Talk:John Forbes Nash Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hospitalization

In the Wikipedia article of John Nash it is written:

...He remained there (in and out of mental hospitals) until 1970, unable to work or produce meaningful scientific results...

But on the other side John wrote in his autobiography for a Nobel prize this:

...And it did happen that when I had been long enough hospitalized that I would finally renounce my delusional hypotheses and revert to thinking of myself as a human of more conventional circumstances and return to mathematical research. In these interludes of, as it were, enforced rationality, I did succeed in doing some respectable mathematical research. Thus there came about the research for "Le Probleme de Cauchy pour les E'quations Differentielles d'un Fluide Generale"; the idea that Prof. Hironaka called "the Nash blowing-up transformation"; and those of "Arc Structure of Singularities" and "Analyticity of Solutions of Implicit Function Problems with Analytic Data"...

I do belive that this particular work of him should be mentioned and somehow slightly corrected. XJam [2002.05.31.] 5 Friday (0)

210.21.221.178 12:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)I have made some corrections and added content based on my arm's length knowledge of and assistance to Nash between 1987 and 1992. It's untrue he has a still-"feeble" mind and the adjective is grossly off base; it is insulting to Nash and Alicia. Also, I add content on how interaction with Princeton's "computer center" was a part of his recovery, as was Alicia.

Most seriously, the article accepts a medical history when Nash's doctors, especially at the New Jersey public institute where he was warehoused for a time in the 1960s, may have iatrogenically worsened his condition.

I am treading on difficult terrain, but NPOV is not incompatible with critical psychiatry, and I hope my language is mild enough, to merely suggest that Nash's treatment (involving crude and primitive intervention with dangerous drugs) was far less effective than the unintended "treatment" dreamed up by a bunch of math professors and computer types, which was to let the guy mosey around Fine Hall and the computer center...a part of the Princeton COMMUNITY.

That's the POV of Sylvia's book: but for a truly neutral POV, we need to combine the traditional psychiatric view of the objectified patient (which is the tone of the unchanged article: that Nash as a patient was not interesting, and scarred into a "feeble" state) with the view of many other shrinks (like David Breggin) that psychiatry can use more humanistic methods...such as giving a person a guest account on a computer and letting him be.

John Nash was a heterosexual. There is no such thing as bisexuality. His death on May 23, 2015 was orchestrated. It would be unwise to start turning heterosexuals into anything but that. My advise to the greater homosexual community: go to the nearest farm and engage in sodomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.185.222 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dates for his illegitimate child

The page says that "Before his marriage, Nash also had a son named John David Stier from a relationship with Eleanor Stier, a nurse he met while she was caring for him as a patient." however it also states that "Nash experienced the first symptoms of mental illness in early 1959, when his wife was pregnant with their child". If his mental illness hadn't developed until after he was married, why was he being cared for as a patient? Both this article, and the source page for his relationship with Eleanor comment about her caring for him alongside comments about his mental illness so there's a strong suggestion that's why she was caring for him, but the dates don't tie up. Can anyone shed light on this? Ethorad (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section dealing with Eleanor Stier is incorrect.

For example:

"Before his remarriage, Nash also had a son named John David Stier from a relationship with Eleanor Stier, a nurse he met while she was caring for him as a patient. The film based on Nash's life, A Beautiful Mind, was criticized for omitting this supposedly unsavory aspect of his life in the run-up to the 2002 Oscars, given that he was alleged to have declined marrying Eleanor based on her social status, which he thought to have been beneath his."

However, the source cited for the first sentence clearly states that Nash and Stier met and had their son before Nash ever married. The film may be criticized for Nash's treatment of Stier and their son, because Nash would not pay her hospital bills, and avoided them after she gave birth, but their relationship was before he ever met his wife. Other sources I'm familiar with match the source cited and confirm that this relationship was before he met his wife.173.228.123.67 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

60s or 1960s?

In this quote "But after my return to the dream-like delusional hypotheses in the later 60's I became a person of delusionally influenced thinking but of relatively moderate behavior and thus tended to avoid hospitalization and the direct attention of psychiatrists.", does he mean HIS later 60s, or the later 1960s? I assume he means the 1960s because he uses "the" instead of "my". But it should indicate that somehow. 75.65.3.0 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential benefits of apparently nonstandard behaviors

The following is in the article: "He [Nash] has advanced evolutionary psychology views about the value of human diversity and the potential benefits of apparently nonstandard behaviors or roles."

The corresponding reference is: David Neubauer (2007) John Nash and a Beautiful Mind on Strike on "Yahoo Health".

However, I can't find the reference on Yahoo. Only thing I found is John Nash and a Beautiful Mind on Strike on "wei fang blog", where I can't really see the "advancement in evolutionary psychology views" stated in the article. Does anyone know anything about the reference or the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.35.103 (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

John Charles Martin Nash

Hi: I find it very confusing to have a re-direct for John Charles Martin Nash (the son) point back to John Forbes Nash (the father). It gives the impression that these are the same person. I had hoped to discover if this Dr. John C. Nash is the same person as John Charles Martin Nash.

I have read the AfD and don't disagree with it, but there should be a stub for John Charles Martin Nash with a link back to the John Forbes Nash page. If there are no objections I will do that... --Bob 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I second the confusion of having JCM Nash redirect to JF Nash. Since the fomer stub article was just AfD'd, maybe it would be better to simply not link it. Blahaccountblah 10:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Juana Summers

Juana Summers was born in the late 20th century in Kansas City, Missouri. She has written many wonderful poems such as Tinfoil Angel, as well as short stories which tackle such subjects as suicide, abuse, and divorce. She also is an aspiring singer/songwriter whose work can be seen on her website, brownidgrrl.iwarp.com Through these works, Juana has helped worried adolescents get through the hard times. A friend once quoted, "Juana is the kind of person you get up to see. She's brilliant and strong. A good friend, person, and one hell of a writer."

Comments by Edward G. Nilges 2-12-2005

(1) I am certain that "attention must be paid" to Juana Summers, in the words of the late Arthur Miller. But the above paragraph has no place here.

(2) I added a few more details about the divergence of the film from reality based on my knowledge of Nash while at Princeton.

Admitted bisexual?

Jonh Nash denied being homosexual or bisexual on 60 Minutes. Whether he was or not is beside the point. How can he be an admitted bisexual if he publicly denied it? --172.158.107.157 21:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)== 60 Minutes / Bisexual ==

The article states "Sylvia Nasar, Nash's biographer, cites evidence that Nash was bisexual. However, John and Alicia denied such on 60 Minutes in 2002.".

I haven't seen the 60 Minutes episode in question. However, Donald Capps, in his article in Pastoral Psychology titled "John Nash's Predelusional Phase: A Case of Acute Identity Confusion" (Vol 51, No 5, May 2003, specifically on page 363), says "Nash's wife Alicia has repeatedly rejected the idea that her husband is a homosexual. As she said in the '60 Minutes' interview when Mike Wallace broached the subject, 'I am his wife, and I ought to know.' ... Nash himself, however, did not answer Wallace's question directly, but made a general comment ... to the effect that we need to keep in mind that he was under the control of his delusions at the time, and that whatever may have been going on in his mind was a reflection of this obvious fact."

Thus, I find it inaccurate for the article to state that he denied his bisexuality in 60 Minutes. He seems to have wanted to convey a sense of denial, but he didn't actually deny. It's a subtle, but I think important, distinction. - Zawersh 01:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article can claim, without proof, that Nash is homosexual or bisexual because that is in accordance with the usual Wikipedia practice. Such practice is to assert that all famous or noteworthy people are homosexuals. Any opposition to this procedure is understood as being reactionary, politically incorrect, and illiberal.72.73.217.117 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)OmarSimpson

The article as it stands currently makes only one brief, oblique reference to Nash's putative homosexual tendencies--when it refers to "Nash's sexual adventures at RAND". Since Nasar's contention appears to be substantially speculative and since Nash appears to be critical of these speculations of Nasar, no further reference to them should be added. TheScotch 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Such practice is to assert that all famous or noteworthy people are homosexuals. Any opposition to this procedure is understood as being reactionary, politically incorrect, and illiberal" -> Conservapedia fucktard.201.50.141.123 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Nash is homosexual, far too much space is dedicated to the subject, mentioning minor incidents where he supposedly made passes at people complete strangers to the reader. In a small article such as this, compressing all the facts on one page, it might POSSIBLY be worth mentioning it if he is a homosexual, IF this has been a subject of discussion in the media or something like that. But dedicating a whole paragraph to it is pointless. 84.48.18.24 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

He was fired from Rand for homosexual activity and his security clearance revoked. It is relevant to his life and career that he was gay/ bisexual. It belongs in the article. Wlmg 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2002/03/20/Culture/beautiful.Mind.Crew.Allege.Smear.Campaign-219710.shtml Just read what Nasar said.

This is enlisted on the Wiki page cottaging about John Nash, with this The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/mar/26/biography.highereducation) article:

"1954 - American mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr. arrested in a public bathroom in Santa Monica, California. He was stripped of his top-secret security clearance and fired from the think tank where he was a consultant." 129.180.161.173 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

John Nash's body of work

This article reads like a scandal sheet. Why is his work given such short shrift? How does an academician's personal life merit a huge article? —This unsigned comment was added by Harburg (talk • contribs) .

Because the movie focused on his personal life. While I agree that the section on his work should be longer, most people are going to come here because of the movie. --Rory096 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate for us to begin expanding the section on his actual work? Willbennett2007 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I know this is essentially unhelpful, but it saddens me that the page for the film is so much longer and more detailed than that for his actual life. 81.178.137.71 (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nash equilibrium

"Both games demonstrate what Nash worked on for years: the concept that in a game, one must win and everyone else must lose. (See Nash equilibrium.)" This is a grossly inaccurate description of what a Nash equlibrium is. The whole reason why Nash equilibrium is of so much interest in economics and why it is considered a breakthrough and an important generalization of what von Neumann and Morgenstern did is that Nash showed how to solve games in which it is _not_ true that _one_ must win. Most economically interesting games are exactly games, in which there is a potential for everybody to win. Robert Golanski (robin@robin.info.pl)

Nash's other work

There should be more mentions of his work in differential geometry which mathematicians probaly consider to be far more important than his work on game theory.

It should also be mentioned that he won the Steele prize in mathematics for the Nash embedding theorem. 217.210.4.92 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual sources

I removed a "fact" that as far as I know (having twice read the book "A Beautiful Mind", once about nine months ago) is a fabrication of the film: that Nash had an imaginary Princeton roommate. People editing this article should (if adding material) be careful that they find it in the book first (or some equivalent source) since the movie was, after all, deliberately romanticized, and (if editing material) be on the lookout for claims that are substantiated only by the film. Ryan Reich 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah he didn't have imaginary room-mates. However I'm not sure if his hallucinations were entirely auditory as it says now. One thing a fair amount of what he went through were more like delusions than hallucinations. For example he'd think magazines or newspapers made coded references to him. He didn't "see different words" in them really, he just thought the words implied some alternate message they didn't. Still it seems like he did have visual hallucinations too, but I don't remember the details.--T. Anthony 13:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that a delusion is quite distinct from an hallucination (although if you take an hallucination for reality it follows that you are deluded to this extent). As I remember it, the book mentioned no visual hallucinations at all, and it specified that the aural hallucinations came fairly late. Nash apparently didn't suffer them for some time. The thing that struck me is that in the movie Nash's fantasy world was depicted as something very coherent although utterly false (and also very circumscribed: he hallucinated only three characters and some embellishment of physical surroundings over the course of forty years), whereas in the book it seemed an unintelligible and highly variable mishmash.

Anyway, although the movie is obviously to a significant extent a work of fiction, it doesn't follow that we should necessarily take the book as gospel. (I'm not going to proffer specific criticism here, but I'd like to caution the editors of this article to bear that in mind.) TheScotch 09:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Most thoughts that a schizophrenic suffers due to the illness are "unintelligible" and "highly variable mishmash." Most schizophrenics, especially paranoid schizophrenics, don't have visual hallucinations but if they do, they're almost never the beautiful images depicted in the movie. After viewing the movie, a Princeton psychiatrist said that the thought schizophrenia would help someone doing mathematics is ludicrous. --TL36 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

I think there was a section in the article on the facts/controversies regarding hetero/homo sexuality. I happened to notice it was removed once and I reinstated it, but I see it's gone again. Just thought I'd mention it here, don't know if it's a topic that should be covered. EverSince 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nasar's biography had some on that. Although she never really made it that clear if he had any actual homosexual relationships, so far as I recall. She had some evidence he had a couple intense friendships with closeted gay men and was accused of exposing himself to a male cop. At one point she also alleges Isaac Newton had a male lover so some caution is maybe needed. (Modern logic seems to dictate that a man is incapable of dying a virgin, so any and all historic men deemed celibate were "really gay.") Still she doesn't say anything more about this in his later life and most in his early life is speculative. She had enough to convince me he probably was attracted to men, on occasion, but at the same time I really doubt he ever saw himself as bisexual let alone gay. Educated young men in the 1950s had some notions that occasional attraction to men was not particularly unusual or meaningful unless acted on. So I think it's possible both versions could be right. If he had an occasional attraction to men the idea this makes him bisexual or LGBT could be essentially absurd or meaningless to a man of his education and generation.--T. Anthony 11:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Although she never really made it that clear if he had any actual homosexual relationships, so far as I recall." I've been reading the book for couple of days, and I'm about halfway through. If an "actual homosexual relationship" is a relationship based on mutual homosexual attraction, then I think Nasar makes it very clear that Nash had at least three. What she doesn't make clear is the extent of the physical expression beyond kissing on the mouth (sometimes in public), which brings us to the Clinton conundrum: What is the meaning of the phrase "having sex"? Properly speaking, we all have a sex: we are either male or female. Since the phrase "having sex" is slang we might suppose it intrinsically imprecise, but I think it reasonable to interpret sex in this slang sense to mean coition, which is a thing physically impossible for two members of the same sex to perform together. I don't think there is really a homosexual analogue to heterosexual consummation of an erotic relationship, which is another way of saying that the definition of "actual homosexual relationship" I tentatively propose above is probably as good as any.

Re: "At one point she also alleges Isaac Newton had a male lover so some caution is maybe needed. (Modern logic seems to dictate that a man is incapable of dying a virgin, so any and all historic men deemed celibate were 'really gay.')" I don't know anything about Newton's sexuality, but I think you're right to be wary of this sort of thing.

Re: "She had enough to convince me he probably was attracted to men, on occasion, but at the same time I really doubt he ever saw himself as bisexual let alone gay." I think Nasar clearly states that Nash did not consider himself homosexual (or hadn't before he married, at least--further reading may reveal him to have changed his mind). TheScotch 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished the book four days or so ago, and further reading had nothing more to say about the subject, as I recall. TheScotch 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I read it, I was just skimming through. I'm pretty sure though homosexuals can consummate a relationship. I don't know how graphic I should get, but am I correct in believing they can go into orgasm due to actions they do on each other? There are historical figures who clearly state they did that, I didn't think he was one. I'd forgotten about kissing and I think there were love letters. I think he was what we'd call bisexual, but how far he got with a man or whether he ever saw himself as bi I don't know.--T. Anthony 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "having sex" can easily be applied to two men, or even two women. Hence I do not see why you have to struggle with the phrase "having sex" being applied to a homosexual relationship. In common use the phrase does not specifically refer to coition, but to a number of sexual acts including anal sex, and hence the phrase can be used for two men just as easily as for a man and a woman. You are unnecessarily complicating a simple expression.-- Gagamela —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of placing your paragraph where I think it belongs chronologically. Stuck in the middle of my comments it makes it look as if some of them were unsigned. Anyway, I didn't say that homosexuals cannot necessarily consummate a union, depending how literally one interprets the term. I said there is no analogue. Probably I should have said there is no homologue, if you'll allow my little twist on the biological term: Analogous things are alike in one respect or more and different in others; homologous things are alike in all respects yet not the same thing. Two suits in a deck of playing cards, for example, are homologous. Homosexuality and heterosexuality then are analogous, but they aren't homologous. Yes, of course orgasm is possible, but there is no compelling reason to make this the definition of "actual homosexual relationship"; the line is arbitrary. (The thing that traditionally "consummates" a marriage is coition. Coition is not a synonym for orgasm, and coition is physically impossible between members of the same sex.) How "far" did Nash "get"? The book doesn't say, and much of it what it does say seems to me speculative. TheScotch 13:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

M.I.T.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but these are the only references in the article I'm finding just now about M.I.T.:

1) "At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he met Alicia Lopez-Harrison de Lardé, a physics student from El Salvador, whom he married in February 1957.

2) "The film's major departures from Nash's life and the Nasar biography include:....Nash is shown to join Wheeler's lab at MIT, but there is no such lab. He was appointed as C.L.E. Moore Instructor at MIT."

That was a only a temporary appointment. Later he was given a tenure track M.I.T. appointment, which appears to have been the most significant episode in his professional teaching career and thus deserves to be mentioned in the article--and not just obliquely. TheScotch 10:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind--the Movie

I don't think it's a bad thing to mention this film en passant, as it were, but it seems inappropriate to me to devote an entire section of the article to it, especially when that section is longer than any other in the entire article! TheScotch 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article need substantial expansion. I encourage you to make any additions you think relevant. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...Expansion? Why? So that the film section will seem shorter in comparison? I think the article is approximately long enough for a biography and that a more detailed consideration of Nash's contributions to mathematics and economics is best consigned to separate articles. Above I'm proposing a subtraction, not "additions".TheScotch 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something should be mentioned about how the film, of all things, got game theory wrong. There was a part I believe where he was talking about competing for girls in a bar with his friends and he said the best solution would be for nobody to go for the 'best' girl. In game theory, the incentive to "cheat" and therefore go for the best girl would have been the equilibrium (where everybody would have ended up with that type of incentive). My professor mentioned this in my graduate economics class Canking 20:29, 13

April 2007 (UTC)

This article, as far as I can tell, is supposed to have to do with a real-life person, John Forbes Nash, not a fictional Hollywood movie. If we simply must talk about this movie, however, I propose we do so in a separate article. I propose we begin by casting off to sea the "A Beautiful Mind--the Movie" section of this article. I'll wait about a week to see if there is any reaction. TheScotch 04:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe there should be a link at the end of the article to the movie where this should be discussed Canking 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I transported this section to the movie's article (calling it "Relation to fact") and put a link there back to here. (There is already a link here to the movie's article). TheScotch 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome reference?

I've come across this citation: Arshad M, Fitzgerald M. (2002) John Nash: Asperger’s syndrome and schizophrenia? Irish Psychiatrist. 2002;3(3):90-94. and also an almost identical citation accessed from Prof Michael Fitzgerald's web site with the different title "Did Nobel Prize winner John Nash have Asperger's syndrome and schizophrenia?". I originally believed that this paper referred to the architect John Nash, but now it appears that Fitzgerald wrote about the mathematician. I don't have access to the journal that this is in. Could someone else read the article, and if appropriate, incorporate it into the Wikipedia article? I think the mathematician does have characteristics suggestive of AS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Asperger's syndrome is very trendy nowadays, and the temptation to throw the term around willy-nilly needs to be resisted. In any case, unless Nash was officially diagnosed with the disorder (by a specialist who met with him face-to-face in a clinical setting), no mention of it should be made in this article.TheScotch 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know a psychologist who met Nash ~3 years ago, she is a leading diagnostician in autism spectrum disorders. She met Nash in a corridor and spoke to him briefly. In her opinion, he is too severely affected to have AS. He appears to have autism. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, certain certain symptoms of Schizophrenia can mimic Autistic Spectrum Disorder (e.g. including Asperger's and Autism). And he has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia anyway (or at least did, but it is in remission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Was Nash really a hippie?

At the end of one of the paragraphs discussing Nash's childhood it states:

After a trip to Duluth, MN, he turned hippie.

Should we assume that is vandalism and remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremenachos (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know if it's vandalism--it may be well-intentioned--, but it certainly cries out for immediate removal. The term hippie is slang, and extremely vague slang at that. Moreover, to the extent it has any concrete meaning at all, it cannot apply to anything preceding the sixties. I'm taking this passage out now. TheScotch 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fuck You Buddy"

According to the BBC (quoted cheerfully here [[1]]) John Nash developed work labelled "Fuck you Buddy". If so, where's the reference? If not, please somebody write to the BBC (and clean up the entry above). Suspicions aroused when Googling "John Nash" + "Fuck You Buddy" and only getting references to the BBC series. Testbed 16:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)TestBed

Couple of weeks later, I can answer my own question: according to page 102 of Nasar's book, "A Beautiful Mind", Nash indeed devised a game called 'So Long Sucker---Fuck Your Buddy': [[2]] Slightly devious of the BBC not to give the name most people seem to know this by. Testbed 10:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

Speaking of The Trap, I'm wondering why there is only one sentence about Nash's association with the RAND Corporation, which only mentions in passing that he was dismissed after a restroom incident, and why it is located in the middle of the Film Controversy section. According to the Adam Curtis documentary, Nash played a significant role in Cold War strategizing while he was at RAND, particularly with respect to the nuclear arms standoff.

Perhaps it was 'Testbed' who tacked the reference to So Long Sucker to the end of the 'Early Life' section? According to Curtis, Nash developed So Long Sucker/F**k You(r) Buddy while he was at RAND: "[Nash] was notorious at RAND for inventing a series of cruel games, the most famous he called 'F**k You, Buddy!', in which the only way to win was to ruthlessly betray your game partner." Far from being a "popular (board) game," Curtis portrayed this as an example of the sort of thinking about human relationships at RAND that eventually led to the US adopting the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction which, according to Curtis, was known at the time as "the delicate balance of terror."

I do not have access to the Nasar biography, but Google Books, which has the full text but displays it in "snippet mode," reveals one reference to "F**k Your Buddy" and three portions of the book where Nash's association with RAND is discussed. With the Curtis documentary, that makes for two different sources (unless the Nasar biography was Curtis's source). So, I'm wondering why there is no mention of Nash's time with RAND in the WP article, other than how he came to be fired. --96.251.85.72 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Faked illness?

Is it possible that Nash fooled everyone into thinking that he was mentally ill? The only reason that supports this claim is that no one has ever recovered from true schizophrenia.Lestrade 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Actually it is quite common to recover from Schizophrenia. I have lots of citations but I don't have the time to go into it just now - I'll come back later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.159.232 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind, the book, discusses schizophrenia recovery rates in some detail (toward the end). Apparently recovery is rare, but not nearly as rare as once thought. My impression, by the way, is that Nash never fully recovered.TheScotch 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 1932 film, A Bill of Divorcement, a character recovers from insanity. Of course, this is a fictional film, based on a fictional play. However, life sometimes imitates art.Lestrade 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Recovery from schizophrenia happens quite frequently. Samatva (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

i respectfully disagree, A genuis like john Forbes Nash wouldn't fake a mental disorder. A lot of ignorant people would fake a mental disorder in order to get money or special attention from everyone. Saying that about John Forbes Nash, When all he wanted to do is Mathematics. His brilliant mind helped give the world a chance to discover a different prospect in scientific and mathematic.You can try and find something bad or horrible about a person but at the end of your searching, all you get is a horrible obstacle that the person overcame. TawnTawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.152.231 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that.Lestrade (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Lay down your doubts.. apropos. Quaeler (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to believe that it's true, but I find it to be very dubious.Lestrade (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Specific to this article do you propose to add or change something? Since it's a source of debate already maybe just propose some neutral wording and possibly a consensus can form on how best to present the information and what sources make sense. Notable people with diseases are often held up as examples to bring attention to the issues surrounding a condition so there may be some good sources on the subject in addition to the one above. Banjiboi 22:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For this claim to have merit you would need referenced evidence that either: a)He faked the illness b)People don't recover. I doubt either claim have merit PiTalk - Contribs 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a doctor I can tell you that one can recover from Schizophrenia, but it does not happen that frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.118.102 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

2 out 3 three Schizophrenics recover , says multiple studies. One study "Harding's study in The American Journal of Psychiatry (Vol. 144, No. 6, p. 718-735) showed that 62 percent to 68 percent of those former back ward patients showed no signs at all of schizophrenia. "They just didn't have them anymore." http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb00/schizophrenia.aspx --Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional "Despite the proven efficacy of antipsychotic medications over the short term, there is a subgroup of schizophrenia patients who, a few years after the acute phase, function adequately or experience periods of recovery for a number of years, without treatment. " Thomas H. Jobe and Martin Harrow http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/4/220.abstract --Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

References for Nash's sexuality

In addition to Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind there are these three books that would help reference this. Benjiboi 03:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And this matters because...? Frankly it has no influence on anything. He does not identify as bisexual - I think the man knows his own sexuality better than anyone else. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. This is an encyclopedia, we report neutrally, dispassionately and (hopefully) accurately on the subject. I think it would veer into WP:OR to suggest how this influenced his life or work but I find it hard to imagine it didn't have some influence. Regardless these were posted here for to address the concerns that the LGBT project tag should be removed as the article hasn't, as of yet, addressed his non-normative sexuality. Benjiboi 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay but can you please provide more accurate references such as page numbers then? I honestly don't care what his sexuality is - I'm Scandinavian, people's sexuality makes no difference to me - but for what it's worth his notability does not derive from his sexuality. It derives from his academic work and his fight with schizophrenia. I don't want to offend the project - some of your members are among my absolute favorite Wikipedians - but I don't see the connection at all. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First off it's generally mistaken to remove a project tag especially if you just think it may be slandering someone. The LGBT tag goes on articles our project has an interest in including biographies of people who are deemed to be of interest, like Jerry Falwell who was an avowed homophobic preacher who regularly demonized gay people. The tag doesn't imply sexuality only the projects interest in the subject.

Unless the subject or someone close to him registers a definitive take on how his sexuality impacted his life and theories we may never know. I also wasn't asserting he was known for this although arguably he was, again we may never know. A good biography, however, would at least include passing mention of the information and these sources do assert that. I will add it to my list of things and as there is only a few refs about it shouldn't take too long. Also the google book search generally will take you directly to the page. Benjiboi 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the project tag - I was going to restore that although I do note that the tag was removed by a member of the LGBT project before I removed it as well. As for his sexuality - whatever it may have been - it wasn't important. Since the subject has denied that he is bisexual per BLP such a claim would require extraordinary sources. His inclusion in Wikipedia derives only from his academic achievements which have nothing to do with his sexuality. I'm sorry but you need to provide specific reliable references such as the page numbers where we can verify this information. If we may never know then per BLP we should not include it. I'll consider opening a RfC so that more people can voice their opinion on this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) It certainly is your right to open an RfC although you may want to wait until something is actually written and added to the article as that may be premature. I added the sources here so the regular article editors could view the sources and add content as they saw fit. I re-added the tag after it was removed as the article itself didn't clearly answer why the tag was on the talk page and now, it seems, I need to do the remaining steps. Since you ask these are the page numbers I'm starting with:

• The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the ... - Page 160

by David K. Johnson

• The Fifty-Year Wound: The True Price of America's Cold War Victory - Page 117

by Derek Leebaert

• All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards - Page 145

by Emanuel Levy

• Who Wrote That Movie?: Screenwriting in Review: 2000 - 2002 - Page 40

by Chris C. Wehner

• A Beautiful Mind: The Life of Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash - Page 186

I'm not sure what sources state what but I'll have a look now to see if this can quickly be settled. Benjiboi 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Added content with online refs. More is available in Nasar's biography, which is not fully available in Google online so I didn't use it, it seems to have more details though for future editors. Benjiboi 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As per usual, Benji, you are a font of knowledge and wisdom! Many thanks for your help.

A quick note, EconomicsGuy - you're right that Nash is known for his academics. But his sexuality is important not just because it's part of who he is, but because (as a persecuted minority) *others* can be inspired. It shouldn't have to be that way - his sexuality should just be a part of who he is, and that's that. But since he *is* part of a minority, it's important to (with WP:RS) note that. I appreciate your input on the subject! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, that looks good. Thank you! I have no further problems with the article now. SatyrTN I didn't think of it that way. I can see why you are right though. I saw this from a BLP point of view which is how we are told to see these things but you are absolutely right. Thanks for explaining it to me. I'll certainly be more careful next time I encounter a situation like this! Like my message above says I never wanted to offend anyone and in particular not your project since some of my best friends and favorite Wikipedians here are from your project! EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "But his sexuality is important not just because it's part of who he is, but because (as a persecuted minority) *others* can be inspired. It shouldn't have to be that way..."":

In wikipedia it isn't that way. You are clearly announcing a anti-wikipedian agenda here.

Re: "More is available in Nasar's biography, which is not fully available in Google online so I didn't use it...":

What is "available" (except for the Rand episode) in Nasar is sketchy, speculative, and not worthy of mention in this article." TheScotch (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is duly noted. If an online copy or a reliable source appears that others can verify we can all be assured of your statements. Benjiboi 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

What currently appears in this section is predominantly a discussion of the Hollywood movie A Beautiful Mind, and as such belongs in the article devoted to the movie, not in this article. TheScotch (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution might have been simply to move this section to the article devoted to the movie, but that article already has includes a similar discussion. Thus I am cutting this section, and if anyone thinks bits of it should be retained, he can add them himself to the movie article. TheScotch (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you've agreed with yourself but that isn't how consensus works. As noted in the section above this it was added to correctly source his sexuality to meet concerns that he not be incorrectly labeled as gay or bisexual without references. In the process of sourcing the entire section, some of the only sourcing on the article, other details came to light, were also sourced and placed into context. Indeed he personally had done all those things before the movie-related scandal occurred so your goal of expunging material you don't care for is unattainable as clearing out the section would only mean relevant material would be re-introduced and woven throughout the rest of the bio. As is, it shows why the material was considered scandalous, why it came to light when it did and the context of it being treated or mostly ignored. Benjiboi 03:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Interesting that you've agreed with yourself but that isn't how consensus works.":

Obviously, this is not an instance "agreeing with myself"; it's an explanation of an action. Consensus that a discussion of the movie does not belong in this article had been achieved long ago, as you can see for yourself if you'll merely scroll up to the section of this page that discusses it (as you ought to have done before you dumped all your movie stuff here). I've allowed that some bits might be salvaged and added to the movie article (with the implication, I hoped, that some other bits possibly might be salvaged and added to the body of this article), but your section as it stood is clearly irrelevant to this article, and this had already been resolved. TheScotch (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus can change as is evident by the section Talk:John Forbes Nash#References for Nash's sexuality which you have apparently already read. Again if you have reliable sources that Nash has never had sex with another man than post it here and we can resolve how to reconcile that with the sourced content we do have. Benjiboi 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

explain to me Qualer how who Nash is or was married to is not part of his personal life? is it relevant to his work? this article is confused. Boils (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Work?

This article has very little about the actual work of John Nash and what makes it interesting, and does not cross reference other articles about his work, such as the one on Nash Equilibrium. There should be more on his work, which is the reason that he is notable, and less about his personal life, which seems only to interest people because it was the subject of a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrosenfield (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The guy was a mathematician, for god's sake... Who shared a Nobel Prize... And all anybody cares about is the friggin' movie, and where he dipped his carrot when he could find a place to dip it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Psych

While very much agreeing with the above, I've also expanded the psych section, partly to cover Nash's own views more.

I've fact-tagged the later point regarding the Nobel prize and "a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee, and were able to vouch for Nash's mental health ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work". Nasar 94 covers this a bit and says: "the [nobel] committee was making discreet inquiries not just about Mr. Nash's contribution but about his state of mind" and that "Professor Kuhn played a particular role. A noted game theorist himself, he made it clear to the committee that it would be a grave injustice if Mr. Nash's illness cost him the prize." She suggests that the committee were actively considering a prize for game theory for nearly 10 years before they finally awarded it to Nash, that his work was cited by almost every important article in the field, and yet "mathematicians and economists who were close to the secret deliberations say that the Nobel was hardly a sure thing." I'm wondering if there's any more detail on this anywhere? It sounds a lot like prejudice and disability discrimination (as it would surely be considered in any other area) that nearly cost Nash the recognition he deserved. I'm not forgetting that the foundation gave a nobel prize to the inventor and promotor of the lobotomy (which they continue to defend and not apologize for) that damaged hundreds of thousands of beautiful minds, and which Nash only narrowly avoided himself. EverSince (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I support adding more about his work but disagree regarding removing personal life content it would be re-added soon enough anyway but I think it's much better to keep it at the end an hope that readers will be much more interested in his work before they even get down there. -- Banjeboi 07:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a related request: The psych section contains a good deal of coverage of Nash's views and tendencies vis a vis his medication, but not much on his current mental health. Statements by the subject that these syndromes can be handled effectively without medication would mean a great deal more if put in context - How well does he handle his mental health issues without meds? MrZaius^talk 05:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be interesting... I don't think it can be assumed he currently has a clinical syndrome/issues (beyond what we all have, human individuality) - at least the only time I recall coming across that question he was declining to go into such a private matter not directly related to what he was there to address, which is fair enough (as for anyone). His own unique recovery journey can't really be generalized to others anyway, although his views on antipsychotics are consistent with findings that at least some recover without them while at least some stay chronically unwell on them (and the replicated WHO findings of better outcomes in regions where there's less meds but more social & occupational connectedness & acceptance). And you can see he's produced recent work in psychology and economics. When I added the stuff on that a while back I saw some web commentators who only seemed to be able to see it in the light of Nash's own experiences (apparently viewed as undermining rather than contributing perspective) rather than as scientific/academic analysis in its own right. Which is nothing more than psychological prejudice. EverSince (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

John Nash is a true hero to me.I mean just look at the dude.hE LOOKS LIKE SUPERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.239.19 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You all need to get a life

Nice story concerning Nash's recovery

I wish I had the reference for this; maybe someone else will. The story I heard was that he went thru the mentioned "Phantom of Fine Hall" phase, when everyone knew who he was and tolerated him as a harmless shadow. He was quiet, hardly spoke, mysteriously wandered around. Then one day, someone (Prof. Kuhn?) walked by him. Nash looked at him and said something like "How's your daughter Deborah doing?" Suddenly, the person realized Nash had some cognitive function that he had not exhibited for some time (like about 20 years?). This sort of marked the beginning of Nash's slow comeback to near-normalcy (or less insanity if you prefer). Anyone heard this? Bigmac31 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Sylvia Nasar in A Beautiful Mind, it was Freeman Dyson. He was in the habit of saying "good morning" to Nash every day when he passed him, though Nash never responded. Then "sometime in the late 80s" Nash answered "I see your daughter is in the news again today." (Referring to Dyson's daughter Esther, a computer authority who is often quoted in the papers.) Dyson was astonished, since he had never heard Nash speak before. (pp.20-21) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.82.108 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The dating late 80s is certainly inaccurate, since I had frequent conversations with him since the early 1980s, and I did not have the impression that he had any kind of mental problems. I clearly remember that one day he asked me if I had heard of the four-year old Hungarian chess prodigy Peter Leko, so I would date this conversation to the summer of 1984 or earlier (Peter Leko was born on September 8, 1979), but I had known him probably years before this conversation. (The first time I heard of Peter Leko was from John Nash.) Mateat (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dyson didn't say Nash never spoke at all; he just said Nash never answered when Dyson spoke to him, until one day "sometime in the lat 80s" Nash surprised him by answering. That doesn't contradict your account. 76.118.82.108 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Screenplay" or "written" -- what's the difference?

In the "Film controversy" section, we're told that the movie "credits {Akiva} Goldsman under 'written by' rather than 'screenplay by'." What's the significance of this? Cactus Wren (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I think something got deleted so I've restored the context - it is a Writers Guild distinction meaning a significant departure from source material. -- Banjeboi 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POV redacted

I've read over the previous POV discussion, and given that four years or so have passed, I'm surprised more hasn't been accomplished in ironing out the related issues. The article as it stands still appears intent on trashing the film and in particular, its screenwriter. The write-up buys the views of Nash and "strict constructionists" wholesale, painting the argument with POV words such as "fabrication" and "scandal." Furthermore, nearly every positive statement on the film's behalf is immediately followed by a counterpoint knocking it down.

While I haven't checked all the sources, many of the ones I did read were used selectively and sometimes extremely loosely. For example, the statement "According to the Writer's Guild, Goldsman's 'omissions are glaring and peculiar'" has two sources, neither of which mentions the Guild or the quote. Also, relatively little that is used is kind to the movie. Ron Howard, as sympathetic a guy as you'll find, gets no mention at all other than a closing credit for his Academy Award, yet the sources indicate that both he and Akiva Goldsman (whose mother, by the way, is a child psychologist, not a psychiatrist) remained on good terms with the Nashes after the film's release.

To sum things up, this article is anything but objective and is fair only to the POV that holds the movie up as some kind of crime against humanity. Whatever Howard and Goldsman may be guilty of, at least they were forthright about their acts and omissions, and there's nothing to indicate they did anything with other than good intentions. The same cannot be said about a WP article that advocates a viewpoint as blantly as this one does, including the position that maybe it's okay that schizophrenics opt for a natural cure rather than take their medications. Allreet (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of page

Does anyone here think that this article's name should be changed to John Nash (mathematician). People usually don't use his full name. Dr. Whiskers (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Equally arbitrary and anecdotal counter point: most everyone i know uses his full name. If there's some ambiguity issue driving this in your mind, you could consider making a redirect from your article name suggestion to this article. Quaeler (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Wikiquote

Can someone change the link to Wikiquote from John Forbes Nash, Jr. to John Forbes Nash? It seems I'm not able to edit the page atm....... Sitethief (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Link to Yahoo (21)

Yahoo! has removed the article cited in reference [21]. I do not know how to make this correction. J Kulacz 96.18.39.97 (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant section on schizophrenia

Why is there a description of the nature of schizophrenia on this page. Would not a link suffice?:

"It is the most common type of schizophrenia in most parts of the world. The clinical picture is dominated by relatively stable, often paranoid, fixed beliefs that are either false, over-imaginative or unrealistic, usually accompanied by experiences of seemingly real perception of something not actually present—particularly auditory and perceptional disturbances, a lack of motivation for life, and mild clinical depression."

This section tells us nothing about Nash and doesn't really seem to belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMAH07 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether to mention claims of his homosexuality

A Beautiful Mind mentions Nash's homosexual tendencies, in a lengthy section about how he lost his security clearance and was fired from RAND (Page 186-187). We could either:

1. Consider Sylvia Nasar to be an unreliable source, and on those grounds conceal the information she presents
2. Contrast Nasar's information with Nash's own denial

I think it's rather interesting, especially in the context of two other gay mathematicians - J.C.C. McKinsey and Alan Turing - both of whom committed suicide two years after the trauma of being fired (McKinsey) or convicted (Turing). It relates to the psychological and ethical controversy over whether the homosexual lifestyle itself causes mental distress, or if it's more society's reaction to the person's orientation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What a strange way of posing the question. There's no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle", and no credible research has found that homosexuality itself, considered separately from societal disapprobation, causes mental distress. I have no idea what "psychological and ethical controversy" you're referring to. In any case, it would be inappropriate to mention someone's supposed sexual orientation in a BLP article on the basis of one source unless that source is widely considered impeccable. If Nash himself has refuted Nasar's claim, it raises the bar for inclusion-worthiness that much higher. Rivertorch (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a denial of a living person considered sufficient refutation to omit any mention of such an assertion? Or is it better to say that the published author said X about Y but that Y says it isn't true? What is the policy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've been a registered editor twice as long as I have, and an administrator. I assume you know at least as well as I do that policy wording to fit every specific situation doesn't exist. One could cherry-pick something from here to support inclusion of Nasar's assertion and Nash's rebuttal, but that might well bump up against the spirit, if not the letter, of this. Both of the above-linked sections are under the umbrella of "Presumption in favor of privacy", which is exactly what it is: a presumption in favor of privacy. Just because one author claimed something about the subject of her book, it doesn't necessarily follow that that claim, even if accompanied by the subject's refuation, should be included in his WP article. My take on it is twofold: (1) that privacy concerns outweigh any benefit the article would attain from including the content and (2) that the content is basically unimportant because it has no demonstrated relevance to Nash's notability. Now, if there had been any significant discussion in other reliable sources of the question of Nash's sexual orientation (e.g., parallels with McKinsey and Turing, the climate of that era, and so on), it would be a different story. That's my take on it. An RfC or post to the BLP noticeboard might generate very different views. Rivertorch (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

national security agency

If anyone cares, the National Security Agency has an exhibit of some letters Nash wrote them about cryptography in the mid 1950's. They contain a conjecture of exponential complexity for cryptanalysis, that in some ways anticipates the P vs NP problem, though lesss explicitly than Gödel's famous letter from the same era. I've transcribed the first two letters at s:Author:John_Nash. There's another letter that contains a lot of diagrams, that I haven't figured out how to transcribe, plus some responses from the NSA.

There's a blog post (not by me) about it here: http://agtb.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/john-nashs-letter-to-the-nsa/

and a slashdot thread: http://it.slashdot.org/story/12/02/18/1527201/john-nashs-declassified-1955-letter-to-the-nsa

67.117.145.9 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the above is from an exhibit about Nash at the National Cryptologic Museum.[3] I think it's worth mentioning the exhibit in the article. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You may find my transcription of the PDF useful: http://www.gwern.net/docs/1955-nash --Gwern (contribs) 21:11 22 February 2012 (GMT)

Quote in lead.

I think its better to move the large quote in the lead to the biography section. see WP:Lead, WP:Quote. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. How did that get in there? Yes, it's inappropriate for the lede, it's too long in any case, and it needs to be formatted properly. Want to do the honors? (I'd suggest trimming it by at least two-thirds.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Over a year later, I've gone ahead and bumped it down to the "Mental illness" section. Be WP:BOLD, people! --McGeddon (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fractured French and "Le Probleme de Cauchy pour les E'quations Differentielles d'un Fluide Generale"

This article currently contains some fractured French: "Le Probleme de Cauchy pour les E'quations Differentielles d'un Fluide Generale" is too close to French to be anything else but contains a typo that is blatantly obvious to anyone who has had even a very brief introduction to that language: With proper French accents, this would be written, "Le problème de Cauchy pour les équations différentielles d'un fluide général", which translates as, "The Cauchy problem for differential equations of a general fluid".

Might someone check this? This faux french phrase seems to have been propagated to several other places on the Internet. No one with any fluency in English would intentionally write "E'quations" as a legitimate English word. Similarly, the only plausible way I can envision anyone writing "Le Probleme de Cauchy pour les E'quations Differentielles d'un Fluide Generale" is by miscopying a title from a language they didn't know. If I'm mistaken in this regard, I'd like to know. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think it was transcribed incorrectly to the Nobel site from which it's sourced, I guess you could toss an "[sic]" into the mix. Équations is pretty obviously the operative word. My guess? Some sort of OCR artifact. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Further thought: adding "[sic]" could be confusing because it might make it look as if Nash had made the error. Another way might be to replace "E'quations" with a bracketed "Équations". Or, if you're really motivated, contact someone at nobelprize.org and get them to fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Several days ago, I messed it up accidentally, and then re-transcribed it from the Nobel site where it was sourced. Then someone, an anonymous or IP type person, very kindly repaired what I had messed up. Please note that it was sourced directly from the Nobel site. I agree with Rivertorch's final sentence, and the rest of what he or she said, in fact. If it is a quote from the website, it might or might not be verbatim written by Nash himself. As Rivertorch said, I don't think it is a good idea to add "[sic]". I think it is best to source it exactly as written on nobelprize.org. It is such a lovely biographical page. That was the basis for the material I included, regarding Nash's younger sister, and that his wife was a graduate of MIT with a bachelor's degree in Physics. If Nash considered these items important enough to mention in his Nobel prize autobiographical statement, I thought we should too (as opposed to dwelling on that movie so much, though I never saw it, won't edit that section of the article). --FeralOink (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Asylum in East Germany or West Germany

"Nash resigned from MIT, withdrew his pension, and went to Europe, unsuccessfully seeking political asylum in France and East Germany." I know schizophrenia isn't rational but if Nash was seeking to avoid a communist conspiracy why would he seek asylum in East Germany which was under Soviet control. Should this be West Germany? 71.178.164.15 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute of Feb. 2005

I've added an NPOV tag to the article. The writing seemed to be explicitly plugging for Nash and his wife Alicia; see, e.g., "worked courageously as a programmer" [paraphrase] or "adventures characteristic of a burnt-out genius" [paraphrase]...

Somebody who knows about Nash and his life should go over this and pick out what 's fact and what's advocacy. Meelar (talk) 03:53, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edward G. Nilges 2-18-2005

I am responsible for the "non-NPOV" phrases. I was a source for the Nasar book but my engagement with Nash and Princeton may itself have "biased" my contribution. I need to examine this issue in light of the charter document re NPOV, specifically this:

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we're not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. That God exists ... this can be a troublesome one. Whether God exists or not is a question of fact, not a question of value. But as the fact is essentially undiscoverable, so far as anyone knows, whether God exists will usually be couched in terms of opinion or value. To state as a fact that "the existence of God is an opinion", while seeming to be sensitive to the issue, implies that there is no fact being discussed (postmodernism or strong agnosticism), or that it is relatively unimportant (secular bias)."

Let me re-read the first highlighted phrase, that Alicia worked "courageously" as a programmer. The two alternative possibilities are that Mrs. Nash worked timidly, or worked neutrally, neither courageously nor timidly.

I am aware that ANY "fact" derived from the Ron Howard film alone would be likely an opinion and only randomly a fact. But Sylvia Nasar in the book, A Beautiful Mind, does say that Alicia was a pioneer, and as such, courageous, in going to work for Met Life (and later on at Princeton itself) and unlike Nasar's recount of Nash's morals bust at Rand, no serious dispute exists regards this fact.

I claim it's a fact that she worked courageously because of a background fact that is not, despite its political freight, in serious dispute. Computer programming in the 1960s was dominated by men. Merely because this is a "feminist" claim does not make it an opinion IF it is not in serious dispute that women were disadvantaged at this time (whether they are now is a completely separate issue).

The inclusion of women as a protected class in 1968 EEO legislation further makes a feminist opinion into fact. In 1968, the law recognized that women were having difficulty in entering professions. The "fact" was voted into existence and confirmed by judicial review, ergo prior to 1968 (and after, during the time in which the fact of discrimination became acknowledged) it took courage for a woman to work as a programmer.

Furthermore, independent of the questions of womens' status, it took courage for her to enter the work force to support both John and their son.

The defense of the second phrase is simpler. Only a writer COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR with Nash, who had not read A Beautiful Mind, would deny burntOut(Nash) ANDALSO genius(Nash) as a proposition.

Lively language in itself need not violate NPOV.

The writer of the charter wishes, and I wish him well, to draw a bright line between facts and values. Unfortunately, this line does not exist at the border between the natural sciences and mathematics at the one hand, and social reality on the other. Social struggles, especially when they take to the law, are themselves attempts to establish facts on the ground.

For example, it is probably (owing to the story of Abraham and Isaac common to Moslem, Jewish and Christian tradition) a fact that human sacrifice is wrong in a way that I can (with some reluctance!) admit that the destruction of Hiroshima was wrong as some sort of received opinion.

I take this position because it is mere scientism to place the border at the boundary between science and society.

Thanks for your response. I must disagree with your interpretation of the NPOV policy, however. Even writing down only facts can be non-neutral, if those facts are chosen or phrased in such a way as to influence the opinion of someone reading the article. Let's accept that "characteristic of a burnt-out genius" is factual, for argument's sake. Even though it is factual, when presented this way, it reads as a defense of Nash--thus, non-neutral. NPOV is not restricted only to allowing facts; it governs the presentation and tone of the entire article. Best, Meelar (talk) 21:47, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is fine. This is not the article on abortion, and some poetic justice is permitted. The fact of the matter is that many find it a touching story, and if you can't present evidence which shows Alicia was in fact not courageous, then he is simply stating a fact. --Alterego 21:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

--User:spinoza1111 Edward G. Nilges replies:

OK, Meelar says that choice of facts can be selective and NNPOV. This is true. However, to avoid giving the reader a positive opinion about Alicia, one would have to eliminate all the facts about her! One would have to make her an invisible, normed scientific wifey-poo not recognized as a moral agent.

Suppose in an alternate universe, Alicia had divorced John's ass, and ran off to Brazil with a wealthy playboy. Then, A Beautiful Mind would have been the exciting story of how a scientific saint endured not only mental illness but also a bimbo attack.

There would not be a dry eye in the house.

Seriously, I don't think these facts would have been considered NNPOV and extraneous to Nash's biography.

I lived and worked in the Princeton community for five years during Nash's crisis and recovery and while I was not closely associated with Nash, I can report that the community, as a community knows (as knowledge is socially constructed) that Nash was getting better and that Alicia was a good sport.

I do understand that in many scientific, literary, and artistic biographies, the lady of the house is invisible. But you cannot know Picasso unless you know Dora Maar, Francois Gilot and a number of other Picasso wives and concubines. Knowledge of the personal crisis occasioned by the failure of T. S. Eliot's marriage helps us to understand The Waste Land and recent scholarship shows that Vivienne Eliot may have been more of a Muse than was formerly thought and less of a pest.

I understand that the biographies of most scientists can safely exclude family matters, and many scientists even request that such material be excised for fear of harming the careers of spouses and childen (Chomsky seems to have done so). But the Nash story cannot be untangled from emotional issues which are not understood, from any POV, without understanding Alicia.

NPOV is not the neutrality of the LAPD who when they enter a low dwelling assume everyone's a gemoke or a bimbo, and maintain this stance by not listening to tales of woe. NPOV has the inescapably normative need to recognize when a community, in this case that of Princeton, recognized Alicia's contribution. Now, it can keep this recognition at arms-length in service of some sort of outdated Logical Positivism by prefixing rumors of angels consistently with "it is said that", "studies show", "nine out of ten doctors agree", or "word to yo Mama".

But such would make for an unreadable article and is refuted by the very fact WHY we are neutral in the first place.

Why be neutral in the first place? Ethics, that's why, which shows that by praising what's acknowledged by a community of knowers to be good, and by dispraising things like concentration camps, torture, and cheating at cards, acknowledged by a community to be not good we show that our NPOV is not an outdated, and completely discredited Logical Positivism.

Postscript: the thuggish append ("BFD") below is precisely the sort of crap that doesn't belong here. If the Internet is to be anything more than the triumph of the anarchism of the petty bourgeois, it needs to be erased. Hey I can do that! OK, here goes.

Hello - it's not so difficult to describe Alicia's work, and suggest why it was unusual at the time given her gender, without resorting to POV labels like "courageous." Just say that she worked as a computer programmer to support the family, at a time when few women worked in this field. That's factual, without trying to sound like you're plugging a feminist POV or giving her gold stars for sainted wifeliness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.116.182 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Please, add under Awards "2015 - Abel Prize" Source: http://www.abelprize.no/c63466/seksjon/vis.html?tid=63467&strukt_tid=63466 Eglu81 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done by ‎Gmporr. Materialscientist (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

I remember a lot of folks connecting Nash to antisemitism when A Beautiful Mind (film) approached Academy Award (Oscar) season. How come nothing is on the article or this discussion page or those of the film itself? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 04:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How notable is that considered though. I do see reliable sources where Nash denies it. Keep in mind he was/is schitzophrenic . . . a symptom of that can be having false beliefs, confused thinking, paranoia. Should that explain most of the odd things he did, and since then his mental illness while not being completely gone has subsided, hence no more antisemitic comments, he denies it is his true belief. Popish Plot (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Trap basically says his theorem has been proven wrong.

The Trap miniseries [4] mentions Nash's game theory ideas.

Right now this article says: "In 1978, Nash was awarded the John von Neumann Theory Prize for his discovery of non-cooperative equilibria, now called Nash equilibria. He won the Leroy P. Steele Prize in 1999.

In 1994, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten) as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use email to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was the John Nash and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's mental health ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.[citation needed]"

I remember in the movie beautiful mind that Nash was surprised that they wanted to give him the Nobel for economics because he hadn't considered that aspect of his theory. I think since the economy crashed, the theory in terms of economics has been discredited. But I suppose that isn't really a criticism of Nash because he didn't intend it for that? He did accept the prize though. The trap series mentions that Nash's schitzphrenia made him suspicous of everyone around him. And it says the theory would have worked if everyone in the economy was like that but that's not the case of course.

Can the Trap movie be used as a source? A line could be added to the section here on his Nobel prize "Nash's theory has been criticzed by Adam Curtis in the TV series the Trap.

Other sources are http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/03/broadcasting and this one (behind a paywall) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/article2394359.ece

Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is The Trap a recognized authority on mathematics? --Jayron32 19:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The theory was on economics tho. Popish Plot (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this.

""I realise what I said at some times may have over-emphasised rationality," an elderly John Nash tells Curtis in an extraordinary interview, after emerging from years of battling schizophrenia. "Human beings are much more complicated than the human being as a businessman."

A quote from Nash himself that he over emphasized rationality. The Trap criticized the idea that people betraying each other is considered rational. Popish Plot (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article is not RS on this subject. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Popish Plot (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To make an extraordinary claim concerning a living person, we would need a much more authoritative, clearly, and comprehensively presented reference. This is an article by a journalist. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is just that it's an extraordinary claim right? The article has plenty of sources from newspapers which are written by journalists. Popish Plot (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the theorem to which you refer? What edit do you propose and what RS supports it? SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nash had won the Nobel Economics Prize for game theory. I see the article doesn't have a source for that though! That is something that should be fixed. But before I forget about the main question here let me lay down my reasoning. Right now in the article's section "Recognition and Later Career" it says:

"In 1994, he received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten) as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use email to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was the John Nash and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's mental health ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.[citation needed]"

I propose we add a sentence to the end of this paragraph "Nash's game theory was criticized in the BBC Documentary The Trap"

Or Maybe:

"According to the BBC Documentary series The Trap, Nash's game theory for which he won a Nobel Prize for Economics worked in theory but not in practice. Nash appeared in the documentary and said ""I realise what I said at some times may have over-emphasised rationality. "Human beings are much more complicated than the human being as a businessman." Popish Plot (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Popish: "Game Theory" is not a theorem and Nash's contributions by no means spanned the breadth of the subject or of current knowledge in the field. At any rate, if you are interested in editing content which relates to academic research, the best approach is to review the peer-reviewed academic literature. I'm not familiar with the TV show you mention, but the news account is not clear or accurate. The burden is on you to find verifiable reliable source references for content you propose adding to the article. In this case, I doubt that any will be found. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's true if this was the wiki article about the theorem itself but it's about Nash. Popish Plot (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Specifico, the award he won is called "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1994" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly to call Nash's theory that won him a Nobel. It seems it was actually his body of work on game theory, not one specific theory. Perhaps this can be clarified but right now this article says: "Nash earned a Ph.D. degree in 1950 with a 28-page dissertation on non-cooperative games.[7][8] The thesis, which was written under the supervision of doctoral advisor Albert W. Tucker, contained the definition and properties of the Nash equilibrium. A crucial concept in non-cooperative games, it won Nash the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1994.

Nash's major publications relating to this concept are in the following papers:

Nash, JF (1950). "Equilibrium Points in N-person Games". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36 (36): 48–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. PMC 1063129. PMID 16588946. MR 0031701.

"The Bargaining Problem". Econometrica (18): 155–62. 1950. MR 0035977.

Nash, J. (1951). "Non-cooperative Games". Annals of Mathematics 54 (54): 286–95. doi:10.2307/1969529. JSTOR 1969529.

"Two-person Cooperative Games". Econometrica (21): 128–40. 1953. MR 0053471.Popish Plot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Popish, you need to propose a specific edit and the references to which you propose to cite it. Some of the subject matter relating to Nash's work and the larger fields to which he contributed is highly complex. You appear to have confused "theory" and "theorem" and their various meanings. The casual statement attributed to Prof. Nash concerning rationality doesn't support the kinds of edits you appear to be contemplating. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean how I titled this talk page section "theorem"? Forget about that, I see that is not the case. Just look at the edit I proposed and the sources please. Popish Plot (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I made a post on the talk page of the game theory article about this topic, thinking maybe that article could be improved with some of these sources: [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That statement is not about the Nash Equilibrium. It's Nash's casual opinion about how he views some people's behavior. It's not relevant to either article and it certainly does not in general either invalidate Nash's work or its economic applications in game theory. You should give a careful look at the WP policies concerning relaible sources, verifiability, and references. Unless you can propose text for either article based on WP:RS references, there's no point in discussing this further here. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about the nash equilibrium and even if not, this isn't the nash equilibrium wiki article. That's here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium Popish Plot (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Wrong Monroe Township (place of death in box), please change

Please change: |death_place = Monroe Township, New Jersey, U.S. to: |death_place = Monroe Township, New Jersey, U.S.

The Monroe Township (place of death) in the box is the wrong one in New Jersey, it should be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Township,_Middlesex_County,_New_Jersey which has exit 8A of the Jersey Turnpike
See https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Crowne+Plaza+Monroe+South+Brunswick/@40.3478773,-74.4752424,14z/data=!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sexit+8a+new+jersey+turnpike!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x55b998c2f8d29cdc and http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/famed_a_beautiful_mind_mathematician_wife_killed_in_taxi_crash_police_say.html GamesAndMath (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Martin House?"

The intro says Nash "was baptized in the Episcopal Church directly opposite the Martin house on Tazewell Street." This sentence has been lifted verbatim from the biography. Is "the Martin house" the family home of Nash's mother? If so, can the wording be altered to reflect this? Sadiemonster (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

change "were killed" to "died" 159.50.189.7 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is true they were killed as the result of a motor vehicle collision. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: As Winkelvi said, the current version accurately describes what happened. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"near Monroe Township," is incorrect. It should be "in Monroe Township,". Place of death is listed as Monroe Township. also http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/famed_a_beautiful_mind_mathematician_wife_killed_in_taxi_crash_police_say.html report confirms location as "in Monroe Township". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.63.36 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Silverlocked because of policy on living person - change?

This article is semi-protected (silverlock) because of the policies on living people. Now that he has tragically died... should it still be silverlocked for a different reason or should the protection be changed? Thebombzen (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not specify it was a taxi?

A taxi is a distinct sort of motor vehicle, in that you don't drive it yourself, but pay someone else to. This sees like a significant detail to me, and is in many headlines and every news story, yet I'm getting reverted back to the vague "motor vehicle accident".

Per BRD, let's figure out what makes sense in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems we're ignoring this section in favour of the next. Resolved? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking whether or not the situation is resolved? Obviously it's not because the discussion is still occurring below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, just the section. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxicab accident in lede

An editor has insisted on "taxicab accident" and other associated content being included in the lede - and is now edit warring over it. I have stated my reasons for reverting that content out in the edit summaries for each of the reversions of the content with: "what, exactly, is a "taxi accident"? changing to the more precise MVA"; "It was a MVA - they type of vehicle they were killed in isn't necessary for the lede". I do not believe such specificity needs to be stated in the lede, as it is supposed to be a summary of article content. I then changed the content later in the article to include content on the taxi cab as such: "While riding in a taxicab on May 23, 2015, John Nash and his wife Alicia were killed as the result of a motor vehicle collision on the New Jersey Turnpike near Monroe Township. The couple was on their way home after a visit to Norway where Nash had received the Abel Prize. He was 86 years old and his wife was 82." Hopefully, in the appropriate spirit of WP:BRD, InedibleHulk will discuss here rather than continue to edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If a lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body has them in a taxi, stands to reason the lead should. Per the MOS, writing should be clear and concise. For conciseness, I'd rather "taxi" than "taxicab" (as do the sources), but either is clear with a Wikilink. Nothing clear about "motor vehicle". That could be a dumptruck, a sedan, a bus or a motorcycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

At least, it did say "writing should be clear and concise" for years. Now it doesn't, but still says to "avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Motor vehicle" isn't jargon, but is the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Summaries don't typically contain such specifics. "Taxicab accident" doesn't read well, either. Motor vehicle accident is an accepted term, why not have it in the lede and allow the content in the section on his death contain the specifics (as it has been changed to reflect)? Further, a taxi in other countries isn't the same as the American taxicab -- saying "taxi" alone can be confusing to those reading the En Wikipedia from somewhere other than the US. Using taxi is "jargon". Moreover, did the accident involve other vehicles? If so, then motor vehicle accident is even more appropriate where taxicab accident is limiting and not concise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone reads the entire article. Some just want a quick summary, which is why we have leads. If readers get the more precise version in fewer syllables than the vague description, everyone wins. The second time I added the Wikilink, it was specifically to the American taxi article. Another car was involved, and if this article was about the accident, it'd make more sense to say "motor vehicle". But this is about John Nash, who was only in one car, which was a taxi. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow - that's certainly stretching it to say because the article is about Nash that motor vehicle accident is inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the "wow" of it. One half of the two motor vehicles that had accidents involved the subject of our article. That half was a taxi. Anything about the other car, or the guardrail, is the sort of extra detail the lead doesn't need to note. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would say "taxi" should be mentioned for clarity and precision and agree with InedibleHulk's statement that "motor vehicle" is too broad. As for usage, "taxicab accident" is rather clunky. Further, "taxi" itself should be sufficient as "taxicab" seems too colloquial and pleonastic and rather pedestrian (no pun intended) and "taximeter cabriolet" is unknown by 99.9% of readers. Further, this is an article on an American subject, therefore American English should be used per the MOS--it's not really a concern if someone in Mumbai or Belgrade doesn't know what is meant by "taxi" or "taxicab". JackTheVicar (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Aye. I'd said taxi first, but the edit summary asked what a taxi accident was, so tried being clearer. I think we all know what a taxi is now, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather xenophobic outlook, isn't it? English is one of the most taught languages in the world -- even those in Mumbai and Belgrade understand English; indeed, those outside the US read the English Wikipedia (the largest of all the Wikipedias). "Taxicab accident" is clunky - motor vehicle accident is American English, used in most publications, and its meaning is immediately understood. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• American person, American usage. MOS. . If in the odd chance someone on the far side of the globe knows who Dr Nash is and is interested, they're probably smart enough to know what a "taxi" is in the American context and likely know from watching too many episodes of Sex in the City. "Motor vehicle" can mean a whole disparate variety of vehicle. You can put a motor on a bicycle (as Dr Nash was prone to ride in figure-8s) and it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is any indicator, New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission regulates boats. Precision is needed here. Sorry if you disagree. But the precision of "taxi" which is good enough for the news coverage, is far superior than the broad stroke of "motor vehicle".JackTheVicar (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be insulting, but that's even more ridiculous an argument (saying because you can put a motor on a bicycle it's also a motor vehicle and NJ considers a boat a vehicle - never mind that no one is going to make the mistake that Nash was killed by an errant boat on the Turnpike) than the one Inedible posted above about the article being about Nash and because he was riding in a taxi, therefore... Further, because online publications use taxicab accident, we should too? How about the fact Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and others do it too isn't a valid argument? Common sense folks, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No less ridiculous than your claim to avoid precision. Really, for someone who on his user page says because of the "Autie Code" someone not assuming good faith is hurtful, you really don't practice what you preach to others. I disagree with you. I disagree with you for what I think are good sense reasons. You are not the sole arbiter of "common sense". If you want to call my reasonable rationale ridiculous, and assert my opinion is "ridiculous" because it deigns to disagree with you're notion of proper order, then you're out of line, and you need to check yourself. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, gawd. Really? Bringing up the Autie Pact in this? Totally inappropriate and out of line as well as off topic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you if you cannot respect that other people have opinions that happen to differ from yours and for valid reasons. Practice what you preach, assume good faith, and respect that other people have their own, justifiable ideas on things. If you disagree, again, check yourself. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem accepting that others have opinions that differ from my own. I'm just surprised and flummoxed when the basis of that difference manifests itself in silliness such as "people can mistake it for a boat" or "people can mistake it for a bicycle with a motor attached to it". I don't know where you are from, but "motor vehicle accident" is common terminology in the United States in relation to collisions with cars, taxis, buses, motorcycles, etc. in the United States. Do a quick Google search for motor vehicle accident -- see how many results come up with such. That alone should tell you that the term is not confusing or uncommon at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you are failing to read something here. My point is precisely "motor vehicle" is too broad and can mean anything within the category. Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes covers everything from bicycles to motor boats in its motor vehicle laws. Sorry, but it's a BROAD CATEGORY. Whether I use an example in extremis is irrelevant. For the lede, precision is warranted here. I agree with InedibleHulk. That's it. Precision is warranted, needed, and ought to be included in the lede. Mentioning it was a "taxi" is not uncalled for. If you think that's "ridiculous" or want to dismiss my rationale as "silliness"... well, that's frankly "ridiculous" and you're flat-out wrong. There's no confusion about that. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was specific about what I thought was ridiculous in your responses (your analogies and comparisons). I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to change the meaning of what I said to come off as something other than what was obviously intended. Motor vehicle accident is broad, and appropriately so in relation to this article. They were riding in a motor vehicle and other motor vehicles were involved. I don't see what the problem with using such a summarizing term in the lede is. Article ledes are meant to be summarizing that which is contained within the body of the article. The body of the article explains specifically what that motor vehicle in which they rode was. I see it as a great compromise, actually. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and see a need for precision that is especially warranted when we realize that most readers don't get past the lede or the infobox. I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours. You've wasted my time. I look forward to seeing what other users have to add to any consensus that emerges and hope you don't harangue them with uncalled-for aspersions of "ridiculous" and "silliness" as you have directed at me just because I had the audacity to disagree with you. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if that were true (and I don't see you providing any stats from reliable sources supporting such a claim), do you seriously think the reader is going to better understand the article subject if they read in the lede that Nash was riding in a taxicab at the time of his death? We are to write the lede in such a manner that the reader has a basic understanding of the article subject. The body of the article is to do the rest. Knowing he was killed in a motor vehicle accident isn't assisting the reader in understanding how he died? I can't see how anyone can claim such. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"and hope you don't harangue them with uncalled-for aspersions of "ridiculous" and "silliness" as you have directed at me" As long as no one else tries to argue that readers might think we are talking about a boat or motor-driven bicycle on the turnpike by saying "motor vehicle accident", I see no reason why I would need to refer to such arguments as silly and ridiculous. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The basic understanding readers need to have is that neither he nor Alicia were driving the car. That is a serious distinction. Your way implies one or the other killed them both, our way implies someone else did. Knowing it was a motor vehicle accident is also important, but inherent if we say it was a taxi. Certainly not mutually exclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The distinction that neither were driving isn't necessary for the lede since the lede is a summary. That's why I made sure it was included in the body of the article, where such a distinction is important and necessary. Stating they were killed in a motor vehicle accident doesn't imply they were driving, therefore, no confusion on the part of the reader (as you seem to be saying is possible with the lede written as it is currently). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How can a distinction be important in the body, but not in the lead, which is meant to reflect the important aspects of the body? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's all try to keep the emotion out of this, OK? This is essentially a math problem, about measuring syllables and having the sources, lead and body form an equilateral triangle of sorts. Not about who's the imaginary Emperor of Antarctica or Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've simply added the clause "while riding in a taxi" to what Winkelvi had. I don't love it, but we're not supposed to like compromise. Is it a fair one? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant "we're supposed to LIKE compromise" rather than not liking it? At any rate, I think it's a good compromise/solution. It's certainly better than "taxicab accident". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not like it. But accept it. If one of us came away happy, it'd be a win. Which would be great, except for the loser. So, I guess I sort of like compromises, at least as a second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't like compromising? Pity, that. Compromise is makes life in Wikipedia so much more pleasant and sane, allowing us to get along better even in heated disagreement. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that capitulation is unpleasant? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

Request change "The couple was on their way home ..." to "The couple were on their way home ...". While "couple" can sometimes take a singular verb, the "was ... their" combination is very awkward.

109.157.12.42 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple is two things become one. We'd say "John and Alicia were on their way home", but not "the couple". Same goes for larger groups. Changing "the couple" to "they" would agree more with "their". Does that work for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Personally, I prefer to treat collective nouns singularly, as in "The couple was on its way home", but I believe either option is fine so long as consistency is maintained. I made the requested change before you'd responded, as that phrasing was already present in a later sentence—the couple were thrown out of the car (emphasis mine)—but I have no issue with the tweaks you made thereafter. Thanks, zziccardi (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be my way, too. But I anticipated someone else saying "it" is dehumanizing or something. English is a nuisance sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It occurred to me only after I posted the request that there are (I think) differences between British English and American English in this respect. I am from England and, to my ear, "the couple were on their way home" is just fine, whereas "the couple was on its way home" sounds very weird. Since this is an article about an American, I believe this means that American English should be used, but if there is a wording that is natural in both American and British English then so much the better. Anyway, the sentence now reads fine to me. Thanks. 109.157.12.42 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I use a hybrid called Canadian English. Sometimes we agree with the British, sometimes the American, sometimes even French. The decisions to go either way seem pretty arbitrary. Not sure where we stand on this. But yeah, it doesn't matter. If this is a style difference, American style for Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure! Regarding [T]here are (I think) differences between British English and American English in this respect., indeed. From the New Oxford American Dictionary's entry on collective noun:

Examples of collective nouns include group, crowd, family, committee, class, crew, and the like. In the US, collective nouns are usually followed by a singular verb (the crowd was nervous), while in Britain it is more common to follow a collective noun with a plural verb (the band were late for their own concert). Notice that if the verb is singular, any following pronouns must also be singular: the council is prepared to act, but not until it has taken a poll.

Regards, zziccardi (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And I still don't know where I officially stand. Here, "The varieties of English to be studied in this thesis belong to the inner-circle , i.e. English as used by the native speakers of it in the UK, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Canadian English has been excluded."

Still relevant to the rest of you, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

On May 23, 2015, Nash and his wife Alicia were killed in an automobile accident on the New Jersey Turnpike. The driver of a taxi they were riding lost control of the vehicle and struck a guard rail, throwing the couple from the car. John Nash was survived by his two sons and a grandson. Russell Crowe, who played him in the film, tweeted: "Stunned... My heart goes out to John & Alicia & family. An amazing partnership. Beautiful minds, beautiful hearts."

Why is this protected? Articles automatically go on protection these days if the subject has recently passed? Where is that policy found? I'll add here that it appears to be FULL protection (admins only) to me which particularly looks like overkill absent an articulated reason for the protection. By the way, please don't use reference citations on a Talk page. Just link your text to the website you are citing.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done A mention of Crowe's comments on Twitter has been added to the article. @Brian Dell The article is not full protected, only semi (check the protection log), and it was protected two months ago by Materialscientist. Ask him if you disagree with the rationale. In my opinion, using reference citations on talk pages is perfectly fine. We have a reflist template specifically built for keeping the footnotes of one talk page section together, {{reflist-talk}}. Altamel (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

References

If one is using reference citations on a Talk page then one should indeed at a minimum use the Talk page reflist template and it wasn't being used here. As for protection, this ought to be a community discussion, in my view, as opposed to petitioning an admin for an explanation on some personal page.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

BRD

Invoking WP:BRD per recent edits by JacktheVicar; hoping he will utilize 'D' (discuss) in light of his bold edits that were reverted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have no desire to waste any more time or frustration discussing it with you. When you claim "per WP:BRD" your reverting of my work and that of others smacks to me of you screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You own the article. There's no room to reason with you and no sense wasting time trying to offer a positive contribution. You are impossible to work with in a positive fashion, especially when you deign to ridicule the arguments or opinions of others as ridiculous or silliness. Your ownership behavior has driven me away from bothering to make an effort here.JackTheVicar (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

intro text

I read in the very first sentence: [whose works in game theory, differential geometry, and partial differential equations have provided insight into the factors that govern chance and events inside complex systems in daily life.]

I don't understand how his works on differential geometry and/or partial differential equations have provided insight into... – Maiella (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The intro text is misleading. It makes his contributions sound like they are limited to the "daily life" when he had momentous contributions in mathematics. Some tweeking is needed.Limit-theorem (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad you went ahead and took care of it yourself, Limit-theorem. The problem I see, however, is that "major contributions" is non-neutral wording. I have changed it to "notable contributions", which still acknowledges his contributions in mathematics as above average, but leaves out the possibility POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What about "breakthrough"? is it NOPV? We are talking of some of the greatest results in modern mathematics. Notable is mild for his stature. Or you can use "influential" which does the job.Limit-theorem (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see "Major contributions" as being non-neutral. As an adjective, it isn't undue or unsupportable. While the section ought to expound more on why his contributions were important (always room to be improved), calling them "major" is not unwarranted. "Notable" is a throw-away word on Wikipedia and because it is used too often, it seems to lose the force of meaning as a section header. Geniuses have some breakthroughs, some "eh" accomplishments. Einstein's relativity theories were "major contributions", but his article on escape springs in mechanical clocks was not. Nash's major accomplishments, listed here, are appropriately "major"--but that doesn't fly with the user who seems to have become the article's owner. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Influential seems even better. But I am open to "major". Limit-theorem (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anything used to describe his contributions needs to be supported by sources, otherwise, yes, those adjectives are POV. I haven't seen anything supported by reliable refs other than 'notable'. YOU see it as 'breakthrough' and 'major', but do reliable sources? The threshold for inclusion is verifiability over truth; and POV simply isn't allowed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Added NYT and Abel for "seminal" contributions. Do you need more? I find it strange to downgrade to "notable" someone who gets the Abel, the highest mathematical prize for >40 years old. But reference here. Limit-theorem (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Seminal" probably isn't the best word. it's first definition is "pertaining to semen"...the definition your hoping people notice is #4.[6]. Although, while Russell Crowe, portraying Nash in scene filmed in Princeton's sadly-gone "Annex" restaurant, did try to proposition a girl by saying that ultimately it was all about "fluid exchange", I'd be bold to say it is not an appropriate image for Nash's contributions. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Seminal is a little to lofty - we are to write so the average 6th grader can get the gist. I'd look for a more common synonym. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Major" suffices. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, unless reliable, unbiased sources support it, 'major' remains POV. POV is verboten. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• unless you can point to a policy that says "Major contributions" is inherently POV then your crusade is ignorable. The man changed economics, mathematics, computers, evolutionary biology, business, war, politics, and diplomacy with a few brief papers...several reliable sources which can and will be used to interpret his works establish that. That, with the spectre of understatement, is a major contribution to those fields and the twentieth century. Until you establish it's inherent bias and a relevant policy interpretation held by the wider consensus of Wikipedia users, you're opinion is just an opinion, and an ill-informed one.--JackTheVicar (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WHY IS THIS LOCKED!

I WANT TO EDIT THIS ARTICLE!!!! --50.205.217.212 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is, it doesn't have the lock symbol in top right anyway. But maybe it does for you because you don't have a username? I see a past edit from march 23 said "Allow only autoconfirmed users". I guess someone was trying to put in unreliable sources for this biography of a living person. Popish Plot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please create a user name and log in, this page is semi-protected. Erxnmedia (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Biography organization

"proposed organization"

• Lede Section
• 1 Biography
  • 1.1 Early life and education
  • 1.2 Career and personal life
  • 1.3 Struggles with mental illness
  • 1.4 Recognition and later career
  • 1.5 Death
• 2 Major contributions
  • 2.1 Game theory
  • 2.2 Other mathematics
• 3 Representation in culture
• 4 Awards
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 Documentaries and video interviews
• 9 External links

I tried to reorganize the biography in a more logical order (seen at left in quotebox) twice[7][8] which a few other editors decided to work with only to be reverted wholesale by User:Winklevi who I assert is exhibiting ownership behavior in his reverting other users efforts, another other users have their complaints to as misbehavior.[9] Reasons: 1 - biographical information should be a chronological/linear narrative focusing on life details. The current organization of the article breaks the linear flow, especially with the bullet-lists of the contributions section. 2 - the contributions should be a second section outside of the biography that develops an understanding and interpretation of his life's work, this is typical for biographical articles where the course of ones life is stated followed by an interpretation of the innovation or legacy of the work 3 - the bullet list of contributions covers his entire career from 1948 until his death, and it would be inappropriate given the need for chronological flow to put in in the middle of a biography, especially if it were to be expanded with interpretation on the work itself and its legacy.

The article in its current form is a disjunct flow-less mess. Something needs to be done, and the status quo (with ownership or not) is of low quality. In my edits, referenced above, I sought to arrange the article in the following order (at left) Discuss. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder We are to discuss edits, not editors. Another reminder: the entire article is a biography, ergo, a biography section isn't needed and would be redundant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your behavior is one of the obstacles facing this article. Sorry, but your behavior posing an unconstructive problem to progress and to other editors' efforts has to be pointed out. So, keep your sanctimonious "reminders" to yourself. I disagree that the entire article is a biography therefore it's redundant to call a section "biography"....only part of the article is biography. But we don't have an article titled "Mathematical contributions of John Nash" because we merge that content because it isn't appropriate at this juncture to content fork. A man's life course is separate from any analysis or interpretation of the impact of his work, and warrant separate discretely organized sections. Calling the chronological/biographical narrative of the man's life "Biography" or "Life" is inconsequential as much as whether one opts to use Harvard citations or Chicago/Turabian. Such a semantic shell-game by you is a time waster, a cop-out to avoid accepting that the article is badly organized and could use a reorganization of its sections and their respective content as I propose--a reorganization which you have no rationale for opposition except what appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your opposition to a more logical and better flowing organization is problematic, however, and keeps the article in poor quality because of its lack of flow and disjunct organization. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss only edit, not editors. The article is a BLP. It will remain a BLP for up to two years following Nash's death; at which time it will be classified as a biography. Still a biography, which means having a biography section in a biography is redundant and unnecessary. The sections, as they are titled, are adequate and follow MOS guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• you always say MOS MOS but never specifically cite anything in the MOS. There's nothing in the MOS that disagrees with my proposal. Quite frankly,WikiProject Biography contributors would likely agree with my proposed reorganisation. I care little for your opinion, because you have obvious ownership issues. You've made your WP:IDONTLIKEIT views sufficiently known. Thanks for commenting, but your comments going forward aren't really necessary. Other editors will determine consensus and I look forward to their constructive, non-obstructionist suggestions. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you continue to discuss editors and editor behavior rather than editss, there is no point in continuing this. It's impossible to get anything done when one person in the conversation refuses to heed guidelines and policy. I note that you have not been here in Wikipedia very long, but that is no excuse for not understanding what makes for good edits and what doesn't. All of the information you need regarding the manual of style is at your fingertips, all you have to do is look for it. Start talking about edits and stop worrying about editor behavior and then we can get something accomplished. I'm sure you do have a lot that you can add to this article, however, continuing to talk about editors only shows you are more interested in drama rather than improving the article, hence, the encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Though it is common practice not to include a "Biography" heading, I do not believe that this practice is documented in the MOS. There are several FAs which have got a separate "Biography" heading, including Thomas Beecham and Laurence Olivier (where the corresponding section's entitled "Life and career"). I can see how the proposed structure would make sense here - in separating the abridged chronicle from his major contributions, which span his entire career and which we need to address at greater depth. Alakzi (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) That other articles have passed FA with a "Biography" section is not a valid argument. Wikipedia doesn't even allow its own articles to be used as sources because of the possibility of error. Just because other articles have it doesn't mean it's MOS, appropriate, or even a good practice. Errors happen -- before, during, and after FA. (2) I suggest keeping "Early life and education", "Personal life" as they are. "Career" should be stand alone with appropriate corresponding sub-sections to separate out various highlights within his career -- possibly with decade notation (1950s - 1960s, etc.). "Mental illness" is NPOV and the section should be changed. As it is "Struggles with mental illness" is POV. "Recognition" should be "Recognition and awards", in my opinion. "Death" should follow "Personal life". "Notable contributions" should stay as is ("Major" is POV unless there are reliable sources that refer to his contributions as such). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• WV you have really shallow understanding of the MOS and evince that likely haven't read most of it, completely misread WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and seem to just want to say "no no no" than be constructive. Have you ever brought an article to FA? Comparing an article needing improvement to a comparable FA or GA as a roadmsp is often good practice. If you think otherwise, i question your judgment. We do not need your relentless negative obstructionism. Other people have opinions without your relentless eagerness to offer your callow efforts to refute refute refute. If you're going to hold fast to refusal, just go away as that attitude will offer no good here.JackTheVicar (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to say it, JackTheVicar: Discuss edits, not editors. Once you start doing that, I (and likely others) will acknowledge your comments here that are about improving the article. Until then, what you have to say is going to be ignored by me and not taken into consideration at all. Like I said above, you probably have some good contributions to offer the article. Choosing to continue lambasting and insulting and personally attacking another editor completely negates any positive contributions you have to make. Your choice -- which way are you going to choose to go? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• WV, go away for 24 hours like you offered, spare us your nonsensical obstruction, and you'll come back and find the grownups will have a respectable conversation without you. Your obstructionist behavior is noisome. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• That other articles have passed FA with a "Biography" section is not a valid argument. That was not an argument for the inclusion of a "Biography" heading; considering that the MOS had been repeatedly cited above, I thought I'd make it clear from the outset that no guideline - that I know of - discourages or encourages the proposed structure. Alakzi (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support "Biography" It lets the reader know that this section will be chronological, starting with his birth and ending with his death. It distinguishes that material from the non-chronological discussions on his publications. Currently it is very, very confusing, and jumps around in the chronology. The article uses primary headers and then secondary headers, then back to primary headers for no reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that the article needs organization within sections and its chronology needs to be fixed. That said, even if you do have "Biography" (which I maintain you should not because it's redundant since the entire article is a biography), it's going to jump around with sections such as those suggested above at the top of this discussion. Obviously, the events and awards and the like listed aren't going to follow the chronology once the proposed Biography section is completed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your complaint here WV assumes that the sections will moved without appropriate revisions to the content. The article needs revising, and a comprehensive article will reflect that. The reorganization is just a first step. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Except the article has references, and categories, and an infobox, and a lede, and awards that are not part of the chronological biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

True, that. I was thinking within the framework of Recognitions and awards as a complete category. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support structure Look, @JTV's proposal above is stellar. Spine-chilling. I'm not overstating. But structure, and the content of the headings, can be separated into two discussions. I really disagree that § 1 should be called "Biography" (basically, for the reasons that @WV points out). Call it anything else. Call it "Life and times" (I jest).

Structure is the living skeleton on which we editors place our meat, hang our hats (WP:COATRACK notwithstanding). With a structure like this proposal, the article can be rapidly improved in the group environment in which we work.

A disciplined structure I believe (unlike some younger editors beliefs) expands our understanding of the flexibility of the article, gives us room to breathe and grow the article in the correct direction. It adds diversity, it does not hinder it.

I spent some time looking at other biographies here, including FAs. What JTV has going on here is best for this article, I think. "Form follows function." If this article ever reaches the massive mass of some FAs, the structure will be fine-tuned. That is for the future. For the present, I support this improvement.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the proposed new structure. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Note: At this writing, the above IP has made only three edits, all on the same day (counting the comment above) -- their contribution to consensus building in this discussion should be taken with a grain of salt (if at all). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I have been contributing to Wikipedia for about ten years. I have made thousands of edits. Many users, including me, do not have fixed IP addresses. Instead, addresses are assigned at the time of connection, and are constantly changing and being reassigned. Never assume that the list of edits against an IP address is complete, or that all edits belong to the same person. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I see. So, under what IP address(es) have you edited this article previously (that you would cause you to somehow end up at this article talk page to comment)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Anyone is free to comment in any thread on any talk page, whether or not they have contributed to the article. As a matter of fact, I opened the thread above "Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015". When I checked back on that thread, I saw this one and commented, as I am perfectly entitled to do, unless you want to change the rules of Wikipedia. 81.132.192.88 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC) True -- anyone is free to comment. That said, IP comments with only a few edits at that IP address are likely to be discounted because the comments are from an IP. In other words: few take a continually changing dynamic IP editor seriously. No accountability. Only in a perfect world with honest people everywhere, would no one raise an eyebrow at an IP. You have to understand that vandals, sockpuppets, harassers, those evading a block, etc. make up a lot of dynamic IP "editors" in Wikipedia. You say you've been here a while (who would know for sure, really? -- you say you are in England, but you could be using a proxy server) -- so why not just create an account? That way, no one will question your edits or comments in the fashion IP edits are looked upon with suspicion. It's a better way to connect with other editors and truly be part of the community. You won't have to make edit requests once your account is autoconfirmed. Personally, because there truly are real jerks out there, I think everyone who edits Wikipedia should have to create an account, but that's me. Wikipedia is a whole lot more friendly and accessible place when you have an account. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that, because of a book and a very popular movie (based on it), Nash is known for his "mental illness" and other quirks. But he is, as the Abel Prize committee described him, a mathematical giant. For a mathematician, the movie isn't the story, it is the mathematical results that matter principally. The question we need to answer: is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that focuses on the science or on the popular side of the story? Before the question is properly anwered, we will have confusions.Limit-theorem (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Circumstances of deaths of John and Alicia Nash

It's unfortunate that none of the articles I've read about this accident mention whether John and Alicia Nash were wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident. Ejection from a vehicle usually means that seatbelts were not worn. Autodidact1 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Autodidact1 : All the television reports mentioned that they did not wear seatbelts. If it's not in the print news coverage, I'd be rather surprised. Did you check nj.com? These have mentions of it: [10][11]. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The question should be: Did the taxi HAVE seatbelts. They do not always have them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that for the bio of a major mathematician there is so much focus on trivia attending his death and less on his contributions and work?Limit-theorem (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the same answer as at other articles where someone notable has just died: everyone without a sense of what an encyclopedia really is thinks People Magazine-style content is noteworthy and necessary. It's one of the reasons why an article sits unedited for long periods of time until the article subject dies. And then, suddenly, we get a surge of gotta scoop 'em editors who think they are breaking news reporters and Wikipedia is the medium for it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That's definitely true. But why it's true is rooted in a truer truth: Death is more significant to life than math is, even in mathematician bios. Nash was a rare product of math, schizophrenia and mainstream fame.

"Hollywood power couple, following epic rollercoaster relationship, ultimately die flying at ripe old age together, unhindered by restrictive laws; local man with exotic name held for questioning" has a certain mass appeal that "The Nash embedding system has many counterintuitive implications", while far more honest and concise, just won't muster, immediately after death or in ten thousand years. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)