Talk:Maximilian Janisch

Conflict of interest

The article in its current form is a translation of this page in the German Wikipedia. The translation has been performed by me so that the article in its current form has been written almost entirely by myself, the subject of the article. This represents a conflict of interest (WP:COISELF). Conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not forbidden.

I assert that the article adheres to WP:POL, notably WP:NPOV and WP:Reliability, but am happy to participate in discussions challenging this assertion, as explicated further below.

Within the page curation process, @Aszx5000: has tagged this page with the COI tag. Per Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove, I am creating an entry on the talk page to discuss appropriate steps that need to be taken in order to address the problem underlined by this tag.

I propose the following steps in order to address the issue found by Aszx5000 in the article:

1. I publicly declare my conflict of interest on my User page and on this talk page (this has already been done, [1] and [2]).
2. I start this paragraph in the talk page and will be happy to participate in any discussions that draw attention to violations of WP:NPOV or other Wikipedia guidelines in the article.
3. I remove the maintenance tag once the discussion in this paragraph becomes dormant, which I will consider to be the case seven days after the last contribution to this paragraph.

Thank you all and have a great day, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that which is helpful. Given that there might not be a lot of traffic here, I have created a notice on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard under Maximilian Janisch, which I think is the best forum for this. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I have answered over there too. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits have been kindly performed by @Spiralwidget: and summarised at [3] I would prefer to discuss them here instead of the deletion discussion, so I copy over my response from there

Hello @Spiralwidget: First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:

1. Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
2. Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
3. Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
4. Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
5. Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
6. Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [4]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems reasonable to me.
7. Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
8. Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
9. Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
10. Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
11. Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.

--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Spiralwidget: Thank you for your response over at the deletion discussion page. I am replying here to not further influence that discussion. If you want we can wait with content-wise discussions until the deletion discussion has finished.

1. The concept of leading author for this book does not apply, authors are listed alphabetically in the preprint and the book cover.
2. Sources linking Monika Janisch to me exist, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8].
3. I doubt that public references about my German citizenship exist, if you have any suggestion of there being a good way of proving it for Wikipedia, I'd be very open.

All the best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. I would certainly advise against commenting on the deletion page again. In terms of content, I have no qualms with point 1 and 2, though I would suggest letting the deletion discussion continue until consensus before making the edits. In terms of the German citizenship, I think the most pertinent course of action would be simply not including it in the article. No article is perfect.Spiralwidget (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing COI tag

During the discussion after the AfD nomination on June 25, several parts of this article considered subject to COI concerns have been removed by independent editors. On July 10, I have added a link to a website of the University of Zurich describing the education of Janisch. Although this page has been written by Janisch, the information about his studies at that university can be assumed to be correct. Peer review by personnel of the institute would have led to corrections. As the rest of the article is based on sufficient secondary sources now, I propose to remove the COI tag. BBCLCD (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Considering you are the editor who added the COI tag, and that the article has been subjected to a deletion discussion as well as rewritten without interference from me since you have added the COI tag, I'd appreciate if you could remove it in case you agree that it is obsolete. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Been away for a few weeks. I agree, it has been through a full re-write process via AfD - which I think was a good way to get this resolved quickly. Looks fine now and have taken off the COI. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia, I appreciate it! --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Description as "prodigy" is subjective

I think describing him as a "prodigy" is too much of a term.

1) He passed his high school exams at the age of 15. He only passed them in one subject before, namely maths, which is not equivalent to passing high school exams (and much easier).

2) Starting university at 15 is not that much uncommon in Switzerland. I have friends who did it too (at ETH Zürich, not UZH, which makes it even harder).

3) "Prodigy" is always a subjective term. The media calling him such does not make it objective. What would suit better is an objective description of the reality, such as "doctoral student at 18". Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Hi Fanny.doutaz, thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I'm sure you are aware of this but just to reiterate, Wikipedia relies on what WP:RS say about the subject.

Reference [9]

[10]

[11] mentions a few articles calling him a prodigy.

[12]

And so on. Knitsey (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Again: "prodigy" is not an objective term. Media can claim what they want with exaggerations, but this is not an appropriate term as there is no objective definition of prodigy. For me, prodigy would be someone who would be able to contribute substantially to science, which he is not. Everyone can have a different definition. But the term is in no case objective. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Reliable sources refer to what media state about objective facts. "Prodigy" is a subjective description and therefore cannot be considered objective only based on media. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

What can I say, we go with what reliable sources say and that is Wikipedia policy.

Wait and see if anyone else in the community has anything to say on the subject. Knitsey (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we make a vote somehow to let the community decide if "prodigy" is a subjective term? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

In German secondary sources Janisch is described as Hochbegabter, which translates into highly gifted individual. Earlier in his life, he was mentioned as Wunderkind. The Merriam-Webster definition of prodigy is a highly talented child or youth. These terms were applied to him for his extraordinary talent in mathematics and the results of an early IQ test. According to a definition for Hochbegabung, an IQ of over 130 is used as a reference. Janisch had an IQ of >149).--BBCLCD (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see a reason for which people absolutely want to describe him with this term here. It is way too high of a description for a student who didn't really contribute to science, but just started uni at 15. Hochbegabter translates to highly gifted individual as you said (I speak German too). Prodigy, even if in the dictionary it has the connotation to "highly gifted", in everyday language (at least from the US), is a term for people who achieved really a lot. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

So my suggestion is to replace "prodigy" by "highly gifted individual" or simply state the facts of who he is without subjective description. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Hi everyone, any update on this? Should we make a pool about which term to use? I could ask the opinion of some other friends who study at ETH Zurich and know him from the Zurich math school as well. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Given that many of the reliable sources cited in the article have referred to him as Wunderkind or child genius, which are used synonymously to child prodigy (and you'll find also redirect there), it seems appropriate that we use the word prodigy for the article here.

When we use terms on Wikipedia, we rely on and summarize what reliable sources use and avoid original research, such as asking other people that know a subject for their view (unless such views are, again, cited in reliable sources). Raladic (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Then why not just writing that he is called prodigy by media? As I said, the term is subjective Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

I'm actually in agreement with Fanny.doutaz, 'prodigy' is a bit breathless in WikiVoice. Plus he's an adult now, so technically he was a prodigy. I'd like to move this term to later in the article and attribute it. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we could move it to a second paragraph in the lead and change the lead first sentence to prolific or something mathematician instead and do something in second paragraph to say that he was described as a prodigy as a child. I was mainly arguing that we shouldn't lose it entirely, because it is well reported (and arguably was a big part of the notability of the person in question here since even documentaries were made about his prodigious case).

I checked what we've done on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for reference for another (maybe the most) famous prodigy where it was handled similarly and explained in the second lead paragraph. Raladic (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Raladic, maybe make a BOLD edit and we'll all see what you're thinking? Valereee (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Gave it a stab, how is this?, feel free to adapt. Raladic (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Raladic: Thanks for participating in this discussion and for your edit, I make a few comments here to avoid COI edits, as the article is concerned with myself:

• My last name is spelled Janisch, not Janish;
• I am not quite sure where the age of three comes from (currently unsourced), but it is true that I liked calculating with numbers as a child;
• One may consider "former child prodigy and mathematician" instead of what is currently written, but I have no stakes in the discussion so please use what you think fits best!

Happy editing, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo of your name, fixed.

The three came from this article, but I've generalized it to say very young age now.

I'll let someone else decide if they'd prefer your suggestion or my attempt to address the concern some people had. Raladic (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Raladic, thanks for your suggestion. It looks good to me Fanny.doutaz (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Hey, @Raladic, I don't think we need 'gifted Swiss' in the lead? I've removed it, did a little ce for time context. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me. Raladic (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Untruthful statement?

"After completing his Bachelor's degree in one year, he started to work for his Master's degree at the age of 15." This statement, despite seemingly being backed by a media claim, seems untruthful. On his linkedin he wrote himself that he graduated from the french uni bachelor in 2020 Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Sources for publications

Hey, BBCLCD, this is not a source. It's simply proof of existence. We need to see sources that discuss the publications, otherwise they aren't considered noteworthy. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Three of these preprints have been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals in the meantime. I am not aware, that secondary sources are required to confirm the notability of scientific publications.--BBCLCD (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@BBCLCD, we don't typically list publications that aren't noteworthy for inclusion (vs. notability; if the publication is notable, it can have an article of its own, and of course we would list it and link to it). When there aren't secondary sources mentioning a publication, generally I'm looking for publications that have hundreds+ citations and the article subject is the primary author. An academic's CV can list their publications, but WP typically doesn't list publications with a handful of citations. Who is Thomas Drisch? Valereee (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee. The first publication was printed initially in French as an autobiography according to the corresponding lemma in German: "Maximilian Janisch: Moi, un phénomène? L'université à 10 ans: facile! Edition Favre, Lausanne/Paris 2015, ISBN 978-2-8289-1452-3". This is a book published in two languages and should be on the list of publications. The preprints of scientific papers mentioned have been submitted/printed recently. In the field of theoretical mathematics, one cannot expect a lot of citations in a short time. If you prefer, I can replace the list of preprints with the papers published already as book or in journals.--BBCLCD (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@BBCLCD, but again, those only prove the publications exist. If no one has discussed the book in either language, it probably isn't something we need to include. We need to find someone somewhere at minimum mentioning it. And yes, we can't expect a lot of citations in a short time. Some of those publications may at some point be cited by hundreds, in which case we'll mention them. But for now they're just publications that exist. We have a link to the subject's website, readers can find out more. Valereee (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)