Talk:Stevo Todorčević/Archive 1

Birth place

The correct Todorcević's birth place name is "Ubovića brdo".--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Todorcevic's contributions to mathematics

Taken from

Stevo Todorcevic (Toronto) receives 2012 CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize

December 14, 2011 – The Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, the Fields Institute and the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences have the pleasure to announce that the 2012 CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize in mathematical sciences has been awarded to Stevo Todorcevic from the University of Toronto. Professor Todorcevic obtained his Ph.D. in 1979 in Belgrade and currently holds a Canada Research Chair at the University of Toronto. His contributions to set theory made him a world leader in this topic with a particular impact on combinatorial set theory and its connections with topology and analysis.

His work is recognized for its striking originality and technical brilliance. He was an invited speaker at the 1998 ICM in Berlin for his work on rho-functions. He made major contributions to the study of S- and L- spaces in topology, proved a remarkable classification theorem for transitive relations on the first uncountable ordinal, made a deep study of compact subsets of the Baire class 1 functions thus continuing work of Bourgain, Fremlin, Talagrand, and others in Banach space theory. Together with P. Larson he completed the solution of Katetov’s old compact spaces metrization problem. Among the most striking recent accomplishments of Todorcevic (and co-authors) are major contributions to the von Neumann and Maharam problems on Boolean algebras, the theory of non-separable Banach spaces, including the solution of an old problem of Davis and Johnson, the solution of a long standing problem of Laver, and the development of a duality theory relating finite Ramsey theory and topological dynamics.

Todorcevic is an organizer of the Fall 2012 Fields Thematic Program on Forcing and its Applications.

The Fields Institute, located in Toronto, is recognized as one of the world's leading independent mathematical research institutions. With a wide array of pure, applied, industrial, financial and educational programs, the Fields Institute attracts over 1,000 visitors annually from every corner of the globe, to collaborate on leading-edge research programs in the mathematical sciences. The Fields Institute is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, seven principal sponsoring universities, sixteen affiliate universities and several corporate sponsors.

The Fields Institute 222 College Street, 2nd Floor Toronto, Ontario M5T 3J1 Canada

I cannot see a reason for any deviations from the original text. Moreover, his excitement with Todorcevic's brilliance, P. Erdös expressed this way: "Very recently Todorcevic proved $\aleph _{1}\vdash \sideset {}{_{\eta _{1}}^{2}}{[\aleph _{1}]}$. This certainly is an unexpected and sensational result" in P. Erdos' My joint work with Richard Rado in Surveys in Combinatorics 1987: Invited Papers for the Eleventh British Combinatorial Conference by C. Whitehead, CUP Archive, Jul 16, 1987 page 70.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Claimed accomplishments

Per WP:BLP, we need independent reliable sources for any but the most uncontroversial factual claims about this subject. I have removed some purely evaluative text (e.g. claiming certain results to be "major" or "remarkable") from the section, but Vujkovica brdo has reverted me multiple times. After I complained about the total lack of sourcing in this section I see that a footnote to the subject's PIMS prize citation has been added. But that raises new problems: much of the text here seems to be plagiarized from that source. At this point, given these serious problems, my tendency is to remove the section altogether, but instead I have asked for third opinions at WP:BLPN. So: would someone other than me or Vujkovica brdo care to contribute an opinion on how to resolve this? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, avoid personal attacks! I did not plagiarise anything. References are there!--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Our article: "made major contributions to the study of S- and L-spaces in topology"

The source: "made major contributions to the study of S- and L- spaces in topology" (only difference: one space)

Our article: "proved a remarkable classification theorem for transitive relations on the first uncountable ordinal"

The source: "proved a remarkable classification theorem for transitive relations on the first uncountable ordinal" (no difference)

Our article: "made a deep study of compact subsets of the Baire class 1 functions thus continuing work of Bourgain, Fremlin, Talagrand, and others in Banach space theory"

The source: "made a deep study of compact subsets of the Baire class 1 functions thus continuing work of Bourgain, Fremlin, Talagrand, and others in Banach space theory" (only difference: the names are linked)

Etc.

This is straight-up copying. It is forbidden here. It is a major violation of proper editing behavior. It is plagiarism. This is the sort of thing that would get you failed out of school; what gave you the idea it would ever be an ok thing to do? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. Plagiarism won't be tolerated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not plagiarism if using the same wording due to the fact that the reference is given! Anyway, I put all copy-pasted text under quotes. Use a good vocabulary in order to learn what is plagiarism!--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"plagiarism ˈpleɪdʒərɪz(ə) the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." - Eppstein, where I ever said that the copied text belongs to me? Didn't I give clearly reference showing where the copied text came from? Shame on you for attacking me!--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If you were taking a class I teach and you did this, you'd get a zero. It is plagiarism unless you use quotation marks (otherwise you imply that you got the ideas from someone else but you wrote the words yourself). Now that you've done so, it is not plagiarism, though it probably isn't the right way to write an encyclopaedia article. I'll let others comment on that before proceeding. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would improve readability to paraphrase that section and shorten it. Every detail doesn't need to be mentioned and would help me (and readers in general) focus on the most important aspects if it didn't list everything. The current wording has too much jargon and I can't understand most of it (aka most readers won't be able to either). —PermStrump(talk) 09:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity I have no intention to ever take a worthless class nor I ever did it.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Biographical data and academic achievements

Here

Sets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century by Dov M. Gabbay, Akihiro Kanamori, and John Woods (editors), Elsevier, 2012

in this great book, I found a lot about the great Canadian mathematician Todorcevic. The only and the great difficulty is how to describe his major achievements in plain English. One chapter of the same book, Infinite Combinatorics by Jean A. Larson, is available online here.--A. Perun (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Work

This article sounds as though it has been translated from Serbian or the like. It is also full of spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.175.160 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the hyperbolic praise is from English-language material. It's still excessive quoting, and needs to be paraphrased and attributed in text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Ph.D students

If the list isn't here in the article, there is no point in having a reference for it. Mathematical genealogy is not a reliable source, but the material is usually not controversial, so it would be allowed, except that that nothing was added to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The above comment makes no sense to me. The link S. Todorcevic's Doctoral Students List leads to the mentioned list and every entry of that list is verifiable through Google search or by sending a e-mail message to the corresponding University library. So, the list is fully reliable although it might be incomplete for any recent or past advisory work might be not reported--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "reliable source" is wiki-jargon; you can follow the link from Arthur Rubin's post to see its technical meaning. It is pretty clear that Math Genealogy does not meet the necessary standards, and so should not be used as a reference on WP. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The only valid standard of the data reliability here is verifiability. All the PhD list entries are correct. So, how it ("does not meet the necessary standards") might be clear in this very particular case? The necessary standards are what? What is the measure of the reliability of the Math Genealogy PhD list?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you click on the link? --JBL (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

New mathematical object

As for this text:

As per the RSC fellowship detailed appraisal, the discovery of rho functions, ....

(Text truncated to avoid further copyright violation.)

It is just absurd. I see no way to preserve it except to say:

According to the Royal Society of Canada, ....

and leave it as a direct quote, as it is so hyperbolic that rephrasing is impossible. It would still be a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has excessive quoting, in general, but the other references to "new mathematical objects" could be paraphrased. That one is hopeless. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is even more pointless claims. Rephrasing is impossible? A new baseless disqualification of the removed paragraph. The previous one was that the paragraph was un-sourced. "It would still be a copyright violation."!--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes dispute

1. Based on the RSC fellowship detailed appraisal of the Todorcevic's research

The discovery of an entirely new mathematical object is a rare event that is always accompanied by a major advance in our understanding of mathematics and an extended period of exciting progress. It is with this in mind that we celebrate Stevo Todorcevic for his discovery of rho functions and the various applications they have found. The truly new objects discovered in set theory are so few that they can easily be listed by century. The late nineteenth century was, of course, the era of Cantor's discovery of the cardinals and the Cantor set. The early twentieth century witnessed Hausdorff's gap, Aronszajn's tree, Goedel's constructible universe, while the end of the century produced Shelah's PCF structures and Todorcevic's rho functions

I added to the Stevo Todorcevic article this paragraph

As per the RSC fellowship detailed appraisal, the discovery of rho functions, an entirely new mathematical object, is one out of the five in Set theory in the twentieth century. The rho functions (and the various applications they have found) are celebrated as a major advance in understanding of mathematics and an extended period of exciting progress.

The paragraph I've added was removed as "unsourced" or "spam" (two times).

2. In the same article the list of Todorcevic's PhD students was given as the Mathematics Genealogy Project for Stevo Todorcevic. The list is removed twice as not reliable. I manually checked every entry of the list and found them correct.

Are the two changes described above acceptable for you?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Since the proposer refuses to comment on my specific complaints about the article, but insists on requesting new input, I need to note additional specific problems with the article and contributions by the requesting editor.

1. WP:BLP policy

   Controversial statements about a living person (Stevo Todorčević) must have an inline citation. I only saw your latest violations when I removed the sections. That the ρ function is a new "object" may be acceptable; that there are only 5 new objects in set theory is an opinion, attributed only to a tribute.

2. Copyright violation and excessive quoting

   The long quotes are excessive; even where (rarely) attributed, they are entirely too long. The rephrasings are still too long, too close to the original, and even more hyperbolic than the original. (I believe Stevo to be a great mathematician. However, these descriptions are unbelievable, so do him no credit.)

3. Opinions stated as fact

   A number of the hyperbolic statements about Todorčević and his work are properly attributed to experts in set theory, who are not necessarily experts in the history of set theory.

As for the specific edits requested

According to an RSC tribute, the discovery of ρ functions, an entirely new mathematical object, is one out of the five in Set theory in the twentieth century. The functions (and the various applications they have found) are celebrated as a major advance in understanding of mathematics and an extended period of exciting progress. (inline reference required)

might be acceptable, although wrong. The formalization of set theory, also in the 20th century, created an even more important object, namely V. The article listed Godel's L as one of the objects.

As for the list of his students, you're not putting the list in the article, so the reference is inappropriate for the infobox. A statement such as:

Todorcevic advised a number of students.< ref>S. Todorcevic's Doctoral Students List</ref>

at the beginning of the Advisory work section seems appropriate.

Further trimming and inline attribution is necessary to meet Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rubin.

"Since the proposer refuses to comment on my specific complaints about the article, ...?". Your comments (based on mix of empty phrases and false statements) are no more than meaningless disqualifications of the referenced article text.

Controversial statements about a living person? Which ones and what makes them controversial? What is your level of understanding of the Set theory mr. Rubin? Of the Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, the Fields Institute and the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences mathematicians or, maybe, the Canadian mathematicians, members of the Royal Society of Canada? I'm asking this question for all "controversies" are coming from them.

"Hiperbolic statements" are the expression of the recognition and appreciation of the Todorcevic's research coming from the world renown mathematicians like Kurepa and Erdos and the mathematicians of the RSC - all academically above mr. Rubin, underemployed tax preparer.

Excessive quoting does not exist. It's purely subjective statement of mr. Rubin that does not hold.

The comment "The formalization of set theory, also in the 20th century, created an even more important object, namely V. The article listed Godel's L as one of the objects." is no more than personal opinion of someone not qualified to speak about Set theory. Rubin tries to elevate himself above the mathematicians, members of the RSC, who wrote the Stevo Todorcevic research detailed appraisal. Mr. Rubin, this is utter lack of modesty.

At the end, "Opinions stated as fact". The existing text does not reflect opinions of the article editors since the all biography text is fully covered and supported by valid academic references. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You can read about my expertise in set theory (most often, the axiom of choice and related concepts) in my LinkedIn biography. Suffice it to say that I am recognized here as an expert on the axiom of choice. I am curious as to whether Todorčević's methods relate only to Ramsey-type theorems, or whether it might relate to the m = 2 m paper. I find that forcing result intriguing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Without reading your LinkedIn biography I could accept that you are an expert on the axiom of choice -- but among the underemployed tax preparers. Still, do you think that you are qualified to lecture the mathematicians, members of the RSC, who wrote the Stevo Todorcevic research detailed appraisal?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

1. I wrote a great part of this biography. Nothing in the biography is presented as a fact as A. Rubin boldly claims. As far as I see the biography presents appraisals of the Todorcevic's research and achievements coming from the world-renown mathematicians. Much of it, while speaking and writing about Todorcevic's greatness, are "hiperbolic" statements that might not be liked by some. When not agreeing with those "who are not necessarily experts in the history of set theory" we must admit that the "experts in set theory" are a part of the history of set theory. If you are not an expert in set theory, how much is valuable your knowledge of the set theory history? How A. Rubin learned that the experts in set theory who wrote "a number of the hyperbolic statements about Todorčević and his work" are not experts in the history of set theory? Which one? Kurepa? Erdos? All RSC mathematicians behind Todorcevic research citation and detailed appraisal?
2. "The formalization of set theory, also in the 20th century, created an even more important object, namely V." Does A. Rubin has a reference verifying his statement? Even if he has, which way the "the specific edits requested" is wrong or inappropriate?
3. About the list of his Ph.D. students: putting an external link to the professionally well-maintained list instead creating a full list of the PhD students eliminates the need of updating the list in the info box. Not a single Wikipedia rule verifies "so the reference is inappropriate for the infobox".
4. A. Rubin removed well-sourced and correctly interpreted paragraph claiming publicly to be a spam then to be unsourced. A. Rubin, which way is the paragraph, removed by you, a spam or not sourced?
5. Trimming of the A. Rubin's comments above is necessary to meet Wikipedia policies about a meaningful and productive discussion.
6. "You can read about my expertise in set theory (most often, the axiom of choice and related concepts) in my LinkedIn biography. Suffice it to say that I am recognized here as an expert on the axiom of choice." A. Rubin, a self-praise is on a praise.
7. Bottom line - I fully support Vujkovica brdo proposal presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Perun (talk • contribs) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the two editors above are the same person or close friends (same articles, similar failure to follow talk page formatting guidelines, etc.), A. Perun has admitted a WP:COI on his user page. Although I believe he would better serve that interest by avoiding copyright violations and repetitions, his opinions should be considered in keeping with that guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm! A primitive attempt to disqualify A. Perun! Which copyright violations and which repetitions, you, mr Underemployed tax preparer, have in mind? Why you are avoiding to answer the questions posted by A. Perun? A. Perun has admitted a WP:COI !!! Really laughable! Equally, I would conclude that mr. Rubin and Eppstein use the same brain, i.e. Eppstein acts here no more than a meat sockpuppet of mr. Rubin. At the end, here is a failed attempt to assassinate my account.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You apparently need to review English grammar. I said, whether or not you are the same person. Checkuser says you aren't. (And, if you were found to be sockpuppets, the effect would be only that your edits would be treated as being from the same person, which only affects this talk page, at present.) However, about 20% of Vujkovica brdo's edits and 75% of A. Perun's edits are to the same 3 pages. A. Perun didn't ask a coherent question, and Vujkovica brdo generally made statements, rather than asking questions. If one of you would ask a question which makes sense in English, in the correct forum, I'll probably try to answer.

However, most of the material in the article is not from "assessment" pages, as you call it, but from "tribute" pages. Generally usable, but only to support that the statement was made, not toward the truth of the statement. (They may also be usable for publication lists.) As I said elsewhere, I have no doubt that Stevo is a great mathematician. That makes it difficult to find sources about him which aren't tribute pages. In general, pages on the web page of a prize, describing the person winning the prize, do not have anything "negative" about the person. This means we must note that it is from a "tribute"-type source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion with you becomes more and more funny. "That makes it difficult to find sources about him which aren't tribute pages!". And you mean that the detailed appraisal is just a tribute? Poor you! You continue the same way: jumping from one meaningless phrase and disqualification to another. Your "I said, whether or not" is complemented by "However, about 20% of...". Hm!--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Remark: this old version of the article is much better. It is grammatical, lists his major accomplishments up front, is not larded up with pointless details about where he spent each academic year for the last four decades, and mentions his major mathematical accomplishments in one place. It is not literally true that everything added to the article since then has been a disimprovement, but right now it would benefit from vigorous trimming and culling, as well as editing for basic English grammar. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That version does look better, doesn't it. It actually has more specifics. (There should be an article on "Cohen real, and a link to Suslin tree, among other changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, as the other person who has been active on talk recently: what would you think of rolling back to this older version and adding some details as appropriate from the current version (instead of trying to take what is currently written and trim it back)? --JBL (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I just tried trimming it back to a more purely factual version (without some of the more boring details): [1]. But if (as I expect) Vb continues insisting on his own version then I would be willing to support a more severe trim such as the one you suggest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And now I have been reverted twice in quick succession by Vb. My preferred versions are (1) the version I linked to above, (2) the version from February that JBL linked to above, ..., (n >> 3) Vb's version. But Vb's tendentious behavior (instant reverts of anyone else's edits, removal of others' comments from this talk page, refusal to take seriously the many warnings on his own talk page (see its history; they are all immediately removed)), his personal attacks on other editors here, and his stubbornness in the face of this RFC discussion leads me to believe that more severe measures may be needed. Should we take his behavioral issues to ANI, or is there something else constructive to try before we go that far? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The comment above is no more than a personal attack and not the only one. There were a few in the past coming from the same Eppstein.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

DE, I agree with your ranking (though the older summary of his mathematics has some positive features that could be integrated with your version). The scope of wiki-bureaucracy is vast, so I don't want to say that there are no possible alternatives, but I would support going to ANI. (Actually Vb probably is at the border of 3RR if not over it for the last 24 hours, as well.)--JBL (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@JBL: You are very welcome to improve the article current version grammar. The "lard" comes from the people like Kurepa and Erdos, we just collected it and put in the "bucket". You can inspect Wikipedia biographies of many great mathematicians of the 20ieth century (Goedel, for example) and see many "pointless details about where he spent each academic year". Also, please, do not ridicule existing content: I see nowhere "each academic year" in the article, rather the milestone years of his career, the same way as it was done by Jean Larson. So, please, do not damage this biography further. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not your place to tell me whether or not I am welcome to make certain kinds of edits -- we have equal standing here. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Even if the subject of the article remotely affiliated with Serbs or Serbia, Serbian nationalists storm in to abuse the Wiki platform to fluff up "their" articles to bolster their image. Getting sick of seeing this in articles dealing with people, places or events who article on here are subjugated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.93.183 (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

About Tributes. According to the Cambridge Dictionary tribute (n) is something that you say, write, or give that shows your respect and admiration for someone, especially on a formal occasion. Kindly, please, do not change Summary (the section name) to Tributes.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't a nomination for an award, even if called an "appraisal", qualify as a "tribute"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I would support a trimmed statement like "the creation/invention/development of rho functions" properly reference sourced, and link to an article on rho functions. (FYI I don't believe in the use of the word discover for math, it implies the math exists and is discovered like Columbus discovered America; I believe all math is created by humans")

I don't think there is a reason to list all PhD students he advised, just students that later became famous.CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Section for those of us unfortunate enough to have been summoned here by Legobot

• I find Vujkovica brdo's posts, including the statement of this RfC, essentially unintelligible. I sampled Arthur Rubin's complaints, and they seem valid. I concur with Dave Eppstein's attempts to trim the article. EEng 05:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• The claims by User:Vujkovica brdo,for the inclusion of certain statements seems non-appropriate to me.They necessarily contain the rhetoric but fails to make a solid stand. Please try to understand the difference between a source and a tribute source.It is no doubt that he is a great mathematican and his contribution to the field of Set Theory can't be overlooked but it is better not to try to hammer the greatness down a reader's throat!Also it would be better if a particular set of editors stop attacking others casting doubts over one's qualification for the editing and calling users by distasteful names!Please read WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:EQ.I support reverting the article temporally back to a more stark and purely factual version: [2]. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard}
• @Vujkovica brdo:@EEng:@David Eppstein:@Arthur Rubin:@A. Perun:@Joel B. Lewis::It is for the kind information of the editors undertaking part in the discussion that User:Vujkovica brdo has retired from WIKIPEDIA.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That would simplify the discussion, but see Wikipedia:WikiSpeak#retired. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Ha!Ha! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree in detail with the foregoing entries from EEng, David Eppstein, Arthur Rubin, et possibly al. JonRichfield (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• I find myself in substantial agreement with Eppstein, Rubin, etc. That said, I am intrigued by Mr. Todorčević's discovery of the rho function and I wonder if "so-called" is appropriate for the article; perhaps a balance can be struck. Heterodidact (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "so-called" was part of Vujkovica brdo's additions. Quite likely Vb is not a native speaker of English and is unaware of the pejorative connotations of that phrase. I would be happy to not include it. As for rho-functions, there is material about them at [3], [4], and [5], if someone cares to write an article about them. A separate article would probably make more sense than going into detail in this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Eppstein, it's you. The "so-called" was a part of your trimming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.77.178 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The current version of the article makes me think that Todorčević is an eminent mathematician, who works on topics that I have no hope of understanding. But previous versions, with overblown text by Vujkovica brdo and by 178.223.74.168, tend to make the reader suspect that he may be a Mohamed El Naschie-style fraud. Maproom (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Section for those of us fortunate enough to have been summoned here by Legobot

• This has been an interesting read. My three semesters of Engineering calculus have left me no more qualified to rule on this than many others similarly summoned by Legobot, but I'll contribute what I can, as I've done for every bot summoned discussion. I made a couple of changes to the article. I agree that perhaps you don't discover mathematics any more than Columbus discovered America, but you do identify unique ways to apply the tools. Verbiage changed accordingly. I Wiki-linked for the rho functions term to encourage an article, written by someone who knows more about set theory than I do. I'd also like to point out this, the supposedly simpler version: [[6]]Timtempleton (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Common sense and harrassment

I've tried to add more sense to this biography changing the introductory paragraph to

Stevo Todorčević is a Canadian-French-Serbian mathematician, one of the world’s leading logicians and a world leader in set theory and its applications to pure mathematics[2][3]. He is a Canada Research Chair Professor in mathematics at the University of Toronto,[4] and a senior director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) in Paris[5].

then by adding Kurepa's praise of Stevo's talent. I've read the discussion, full of irrational disqualifications and denials. The fact is: Stevo is a world leader, not the one "specializing in":

• CNRS: Stevo Todorcevic (ELM) is a world-renowned authority in transfinite combinatory and ensembles theory. His results have a profound impact on functional analysis, general topology and geometry of Banach spaces.
• PIMS: Professor Todorcevic’s contributions to set theory have made him a world leader in this topic with a particular impact on combinatorial set theory and its connections with topology and analysis
• RSC:Dr. Todorcevic has been a brilliantly creative and productive mathematician for almost forty years, and is now clearly a world leader in set theory and its applications to pure mathematics
• Canada Research Chair: Todorcevic, Stevo University of Toronto Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Mathematics from 1/1/2011; Tier 1 Chairs – tenable for seven years and renewable indefinitely, are for outstanding researchers acknowledged by their peers as world leaders in their fields.

Also, I do no see why is completely removed information about Stevo's advisory work. Mathematics Genealogy Project Stevo's PhD students list is accurate, therefore reliable. Calling upon Wikipedia reliable source proves nothing. Farah's and Moore's dissertations are Stevo's success, too.

Praises of Stevo's talent and his contributions to mathematics of the 20ieth and 21st century coming from Erdos and Kurepa, then from Rinot, Avila, Moore, Larson, and other mathematicians are valuable editions to the biography.

This version is not only trimmed beyond any rationality but also the remaining content distorted and became meaningless in two places:

At Belgrade University, he studied pure mathematics, attending lectures by Đuro Kurepa? Kurepa's lectures were not a part of regular curriculla - rather advanced lectures in set theory primarily.

...which led to new edge-colorings of infinite complete graphs. -is utter nonsense.

The biography is reduced to the level of Wikipedia biographies of the two Wikipedia administrators: Arthur Rubin, David Eppstein.

Arthur Rubin - a man who was not able to establish an academic career and who was primarily a software engineer for thirty years with time gaps between consecutive employments. His software engineer career ended at his 53 and he is unemployed the last seven years. He promoted himself on this talk page to Continuum hypothesis expert.

David Eppstein - a college professor whose all research belongs to fringes of computer science. All his research results can be classified as outdated, deficient some way, narrow in scope, theoretically insignificant, or not clearly separable from co-authors' results.

The other members of their gang are not worth of mentioning. We have here to cope with deep-rooted inferiority complexes of these two. Pay attention to:

Todorčević is a good mathematician, certainly notable enough to have an article, but I think well below that level

I also believe (though I did not already say it) that they are not the same person as Todorčević. This is a gemstone that usually comes from a mindset of a dirty political campaigner.--178.223.74.168 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• I won't remove your bizarre attacks on other editors (as would normally be done – see WP:TPO) because they make so clear the nature of your participation here. If you're a friend of Todorcevic (whom you refer to as "Stevo") then presumably he's unaware of what you're doing, as it would be deeply embarrassing to him. In addition, gaps in your English apparently render you unable to grasp the inappropriateness of the kind language you keep trying to insert in the article. I have had the pleasure of the personal acquaintance, or better, of mathematicians as or more accomplished than Todorcevic (Andrew Gleason, Raoul Bott, Andrei Zelevinsky – to name a few) and they would never countenance the use of such fawning language in reference to themselves. I note, by the way, that there seems to be no indication of any kind of care or talent for teaching on Todorcevic's part, which is almost always found in the truly great mathematician.

I've again reverted to the version of the article endorsed by every editor here except you. If you want something changed, per WP:BRD raise it here and get others to agree with it. As it is you'll be lucky to escape a block for your lame personal attacks. EEng 14:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• First of all a registered user account and then an IP.I did not know Stevo Todorčević had so many fans and them too unruly!:) Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• @178.223.74.168:Since you want to add so many epithets to the article, how about adding a section discussing how some members of a gang here in Wikipedia with inferiority complexes allegedly harassed the mathematician by maligning with his biography and reduced it to the level of Wikipedia biographies of two Wikipedia administrators. Won't that look good? Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@EENg: *I have had the pleasure of the personal acquaintance, or better, of mathematicians as or more accomplished than Todorcevic ...*! How did you measure their accomplishments? Using your mom's kitchen scales?--24.135.100.128 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite the mic drop. Do you have any concrete suggestions for improving the article? EEng 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

ARUNEEK: if you perceive other editors here as operating as a gang, it's because you are an outlier. Maproom (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Maproom-Sorry, but I think you failed to get my sarcasm.I used certain words in quotation style for some reason.Read my comment in the prev. RFC section.You'll get an idea about my real views! Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 06:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Selected publications

How someone, who is not a mathematician and who does not know and understand dr Todorcevic's work, is able to write a list of selected publications? Dr Todorcevic did it twice: here and here. D. Eppstein is smarter than S. Todorcevic?--24.135.100.128 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

They are merely the publications that the text of the article calls out as important. These are either accomplishments added (but poorly cited) by Vujkovica brdo, or his books. I don't think any special expertise is necessary for me to recognize a book as a significant publication, and one of them won an award that was already included in Vujkovica brdo's version of the article. If I were picking additional citations to add, I would probably include "Fraïssé limits, Ramsey theory, and topological dynamics of automorphism groups" and maybe "Borel chromatic numbers", as the most highly cited of his research papers, but being highly cited can mean many different things and I'd want to understand the reasons for citing them better before adding them. As for Todorčević's own lists: they're helpful but I think too long to include in whole here. And, on a side note, you are falling into the same ad hominem fallacies that Vb has, and that so greatly weakened his position here. Address content, not your imagined and mistaken view of what other editors think or understand. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. The language I've used to address the lack of modesty you showed when writing the list is somewhat profane, I admit, but nowhere ad hominem. By the way, this talk page testifies you've lied twice: first claiming that Vb plagiarized the summary of the Todorcevic's research, second - when you've attributed the "so-called" phrase to Vb. These lies are no less than personal attacks. The history of your fight with Vb shows some other disparaging comments directed at Vb what I do not want to mention here. Vb retaliated exposing your academic research (as something of very low quality) on your Wikipedia biography talk page. To counter Vb you destroyed this article which certainly does not belong to Vb.
2. Now about the article. The article does not need any list of selected publications; it's enough to have links to these two written by Todorcevic. As to the list length and content, no comment ... except ... In the Amadeus movie one of the Viennese Royal Opera claimed that a Mozart's opera had too many notes. I do not know whether this Opera official ever added some other Mozart notes to the opera or cut a few of them as the Austrian Emperor Leopold suggested.
3. Further, the Mathematics Genealogy Project is referenced in the Arthur Rubin and in many other Wikipedia biographies. Here, it was removed (It is pretty clear that Math Genealogy does not meet the necessary standards, and so should not be used as a reference on WP. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)). Why Mathematics Genealogy Project is not reliable just here and why it is removed as reference?
4. Then you replaced one of the world’s leading logicians and a world leader in set theory and its applications to pure mathematics heavily sourced by five appraisals of Todorcevic's research coming from five world top ranked academic institutions (PIMS, Fields Institute, CRM, RSC, SASA) with your petty specializing in mathematical logic and set theory.
5. Recognition of Todorcevic's rho functions and their use (by Todorcevic) when the edges of the complete graph G whose vertices are the elements of the smallest uncountable cardinal number was addressed correctly and sourced properly by Vb. You've deleted it replacing it by meaningless Todorčević discovered the so-called rho functions, which led to new edge-colorings of infinite complete graphs then after by even more meaningless and wrong This work led to edge-colorings of infinite complete graphs with the property that all uncountable induced subgraphs have an edge of each color, using more colors than previously known possible. The Induced subgraph of Graph theory ,as elaborated in a Wikipedia article, has nothing to do with the problem Todorcevic solved. The latest to assign an uncountable number of colors to the pairs of countable ordinal numbers, in such a way that every uncountable subset of these ordinals includes pairs of all colors is rewritten from the abstract of the referenced Todorcevic's paper and not better than the one given by Vb. Please, do not explain anything you are not capable to understand.
6. I'll stop at this point.--24.135.100.128 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The only thing you're saying that seems related to article improvement is re the publications list. Are you saying that there should be fewer works listed? EEng 21:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of what 24.135.100.128 writes above is pointless to even bother responding to. The accusations of plagiarism, on the part of both Vujkovica brdo and later A. Perun [7] [8] were accurate and I continue to stand behind them. They are about content (content from other sources which was added here inappropriately), not about insulting people. And if 24.135.100.128 doesn't see the equivalence between sets of elements such that their pairs have some property and induced subgraphs of complete graphs, then I would argue that it is 24.135.100.128's mathematical understanding that is lacking. However, I should add one thing. The reason that I separated out some footnotes into a "selected publications" list had very little to do with the actual choice of which publications to list there. It was that, because these are publications by Todorčević, rather than publications by other people about Todorčević and his works, they cannot be listed in the references section. Having a separate section gives us somewhere that they can be listed. The alternative is to get rid of those footnotes altogether, eliminate the "selected publications" section, and not cite any of Todorčević's publications directly. The way it was done before is not acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't let it bother you. Everyone sees what's going on here. EEng 22:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not bothering me, but I keep thinking that rational arguments might persuade these people. That's probably a mistake on my part. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like all this criticism of your mathematical talent may be justified -- witness your misconceptions about rationals. EEng 04:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh. That got a chuckle out of me, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Deja vu

@David Eppstein:, @EEng:, @Arthur Rubin:, does this feel familiar to anyone other than me? --JBL (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was looking in the other direction and now I've lost track. Are these the same "honors" we saw before. EEng 03:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Compare this edit. (Particularly, phrasing in the lead, choice of sources, phrasing of awards section and what to include.) --JBL (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Each time this comes through it becomes harder for me to believe that anyone but Todorčević himself is behind these self-serving edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of gross. --JBL (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in such cases I've always assumed it was someone intent on embarrassing the subject. EEng 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone very persistent, then. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm too tired to start an SPI tonight, I leave it to someone else. Or maybe I'll get around to it over the weekend. --JBL (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits

Sock, boring
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First of all, I've fixed wrong statement claiming He is also the author of a more introductory textbook, Topics in Topology (1997).[TT] found it the Research section. Then I wrote biographies of two Todorcevic's most notable PhD students, I. Farah and J. Moore and linked Todorcevic's bio to these new two. Then I fixed the Awards and honors section by adding the three very notable positions he held in the past: Miller Research fellow, IAS member, and Tarski lecturer Then I fixed the bio lead pointing at his leading role in set theory and math logic and adding valid references supporting the fix. What remains to be done? The whole Research section shall be rewritten based on the J. Larson's book, appraisals of the Dr. Todorcevic's works given by people from Fields Institute, University of Toronto, and Royal Society of Canada, and reviews of his books and articles. The main point is to put some order (logical, temporal) in the section text. Here is just one example: Dr. Todorcevic gave a new proof of the Countryman line existence where he developed his walks on ordinals method. His work on the strongest possible negative partition relation + his walks on ordinals led him to the rho functions discovery. The Selected works section makes no sense to me. An algebraist, a topologian, a set theorist for sure would have different selections of his works and, for a reader having a basic knowledge of mathematics, any selection of his works could have hardly any sense. I propose complete removal of this section keeping only sources supporting the rest of the (rewritten) bio.--BTZorbas (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Sock, while amusing briefly, is blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want to update Todorcevic's biography (by) using this reference: Stevo Todorčević, Mathematician: Life for the spark of discovery--79.101.198.114 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Please set out 'I propose changing "X" to read "Y"'. EEng 20:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC) The claim above makes no sense to me. Update is not just a change and Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, isn't it?--79.101.198.114 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Heavily censored and inaccurate Early life and edication - Todorcevic attended Kurepa's advanced classes, not just classes; this fact is confirmed in his latest interview References supporting earlier version of this section removed and misinterpreted. Private life related information (family) visible in this reference removed. The two most recent appraisals of Todorcevic's work written by top Canadian mathematicians, affiliated with University of Toronto and with the Fields Institute are ignored. These two appraisals are fully online readable and freely accessible. Extensive and professionally written overview of Todorcevic's research in set theory and mathematical logic by J. Larson given in Sets and extensions in the twentieth century, Handbook of the History of Logic mainly ignored. His master's thesis result is just the first one and not most representative. The new mathematical object, rho functions, devised by Todorecevic incompletely and inaccurately explained. Other famous methods like Minimal walks removed from an earlier biography version The statement "He is also the author of a more introductory textbook, Topics in Topology (1997)" is utmost ignorance. To see the truth about this book, see which is just summary of the book review given by I. Farah in Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Volume 8, Number 4 (2002), pages 526-528. Todorcevic never wrote a single textbok. Removed paragraph about Todorcevic's research career (positions with Princeton's IAS, for example) and his advisory work (list of his PhD students and main achievements). Selected publications section - arbitrarily made by someone wo apparently does not have a comprehensive understanding of set theory and math. logic.--79.101.198.114 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) References Again, please propose specific text changes, bearing in mind that interviews are not independent of the subject and therefore have limited usability as sources. EEng 12:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC) As it's clear from my comment above, the interview (only one) is just a small part of the sources mentioned. Also, the same article is not completely an interview rather a biographical insight into Todorcevic's career.--79.101.198.114 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Please propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. –JBL (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Maybe they'll get it if we try asking for "A to B" instead? EEng 00:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Proposed changes Info box Add Todorcevic's wife and son's names - Vesna and Marko, based on this reference Introduction Replace the current text: "Stevo Todorčević FRSC is a Canadian-French-Serbian mathematician specializing ... Paris" by Stevo Todorčevićis a Canadian-French-Serbian mathematician, one of the world’s leading logicians and set teorists . He is a Canada Research Chair professor in mathematics at the University of Toronto, and a director of research position at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) in Paris. Reason: The current introduction section is not referenced at all. The proposed one is fully referenced. In addition, Todorcevic is not specializing in anything which is clearly visible from the RSC Fellowsip citation: "he has made striking contributions to topology and analysis." I've noticed that the strongest academic references the RSC Fellowsip citation and appraisal and the CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize were arbitrarily removed Comments Early life and education Replace the current text "Todorčević was born in Ubovića Brdo. ... with Kurepa as his advisor." by Todorčević was born at Ubovića Brdo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1962. his family moved to Banatsko Novo Selo where he finished primary school. He finished "Uroš Predić" grammar school in Pančevo where he demonstrated his talent and affinity toward mathematics in the school third and forth years. He finished his undergraduate studies in pure mathematics at Faculty of Science, Belgrade University. As undergraduate student he attended Đuro Kurepa's advanced mathematical classes. Kurepa became his graduate studies mentor which he finished in 1978. Todorčević's master thesis was validated by Kurepa good enough to be accepted as a doctoral thesis. Regardless, Todorčević wrote his doctoral thesis in 1979 with Kurepa as his advisory. Kurepa, in his introductory speech of the oral defense of the PhD thesis session, mentioned he was not able to find external readers of the Stevo's thesis in Yugoslavia, capable of fully understanding and evaluating the thesis; therefore Kurepa turned to two university professors from England, one of which was Keith Devlin. Kurepa regarded Todorcevic's talent as a miracle, and pointed that Todorcevic was the most talented out of the 40 PhD students he advised in the past. Reason: The proposed text was based on an earlier version of the section which was baselessly shortened (i.e. censored), some of references removed, inaccuracy introduced (Todorcevic attended Kurepa's advanced classes attended by the college most talented students, not just any classes). In addition, the proposed text is strengthened by a new, English language written reference. Comments: I am somewhat concerned that the proposed section does not mention that Todocevic was conceived in a visit from the Holy Spirit, nor his birth, springing forth fully formed from Zeus's forehead. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Left to do The Research section is too short, inaccurate, and unnecessary burdened by three titles of his books. This section shall be based strictly on Todorcevic's research appraisals and on the extensive review of Todorcevic's contributions to set theory written by J. Larson. This section demands work of someone who is set theorist and a man who fully understand Todorcevic's research work. The Awards and honours section shall be updated, Selected publications are based on ignorance and not necessary here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.198.114 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC) References "A man". Why is maleness relevant? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Isn't this IP just Vujkovica brdo? Who else is obsessive about praising Todorčević? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, of course — the proposals are identical to what previous socks have attempted. —JBL (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Assaf Rinot review, Serbian Wikipedia, Kids Encyclopedia

Here https://blog.assafrinot.com/?p=2271 Israeli A. Rinot gave a review-appraisal of the minimal walks on ordinals. This method was discovered in the early 1980’s by Todorcevic. In Sets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century p. 303 rho functions, a new fifth object in pure mathematics discovered by Todorcevic is fully elaborated and linked to the minimal walks. Strangely nothing of it is visible here. Rinot wrote that Moore surveyed Todorcevic’s professional biography, and then continued with remarks about his work. Moore mentioned Todorcevic’s 1998 ICM lecture has served as an inspiration for some of his own work, and invited anyone with background in analysis to read Todorcevic’s 1999 paper on compact subsets of the first Baire class, where set-theoretic forcing was applied to this field in an unconventional way (in this paper, theorems, rather than consistency results, concerning compact sets of Baire class-one functions are obtained by analyzing the corresponding objects in forcing extensions of the universe).

It s interesting to see that Moore used Serbian Wikipedia Todorcevic biogrpahy, not the one we see here. In addition Kids Encyclopedia has a more serious biography written at https://kids.kiddle.co/Stevo_Todor%C4%8Devi%C4%87 than this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.166.216 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll bet 10-year-olds really enjoy reading about how Todorčević proved a startling square bracket partition result for the uncountable and introduced new technology whose ramifications are still unfolding, and proved a stepping up lemma for negative square bracket partition relations. This guy must be somethin' else in person. EEng 09:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Defamation and Disrespect of BLP

Obsessive desire for puffery
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Three years ago I tried to make this biography worth of reading. At the same time I was accused for "puppeteering" and being sycophant. (According to the Cambridge dictionary meaning of this sycophant word, the accusation suggests that Todorcevic is a powerful or a rich person). The article current content is quite a bit defamatory and inaccurate. Serbian-born - more accurate Bosnian-born Serb and Serbian mathematician for being educated in Serbia, being a member of the Serbian Academy of Science and Art, affiliated with the Academy Mathematical Institute, married to a Serbian woman and a Belgrade resident for the last six or seven years. Mathematician specializing in ...- no way. No one is a RSC fellow for just specializing in something. RFC fellows are world-renown scientists and artists; so my "world leading ... and leader in set theory" is more appropriate and accurate just for being supported by two highly academic appraisals (Fields Institute and RSC) of his work. Attending lectures by Djuro Kurepa - more precise, advanced classes by Djuro, according to the introductory speech given by his student J. Moore before Todorcevic's CRM-Fields-PIMS Prize presentation lecture. Research - poorly, inadequately, and wrongly described. Out of his vast amount of research results, the first selected one is the minor one found in his M.Sc. thesis. The second one is about the rho functions and its applications incompletely and wrongly presented. This way a full overview of Todorcevic's research in pure mathematics remains intentionally misinterpreted and incomplete for removal of a previous description based on the above mentioned appraisals and extensive review of the Todorcevic's research - as given in the Sets and Extensions in Twentieth Century. More introductory textbook, Topics in Topology - completely wrong. The book is a monograph about some interactions between set theory and topology, reviewed by his former student I. Farah. In addition, Todorcevic never wrote a single textbook of any kind. Selected publications - nonsensical list of Todorcevic's papers and books given by someone who apparently does not have full and qualified understanding Todorcevic's contributions to pure mathematics. Todorcevic's PhD students list, referencing the same Math Genealogy Project list, was removed pointlessly. That way a reader cannot see that Todorcevic belongs to the Frechet -Kurepa-Todorcevic-Moore,Farah tree of famous mathematicians of 20eth an 21st century and a list of his 23 PhD students, up to now Any attempt to represent his career by counting and describing the world most prestigious research positions (Berkeley, Princeton, Mittag-Lefevr, Barcelona) he held was trimmed and suppressed. Editors willing to improve this biography by adding more stuff and by fixing inaccuracies and defamation were chased away. Wikipedia BLP rule - disregarded completely. NPOV, V, NOR -ignored: advanced classes replaced by lectures, instead respecting Farah's Topics in Topology book review - given personal and completely wrong review, removal and disregard valid academic references for marking them baselessly as unreliable, exaggerating, inaccurate --A. Perun (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Oh lord, this again? --JBL (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

@Joel B. Lewis:, @David Eppstein: 1) There is no "Yugoslavian", it should be Yugoslav. 2) The country is dead and gone, while the Todorcevic is alive and well and should not be called Yugoslav only; it's not really an improvement. 3) Serbian-Canadian is not ethnicity (only). 4) His Serbian ethnicity is notable as he is one of the youngest people to join Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (at the age of 36) and he is also one of the most notable Serb mathematicians of all times. Per MOS:ETHNICITY those are all notable and valid points. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Todorčević is notable for his mathematical accomplishments, not for being an ethnic Serb. Membership in a particular national academy, whose membership criteria involve nationality not ethnicity, is not evidence for his ethnicity being important. So the condition of MOS:ETHNICITY for mentioning the ethnicity in the lead is not met. Beyond which, the lead should summarize the rest of the article and the rest of the article does not mention or source his supposed Serbian ethnicity. If he is actually a bearer of a Serbian or Canadian passport (I assume it must be one of the two else how could he travel?), and we can find a reliable published source for that citizenship, we can put Serbian or Canadian in place of Yugoslav as his nationality. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For a while he was French also and I suppose that's a third possibility for nationality. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: You are wasting your time. The whole biography is usurped and vandalised by a bunch of American idiots. The "Yugoslavian" is not the only idiocy here. Todorcevic is not notable for "specialising" rather for leading and being a world leader in pure mathematics (see https://web.archive.org/web/20161203170449/https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/candidates/TODORCEVIC%2C%20Stevo.pdf), [1] is not a reference, and he did not attend Kurepa's lectures rather advanced lectures.

In addition this sentence "Todorčević's work involves mathematical logic, set theory, and their applications to pure mathematics. " is pure idiocy - math logic and set theory are the pure mathematics - "their applications to pure mathematics" only demonstrates ignorance of these two you pinged!

The next idiocy, in the current text (the Research section), reads, "In Todorčević's 1978 master’s thesis, he constructed a model of MA + ¬wKH in a way to allow him to make the continuum any regular cardinal, and so derived a variety of topological consequences.". Topological consequences of what? In order to understand what exactly J. Larson wrote, here is the full citation of the relevant statement: In his 1978 Master’s Thesis, Stevo Todorcevic used techniques of [Mitchell, 1972] and [Devlin, 1978] to construct a model of MA+¬wKH and did so in a way that allowed him to make the continuum any regular cardinal (see [Todorcevic, 1981c]). Todorcevic went on to derive a variety of topological consequences of MA+¬wKH. This is a sound proof that @David Eppstein: did not understand the quoted J. Larson's text! The next sentence in Research is incomplete interpretation of the J Larson's statement about Todorcevic's and Abraham's work at the Settop summer school, Toronto Jul-August 1980.

When writing about the books Todorcevic authored, we need the book reviews, not the basic bibliographical data we can see at the MatSciNet. So we need reviews coming from I. Farah (Topics in topology), J. Larson, J. Moore (Walks on ordinals and their characteristics), A. Dow (Partition problems in topology), etc.

Then, how to justify removal of the Todorcevic's list of PhD students from The Mathematical Genealogy Project, his research positions at IAS and Berkeley, his family status (married, one child)? Or removal of the section describing his advisory work?

For more details, see the whole discussion on this talk page and the history of the biography changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.131.57 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're trying to embarrass the subject you're going a really good job. EEng 11:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)