The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 07:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold Destiny[edit]

Manifold Destiny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While this page is purportedly about an article in the New Yorker, it is in fact a lightly disguised attack page on several Chinese mathematicians, much of which was written by IPs and SPAs during a strange Russian v. Chinese fight a few years ago. Much of the page consists of poorly sourced scurrilous gossip and speculation in violation of the WP:BLP policies. (The New Yorker article itself is not a reliable source for this gossip, and has been criticized by many of the people it quotes for its inaccuracy.) After removing the BPL violations from this page, there would be nothing worth keeping that is not already included in other articles. R.e.b. (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "article itself is not a reliable source for this gossip". Can you prove it isn't or do we have to take your POV for granted?

• "has been criticized by many of the people it quotes for its inaccuracy". Find sources that provide those accurate statements and balance it. Controversy is notable enough that they should exist if your claim is true. VG ☎ 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:COATRACK. An individual article in a magazine doesn't seem to be notable, and the rest is just all bad. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK is a completely non-binding essay. VG ☎ 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the recommended fix given in WP:COATRACK is to edit the article; deletion is recommended only in extreme circumstances. VG ☎ 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Obviously, some single articles in magazines are notable. It's silly to say a single magazine article can't be notable. This one received vast amounts of publicity. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Major controversy in mathematics. If there are BLP issues (which precisely?) they can be fixed in the article. VG ☎ 22:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. The New Yorker article was clearly one of the most notable pieces of mathematical journalism in the last decade (if not of all time; I can't think of any other magazine article with a similar impact). This (wikipedia) article amply documents the notability. Also the w. article hews very closely to the NY article, so I don't see what all the "coatrack" objections are about. Absolutely a topic that deserves a wikipedia article, and the present article is rather good and well-sourced. Plclark (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Plclark. The article is a model of neutral tone and is amply, properly sourced. The objection that it is merely one article in one magazine could be addressed, for example, by creating an article Controversy over Perelman's proof of the Poincaré Conjecture, but I think this will amount to merely a name change. The fact that Yau is slighted by the New Yorker article does not make this article a BLP violation, since we are not the ones doing the slighting either by POV writing or by giving undue weight to criticism. Actually, the criticism is well-balanced with counter-criticism, all attributed to reliable sources. There is only one "citation needed", and actually, it's wrong: the claim is supported by the Times article already cited in the same paragraph (I've removed the tag already). In fact, each paragraph is supported by a source. There is no "scurrilous gossip" nor "speculation" in this article, except insofar as it is reported from the New Yorker article, and any controversial claims there are analyzed and presented in this article in the full context of the controversy they created. The New Yorker article made a big splash and also a big stink, both of which facts are documented widely, and this is what our article is about. It is possible that Yau (or others) would not want the memory of this issue kept alive (though I am not claiming this is the case), but it is not defamatory or even unfair to present the controversy as we have done here. Ryan Reich (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not ready to take a "keep" or "delete" position yet (and maybe I'll never get to that) but if the article is a scurrilous attack on innocent persons, is it not nonetheless possible to write a Wikipedia article about that that is not that same sort of thing? For example, one can write an article about the forged pamphlet titled Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion without endorsing its views. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The nominator, R.e.b., writes, "...much of which was written by IPs and SPAs during a strange Russian v. Chinese fight a few years ago." It's funny how memory plays tricks sometimes. This is at best highly misleading. After the creation of the article by Kidiawipe, the article looked like this. It is in fact a fairly factual description of the article, with, as far as I see, no partisan slant to it, although one could question the creation of the article. After some very minor editing by IPs and a lot more editing by regular editors (including removal of obviously inappropriate editing by some SPAs and IPs), it looked like this. Now is this so different than the nominated version? I think not. Sure there are some differences: the lede has gained some cruft and repetition, and now there is a "reactions from the math community" section which was mostly written by a regular contributor. So at best, if we want R.e.b's comment to be correct, we would have to interpret his comment to be an exaggeration of Kidiawipe's status as basically an SPA. However, despite the lack of edit history, I see no need to cast aspersions upon this editor or to suspect that the contributions were done in bad faith.

• (continued) Now speaking of that "reactions" section, that is probably the only part of the article I think WP:COATRACK could possibly apply to. One could argue the section is written to be about reactions to the controversy itself, rather than direct comments on the article. A justification though would be that the reason the controversy even exists to the degree it does is because of the article. For example, Joan Birman's letter in the AMS Notices directly references the article as a reason for her writing. Indeed, initially there was no controversy as such. Just the usual academic infighting and a rather unusual character. The NY article basically created the controversy and it took a life of its own. Enough that it gained attention as a controversy in the popular press, and enough that when the AMS canceled an event at the annual meeting, it garnered a mention in Nature! --C S (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The article documents a significant mathematical controversy. Instead of renaming it "Controversy over Perelman's proof", I would suggest renaming it "Yau-New Yorker controversy". Had Perelman participated in the controversy, one could have called it "Yau-Perelman controversy". Katzmik (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the "keep", but I completely disagree with any renaming involving the word "controversy". It is not Wikipedia's place to go around declaring things as controversies, and would note that Katzmik has been creating articles such as Bishop-Keisler controversy and Brouwer-Hilbert controversy, which are far from being encyclopedic in content or style. Geometry guy 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I responded at your talk page. Katzmik (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is interesting to compare this with WP:Articles for deletion/Tian-Yau Conflict, which was also nominated for deletion by R.e.b. and quite rightly deleted. The distinction between the views expressed there and here shows a clear consensus on where Wikipedia draws the line in relation to controversial issues about living persons. First, the topic must be notably and thoroughly documented in reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia must be able to take a scrupulously neutral and detached approach to the topic, sticking to the sourced facts and letting the reader form their own opinion: this includes a title reflecting a neutral approach, and reliable sources documenting the positions of all significant viewpoints.

In this case, although the current article needs to be ruthlessly cut back to its factual bare bones, it is clear that the New Yorker article is notable and well reported in reliable secondary sources. Hence we keep the article, and clean it up. Geometry guy 13:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am interested in an explanation of both of your criticisms of this article: that it uses the word "controversy" without being sourced, and that it exceeds its "factual bare bones". It would of course be inappropriate for someone to write an article on a "controversy" that does not yet exist, in order to attract attention or present a point of view, but the word itself is not special, and it or one like it is necessary to describe the events set off by the New Yorker article. Our article documents a public clash of opinions and interests related to the NY's article's claims, and calling this a "controversy" is like calling a person's statement "opinion" (presuming that it was an opinion, etc.): in other words, it's common sense and common usage, and more importantly, there is no alternative: this is the word that describes the concept. Avoiding words that display a judgement when we are only reporting the judgement is also a form of bias.

I also do not see how our article ventures beyond the facts. It meticulously sources every claim and statement and makes no synthesis beyond assembling them in chronological order and ascribing causality to certain progressions of events (whose letter was a response to what, for example) which is anyway essentially explicit in the events themselves. I can see two potential issues, but they are issues of deficiency, not excess: first, I do not know and do not wish to attempt to verify that all the published facts related to this controversy are given due weight in this article, or whether there exist further letters to the editor, legal developments, interviews, accusations, or retractions (etc.) that aren't mentioned; second, the final section on reactions of the mathematical community is apparently arbitrary, in that although it presents various instances of soul-searching on matters of professional ethics and race, it gives no indication that these are representative of the entirety of the claimed response. It is, furthermore, difficult for the reader to get a sense of this since the facts in this section do not form as clear a timeline or chain of events as those in the previous sections; one is not sure whether the items presented have been somehow cherry-picked. Ryan Reich (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a famous mathematician expresses this type of sentiment that in itself may be newsworthy. I think one should be very stringent about interpreting the adjective "famous" in this case. Katzmik (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section was clearly destined for the garbage bin, which is what I did. Katzmik (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geometry guy 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that the article uses the word "controversy" without it being sourced. However, it certainly contains far more than the facts.
  • First sentence: "priority dispute" is interpretation/analysis/opinion.
  • Last paragraph of the lead: "paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medallist, Shing-Tung Yau". According to whom?
  • First section: "Dramatis personae (in order of appearance)" is unencyclopedic phrasing and synthesis.
  • Summary section: "the authors present a complex narrative that touches upon matters peripheral to the Poincaré conjecture but reflective of politics in the field of mathematics". According to whom? Wikipedia?
  • "the title of the paper dramatically changed" Does the article say "dramatically". If not, who does?
  • "This alleged incidence with the journal has not been confirmed by an outside source, however, no one involved has yet made a statement claiming that it is false." Is this Wikipedia's observation, or has it been noted in reliable sources?
  • Controversy section: "The controversy revolves around its emphasis on Yau's alleged stake in the Poincaré conjecture, its view that Yau was unfairly taking credit away from Perelman, and its depiction of Yau's supposed involvement in past controversies." Who's analysis of the controversy is this?
  • "Yau's legal efforts have not progressed beyond his September letter. The New Yorker has stood firmly by its story." POV juxtaposition and style.
  • "In a twist, after the publication of Manifold Destiny, plagiarism was discovered in Cao and Zhu's paper." Accusations of plagiarism MUST BE ATTRIBUTED. Wanna be sued???

I certainly sympathise with R.e.b. bringing this to AfD. The article should be kept, but I hope the above helps editors bring the article in line with important policies like WP:BLP. Geometry guy 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You did not say here that this article uses "controversy" without sourcing it, but you did say on your talk page in response to Katzmik that you think the word should not be used unless it is used in general by reliable sources; I assumed that you meant this to apply to this article as well as to the others you were discussing there. My responses to some of your points:
  • "unflattering portrait" can be altered to say, for example, "according to Yau, the article presented an unfairly negative view on him and his relationship to the proof effort", or something along those lines. This can obviously be backed up by any number of sources already given in the article, and such a statement obviously belongs in the lead since it summarizes (some of) the contents of the article.
  • "this alleged incidence(sic) has not been confirmed...": this one is interesting, in that it is literally true and its apparent meaning is relevant and important, but the absence of this statement, while implying sort of the same thing (a lack of certain information) would also imply something rather different. I see this sentence as a statement of the extent of the available information: "we looked, and there isn't anything published about this incident, but on the other hand, no one has said it isn't true either. Basically, it's the New Yorker's word alone". There is possibly a more neutral way of saying it, but failing to include such a sentence would leave the impression that the New Yorker's account of the incident is more reliable than it is.
  • "the controversy revolves..." seems to me to be a summary of the contents of the section. Perhaps it should read "this section presents the reactions of Yau, the New Yorker, and others to the article's claims that...", but in an article that claims to write about a particular set of related events forming a "controversy", it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to state what constituted the controversy, especially when this statement is drawn conservatively from the contents of the various sources. Paraphrasing is allowed; it is not original research to rephrase the statement "Mainly, yesterday, it rained unpleasantly" as "the speaker complained about yesterday's weather".
  • "Yau's legal efforts..." POV phrasing for sure, but just as with the "alleged incidence" statement, you need to say this or else its absence will be significant in a misleading way.
• Anything else needs to be dealt with as you said. On the whole, I don't think that the article ventures so far beyond the bare facts that cleaning it up would result in a significant reduction. Ryan Reich (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of the comments referenced by G-guy were written by me, let me explain why I wrote them. (I didn't write any of the other things, and I agree, for example, that the use of the word "plagiarism" is way off-base)

"paints an unflattering portrait of the 1982 Fields Medallist, Shing-Tung Yau". According to whom? Um, according to everyone. If you read through all the referenced content and anything that's been written about this, everything thinks this article was highly unflattering. Numerous Yau supporters even consider these blatant attacks, and his detractors consider it the truth, albeit negative. So when I wrote as a summary that it "paints an unflattering portrait", the thought that someone would even dispute this never crossed my mind. Please list a single person who thinks this is not unflattering.

"The controversy revolves around its emphasis on Yau's alleged stake in the Poincaré conjecture, its view that Yau was unfairly taking credit away from Perelman, and its depiction of Yau's supposed involvement in past controversies." Who's analysis of the controversy is this? Mine. This is a good summary of what the New Yorker article covered. It clearly paints Yau as the bad guy that wants to take away credit from Perelman (including a 'helpful' illustration of Yau grabbing the medal literally from Perelman's neck, to boot), alleges he has a big stake in the resolution of PC, and spends a great deal of time alleging/discussing Yau's involvement in prior priority disputes. If the controversy doesn't revolve around what was written in "Manifold Destiny", what on earth could it revolve around? --C S (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please do not discuss minutia changes to be made to the article here; it's not the proper place. Discuss them on the article's talk page. This discussion is strictly about keeping or deleting the whole article. VG ☎ 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. I might support a broader name for the article, though, as it spans more than the New Yorker article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect and Merge. There does not seem to signifigant secondary coverage of the New Yorker article itself. Most of the secondary coverage is related to the claim of defamation, which belongs in the article about the individual. Other secondary material barely relates to the articles itself and instead to the varous subjects. This material is good for the articles on Shing-Tung Yau and Grigori Perelman, but not notable enough to stand on its own. (Note: there are more google hits for the cookbook called "manifold destiny" than the article.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply: You raised a valid concern here, namely that the title of the article is too narrow for it's contents. But (as Geometry guy pointed out to me) this should also be discussed separately on the article's talk page; I've added a title change proposal there. Deleting the article seem unwarranted if the title is too narrow, since there's no other article on Wikipedia presenting the proof attribution controversy. Merging into Shing-Tung Yau is inappropriate; Yau was only a commentator on the attribution controversy. Merging into Grigori Perelman's bio would be marginally suitable, except this article is a lot longer than Perelman's bio and would derail that article by giving undue weight to a single topic in his bio. Also, a number of sections like "Erratum to Cao/Zhu article", which is germane to this article, would be entirely off-topic in Perelman's bio. So all the alternatives you bolded are IMHO inappropriate. VG ☎ 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.