Talk:Erdős–Bacon number

message: How does Bacon have a finite Erdős number?  He has not co-authored any papers with anyone. Ityllux (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't. That addition was vandalism (or extreme confusion). I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ward3001 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacon's Erdős number 

message: Sagan does not have a Bacon number by the criteria of this article.  The definition:  "the number of links, through roles in films, by which the person is separated from American actor Kevin Bacon."  Appearing on TV, not even in a role, does not give a Bacon number.  I removed him from the list and present the text here for future reference:
Astronomer Carl Sagan has an Erdős number of 4 (via Steven J. Ostro) and a Bacon number of 2 (Sagan and Bacon having appeared with Johnny Carson on episodes of The Tonight Show), for a total of 6.
Zaslav (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of modifying the citation in the quotation so it would not produce an error. I agree there should be no connections to Bacon by TV shows. Sagan does have a finite Bacon number through films (documentaries are acceptable). I found a path with a Bacon number of 5. There may be a shorter one. I would appreciate someone looking for a shorter path, as well as opinions as to whether Sagan should be added back to the article if his EBN is 8. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagan 

message: There is no reliable source provided that Kleitman is CREDITED IN THE CAST for a film. Claiming that he appears without evidence that he is credited is meaningless. I could claim that I appeared in all of Bacon's films, but unless I'm in the cast list I don't have a finite Bacon number. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if I write random phrases in all-caps will it someone make my idiosyncratic personal views more important than what reliable sources say on the subject? --JBL (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No one, including you, has provided a reliable source that he is in the cast list of any film. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but it is only your (wrong and) idiosyncratic personal view that that is more important than a reliable source explicitly saying what his Bacon number is. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us a reliable source that he is credited in a film just like ALL of the other entries in this article. There's nothing special about your opinion that Kleitman should be an exception. Sundayclose (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should I repeat, again, that what is needed to support the claim that Kleitman has Bacon number 2 is a reliable source that says that Kleitman has Bacon number 2?  And that such a source is already present?  I can think of no reason to prefer less-explicit sourcing that would require editors to engage in OR or SYNTH.  --JBL (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're claiming that Kleitman should be a special exception to not have a reliable source that he is credited in a film. Because if you are, I can easily quadruple (or more) the number of entries in this article. In fact, this talk page and archives has examples of people trying to add themselves because they claim to be an "extra" in a film. I could easily find many more. In fact, I think maybe I'll set up a website and claim that I was an extra in a Bacon film and that I wrote an obscure paper with Erdos, giving me an EB number of 2. Who needs evidence. But, of course, that would weaken this article with lots and lots of people adding themselves or their favorite Kleitman equivalent. And it would make this article laughable. It's that kind of nonsense that has caused this article to be nominated for deletion more than once. It's hard enough convincing others that this is a notable topic even with proper sourcing for appearance in a film. 01:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen, I only read as far as your first sentence before giving up.  You've said the same thing 6 times in 3 difference places and it isn't any more related to WP policy now than it was the first time. --JBL (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As have you. OK, if you don't want to bother reading the details of an opinion other than you're own, you and I are at an impasse because I certainly don't want to waste my time describing my point to someone who doesn't want to spend a minute or two reading it. I'll wait to see if there are other opinions, and if not I think an RfC is in order. Thanks for the discussion, or whatever this has been. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

text: This whole discussion seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how our sourcing works. It is neither necessary, nor sufficient, to find sources for his casting in a movie. Calculating Erdős-Bacon numbers based on such sources would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. What we need are sources specifically addressing his Erdős-Bacon number. Without such sources, we cannot include him at all. With such sources, we should go by what those sources say, rather than evaluating for ourselves what we think the number really should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, routine calculations are not synthesis or original research. So if the connections to Bacon and Erdos are reliably sourced, adding them up is acceptable. So, for example, if the credits for each film sourced make a link to Bacon, the Bacon number can be determined by simple adding. Likewise, if the published papers make a link to Erdos, the Erdos number is similarly determined. Then those those two are added, which is a simple calculation and not original research. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that this is controversial makes it obvious that this is not the sort of uncontroversial 1+1=2 routine calculation covered by WP:CALC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

text:   It's very clear that WP:CALC does not apply here -- "adding two numbers" is quite a different activity from what you are proposing, and notice the requirement of consensus from editors about what qualifies.  Moreover, your refusal to address even once the actual issue here (namely, the presence or absence of reliable sources that say something about Erdos numbers, Bacon numbers, or E-B numbers) is bizarre verging on disruptive.  --JBL (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be disagreement about how a Bacon number is determined (in this case, appearing in a film as an extra vs. credited in the cast list), but the actual calculation is simple. Yes, this section is evidence for some controversy, but the controversy has nothing to do with the calculations. WP:CALC applies. By the way, I think calling any of this "verging on disruptive" is hyperbolic. It's a disagreement, but no one here has been disruptive. Sundayclose (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is precisely because there is disagreement (about how both of these numbers are calculated) that we must rely on reliable sources rather than doing that calculation ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say  is a sufficient source for non-contentious material such as the one in question here. Even better, you could cite the movie itself. It might not be easily accessible, but it is perfectly WP:VERIFYable as anyone can watch the movie and see whether Daniel appears or not. Also per WP:PAPERONLY, offline sources as just as acceptable as online ones. The IMDB entry  also lists him as receiving "special thanks".As for WP:CALC, I believe that unless there is a source clearly stating the Erdos-Bacon number of a person, stating that this person "has Erdos-Bacon number X" falls on WP:OR, but "has Erdos-Bacon number of X or less" falls on WP:CALC. This is because determining shortest paths in graphs is insanely harder than determining the length of a particular path between two nodes. These are my five cents. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 00:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, definitely not: seeing Kleitman in the background and converting that to the sentence "Daniel Kleitman appears in ..." is an act of interpretation that no WP editor should be doing.  Only if Minnie Driver turns around just as Matt Damon is going in for a kiss and says "Hey look, there goes Danny Kleitman" or something could that be legit. --JBL (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  Let me make sure I understand you. Everyone who has "special thanks" in any film that can be linked to Bacon has a Bacon number? That would vastly multiply the number of people with Bacon numbers, including many who are not actors and have never appeared in a film. Sundayclose (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , if the only source were an offline one, I wouldn't really spend time arguing that the content should remain; I might even argue to remove it due to being disputed by other editors. But considering the independent source claiming he appears in the movie + the movie itself + the vague IMDB entry, do you doubt that he participated in the movie? As for whether his participation in the movie is sufficiently significant, I can't really say much, since I'm not familiar with the concept. But if many editors are adding content to this article assuming that any role matters, then that's likely the consensus. In other words, I see very bad eyes the systemic reverts that  has been performing. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sundayclose, neither Walwal20 nor anyone else said anything even vaguely like that.   Walwal20, sorry not to be fully clear: yes, the Erdos number project is absolutely a solid source for this, of exactly the kind that's needed, namely, it explicitly makes the claim about the Bacon number (leaving nothing to SYNTH or OR).  I only object to your statement that, in the absence of such a source, "Kleitman was in the movie" could be sourced to the movie itself.  (In fact it's easy to find RS that support the (true) claim that DK appeared in GWH as an extra in one scene.) --JBL (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: JBL, yes Walwal20 said "anything like that". Read the comment: "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'." And so far, Walwal20 has not responded to my question. Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your WP:IDHT behavior and refusal to engage with the actual issue here is now certainly disruptive.  Three editors have clearly expressed their correct view that the ENP is a solid reliable source for this information about Kleitman.  Do not remove it again. --JBL (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I would remove it again. I replied to your claim that Walwal20 didn't say "anything like that". And I asked Walwal20 for a reply. Tone down the wild accusations, please. Sundayclose (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the answer is no, I never said that, and my reply to JBL above elaborates on what my position is. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 19:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's puzzling. How do you explain this direct quotation from your comment above: "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'." If you weren't saying that it has anything to do with a Bacon number, then why did you put that seemingly random statement on this talk page for Erdos-Bacon number? What does "special thanks" in a film's credits have to do with a Bacon number? Sundayclose (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Of course no one is obligated to answer me. No one is ever forced to do anything on Wikipedia. I was just trying to provide you an opportunity to explain the comment "The IMDB entry also lists him as receiving 'special thanks'", since that comment is unrelated to a Bacon number. But you have decided not to do that, so we can leave it at that if that's your wish. Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Kleitman (2) 

message: and ,
Considering that this article's content is far from contentious (its importance is also questionable), I propose:
* Keeping any content that is not agreed among ourselves
* Allowing, without discussion, addition of the tags , ,  to any sentence any of us disagree with
This way no content is lost, and readers are properly advised when a certain statement might be true or not.
Would you guys settle for this?
Humbly, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 05:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's a little late to "humbly" plea for compromise after the hostility expressed on the talk page. It first became clear that uncredited roles as an extra in a film became acceptable. Then when I added a couple of those, the standard suddenly changed (likely because I'm the one who made the edits), and the standard became "must have a secondary source" that discusses the Erdos and Bacon number. So in accordance with that I whittled it down to those entries that met that arbitrary criterion. I tried for years to keep the article manageable with everyone trying to add his/her name with no evidence of appearance in a film. Then a few people swoop in and change the standards, and more than once within a few days. We're not changing it again without a clear consensus, and one or two people do not make a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way , it is entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia to start a discussion about a major change and at the same time make that change in the article before there is any discussion. Please don't do that again. The article stays as it is unless or until a different consensus emerges. Sundayclose (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you wish. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise