Talk:Shakuntala Devi

Untitled

Tried to expand a bit. Her faith seems important to her, many of the sites about her are Ganesha related or even New Age, so felt like adding it.--T. Anthony 04:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I see since I was gone the sources were removed and the tone set to more story-telling. It was a nice story so I'll put it on the talk page if someone is mad I removed it.--T. Anthony 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay now that that's done I returned it to the version I did and then did some clean up. She is a rather unusual person so the temptation to get kind of peculiar or over-awed in doing an article on her is maybe inevitable. Still that should probably be resisted.--T. Anthony 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Story

A story about her goes like this - January 24, 1977 . A cold and windy Monday afternoon at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas .

A beautiful young lady smartly clad in a sari, walked up to the stage. She sat down on a chair smiling at the hundreds of students and professors assembled in the hall. A scholarly professor wrote a 201 digit long number on the black board at her side. The number occupied 10 lines and took four minutes to write. After finishing the number, the professor took out a stopwatch from his pocket and with a nod at the lady he started the timer. There was absolute silence in the hall.

The young lady took one long look at the number and closed her eyes. Seconds ticked by. In deep concentration she appeared to have gone into a trance. At the fifty-second mark, the lady opened her eyes and slowly pronounced the answer, '546372891'. The professor then checked it with the result given by the computer. Yes, she was correct. The number given by her is the 23rd root of the 201 digit long number. Earlier that day, the fastest computer of the time, Univac 1108, had taken 62 seconds to give the answer.

Every member of the audience jumped to their feet and applauded the genius who beat the computer.

I removed this as not encyclopedic in tone, but here it is for those who want it.--T. Anthony 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A source of the 23rd-root story can be found on the back cover of her book "Figuring: The Joy of Mathematics" (ISBN 0140118500)

Nad 19:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds pretty certainly unbelievable. I don't believe that ay citation would make the claim that she calculated a 23rd rot of a 201 digit number credible. Further, the source provided also says the UNICAC 1108 is one of the fastest computers ever invented (source is from 2002), and the other source is from a back cover of a book by Shakuntala Devi herself. I suggest the removal of this claim from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.177.219 (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There were 1108s in operation then, I worked with one in school (Illinois Institute of Technology) then. They were not optimized for such problems but were as fast as contemporary mainframes from other business and scientific oriented manufacturers, Cray and CDC excepted. Savants can do these calculations from some kind of mental imagery so it's not surprising. Yes machines are much more powerful now, so even the fastest savant couldn't beat a well programmed machine. No reason to doubt the report. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide even a single well sourced instance of a calculation of that magnitude ever being done by a savant in 50 seconds or less? Most mental calculator savants have been known to multiply large numbers together. A 23rd root of a 201 digit number is orders of magnitude more complex. I don't have a single source from around when this happened, or by the institution at which it supposedly occured. I would say on the contrary there is no good reason to believe --50.141.177.219 (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dunno if you're addressing me but from what I understand it would be a serendipitous occurrence for such an individual like Daniel Tammet to focus on a particular "algorithm" or whatever it's properly called. There are only so many savants, it's a rare condition. Many fewer than mathematicians for example. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two problems with defending plausibility based on this. First of all, this wikipedia article does not seem to claim savantism. Even if it did, that particular task would be completely unprecedented and incredible. Why do no sources exist from 1977 confirming this: It was supposedly an event specifically for this, with hundreds of students and professors? Why no source from SMU? With regards to the plausibility in general, square roots of six digit numbers are documented cases of problems that savant mental calculators solve, the world record held by Priyanshi Somani. A 23rd root of a 201 digit number is many many orders of magnitude more difficult. I doubt any human could calculate it at all, let alone in 50 seconds. If such a thing had ever occurred with many scholarly witnesses, credible sources from 1977 from attendants and professors at SMU would be far more available. I think specifically, however, until this claim has a much much better source, it should be considered for deletion. 198.175.57.245 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It does sound unbelievable. The only given source is NDTV which only states "In 1977, Shakuntala Devi extracted the 23rd root of a 201-digit number mentally." No details about where and and under what conditions it happened. --C S (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not just NDTV lot of other sources say that, for no reasons she is called human computer. -sarvajna (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great then. Please pick a couple of the most reliable of them and cite them in the article (if you don't know the citation format, just paste the links here and someone can do that). Remember that extraordinary claims do require very reliable sources, so please refer to WP:RS if you are unsure what is means (or just paste the links here and we can discuss it). --C S (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

These are the sources, one of them is also used in the article. The Hindu , Deccan Herald , DNA , Euronews , New York Times also the article needs better sources for most of the sections. I am not sure whether knowyourstar is really a RS or not.-sarvajna (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The mental math is not as impossible as it seems. Rather than computing the 23rd root you are looking for an integer where N^²³ is 201 digits. First, I suspect she was told there were 201 digits or could easily see this as the number was written as ten lines of 20 digits plus one extra digit. From that you can instantly deduce that the number you are interested in is between 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. Half way between those is 500,000,000 where ^23 is 201 digits. Now you know you are close. When testing a number such as 540,000,000 as you can ignore the seven zeroes and are only interested in the number of digits and the left hand part of the result compared to the desired result.

She excelled at memorization of numbers, multiplication, and likely had a fine sense of deductive reasoning. Using those three together allowed her to compute the 23rd root. Doing it in 52 seconds is impressive. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I took a walk and realized I could simplify this further by calculating 2²³, 2²³, 4²³, 5²³, ... up to 9²³. I already knew 500000000²³ was close and just under the target. I'm then looking to see which of 2²³ to 9²³ plus 162 zeroes can be added to 500000000²³ so that it's closest to and is not larger than the target. The multiplication is always with small numbers. I need to add large numbers and keep track of where I am. I'm never doing a full 546372891²³. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marc. Thanks for this. I enjoyed it. --C S (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No-one seems to have noticed that the solution 546372891 contains each of the digits 1-9 exactly once. Clearly there were some shenanigans afoot. How was this number chosen? Numbers with special properties slipped into calculations make things much easier for lightning calculators.TheMathemagician (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it better?

There are three sources and I removed the storyish aspects.--T. Anthony 06:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Univac 1108 was released in 1964. Are you saying that no advances in computer science was made from 1964 to 1977 (when this anecdote supposedly occurred)?

Superlative statements such as "fastest computer of the time" need to be sourced please.

Vandalism

Removed vandalism that ran thus:

Shakuntala Devi is a scam artist. You will see her ad's for being a astrologer who can predict your future and solve your problems in India Abroad and other newspapers. First of all she will try to sell you all sort of Indian necklaces which have holy powers, for 500 dollars or 1000 dollars. Than she will only give you a two or three minute generic talk of how your life will be long and your health will be fine. This lady is a first class charlatan and hustler. She is not worth the 65 dollar telephone consultation she charges or even worth a in-person visit.

People please be careful of her sales marketing gimmicks and spread the honest word after you indulge in her services on here. So people can be careful and aware of this Cheat and Thief. She is no Devi.

Retained for curious interest :) --Shreevatsa 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen her advertisements from time to time claiming to be an astrologer. The ad actually shows her pictures with various celebrities and notable people and she claims she can predict you future. Without going into whether she is a fraud or legitimate, it should be mentioned that she is currently involved in a astrology/numerology business.Inf fg (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Do feel free to add it to the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is she still alive and where she lives?

No she died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.28.44 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

intro part

intro part says but over the years her father had done a variety of circus acts.

What does it have to do in the intro part. And an advice for user Shreevatsa, please read WP:Civil and other policies before making some of the best revert summaries.nids(♂) 10:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, in that some (if not many) calculating prodigies have been "performers", being exhibited (or exhibiting themselves) for their talent at handling large numbers. In any case, any reasonable biography should include some childhood background. In fact, I think the fact that she began life in a circus is more relevant than details such as caste. I agree that the "but" is probably out-of-place, though.

As for the other thing (calling her talents "mathematical prodigies"), it is both grammatically (a prodigy does not mean "gift" or "talent") and factually (see my view here) wrong, so it was not clear whether it was inserted out of ignorance (many people, all of them non-mathematicians, seem to think she is a mathematician) or was a deliberate act ("vandalism"). Ignorance is not a shameful thing; we all have lots of ignorance; so I don't think suggesting ignorance of a particular word is uncivil. I apologise if I offended you. --Shreevatsa 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the intro again. It says not her but her father had done a variety of circus acts. It would have been relevant if She would have done those acts by herself. Moreover, this statement is poorly sources, so i was right in removing that. Anyways, i will wait for your comment.nids(♂) 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

She lived in a circus when she was a child, and performed card tricks in it at three. The first three external links (as of now) mention it. I agree that these statements are poorly sourced, like the rest of the article. I wouldn't oppose deleting this article ;-) Shreevatsa 13:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean the statements, or the whole article.nids(♂) 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant the whole article. I was pointing out that the particular statement you wanted removed was no more unsourced than the rest. The whole article is full of poorly sourced statements (hence the {{unreferenced}} tag at the top), and if there isn't enough biographical material about her from good sources, I don't see any alternative but to either accept the existing sources (the ones in the External links section) or delete the article. Shreevatsa 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article references her website. Can we add a link to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.234.151 (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

According to BLP, removed reference to text on homosexuality since I could find no credible citation that says the author of the book on homosexuality is the same as this person. --Jacob.jose (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I had the same reaction as you at first, but then I saw references such as [1] and [2], so I've decided to let it be, and even tag it, so that editors with interest in the topic can try to get it better referenced. -- Presearch (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And then there's India Today, which claims she's a non-homosexual... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

And R.I.P. Shakuntala Devi, math-evangelist and ally of the queer community, which claims her ex-husband was a gay man, and that's why their marriage failed and why she decided to "look at the subject of homosexuality more closely and try to understand it". Guy Harris (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. I don't know on what grounds User:Jacob.jose removed it, because even at the time he removed it, there were sufficiently many references **in the page itself** that the author was the same one. And now there are more references that User:Presearch has found above. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Astrology readings

Deleted the personal life section because that's all it had in it and it was already flagged as baseless. Put it back with something either neutral, doesn't reflect negatively or has a source. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

Didn't see was already there, so restored appropriately. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

"... widely regarded as the best Mathematician in the world"??

While Shakuntala Devi has a claim to being an extraordinary mental calculator, the claim that she is/was the best mathematician in the world is very, very far from true. The world of professional mathematicians has various ways of measuring accomplishments in the field. Two of the best known and most important are the Abel Prize and the Wolf Prize. Among mathematicians under forty years of age the best know accolade is the Fields Medal. Shakuntala Devi was never the recipient of any of these awards and, as I explain below, it is doubtful that she was ever considered for them.

The quality of a mathematician's work is judged by published work that is peer reviewed by others in the field, and the awards listed are based on the importance of the individual's papers in peer reviewed journals. Reviews of published work can be found in Mathematical Reviews, a service run by the American Mathematical Society. I have found no clear citations for Shakuntala Devi in Math Reviews, a rather surprising circumstance, given the claim that she was the best mathematician in the world. A search for "Devi, S" yielded 5 hits. It is unclear whether some of these papers, all of which had multiple authors, had Shakuntala Devi as a coauthor. In at least one instance the author turned out to be a different author, Sapna Devi. Furthermore the hits were not authored by the same person, because Math Reviews frequently gives the institution of the author, and with the hits I found, the institution was not the same for the five papers. In any case, even if some of these papers were authored by Shakuntala Devi, none of the papers of the papers was cited in any other paper, a clear sign that this was not work by the "best mathematician in the world".

A further concern is that her doctorate, which according to the article was earned at the age of eight, is not listed with the Mathematics Genealogy Project. While that project is incomplete, it would surely be a glaring omission to miss the doctorate of the "best mathematician in the world.

Swunggyro (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

To call her the "best mathematician in the world" is complete ridiculous and giving the laymen a bizarrely wrong image of mathematics. Unfortunately, this clarification that she is not a mathematician was removed by some users. --Stomatapoll (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stomatapoll,

I noted your recently added comment and (just to clarify) I'm assuming you are referring to the following passage, which you had added to the article on December 17, 2013 and which was subsequently removed by an anonymous editor on January 11, 2014:

Although some sources claim that she was a "mathematician", she was not a mathematician in the real sense, as mathematical research is an entirely different intellectual activity from mental calculation.

While I was not the editor that had removed that passage, I agree with its removal for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, one should avoid weasel words like "some sources claim". I actually did a fairly major clean-up of this article on July 9, 2013 — I found references for some of the information that lacked inline citations and removed any information for which I could not find any references — and I must say, out of all of the articles I read about Devi in order to make those edits, none of them referred to her as a "mathematician". Conversely, many articles made the point of mentioning that she had no formal training in mathematics, since that was part of what made her abilities so remarkable. In fact, the very newsletter that you had cited to support your passage did not actually directly support your assertion either: The newsletter simply stated: "Clever though she was, Mrs Devi was not a mathematician in the usual sense, and both Michael and I were surprised by a mistake she made in quoting Ramanujan’s rejoinder." This newsletter does not state that anyone had referred to Devi a "mathematician"; the author simply clarified that although she had this advanced mathematical ability, she was not actually a mathematician in the usual sense, which surprised the author and his colleague.

Secondly, prior to your edit, the body of the article on Shakuntala Devi did not make any reference to her being a "mathematician" either, let alone referring to her as the "best mathematician in the world". If that claim did at one time appear in the article it seems to have been removed since Swunggyro left the comment above yours in April of 2013.

I recognise that there is that referenced footnote, to which you had added "[SIC]" on January 13, that refers to Devi as "the famous mathematician", but the problem is we can't even be sure of the source of that bit between parentheses: Was "(the famous mathematician)" directly transcribed from Pandey Becham Sharma 'Ugra' Chocolate and Other Writings on Male-Male Desire, the book from which this passage was supposedly taken? Or was that bit perhaps added by Ana Garcia-Arroyo, the author of The Construction of Queer Culture in India? Or was it perhaps added by Subhash Chandra, the reviewer of The Construction of Queer Culture in India? I suspect that bit was added by either Garcia-Arroyo or Chandra to try and clarify (albeit inaccurately) who Shakuntala Devi was, perhaps because they did not cite any preceding sentences from Pandey Becham Sharma 'Ugra' Chocolate and Other Writings on Male-Male Desire that might have referred to her background and they assumed that their audience would not otherwise know who she was.

Regardless, the long and short of it is: If is true that "some sources" refer to her as a "mathematician" then these very sources should be directly cited in the Wikipedia article order to support this assertion. One should also consider whether or not the sources making this claim are reliable sources as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and whether there are enough sources of relative importance referring to her as such to warrant even mentioning that fact in her Wikipedia article.

I hope that addresses your concerns. Cheers! --Marchije•^speak/_peek 01:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Vs Univac

According to the New York Times article, she did it in 50 seconds and the computer took 62 seconds. 174.91.0.240 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth Date

There seems to be debate on the birth date. Google has 120k articles for 1929 and 20k articles for 1939. I reverted a change to 1939 as there was no source associated with changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxxon (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Information?

What kind of information is hidden in the sentence "Some people can't write 201 digits in 50 sec."? Some people even can't write 1 digit, because they never learned it... same as some people even can't ride a bicycle... so what do you want us to learn from it? Pls remove such nonsense! (93.134.229.112 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Edit request

125.63.103.205 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You need to provide details of the change you want to have made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I think there is a typo in the section which covers her book on homosexuality. The section reads "In ends with a call for decriminalising" , it should be "It ends with a call for decriminalising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.146.90 (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done: I actually noticed it myself earlier, and just now saw the request. – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Is the Google reference even needed? It seems someone just wanted to feel special and edit a Wikipedia article. In a year, the Google doodle won't matter and no one will care. 165.91.173.7 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Steve?

"On <date>, Google paid tribute ..." instead of "has paid tribute". You can't use the present perfect in English if the verb is qualified with a point of time in the past.84.135.73.220 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

the cube root of 61,629,875 --> the third root of 61,629,875

87.174.118.9 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. "Cube root" is fine. That's even the name of the article on Wikipedia: cube root. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RIP

Rest in peace. I never knew much about her until i read this. The world lost a great genius and I could not realise the depth of loss. May India produce more geniuses like her. As far as I am concerned I know that I am no genius at math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.23.18 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2013

==Legacy==

On November 4, 2013, Google honored her life with a Google Doodle.

Apblinn (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is trivia, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Stfg (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

Currently the article states that the doodle was for her 84th birthday - as if she were alive. Should have read something like "for what would have been her 84th birthday" or similar, imo.

bugsym5 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2013 (EST)

Agreed, and corrected. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias, Bias Bias

Bias, bias, bias... this article is so biased. Just list her accomplishments and stop going on like she's a deity. Idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.193.82 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Devi died in April 2013. (See also #Death.)

This sentence runs a little awkwardly. At least the # should be removed, but it might be better to edit and combine this with the "death" subsection. 69.91.197.39 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's awkward. The death section was so tiny that it didn't justify a separate section, and having it so far from the rest of the biography made no sense. I've merged it into the biog. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Difficulty" of problems

"Examples of the problems presented to Devi were calculating the cube root of 61,629,875, and the seventh root of 170,859,375."

These problems are hardly difficult. Assuming the roots are integer, each must end in 5. The cube root of 64,000,000 is 400, so the cube root of 61,629,875 must be just under that, or 395. 10^7 is 10,000,000, 20^7 is 1,280,000,000, and the given number is in between, so the root must be 15.

The cube root of 188,132,517 is a little less simple, but it's easily shown to be between 500 (cube root of 125,000,000) and 600 (cube root of 216,000,000). It must end in 3. Determining the middle digit is trickier, but doable (since 188m is approx. 150% of 125m, the cube root must be approx. 115% of 500).

Note to the person who wrote this paragraph above: Using percentages for exponential calculations is absolutely bizarre and will not give you accurate results. Please do not use linear percentage calculations while dealing with numbers that are to the power of 7. It is absolutely shameful that you have chosen to spread such incorrect mathematical ideas to all the readers of this wikipedia page. Your mathematics is wrong, however, please do put in further research as I believe you have the basic understanding of making approximations, and COULD end up correct your own false claim.

Are there better examples of her talent, aside from those in the achievements section?

204.126.132.241 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Shakuntala Devi page Typo.

The end of the fourth sentence under the heading "Biography" has the word "calculation" misspelled.

25thfret (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Typo in Second line in the Biography Please edit:

He discovered her ability to memorize numbers while teaching her a card trick when she was about three years old.

To

 discovered her ability to memorize numbers while teaching her a card trick when she was about three years old.

Psunnykamal (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the only difference between your edit and what is in the article is the removal of the word "He" at the beginning of the sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. Can you explain more clearly what you wish to be changed? Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

User:Iamtheone21 made some not-so-helpful edits and removed the entire (well-sourced) section about homosexuality with: The mention of homosexuality is still a contraversial subject to many viewers. To avoid conflict and to make this as politically correct as possible, I omitted the section on homosexuality. Wikipedia is not censored. If there is an issue with this material please indicate that here, and suggest changes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FreeRangeFrog made some not-so-helpful reversions to the omitted portion on homosexuality with:" Wikipedia is not censored. This is true, however I would like to report that this page is full of examples of indirect racism. There is the issue of putting an individual on a pedestal and praising them, however there is also the other extreme of using diction as to bring a negative air to the article. The section on homosexuality must be removed because of this issue. If you believe that there is an issue with making this article seem as unbiased as possible, then you are doing Wikipedia a great disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheone21 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Iamtheone21, could you explain what you mean by "using diction as to bring a negative air to the article" and by "indirect racism"? Shreevatsa (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Indirect racism isn't the issue. If you want to bring that up, I suggest you do so in another section and cite examples. As to the issue of her book on homosexuality, you will need to demonstrate clearly how its presence in any way detracts from or biases the article. Keep in mind, however, that a subject being controversial isn't considered sufficient reason to avoid it on Wikipedia. – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Article makes history

This article received over 9 million views in a single week. Unofficially it's a record for the most views in a week for any article in Wikipedia up to this time, a record likely to last since the previous record was nearly an order of magnitude less. More info here.[3]

Astrology is pseudoscience

The beginning of the article mentions Devi has written numerous books, including non-fiction texts about mathematics, puzzles, and astrology. Wikipedia says that astrology is pseudoscience. Am I misreading the article here or should that sentence be rewritten? Because if it's pseudoscience, it doesn't follow (to me anyway) that it is necessarily nonfiction. Thoughts? Mrcsmcln (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've made a good point. I agree that positioning astrology as "non-fiction" is not accurate and I considered changing the sentence to "fictional novels as well as texts about..." to remain ambiguous about astrology (which technically isn't "fiction" either, at least not in the literary sense), but "fictional novels" would also be redundant. I figured it would be best to just remove the word "non-fiction" from the sentence as I think the main dichotomy here is fictional prose (i.e. novels which tend to tell "stories") versus books that impart more informational-based prose, regardless of the arguable validity or empirical nature of said "information". Hope that makes sense. If anyone else wants to chime in with a better choice of wording, feel free. Cheers! --Marchije•^speak/_peek 23:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Why is Category:Indian astrologers okay and does not have to be sourced, but Category:20th-century astrologers and Category:21st-century astrologers must be sourced? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Needs to be removed as well then since that's unsourced. A lot of unsourced CATs are being added to this article lately. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So, the sourced sentence "In addition to her work as a mental calculator, Devi was an astrologer and an author of several books, including cookbooks and novels", as well as the listing of her book "Astrology for You" is not enough? It seems weird to me that you do not seem to have an issue with those. In my experience, categories are not usually sourced directly but are a natural consequence of sourced content in the article. See WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: - My apologies. I misread the sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. This confused me a bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: - Welcome brother. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Shakuntala Devi Calculating.png
• Shakuntala Devi Signature.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)