Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 27 May 2015

A news item involving John Forbes Nash Jr. was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 May 2015.

A news item involving John Forbes Nash Jr. was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 March 2015.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Game theory High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Misplaced Pages's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: West Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as High-importance).

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

NPOV dispute of Feb. 2005

I've added an NPOV tag to the article. The writing seemed to be explicitly plugging for Nash and his wife Alicia; see, e.g., "worked courageously as a programmer" or "adventures characteristic of a burnt-out genius" ...

Somebody who knows about Nash and his life should go over this and pick out what 's fact and what's advocacy. Meelar (talk) 03:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges 2-18-2005

I am responsible for the "non-NPOV" phrases. I was a source for the Nasar book but my engagement with Nash and Princeton may itself have "biased" my contribution. I need to examine this issue in light of the charter document re NPOV, specifically this:

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists ... this can be a troublesome one. Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value. To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias)."

Let me re-read the first highlighted phrase, that Alicia worked "courageously" as a programmer. The two alternative possibilities are that Mrs. Nash worked timidly, or worked neutrally, neither courageously nor timidly.

I am aware that ANY "fact" derived from the Ron Howard film alone would be likely an opinion and only randomly a fact. But Sylvia Nasar in the book, A Beautiful Mind, does say that Alicia was a pioneer, and as such, courageous, in going to work for Met Life (and later on at Princeton itself) and unlike Nasar's recount of Nash's morals bust at Rand, no serious dispute exists regards this fact.

I claim it's a fact that she worked courageously because of a background fact that is not, despite its political freight, in serious dispute. Computer programming in the 1960s was dominated by men. Merely because this is a "feminist" claim does not make it an opinion IF it is not in serious dispute that women were disadvantaged at this time (whether they are now is a completely separate issue).

The inclusion of women as a protected class in 1968 EEO legislation further makes a feminist opinion into fact. In 1968, the law recognized that women were having difficulty in entering professions. The "fact" was voted into existence and confirmed by judicial review, ergo prior to 1968 (and after, during the time in which the fact of discrimination became acknowledged) it took courage for a woman to work as a programmer.

Furthermore, independent of the questions of womens' status, it took courage for her to enter the work force to support both John and their son.

The defense of the second phrase is simpler. Only a writer COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR with Nash, who had not read A Beautiful Mind, would deny burntOut(Nash) ANDALSO genius(Nash) as a proposition.

Lively language in itself need not violate NPOV.

The writer of the charter wishes, and I wish him well, to draw a bright line between facts and values. Unfortunately, this line does not exist at the border between the natural sciences and mathematics at the one hand, and social reality on the other. Social struggles, especially when they take to the law, are themselves attempts to establish facts on the ground.

For example, it is probably (owing to the story of Abraham and Isaac common to Moslem, Jewish and Christian tradition) a fact that human sacrifice is wrong in a way that I can (with some reluctance!) admit that the destruction of Hiroshima was wrong as some sort of received opinion.

I take this position because it is mere scientism to place the border at the boundary between science and society.

Thanks for your response. I must disagree with your interpretation of the NPOV policy, however. Even writing down only facts can be non-neutral, if those facts are chosen or phrased in such a way as to influence the opinion of someone reading the article. Let's accept that "characteristic of a burnt-out genius" is factual, for argument's sake. Even though it is factual, when presented this way, it reads as a defense of Nash--thus, non-neutral. NPOV is not restricted only to allowing facts; it governs the presentation and tone of the entire article. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is fine. This is not the article on abortion, and some poetic justice is permitted. The fact of the matter is that many find it a touching story, and if you can't present evidence which shows Alicia was in fact not courageous, then he is simply stating a fact. --Alterego 21:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

--User:spinoza1111 Edward G. Nilges replies:

OK, Meelar says that choice of facts can be selective and NNPOV. This is true. However, to avoid giving the reader a positive opinion about Alicia, one would have to eliminate all the facts about her! One would have to make her an invisible, normed scientific wifey-poo not recognized as a moral agent.

Suppose in an alternate universe, Alicia had divorced John's ass, and ran off to Brazil with a wealthy playboy. Then, A Beautiful Mind would have been the exciting story of how a scientific saint endured not only mental illness but also a bimbo attack.

There would not be a dry eye in the house.

Seriously, I don't think these facts would have been considered NNPOV and extraneous to Nash's biography.

I lived and worked in the Princeton community for five years during Nash's crisis and recovery and while I was not closely associated with Nash, I can report that the community, as a community knows (as knowledge is socially constructed) that Nash was getting better and that Alicia was a good sport.

I do understand that in many scientific, literary, and artistic biographies, the lady of the house is invisible. But you cannot know Picasso unless you know Dora Maar, Francois Gilot and a number of other Picasso wives and concubines. Knowledge of the personal crisis occasioned by the failure of T. S. Eliot's marriage helps us to understand The Waste Land and recent scholarship shows that Vivienne Eliot may have been more of a Muse than was formerly thought and less of a pest.

I understand that the biographies of most scientists can safely exclude family matters, and many scientists even request that such material be excised for fear of harming the careers of spouses and childen (Chomsky seems to have done so). But the Nash story cannot be untangled from emotional issues which are not understood, from any POV, without understanding Alicia.

NPOV is not the neutrality of the LAPD who when they enter a low dwelling assume everyone's a gemoke or a bimbo, and maintain this stance by not listening to tales of woe. NPOV has the inescapably normative need to recognize when a community, in this case that of Princeton, recognized Alicia's contribution. Now, it can keep this recognition at arms-length in service of some sort of outdated Logical Positivism by prefixing rumors of angels consistently with "it is said that", "studies show", "nine out of ten doctors agree", or "word to yo Mama".

But such would make for an unreadable article and is refuted by the very fact WHY we are neutral in the first place.

Why be neutral in the first place? Ethics, that's why, which shows that by praising what's acknowledged by a community of knowers to be good, and by dispraising things like concentration camps, torture, and cheating at cards, acknowledged by a community to be not good we show that our NPOV is not an outdated, and completely discredited Logical Positivism.

Postscript: the thuggish append ("BFD") below is precisely the sort of crap that doesn't belong here. If the Internet is to be anything more than the triumph of the anarchism of the petty bourgeois, it needs to be erased. Hey I can do that! OK, here goes.

Hello - it's not so difficult to describe Alicia's work, and suggest why it was unusual at the time given her gender, without resorting to POV labels like "courageous." Just say that she worked as a computer programmer to support the family, at a time when few women worked in this field. That's factual, without trying to sound like you're plugging a feminist POV or giving her gold stars for sainted wifeliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.116.182 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

I remember a lot of folks connecting Nash to antisemitism when A Beautiful Mind (film) approached Academy Award (Oscar) season. How come nothing is on the article or this discussion page or those of the film itself? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind 04:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How notable is that considered though. I do see reliable sources where Nash denies it. Keep in mind he was/is schitzophrenic . . . a symptom of that can be having false beliefs, confused thinking, paranoia. Should that explain most of the odd things he did, and since then his mental illness while not being completely gone has subsided, hence no more antisemitic comments, he denies it is his true belief. Popish Plot (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

This edit request to John Forbes Nash, Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, add under Awards "2015 - Abel Prize" Source: http://www.abelprize.no/c63466/seksjon/vis.html?tid=63467&strukt_tid=63466 Eglu81 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done by ‎Gmporr. Materialscientist (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS LOCKED!

I WANT TO EDIT THIS ARTICLE!!!! --50.205.217.212 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is, it doesn't have the lock symbol in top right anyway. But maybe it does for you because you don't have a username? I see a past edit from march 23 said "Allow only autoconfirmed users". I guess someone was trying to put in unreliable sources for this biography of a living person. Popish Plot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Trap basically says his theorem has been proven wrong.

The Trap miniseries mentions Nash's game theory ideas.

Right now this article says: "In 1978, Nash was awarded the John von Neumann Theory Prize for his discovery of non-cooperative equilibria, now called Nash equilibria. He won the Leroy P. Steele Prize in 1999.

In 1994, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten) as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use email to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was the John Nash and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's mental health ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work."

I remember in the movie beautiful mind that Nash was surprised that they wanted to give him the Nobel for economics because he hadn't considered that aspect of his theory. I think since the economy crashed, the theory in terms of economics has been discredited. But I suppose that isn't really a criticism of Nash because he didn't intend it for that? He did accept the prize though. The trap series mentions that Nash's schitzphrenia made him suspicous of everyone around him. And it says the theory would have worked if everyone in the economy was like that but that's not the case of course.

Can the Trap movie be used as a source? A line could be added to the section here on his Nobel prize "Nash's theory has been criticzed by Adam Curtis in the TV series the Trap.

Other sources are http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/03/broadcasting and this one (behind a paywall) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/article2394359.ece

Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is The Trap a recognized authority on mathematics? --Jayron32 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The theory was on economics tho. Popish Plot (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this.

""I realise what I said at some times may have over-emphasised rationality," an elderly John Nash tells Curtis in an extraordinary interview, after emerging from years of battling schizophrenia. "Human beings are much more complicated than the human being as a businessman."

A quote from Nash himself that he over emphasized rationality. The Trap criticized the idea that people betraying each other is considered rational. Popish Plot (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article is not RS on this subject. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Popish Plot (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To make an extraordinary claim concerning a living person, we would need a much more authoritative, clearly, and comprehensively presented reference. This is an article by a journalist. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is just that it's an extraordinary claim right? The article has plenty of sources from newspapers which are written by journalists. Popish Plot (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the theorem to which you refer? What edit do you propose and what RS supports it? SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nash had won the Nobel Economics Prize for game theory. I see the article doesn't have a source for that though! That is something that should be fixed. But before I forget about the main question here let me lay down my reasoning. Right now in the article's section "Recognition and Later Career" it says:

"In 1994, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten) as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use email to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was the John Nash and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's mental health ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work."

I propose we add a sentence to the end of this paragraph "Nash's game theory was criticized in the BBC Documentary The Trap"

Or Maybe:

"According to the BBC Documentary series The Trap, Nash's game theory for which he won a Nobel Prize for Economics worked in theory but not in practice. Nash appeared in the documentary and said ""I realise what I said at some times may have over-emphasised rationality. "Human beings are much more complicated than the human being as a businessman." Popish Plot (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Popish: "Game Theory" is not a theorem and Nash's contributions by no means spanned the breadth of the subject or of current knowledge in the field. At any rate, if you are interested in editing content which relates to academic research, the best approach is to review the peer-reviewed academic literature. I'm not familiar with the TV show you mention, but the news account is not clear or accurate. The burden is on you to find verifiable reliable source references for content you propose adding to the article. In this case, I doubt that any will be found. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's true if this was the wiki article about the theorem itself but it's about Nash. Popish Plot (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifico, the award he won is called "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1994" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly to call Nash's theory that won him a Nobel. It seems it was actually his body of work on game theory, not one specific theory. Perhaps this can be clarified but right now this article says: "Nash earned a Ph.D. degree in 1950 with a 28-page dissertation on non-cooperative games. The thesis, which was written under the supervision of doctoral advisor Albert W. Tucker, contained the definition and properties of the Nash equilibrium. A crucial concept in non-cooperative games, it won Nash the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1994.

Nash's major publications relating to this concept are in the following papers:

Nash, JF (1950). "Equilibrium Points in N-person Games". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36 (36): 48–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. PMC 1063129. PMID 16588946. MR 0031701.

"The Bargaining Problem". Econometrica (18): 155–62. 1950. MR 0035977.

Nash, J. (1951). "Non-cooperative Games". Annals of Mathematics 54 (54): 286–95. doi:10.2307/1969529. JSTOR 1969529.

"Two-person Cooperative Games". Econometrica (21): 128–40. 1953. MR 0053471.Popish Plot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Popish, you need to propose a specific edit and the references to which you propose to cite it. Some of the subject matter relating to Nash's work and the larger fields to which he contributed is highly complex. You appear to have confused "theory" and "theorem" and their various meanings. The casual statement attributed to Prof. Nash concerning rationality doesn't support the kinds of edits you appear to be contemplating. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean how I titled this talk page section "theorem"? Forget about that, I see that is not the case. Just look at the edit I proposed and the sources please. Popish Plot (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I made a post on the talk page of the game theory article about this topic, thinking maybe that article could be improved with some of these sources: ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That statement is not about the Nash Equilibrium. It's Nash's casual opinion about how he views some people's behavior. It's not relevant to either article and it certainly does not in general either invalidate Nash's work or its economic applications in game theory. You should give a careful look at the WP policies concerning relaible sources, verifiability, and references. Unless you can propose text for either article based on WP:RS references, there's no point in discussing this further here. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about the nash equilibrium and even if not, this isn't the nash equilibrium wiki article. That's here https://en.wikipedia.org/Nash_equilibrium Popish Plot (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/03/broadcasting
2. http://web.archive.org/web/20070304095413/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk11/unplaced.shtml
3. http://web.archive.org/web/20070304095413/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk11/unplaced.shtml
4. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1994/nash-bio.html

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

This edit request to John Forbes Nash, Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On May 23, 2015, Nash and his wife Alicia were killed in an automobile accident on the New Jersey Turnpike. The driver of a taxi they were riding lost control of the vehicle and struck a guard rail, throwing the couple from the car. John Nash was survived by his two sons and a grandson. Russell Crowe, who played him in the film, tweeted: "Stunned... My heart goes out to John & Alicia & family. An amazing partnership. Beautiful minds, beautiful hearts."

Why is this protected? Articles automatically go on protection these days if the subject has recently passed? Where is that policy found? I'll add here that it appears to be FULL protection (admins only) to me which particularly looks like overkill absent an articulated reason for the protection. By the way, please don't use reference citations on a Talk page. Just link your text to the website you are citing.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done A mention of Crowe's comments on Twitter has been added to the article. @Brian Dell The article is not full protected, only semi (check the protection log), and it was protected two months ago by Materialscientist. Ask him if you disagree with the rationale. In my opinion, using reference citations on talk pages is perfectly fine. We have a reflist template specifically built for keeping the footnotes of one talk page section together, {{reflist-talk}}. Altamel (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/famed_a_beautiful_mind_mathematician_wife_killed_in_taxi_crash_police_say.html
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32865248

If one is using reference citations on a Talk page then one should indeed at a minimum use the Talk page reflist template and it wasn't being used here. As for protection, this ought to be a community discussion, in my view, as opposed to petitioning an admin for an explanation on some personal page.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Monroe Township (place of death in box), please change

This edit request to John Forbes Nash, Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change: |death_place = Monroe Township, New Jersey, U.S. to: |death_place = Monroe Township, New Jersey, U.S.

The Monroe Township (place of death) in the box is the wrong one in New Jersey, it should be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/Monroe_Township,_Middlesex_County,_New_Jersey which has exit 8A of the Jersey Turnpike
See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Crowne+Plaza+Monroe+South+Brunswick/@40.3478773,-74.4752424,14z/data=!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sexit+8a+new+jersey+turnpike!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x55b998c2f8d29cdc and http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/famed_a_beautiful_mind_mathematician_wife_killed_in_taxi_crash_police_say.html GamesAndMath (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Martin House?"

The intro says Nash "was baptized in the Episcopal Church directly opposite the Martin house on Tazewell Street." This sentence has been lifted verbatim from the biography. Is "the Martin house" the family home of Nash's mother? If so, can the wording be altered to reflect this? Sadiemonster (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

This edit request to John Forbes Nash, Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "were killed" to "died" 159.50.189.7 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is true they were killed as the result of a motor vehicle collision. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: As Winkelvi said, the current version accurately describes what happened. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"near Monroe Township," is incorrect. It should be "in Monroe Township,". Place of death is listed as Monroe Township. also http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/famed_a_beautiful_mind_mathematician_wife_killed_in_taxi_crash_police_say.html report confirms location as "in Monroe Township". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.63.36 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Silverlocked because of policy on living person - change?

This article is semi-protected (silverlock) because of the policies on living people. Now that he has tragically died... should it still be silverlocked for a different reason or should the protection be changed? Thebombzen (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not specify it was a taxi?

A taxi is a distinct sort of motor vehicle, in that you don't drive it yourself, but pay someone else to. This sees like a significant detail to me, and is in many headlines and every news story, yet I'm getting reverted back to the vague "motor vehicle accident".

Per BRD, let's figure out what makes sense in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

It seems we're ignoring this section in favour of the next. Resolved? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking whether or not the situation is resolved? Obviously it's not because the discussion is still occurring below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, just the section. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Taxicab accident in lede

An editor has insisted on "taxicab accident" and other associated content being included in the lede - and is now edit warring over it. I have stated my reasons for reverting that content out in the edit summaries for each of the reversions of the content with: "what, exactly, is a "taxi accident"? changing to the more precise MVA"; "It was a MVA - they type of vehicle they were killed in isn't necessary for the lede". I do not believe such specificity needs to be stated in the lede, as it is supposed to be a summary of article content. I then changed the content later in the article to include content on the taxi cab as such: "While riding in a taxicab on May 23, 2015, John Nash and his wife Alicia were killed as the result of a motor vehicle collision on the New Jersey Turnpike near Monroe Township. The couple was on their way home after a visit to Norway where Nash had received the Abel Prize. He was 86 years old and his wife was 82." Hopefully, in the appropriate spirit of WP:BRD, InedibleHulk will discuss here rather than continue to edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If a lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body has them in a taxi, stands to reason the lead should. Per the MOS, writing should be clear and concise. For conciseness, I'd rather "taxi" than "taxicab" (as do the sources), but either is clear with a Wikilink. Nothing clear about "motor vehicle". That could be a dumptruck, a sedan, a bus or a motorcycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

At least, it did say "writing should be clear and concise" for years. Now it doesn't, but still says to "avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Motor vehicle" isn't jargon, but is the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Summaries don't typically contain such specifics. "Taxicab accident" doesn't read well, either. Motor vehicle accident is an accepted term, why not have it in the lede and allow the content in the section on his death contain the specifics (as it has been changed to reflect)? Further, a taxi in other countries isn't the same as the American taxicab -- saying "taxi" alone can be confusing to those reading the En Misplaced Pages from somewhere other than the US. Using taxi is "jargon". Moreover, did the accident involve other vehicles? If so, then motor vehicle accident is even more appropriate where taxicab accident is limiting and not concise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone reads the entire article. Some just want a quick summary, which is why we have leads. If readers get the more precise version in fewer syllables than the vague description, everyone wins. The second time I added the Wikilink, it was specifically to the American taxi article. Another car was involved, and if this article was about the accident, it'd make more sense to say "motor vehicle". But this is about John Nash, who was only in one car, which was a taxi. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

Wow - that's certainly stretching it to say because the article is about Nash that motor vehicle accident is inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the "wow" of it. One half of the two motor vehicles that had accidents involved the subject of our article. That half was a taxi. Anything about the other car, or the guardrail, is the sort of extra detail the lead doesn't need to note. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

• I would say "taxi" should be mentioned for clarity and precision and agree with InedibleHulk's statement that "motor vehicle" is too broad. As for usage, "taxicab accident" is rather clunky. Further, "taxi" itself should be sufficient as "taxicab" seems too colloquial and pleonastic and rather pedestrian (no pun intended) and "taximeter cabriolet" is unknown by 99.9% of readers. Further, this is an article on an American subject, therefore American English should be used per the MOS--it's not really a concern if someone in Mumbai or Belgrade doesn't know what is meant by "taxi" or "taxicab". JackTheVicar (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. I'd said taxi first, but the edit summary asked what a taxi accident was, so tried being clearer. I think we all know what a taxi is now, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, May 25, 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather xenophobic outlook, isn't it? English is one of the most taught languages in the world -- even those in Mumbai and Belgrade understand English; indeed, those outside the US read the English Misplaced Pages (the largest of all the Wikipedias). "Taxicab accident" is clunky - motor vehicle accident is American English, used in most publications, and its meaning is immediately understood. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• American person, American usage. MOS. . If in the odd chance someone on the far side of the globe knows who Dr Nash is and is interested, they're probably smart enough to know what a "taxi" is in the American context and likely know from watching too many episodes of Sex in the City. "Motor vehicle" can mean a whole disparate variety of vehicle. You can put a motor on a bicycle (as Dr Nash was prone to ride in figure-8s) and it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is any indicator, New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission regulates boats. Precision is needed here. Sorry if you disagree. But the precision of "taxi" which is good enough for the news coverage, is far superior than the broad stroke of "motor vehicle".JackTheVicar (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be insulting, but that's even more ridiculous an argument (saying because you can put a motor on a bicycle it's also a motor vehicle and NJ considers a boat a vehicle - never mind that no one is going to make the mistake that Nash was killed by an errant boat on the Turnpike) than the one Inedible posted above about the article being about Nash and because he was riding in a taxi, therefore... Further, because online publications use taxicab accident, we should too? How about the fact Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper and others do it too isn't a valid argument? Common sense folks, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No less ridiculous than your claim to avoid precision. Really, for someone who on his user page says because of the "Autie Code" someone not assuming good faith is hurtful, you really don't practice what you preach to others. I disagree with you. I disagree with you for what I think are good sense reasons. You are not the sole arbiter of "common sense". If you want to call my reasonable rationale ridiculous, and assert my opinion is "ridiculous" because it deigns to disagree with you're notion of proper order, then you're out of line, and you need to check yourself. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, gawd. Really? Bringing up the Autie Pact in this? Totally inappropriate and out of line as well as off topic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you if you cannot respect that other people have opinions that happen to differ from yours and for valid reasons. Practice what you preach, assume good faith, and respect that other people have their own, justifiable ideas on things. If you disagree, again, check yourself. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem accepting that others have opinions that differ from my own. I'm just surprised and flummoxed when the basis of that difference manifests itself in silliness such as "people can mistake it for a boat" or "people can mistake it for a bicycle with a motor attached to it". I don't know where you are from, but "motor vehicle accident" is common terminology in the United States in relation to collisions with cars, taxis, buses, motorcycles, etc. in the United States. Do a quick Google search for motor vehicle accident -- see how many results come up with such. That alone should tell you that the term is not confusing or uncommon at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you are failing to read something here. My point is precisely "motor vehicle" is too broad and can mean anything within the category. Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes covers everything from bicycles to motor boats in its motor vehicle laws. Sorry, but it's a BROAD CATEGORY. Whether I use an example in extremis is irrelevant. For the lede, precision is warranted here. I agree with InedibleHulk. That's it. Precision is warranted, needed, and ought to be included in the lede. Mentioning it was a "taxi" is not uncalled for. If you think that's "ridiculous" or want to dismiss my rationale as "silliness"... well, that's frankly "ridiculous" and you're flat-out wrong. There's no confusion about that. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was specific about what I thought was ridiculous in your responses (your analogies and comparisons). I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to change the meaning of what I said to come off as something other than what was obviously intended. Motor vehicle accident is broad, and appropriately so in relation to this article. They were riding in a motor vehicle and other motor vehicles were involved. I don't see what the problem with using such a summarizing term in the lede is. Article ledes are meant to be summarizing that which is contained within the body of the article. The body of the article explains specifically what that motor vehicle in which they rode was. I see it as a great compromise, actually. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and see a need for precision that is especially warranted when we realize that most readers don't get past the lede or the infobox. I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours. You've wasted my time. I look forward to seeing what other users have to add to any consensus that emerges and hope you don't harangue them with uncalled-for aspersions of "ridiculous" and "silliness" as you have directed at me just because I had the audacity to disagree with you. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if that were true (and I don't see you providing any stats from reliable sources supporting such a claim), do you seriously think the reader is going to better understand the article subject if they read in the lede that Nash was riding in a taxicab at the time of his death? We are to write the lede in such a manner that the reader has a basic understanding of the article subject. The body of the article is to do the rest. Knowing he was killed in a motor vehicle accident isn't assisting the reader in understanding how he died? I can't see how anyone can claim such. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"and hope you don't harangue them with uncalled-for aspersions of "ridiculous" and "silliness" as you have directed at me" As long as no one else tries to argue that readers might think we are talking about a boat or motor-driven bicycle on the turnpike by saying "motor vehicle accident", I see no reason why I would need to refer to such arguments as silly and ridiculous. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The basic understanding readers need to have is that neither he nor Alicia were driving the car. That is a serious distinction. Your way implies one or the other killed them both, our way implies someone else did. Knowing it was a motor vehicle accident is also important, but inherent if we say it was a taxi. Certainly not mutually exclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

The distinction that neither were driving isn't necessary for the lede since the lede is a summary. That's why I made sure it was included in the body of the article, where such a distinction is important and necessary. Stating they were killed in a motor vehicle accident doesn't imply they were driving, therefore, no confusion on the part of the reader (as you seem to be saying is possible with the lede written as it is currently). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How can a distinction be important in the body, but not in the lead, which is meant to reflect the important aspects of the body? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Let's all try to keep the emotion out of this, OK? This is essentially a math problem, about measuring syllables and having the sources, lead and body form an equilateral triangle of sorts. Not about who's the imaginary Emperor of Antarctica or Misplaced Pages. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

I've simply added the clause "while riding in a taxi" to what Winkelvi had. I don't love it, but we're not supposed to like compromise. Is it a fair one? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant "we're supposed to LIKE compromise" rather than not liking it? At any rate, I think it's a good compromise/solution. It's certainly better than "taxicab accident". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not like it. But accept it. If one of us came away happy, it'd be a win. Which would be great, except for the loser. So, I guess I sort of like compromises, at least as a second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Don't like compromising? Pity, that. Compromise is makes life in Misplaced Pages so much more pleasant and sane, allowing us to get along better even in heated disagreement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that capitulation is unpleasant? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

This edit request to John Forbes Nash, Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request change "The couple was on their way home ..." to "The couple were on their way home ...". While "couple" can sometimes take a singular verb, the "was ... their" combination is very awkward.

109.157.12.42 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple is two things become one. We'd say "John and Alicia were on their way home", but not "the couple". Same goes for larger groups. Changing "the couple" to "they" would agree more with "their". Does that work for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Personally, I prefer to treat collective nouns singularly, as in "The couple was on its way home", but I believe either option is fine so long as consistency is maintained. I made the requested change before you'd responded, as that phrasing was already present in a later sentence—the couple were thrown out of the car (emphasis mine)—but I have no issue with the tweaks you made thereafter. Thanks, zziccardi (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be my way, too. But I anticipated someone else saying "it" is dehumanizing or something. English is a nuisance sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

It occurred to me only after I posted the request that there are (I think) differences between British English and American English in this respect. I am from England and, to my ear, "the couple were on their way home" is just fine, whereas "the couple was on its way home" sounds very weird. Since this is an article about an American, I believe this means that American English should be used, but if there is a wording that is natural in both American and British English then so much the better. Anyway, the sentence now reads fine to me. Thanks. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I use a hybrid called Canadian English. Sometimes we agree with the British, sometimes the American, sometimes even French. The decisions to go either way seem pretty arbitrary. Not sure where we stand on this. But yeah, it doesn't matter. If this is a style difference, American style for Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure! Regarding here are (I think) differences between British English and American English in this respect., indeed. From the New Oxford American Dictionary's entry on collective noun:

Examples of collective nouns include group, crowd, family, committee, class, crew, and the like. In the US, collective nouns are usually followed by a singular verb (the crowd was nervous), while in Britain it is more common to follow a collective noun with a plural verb (the band were late for their own concert). Notice that if the verb is singular, any following pronouns must also be singular: the council is prepared to act, but not until it has taken a poll.

Regards, zziccardi (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And I still don't know where I officially stand. Here, "The varieties of English to be studied in this thesis belong to the inner-circle , i.e. English as used by the native speakers of it in the UK, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Canadian English has been excluded."

Still relevant to the rest of you, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

BRD

Invoking WP:BRD per recent edits by JacktheVicar; hoping he will utilize 'D' (discuss) in light of his bold edits that were reverted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have no desire to waste any more time or frustration discussing it with you. When you claim "per WP:BRD" your reverting of my work and that of others smacks to me of you screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You own the article. There's no room to reason with you and no sense wasting time trying to offer a positive contribution. You are impossible to work with in a positive fashion, especially when you deign to ridicule the arguments or opinions of others as ridiculous or silliness. Your ownership behavior has driven me away from bothering to make an effort here.JackTheVicar (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

intro text

I read in the very first sentence:

I don't understand how his works on differential geometry and/or partial differential equations have provided insight into... – Maiella (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The intro text is misleading. It makes his contributions sound like they are limited to the "daily life" when he had momentous contributions in mathematics. Some tweeking is needed.Limit-theorem (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad you went ahead and took care of it yourself, Limit-theorem. The problem I see, however, is that "major contributions" is non-neutral wording. I have changed it to "notable contributions", which still acknowledges his contributions in mathematics as above average, but leaves out the possibility POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What about "breakthrough"? is it NOPV? We are talking of some of the greatest results in modern mathematics. Notable is mild for his stature. Or you can use "influential" which does the job.Limit-theorem (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "Major contributions" as being non-neutral. As an adjective, it isn't undue or unsupportable. While the section ought to expound more on why his contributions were important (always room to be improved), calling them "major" is not unwarranted. "Notable" is a throw-away word on Misplaced Pages and because it is used too often, it seems to lose the force of meaning as a section header. Geniuses have some breakthroughs, some "eh" accomplishments. Einstein's relativity theories were "major contributions", but his article on escape springs in mechanical clocks was not. Nash's major accomplishments, listed here, are appropriately "major"--but that doesn't fly with the user who seems to have become the article's owner. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Influential seems even better. But I am open to "major". Limit-theorem (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything used to describe his contributions needs to be supported by sources, otherwise, yes, those adjectives are POV. I haven't seen anything supported by reliable refs other than 'notable'. YOU see it as 'breakthrough' and 'major', but do reliable sources? The threshold for inclusion is verifiability over truth; and POV simply isn't allowed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Added NYT and Abel for "seminal" contributions. Do you need more? I find it strange to downgrade to "notable" someone who gets the Abel, the highest mathematical prize for >40 years old. But reference here. Limit-theorem (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Seminal" probably isn't the best word. it's first definition is "pertaining to semen"...the definition your hoping people notice is #4.. Although, while Russell Crowe, portraying Nash in scene filmed in Princeton's sadly-gone "Annex" restaurant, did try to proposition a girl by saying that ultimately it was all about "fluid exchange", I'd be bold to say it is not an appropriate image for Nash's contributions. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Seminal is a little to lofty - we are to write so the average 6th grader can get the gist. I'd look for a more common synonym. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Major" suffices. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, unless reliable, unbiased sources support it, 'major' remains POV. POV is verboten. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Biography organization

• Lede Section
• 1 Biography
  • 1.1 Early life and education
  • 1.2 Career and personal life
  • 1.3 Struggles with mental illness
  • 1.4 Recognition and later career
  • 1.5 Death
• 2 Major contributions
  • 2.1 Game theory
  • 2.2 Other mathematics
• 3 Representation in culture
• 4 Awards
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 Documentaries and video interviews
• 9 External links

I tried to reorganize the biography in a more logical order (seen at left in quotebox) twice which a few other editors decided to work with only to be reverted wholesale by User:Winklevi who I assert is exhibiting ownership behavior in his reverting other users efforts, another other users have their complaints to as misbehavior. Reasons: 1 - biographical information should be a chronological/linear narrative focusing on life details. The current organization of the article breaks the linear flow, especially with the bullet-lists of the contributions section. 2 - the contributions should be a second section outside of the biography that develops an understanding and interpretation of his life's work, this is typical for biographical articles where the course of ones life is stated followed by an interpretation of the innovation or legacy of the work 3 - the bullet list of contributions covers his entire career from 1948 until his death, and it would be inappropriate given the need for chronological flow to put in in the middle of a biography, especially if it were to be expanded with interpretation on the work itself and its legacy.

The article in its current form is a disjunct flow-less mess. Something needs to be done, and the status quo (with ownership or not) is of low quality. In my edits, referenced above, I sought to arrange the article in the following order (at left) Discuss. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder We are to discuss edits, not editors. Another reminder: the entire article is a biography, ergo, a biography section isn't needed and would be redundant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your behavior is one of the obstacles facing this article. Sorry, but your behavior posing an unconstructive problem to progress and to other editors' efforts has to be pointed out. So, keep your sanctimonious "reminders" to yourself. I disagree that the entire article is a biography therefore it's redundant to call a section "biography"....only part of the article is biography. But we don't have an article titled "Mathematical contributions of John Nash" because we merge that content because it isn't appropriate at this juncture to content fork. A man's life course is separate from any analysis or interpretation of the impact of his work, and warrant separate discretely organized sections. Calling the chronological/biographical narrative of the man's life "Biography" or "Life" is inconsequential as much as whether one opts to use Harvard citations or Chicago/Turabian. Such a semantic shell-game by you is a time waster, a cop-out to avoid accepting that the article is badly organized and could use a reorganization of its sections and their respective content as I propose--a reorganization which you have no rationale for opposition except what appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your opposition to a more logical and better flowing organization is problematic, however, and keeps the article in poor quality because of its lack of flow and disjunct organization. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss only edit, not editors. The article is a BLP. It will remain a BLP for up to two years following Nash's death; at which time it will be classified as a biography. Still a biography, which means having a biography section in a biography is redundant and unnecessary. The sections, as they are titled, are adequate and follow MOS guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• you always say MOS MOS but never specifically cite anything in the MOS. There's nothing in the MOS that disagrees with my proposal. Quite frankly,WikiProject Biography contributors would likely agree with my proposed reorganisation. I care little for your opinion, because you have obvious ownership issues. You've made your WP:IDONTLIKEIT views sufficiently known. Thanks for commenting, but your comments going forward aren't really necessary. Other editors will determine consensus and I look forward to their constructive, non-obstructionist suggestions. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

as long as you continue to discuss editors and editor behavior rather than editss, there is no point in continuing this. It's impossible to get anything done when one person in the conversation refuses to heed guidelines and policy. I note that you have not been here in Misplaced Pages very long, but that is no excuse for not understanding what makes for good edits and what doesn't. All of the information you need regarding the manual of style is at your fingertips, all you have to do is look for it. Start talking about edits and stop worrying about editor behavior and then we can get something accomplished. I'm sure you do have a lot that you can add to this article, however, continuing to talk about editors only shows you are more interested in drama rather than improving the article, hence, the encyclopedia.

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class game theory articles
• High-importance game theory articles
• C-Class mathematics articles
• High-priority mathematics articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class West Virginia articles
• High-importance West Virginia articles
• WikiProject West Virginia articles
• WikiProject United States articles