This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
Hi Altenmann, I just saw that you added a notability-sign at this page. However, this year, Kaplan together with three co-authors has solved the biggest open problem in the mathematical field of Tiling theory -- a problem that was open for more than 50 years. The solution has sparked massive public attentions. I have added these infos now in the introduction (which -- for whatever reason, has not been mentioned there yet [note: i didnt create this page]). Let me cite from the notability criteria:
- Basic criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." - Clearly yes, it was mentioned in the NYTM, Guardian, Quanta, Numberphile (multiple times, including a 30mins interview), and many other sources. (i included these now)
- Any biography: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" - Clearly yes, has solved the biggest, 50year open problem in the field. (i clarified this now in the intro).
I believe before, it was a problem with the presentation and i hope my modification helped to clarify this. Do you think that the notability is proven enough, and we can remove the note? Thanks for your work! -- Mario23 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mario23: - First of all, the problem was solved by an amateur. Second, see WP:SINGLEEVENT, third, all in-depth texts in sources are about the problem. And lastly, this discussion belongs to this talk page, where other may weigh in. - Altenmann>talk20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ad1) There is an important difference: The shape was found by a non-academic, but the problem was solved by the team (the solution is the mathematical proof of its aperiodicity together with the mathematical proof of the tiling of the full plane).
ad2) You are citing the wrong criteria, you should cite Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) (as you did in you initial post). There it says "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. [...] 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.", which is clearly fulfilled.
No sources that specifically say he made significant impact on the discipline, just solved one isolated problem (and not alone, too) that has no ramifications, and WP:SINGLEEVENT is a proper criterion. - Altenmann>talk20:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one isolated problem ... that has no ramifications – this seems pretty dismissive. From what I can tell this problem with "no ramifications" has gotten the world more excited than everything else in this field combined for the past 2 decades. For example, it's being used as the focal image for whole academic conferences. –jacobolus(t)21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
refs about its impact? – The public impact (press reports, blog posts, youtube videos, patterns on merchandise, thingiverse shapes, tattoos, tiled floors, wallpapers, computer animations, etc.) was immediate and not really comparable in intensity to anything I've seen about tilings and patterns before.
The academic impact is not going to be felt for a while. There are a number of people (dozens? hundreds?) now working on explaining, extending, adapting, etc. this work in an academic capacity, but their work so far primarily consists of preprints, informal talks, code on github, tweets, forum comments, etc. You won't be able to find a solid secondary source summarizing the academic impact for a couple years probably. The main papers in question haven't even been published yet. –jacobolus(t)23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is more important is the hyperbolized portrayal of the role of Kaplan in this. The solution was found by an amateur. He askes professionals for help. There was a whole crowd of them. It is unclear what was the role of Kaplan. - Altenmann>talk22:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments include insulting speculation, which does not seem in keeping with WP:BLP, which applies even to talk pages ("Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."). –jacobolus(t)23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC) (edited to be less aggressive, 2023-09-10 08:01 (UTC))[reply]
People keep asking on my talk page for my impression, so here it is. I think the einstein tile thing is WP:BIO1E. If that's all we're hanging notability on, we don't have cause for a separate article. He does have some other respectably-cited work on computer graphics [1], but that's a high-citation field. So I think the case is borderline. Not at the level where I'd push to get it deleted, but probably also not at the level where I'd create it, either. There is some popular-press coverage in major media of his past work, though: [2][3][4], which pushes me more toward the keep side of things. If we have an article, it should be more balanced, rather than spending so much of its space on filler material on the einstein tile that is not about Kaplan at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To what level is other independent academic papers discussing someone's work a relevant source for Wikipedia? Kaplan's most appreciated work seems to focus on solving artistic problems via mathematics, e.g. "Escherization" (given a particular shape, find a nearby shape tiling the plane), "artistic thresholding" (making an interesting black-and-white image from a full-tone original), generative islamic star patterns, etc.; or else finding artistic applications for existing mathematical tools, e.g. "TSP art", "Voronoi art", etc. A number of these have been moderately influential (hundreds of citations, lots of people riffing on the ideas or directly making art with them, etc.), but from what I can tell Kaplan doesn't have a history of solving other famous long-standing open math problems or anything.
@Altenmann I don't really have a good sense of what specifically you would be satisfied with. For example, the Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd. ed., p. 79), says: "A large group of research mathematicians and computer scientists have taken up art forms like sculpture, painting, and digital graphic arts to express or apply their theoretical work in their field. [...] Some of the best-known mathematician artists doing this kind of work include George Hart, Carlo Sequin, Craig Kaplan, Mike Naylor, and Robert Bosch." Would that kind of thing be sufficient independent reference, or do you need like a news magazine writing a full biographical profile about Kaplan? –jacobolus(t)08:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now someone started making sense in the discussion, by asking questions. I am well aware that scientists and engineers, unlike pornstars and politicians, do not enjoy much limelight. For this reason highly notable people of STEM got attacked in Wikipedia; I see it all the time for my industry, which is EDA. The writers of this article took it too personally to the extent I started suspecting vested interest. I placed notability tag not because I dislike Kaplan, but to bring an attention to an issue. Otherwise I would go straight for AfD, having a not good opinion about the general attitude of wikipedia community today. That said, here is a hint. Research articles in general are considered WP:PRIMARY, however introduction sections, which often make an overview of the field, are WP:SECONDARY, hence good sources for wikipedia if written by a reasonable authority (unless the author is issuing praises for their own work (or work of their associates), then we would have a COI). If Kaplan is a recognized researcher, I am sure you will find quite a few references of this type, like you quoted above, and with specifics, too. The quote above may be turned into a notability statement as well. - Altenmann>talk16:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the wikipedia article and looking at some of the references, I have to agree with @Altenmann that the covering of the section "Solving the Einstein problem" is a little misleading. It seems to imply that Kaplan was the main person responsible for the breakthrough. At no point is it mentioned that the einstein tile was found by David Smith. And also Kaplan was just one person of a team of mathematicians involved with the problem. So it's hard to say what the contribution of every single person was. This is not to say that his contribution was negligible, but the article does not seem properly balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickR2 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph was taken by an acquaintance of the subject
I removed the banner {{Connected contributor}} with content |User1=Joseph Petrik|U1-EH=yes|U1-declared=yes from this page. It was added in the interest of full disclosure that the photographer who added the image File:Professor Craig S. Kaplan.jpg to the page, user:Joseph Petrik, personally knows the subject Craig Kaplan, and wanted to be up front and transparent about that relationship. Thanks to Joseph Petrik for your contribution, and I applaud your efforts at transparency. I am taking the banner down because I think it's excessively in the face of future readers of the talk page, but I'm putting a comment here to acknowledge the connection, to preserve the show of transparency. I don't think there's any significant conflict of interest in adding a nice photograph of an acquaintance to a Wikipedia article about them. This particular image doesn't seem to be particularly promotional or problematic in any way. (Though it does nicely show off the handsome subject.) All the best. –jacobolus(t)09:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
