Talk:Mathematics Genealogy Project/Archive 1

Untitled

To link to individuals in the Mathematics Geneaology Project, use this template (example follows):

{{MathGenealogy}}

--Larrybob 15:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On MG policies

See [1], particularly entries by Mitchkeller who identifies himself as "Interim co-Managing Director of the MGP, slated to succeed Harry Coonce in the immediate future."68.43.236.244 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

THE article in 2010

Please note the article on MGP in the Times Higher Education Supplement in 2010. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing of this entry is inconsisten

Recent edits have included material that is incorrect, such as the description of the project. The MG mission states, "Throughout this project when we use the word "mathematics" or "mathematician" we mean that word in a very inclusive sense. Thus, all relevant data from statistics, computer science, or operations research is welcome." Therefore, I am correcting it. Also, direct links to anomolies at their website is NOT original research, and should not be edited out.Edstat (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting together information from one source (MathGenealogy) with another source that contradicts it, and concluding from that combination that MathGenealogy is erroneous, is a direct violation of WP:SYN. I have removed it again. You need to find a reliable source that directly discusses the inaccuracies of the project, not merely a source that contradicts the information in the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent edits from this batch are better, but still not good. The first claim of criticism, of "ancestor worship", is a serious distortion of its source: it speaks of the MGP and related projects in neutral terms, and reserves the "ancestor worship" criticism for the author of the block quotation. The other two are again picking out only the negative parts of two sources that overall speak positively about the MGP. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no WP:SYN. The originator of the MGP created a page himself that indicates the record in question refers to someone w/o a doctoral degree. I disagree with your interpretation of "ancestor worship" - it is very clear that the author calls the MGP a modern variant of what the author is discussing. (However, if other editors agree with your view, then I would not object to deleting that reference.) However, these are all independent criticisms that you should not be censuring. If you wish to also cite those same sources who have something positive to say, by all means do so, but there is no reason to censure appropriately referenced material.Edstat (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed the part about "representing fairly" the sources about the subjects of articles, in WP:NPOV. I disagree with your characterization of these sources as being particularly critical of the MGP. I think you are quoting them out of context. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now re-read the "ancestor worship", and again I don't see your point, but as I said before, I'm willing to abide by your take on it if other editors agree with your reading of it. As for "WP:NPOV, sorry, but I've been editing long enough on wiki to know that an article that was formerly 100% fluff and roses is not immune to a small section indicating criticisms that are found in independent, secondary sources. Now, if you want to combine the last two sections, because separating them belabors the criticism, I can certainly agree to it. Moreover, nowhere in WP is there a requirement that for a reference to be cited because it indicates a criticism that the said reference must be mostly critical, etc., as you are apparently suggesting. The question that I pose is what is there about this entry that makes it immune to criticism when there are clear references that raise them?Edstat (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and combined the two critical sections, to eliminate what you claim is NPOV. I have temporarily removed the quote that you have claimed is being taken out of context, subject to other's examining it and voicing their opinion on its plain meaning.Edstat (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor Edstat is seriously distorting his sources, most egregiously quoting a partial phrase (as though it were criticism) from a rather warm acknowledgment that the MGP was invaluable in Moore's history of Berkeley. Again, he's continuing to engage in original research despite repeated cautions, the latest repeatedly given by senior editor Eppstein. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And now he's damaged the quotation, so it's impossible to tell what is quotation.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GROSS MISUSE OF SOURCES: EdStat misquoted a criticism of Wikipedia as a criticism of MGP. I think it's time to ask EdStat to volunteer to refrain from editing this page again, given the repeated misuse of sources and repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, despite repeated and very clear warnings. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks!

Editors should immediately cease the personal attacks against me. The issue at hand is improving the article, Lets keep it civil, please.

Please voice your opinion on interpreting this quote

"The Mathematics Genealogy project has been called a "modern variant" of "ancestor worship,"[9] "indicative of a paternalistically oriented memorial culture". I'll put the url here in the next edit.Edstat (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the url - "

The phrase in contention is: The Mathematics Genealogy project has been called a "modern variant" of "ancestor worship." The way I read it, the au clearly says "In these family trees", referring not only to the print genealogy, but also footnote 19 which includes the modern variant (electronic genealogy of the MGP), wherein the entries first become "role models", then "saints", and finally "ancestor worship". Please voice your opinion if you do or do not read this quote this way, but please do so w/o a personal attack on me, or WP:Bullying by going to other places that I edit to make inaapropriate edits.Edstat (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another misuse of sources.

The quotation refers to the memorial booklets and notices in German academia (or Russian Mathematical Surveys, I'll add), about great mathematicians and about promising mathematicians whose early deaths moved somebody to memorialize them. It does not refer to MGP. This is yet another gross misquotation. 14:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eppstein already criticized this misuse of sources (above), but EdState continued to misuse it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING. If you continue the personal attack, I'll report it. Express your opinion without the personal attack. As for the matter at hand, you did not address the point raised. "These genealogies family trees" is the thesis statement made after the reference to footnote 19, which seems to imply the au is including electronic genealogies with the print version about to be discussed. How do you interprete "these genealogiesfamily trees"?

Original research statement?

This appears to be original research to me (although this seems to be accurate):

Finally, the genealogy permits listing a 2nd advisor but does not define this title; there is no place to include co-advisors who have a stronger connection to the doctoral student than do 2nd advisors, and there is no place to indicate cognate advisors.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is known to be correct because the new director of the MGP has stated so explicitly in a discussion page on another wiki entry; however, my understanding is that is not a citable reference. However, we also know it is correct because the entry form page of the MGP says so. If someone wants to link to the data entry page of that website, feel free to do so.Edstat (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the comment on 2nd authors, etc., and have added a sample update form (for Gauss). This is not OR, this is the actual update form for the database. However, the comment on the difference between a co-advisor and a 2nd advisor could also use a citation needed tag.Edstat (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cognate advisor

Why was this phrase wikified? There doesn't appear to be a wiki link to it.Edstat (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "cognate advisor" is new to me, and I have been around universities since I was a baby (on two continents). A red-link is a call for you to provide context, or explain something. There is an (unofficial of course) essay called "Red-Links drive Wikipedia growth". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if I have the time, I'll make such an entry. (It will be interesting to see how long the entry stands.) A quick google search on "Cognate Advisor" give 169 hits.

As predicted, the cognate article is AfD.Edstat (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is if a person is majoring in Biology, for example, at a university that requires a doctoral minor, that student may elect biochemistry as the cognate. The student takes what probably amounts to 1/2 of a Master's course of instruction in that cognate. The doctoral qualifying committee would then include a faculty member from biochemistry, meaning the doctoral candidate must write (to a much lesser extent) on that topic. Then, the doctoral dissertation itself (in this case biology), would have a backdrop or application to biochemistry, and hence, the cognate advisor serves on the doctoral committee as the cognate advisor. The updshot is a cognate advisor is akin to the major professor on the backdrop of the dissertation, which is far more time consuming and making the relationship far more involved than a "2nd advisor".Edstat (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edstat again grossly misused this source. There is no mention of "cognate advisor". (Worth, MAA, pages 40-41).

David Eppstein, is there a formal procedure for banning EdStat from editing this page?

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You REALLY have to stop the personal attacks. The point was clear. Cognate advisors, like co-advisors, have a closer relationship to the doctoral student than does 2nd advisors. Yet, the genealogy only provides for 2nd advisors, and even at that, fails to define them. On a wiki discussion page, the new director of the MGP stated he prunes 2nd advisors "on a case by case basis", without even defining what is a 2nd advisor.Edstat (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear EdStat, I am not questioning motives but citing specific behaviors: Gross misuse of sources and original research, despite gentle warnings for nearly a year, and with the nicest phrasing from David Eppstein on this page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (I have asked editor VernoWhitney to review this page, since he is the nicest and most productive facilitator and senior editor known to me, I trust that you will agree.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When another editor cites a source, and you disagree with it, it is inappropriate to used provocative adjectives "GROSS MISUSE", etc. Cite your contrary opinion civily, and let others respond to it. I've asked you numerous times on this page and others not to attack me, particularly when I've written something that contradicts what you call "pure" and, to paraphrase, from the "coffee house chatter from elite universities", etc. There are differing opinions about everything, and editors should be encouraged to write according to their understanding of the citation w/o other editors denegrating their sources as not being "pure" or from what that editor believes is "elite".Edstat (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation marks suggest that I used the quoted phrases --- "pure" , "coffee house chatter from elite universities", "elite". To whom are you attributing them? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your selective quotation from Moore distorted the meaning, and you also juxtaposed another quote from another source there, so it read as though it were the same sentence (unless the notes were checked). Your quotation from the German authors about a financial economist applied a quotation about other genealogies to MGP. Your citation about "cognate advisor" had no basis in the article in the MAA journal (I'm glad that you since changed it). These are all gross misuses of sources --- not being a little sloppy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You've mentioned this all before. I'll rephrase my response for clarity: If a reference says A and B, and a citation is needed for B (because A is already cited), the reference can be cited as support for B. It is not required to support B to find a citation that only says B. All the material from B that I have cited are inside quote marks; there was no summarizaing or editorializing on my part. If B made the quote, B made the quote.Edstat (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Combining topic

The second sentence of the accuracy section, "The originator of the MGP listed a mathematician who is acknowledged to not have a doctoral degree," and its footnote, is a further example of the initial sentence, so if someone knows how to include this material, AND its citation into the footnote for the first sentence, it can be moved, and thus take a step further away from "NPOV" by not piling it on. I know how to move the second sentence into the footnote of the first sentence, but I don't know how to move the citation with it.Edstat (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Cognate Advisor

As requested, I have created the Cognate Advisor stub. I will support it with citations as time permits.Edstat (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by David Eppstein

The restored material has a citation, and clearly indicates errors in terms of the footnoted mathematicians in terms of who was their major professor, the date of the degree, and if the degree was a doctorate or note. This is not a misquote, nor is it original research. Here is the quote:

• George Sylvester Morris: the MGP says that Morris received a Ph.D. in 1868 under Trendelenburg (http://www.genealogy.ams.org/id.php?id=95530, accessed 11/30/2008), but Morris did not get a PhD. For example, Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University, 1874-1889, by Hugh Hawkins, says (p. 190) "Morris had worked in the German universities from 1866 to 1868 but had not elected to take a Ph.D."
• Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg: both the MGP and the PFT (accessed 11/30/2008) give Reinhold as (one of) Trendelenburg's advisor(s), but Reinhold taught at Kiel and died in 1823, whereas Trendelenburg presented his dissertation in 1826 at Berlin. See the detailed discussion of Trendelenburg by Philip Kremer in the PFT Blog, http://philtree.blogspot.com/2005/12/additions-and-corrections.html, about 1/3 of the way down the page (accessed on 11/30/2008). Kremer quotes from several sources, based on which he guesses that Trendelenburg's advisor/examiner was either Hegel or Schleiermacher. Trendelenburg's dissertation is online (http://books.google.com/books?id=ahgi0S7pIGgC&printsec=titlepage#PPP11,M1, accessed 11/30/2008); it is dedicated to "Georgio Ludovico Koenig, philosophiae doctori et scholae Eutinensis rectori, praeceptori meo" (Georg Ludwig König, teacher of philosophy and president of the school at Eutin, my teacher). No other teacher or advisor receives any obvious mention. König is mentioned at http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/trendelenburg_f_a.shtml (accessed 11/30/2008) as the gymnasium teacher at Eutin who introduced Trendelenburg to the system of Immanuel Kant. See Jan den Hollander's comments on relationships above.

I don't believe a link to a direct page where the originator of the MGP admits an entry has no doctoral degree is original research. It is a direct link to a page on the MGP. Please explain why you are trying to censure this?Edstat (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, a direct link to the MGP page is not original research. I'm going to restore the link with the full quote.Edstat (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation of what is on the MGP page is original research. You can quote the page, but you can't interpret it or ask readers to interpret it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have quoted the page, and there is no interpretation. It means exactly what it says. Lagrange didn't have a doctoral degree, but was put in anyway. Similarly, I can quote the MGP new data upload link and cite what information it asks for and what information it does not ask for. There is no interpretation here.Edstat (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely original research in the technical sense of Wikipedia. If you don't believe it, ask at the original research noticeboard. Similar things have had widespread discussion before, e.g. calculating lower bounds on people's Erdös numbers.

The problem here isn't so much verifying that there is a mistake in the MGP database. Actually, it would be amazing if a database of that kind contained no errors. The question is whether it is so unreliable, beyond what you would expect under the circumstances we describe, that it's worth mentioning in an article that is supposed to feature encyclopedic brevity. You can prove some single errors. What you can't prove is that these errors are worth mentioning. For that you need someone who has mentioned them before, in a reliable source. Hans Adler 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No one suggested that the database is so error filled that it is unreliable. Hence, there is no need search for a quote that says that. What has been suggested is that there are limitations to the data base, including, among others, that it has incorrect information in it (to wit, relationship of student to advisor, name of degree, date of degree, etc.) I know of no encylcopedic brevity rule that outweights wikpedia isn't paper to insist limitations cannot be cited with appropriate references.

• I do not see how citing the MGP for the information that it contains (down to the flag) is not original research, and yet citing the scope of the MGP on important topics (e.g., co-advisors, etc.) that it does not contain is original research.

• What I sense, as did another editor who left a question on my talk page, is why when a MAJOR limitation was discussed, it was deleted? Although that lengthy paragraph wasn't documented with any citations, why wasn't the "citation needed" tag applied, instead of summarily deleting it? Why was there no request for that author to privide a citation?

• An editor above has claimed, apparently, that in order to cite a reference that mentions a limitation or criticism, that reference must be primarly critical. Where does THAT rule come from?Edstat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As to Lagrange: I am sure that some early mathematicians without a formal degree are included on purpose because the are essential for the database's purpose of tracing one's academic ancestors back as far as possible. I seem to remember that I read about this in their FAQ or somewhere, a few years ago, but I can't find it now. For the present it makes sense to include only PhDs. Otherwise they would be overrun with mostly irrelevant data. For the past, when many of the most brilliant researchers didn't have a PhD, or one in a totally unrelated subject, not. Hans Adler 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with your point, and that is exactly what Harry Coonce said. I don't think this point is being contested.Edstat (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• What has become (apparently) hotly contested, is (1) that in years gone by, there are many doctoral advisors who really weren't (they were just on the examination committee), whereas today committee members are excluded, (2) the database does not define "advisor 2" and under the new management who constitutes an "advisor 2" is subjective, (3) there are those whose role is even closer to the disseration than an "advisor 2", such as a co-Advisor or Cognate Advisor, and yet there is no place to upload co-advisors or cognate advisors, and finally (4) the "most prolific" page ignores all these issues, and hence, non-meaningful comparisons are being made.Edstat (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For perspective about the fallibility of MGP:

The errors in familial genealogies are roughly 5-15 % misnamed fathers, and such estimates are apparently stable at least in Northern Europe over recent decades. In the Icelandic genetic database, the staff quietly corrects misattributed paternity (and this information is closely guarded, to prevent killings & suicides, for example). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant the comparison is. Are you trying to say that familial genealogies typically have 5-15% misnamed fathers in other contexts where they don't have Wikipedia rules excluding primary research and original research, and must rely only on secondary (and in some cases tertiery) data?Edstat (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance, schmelevance, said affectionately: This page or I or both needed a saltine to cleanse the palate, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been asked on your talk page by others not to go back and edit your earlier comments, because it takes the next person's response to your comment out of context. You have been asked to use strikethrough when you decide to tone down your rhetoric.Edstat (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I make this point because your comment above was altered, adding "said affectionately" and "or I or both" after my response below.Edstat (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear EdStat, please believe me that I wrote the relevance schelevance in the good spirits that my friends used when they introduced me to this Yiddish reduplication: I was surprised that Wikipeida suggested that the usage was derisive, which was not my intent, so I tried to clarify why I wrote it. Again, I added the "or I or both" to suggest that I too needed a break, as a self-criticism. I am sorry that you regard these changes as nontrivially changing the context of your response, which follows below. Please accept my apologies, because I made these changes to avoid giving offense or again to apologize. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

These are the terms you have used in expressing your differing opinion on edits and citations, on this page alone!: "seriously distorting" "egregiously quoting" "repeated cautions" "damaged the quotation" "impossible to tell" "GROSS MISUSE Of SOURCES" "misquoted "refrain from editing" "repeated misuse" "repeated violations" "repeated and very clear warnings" "Yet another misuse" "gross misquotatoin" "misuse of sources" "misuse" "grossly misused" "formal procedure for banning" "Gross misuse" "selective quotation" "distorted" "gross misuse" "sloppy" "Relevance, schmelevance." Perhaps if civilty in cooperative editing were a priority, no saltines would be necessary.Edstat (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't assume the task of sifting through the primary literature to determine if there are errors in the database. That is indeed original research by synthesis. If there have been published critiques of the MGP's accuracy in reliable sources, then we can quote those sources. But we really aren't permitted to present our own critique, even if it is true and we can back it up with data. So the test is simple: is the sentence "Inaccuracies in the MGP have been documented, in terms of who was the major professor, the date the degree was awarded, or even if the degree was a doctorate" attributed to a reliable source. At present, this is not the case, and should be remonved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an easy claim to make, but is it supported by the facts? The reference is to a reputable expert in the field of genealogy (a "co-listowner of GEN-MEDIEVAL"), and in the article that au cites the references which leads to the conclusion that in the examples listed in the footnotes here, the major professor, dates, and degrees as depicted in the WPG are wrong. Hence, this is the case, and it should not be removed.Edstat (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[Comment redacted] Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The above comment by Bialy, now "redacted (retracted)?" and according to his "Edit Summary" he wishes to remain off this page (instead of using strikeout) was an example of arguing against an edit without actually checking the sources, and subsequently, checking the sources to find out the the edit was indeed correct. Strikeout should be used for this purpose AFTER SOMEONE HAS COMMENTED ON IT, as I understand it, because otherwise the flow of the conversation becomes meaningless. Now, presumably, the comment below by me makes sense. Despite the desire to hide an incorrect comment, at least Bialy did the right thing and checked the reference.Edstat (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed it immediately after posting it. It was several days before you decided to restore it on your own initiative, striking it out, and then commenting on it. This is an example of why you shouldn't edit others' comments, by the way, regardless of whether you think you are in the right. Please re-familiarize yourself with WP:REDACT, especially the bullet point about not editing others' comments. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well...... I was referring to the continuing conversation by ALL below, not just MY commment below. In any case, despite your incorrect use of revert AFTER others had continued the discussion, at least you actually looked up the source and realized your initial point, which others went to the wikimath project to solicit, was incorrect and you did the right thing, so the Bravo! still stands.Edstat (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

When you actually check the references that I've cited (and bravo for doing so!), and realize your comment was incorrect, I believe the correct wikipedia protocol is to use strike-through, not deleting the comment.Edstat (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure here, let me begin by saying that I was invited to join this discussion by Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Now I'm still catching up on recent activities at this article, but what I've come up with so far is that I'm not seeing actual evidence that http://www.donstonetech.com/ is a reliable source. Being a "co-listowner of GEN-MEDIEVAL" is similar to being an admin here, responsible for maintenance; now certainly he's at the least an enthusiastic amateur genealogist, but this looks like a self-published source to me unless his work has been published or commented on outside of forums and newsgroups. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The invitation to editor VernoWhitney was also announced here: My invitation raised the issue of misuse of sources, not the reliability of the listserv manager. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by misuse of sources, but I'm not seeing that any of them are being blatantly misrepresented as saying something they do not, just that some of them may not be the most reliable of sources (and as such I have removed the sentence cited to donstonetech.com for my reasons stated above) and that there appears to be some borderline original research being included. Edstat has already helpfully provided what appears to be a more reliable source published in Nature for the criticism section so I don't feel that my removal of the unreliably sourced sentence hurts the article. Continuing on to the original research, I do note that the fact that it lacks "co-advisors, cognate advisors", etc. seems to be stretching the use of the primary source. While the statement is true, you could also say that it doesn't lacks their pet's name (yes, it's reductio ad absurdum, but true nonetheless). I think it would be better rephrased to positively state what it does allow for as opposed to what it doesn't. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The misuse of sources no longer appears on the article but appears in the history, along with my comments about misuse. Edstat had cited articles secondary sources as supporting points (perhaps OR?), but the articles secondary sources had no such content: One misquotation transferred a criticism of Wikipedia into being a quoted criticism of MGP; another was an irrelevant citation to a MAA article with no such statement; the third was using criticism of written German eulegies of mathematicians as though it was criticism of MGP (although here, defending this usage, EdStat did try to use some synthesis of later content in the article, apparently). This was These misuses of sources were cleaned up within a few hours, as I noted on your talk page: There I also noted that no other editors seemed to have regarded EdStat's misuse as severely as I had --- these qualifications being signs of my assuming good faith and fairness, I trust. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 3 reversions rule?

The previously quoted material has been removed by Eppstein and myself at least 3 times and restored three times (so far) today: This violates the spirit of the ban on 3-reversions (sic., 4 reversions trigger one day cooling off.). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No violation - each time I have changed the text in an attempt to meet what was being requested. Furthermore, I have been constrained by being charged with adding in the necessary quotes because it then becomes NPOV, but if I don't put in the details it gets deleted! So, I've put the longer quotes on this page, and the references and citations on the article page. The effort to sugar coat crticisms of this article is becoming legendary! What I mean by that is the avoidance of asking for citations for support if an editor thinks it is necessary, and instead simply deleting away.Edstat (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

EdStat did only 3 reverts, not 4. 09:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 09:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)