Talk:Kenneth Appel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics 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.
Mathematics rating:
Start Class
Mid Importance
 Field: Mathematicians

Removal of biased statements on Appel's work[edit]

I removed several sentences that seemed loaded, contrary to WP:NPOV. Consider the sentence "Even Appel has agreed, in numerous interviews, that it lacks elegance and provided no new insight that has guided future mathematical research", which, to me, is a glaringly biased and completely unsourced statement ("numerous" also seems an exaggeration to make the point). Phrases like "even Appel" are leading. There are a number of mathematicians that do find the proof elegant, so a statement that the major achievement of his career "lacks elegance" needs to be sourced and justified for inclusion. In addition "no new insight" is something of an exaggerated claim. The rather random insertion of his children checking the proof is also not a neutral insertion and violated WP:UNDUE.

Per WP:BLP, these kinds of edits should not be made to the article without good sources and justification. --C S (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)