Talk:Si.427

Preserve

@Infinity Knighty: Good return of material deleted, afaics, solely in order to make a point. The author himself (who for the record, I do not know and have never heard of until the current brouhaha) has himself attempted to fix an error reported in RS and that was completely overlooked by the remover.Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

On the sources

"It is the only known example of a cadastral document from the OB period" is a direct lift from a press release widely copied around the internet. Is there a source for this claim aside from Mansfield, whose work the press release covers? It is a very strong claim, and surely it would have been remarked on in the nearly 120 years since the tablet's discovery, when it was originally classified as being about surveying.

I also fail to see how the citation to the unpublished index of names by Ferwerda and Woestenburg is a relevant citation for the meaning of the number 25,29 — especially when I cannot find that number in their document. The name Sîn-bēl-apli does, and their entire entry reads

"f. Sin-bel-aplim, Ilan-šemea^, Di.680A,10'+seal^ (Si7) (a); Di.700,31+seal (Si21) (a); MHET II,3: 455,27 (b)+A,8" (Si30)"

Without this apparently irrelevant reference to Ferwerda and Woestenburg, I will note without comment that of the 7 remaining references, three are by Mansfield, and one is a news article about his work. I understand that there are tablets of this nature that are very little studied, and so specifics on this one may be rather rare. But surely there are good general sources that could and indeed should be cited, particularly from well-established historians and experts on OB mathematics and tablets. 121.45.89.81 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Just doing a quick Google search for "cadastral tablets ancient babylon" dating from before 2017, I find this 1996 article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632524, whose abstract includes the sentence "Continuing the author's earlier work on the shape of fields in Ur III (ca. 2100-2000 B.C.), based on cadastral documents from Lagash province in lower Mesopotamia". Ur III is the period immediately previous to OB. At best, the sentence about cadastral OB texts and Si.427 being "among the oldest known mathematical artifacts" is misleading due to the conjunction of the claimed uniqueness and "oldest". It is certainly not the oldest cadastral tablet, from that 1996 article's abstract. Further this thesis: TERRESTRIAL CARTOGRAPHY IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA (https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/4350/1/Wheat13PhD.pdf) tells me that "Over one hundred and seventy maps and plans are preserved from the ancient Near East, drawn on clay tablets or inscribed in stone," and lists ten tablets from the OB period dealing with building and house plans. So perhaps these are not "cadastral", but are at the very least closely related. 121.45.89.81 (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And, lo and behold, the article "Reconstructing the Rural Landscape of the Ancient Near East" from 1996 in my previous comment supplies the quote in section 5, The Old Babylonian Period: "we can use a group of eleven cadastral documents recording properties in the Larsa kingdom...after its conquest by Hammurabi of Babylon". This puts the dating square around the time of Si.427 Further, Figure 12 of that article is titled "Reconstruction of fields from Old Babylonian cadastral texts from Larsa", citing Birot, 1969. Figure 14 gives partitions of family properties, citing Charpan, 1980. So I would strongly support removing the strong claim, based on my half an hour of literature searching that brings up contemporary and older examples 121.45.89.81 (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

There are may examples of field plans from the Ur III period, but there are no published field plans from the OB period. The figure you reference is a "reconstruction" based on a list of fields (see https://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P423884). This is not the same thing as a field plan. Perhaps the term the term "cadastral field plan" should be used to avoid confusion. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Here I quote from an article published in 2020 in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies: "Very few field plans date from Old Babylonian (OB) times. This article analyses one such text, Si. 427 from Sippar...", written by ... Daniel Mansfield. Why the change in tone? Why is this tablet now unique? Personally I would trust the paper refereed by someone chosen by a JCS editor rather than someone chosen by an editor from Foundations of Science, in light of having a look at the contents of the latter journal. 110.142.52.31 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I managed to track down about ten field plans from the OB period, but only Si.427 has been published. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh. So these other field plans aren't "cadastral", according to your definition? I'm only asking now out of curiosity, though the relative paucity of field plans from the OB period (compared to Ur III) might be worth mentioning in the page, citing the 2020 paper. 121.45.89.81 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely call them cadastral field plans. What I said was that none of them have been published. In other words, Si.427 is the only published cadastral field plan from the OB period. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Then I refer you to confer with the learned gentleman quoted at the start of this section: "It is the only known example of a cadastral document from the OB period". It is this fast and loose press-release science that I believe is making this all an issue, here, and is not limited to this one specific aspect. Had the articles analysing Si.427 appeared without the media hype, and then been included into WP, we wouldn't be having the discussion. I understand the university press department probably wouldn't be interested in pushing a version of this story full of the scholarly caveats and details like "only (published) cadastral field survey (out of a bunch of others) in the OB period (though we have lots of even older ones)", and perhaps that is worth reflecting on. 121.45.89.81 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in making this page an accurate representation of Si.427. It's kind of interesting that this period of cadastral surveying is unknown when we know so much about surveying techniques from earlier and later periods. This is largely because field plans from this particular period have not been previously studied. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please keep it classy

This article needs more secondary sources, which has already been signaled on heading of this page. Secondary sources are important part of Wikipedia. However, it is hard to justify the inclusion of insulting tweets, calling the author (who is me by the way) an ignorant and pathetic attention seeker. Aside from being uncivil, such comments are irrelevant since they do not discuss any of the content of this tablet. Secondary sources (both positive and negative) that actually discuss Si.427 include https://twitter.com/viktorblasjo/status/1423417560779853827 by Viktor Blasjo, https://www.kijkmagazine.nl/science/3700-jaar-oude-kleitablet-toegepaste-geometrie/ which quotes Ossendrijver, or https://blogs.ams.org/mathmedia/tonys-take-august-2021/ by Tony Phillips.

Also, the article presently cites the paper 'Three old Babylonian methods for dealing with 'Pythagorean" triangles' to dispute the claim that Si.427 is the first example of the Babylonians using Pythagorean triples in a practical setting. That paper discusses BM 96957, which concludes BM 96957 is an educational text as the evidence "strongly suggests that we are dealing with a reverse algorithm, and speaks against the idea of practical problems based on direct measurement". It's hard to see how this paper demonstrates that Si.427 is *not* the first example of the Babylonians using Pythagorean triples. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This will get sorted out, I am sure. Please keep contributing here on the talk page as I intend to deal with the opposition at some point, you not being permitted to an all.Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose I can summarize my comment as follows: none of the secondary sources provided by David Eppstein dispute the presence of Pythagorean triples on Si.427. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That detail (whether or not Pythagorean triples can be found if one squints hard enough) is so far from the actual point of adding those sources that I can only imagine you are deliberately engaging in red herrings. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please keep this about secondary sources, and not what you imagine. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of tweets is not appropriate, poor quality edit. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

They meet the criterion in WP:SPS of being by an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: you're missing the point. While those "sources" might as well be technically citable, there is a matter of editors discretion regarding inclusion. Twitter is not an appropriate medium for encyclopedic content. Subpar sources should not be included. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

On average, Twitter might be an open sewer, but it does have its uses, a direct line to experts being one of them. The instances here are fine, per WP:SPS. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: repeats reliability claim missing the point that this inclusion condition is required however, it is not sufficient. I do not think that an encyclopedia based on "tweets" could be the desired idea. There must be better sources out there, both as far as medium goes and secondary sources could be nice. There is no need to compromise on quality. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you know of more in-depth publications by established historians of Babylonian mathematics independent of Mansfield and evaluating the claims in and about his work, suitable as replacements for these sources, then by all means provide them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If no high-quality sources are found, gossip style content should be removed. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

We have no "gossip style content". What we have, that you want removed, is the only comments available to us evaluating these claims by established historians of Babylonian mathematics. Your desire to expunge any such evaluation from the article is noted, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want hyped-up claims without the criticism, some other web site may be a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Any scholarly sources by those or other established historians? Please kindly stop discussing me and concentrate on the content. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

There is another established historian commentary below, anyway there is obviously a difference between a scholar putting his name to a peer reviewed paper and a tweet, that should be made clear. Blasjo already backed off a bit when confronted by Mansfield. What I find fascinating is the theory that every science/math journalist in the press over dozens and dozens of articles are mere dupes fooled by Mansfield. Ridiculous idea.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that "science/math journalists" were the ones doing the writing. Newspapers farming out silly season stories to generalists with no particular relevant experience is not an extraordinary event. Nothing ridiculous about it at all. It's a low-stakes story on a topic where they have little or no experience checking claims. Of course standards aren't going to be great. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So clearly no consensus for tweets inclusion. I am OK with being skeptical, however such skepticism should be backed up by reputable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus against it, either. The sources are reputable, because the people are reputable. Rather more so, in this case, than newspapers that did nothing but rewrite the press releases they were given so they could earn some easy clicks. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/maanow/status/1429594352695787522 I guess the MAA has to be criticized as well, does it? Also here Mansfield response to Blasjo who appears to yield somewhat.Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the MAA (or rather, whichever intern has the job of seeing "news" about math and tweeting it) should be criticized. As the very first reply to that tweet actually does. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This comment from "Assyriologist Mathieu Ossendrijver" is interesting:

The author has shown that on Si.427 Pythagorean numbers are used to generate rectangles with perpendicular sides. As far as we know, this is indeed the first example of such a field calculation in which this is done. It is certainly not the first proof of applied geometry, because (approximate) surface calculations of various geometric figures have been found long before this tablet, which result in Pythagorean numbers without the construction of perpendicular lines. Moreover, apart from this tablet, there is virtually no evidence that this was or became a common Babylonian practice. [According to Ossendrijver, the clay tablets Si.427 and Plimpton 322 are therefore strange.] That is different from other Babylonian mathematical practices, which apprentice scribes learned from their master, and which have therefore left their mark in many places in Mesopotamia in the form of tablets of school exercises or tablets of the practice of surveying.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice pic here for the interested https://blogs.ams.org/mathmedia/tonys-take/ Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

The current edit warring is unseemly. It seems that there is in fact not a dispute over the section that is attributed to Mansfield, provided both sentences are attributed to him. I don't think attribution is necessary myself but I wouldn't object to it. The other disputed section is about criticism of the alleged media hype around the announcement, I would not object to that either provided it is not improperly mixed together with criticism that is unrelated to Si.427. Comments? Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

My positions are (1) if we include a sentence that the tablet included Pythagorean triples, then this sentence must be phrased as an opinion of Mansfield rather than as a statement of fact (phrasing that cites Mansfield and then states declaratively that the tablet included Pythagorean triples is insufficient to make this point), (2) if we use any non-scholarly source about Mansfield's work on Si.427, such as the Guardian article currently in the article, then that must be balanced by scholarly critique of the media hype of this work, which can reasonably mention (if sourced) Mansfield's participation in previous media-hype situations, and (3) if we do not include any of these non-scholarly sources, and merely focus on the technical description of what is on this tablet rather than its interpretation, then notability of this tablet is in question; it is only the media hype that makes it notable, because otherwise we have only Mansfield's primary work and a citation by Mansfield to a footnote in an offline book source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

All three of those points sound reasonable to me. I'd particularly underline the poor wiki-notability case; if all we had were the material that existed prior to the churnalism engine going to work, then this tablet likely wouldn't merit a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Plimpton has an article of its own as as well so notability is not in question. I have put together and edited in something that could perhaps be acceptable. It attributes the claims made to Mansfield, puts all the material together in one place and attempts a summary of the counterclaims and controversy. Note that like or dislike of the author does not enter into this, Mansfield is also an "expert" and experts in subjective areas frequently disagree, we should not ourselves take a position on which of the experts might be right, merely report the disagreements with due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Plimpton 322 has been studied and commented upon extensively for decades; I don't think the situation is really comparable. Even with the recent expansions, this page still feels like it would fit better as part of a larger whole, like Babylonian mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The latest paper has Plimpton 322 in the title, the "discovery" of Si.427 is an extension/explanation of the previous work so there might be a case for including it in the Plimpton article if anywhere. Then again I see no harm in it being separate for the time being.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The language about "peer-reviewed paper" and "tweeted dismissively" puts the thumb on the scale; the footnotes already indicate where everything came from, and we shouldn't implicitly disparage an expert's take just because of the website they happened to use to publish it. (Frankly, stressing that a paper is "peer-reviewed" is a hallmark of crackpot writing: one emphasizes that the paper claiming a COVID cure, free energy, or faster-than-light space travel was peer-reviewed, neglecting to mention that it appeared in a journal better known for studies of soil chemistry. If a journal can't find or doesn't bother to find reviewers competent in the specific subject at hand, the "peer review" they provide is going to be pretty worthless. So, I have grown something of an antipathy against seeing "in a peer-reviewed paper" in article text. I can't remember a time when it was ever a good thing, and I'd advise avoiding the "protest too much" effect by leaving it out here.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything disparaging, the language is factual and contains no opinion. As I noted earlier, there is a difference between a peer reviewed paper and a short tweet on the internet, the simplest way to highlight that is to state it. The quality of the journal is not in doubt so that is irrelevant. And I would bet $ that if it wasn't peer reviewed you would be somewhere at the front of the line pointing that out (as would I).Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The choice of what facts to present as relevant creates an impression, even when the facts are stated in a level tone. It would be equally factual to say "In a 2021 paper in Foundations of Science", for example, and instead of "tweeted dismissively" we could write, e.g., "Robson and Viktor Blåsjö commented online to dismiss the claim that the tablet represents the origin of applied geometry". I would, actually, doubt the quality of Foundations of Science, in so far as I don't see any indication that they have substantial experience in archaeology or the early history of mathematics. Their focus is the philosophy of physics, and what do philosophers of physics know about cuneiform? That's not a judgment on the paper, only that I wouldn't personally trust the refereeing process to have been well-informed. If the paper hadn't been peer-reviewed at all, yes, that would be worth pointing out, because it's bad for people to accept too readily results that haven't been vetted. For the same reason, it is also bad to create the impression that "peer-reviewed" is the same as "definitive". Plenty of readers don't know that those are very far from being the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)