Talk:Grigori Perelman/Archive 1

message: Does anybody know Perelman's birthdate?  This is a glaring omission.  I've had little luck. --C S 05:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Many of the news articles give some guesses as to his age, e.g. "late 30s", "almost 40", etc.  I've found one article that gives his age as 37, but no info regarding when he was born.  Also, I can't be certain of the claim of 37. --C S 05:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
: If I recall correctly, he was born in 1961. Surely in the 1960s. I'll check, but please don't expect the results quickly. BACbKA 22:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article (in Russian) by another student of the same math high school lists his birth year as 1966. BACbKA 20:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the 1966 thing was correct. I have found several more places where this year is mentioned, and finally got 2 more references   (in Russian again), with an exact birthday, June 13. I'll incorporate the date into the article now. BACbKA 20:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work!  To be honest, one reason I was curious also is that I wondered if he would be eligible for the Fields medal.  He barely makes the age requirement.  It'll be interesting to see how that turns out.  --C S 02:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I probably should not have done it after all, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays. OTOH, I've just reproduced it from existing (albeit Russian) public sources, referenced above... --BACbKA 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh, I was a n00b when I made my query and didn't realize this could even be an issue.  But yes, now we are in a somewhat gray area.  I mean, does the fact that the source is in Russian somehow make it less public?  I'm ambivalent.  --C S (Talk) 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that listing the month would do no harm as well, as per the above policy link, but I don't think it is a must have, so I am not going to be the one to add it back :-) --BACbKA 10:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm no longer as ambivalent and agree we should remove the month and day; I was just thinking to do it myself.  Unfortunately, now there is this discussion which I foolishly initiated.  I think we should perhaps archive all this to ensure greater privacy.  --C S (Talk) 13:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief, I try to check WP:BLP frequently but I missed the update including the birthday thing.  A bit earlier today I added his birthdate, which is given in the Guardian article.  It seems to me that this is public knowledge and verifiable since it is mentioned in this article.  It is also relevant to the 40 year rule re the Fields Medal eligibility, so I think that omitting it would also be problematical.---CH 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date? 

message: I hereby confirm that it indeed contained a photo of Grisha. Was there a copyright problem or something? Did the original image contributor get a note and a chance to settle the copyright issues? Where in the logs can one find what was wrong with it?..
i have changed the position of the pic......can any1 reformat to improve he look of the page?
*Wikipedia received an official letter from MIT asserting copyright and requesting to remove the image. See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030835.html. Andris 15:23, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
**Thanks for the pointer. BACbKA 18:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did Image:Perelman.jpg go? 

message: It states that he is Russian in the article I am not sure but I think he is Jew by nationality you could see it from his last and first name typicly name for Russian Jew.Could someone check it please?
:He is indeed from a Jewish family. So what? BACbKA 21:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jewish" is by no means a nationality. _ Yes, it is!
See where this is leading us. Why should we have a category for "Jewish mathematicians" in the first place? 
Classifying mathematicians by nationality (or religion, or "race") strikes me as rather useless at best. At the same time, one may reasonably speak of, say, an Italian school of algebraic geometers, provided one does not take such terms too seriously. Styles do tend to clump geographically, or at least tended to in the era before rapid communications. But "Jewish mathematicians"? What is next - "Jewish mathematics", as opposed to "Aryan science", or "Goyish mathematics", for that matter? Hasdrubal 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's a little useful. If you, for example like me, forgot the name, but you remembered that he was Jewish and a mathematican. --80.63.213.182 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like an odd thing to remember.  I agree with Hasdrubal: unless person X strongly and publically self identifies with established religion R, I think it is absurd to designate X has a R-mathematician.  This kind of discussion always makes me highly uncomfortable, although I assume that 80.63.213.182 may simply be unware that anti-semitism has unquestionably played a role in some edits regarding analogous issues for other personalities; see for example Talk:Albert Einstein.  In any case, the purported religious belief of highly intelligent and complex individuals is often hard to briefly categorize (Einstein is again an example, but discussion of that should move to some other forum).---CH 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: Due to a recent addition of spb.su to the spam protection filter,
*Mathematics & Mechanics Faculty of St. Petersburg State University
had to be cut by the last edit out of the external links section.
See also the bugzilla discussion on the spam filter whitelisting.
BACbKA 09:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam protection filter false positive 

message: First, I think the age comment is redundant anyway.  Readers can easily find out this is his last chance.  In any case, I don't have strong objection to this, if somebody wants to reinclude a comment about this being his last opportunity for a Fields Medal.  
Secondly, inserting speculation about what somebody (Hamilton) may say at the next ICM is just that, speculation, and is not appropriate for the article (see WP:Verifiability).  I do want to add one more thing though: even if  Hamilton were to make such an announcement, it would be anti-climactic.  The Poincare conjecture is already thought to be proven by Perelman's work, and even highly respected speakers at conferences have said so!  So things wouldn't be anymore "settled" than it is already, although probably more attention will be brought to the state of affairs.  It's a bit puzzling why the media hasn't really picked up on this yet, but I'm sure they will eventually, at which point we can include that into the article with the appropriate citations.  --C S (Talk) 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert of speculation regarding Hamilton announcement (and age comment) 

message: In the interests of ludicrously complete disclosure, my former advisor graduated from St. Petersburg, one of my former graduate student colleagues is a relative of Burago, and I am slightly acquainted with some of the others mentioned in the article.  Almost inevitable, since math is still a fairly small world, c.f. Erdős number.  ---CH 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My rewrite 

message: It seems that the paper in the Asian Journal of Mathematics is a collection/clarification of the work by Perelman.
There is also one by Bruce Kleiner and John Lott and one by John Morgan and Gang Tian. See  and . The last paragraph should be re-written to reflect this.
[This issue has been taken care of. --C S (Talk) 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying this, Chan-Ho.  It seems I either misread or was misled by the Overbye story.---CH 19:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper by Huai-Dong Cao and Xhi-Ping Zhu 

message: Hey guys could not edit the page itself so just comment here : Perelman did appear in Spb maths institute at most half a year ago; they say he have resigned less then a year ago...but i cant give verifable references to this info.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.10.104 (talk • contribs) 
:Given how the media works, I can easily believe that Perelman has not "disappeared" and that his friends and family are perfectly well-aware of where he is.  Unfortunately, if all the newspapers insist on sensationally saying he is missing, there's not too much we can do because of the way Wikipedia works, unless some verifiable references (as you noted) say the contrary.  --C S (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... my rewrite was based on Overbye's article, which is a bit ambiguous, but I agree that the article should not suggest that he has vanished, only that mathematically speaking, he appears to have dropped out of sight, at least for a few years.---CH 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perelman's "disappearance" 

message: Section "The Fields Medal and Millennium Prize" starts with "In recent weeks, [...]": very informative, if reading this in 2 years. It continues with "[...] there has been growing speculation in the mathematical world": are there sources? Gulliveig 05:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: "Some have rumored that he is not uninterested in money; rather, that he is afraid the Russian mafia will kidnap his mother and hold her for ransom for the money they know is associated to the prize and to any other prize."
I put a "citation needed" tag on that sentence; I'm not sure that it belongs at all.  It might be reasonable to assume that that much money would attract some unsavoury attention to Perelman in Russia, but still - I'd like to see a source.  It should be reworded at the very least.  What do the rest of you think? -Esn 19:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this phrase altogether, per WP:LIVING. Mukadderat 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (EDIT CONFLICT) This sounds like a highly irresponsible rumor to me and I agree should probably be removed entirely.  Thanks to Mukadderat for doing that.---CH 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Guardian article does mention that a joke making the rounds is that having money is regarded as dangerous in Petersburg.  Sadly, there is probably some foundation in fact for this joke, but I am still reluctant to add this back in. ---CH 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mafia? 

message: User:Tanyia, by inserting the flag I politely asked you not to edit the article while I was trying to clean up numerous infelicities in diction/organization, but you went ahead anyway, so you might as well also remove the flag, eh?  I give up; someone else will have to finish the job I tried to take on.  I have to say that I think it will be clear to anyone who compares that my first version was better written than its immediate predecesor and that my unfinished second revision was better written than its immediate predecessor.---CH 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've left a note on your user page about this.  I really am sorry--I didn't notice the flag, and I was not in any way trying to disrupt your work.  I was just trying to fix a typo parenthesis, and I hope you can accept my apology for my blindness and stupidity.  Your work cleaning up the article is very admirable and beneficial to Wikipedia, and I really was not trying to disrupt you or destroy your work.  I'll be the first one to say I'm a total newbie to Wikipedia, and I do feel awful that my mistake has convinced you to stop working.  I don't know how to say strongly enough that that wasn't my intention at all. I really was trying to help, not to destroy. Tanyia 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's anything I can do to help you with this (edit: to fix what I destroyed), please let me know (not that my editing skills are to be trusted, lol...).  Again, I'm very very very sorry. Tanyia 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup attempt 

message: I believe, it would be helpful to create such section and put bibliographical inf. on his dissertation and three famous preprints there. There are also other works, authored or coauthored by him, inf. on which could be added in case of such section's creation. Cmapm 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe, it would be more convenient to make a separate section for his works. After all, it's a biography article about him, and inf. on his works should not be hidden in "References" section. Cmapm 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Works" section? 

message: Should 'unqualified to access his work (even positively).' read 'unqualified to assess his work (even positively).' or am I missing something? 213.202.145.70 23:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Fixed. Thanks. `'mikka (t) 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it was a typo.  Thanks, Mikka, for fixing it. ---CH 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: In the spirit of WP:RUS, this would be a more correct transliteration of his name.  In his own papers, he calls himself "Grisha", and various English news sources call him by various spellings, including "Grigori" and "Grigory".  In short, I don't think it would hurt too much to get people to pronounce his name more correctly by moving it to the more correct spelling. --Esn 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for others to comment, please.  I might have an objection. ---CH 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Moving a heavily edited article can cause problems with edit history.  I think you are probably right that eventually it would make sense to move it.  But I strongly urge you to wait a month or so for the fuss to die down, OK?  ---CH 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... those are pretty striking results.  I take back what I said: even after waiting a month, it seems that Grigori beats Grigoriy for the sensible reason that Mikka offered. ---CH 03:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I think I would support a move to "Grigory Perelman", for the reason you cited, but I agree that it would be wise to wait for a few days to see if anyone strongly objects.---CH 03:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about moving it to [[Grigoriy Perelman]]? 

message: BTW, the announcement of the Fields Medal is the strongest imaginable endorsement of Perelman's proof, but in another connection I have recently dealt with "the Enormous Theorem", aka the classification theorem for finite simple groups.  As many here know, some years after it was announced that this had finally been proven, the discovery of a major gap was announced.  Does anyone know the latest on that?  Does anyone know whether Serre is still a skeptic? ---CH 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done deal? 

message: I don't know all the Wikipedia rules, but it seems to me that the first section is unduly speculative in saying that Perelman will likely decline the Clay Institute Prize if it's awarded to him.  According to this AP article, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_re_eu/spain_math_genius , "Ball said he asked Perelman if he would accept that money. Perelman said that if he won, he would talk to the Clay institute."  We know so little about Perelman's feelings on much of anything, so I don't think we can really say that he would decline, as opposed to either taking the money or directing it to some other recipient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.138.236 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 23 August 2006
Agreed.  In the New Yorker article he is also quoted as saying he would not decide until it was offered. aww 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculation? 

message: We currently seem to have three different types of reference system used on this article - footnotes/cite.php, in-line citations (i.e. the citation and link are part of the text) and pseudo-harvard (i.e. there is a list of references at the end, but no links in the body of the text). I plan to switch the references system to footnotes only in around a day's time, unless anyone has any objections to this (or does it before I do). At that point, I will also add Template:citation needed's where appropriate. Mike Peel 17:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like citation templates, but don't know how to integrate these with footnotes.  In this case, with so many demanding verification for every assertion, it seems that the community is demanding footnotes.  In my rewrite, I opted for both as a slightly awkward compromise.  I still feel this is an acceptable compromise even at the cost of some redundancy. ---CH 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References system 

message: I have just read with close attention (and with much sadness) "Manifold Destiny" by Sylvia Nasar and David Gruber, New Yorker, August 28, 2006.  I recommend it urgently to everyone editing this article, even though it's fascination is mostly macabre, since it focuses on the human dimensions, rather than the mathematical ones.  Alas, it seems clear that in an encyclopedia article for a general audience, these dimensions must dominate, but I can certainly anticipate that Perelman himself would be very unhappy with the Wikipedia article for this reason alone, which I find very regretable, so I hope his friends in Petersburg don't rush to make him read it.  I gravely doubt that he deserves any more grief at this juncture... sigh...
Short version of my reaction to reading Nasar and Gruber:  Wow!  I had simply no idea what a hornet's nest I was stepping into...although I probably should have had some idea... 
A brief apology for my well intentioned, but naive, misinformed, and somewhat misguided efforts to improve this article: In my work on this article over the past week, I was only trying to improve some rather awkward writing by committee (stochastic conflict?).  I truly had no axe to grind here and (being mathematically rather isolated myself) I was truly unaware of just how ugly this affair had already become well before I happened along.  I regret that I seem to have offended many WP editors by trying to reorganize and improve the article, in service (as I thought) to the interests of our readers.  I regret far more that what, in an ideal world, would be a happy occasion for worldwide celebration of the beauty of mathematics has become traduced into a rather vicious disagreement over who should be credited with proving the conjecture (and possibly over whether it has really been proven at all, although my impression is that this part of the controversy has largely blown itself out).  Alas--- this is surely of one of the least admirable aspects of the long and eventful history of mathematics--- there are many precedents for this miserable development.
Longer version of my reaction to Nasar and Gruber: I find that I have a good deal of sympathy with several of the leading figures, and I think I understand much better Perelman's unprecedented refusal to accept the Fields Medal.  Sadly, I have to say that I think he has acted properly in refusing it, and the Committee may well have acted improperly in awarding it even though (as I have learned) they knew in June that Perelman would not accept the Medal under any circumstances.  It may well be that GP has set a precedent for refusing the Fields Medal, for some very good reasons which might come as a surprise to non-mathematicians.  I'm even beginning to wonder (others have wondered about this before) whether the Fields Medal itself might not be doing more harm than good to mathematics, not because of the intentions of Fields himself, which were entirely benificient, but because of the way the Medal has been hijacked since his day to become something he never intended.  If any good comes of this, maybe it will be that the whole darn medal tradition should die before it does any more harm.
In fact, I'll go a bit further: Nasar and Gruber briefly describe the blind referee process.  May we dare to envision doing away with the notion of academic credit itself?  Maybe all papers should be anonymous?  Maybe noone should ever be paid more than minimum wage to pursue mathematical research?  Is the prospect of earning a million dollars really the best motivation for doing good work in mathematics?  Will I be brought up on treason charges for even asking this? ;-/
I'm too disheartened to muster the energy to try to really explain just what I'm talking about or why I feel so dismayed.  Instead, let me just try to draw attention to some major factual corrections which the new piece by Nasar and Gruber has brought to light, so that others can try to ensure that the Wikipedia article at least gets the major facts straight (the newspaper articles I had read previously did not get even the basic facts straight):
#Yuri Burago was Perelman's Ph.D. advisor (rough equivalent, anyway),
#In 1992, GP spent a year at NYU and SUNY Stony Brook,
#He met Gang Tian at this time and shared a ride with him to a weekly Princeton seminar where he first heard Richard Hamilton speak about the Ricci flow,
#Shing-Tung Yau has been championing Hamilton's approach for many years,
#In 1993, GP spent two years at UC Berkeley, where he heard several more talks by RH, and kept returning to this while writing important papers which led to tenure track job offers from Stanford, Princeton, IAS (three of the most prestigious American departments right there), Tel Aviv, 
#In 1995, GP declined these and returned to Steklov; he told Nasar and Gruber "in Russia I work better", and he has not denied a rumor that he returned to Petersburg specifically intending to work in semi-seclusion on the geometrization conjecture,
#For those who like monetary figures, according to Nasar and Gruber, GP's salary at Stekhlov was the equivalent of about one hundred dollars per month; I doubt the American job offers could have involved less than six thousand dollars per month),
#At about this time, GP read Hamilton's latest paper and sensed that RH's progress had "stalled",
#After many years of steady work, which he had shown to no-one before posting his first eprint to the arXiv, on Nov 11, 2002, GP emailed Yau, Hamilton, Tian, and others, saying "May I bring to your attention my paper" (i.e. his arXiv eprint "The Entropy Formula for the Ricci Flow and its Geometric Applications),
#Yau and Hamilton were "stunned", Tian "enthusiastic", 
#On Nov 19, in response to an email from a third geometer asking if he claimed to have proven geometrization, GP replied "That's correct. Grisha",
#Yau complained that GP's eprints were too sketchy, but other experts were far more positive,
#GP gave invited talks on his work at MIT in April 2003, then at SUNY Stony Brook, and was disappointed that Hamilton did not turn up,
#On April 18, 2003, Science published an interview with Yau in which he harshly criticised the "vagueness" of GP's eprints,
#At about this time, Gang Tian and John Morgan began to study the eprints under a grant from the Clay Foundation re a possible award of the Millenium Prize,
#Also in the spring of 2003, Xi-Ping Zhu and Huai-Dong Cao, urged on by Yau (who I think is their former Ph.D. advisor), also began to study GP's eprints; according to them and Yau they wound up inventing new mathematics to fill various gaps in the exposition,
#On Sept 10, 2004, Tian emailed GP saying that after long study he had concluded that Perelman had indeed proven the geomerization conjecture, but recieved no reply (apparently because Perelman had simply stopped checking his email),
#In July 2004, Michael Freedman implied that he now accepted that GP had proven the conjecture,
#Upon the death of Chern, Yau began to battle with Tian over who would inherit the mantle of the leader of Chinese mathematics (see the article for much more detail on this; the relevant point here is that this is upsetting to those who are dragged into such unseemly fights--- it seems that Nasar and Gruber agree that Gang Tian did not court a battle with his former Ph.D. advisor over who would inherit Chern's mantle, incidently, which agrees with what I've heard from other sources),
#This battle has spilled into the political arena, with Beijing papers backing Tian, and some Hong-Kong and Taiwan papers backing Yau (this part seems a bit murky),
#In June 2006, Yau began pushing for acceptance of the premise that Zhu and Cao had completed a flawed sketch by GP, thus finally proving the conjecture,
#John Morgan (Columbia) feels that GP's sketch is, well sketchy, but suffices to establish GP as author of the desired proof,
#Perelman, while no doubt hurt by the nastier insinuations, more or less disavowed the value of this argument, saying he never intended to try to go down in history as sole author of the ultimate proof of the conjecture,
#Nasar and Gruber pass over entirely the issue of why Perelman resigned from the Stekhlov, but they say this happened in Dec. 2005, not Jan. 2006,
#Perelman has never been "in hiding" as Overbye's article seemed to suggest (dammit, Dennis!), he simply declared his intention to abandon mathematics, resigned, and thereafter was of course was no longer available via email to his account at Stekhlov,
#John Ball learned a few months ago that the 9 member Committee wished to award the Fields Medal to GP, but he knew that GP had clearly expressed his intention to refuse the Fields Medal if it was offered,
#Consequently, he quietly traveled to Petersburg in June 2006, told GP the Committee intended to award the Medal to him on Aug 22 at the Madrid ICM (by tradition, the awards are not announced in public before an ICM), and spent two days in confidential discussion with GP,
#In these discussions, Ball offered GP three choices:
#*come to the Madrid ICM and accept the Medal,
#*don't come but accept,
#*don't come and don't accept,
#Perelman might have prefered a fourth choice, not to be named at all, but given these three, he insisted on the last, telling Ball that he had quit mathematics entirely.
#GP has explicitly said that he will not decide whether or not to accept the Millenium Prize until it is offered (which now seems inevitable).
OK, I'll stop here, although there's much more in the New Yorker piece.  It's probably clear now why I am feeling so depressed, eh?  I should add that unlike the other pieces I read when I was working on this article, the Nasar and Gruber piece was clearly not written in a day, and is based upon extensive interviews with almost all the major figures and persons close to them, including Perelman himself.
Important note: if you want to use the above in editing the WP article, feel free, but please, please do not just paste the above list into the darn Wikipedia article: read carefully for yourself the piece by Nassar and Gruber (and other sources), and choose wisely what to include and where.  Please!
Still...having taken the trouble to try to "reverse engineer" some "bare facts" from the Nasar and Gruber piece which are not (apparently) in the current version of the Wikipedia article, I guess I would like to make a few comments about my own reaction to what I read in their piece:
#It is well known in mathematics that the Fields Medal was originally endowed by Fields with the hope of encouraging talented young mathematicians who had shown promise as researchers to stay in mathematics.  This was before the dawning of Big Science, but the intent was similar to the intent the NSF Graduate Fellowships in modern American mathematics--- hence the infamous 40 year age limit. The Medal was never intended by Fields himself to become the most prestigious award in mathematics (with all the bitterness such awards can entail, by inevitably passing over nonawardees who made major contributions.  If you take GP at his word regarding his (apparently frequently reiterated) statement that he has quit mathematics entirely, then in deference to Fields's intentions, it seems undeniable to me that Perelman was quite right to decline the Medal and the Committee was quite wrong to insist on awarding it against his clearly expressed wishes, especially knowing that this would subject him to an unwelcome media scrutiny.  This seems especially mean-spirited given the well-established fact that Perelman has consistently avoided seeking large salaries, so that it seems to me that one cannot argue that he really owes a huge personal sacrifice to the mathematical community.
#Perelman is not wrong to complain that other parties are trying to force him into assuming some kind of leadership role which he has stated he finds utterly abhorent.  Likewise, he is not wrong to suggest that various parties are trying to drag him into all manner of political disputes, possibly even involving something as absurdly nonmathematical as the China-Taiwan dispute.  Certain recipients of previous Fields Medals have stated in places like The Mathematical Intelligencer that they resent having had their careers "hijacked" by those hoping to influence mathematics by manipulating medalists into backing this program or that, instead of allowing them to follow their own research wherever it might lead.
#Given the ugliness of the priority dispute, which it seems that Perelman did not court, it is easy to understand, I think, why a sensitive individual who dislikes controversies might want to just walk away from the whole mess, even at the cost of walking away from mathematics itself (perhaps a love of opera or mathematics can only indulged as a rare and secret personal vice? or perhaps should even be socially deprecated, like an addiction to cocaine?).
#I imagine that Perelman (and in fact many quoted by Nasar and Gruber) might agree that perhaps the saddest part of this affair is that this priority dispute seems likely to be perpetuated indefinitely, and in the short term may well overshadow interest in the actual mathematics, which no doubt many young math students intrigued by what they've heard about the Ricci flow would prefer to study without this noisy distraction.
Sigh...Well, good luck to anyone who wants to work on this article.  You will need it.---CH 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nasar and Gruber article is online at . Mike Peel 08:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now added an article about the Nasar and Gruber article. It is still a draft version, and as CH says, the dispute is rather ugly, so I'd need more time to sort things out. May I also take the opportunity to thank CH for clarifying here the facts, according to Nasar and Gruber, and request permission to make use of some of these, if needed, with proper attribution. Kidiawipe
There is always another side to the story in such complicated affairs.  Various contributions to this blog, some from well known and frankly spoken mathematicians, make fascinating reading.  
It seems clear that some of the mathematicians quoted by Nasar and Gruber were horrified to find their words used to support the case against Yau, who may not have been given adequate opportunity to clarify his positions.  (Sheesh, you'd think mathematicians would be canny enough not to talk to journalists!  Just kidding, of course...)  Nonetheless, from what I have heard over the years, there has been considerable anger in the mathematical community about what some have seen as a tendency by Yau to try to grab credit for himself and his students, while deprecating the contributions of other contestants, so I can't agree that the general impression of a brewing coup attempt on the Emperor of Geometry is entirely inaccurate.  But it should be noted that Yau's defenders say that his many public statements have been misinterpreted as a selfish power grab; these defenders insist that his motivations are both more complicated and less selfish than they might appear on casual inspection, e.g. by readers of N&G's article who haven't seen the relevant mathblogs.  A Chinese proverb comes to mind: when walking through your neighbor's melon patch, do not stoop to tie your shoelaces.
Quite a few commentators raked N&G over the coals for exposing to public view the priority dispute over the apparent proof of the geometrization conjecture.  While I agree that N&G seem to have set out to write a profile of Perelman and to have wound up writing a (highly effective) attack on Shing-Tung Yau, I can't agree that mathematical community can or should keep this kind of thing "in house".  Still, I too find it deeply frustrating that the only things the public appears willing/able to understand about contemporary mathematics are the factious failings of its human practioners.
My direct knowledge of this particular contretemps is minimal.  Without prejudice toward Yau, who may or may not have behaved unethically some of his geometrization-related activities, which at the very least do appear open to an interpretation which does his reputation no good, I strongly agree with a general lesson which some commentators wish to draw.  Namely, as a body, mathematicians (and more generally scientists) do not do enough to curb unethical behavior by their peers.  
One of the most acute comments I've seen so far came from John Sidles (see link above).  Sidles picks up the political thread in an extremely interesting way.  I complained above that one downside of the New Yorker piece is that the mathematical point will be lost in the human drama of the Yau-Tian epic and the controversy fight, and I mentioned the murky role (apparently) of China-Taiwan politics.  Sidles remarks that in his view, this story needs to put in the context of "the role of mathematics in the (re)emergence of China as a global leader in science and technology".  This re-emergence is indeed perhaps the biggest story currently being utterly drowned out, at least in the American media, by another epic story, the conflict between Islamic extremism and "the West".  This seems deplorable, particularly when one reflects that everyone agrees that if American enters this century as the only true superpower, China is rather likely to leave it playing a similar role.  I'd have to agree that the crucial role being played by mathematics in such an important historical development is surely by far the biggest story the media hasn't been telling here, at least from the point of view of a general audience. In the long run, I suspect that the Perelman flap will become a footnote in Yau's biographies, which are much more likely to focus on his possibly unprecedented role in fostering the emerging intellectual-technological-economic-military global dominance of China.  When you stop to think, it is perfectly extraordinary that one intellectual, S.-T. Yau, should constitute a kind of nongovernmental entity which through sheer intellectual force is having a noticeable impact on the development of the most populous nation on Earth, and on her neighbors!  Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson rolled into one are too remote to really constitute a viable analog from American history; Yau, NGO, appears to be to be, as I said, unprecedented.---CH 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology, Withdrawal, Outline of Major Corrections Needed 

message: During my rewrite, I removed the following section:
:Interestingly enough, very broadly interpreted, there is a common thread between the geometrization conjecture and one way of thinking about FLT: both can be said to concern a kind of uniformization.  The geometrization conjecture is often considered to be the analogue for 3-manifolds of the uniformization theorem, which concerns two-manifolds, or surfaces.  Similarly, according to Barry Mazur, FLT can be related to uniformization (see the article cited below).
As interesting as that is, I don't think it has a place in this article. If others disagree with their removal, please feel free to put it back in the appropriate place, with appropriate references. Mike Peel 13:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraphs removed during rewrite 

message: I've removed this link again. Because messages on forums can be posted by everyone, and because of this they are never reliable sources. Hence, the link does not contribute to the article at all. Cmapm 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with your reason (less reliable external links can also be helpful for the reader), I agree with removing the link. I feel that the article is concentrating too much on the verification process, and the Tian-Yau conflict. This article is supposed to be about Perelman. A brief section that his proof of Poincare (and probably Thurston geometrization) has withstood scrutiny is certainly warranted, but it seems to me that it is starting to overshadow the rest of the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link to forum post 

message: "Perelman went on to earn a Candidate of Science degree (the Russian equivalent to the Ph.D.)"
Candidate of Science Degree in Russia is an equivalent of Master of Science Degree in the USA.  Doctor of Science Degree in Russia is an equivalent of Ph.D. in the USA.
Yuri Ostrovski.
: I think you are wrong. M. Sc. degree in US is equivalent to 5-6 years of education that you spend in Russian university. Candidate of Science is equivalent to Ph.D. Wikiolap 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Степень Кандидат наук соответствует степени доктора философии, существующей в США, Великобритании и др. странах. (Candidate of Science degree corresponds to Doctor of Philosophy degree, existing in the USA, the United Kingdom and other countries) Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd. edition. Hence, such a situation was in the 1970s. If you have an information, that it changed in the late 1980s or can cite other sources, claiming, that it corresponded to M.Sc. in the late 1980s, you are welcome. Cmapm 22:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual error 

message: "In November 2002, Perelman posted to the arXiv the first of a series of eprints in which he claimed to have outlined a proof of the geometrization conjecture" Is this necessary? Isn't it enough to say "in which he outlined"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.118.241 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Claimed to have outlined" 

message: Hi,
I have found an article about Perelman on an extern site (http://worldses.org/perelman/) that is very close to this one. I dont know if it is a copyvio or a GFDL violation, both cases are problematics. At first look, it seems to be a GFDL violation, because all the links on Wikipedia are in bold on the WESAS page.
The article is "A small contribution of the WSEAS Staff to GRIGORI PERELMAN", without any reference to Wikipedia or GFDL. Nojhan 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a GFDL violation. Please report it to meta:Non-compliant site coordination. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may also send them a Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Mushroom (Talk) 17:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent them a GFDL violation letter and I'm waiting for an answer. Mushroom (Talk) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That website is now fully compliant with the GFDL :) Mushroom (Talk) 08:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio ? 

message: To involved editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued removal of properly referenced material because of a POV assertion that it should be discounted is vandalism. 3RR does not apply to reversion of vandalism. Tyrenius 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Disputes over content should be taken through the dispute resolution process. Fagstein 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] warning 

message: (What you'll find below was a response I wrote a few hours ago to Tbeatty's comments further up the page. I originally posted it in the wrong talk page by mistake. My apologies. Bellbird 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on "ethnicity" 

message: I'm sure this is unintentional, but a number of citations (as webcites) were removed and ref tags now surround words like "Jackson." (see note 8).  If the intention is to reference the Jackson, A. reference in the ref list, this was not done correctly.  Since I'm not familiar with the article in its current state, I hesitate to fix these things as I assume they should direct/link/reference.  Could someone go through and fix the ref tags so that everything is pointing to an actual reference and not just saying things like last names.  A good place to start on how to go about doing this is the <ref> tag page on Wikimedia.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All works cited, or used as a reference should be listed with complete bibliographic information in  a "References" section, cites of those references works, whether inline (e.g. Harvard referencing), or in a note, do not need to repeat all of the bibliographic information, all that is really necessary is to give enough information to uniquely identify the cited work. So since there is only one work by the author "Jackson" listed in the "References" section, a citation of "Jackson"  is sufficient. Paul August ☎ 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are fubared 

message: Were we talking about whether (say) a tax break on gnus will encourage their reproduction, we would indeed be talking about a POV issue: we have a fact whose exact truth value cannot be determined, as so we present different opinions. Were we talking about (say) the viewpoints of Orthodox and Reform Judaism on "Who is a Jew?" or whether Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same God, we would be talking about a different kind of POV issue, namely, one in which the ultimate answer may not even exist in any absolute sense; all that is left is to report POVs. 
Here we have a different sort of issue. The problem at hand is not whether (say) Cantor and Grigori Perelman are Jewish. (An interesting hypothesis: what would happen if Grigori Perelman's mother turned out to be from a non-Jewish line of descent? Would the hubhub in these pages quiet down? What would we have learned of new about Perelman - his life, his actions, his character?) You see, it is not my wish, at the very least, to assert that they aren't, or to believe that they aren't. (Though: you are aware that no Jewish denomination would recognize Cantor as Jewish, and that all this business boils down, then, to issues of the racial pride of some chaps who believe they belong to a non-existent race?) The issue is whether biographical subjects should be defined in terms of bloodlines at all - in any way.
- A country of origin and a date of birth may be imperfect forms of definition as well, but, at least, they tell us something certain about the way in which an individual was formed - something certain that affected every moment of the upbringing. At the same time, because we are talking about something concrete, we have something that can be relativised. When people are classified by bloodlines, the inverse phenomenon occurs: we have something that may not have affected an individual's upbringing at all, or that may not even be a "something" - even if, later in the individual's life, a constructed "something" may have suddenly hit him. At the same time, we are implicitly or explicitly told, this "something" (or non-something) constitutes a valid way in which to classify humanity into two hermetic categories, each inaccessible to the other. 
If bloodlines were an intellectually sound and moral way to classify individuals, we would have them in all articles. Thus, for example, we would have lists of Jewish bankers, Jewish Bolsheviks, Jewish spies and Jewish slave traders, to rattle off four categories often put together by fairly diseased individuals. Great criminals would also be defined, in their biographies, as being Jewish (or "from a Jewish family".) To make myself perfectly clear: I am not proposing that we keep such lists; if somebody does, I propose that he be vomited upon. This is simply a thought experiment.
Would it not be best to describe people simply in terms of their actions, prefaced by the most salient concrete features of their actual background? Would this not be fair to subjects and readers, and most informative? 
Incidentally, stacking sources against each other wouldn't work here. It would be like deciding between noise and quiet by having both in actual proportions. This "compromise" would be especially unworkable if somebody showed up tooting a megaphone. Bellbird 10:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVs and not 

message: Due to the ongoing edit war, this article failed to satisfy GA criteria #5, that the article should be stable. When this matter has been resolved, this article can be renominated again in the Good Article candidate list. — Indon (reply) — 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA Nomination 

message: I'm still a freshman math major, but I'd like to know what it takes to get hold of the ideas he presents. Could someone kindly elaborate on this?
I imagine a very dedicated student might be able to try and understand it at the end of their university degree. My university ran a course this year on it (mostly attended by professors): http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/~topping/RF2007.html apparently you would need to know Riemennian Geometry which I imagine would be difficult and take a few years, working up from basic topology and then manifolds. Apparently you need to know a bit about partial differential equations, but not that much. You should a least be able to understand the statement of the Poincaré conjecture after a first course in topology (I understand the statement, but the proof is far beyond my abilities at the moment). Tomgreeny 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it take to understand Perelman's proof? 

message: Here I have suggested voting for modifying Yau's entry, or creating a new entry on Yau vs. Perelman affair. Yau, already has been involved in another scandal of plagiarism, and after his abuse of his editor position in a journal, it is not clear who is the scientist with great moral (see also Tian-Yau affair).
Voting at:  Danko Georgiev MD 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting for modification of Yau's wiki-entry 

message: Dear wiki-editors, I was informed some months ago about the proof of Poincare's conjecture by Perelman by prof. J. F. Glazebrook with whom I work on math modeling of some neurobiological processes. At that time the Fields medal was not awarded, and I have downloaded and read in brief some passages of Zhu and Cao original paper. BUT IN THE ORIGINAL PAPER  (see also ) BOTH OF THEM CLAIM FOR PRIORITY IN PROVING THE THEOREM, AND THEY ARGUE TO BE THE FIRST PEOPLE DOING THAT, AS WELL AS EXPLICITLY STATING AT SEVERAL PLACES THAT THE PERELMAN'S PROOF IS INCOMPLETE, AND EVEN PROBABLY UNPROVABLE [FALSE] BY HIS OUTLINES GIVEN IN THE EPRINTS. They state explicitly at many places that they have completed the proof by novel approach (method) invented by them!!! So I was greatly disgusted by this fact, and now I have read in the Wiki-entry that Yau organized all this sh..t. What is more Zhu and Cao seem to reject in press that they have claimed priority for the proof and have completely underestimated Perelman's work. After seeing this public statement I decided to contribute to revealing this extremely un-ethical behavior of Yau crew, and shortly I will post quotations from the Zhu and Cao paper. I hope that then some of wiki-editors will be able to insert them in the main article(s) [of Perelman, and/or Yau's crew]. Danko Georgiev MD 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to his Candidate of Science degree dissertation ("Saddle surfaces in Euclidean spaces"), I doubt whether its full text is available for free and to everyone online. I found its Russian title in online catalog of the Russian State Library (input the string "Григорий Яковлевич Перельман" into the search window there to find it yourself). Cmapm 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand anything from the two rumbling posts commenting on my position. It is almost 100% sure that Perelman's dissertation is written in Russian, and also by that time internet was not available, nor electronic copy of it might be found. What one can do is to find the original printed copy in Russian at the University. I have no vested interest in anything, and I voluntarily try to manifest the moral standards in science. If one has disproved Perelman he might well claim priority, but to steal and slightly modify a completely novel approach developped by Perelman is a crime. I have nothing to add as a further clarification. I just ask more concretely in what I am accused, because I did not get the point of the bracketed "yourself". Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 07:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the Yau crew -  Zhu and Cao completely derogated Perelman's proof 

message: huh? can somebody fix that, i just don't get it. --Rajah 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's vandalism - I shall revert it.--Runcorn 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  three times Nobel Prize winning author Anton Yavorsky 

message: Why is that nobody didn't try to put just a single picture of this great mathematician.
Is it due to copyright restrictions or what. Please try to put us some.
Edyirdaw 11:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it is due to copyright issues.  It is not a matter of just getting permission to use some copyrighted image even.  The image would need to be licensed appropriatedly to be compatible with the GFDL, which is what the content for all of Wikipedia is licensed under.  So basically an appropriate license would be GFDL or a typical Creative Commons license.  --C S (Talk) 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why my comment was erased but you can find one here... http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Perelman.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.119.234 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by erased comment (can't see anything looking through the history), but thanks for the image!  I have added it to the article.  --C S (Talk) 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it my eye or my browser, I can't see the image. Edyirdaw 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Perelman 

message: I agreed with some of the above comments that not the whole article is biased. So I target only the verification section - the true story does not go in the way described - it goes directly to the appology by Cao-Zhu, and does not describe correctly what they have done in order to beg for appology. p.s. THEY ARE NOT ACCUSED IN "PLAGIARISM" - they obviously did replace parts of Perelman's proof with their own proofs. They are indeed accused in downplaying the role of Perelman and attempt to steal his credits for Fields medal. Explanation - it is obvious that if they plagiarize 1-to-1 Perelman's proof they will not get the Medal, they must [1] find putative error in Perelman's proof - they say an unsurmountable problem is found resolved ONLY after their NOVEL proof, and only after founding an error of Perelman they can go to step [2] - Not Perelman, but WE have proofed first the conjecture. The accusation of plagiarism is debated. This is not correct! Danko Georgiev MD 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification section- POV 

message: Here I provide a quotation from a post just several paragraphs above by Chan-Ho:
we have done a fair, impartial job of reporting the facts and notable viewpoints without giving undue weight to some side
Perelman declined the Fields medal because he was disgusted by the fact that people always say they have done fair job, just to cover the fact that they are afraid to do something more. One can easily find excuse himself by saying "I have no reference", "It is not verifiable", "I have impartially reported what has been published" ... etc, etc. Yet, Perelman declined all prizes just because he wanted to show that such a behavior is not too far from a crime. If you see someone drowning and NOT HELP is equally irresponsible behavior as pushing one in the water to drown. So the humanistic attitude is to support Perelman and publicly criticize the plagiarists and criminals, so that in future we prevent others from doing such crimes. Danko Georgiev MD 05:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it that you know Perelman's motivations so clearly?  In any case, why not give clear, precise comments on how the article can be improved rather than fanciful explanations of Perelman's refusal to accept the Fields Medal? Phiwum 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perelman is against the "fair job" excuse 

message: I am removing the Fields medal from the infobox, since Perelman is not a Fields Medalist: he declined. --Taejo|대조 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was offered, so it is considered a "prize", I have inserted in brackets "(declined!)". This is NOTABLE precedent in history. Danko Georgiev MD 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields medal in infobox 

message: http://... 
:Linkspam removed. WP is not a place to promote your blog. I was amazed why nobody recognized him, I was making a photos with my camphone trying not to attract his attention. --- typical media attitude towards Perelman. Give him some privacy, he is pretty clear about his want of it, and, with his achievements, he certainly has right to it. --BACbKA 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you want changed in this article? This discussion page is not a blog. Mathsci 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  here some photo 

message: Hey all....I found a picture of Perelman.  Not sure how to add it to the wiki page though, and not sure what the rules are regarding hosting pictures on wikipedia (can we hotlink to external sites?  I don't think so, but I don't know how to upload to wiki)
Source: http://failuremag.com/images/uploads/articles/grigory_perelman.gif
Hopefully it takes less than another year for someone to comment on this discussion page and see this post :P
69.253.244.31 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this image copyrighted? I checked the site and it says it's copyrighted. We need to have the copyright information before it can be uploaded on Wikipedia and used in this article. I have uploaded images before, so if somebody could verify if this image is copyrighted, I can upload it. RG104 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a picture 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman#Early_life_and_education
Someone has vandalized this section. It needs to be corrected immediately. I would report it to someone but I don't know where else to put this.
Metzae (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mildly object to automatic archiving on this page. On articles where there is a great deal of discussion I would agree, but I find it useful seeing 2 years of past discussion on one page. -84user (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is getting too long. If you think that 30 days are too brisk, how about 180?--Oneiros (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving?