Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:49, 17 March 2018

Biography Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Chicago Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Illinois Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Ohio Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

Untitled

This article was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Biss on August 8th 2010. I don't know if it has changed significantly since last time, but it's up for speedy based on that reasoning. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do intend to build this page up. This is a newly elected politician and he will be joining the Illinois state house or representatives. All other state house members do have pages that describe them. I was not involved in the previous pages discussion but I can see that, simply running for an office may not warrant a page. Since this is a representative elect I though it would warrant a page. I am in no way attempting to deviate from the standard page format nor am I attempting to deviate from any other Misplaced Pages standards.(Aaron045 (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

Of course it's OK now that he has been elected. The article will not be deleted, for that makes him automatically notable. (I think the ed. placing the deletion tag had not noticed this.) DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Selected works

As was concluded here, his math work is not notable. His political work is. This is why I removed the section. Please discuss before restoring. Mhym (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because his mathematical work does not merit notability if seen individually, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Angela Merkel isn't a notable physicist either, but still we mention her scientific works. --bender235 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a typical WP:OSE argument. Please do not compare the head of the most populous Western European Country with an obscure IL state rep. Please follow WP:RS and WP:DUE to make sure you are not overemphasizing his mathematical contribution and that the list of his papers that is "selected" is taken from a reliable source. Finally, please read , and do some google search for a well known controversy over validity of some of Biss's papers. Until then, I will rv the restored list of paper. Mhym (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so you believe an obscure unpublished working paper negates works published in journals like The Annals of Mathematics? As if those guys don't have a clue what they publish? Have you ever read WP:OR and WP:V? If anything, we should mention both the original papers and Mnev's comment. And, by the way, there are numerous other examples than Merkel (she was just the first and most obvious one that came to my mind).

Anyway, I requested a third opinion. Until we have some responses, the list of papers should appear on the article. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read ? The part about the eventual retraction of both papers, etc. Third opinion is fine. Mhym (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good source. Why not add the same information to the article? That is, that Biss' works were both highly praised and then found to be containing errors. Instead of concealing that they ever existed. --bender235 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Biss is barely notable as a mathematician, and the above linked AfD discussion concluded his mistakes make him non-notable. It's not like he made the maliciously, but even people like Danut Marcu are barely notable. If you feel like adding a section to the article discussing his math contrubutions, go for it, but leaving his "selected papers" hanging is not a good idea. Mhym (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not like his flawed doctoral thesis was Biss' only contribution, but okay. I say add both the thesis and the criticism, you say add neither. Let's wait for some third opinion. --bender235 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Publications should stay. It is a biography and a biography discusses an entire life, not just what made them notable. If we only discussed what made someone notable we would exclude their birth, parents, schooling, marriage and children, and death and just have a lede paragraph. A biographical dictionary would just discuss what made them notable because of space limitations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion is that publications in math, and descriptions of his work in mathematics, should be deleted. This was already debated and decided on in depth at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Biss. I do not see a compelling reason to change the conclusion of a decision weighed in on by a number of people. I do not see why an election to the Illinois house changes that previous (thoughtful, I think) decision. As previously decided, Biss's mathematical work is not notable. Biss has produced no new math, and the status of his mathematical work has not changed in any way. Material deleted after discussion cannot be instantly resurrected based on the decision of one person. 21:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

24.39.139.99 / 209.2.220.179, I'm assuming you're the same person on a dynamic IP, and I apologize if wrong.

The AfD was before the November 2010 election which Biss won, after which his notability immediately became uncontested. The April discussion was specifically about the Selected works section and not about the discussion of his works which was added in the last 8 months. WP:NCC states that "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." once the article's notability has been established. This provision is necessary so that biographies can include details of personal lives that are not related to their primary notability.

So what we have here is a situation where that AfD is no longer relevant, because the article's notability no longer rests on that mathematical work. WP:NCC makes it pretty clear that there is no reason not to have a discussion mathematical work as part of his biography. We can argue about the selected works section, because his primary notability is not as an academic (although it's certainly an interesting part of the article, and one or two of the papers could be integrated into the discussion.) But that discussion is not a mere academic list; it is biographical and relevant, and it is somewhat rude to remove a major section of an article in that manner without discussion.

I will accept the selected works being removed; however, if I can find one a link to a complete listing of his papers (if available) would be a reasonable external link. (Speaking of which, I need to clean up the current EL list...). But the discussion of his work was totally separate from the strictly academic listing, and the removal of that discussion has never been discussed here until your comment. Unless you can come up with a WP-policy-based reason why the prose description of his mathematical works should be forfeited - and based on WP:NCC I find it highly unlikely that such a reason exists - then I will re-add it (with some edits for better readability) tomorrow.

Also: a few technical notes. In the event that you must legitimately delete a section of an article, make sure that you don't orphan references by deleting the primary citation when other dependent citations exist elsewhere in the text. It's also considered customary to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a consensus to remove the "Selected works" section? Do people support removing it now? Power~enwiki (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I came to this talk page after reading the article and thinking it seemed incredibly out of place. I actually thought it might be political vandalism trying to stuff negative info (since the only papers mentioned were retracted) into an otherwise brief article about a candidate for governor....but it seems the controversy predates the current race.65.118.222.116 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mnev

A minor technical issue: should Nikolai Mnev link to

1. Mnev's universality theorem (a short article)
2. Nikolai Mnev (a redlink), or
3. nothing?

By WP:BLP1E, I don't think Mnev is going to get an article anytime soon; the theorem is his only notable work, and there's not even enough information to write a more than 3-sentence stub about him. So that's not a situation in which we want to have a redlink to him; redlinks should only be for articles expected to be written.

My personal preference is to link to the theorem, but Bender235 seems to disagree (for equally legitimate reasons). Perhaps we should just kill the link altogether, or rewrite it has something like "Nikolai Mnev (author of Mnev's universality theorem)..." ? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why Mnev won't get an article in the near future. I don't see WP:BLP1E applying here (what would be the "single event", anyway?). --bender235 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mnev hasn't produced anything major since the universality theorem in 1988 - 23 years ago - and it doesn't look like he's to too much these days. So the "single event" is that single major work, which definitely gets its own article. If you want to create an article for Mnev, or add his bio to the theorem article, go ahead. But unless there's plans to create the article, it's probably not worth redlinking to.

Basically the options are red link or no link, because that article on Mnev's universality theorem has nothing to do with him as a person. It's like redirecting "Steve Jobs" to iPhone.

I don't plan to add an article for Mnev, but that's no even a problem. There is no guideline that says "links should only be set if you want to create that article soon". There are millions of redlinks on Misplaced Pages. Some might turn blue in the near future, some never will. What's the problem? --bender235 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I'll leave it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP matters

This article is a biography of a living person, and is thus subject to our WP:BLP policies, which have a higher standard for inclusion and sourcing than for most other articles. As of yesterday, it included a paragraph of negative content that relied in part on this stackexchange page. Stackexchange appears to be a site of user-generated content, and "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." It also relied on this blog post, and we are told "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Once the parts of the post that relied on that were removed, the only sourced material remaining in that paragraph was a statement about where Mnev teaches (which holds no meaning with the rest of the paragraph shorn) and a sentence about there having been a retraction which, shorn of context, would at most be shorn down to stating that the subject had once published a retraction.

I deleted the whole paragraph, an editor undid the deletion saying that this matter had been discussed on the talk page - but I see no discussion of the relevant BLP sourcing concerns, and any local decision to ignore the BLP sourcing rules would not actually be sufficient for ignoring those rules.

I am again deleting the paragraph. Please do not restore until you have alternative and appropriate sourcing for the claims it makes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Chicago articles
• Unknown-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Illinois articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Unknown-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• WikiProject United States articles