Talk:Jinyoung Park (mathematician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

page creation

Created page following proof (preprint) of the Kahn–Kalai conjecture as covered by Quanta and others. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread recognition"

@Caleb Stanford: Regarding your reinstatement of she received widespread recognition, I don't see sufficient independent RS evidence in the cited references. We only have a few statements from affiliated institutions and a handful of mathematicians' reactions to a recent arXiv preprint in interviews with a popular mathematics magazine. The paper has not been published yet nor has there been enough time for any broader recognition (recognition from mathematical societies, major awards, etc.).

It may well come in time, but it seems far too soon and unsupported to state she received widespread recognition in WP:WIKIVOICE (plus it's not in the cited references, so it's not directly attributable either).

I didn't mean to remove the year, so thanks for catching that! — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Thanks Mark! Perhaps we can find a wording we both agree with here. I don't mean to imply recognition from the mathematical community or awards, rather press coverage. You are right that the references don't support academic community recognition. Would you be OK with just (1) "she received recognition" or (2) "she received press coverage" or (3) "she received press recognition"? I'll make a tentative change in that direction. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just a single Quanta article? It's WP:UNDUE and even borderline (& minor) OR/SYNTH to call this "press recognition" ourselves. I would just say that she "released a preprint containing ..." and cite the Quanta article (without trying to draw our own conclusions about the single Quanta article that isn't in the sources). In other articles featured in one or two popsci articles, we also don't try to summarize that coverage ourselves through some kind of "X has received press coverage". — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: it's Quanta together with the press rooms of both Stanford and IAS (BTW, both of which refer to her as having proved the theorem, not proposed a proof). I think you are minimizing something clearly indicated in the references as a major contribution. At any rate, time will show whether Stanford and IAS are wrong, but I'd bet on them against you. I will not edit war, but please come to a consensus with me here, I am prepared to compromise. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanford and IAS website refs are just quick press releases by the department/institute secretaries/communications officers (e.g. Lee Sandberg). Basically every math department at a major university has little blurbs and updates like that without a press team or peer review. They're not independent news sources. But we can just ask WT:MATH for broader opinion on calling this press recognition ourselves if you don't believe me. I don't doubt that it will be published in some time and recognized as correct, but this is too soon.

Regarding you now disputing the proof being proposed at this stage The paper hasn't been published. Quick snippets and interview quotes from press releases and popsci articles don't provide the peer review and academic consensus necessary to call something proved in WP:WIKIVOICE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened here — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An independent, though only marginally-reliable source is the (expert) blog of Kalai [1]. The preprint looks to be the sole claim to notability so far, so I think something needs to go into the article if it is to be kept (although it may be WP:TOOSOON for the subject here). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the Quanta item counts as "recognition" while the press releases don't. This story may also count (see here for our article on its publisher); it's not obviously just a recycled press release. While the most recent arXiv paper hasn't been formally published yet, as Kalai writes, Two years ago Keith Frankston, Jeff Kahn, Bhargav Narayanan, and Jinyoung Park proved a weak form of the conjecture which was proposed in a 2010 paper by Michel Talagrand. That earlier related work [2] was published in the Annals of Mathematics [3]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford I agree with MarkH21. It would be better to keep the article in a neutral voice (WP:WIKIVOICE) and remove the words "received recognition". Just say "In 2022 she released a preprint ...". There is no urgency to inflate the accomplishments prematurely, the work will speak for itself in due time. PatrickR2 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all who gave input here! I've updated in favor of the consensus. I agree that this will also resolve itself in due time to properly recognize the accomplishment when it is vetted/reported more widely. Best Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]