you fail to read her statements as well or did you simply feel that the administrator's comments are not important? She was the actual objective and neutral observer and therefor I am continually puzzled as to why you chose to not mention her. You also suggest that Atanasoff should not be written in Bulgarian, even though it is Wikipedian policy to write transliterated names in the language from which they originate. Atanasoff like it or not is a Bulgarian name. In conclusion, your scrutiny of the dynamics herein is at best an incomplete one. You also mention that the "vast majority of examples presented, and according to an independent observer (i.e. someone whose priority is simply to accurately inform the readers of Misplaced Pages), there is no clear justification to call Atanasoff "Bulgarian-American". Clearly you have not looked at those examples as they have demonstrated the opposite of what you conclude. In other words the use of Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, Italian-American, African-American etc is applied even to those born in the USA. I should also paraphrase you that you feel increasingly embarassed to be Bulgarian. Tell me, are always so lacking in self esteem that you judge an entire nation based on comments you disagree with on Misplaced Pages? When and if you reply please cover all points from my response, including the points I made in my previous two comments.--Monshuai (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, I will gladly oblige in covering all points from your response:

• My statement about Bulgarians' perception of Atanasoff was slightly tongue-in-cheek, and you took it out of context. I was pointing out the fact that his ancestry is a matter of great national pride, and that some people may take this notion too far.
• At the time at which I wrote the above, I was not aware of Alison's contribution below. In fact, it was posted after mine, so I'm not sure why you expect me to have read it. Alison clearly finds your comment towards Bielle unreasonable, as do I. Bielle's words never meant what you're implying that they meant. Stop pretending like you're a victim of her "censorship" or whatever, you're starting to sound like a toddler throwing a fit - don't embarrass yourself.
• The way I see it being "visually different" clearly has, over the years, had implications on the way people have been treated in society. The fact that until quite recently African-Americans officially belonged to a different social class purely because of their appearance is a case in point. The same cannot be said about "Bulgarian-Americans". While I have just made a purely factual statement, based on your previous comments I fear that you may misconstrue what I just said as racism.
• The purpose of my comment about the CCP editing the Tiananmen square article was to illustrate that an article's content shouldn't reflect what the majority of editors (or the most boisterous ones) believe to be true. It should reflect what the actual truth is. Thereby getting more people to edit it one way that another is hardly a valid way of achieving objectivity.
• Regarding the Bulgarian spelling of a surname of Bulgarian origin, I went down your preferred route and looked up the articles on a couple of people who were in a similar "situation". Incidentally, they were Bernard Madoff and Frank Wilczek and neither of their names are spelled out in the original spelling of the country the surnames originate from. I'm sure counter-examples exist, but the fact is that many (in a way, almost all) Americans are descendants of immigrants, and giving the original spelling of their surnames in every case seems a little over the top. I agree that it ought to be done for people born actually outside the US, but Atanasoff wasn't one.
• The point you bring up again about XXX-American was covered thoroughly, and without bias, by Alison. I refer you to her post. Tomatoman (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Honors and distinctions

Hate to say it Robert but your edition to that section is not appreciated.

The 1970 Sts. Cyril and Methodius Order was originally appearing in the opening paragraph of that section, until removed by someone last September.

I restored it as it rightly belongs there, being an early highest national scientific award Atanasoff got, preceding in particular the other highest national scientific award of Atanasoff's, the 1990 National Medal of Technology.

There is nothing special about the 1981 IEEE Computer Pioneer Medal, or Atanasoff Hall, or 'Project Vincent' in comparison with the other awards, institutions, and features named for Atanasoff, hence the right chronological place for the Medal, the Hall, and the Project is among the other honors listed below.

There is and was no 'Order of Bulgaria' by the way.

As I mentioned earlier — in connection with your biased removal of Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead — I am not going into reversals, so I would expect you to revert your inappropriate (to put it mildly) edit that has degraded the Honors section text. Apcbg (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which edit of mine are you referring to? Robert K S (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This one, the 'Honors and distinctions' section. Apcbg (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Something weird happened when I made that edit. It reverted some of my changes, too, not just yours. I'll try to repair the damage, but feel free to make further corrections. PS--always remember to assume good faith! Robert K S (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Apologies for the mix-up. It wasn't intentional. Robert K S (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I always do assume good faith — both in Misplaced Pages and out of it. Unless/until the opposite is confirmed, that is; to continue assuming good faith afterwards would be less than reasonable I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My own perspective

The reason I'm here in the first place is due to declining a page protect requested by Robert K S over on WP:RPP. I've no dog in this fight, other than being some random admin. I'm a computer hardware engineer in RL and know who John V. Atanasoff is (who doesn't), but that's about all.

Firstly, I believe all editors here are acting in good faith, and all believe they are correct in what they do. I don't believe "Robert K S shown a very biased attitude towards Bulgarians" nor is he "mutilating the articles of small countries", as Monshuai believes. A little assumption of good faith here would go a long way. Both Monshuai and Robert K S have been revert-warring on this article over the last few days, with Monshuai having come very close to being blocked from editing yesterday.

From reading this talk page, I'm beginning to see agreement forming amongst most editors that the Bulgarian-American statement 'not be mentioned in the lede but that it certainly be mentioned in the article body. I don't think anyone will disagree with the latter part of that sentence and it looks like people feel that adding it to the very first few lines is adding undue weight to the link to Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage. I feel that Bielle makes a good point in her rough survey of other biographies here and discovers that in the generality, ethnic heritage is not mentioned as desired by Monshuai when that person has not been born in that country (note "in the generality", okay?). For example, John F. Kennedy is not described as being "Irish-American" on Misplaced Pages, though I've repeatedly seen him described as being so in other publications. Such is the way. I think it's worth re-iterating what Bielle said; "The precedent appears to be that the form "XXX American" is used in the lede when the subject was born somewhere other than the US. When the subject was born in the US, the form in the lede is simply "American"." That certainly appears to be the case.

As for the cyrillic, looking at articles such as Seán T. O'Kelly, for example, I'm seeing that his Irish name is also present, though he was born and lived in Ireland. Same with Douglas Hyde, but the rules may well be different for non-native-born people.

Monshuai - your suggestions above that Bielle is motivated by racial bias is so off-the-wall that I don't know where to start. You took a completely innocuous sentence and stated, "Your premise is that those people of non-white racial backgrounds can be called XXX-Americans, while those who look similar to the majority do not have this right.". I have absolutely no idea how you ended up at this position given what she'd stated prior to that, especially this "non-white" stuff. Then you went on to suggest she was biased based on peoples' physical appearance. This is grossly unfair. Then when Bielle objects to this portrayal, you pull the 'censorship' card and suggest she has a threatening tone. Ah, nope. I think what you said there was utterly unfair to a fellow-editor and you should seriously reconsider this position. Re-read what she said, try to show better faith in your fellow editors and please, don't adopt a "bullying tone" yourself, as you have done there. Your last paragraph smacks of pulling the race card while waggling your finger in her direction. Right now, that's coming over as being bullying and being a veiled attempt to silence her - Alison 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of High-importance
• C-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• C-Class Bulgaria articles
• High-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles