Talk:Georgia Benkart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weasel words[edit]

I was asked to provide a list of the WP:WEASEL words in this articles. The whole tone of the article is written putting her on a pedestal. Here's a small sample: "distinguished mathematician who is an international leader", "a renowned teacher" in the lead. In the first paragraph: "Benkart made a significant contribution to the classification of simple modular Lie algebras. Her work with J. M. Osborn on toroidal rank-one Lie algebras[4] became one of the building blocks of the classification. The complete description of Hamiltonian Lie algebras (with Gregory, Osborn, Strade, Wilson) is not only very important in itself, but it has applications in the theory of pro-p groups."

This article is written to pump up people about her work. What you want to do is to provide the facts and let the reader figure it out why she is important. That's how paper encyclopedias are done and so is this one. I hope that helps and thanks for asking. Royalbroil 11:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The weasel words have been removed. I believe the article shows that Benkart truly is a distinguished mathematician. Please remove the weasel tag, Royalbroil. Thanks. (Mvitulli (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That's a step in the right direction, but there's more to do: "known as an influential teacher" is an opinion, "became one of the building blocks of the classification" is an opinion, "This is one of cornerstones" is another opinion, "One of the pillars" is an opinion, and the same with "important paper". "became a basic tool in the construction of tensor categories" needs citation from a reliable source. Thanks for working on it! Royalbroil 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I cleaned it up and removed uncited claims related to the weasel words. Now what to do with that list of alumni? Also, please don't forget the WP:Be bold motto. It might have been easier just to remove the weasel words yourself then go through the torture of explaining them. :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgia Benkart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year?[edit]

I am noticing that reliable sources differ on her birth year. The library of congress [1] and similar sources such as [2] (the latter even gives Dec 30) list 1949. Some of the obituaries, however, list 1947 [3], as does the AMS Memoriam page. I am not certain what best practice would be here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and this is presumably what the census is doing in the references in the lede. That appears convincing for the 1947 date. There is a sourcing issue here with WP:BLPPRIMARY (which applies also to the recently deceased), but since the birthdate appears in reliable secondary sources, this might be ok. There might also be an issue with WP:SYNTH. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the correct birth year in on a database from ancestry.com. This is the US Public Records Index 1950-1993, Vol 1. Do a search for Georgia Benkart on https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1788/ and this is the first item you come up with. But I don't know how to cite this on Wikipedia. Mvitulli (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of this photo is the photographer, Yvonne Nagel, who herself uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. There is no copyright violation. Mvitulli (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: The message template on commons (on the talk page of May.Jean [4]) instructs adding a subst:PP template [5] to the image page, right after sending a message (from the photographer) to the Volunteer Response Team on commons. I guess that the situation probably does require a human to look at the licensing. The documentation on this could definitely be clearer. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this applies. The photographer herself, who owns all rights to the photo including the copyright, uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons. She gave permission to use it. Mvitulli (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. OTRS messages are required when someone other than the photographer handles the upload, so we can get permission of the photographer. They should not be required for direct uploads by the photographer herself. Also, the part in Commons:Commons:But it's my own work! does not apply here. The image published on the web site is at a lower resolution than the uploaded version, making it clear to anyone paying attention that it was not copied from the web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the photographer uploaded the photo herself, but also have seen lots of photos marked as "own work" on commons where that was determined to be unlikely, and where it was eventually deleted. The resolution is a good point, and I guess that the edit summary for removing the deletion notice should be enough that an admin looking to delete asks questions before doing so. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has been deleted. I will go through appeal process. Mvitulli (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know on my talk page if I can help support the appeal. It looks like you indeed need to check in with the VRT team, and that it should then be straightforward to recover the file. I meanwhile added a picture from the ICM that was in the Oberwolfach photo collection (so freely licensed in lowish res). Once you get the nicer picture, the ICM one might be suitable to move down to the Awards section later, next to the mention of her ICM address. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I check in with VRT team or must the photographer who is more than a little frustrated and mystified. I saw the photo from the oberwolfach collection but I don’t like it so I didn’t bother to upload it. I know that photographer. You might too since I see you are a mathematician too. Mvitulli (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It must be the photographer. They make things very difficult and bureaucratic in some circumstances. Direct uploads by the photographer are supposed to circumvent that bureaucracy but I guess not in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will contact the photographer again today. So she doesn't have to upload the photo again? I thought she would have to. Mvitulli (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. One possible issue is that the "in memoriam" page at wisc.edu claims copyright by the regents of the university (not in the visible text but in its html code) and does not say anything about the photo not being covered by that copyright. Is there any way to persuade wisc.edu to fix that? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the copyright info in the html code. I will contact people in the math dept there. Mvitulli (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind David, I found the lines. I wrote to the Wisconsin math dept. Mvitulli (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The webmaster for the math department at Wisconsin reposted the In Memoriam page giving credit to Yvonne Nagel for the photo. Do you think we need to wait for the copyright to be adjusted before contacting VRT? Mvitulli (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there can be any harm in starting a conversation with VRT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More constructive than trying to get through to the deleting Commons admin, in any case. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement image, https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=19201, probably really is a copyvio. See Commons:Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection. Only the MFO collection pictures labeled "Copyright: MFO" or "Copyright: George M. Bergman" can be uploaded, and when uploaded they need to have the code from the category page copied in as the permission on the individual photo. The one of Benkart at ICM 2014 that was used is labeled as "Copyright: Gert-Martin Greuel", which does not make it automatically uploadable.

Also, although the updated Wisconsin page now says "Photo by Yvonne Nagel", it also still says (in the html source, not in the visible article text) "© 2022 Board of Regents" with no indication that the photo has a different copyright. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, I reread the copyright policy at MFO before uploading, but now see that I didn't get it quite right. Do you know if anyone has reached out to Greuel about possibly making his photos available in low-res to commons? Regarding Wisconsin: the copyright message looks to be part of their webpage template. I agree it would be better if the text by the photo explicitly said something similar to "Photo Copyright © Yvonne Nagel, and used by permission". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re Gruel, no idea. He seems to be a retired mathematics professor rather than a professional photographer, so it is likely he would be receptive. But it seems awkward to reach out to him for this when our plan would be to use a different photo. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he's a major contributor of photos to MFO, so having those available would be generally interesting. Asking on this one might not be putting our best foot forward (although I think the ICM photo would be great to add some visual interest under Awards and honors, even in a platonic ideal of the article.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_Benkart&oldid=1206245255"