Talk:Manifold Destiny

message: replaced "[the article] is a rather unflattering portrayal" by 
: The biased article, filled with a lot of untrue and distorted statements and conspiracy theories, represents an attack against the mathematical community  [...] and Shin-Tung Yau. 
I do not think that this formulation is NPOV.   Specifically, it represents the POV of Yau , and not the POV of the article's authors.  It may be the case that one of this POV's is actually the truth, and the other is completely wrong.  But I don't see that -- so far.
I think that "unflattering portrayal" is a good formulation; but instead of saying that the article 
:represents [...] libel agains Yau
(which is, at the moment, POV),  we should mention in the first paragraph that the article is the subject of a libel suit by Yau (which is NPOV). 
Aleph4 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "represents an attack" 

message: It is particularly important that this article only cites reliable sources. Blog posts and similar are not generally considered reliable; the case for using such as references has to be made in each instance. Charles Matthews 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: These days, all the edits to this page that I see are reversions, and in all but one case (which instead concerned an IP editor) they are reversions from Mikeeverest1.  It looks like there is some disagreement over whether the letters in support of Yau should be quoted or merely mentioned.  Perhaps now is the time to discuss this? Ryan Reich 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user in question is not known for discussion. I was going to suggest a Request for Comment, because this is persistent edit-warring with no dialogue. Charles Matthews 18:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think showing one example letter is perhaps a good idea.   Such an example gives a vivid picture of the controversy, and does not drag the readers into too many details. Also I have to say that user "Mikeeverest1" needs to follow the wiki policies to add comments for each modification.  User "C S" is better in this category. --Jiejunkong 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All it does is give a misguided picture, distorted to what you think the situation is.  If you read all the letters on Yau's site, you will see that not everyone defending him thinks the same or agrees on what the controversy is.  The same is true for people criticizing him or the actions of some close to him.  To reach into this big stew of opinions and select one as representative of a "side" is just plain silly.  --C S (Talk) 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you accusing Professor Strook of giving "a misguided picture"?  On the contrary, I think you have put yourself in a highland and misconceived yourself as a judge.  Who granted you the judgeship on "bias""deceiving""neutrality"?  To tell you the truth, I read user "Mikeeverest1"'s quotes and I don't like his/her verbose  way of showing all things to the readers.   But a deletion war against him/her is also insane.  I think it is not a bad idea to leave one there as an example, the other examples can be spared.   If you don't agree with me on this, it's your own free will.  But I have my own free will to disagree with you at this free wikipedia site.   Again, I told you, your hands are not tied to do anything that is truthful and constructive.  Go find more documents and carry them here, don't simply delete everything you don't like. --Jiejunkong 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW, for your sentences in absolute tone like "All it does is give a misguided picture, distorted to what you think the situation is", I think such strongly emotional conclusions do no good for the objective description of the entire Nasar-Yau conflict. --Jiejunkong 13:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent reversions 

message: Seems like Yau is content with having a sympathetic profile on the New York Times, and is unlikely to sue the New Yorker. In any case, there hasn't been any news regarding the Manifold Destiny affair since the Oct 17 NYT article. I think it no longer counts as a current event. Wikaly324
:I agree, the latest development concerning the article and the issues it deals with is the erratum to the Cao/Zhu paper, which was put up about a month ago.  Hence the article doesn't qualify as "current" until any new developments take place, so I'm going to take down the current event tag.--M m hawk 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: (cur) (last)  12:38, 17 December 2006 C S (Talk | contribs) (rv; this isn't about "proving" anything, please read up on policy, cf WP:NPOV), so as to avoid introducing your own bias)
Oh, man.  I am shocked.  Please think twice before you issue such a statement about "bias".   Nobody is 100% neutral, but don't accuse other human beings before you even know them. --Jiejunkong 12:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just giving some helpful advice.  As you say, nobody is neutral, and thus we need to be careful not to introduce bias.  If you want to take my advice on reading up on policy so as to avoid introducing bias as an accusation, that's up to you.  I only point out that your edit summary in the one before mine was to say "To C S, you can provide your proofs, nobody will delete it".  This is a gross misconception of NPOV policy.  So my advice was warranted.  Adhering to NPOV does not mean having different people providing "proofs".  It is about making describing relevant viewpoints in a neutral way without giving undue weight.  It is not about including one POV and then challenging another person to "provide your proofs".  --C S (Talk) 13:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was annoyed by your quick-than-lightspeed deletion of my modifications.   Frankly speaking, your action was gross, so I replied with some sarcasm.   And thank you for your advice on wikipedia policy, I think you also need to read it more carefully to fill in the gap between my actions and your accusations. --Jiejunkong 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  If you keep on accusing me about non-"neutrality", please provide objective proofs, not circumstantial slanders.  Which sentence in the article is improper? If it is improper, can you modify it to be proper?  Why do you have to delete it completely? --Jiejunkong 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "your own bias" 

message: In the "controversy" section, I vote for keeping the pertinent contents of one sample letter (I used Professor Strook's letter, but any similar letter would suffice).   This is very proper in my opinion. A user here intentionally deletes such contents constantly and instantly.   This is very weird.   I don't think this article is handled properly in this deletion-and-recovery manner.  In wikipedia there were similar conflicts amongst users, related contents are modified into proper forms that are acceptable to all arguing parties.  I am monitoring the page and want to see an acceptable solution for all arguing parties.  --Jiejunkong 14:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that quoting the letter in this article is inappropriate, and contrary to the NPOV policy.  DavidCBryant 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual contents can always be neutralized without deletion..  Also, this wiki article is not long enough to make us worry about curtailing its contents.  I don't think you can justify C S's constant and instant deletion of factual contents.  If she doesn't like user Mikeeverest1's insertion, she can always do some modification to neutralize it.  But what I have seen is an emotional edit-warring.  Why can't somebody do something other than deletion?  It is easy to delete a fact when it offends you in some manner.  In my opinion, deleting factual contents is a denial-of-service attack which tries to block the audience's eyes from seeing the facts.  You threatened me in my talk page about "watching me" from now on.  And I can tell you this, you can scrutiny my record in wikipedia and figure out the following fact: I normally delete scientific errors and those forged information from wikipedia's articles.  In contrast, you should be more careful to delete factual quotes, in particular, these quotes are from the interviewees (people interviewed by Nasar in "Manifold Destiny") who have publicized their reactions to the article "Manifold Destiny".  These are witness statements, not your opinion or my opinion which doesn't count. --Jiejunkong 03:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About deleting proper contents 

message: In WP:Vandalism, Blanking is defined as "Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) or replacing entire established articles with a spurious redirect is a common vandal edit."   Before the controversy is resolved, blanking the paragraph is hardly "readily apparent by examination of the content itself" and can hardly be justified by "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content".--Jiejunkong 07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/Blanking 

message: I've added quite a bit to article in the form of a section about various reactions some mathematicians have had to the article and related articles.  I thought it would be good to put it here to give the readers some idea of how the mathematics community feels about it, and I hope it's not too out of place here.  I did it in one go, so it could probably use some editing for grammar and other things.  I'd be happy to hear people's thoughts about it.--M m hawk 06:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction from the mathematics community 

message: In a he-said-she-said situation, it is better to quote arguments from both sides in a supposedly neutral article. Right now I see quotes from the New Yorker's response to the attorney's letter, but not quotes from the letter itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.153.82 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article seems unbalanced 

message: It has been noted in the AfD discussion that the NYT article itself is considerably less notable than the topic it's dealing with. So, I think it's worth discussing whether the Wikipedia article should be renamed (moved) to a more suitable title. VG ☎ 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title seems somewhat awkward.  Also the title "manifold destiny" has the merit of instant recognition in the scientific community.  Note that a number of people will object to your proposed title more than the original title, as your title contains terms such as "controversy" and "attribution (dispute)" that are apparently considered loaded terms (see discussion at the deletion page).  Katzmik (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed title change: [[Poincaré conjecture proof attribution controversy]] 

message: I would like to explain my deletion of the section on reactions from the mathematical community. Personally I find this section inane. I have objections to just about every item there. To give an example: Birman is in the same department as John Morgan. The tensions between the Morgan-Tian team, on the one hand, and Yau, on the other, are well-known. This alone would be enough to make Birman's comment irrelevant. Furthermore, she is certainly a respected mathematician, but her exceptional notability is yet to be established. In addition, her comments about peer review and refereeing miss the point entirely, in my view. The whole point is that technically speaking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Yau's announcement that his students were the first to publish a complete proof. This was, in fact, correct. If there is anybody who knows anything about the subject, it is Yau himself, and so no objections could be raised to the publication of their long paper on the grounds that it was not refereed properly. I have saved my main objection for last course: Birman was once president of AMS and surely is well-connected there. That the Notices should publish a letter from Birman proves no more than a petition at a blog page. Katzmik (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was no consensus on wholesale deletion (see three sections above). VG ☎ 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reich and I more or less agree the section is not helpful.  If Greathouse wishes to explain what it is about it that he finds helpful, he can present his opinion here.  Since we are dealing with an article about living mathematicians, the default should be "deletion".  After all, what Birman writes is a slap in the face to Yau.  Katzmik (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to elaborate on the "slap in the face"? All I see in that letter is that some issues with editorial process at AJM were raised. Given that Cao & Zhu later had to change their position, it does not seem outlandish that the AJM reviewers did not do a good job on the initial Cao-Zhu paper. It happens. VG ☎ 18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, the other letter from Wong and Poon was quite supportive of Asian mathematicians in general, so I think you're throwing the baby out with water by deleting the whole section. YMMV. VG ☎ 18:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate on the slap in the face issue as per VG's request: The claim that the "normal peer review process was thrown out the window" is a slap in the face to Yau.  Such a claim is in fact not accurate.  The purpose of a peer review process is to check the correctness of the results as thoroughly as possible.  Yau spent two years making sure the results are correct.  There is no rule anywhere that an editor cannot be a referee.  Making Birman's kind of comment is of the "bei lezhachego" variety.  Katzmik (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the comments by Wong and Poon, they are certainly not very convincing in the form they were presented in the "Reactions" section (I have not read their actual comments).  I see no baby here, only a miscarriage.  Katzmik (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  less reactions 

message: The first mention of Yau's name in the article is in the sentence "The article ... paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medallist [sic], Shing-Tung Yau."  For somebody who doesn't know much about current mathematics this is misleading: the subtext is that he hasn't done anything since 1982, and may just be a one-shot wonder.  That would indeed be far from the truth.  "Leading 20th and 21st century differential geometry pioneer and American and Chinese educational leader Shing-Tung Yau" would give a better, and less biased, feel for who this guy is (especially relative to the authors of the NY article, and Perelman). Son of eugene (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who does know about current mathematics the Fields medal is a very important and very positive part of his identity. The date he received it may not be so important, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest "Leading 20th and 21st century differential geometry pioneer and American and Chinese educational leader, Wise and Enlightened Master, Benevolent Genius" ?  Tkuvho (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: David: you are certainly right that the Fields medal is a high honor among mathematicians.  But i think you'd never introduce Cohen into an article as "the 1966 Fields Medalist Paul J. Cohen" because his work is so much greater.  I don't know how you'd introduce him, but "Dragon-slayer Paul Cohen" wouldn't be too far off the mark.  "Paul Continuum Hypothesis Cohen" might be better, although i guess not stuffy enough.  Tkuvho: Yes, if i put in so many words it sounds ridiculous.  But my point is that introducing Yau to non-mathematicians as "1982 Fields Medalist" really is misleading.  He's not just yet another differential geometer prize winner, and his contribution is much greater than just the Calabi conjecture.  He's enormously productive, and has collaborated with and led a large flock of both American and Chinese mathematicians.  Surely that's relevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of eugene (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with every word you said above (except perhaps the choice of words in describing a Fields medalist as "just another differential geometry prize winner").  On the other hand, all this information is available on Yau's page which is duly linked here.  His enormous productivity, which does go beyond the Calabi conjecture, is simply not the issue in this page.  Tkuvho (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields Medallist [sic] Yau 

message: Why doesn't every article in The New Yorker, Harper's, and The Atlantic Monthly get a Wikipedia article summarizing it and linking to its sources?
Surely it's no more notable than other good journalism.
Crasshopper (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this particular piece deserve its own Wikipedia article? 

message: See Talk:Shing-Tung_Yau#Birman.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The material potentially related to WP:BLP was transfered to the subject's biographical page.  Tkuvho (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection to Birman material in this article having been removed by Tkuvho, I presume there are no objections to adding it back again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply centralized the discussion at the subject page.  I object to the inclusion at either page.  Tkuvho (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. As and when you get around to specifying exactly what you think the nature of the BLP issue is, we can take the matter forward. Right now you are conspicuously avoiding doing that, which kinda adds to the lack of good faith odour eminating from your side of this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I replied at Talk:Shing-Tung_Yau#Birman.  Tkuvho (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birman 

message: I have re-added a Birman section diff. It is, I think, of appropriate length w.r.t. other paragraphs in the Controversy section. It is - I hope - a neutral summation of Birman's letter. As noted elsewhere in the discussion about Birman on this article, I assert that the publication of such a letter in the Notices of the AMS is notable and warrants inclusion in this article. Publication of a letter like this in such a journals is not a trivial matter; it is a big deal. The letter directly relates to and references the New Yorker Manifold Destiny article. The assertions made by Birman may or may not be true, and if false, may be libelous. That is her problem and not ours; we report what she says; we do not make those same assertions in our article. There is in my opinion no BLP violation: like it or not, the controversy exists and Yau has to make the best he can of it; it is not his to bury because of the notability it has received in, amongst other places, the New Yorker, the Notices, The New York Times, Science, etc. Clearly the subject matter is very much in the public domain and part of public discourse. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope that it is clear that Birman's letter is her opinion and only her opinion. I suspect that most mathematicians regard her letter as silly and misinformed. Roger (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read this passage, you'd find that it is indeed worded as such. Again, judgemental speculation is irrelevant. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tgend to think the more important point is that the AMS took the decision to print her letter. Still. In other news, this article should probably be retitled to be about the controversy rather than about a specific article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no controversy, except for an artificial controversy generated by the New Yorker. Roger (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason there is controversy is because of Perelman's statements. The New Yorker article reported some of these these as part of their larger piece, but there are other sources too, like this book (NAMS book review). So, I think it is incorrect to attribute the controversy solely to the New Yorker article itself. Tagishsimon's point about renaming seems valid, given other sources. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those Perelman statement are ambiguous, and I think that it is unlikely that they are accurately reported. The New Yorker story is not a reliable source, in my opinion, as it botched up many important aspects. I guess the article was notable, but it was so bad that I think it would have been better if it were never published. Roger (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be right, but without sources, what you've said is nothing more than testimonial. Please refrain from putting such opinion in the article unless you can find a source. FYI: we pretty much take large commercial publications at face value as WP:RS around here. So, unless you can conclusively show there are problems, e.g. outright falsehoods, then let's all just agree that the New Yorker article is valid. Again, I think what your strategy should be is to find other sources that make your point. Then we could really get a complete picture of matters. Good luck, Agricola44 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Birman re-added

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Manifold Destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630075428/http://scientium.com/diagon_alley/commentary/bowden_essays/others/yau.htm to http://scientium.com/diagon_alley/commentary/bowden_essays/others/yau.htm#nyorkerresponse
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Manifold Destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929145647/http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=158315 to http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=158315
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manifold Destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808203733/http://strings06.itp.ac.cn/ to http://strings06.itp.ac.cn/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manifold Destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061031131236/http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=530&id=699531 to http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=530&id=699531
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Manifold Destiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328085053/http://www.intlpress.com/AJM/AJM-v10.php to http://www.intlpress.com/AJM/AJM-v10.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328085053/http://www.intlpress.com/AJM/AJM-v10.php to http://www.intlpress.com/AJM/AJM-v10.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified