Talk:John Vincent Atanasoff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Zuse

and no mentioning at all of Konrad Zuse ? first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer (Z3) in 1941

Dates of Life

I added the dates of birth and death back into the first paragraph even through these are now available in the info box as well. Formatting similar to Albert Einstein. The info box is a very nice touch though. Good work!

• Ok. I was formatting similar to Douglas Adams. I think they look fine in both places. --Ben Brockert < 01:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Nonprogrammable versus electronic

How about non-programmable, electronic, digital computer? That's what it was. The reason the ENIAC is still regarded as the first computer is because it's the first programmable (well Turing complete, to be precise) computer. Atanasoff did impressive, significant work, but the sweeping generalization first electronic digital computer ought to be modified with non-programmable or turing-complete in order to be most accurate and NPOV'ed. The sweeping statement sounds like something the John Atanasoff website might claim in their zeal to promote their man.

In any case, I love the info box (as I said before), but there is no need to revert Icairns change to reflect more factual accuracy. I have merged both of your changes. This makes the claim as simple as possible, but no simpler. There is no desire for an edit/revert war here, however. I'm just an outside observer just trying to be in the spirit of NPOV.

Happy editing.

-SocratesJedi 02:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could just use no capation or just a caption like "John Atanasoff in XXXX" like Albert Einstein's formatting (as I quoted above earlier). That might be an elegant way to deal with it and just let them read the article's text for a brief summary of the ABC-ENIAC dispute? I think it's a good solution. Thoughts? -SocratesJedi 02:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would claim that "electronic digital computer" is not overreaching, but accurate as a basic description. ENIAC, the machine most often cited in place of the ABC, was programmable in only the most rudimentary sense, requiring re-wiring to re-program. It didn't use a stored (paper tape) program like the Harvard Mark I relay logic computer, for example. And ENIAC used decimal rather than the more versatile ABC binary design. But I would agree that the more detailed description certainly should be in the text for clarity. --Blainster 05:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between the ENIAC and the ABC I thought I had learned while helping rewrite this is that of the Turing completeness of the ENIAC while the ABC seems more specific to solving Diff Eq's, wasn't it? I'm actually slightly concerned that the textbox is a bit too wordy right now, but I'm happy to leave it as it is until someone finds a better or more elegant solution to le problem de textbox. Anyway, if you have better ideas, be bold. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous February 8 2005 "multiple additions" was me. Thought I was logged in. I moved the 'non-programmable' bit to a subordinate place for now--Blainster 10:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

→ Seems the primary contributor has a real issue with Mauchly/Eckert? Probably not appropriate for NPOV -- after all, Atanasoff's machine was never even fully functional (which is why no patent), and the final ENIAC was dramatically different from the ABC. Atanasoff never even stepped up to make claims until the Honeywell lawyers cajoled him. Because this article is about him, his accomplishments should be championed, but not exaggerated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juela (talk • contribs) 06:42, August 14, 2006 (UTC)

This thread is over one year old. Your points have been addressed in this and associated articles on ENIAC and the ABC. --Blainster 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

George Stibitz references needed

Since we have something about the ENIAC controversy over the first person to actually build a computer, perhaps we should also have something about the controversy involving George Stibitz too? He designed a calculator that worked via relay switches which based on my preliminary research was built almost a full two years before Atanasoff released the ABC. I'll update this myself in a day or so (no time now), but if you're interested please do it yourself! I found information initially at: [1] ... So. Knock yourself out. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American-Bulgarian

Perhaps you can explain why the country order is in this sequence. Anyway, Atanasoff was born in the USA, so I redacted that term and put a note about his Bulgarian father in the awards section where it explains the attention from Bulgaria. --Blainster 11:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VMORO has reverted to Bulgarian-American without explanation. In the USA people born there are not usually regarded as hyphenated, unless there is a particular cultural context. That use is normally for immigrants (otherwise we would all be hyphenates!). This is not a big deal with me, and I see that he is frequently into revert wars elsewhere, so I will let it rest. --Blainster 22:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Odd Points of Interest

1) Did anyone read the bio of Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, who described his invention of the PCR reaction while cruising the Pacific Coast highway? Well John Atanasoff thought up his computer design in an incredibly similar fashion. Frustrated by his inability to solve the computer puzzles, he hopped in his car and drove absently drove ~200 miles in a frigid cold night from Ames past the Illinois border to a roadhouse. Here he stopped and once inside everything crystallized: the binary logic circuits, the regenerative refreshing of capacitor memory, etc. He realized that digital circuits were less affected by voltage fluctuations (errors) than analog circuits would be.

2) During John Mauchly's testimony at the patent trial, he cited his invention of a railway flasher as evidence that he had previously thought about a binary logic device!

Would either of these stories (from the Mollenhoff bio of Atanasoff) be of interest here? --Blainster 11:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Certianly interesting to me. Since they have cites, they would be good additions to the article. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just be sure to add the book under references if you add those stories. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Burks references make much of the railroad flasher. It was one of several extant Mauchly constructions presented at trial as the only remaining evidences of Mauchly's contemporary thinking about digital circuits; this and the other devices from the 1930s exist today (and still work!). Mauchly did not claim to have "invented" this device as Blainster writes above. Flip-flops and counter circuits were both widely known prior art in digital electronics in 1940 (having been invented starting in 1919): it is prima facie inaccurate to state that John Mauchly was unaware of digital electronics principles prior to meeting Atanasoff, and such was not the ruling of Judge Larson in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand. Robert K S 06:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Atanasoff and the NOL Computer

The popular biographies have glossed over some interesting parts of A's activities during the war. Von Neumann got him to head a project to build another computer, for NOL. Mauchly was actually a consultant to this project, and the information definitely flowed from Mauchly, not to him. The hardware lead on the project, Calvin Mooers, tells the story in the Annals. So I question the existing sentence in the wiki: " Mauchly visited Atanasoff multiple times in Washington during 1943 and discussed Atanasoff's computing theories, but did not mention that he was working on a computer project himself. Mauchly's own government work, he said, was too highly secret to reveal." Atanasoff had top security clearance.

1. "The Computer Project at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory," IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 51-67, April-June, 2001. (details Atanasoff's well-funded but unsuccessful second computer project in 1945-1946)

________

So I've updated the page to include the NOL computer.

Calvin Mooers goes into depth about A and M. He describes why they never built anything at NOL in 1945. Atanasoff was basically evading making any decisions on what type of computer to make. Apparently the engineers would ask for a decision and he would deliberately change the subject (Sometimes to the topic of making goat cheese, he recalls). A. never talked about his ABC to the staff at NOL, saying it was out-dated. I tend to agree. Von Neumann was not happy when he found out that Mooers had deserted the project. He pulled the plug.

Meanwhile, in reading about Atanasoff, I've learned that he was a very prolific inventor and had dozens of patents (just not any in computers.) For example in 1937 he invented a way to measure the viscosity of eggs without breaking them - using a pendulum. Should this be in the Wiki? --Zebbie 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alteration to Opening Paragraph

I do not agree that Atanasoff can be considered the father of the electronic digital computer in any real sense - if you consult sources other than Burks, the arguments against may become clear. I will reference my moderation to the opening paragraph in a couple of days when I have the necessary books to hand.--Deknyff 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is some difference of opinion, primarily with regard to whether the definition of the term "computer" requires programability, or did sixty years ago. But there are plenty of references other than Burks to support the assertion, from both detailed sources (Mollenhoff) and general references (World Almanac and Encarta). --Blainster 21:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I found and corrected a number of problems with the opening paragraph. In no sense was Atanasoff a "prominent computer scientist" in his lifetime, despite his invention of the first electronic digital computer at Iowa State and his brief tenure as head of an unsuccessful computer construction project for the Naval Ordnance Laboratory during World War II. The occupation "computer scientist" can't have been said to have existed in the mid-1940s; both Atanasoff and Mauchly are better described as physicists, which more accurately portrays their breadth of interests, researches, educations, employment positions, and job titles. With regards to the above remark, I agree with Blainster that there are additional sources that may refer to Atanasoff with the honorific "father of the computer"--but these sources may not hold to the standard of objectivity and neutrality we'd like to preserve in Wikipedia; the term "widely" presents problems I won't get into. Suffice it to say that more accurate and encyclopedic would be to cite the Honeywell v. Sperry Rand decision, wikilink to it, and use the judge's own language. Finally, no human can be the "father" of a computer in any literal sense. Would Clifford Berry be the "mother"? Robert K S 05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Parentage

It should be mentioned that ONLY his father was Bulgarian... It's HILARIOUS to put an USA citizen on the page that represents Bulgaria, come one now... you guys must have another brain to replace this scientist... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastermindsro (talk • contribs) 2007-04-29T12:23:57.

Fair use rationale for Image:John Atanasoff.gif

Image:John Atanasoff.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed, but could be improved by uploader with more specific information. Robert K S 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Rock Island

According to Iowa State lore, Dr. Atanasoff had his binary epiphany in Rock Island because it was the closest place to Ames that offered liquor by the drink (i.e., bars) in those days. The story is right there on his memorial plaque, but I don't know how one cites a plaque. Cranston Lamont (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"of Bulgarian origin"/"of Bulgarian ancestry"

Editors have been repeatedly inserting references to Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage in the lead of this article. First, the facts. Atanasoff was born near Hamilton, New York and raised in Osteen and Brewster, Florida before moving to Ames, Iowa and later to Maryland. He spoke with a soft Floridan accent throughout his life. Atanasoff had never been to Bulgaria, except once as an old man, in the midst of a larger European vacation to Germany, Yugoslavia, and Greece in 1970, when he spent a week in Sofia and another week touring the rest of the country, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences presented him with the Order of Cyril and Methodius (Mollenhoff 152). Atanasoff's name was of Bulgarian origin, but Atanasoff can not be said to have been, as Atanasoff was not from Bulgaria.

Can Atansoff be said to have been of Bulgarian heritage or ancestry? Only paternally: his father John emigrated to the U.S. at the age of 13.

Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage is such a miniscule part of his identity as a physicist, a teacher, and an inventor that it does not bear mentioning in the lead. Having a father who was from Bulgaria isn't what made Atanasoff notable; it is an incidental, not a defining, detail. I have no problem with a section of the article mentioning Atanasoff's late-life recognition by Bulgaria and his travels there, or his father's origin being mentioned. But the lead sentence? Pure boosterism. Robert K S (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Monshuai has re-added the "Bulgarian ancestry" to the lead once more with the following edit summaries: "Actually in his biography John Atanasoff states that he is a Bulgarian first and foremost. He was also a member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and a recipient of the C&M order. Furthermore Bulgaria was the first country to recognize him as the inventor of the digital computer. At the ceremony he said he was proud to be Bulgarian and honoured by the recognition. Defining!" What JVA said in his biography or in a speech for a Bulgarian audience (please produce citations for these, by the way) doesn't define his notability. He isn't notable for Bulgaria finding him to be notable. My problem with stating flatly and without qualification that Atanasoff was "of Bulgarian ancestry" is that it simply isn't true; Atanasoff's mother was not of Bulgarian ancestry. Since his ancestry is complicated by this fact, it can't be truncated and placed in the lead. Again, we should take no issue with the article describing Atansaoff's later-life identification with the Bulgarian people, who were kind to him and continue to cherish him as a national hero, if such an identification can be properly cited. But any boosterism Atanasoff may have himself displayed must not be transplanted into an encyclopedia article about him. Robert K S (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Apcbg reverts again with this edit summary: "Being Jewish American isn’t what made Leonard Bernstein notable; being Italian-American isn’t what makes Nancy Pelosi notable; yet that appears in their articles' leads." Let's deal with Pelosi first. Her lead sentence is currently "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi (born 1940-03-26) is currently the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives." This is a fitting lead, as it states simply what Pelosi is notable for without padding the sentence with irrelevant fluff. Only later, in the third paragraph of the lead, does it mention her ethnicity: "With her election as Speaker she is the first woman, the first Californian and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Here, the context is significant; she is notable for each of these firsts. A lead for Pelosi that was written something like "Nancy Pelosi is the Italian-American current Speaker of the House" muddles the point with irrelevant detail. As for Bernstein (whose lead sentence reads "Leonard Bernstein (1918-08-25 – 1990-10-14) was a Jewish American conductor, composer, author, music lecturer and pianist."), his upbringing in a Jewish family is not irrelevant to his work output (Kaddish Symphony, e.g.) and his career (Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, e.g.), and it is only one modifier that does not require extensive qualification. Leonard Bernstein is very much notable for being Jewish and for the influence that his heritage exerted on his music. [2] By contrast, his "Bulgarianishness" was not a factor in Atanasoff's work or career; he was not "raised Bulgarian"; he was not the "first Bulgarian" to accomplish any feat for which he was not also the first person; and his ancestry is complicated enough that it requires a caveat that taken all together distracts from the point. The Bulgarian-boosters don't seem to get it. This article is about writing a clear, concise description of John Atanasoff, it is not about assigning credit to a Bulgarian "native son" (whose "nativeness" requires more explanation than a single adjective in order for it to be completely truthful), and, by extension, to Bulgaria. I've come up with a lot of good reasons why mentioning Atansoff's ethnic heritage doesn't belong in the lead sentence, but those who keep restoring this absurdity haven't offered one good reason why it should be there, because in order to do so, they must answer this question: How did the fact that Atanasoff's father was from Bulgaria contribute to Atanasoff's invention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer? Robert K S (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One more point on this matter and then I'll have said enough. For those who are not aware, the Wikipedia Manual of Style has a clear guideline that speaks to this very issue. It says that the lead should mention the subject's nationality but that ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Robert K S (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is too hair-splitting. This article is not about the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, it's about Atanasoff. I don't say his ethnic ancestry must be in the first line, but your removing it from the lead section altogether is going too far, and seems to have more to do with your arguments with another user in this talk page here, and with your perception of possible Bulgarian-boosting rather than with the issue at hand. Indeed, you have failed to explain why don't you apply your approach to others i.e. How did the fact that Pelosi's parents were Italian-American contribute to her becoming Speaker of the House? How come Schwarzenegger's being Austrian-born is okay to appear in the very first sentence in his article? Some 'Austrian-boosters' probably? Sorry Robert, I am not going to reversals but, in my opinion, your double standards and attitudes are distinctly biased on this occasion. Apcbg (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger's Austrian birth is both relevant as his nationality and for his political career as it disqualifies him from the presidency per the U.S. Constitution. (It is also part of his overall superficial identity--his accent, his looks, etc. It would have been notable even had he never gone into politics. He was famously told, while still in his bodybuilder years, that he could never become a box office star because American audiences would not accept a foreigner in lead roles.) The Pelosi question is the wrong one; the point is that her Italian-American heritage did not hinder her from becoming Speaker of the House. Ethnicity and religion have always been of notable importance in American politics, because politicians in democracies must represent their constituencies in order to be elected to office, and the traditional constituencies are ethnic and religious. Persons from minorities ethnic, religious, or otherwise have a more difficult time achieving office. Ethnicity became less of an issue for European ethnicity constituencies (Irish, German, etc.) in the latter part of the 20th century as European immigration abated, but is becoming more of an issue for growing ethnic constituencies like Mexican-Americans (see, for example, Bill Richardson, whose article's first major section is rightfully "Lineage", or Mitt Romney, for whom "Religious background" is the second major section). In any case I would oppose mention of Pelosi's ethnic heritage in the lead sentence or lead paragraph of her article, despite the fact that she talks about her Italian family and upbringing in her stump speeches, because it would be a distracting detail until it was put in the context of her being the first Italian-American Speaker. I think I outlined this point pretty clearly above. I don't have any "arguments with another user in this talk page". I seek the same standards for all Wikipedia pages. Robert K S (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert K S, going by your logic Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is relevant as Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize his achievements. This reaches much further than your comparitively irrelevant statements regarding politcians whose ethnicity is defining since that's what got them into office. That is in no way even remotely as important as the fact that Atanasoff's ethnic background got him the Bulgarian support, both political and scientific, to be awarded the C & M medal for his achievements at an official ceremony in Bulgaria. Furthermore, this happened in the middle of the Cold War, and was regarded at the time as a gesture of scientific solidarity and peace that reached beyond the iron curtain in order to recognize the achievement of a beloved member of the Bulgarian diaspora. It was symbolic of the permeability between east and west and those ancestral ties that bound people across national borders and political spheres. That said, I will advise you to be very careful, for I deal with your type quite often and utilize the services of the Wikipedia administrators to overlook biased actions that do not represent NPV. Finally, when someone like Atanasoff defined himself as Bulgarian first and foremost at the award ceremony, it is clear that you are not the one who then decides that this is not important. As stated, his ethnic background stimulated his ethnic Bulgarian nation to support and honour his achievements when the USA still had not done so. It took the latter country another 20 years to follow in the footsteps of Bulgaria regarding this very defining act! This reality makes his ethnic Bulgarian ancestry exceptionally relevant, notable, defining and for all argumentative intents and purposes, crystallizing...--Monshuai (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The above by Monshuai has a number of fine points and a few confused statements. I'll deal with them one-by-one:

• "Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is relevant as Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize his achievements." I agree that Bulgaria was the first country to officially recognize Atanasoff and that such should be mentioned in the article. But is Atanasoff notable for having been recognized in the style of so many Paris Hiltons who are "famous for being famous"? No--he is notable for his work on the ABC and for his involvement as a witness in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand, which invalidated a patent that, if found enforcable, would have changed the face of the computer industry, as it would have given Sperry Rand and IBM a dual monopoly on the invention of the electronic digital computer. People have not written books about Atanasoff because he spent a couple of weeks in Bulgaria giving speeches, or because his father was from Bulgaria.
• "...irrelevant statements regarding politcians..." All of my statements involving politicians were intended to helpfully explain why User:Apcbg's counterexamples were not applicable. I agree that they are not directly relevant to how Atanasoff's ethnicity should be handled in this article. The "since that's what got them into office" statement shows a complete misunderstanding of what I wrote, actually inverting my argument. To repeat, from the Manual of Style: ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
• "...was regarded at the time as a gesture of scientific solidarity and peace that reached beyond the iron curtain in order to recognize the achievement of a beloved member of the Bulgarian diaspora..." If such a statement can be attributed and sourced (i.e., who said such a thing and where is it written?) then it would be a good thing to put in the article (minus the "beloved", which is POV, unless part of a direct quote, from Sendov or whomever else). Trying to compress such an idea into a statement of Atanasoff's ethnicity in the lead sentence, however, is both a disservice to the expression of the fuller idea and reads as boosterism ("Yay Bulgaria!"). I would also oppose any addition of such material that was unsourced and unattributed. "Was regarded", without saying who did the regarding, is pure peacock.
• "I deal with your type quite often and utilize the services of the Wikipedia administrators" We have a disagreement about how the lead sentence should be written. The way to resolve it is through discussion, which is what we're doing here. If you believe Wikipedia administrators will be able to assist and provide interpretation of the MoS section I've quoted, then I think you should bring this discussion to their attention.
• "...when someone like Atanasoff defined himself as Bulgarian first and foremost at the award ceremony, it is clear that you are not the one who then decides that this is not important." It is quite the contrary. Michael Jackson's lead does not read "Michael Jackson is the King of Pop"; Howard Stern's lead does not read "Howard Stern is the King of All Media". Self-proclamation is not a standard for an encyclopedia to follow. (Did John Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" make him a Berliner?) I have no problem with a section in the article that discusses Atansasoff's identification with the Bulgarian people--properly cited--but Atanasoff's opinion of himself doesn't determine the lead sentence of his article.
• "This reality makes his ethnic Bulgarian ancestry exceptionally relevant, notable, defining and for all argumentative intents and purposes..." Well, again, I ask, is Atanasoff's notable achievement that Bulargia gave him a medal, or is it that he invented a computer? Winston Churchill was awarded honorary American citizenship, but is he notable for that, or is he notable for his role as British Prime Minister during WWII? Notability is determined by the acts and accomplishments that celebrated individuals were awarded for, not for the awards themselves.

The article could be much improved with a section about Atanasoff's Bulgarian recognition. Why not channel your energies into writing that, rather than battling for Bulgarian boosterism in ways that are glaringly in violation Wikipedia guidelines? You seem to be an expert on this aspect on Atanasoff, and I might be able to assist. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor try, Robert. I'm not wasting my time, sorry you are unable to look objectively at your one-sided approach. Your desperate effort to demonstrate how special the cases of Pelosi and Schwarzenegger are really amuses me, for those were just two names that came to my mind; hundreds of articles on Americans of various origins mention ethnic ancestry in the lead section, often in the very first sentence indeed. So much for your POV endeavour. Apcbg (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pelosi and Schwarzenegger aren't special cases--they follow the MoS guidlines. Austrian was Schwarzenegger's nationality: he was born there. Italian isn't mentioned in the first sentence of Pelosi's article, and when it is mentioned, in the third paragraph of the lead, it's with regard to her being the first Italian-American Speaker of the House. Robert K S (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Pelosi is not Austrian, and Schwarzenegger is not Speaker of the House. And theirs, like hundreds of other articles on Americans of various origins mention ethnic ancestry in the lead section -- following the MoS guidelines no doubt -- yet Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry has no place in the lead. Your pretended explanations won't fool a baby. Apcbg (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Robert K S (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The difference is that they are all US nationals. Apcbg (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you find articles where you think the rule is being misapplied, you can post something to my talk page, and I'll go and argue the cases over there, too. The pages you mention are at present in conformity with the guidelines. (Austrian is a nationality for Schwarzenegger, and Pelosi's ethnicity is mentioned with regards to something notable about her--as it should be so in the Atanasoff article as well, in some deeper section, not in the first sentence.) That the guidelines may not be followed on some other pages is not a reason that they should not be followed here. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know of no such articles. The rule is well applied in all of them, it's only here that you are attempting to abuse the rule in order to suit your POV that Atanasoff's ancestry should be removed from the lead section. Apcbg (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If conciseness, relevance, and anti-boosterism are POVs, they are POVs I am happy to espouse. Cut the fat, get the to point, and don't use articles to further nationalistic agendas--that's what I'm about. Atanasoff was a physicist who built a computer and was involved in a notable commercial court battle. The Bulgarian recognition was an epiphenomenon. It's worth mentioning in the article, but it doesn't make Atanasoff's ethnicity directly relevant to his notability. I've said this six ways from Sunday and I'm still not sure which part of my logic you disagree with. Robert K S (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that liberal in applying labels or I might have said that yours is rather a 'nationalistic anti-Bulgarian boosterism'. Relevance? What's the relevance of your bringing in Bulgarian recognition in your response to my comment? I never even mentioned Bulgarian recognition. Your bringing it in is fallacy not logic — surely Bulgarian recognition is no reason for removing Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead section. Apcbg (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no anti-Bulgarianism in my observance of the MoS guidelines. I've repeatedly said I think Atanasoff's Bulgarian ties and recognition deserve deeper coverage in the article. I might even be able to assist in improving such sections. I was referring to the mobius-strip reasoning elaborated by Monshuai above in bringing up the Bulgarian recognition. According to Monshuai, Atanasoff's ethnicity is directly relevant to his notability because he was recognized by the Bulgarians for inventing the ABC. No, I say: he is not notable because the Bulgarians gave him a medal. He is notable for the thing that they gave him the medal for. If the Bulgarians never gave him a medal, this article would still exist. If he hadn't invented the ABC, it wouldn't. Any mention of Bulgarian anything in the first sentence of this article places undue weight on something incidental and can only serve to obfuscate and confuse. The new reader to this article shouldn't have to ask himself within the first sentence, "Wait, was this guy Bulgarian? Did he make something Bulgarian?"--he wasn't, and he didn't, and Bulgaria-boosting shouldn't be the focus of this article. Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the recognition given to Atanasoff by Bulgaria helped him win the patent dispute. The Bulgarian authorities researched his achievements and created a huge array of evidence to support his claim that he was the inventor of the world's first digital computer. This compilation of ethno-politically motivated evidence was used in the patent related dispute. Furthermore, it prompted the USA to do the same much later when he recieved a medal by George Bush Sr. In essence Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry helped him get the recognition he deserved. This is not about whether Bulgaria per se helped him invent the computer, but about the fact that his Bulgarian ancestry helped him achieve the status and official recognition that no one, including the American courts, would give him until the Bulgarian nation decided to lend a helping hand. Remember, the People's Court of Bulgaria recognized him as the winner in the patent dispute in order for him to be eligible for the order. As Monshuai said, this is indeed defining and notable without doubt, because this article may very well not have been written about Atanasoff if the "other" party had won the patent case without the support of the Bulgarians, their government and supreme court. Rober K S, I am not a Bulgarian so I don't know what your issues are with these people, nor do I car all that much, and I'm sure you are not a bad guy. However, what I can say is that it seems that you have something against the Bulgarians and therefore trying to hide Atanasoff's ancestral background. I'm sure you realize that this could get you into trouble since your arguments do seem biased and in my opinion not nearly as solid as those of Monshuai a few paragraphs ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.112.124 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gug. For the last time, I think the article could be improved with a section about the Atanasoff-Bulgaria connection, including his ancestry (properly explained, not just stuffed into the lead as boosterism), his recognition, and anything else that can be properly sourced. There's nothing anti-Bulgarian in keeping a lead that is in line with MoS and sticks to matters relevant to the subject's notability. Please provide a source re: the Bulgarians researching Atanasoff's case and assisting with providing evidence in HvSR. It's news to me and strikes me as a theory of the utmost unlikelihood given that the Bulgarians wouldn't have had access to any evidence that wasn't available to attorneys scouring file cabinets in Ambler, Ames, Philadelphia, and Maryland. Robert K S (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)This discussion thread went too messy; I wished Bulgarian recognition were deiscussed separately as it certainly can be no sound reason for removing Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead section.

Robert, your insistence that it's appropriate for hundreds of American biographical articles to have ancestry mentioned in the lead section, albeit not so for Atanasoff, demonstrates nothing but your biased attitude. As that attitude has already been amply demonstrated in your comments above, there is no need to continue. Subject closed. Apcbg (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As per MoS, ancestry should be mentioned in the lead of biographical subjects only for whom it is directly relevant to the subject's notability. I assert that Atanasoff's ancestry bears no direct relevance to his notability as a computer inventor and subsequent patent trial witness. Those who assert that it does have confused Atanasoff's recognition for his accomplishments with the accomplishments themselves as a reason for his notability. Apcbg's position seems to be that it's fine to include ancestry (which, for most Americans, including Atanasoff, is not as cut-and-dry as one national heritage) in the lead of biographical articles willy-nilly. The problem with this is that it promotes "claiming" and boosterism, which degrade the presentation of encyclopedic material. Robert K S (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not distort my position. I never wrote if 'it's fine to include ancestry'. I just observed the fact that ancestry is included in such leads (with less than cut-and-dry cases of three relevant nations involved too). Your idea that Atanasoff should be excepted to suit your selective boosterism sensitivity is ridiculous. I am really not wasting more time, and I trust that the present aberration would be corrected earlier or later as some reasonably neutral editors get involved; happens in Wikipedia all the time you know. Bye, Apcbg (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I misrepresented what you said. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it's possible that there are many other articles that do not conform to the MoS. You can post links to them to my talk page and I'll bring up the issue there, too. I've already explained why the examples you provided conform to MoS:

• His being brought up in a Jewish household is directly relevant to Leonard Bernstein's notability as he wrote (lots of) Jewish music and conducted an orchestra in Israel. Atanasoff did not make anything "Bulgarian" or do anything notable in Bulgaria, so his ethnicity is not directly relevant to his notability.
• "Austrian" is a nationality for Arnold Schwarzenegger; he was born there. MoS calls for an individual's nationality to be introduced in the lead of biographical articles. Obviously, for persons of complicated nationality (e.g. those who obtain citizenship in three or more countries throughout their lives), trying to cram all such information in the lead sentence may not be appropriate. In the case of Arnold, "Austrian-born" does not considerably complicate the lead. Maria Callas also fits this pattern. Her nationality is no more complicated than calling her "an American-born Greek". Atanasoff was not born in Bulgaria and was never a citizen of Bulgaria, so his nationality should be appropriately identified in the lead as "American", not "Bulgarian".
• Nancy Pelosi's ethnicity is not mentioned in the first sentence of her lead, and is only mentioned in the lead at all with reference to a notable achievement (being the first Italian-American Speaker of the House). No such similar reference can be made of Atanasoff. (He was not "the first Bulgarian-American" anything for which he was not also the first person.) Just as I would oppose Nancy Pelosi's lead reading "Nancy Pelosi is the Italian-American Speaker of the House", I oppose Atanasoff's lead reading "John Vincent Atanasoff was a Bulgarian-American physicist".

I can helpfully keep clarifying this as long as you have doubts or questions about my reasoning. I am disappointed that I have not satisfied you that I am interested in applying the rule across the board in an unbiased way. Robert K S (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something I posted in the conflict of interest discussion page that showcases Robert K S's biases:

Unfortunately 'YOU = (plural)' missed the point I was making. In the Nancy Pelosi article it states, "With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Indeed, the key words are, "[...]first Italian-American[...]" None of you criticized this, nor have you criticized such statements in other articles either. Yet according to your above arguments regarding Atanasoff, one can conclude that Pelosi's Italian background is also not the key to her notability. The fact that she is Italian was not "[...] the reason why [she] did/does great work". That quote and interpretation of MoS comes directly from EdJohnston. Or as Robert K S states, where is the evidence that because of "genetic heritage [...] they [she] were [was] notable for such-and-such accomplishments". Unfortunately his original statement examines Atanasoff's notability only, as he has firmly stated that it does not apply to Pelosi. As you can see I placed the words "[she]" and "[was]" in a direct quote from him in order to showcase his subjectivity by highlighting the fact that he should have applied his opinion and intepretation of rules to the Pelosi article as well, which he instead vehemently defended as an model article that adheres to MoS. That's where his bias is obvious and his anti-Bulgarianism apparent. From his support of the Pelosi article, one can only deduce that he feels Pelosi's genetic heritage is both the agent/catalyst and more importantly the undeniable reason for her achievements and notability. Said another way, he (and the rest of you involved in this herein discussion who support his bias) is/are saying that in fact her Italian heritage is the reason she became a notable human being. Your bias will be neutralized, and others who are indeed neutral will clearly see and at present do agree that the Atanasoff article should and WILL be treated the same way that the articles of other notable personas are treated. I will not allow you or anyone else to demonstrate hypocrisy and variable rules that are applied subjectively 'here and there'... The rules will be the same for each and every article! There are two options at this moment of time: (A) Either those other 'people' articles will be re-edited under the objective lens of a consistent editorial microscope, or (B) the Atanasoff article will have the Bulgarian-American portion included. Pelosi being the first Italian-American speaker is no more pronounced a truth than Atanasoff being the first Bulgarian-American scientist of prominence. He is also the first Bulgarian-American inventor who gained international notability and the first Bulgarian-American to receive the "United States National Medal of Technology, the highest U.S. honour conferred for achievements related to technological progress." Due to his achievements he is also many other Bulgarian-American firsts!--Monshuai (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

why not fix the Nancy Pelosi article instead of repeating the same mistake here? Be BOLD! harlock_jds (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Monshuai's remarks above, which are a welcome return to good faith discussion of the issue.

• I'm not going to say anything more about Nancy Pelosi or the others. I've outlined why I think she and the other examples fall within guidelines, so I don't plan on making changes to the other articles. If anyone believes that they are not within guidelines, then yes, as Harlock says, those issues should be taken to their respective articles' talk pages. Boosterism in one article is no justification for boosterism in another article; two wrongs do not make a right.
• Referring to Atanasoff as a "Bulgarian-American", in the lead or elsewhere, is a statement of limited honesty, as it neglects Atanasoff's maternal lineage. The only completely honest way to handle Atanasoff's ancestry is to say that he had a Bulgarian father. I think the article already does this well. If Atanasoff's mother's ancestors' lineages can be verifiably sourced, they can be added too. (One editor added that she was was of Irish descent, but when I asked that editor what his source was, he told me he had seen it posted to an Irish Nationalism message board [3].)
• If Atanasoff is indeed the first notable scientist of Bulgarian ancestry, and if such a statement can be attributed and verifiably sourced, I have no problem with such a statement appearing in the article. Does it belong in the lead? I'll leave that up for discussion. Does it belong in the first sentence of the lead? No. Books haven't been written about Atanasoff because he had a Bulgarian father. Books have been written about Atanasoff because he built a computer and testified at a patent trial.

Robert K S (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note is that i can not find any biographies that calls him a 'Bulgarian-American'... the strongest statement i can find is 'Bulgaria-Descended' (from www.johnatanasoff.com). Honestly i think this may be notable enough to include in the lead off section (reading something like American of Bulgarian descent, not 'Bulgarian-American') if it is true that he is the foremost scientist (or one of the foremost scientists) of Bulgarian descent (which i would agree is the case). harlock_jds (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

johnatanasoff.com is a source with a boosterism agenda: "Modern Bulgarians need, among many other things, a well-grounded national confidence. The source of self-confidence is our history and the talent of people with Bulgarian blood in their veins." [4] Is Atanasoff notable for inventing a computer and testifying in a patent trial, or for having a Bulgarian father? Is the mission of Wikipedia to forge unbiased, neutral-point-of-view content, or to bring self-confidence to Bulgarians? If Atanasoff's Bulgarian descent is to be mentioned, and an Irish nationalist "claims" Atanasoff through his mother, does the lead then become "John Vincent Atanasoff was an American physicist of Bulgarian and Irish descent? If Atanasoff's mother had both Irish and English ancestry, do we now list three ethnicities? The objective way to handle ethnicity, the way that prevents unfettered multiplication of nationality name-checks, the way to keep an article free of boosterism, is to follow the MoS guideline. Robert K S (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

my point was that even a site pushing the Bulgarian/Atanasoff connection didn't refer to him as 'Bulgarian-American' so I don't see how this article could ever do so. As for the rest we'll agree to disagree, clearly the fact he had a Bulgarian ancestor is relevant in his life and i don't mind it being mentioned in the lead (as it is one of the first things you learn about him when reading about him) but i don't feel strongly enough about it to push it into the article, esp since it's mentioned later on. I'm not sure why his mother keeps on coming up... clearly she wasn't a recent immigrant to the US and her ansestory isn't notable enough for even a passing mention in any source i can find (except for how long her family had been in america).harlock_jds (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "it is one of the first things you learn about him when reading about him"--this depends on what you mean by "one of the first things". In the book that deals most personally with Atanasoff (Mollenhoff), it shows up at the end of a foreward and then again in chapter 2. In many technical articles that give brief biographical sketches of Atanasoff, it is not mentioned at all. In boosterish presentations of Atanasoff, it is highlighted foremost, as if having Bulgarian heritage is the most siginificant thing about Atanasoff. This is the type of skewed presentation I've specifically been combating. Since the lead was scanty in comparison to the whole article size and deserved to be extended per the MoS guidelines on lead sections, I've added a paragraph to the article which develops Atanasoff's career and recognition and also mentions Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage. Robert K S (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It has already been shown that throughout Wikipedia many articles exist that describe Chinese-Americans, Italians-Americans, African-Americans etc where the notability of the person is in no way more related to his/her ancestral lineage than that of John Atanasoff. Various administrators working on said articles agree across the board that these peoples' ethnicities as XYZ-Americans must be mentioned in the articles. Even so, a few people here such as Robert K S have shown a very biased attitude towards Bulgarians, and therefore believe their perspectives should only be applied to this article and not to others. Thus it is their view that it's not OK to call someone a Bulgarian-American, but it is OK to call someone else a Chinese-American or an Italian-American. This is evidence that they simply do not want to get into heated debates with editors and administrators of other nationalities, especially those whose lineages stem from larger countries. Why is that? Are they intimidated by bigger countries whose Wikipedian populations have significant human ressources and therefore more influence and ability to defend their perspectives? Does Robert K S therefore enjoy mutilating the articles of small countries such as Bulgaria simply because he feels there won't be as much opposition to his prejudiced actions? Or does he just have something against Bulgaria, its people and its national heroes? It should be of no surprise that Atanasoff is indeed a Bulgarian heroe. Kids learn about him in school, TV programs highlight his professional achievements and year after year people in the country celebrate his birthday. There are Bulgarian books written about him and even the yearly national John Atanasoff Science and Technology Award given to talanted researchers in Bulgaria. Strangely, Robert once said that there were no books written about Atanasoff in Bulgaria. This shows that he simply says things without having the least bit knowledge of the Bulgarian language and therefore minimal concept of what Bulgarian literature exists regarding its national heroe(s). Does this sound like an objective and impartial Wikipedian editor? See his above comments for more information and judge for yourself. Anyway, more intriguing is the fact that the only momument built in Atanasoff's honour also resides in Bulgaria. It has no counterpart elsewhere in the world, including the USA. The said statue was erected specifically in his ancestral country because he is notable for being the first Bulgarian-American to become a globally famous inventor and scientist. That is also why Bulgaria was the first country to recognize his invention and bestowe him with the first national award for his scientific achievements, the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius a striking 20 years before America did so. One should also note that the only institutions and streets named after him are in Bulgaria, not in America. Indeed it is obvious that his connection to Bulgaria is much stronger than the connections other famous personas have with their ancestral lands. It should also be noted that the Bulgarian populace has largely helped make Atanasoff famous. This is not only because they supported and recognized him as the inventor of the digital computer before anyone else did so, but also because through their actions Atanasoff's name has been repeated in national media outlets. Everybody in Bulgaria knows his name and can list his achievemments, while no one in the USA , excluding a fraction of the IT oriented professionals there, has even heard of him. Robert K S may not like to admit this, but his actions thus far are extremely partial. Perhaps he needs to edit Michelle Kwan's article, remove any mention that is Chinese-American and then move on to a few thousand other ones before he comes back to this one.--Monshuai (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai's arguments still boil down to "Atanasoff is beloved in Bulgaria, therefore his ethnicity is germane to his notability." The nation of Bulgaria did not assist with Honeywell v. Sperry Rand and played no role in that trial. I'm not going to spend a tremendous amount of energy debating this further, but will, instead, summarily revert boosterism and will continue to request the temporary full protection of this article. Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't blindly revert edits to this article, and please don't continually "request the temporary full protection of this article" - that's just being disruptive and you'll end up blocked. It's pretty obvious from the above discussion that this is a content dispute. If you cannot come to agreement, at least go down the path of dispute resolution - Alison ^❤ 00:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, this is not a content dispute. It is uncontested that Atanasoff was a Bulgarian American. The question here is, is this article going to adhere to guidelines designed to keep articles free of boosterism, or is it going to be a boosterism piece? Robert K S (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening to a word I'm saying here. In short; quit using rollback inappropriately and quit repeatedly requesting full-prot at WP:RPP - Alison ^❤ 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, I ask that you retract the above, which portrays me as having repeatedly used rollback to revert Monshuai, when in fact I did so once. Someone reading this thread in the future might get the wrong idea without checking the edit history. Robert K S (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It does no such thing. You misused the rollback function in a content dispute. Please don't do that again - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm - and this and this count as multiple abuses of Rollback on the John Vincent Atanasoff article - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out that since I posted the above comment, Robert K S has made two revert edits without responding to my premise and/or contributing to the discussion page in any way, form or fashion. The information/analysis I provided above was intended to clarify the current predicament and apparent revert war that Robert K S seems to want to start or has seemingly already started. He has also been using coercive tactics to intimidate Wikipedian editors who don't agree with him by "telling" them that he will have this article locked unless they accept his prejudices. Upon careful evaluation of the situation and after conducting an analysis of the edit dynamics over the last 2 years, it would seem that Robert K S has assumed that he owns this article. His behaviour is a clear example of the disruptive territoriality described in WP:OWN. Luckily, administrators who look into the article will be able to compare reverts made with or without contributions to this discussion page. As such it serves as primary evidence detailing the evolution of the circumstances at hand. In other words, some editors follow the rules and clarify their positions before making edits, while others such as Robert K S do not do so when the evidence is stacked against them. They simply make threats! Such behaviour clearly does not live up to Wikipedian ideals.--Monshuai (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that and I'll say to both of you, please don't edit war over this or you will be blocked per policy. Note that the '3' part of 3RR is not a requirement for being blocked; disruptive edit-warring is. Both of you need to resolve this here - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I am neither American nor Bulgarian.) I have read all of the claims above. I have also taken about 20 minutes to check Atanasoff as he is treated on the Internet. I am keepng in mind that I am only seeing articles available in English (and could not read them in any other language, except French, even if they were available.) The WP:MOS section that is linked above appears to be quite clear: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Well, clear for WP; "should" and "generally" allow for there being exceptions, without establishing any guidelines for such exceptions. Nothing about what made Mr Atanasoff notable had anything to do with Bulgaria. Bulgaria did acknowledge some of his work before the same acknowledgement came in America. The country claimed him first. Bulgaria has also, according to some of the preceding statements, given him greater prominence than has occurred in the US. However, the fact that he is well (or, at least "better") known in Bulgaria has nothing to do with basis for his notability. Atanasoff was born in the US, educated there, and did his research there. There is nothing of Bulgaria in his work, and it is for his work that he is known. I can find nothing that says he spoke, read or wrote Bulgarian, or that he was even in the country except very near the end of his life. Unless I missed something, I would tend to agree that Bulgarian-American in the lede is stretching the matter, as is the use of a Cyrillic version of his name. To put this lengthy reference to his ethnicity in the lede gives it undue weight. Bielle (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion Bielle, especially so because you have presented it in a very polite manner. Still the question remains, what do you think of the thousands of other Wikipedia articles and their respective administrators who have allowed African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, etc to be presented in the leads of articles when a majority of personas therein have even less connections to their ancestral lands than John Atanasoff? Thanks again Bielle. :) --Monshuai (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The usual answer to such a question is a blunt reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, except that its subsection on precedence in usage suggests that there is sometimes merit in checking to see how articles with similar concerns have handled the question. I am just speaking of the lede for both Atanasoff and the other examples below. Some examples of "Hyphenated Americans" given in the preceding sections are: Leonard Bernstein, born and educated in the US, is in his WP lede an "American composer, conductor"; his Russian Jewish ancestry comes up only in the following section about his early life. Nancy Pelosi's only identification as "Italian-American" is a qualifier in the lede to her list of firsts. (I don't know enough about American politics to be sure, but perhaps not giving her nationality is because all members of the US Congress have to be US citizens.) Michelle Kwan who was born in the US is identified in the lede as an "American figure skater", with a pinyan name; both her parents were from Hong Kong. Arnold Schwarznegger is different in that he is identified in the lede as "Austrian American"; however, unlike all the others, he wasn't born in the US, but in Austria, and was schooled in Austria; he didn't come to the US until he was 21. So far, calling Atanasoff "American" in the lede is consistent with the examples. I don't know about "hundred" or even 'thousands" of others, nor do I have the time to check for that many. I have looked at: Werner von Braun (born in the "German Empire" and came to the US as an adult) is "German American"; Henry Kissinger is a "German-born American" having been born in Bavaria and naturalized as an American in 1943; Danny Kaye appears as "an American . . ." though his parents were Ukrainian Jews; Shing-Tung Yau is a "Chinese American mathematician" who was born in China; Danny Thomas is an "American . . ." born in the US to Lebanese parents; and, last, because it is late and the list I could check is almost endless, Rita Wilson an "American actress" born in the US to a Bulgarian father who was born in Greece and a Greek mother.

The precedent appears to be that the form "XXX American" is used in the lede when the subject was born somewhere other than the US. When the subject was born in the US, the form in the lede is simply "American". This isn't a personal argument for me. If the examples I have pulled at random are not representative, then that will become clear soon enough. If they are, then I would suggest that Mr Atanasoff be a plain "American" in the lede, and his Bulgarian heritage be given proper weight in the sections on his background. If we knew his mother's ethnicity, we could credit that, too. Bielle (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's List of Chinese Americans defines the meaning of the term. It clearly states that Chinese Americans are "original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants." The word "descendents" seems to be rather clarifying! A few examples below:

-Michael Chang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chang (It clearly states in the lead section that he is Taiwanese American even though he was born in the US.

-Anna May Wong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_May_Wong (Clearly states that she is a Chinese-American actress in the lead even though she is born in Los Angeles, California)

As you can see Bielle, you are incorrect when you say that those born in America are not called XXX-Americans. I am not sure how you could have missed this.

The fact of the matter is that I have no problem saying that John Atanasoff is an American physicist in the first sentence as long as it is stated in the second or third sentence that he is the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in the fields of science and technology in the USA. This is no different than the case of Nancy Pelosi being the first Italian-American to be a Speaker of the House. It should also be known that I suggested this to Robert K S over a year ago, in essence proposing a compromise, call it a partial departure, from both of our original positions. I will kindly extend this offer to him one more time in the hope that he will be more reasonable than he was in our past discussions.

I will be listing many examples of XYZ-Anericans tomorrow. What I've given above is just the tip of the iceberg or the icing on the cake if you will. As for now it's time for me to go to bed. Good night or good day wherever you all may be.--Monshuai (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

“Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” If Atanasoff’s notability did not derive from his being Bulgarian American, then it did not derive from his being American either. Therefore, it is equally appropriate or not so to mention that he was an American or that he was a Bulgarian American in the lead. As it is not disputed that he was Bulgarian American, that ought to be mentioned in the article’s text I believe, if not in the lead then perhaps at the point saying that his father immigrated from Bulgaria.

“... is stretching the matter, as is the use of a Cyrillic version of his name.” His Bulgarian family name is originally written in the Cyrillic alphabet; I cannot see what’s wrong in including this information in the article, and the usual place for that seems to be just after the first occurrence of the name, together with the IPA transcription to which it is relevant. Apcbg (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Apcbg "Ethnicity" is different from "nationality". Atanasoff's nationality is American, and that is what appears to belong in the lede. As for using "Bulgarian American" in the same place it says that his father emigrated from Bulgaria, that's unnecessary duplication: one or the other, but not both, would be this editor's choice.

@Monshuai I think I already noted I had made a random selection of names, and fully expected there would be counter-examples. I was only surprised I did not find any in my research. I am struggling here to articulate what appear to be the differences, because there are differences, even if it isn't as simple as "born in the USA". It is something like the fact that the subjects are given two affiliations where both are significant in what has made them be notable. For the actress Wong, for example, the fact of her Chinese (and Asian) roots are significant in what she achieved, in what she was "permitted" to achieve. For the tennis-player Chang, his Taiwanese roots made him a visibly unusual figure in American, and even world, tennis circuits, so that his ethnicity was well recognized during his career. This would also be true of all, or almost all, African Americans. And Nancy Pelosi's political campaigns, as I recall, had a focus on her Italian heritage. What is there about having had a Bulgarian father that had any visible or acknowledged or known or even suspected effect on Athanasoff's notability?

I suspect there are enough inconsistencies in WP that we'll soon have a list too long to read, and have proven nothing that we have not already said. So, when looking for precedents has given us no clear answer, the only WP guidance remains “Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” As for saying that Athanasoff "is the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in the fields of science and technology in the USA", we would have to have a reliable source saying just that before we could include it. Bielle (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

@Bielle, you believe that for people such as Anna May Wong ethnicity is notable because of "what she was permitted to achieve." In essence, you are suggesting that race plays a part here. Your premise is that those people of non-white racial backgrounds can be called XXX-Americans, while those who look similar to the majority do not have this right. I hope you see the irony in your statements. After all, you are valuing the notability of people's ethnic affiliations based on how others, and yourself, subjectively judge/view their physical appearance. You further highlight your perspective by saying that Michael Chang was a Taiwanese American because he was a "visibly unusual figure". Again, your message is that those who look different should be treated differently. Let me repeat this because I find it unbelievable: The more white and thus the less "visibly unusual" an American person looks, the less they can be called an XXX-American because that, in your words, makes their ethnicity less important and less notable. Your conclusion is that whiter looking people are more American, and thus less XXX-American. Do you see the problem there? I realize it's not your intention, but that perspective is about as subjective and non-scientific as it gets. Not only is it a prejudiced way of "seeing" things, it is also confusing the concept of an ethnic background with that of a so-called racial background. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. Likewise, ethnic affiliations and the notability of those affiliations is not directly tied to physical appearance.--Monshuai (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai I would ask that you reconsider carefully what claims you have made above about what I believe. Most of what you have written needs to be deleted and the rest moderated. It is full of outrageous commentary and vile accusations that are only tangentially related to what I have presented. You have me taking some racist position that I didn't say and do not espouse. I was telling you what I found on WP, not what I believed or what I thought "ought to be" in any social sense. Indeed, it is not only "not my intention", it is not even in the same universe of possible intentions. It does appear to be true that those who are visibly identifiable as belonging to a specific ethnic group, even when born in the USA, appear to be more likely to have a description of "XXX American". In many cases, what these people have achieved, given the racial tensions in America in the 19th and 20th centuries is all the more significant because of what they had to overcome to get there. That is in keeping with the directive that ethnicity is included when it is a factor in the subject's notability. Nowhere do I claim that it is right or just that ethnicity should be such a factor; nowhere. I am observing what I have read in article after article. It is your conclusion (not mine) that this means that "whiter looking people are more American", and it is complete nonsense, unscientific and subjective. I am not confusing either race or nationality with ethnicity. You have completely mis-stated my comments and, in doing so, have furthered no discussion with respect to the concern at hand. If Atanasoff's ethnic heritage is in some acknowledged way pertinent to his scientific achievements, then his heritage belongs in the lede. Otherwise, to the extent that we have reliable sources to confirm his heritage, it belongs in the section(s) on his background. Bielle (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, your tone sounds very threatening, whereas I have been rather polite and I specifically stated that I do not believe critical points of your statement were intentional. Look it up! Further still, if you believe that I have misrepresented your statement then you need not worry. After all everyone can read it and judge for themselves. On top of that, it is most certainly not your right to censor anyone whose opinion you do not agree with. That's unacceptable, especially since it seems to me that you are using your emotional reaction as both an excuse and incentive to disregard the flaws in your own argument. You see, as a Wikipedian I have a responsibility to analyze what you have written and deduce what I feel are your intentional, or in this case unintentional assertions. You clearly talk about observable physical differences and tie them into your concept of notability. Did you really expect that I wouldn't notice? Simply put I have used your statement to show that what you have written is in fact ironic and not very well articulated. Speaking of that I am roused to ask three related questions: (1) Did you not say that you were struggling to articulate the differences between someone such as a US born Bulgarian-American and a US born Chinese-American? (2) Was your follow-up comment not anchored in the concept that there are such differences? (3) Did you not then characterize Michael Chang as being a "visibly unusual figure"? I'd hate to state the obvious, but you are applying two sets of rules to two ethnic groups. In other words, you are using what intellectuals often refer to as contradictory principles, otherwise known as double standards. Based on this evidence, it is apparent that you are frustrated simply because you are pulling at breakable strings when sculpting your argumentative basis, which is both a symptom and a consequence of using the said double standards when attempting to prove your points and not the direct result of having to deal with someone such as myself who has the ability to critique what you have written in the first place. By telling me that my comments should be erased you are in effect suggesting that Wikipedia should not have free speech and/or contributors with advanced reading, comprehension and debating skills lest someone have the ability to point out where you are mistaken. Well guess what Bielle, I will not stand for that. So here comes another critique courtesy of myself... Your bullying tone and your conviction that censorship is an appropriate tool in Wikipedia, shows me that you (A) do not consider the perspectives of others to be equally valid or deserving of public recognition as your own, and (B) that you were not objective from the onset of entering this debate. Nor have you satisfactorily justified your use of double standards for one ethnic group relative to another. Why should Bulgarian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans etc be treated differently in Wikipedia? Is that not a form of prejudice and/or discrimination in itself? I should also make you aware that I have composed a lengthy rebuttal disproving your other points as well, which shall be posted later in the discussion as a positive mechanism to evolve our understanding of the matters at hand and thus make this dialogue maximally crystallizing. Finally, should you feel the urge to threaten and attempt to intimidate me again, first take a deep breath and then take note of the fact that on three separate occasions I have specifically said that I do not accuse you of deliberate partiality. However I do hold you responsible for not identifying, correcting or even admitting it. We are all guilty of making mistakes. That is without question! It is however up to us to not be guilty of making them a second, third or fourth time. My advice to you, please be cultured and kind enough to keep this a civil discussion and do be more vigilant when composing your next reply.--Monshuai (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading through this discussion, I'm becoming increasingly embarrassed of being Bulgarian myself. The point that Atanasoff's relationship to Bulgaria is circumstantial, and not really linked to his notability, has been clearly explained by both Robert K S and Bielle. Meanwhile, Monshuai's contributions, while admirably passionate, are often condescending (how is telling someone "I deal with your type quite often" conducive to holding a sensible discussion?), and altogether biased. In the summary of one of your recent edits you say This time as many Bulgarians will be mobilized as need be to overcome prejudice. Maybe if enough of the Chinese Communist Party was "mobilized" it could edit the article on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 so as to to "overcome prejudice"? I know that's probably an inappropriate example, but my point is that the question at hand is a pretty objective one. In an ideal world where emotions or personal affiliations did not play a role, the answer shouldn't depend on the nationality of the person answering. The points made by both sides have been hammered to death so I won't reiterate them. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, and according to the vast majority of examples presented, and according to an independent observer (i.e. someone whose priority is simply to accurately inform the readers of Wikipedia), there is no clear justification to call Atanasoff "Bulgarian-American". There is also definitely no justification to have his name spelled out in Bulgarian after his actual name. He obviously didn't have a Bulgarian passport or any other such document, and I don't see why the Bulgarian spelling would be either informative or relevant to any given reader.

After numerous transitions Bulgaria seems to have a somewhat confused self-identity, which may be typical of a small country that is relatively unknown. In order to overcome this, we as a nation have selected a number of entities upon which we base out national pride. Some of the main ones are:

• Yogurt: apparently ours is world-renowned. It definitely is different to regular yogurt, though surprisingly the only places where people seem to have heard of it are Japan and Korea - some company or other has done an unusually good job at marketing it there.
• World Cup 94: after a lot of blood, sweat and tears, we beat Germany to come 4th.
• A folk song by Valya Balkanska is one of just 27 pieces of music sent into space on the Voyager Golden Record, which is really quite a good accomplishment in terms of representing us to the universe.
• We sent two men, Georgi Ivanov and Aleksandar Aleksandrov, into space...well, technically, Russia did the "sending into space" bit.
• John Atanasoff, the guy who invented computers, was Bulgarian. At least that's the notion instilled in most children from a young age in order to get them feeling patriotic - later on some go on to find out in fact he was only sort of Bulgarian.

I know this list might seem irrelevant, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that there is comparatively little to grasp at in terms of defining ourselves to the world. Therefore it's only natural that we try to really milk any of these achievements for everything they're worth (esp. yogurt). There's nothing wrong with feeling patriotic and reminding ourselves that some good things have come out of our country, and telling our friends about it. But there's no point in stretching the truth so far that it undermines Wikipedia's commitment to objectivity. It's just not the right place. Maybe instead of wasting our time in revert-wars we should instead concentrate on doing something notable ourselves? Tomatoman (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman, I value your opinion even though I do not agree with it. You see, unlike Bielle, the person you refer to as being neutral, I do not want to censor those with whom I disagree. More on this later, as first I want to cover your other comments. You say that Bulgarians are instilled with a sense of Atanasoff being Bulgarian. You make it sound as though the populace is indoctrinated. The problem with that notion is that Bulgaria has not been controlled by a Communist oligarchy for more than 20 years now, and therefore its populace have access to the outside world including all the global media that any other populace has access to. In other words, the information at their disposal is no less complete than that of other "free" and "democratic" nations. Thus your primary premise is defective. Also your example of Tiananmen square is not directly applicable to the situation at hand. The Communist Party of China attempts to censor information about the politically motivated massacre, similarly to how Bielle attempted to censor my comments. That is the only connection I see herein and not the one you implied. As I stated earlier you suggested that Bielle was the objective observer, simply because he/she says she is. I imagine you realize that this is no way to evaluate neutrality. What is required is a retrospective analysis of what this person has written. When that is done it is clear that Bielle (A) believes that censorship of opinions she/he does not agree with is a correct course of action, like your "beloved" Chinese Communist Party and (B) that these opinions are thus less valuable than her/his own. She/he also applies double standards when considering descendents of different ethnic groups born in the USA. The reason for this is because she claims they are "visibly unusual". Does that demonstrate Bielle's neautrality? Further more, the administrator involved in the discussion clearly noted that both sides made good points and this was in her opinion a content dispute. Did you fail to read her statements as well or did you simply feel that the administrator's comments are not important? She was the actual objective and neutral observer and therefor I am continually puzzled as to why you chose to not mention her. You also suggest that Atanasoff should not be written in Bulgarian, even though it is Wikipedian policy to write transliterated names in the language from which they originate. Atanasoff like it or not is a Bulgarian name. In conclusion, your scrutiny of the dynamics herein is at best an incomplete one. You also mention that the "vast majority of examples presented, and according to an independent observer [...Bielle...] (i.e. someone whose priority is simply to accurately inform the readers of Wikipedia), there is no clear justification to call Atanasoff "Bulgarian-American". Clearly you have not looked at those examples as they have demonstrated the opposite of what you conclude. In other words the use of Chinese-American, Taiwanese-American, Italian-American, African-American etc is applied even to those born in the USA. I should also paraphrase you that you feel increasingly embarassed to be Bulgarian. Tell me, are always so lacking in self esteem that you judge an entire nation based on comments you disagree with on Wikipedia? When and if you reply please cover all points from my response, including the points I made in my previous two comments.--Monshuai (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, I will gladly oblige in covering all points from your response:

• My statement about Bulgarians' perception of Atanasoff was slightly tongue-in-cheek, and you took it out of context. I was pointing out the fact that his ancestry is a matter of great national pride, and that some people may take this notion too far.
• At the time at which I wrote the above, I was not aware of Alison's contribution below. In fact, it was posted after mine, so I'm not sure why you expect me to have read it. Alison clearly finds your comment towards Bielle unreasonable, as do I. Bielle's words never meant what you're implying that they meant. Stop pretending like you're a victim of her "censorship" or whatever, you're starting to sound like a toddler throwing a fit - don't embarrass yourself.
• The way I see it being "visually different" clearly has, over the years, had implications on the way people have been treated in society. The fact that until quite recently African-Americans officially belonged to a different social class purely because of their appearance is a case in point. The same cannot be said about "Bulgarian-Americans". While I have just made a purely factual statement, based on your previous comments I fear that you may misconstrue what I just said as racism.
• The purpose of my comment about the CCP editing the Tiananmen square article was to illustrate that an article's content shouldn't reflect what the majority of editors (or the most boisterous ones) believe to be true. It should reflect what the actual truth is. Thereby getting more people to edit it one way that another is hardly a valid way of achieving objectivity.
• Regarding the Bulgarian spelling of a surname of Bulgarian origin, I went down your preferred route and looked up the articles on a couple of people who were in a similar "situation". Incidentally, they were Bernard Madoff and Frank Wilczek and neither of their names are spelled out in the original spelling of the country the surnames originate from. I'm sure counter-examples exist, but the fact is that many (in a way, almost all) Americans are descendants of immigrants, and giving the original spelling of their surnames in every case seems a little over the top. I agree that it ought to be done for people born actually outside the US, but Atanasoff wasn't one.
• The point you bring up again about XXX-American was covered thoroughly, and without bias, by Alison. I refer you to her post. Tomatoman (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You failed to read what Alison wrote above, not below. That is what I was refering to. Look again and you'll see that Alison made comments a full day before you entered this discussion. The very fact that you missed this tells me that you didn't read very much of what was stated above and therefore assumed a righteous position in this debate without having looked at all the evidence presented thus far. Also from Alison's comments below (the ones you refer to) it is clear that she agrees with what I wrote a day ago about the Bulgarian-American connection. To summarize, on October 6th I stated that I accept Atanasoff being called an American physicist as long as later it is stated that he is the first Bulgarian-American to win the US National Medal of Science and Technology and thus the first to achieve prominence in the USA. In fact I suggested that this is how Atanasoff should be presented approximately 1 year ago. Had you taken the time to investigate you would have known this. This is what I have been talking about all long and I'm glad that Alison considers this to be acceptable.--Monshuai (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood the reference you were making to Alison's comments. That was partly because the ones she made above did not seem quite as significant as you are making them sound. She said she supports him being called "Bulgarian-American", but that that is not directly relevant to his notability, and should therefore not be in the lead. I also can't seem to find your reference to where she says that the medal of S&T should be mentioned in the lead - could you point me to the concrete quote? I do admit that I'm a late-comer to this discussion, and a corollary of that is that while I'm broadly familiar with the premise, I can't keep everything I've just read in my mind all at once. Thanks for your patience and for taking the time to look into this! Tomatoman (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just had a couple of further thoughts, and mainly I wanted to preempt something. You may be tempted to argue "if Nancy Pelosi deserves being called the first Italian-American to be a speaker of the house, then why shouldn't we call John Atanasoff the first Bulgarian-American to win the national medal of science and technology?" However you argue it, I don't see how the medal causes someone to "achieve prominence" in quite the same way as being speaker of the house does. I'm not saying that winning the medal is a minor thing in any way, but a relatively large number of people have got it. Looking through the list, it doesn't seem to me like the medal really worked as a catalyst for the public profile of any of them. In other words could you, off the top of your head, name anyone other than Atanasoff who's got that medal? And did you find out about them because of the fact they got the medal, or independently of it? My mind isn't 100% made up on this, but considering the present information, I'd say that mentioning the medal in the lead is not necessary (as Alison indicated through her edits). The other thing I wanted to mention is a correction of my point about name spelling and Frank Wilczek - the Polish spelling of his name would of course be the same as the English, so the point I tried to make is void. Tomatoman (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that "a relatively large number of people have got" the United States National Medal of Technology, whilst comparing it to the number of people who have been Speakers of the House of Representatives. It's your way of saying that because there have been quite a few people to win this medal it is not as distinguished an achievement as that of someone who becomes a Speaker of the House. Well here's the objective reality: There have been 60 Speakers of the House and 46 winners of the United States Medal of Technology, all bestowed to them by the President of the United States. Ummm, yeah that's not really prominent eh! There have also been 100s of nobel prize winners. In fact, as of 2008 there have been 789 individuals to have won the Nobel Prize. It would seem that should we judge things according to your standards, the Nobel Prize is least important of them all. Yet since you have a PhD in Physics, I'm sure you don't actually think that.--Monshuai (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Since fact snippets seem to be your thing, the wikipedia article states that "As of 2005, there have been more than 135 individuals and 12 companies recognized" with the medal of technology. And yes, the Nobel prize does tend to bring into the spotlight, as does becoming speaker of the house, and my argument was that the medal of technology does not do that to quite the same extent. For the purpose of establishing this between ourselves I invited you to participate in my little thought experiment about naming another person who you've heard of because they won the medal, though I see you're not interested. Tomatoman (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet according to your standards, (789 Nobel Laureates - 135 US M of Tech recipients = 654 personas), the US National Medal of Technology must still be more important than the Nobel Prize. Hey I know you talk about thought experiments, but I guess you didn't think this one through before sharing it with us. Oh and my heartfelt apologies for saying 46 originally. That number is a consequence of participating in your intellectual venture... You see, I was simply counting off the top of my head my favourite recipients of the medal and got a little carried away. Do you want me to list all their names? Or do you still think an award given by the President of the United States is not important enough for me to care? Oh and here's a thought experiment for you. If you won the US National Medal of Technology, do you think I would know your real name Tomatoman?--Monshuai (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You stay classy, Wikipedia! Not sure there's there's a lot more worth saying in response. Tomatoman (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's not interested in answering questions now Tomatoman? A wise man once said, "once a man's argument falls to pieces he has nothing better to do than give links to Ron Burgundy articles". The wise master then added, "once that man realizes that he has failed in his war of words, he then starts repeating them saying things like 'there's there's'". Don't believe me? Carefully look at your above comment. Mhmmmm... Stay classy Ketchup!--Monshuai (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the choice of pursuing an argument completely devoid of any intelligent reasoning, and sleeping, I picked the latter. It seems that you have no interest in actually listening to the points of view others express. More than that, you have no interest in understanding that others might actually have a point of view that is worth considering. If the word "bigot" didn't already exist, it should have been coined to describe your attitude. You repeatedly twist people's words to suit your argument and refuse to see what they're actually trying to say. Then you assume a tone that is either condescending, outraged, or failing all else, sarcastic. Then you start making personal remarks in order to completely deviate from the point and irritate people. I never thought I'd be writing this sort of thing on Wikipedia, but after your little outburst last night I feel little remorse for doing it.

I feel stupid bringing this back up, because I know there's no point. Anyway: yesterday, when I compared the numbers of medals given to the number of speakers of the house, it was only figurative - I didn't imply that that count absolutely quantifies the significance of either. You correctly pointed out that there are more Nobel laureates yet the Nobel prize carries more weight. But you got so carried away with the fact that I was wrong about something and you were right about it, that you completely ignored anything else I said. You completely ignored the fact that maybe I had a point in saying that getting the medal brings someone less public notoriety than being speaker of the house. Then you started making sarcastic personal remarks, in order to completely deviate from the point. I said that "my mind isn't 100% made up on this", which was a reminder that if you had a good point to the contrary I would've been more than happy to re-think what I was saying. Instead you decided to go down the route of raising your tone and generally trying to irritate me - a complete stranger.

You have clearly invested a lot of resources into this argument. You are clearly a very intelligent person, so it makes me wonder what you could have achieved had you directed those resources elsewhere? Instead of spending all those hours on this talk page, you could have for example been writing useful and meaningful letters to people. You could have been raising funds for Bulgarian orphanages, or trying to solve many of the corruption cases Bulgaria is mired in. You could have been involved in public advocacy for any of a large number of organizations that do great things in Bulgaria, and around the world. If we edited the page on John Atanasoff so that it had the Bulgarian flag waving in the background and played everyone the anthem, would you look back and think "man, that was worth it!" I'm sure you have a quick and witty response for me, but I'm not really looking for one. I just wanted to give you a couple of things to think about. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Tomatoman (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman, from the first point of entering this conversation you said, "reading through this discussion, I'm becoming increasingly embarrassed of being Bulgarian myself." I then asked myself, how can I take seriously a person who is embarassed of an entire nation composed of millions of people with over one thousand years of history, just because he disagrees with one editor of Bulgarian descent. Obviously if you did not already have some negative feelings about Bulgaria, you would not have made that statement simply because of me, one guy... A nation is never to be judged by the actions of one person, just like anyone person's heritage should never be hidden, denied or used against him/her. Thus now you know why the dialogue between us has transpired as it has.--Monshuai (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Separator

I have looked at the discussion here and have to say that I agree with Monshuai. His argument is more convincing than other users especially in light of the fact that different ethnic groups should not be treated according to differing standards in Wiki articles. There is no doubt in my mind that although Robert K S and Bielle do not have anything against Bulgarians per se, they have nonetheless disregarded Monshuai's primary message, which is that Atanasoff is the first Bulgarian-American to receive a national medal of science and tech. BTW, that's the USA's highest honor in scientific fields.--Janelle4elle (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if that fact was verifiable—I can't find genealogies of all the award winners—the award was five years old. Virtually every recipient was the first of their ethnicity. Anyway, to return to a question I asked in this thread years ago, is Atanasoff notable for having received a recognition, or for the thing for which he received the recognition? Is the important thing about him that he won an award? Robert K S (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So Robert K S, when you say "is the important thing about him that he won an award" then you surely also say that of those who also won the "Nobel" award!--Monshuai (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that virtually all Nobel laureates mention having won the prize in the leads of their respective articles. Ralph Bunche even mentions the distinction of his race. I haven't done an analysis of how many Medal of Technology [and Innovation] winners mention having won that award in the lead, but it is certainly an award of considerably less prestige than a Nobel, which is an internationally publicized recognition that includes a large cash prize. If you can make a case that Atanasoff's notability hinges on having won this award, then it is deserving of mention in the lead. (However, I don't think this is the case. Atanasoff didn't gain sudden notoriety from this medal. For Atanasoff supporters the medal was seen as an overdue recognition and merely a natural extension of Judge Larson's finding of derivation which named Atanasoff.) Next you'd have to find a reliable source that states he is the first Bulgarian American to win it. (We shouldn't be basing anything on guessing/assumptions/OR.) That's a pretty burdensome set of findings to make just for another boosterish shout-out to Bulgaria in this article. For my part, I think it would be much more interesting if you found Atanasoff was the first or only American to be given the Order of Cyril and Methodius. (But I don't know, maybe they give those out left and right. I have no idea.) Robert K S (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Being the first Bulgarian-American to win the said award makes Atanasoff notable to the Bulgarian-American community, just like Anna May Wong being the first Chinese-American to succeed in the US entertainment industry makes her notable to the Chinese-American community. On the other hand, if your suggestion is that Atanasoff is only notable for inventing the electronic digital computer, then Anna May Wong is only notable for having the talents necessary to make her succeed in the movie industry. Thus when your standards regarding Atanasoff are applied to Wong, we can suddenly say that it was not her Chinese descent that made her an actress and therefore her Chinese background is not important. Also, since you apply these standards you'll certainly have to find a reliable source that states that all US entertainers before Wong did not have Chinese ancestry in them. You will have to build genealogy trees for all US entertainers before her. Until that time you and your standards will be the reason that her Chinese-American designation will be removed. I think your time in this endeavour will be very valuable and much appreciated.--Monshuai (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"notable to the Bulgarian-American community"—and this is really the crux of your campaign, and the reason why your aims are boosterish. This article does not exist to promote a person as being a member of the Bulgarian-American community. This article is not a propaganda piece for Bulgarian interests. This article is intended to relay the principal information about the subject in a manner that is concise and unbiased. To focus this article on the claimant aims of any ethnic minority is to compromise the article by affording undue weight to meta-phenomena. We get it. The Bulgarians love Atanasoff. It's not what makes Atanasoff notable. Judy Garland is beloved by homosexuals. It doesn't mean it's the defining thing about her that belongs in the lead of her article. BTW, I am completing my survey of Wikipedia articles of National Medal of Technology winners. I'll post my findings below, but to summarize, they confirm my suspicions, above, that it's rare that the award is mentioned in the lead for articles about the recipients. Robert K S (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Anna May Wong's achievements are not notable to the Chinese-American community? You still haven't answered a single one of the factual and comparative statements I have made about people such as herself. Remember what I said happens when we apply your standards on Atanasoff to her article? She didn't become an actress because she was of Chinese background, she became an actress because she had a talent that allowed her to succeed in the entertainment industry. That sort of argument has been at the core of your reasoning with regard to Atanasoff. Now then, to answer your question about Judy Garland, we must first equate it to the Atanasoff circumstances. Atanasoff was Bulgarian-American and he was loved by Bulgarians and Bulgarian-Americans. Judy Garland was heterosexual and, as you say, she was loved by homosexuals. Now to equate her with Atanasoff we'd have to imagine what would happen if she were in fact a homosexual herself. I can easily give you the answer to this. If she were a lesbian it would have been mentioned in her article. Not only that it would likely have been placed in the lede. Take a look at the Ellen DeGeneres article as an example of this very phenomenon. Now again applying your standards, we'd have to ask whether Ellen DeGeneres became notable for being gay, or whether she was already a famous sitcom actress before she publicly came out of the closet? Indeed she was already famous before people knew of her sexual orientations, and yet her being gay is mentioned not only in the article but also in the lede. Here's the thing Robert, I have disproved your every point. I am flexible, I am smart and I am not afraid to admit it. Call me a pompous human being if you like, but heck why be modest when dealing with someone like you? I am also very dedicated and motivated, so I will continue this discussion for eternity if the ephemeral winds of mortal life are to suddenly shift in the direction of temporal infinity and thus allow me to exist as the everlasting antithesis of YOU. So while you continually try to tweak your arguments, I will continue to carefully analyze everything you write using every last cubic centimetre of grey matter that I have at my disposal. This I believe, will only lead you to more self despair under the prying eyes of the public and in the context of the intellectual challenges I place before you. Now here's the kicker, I will continue to prove you wrong so long as you apply double standards. And if you don't believe me, then we shall wait and see what other users joining this discussion will have to say. They too, I'm sure, will be interested in your genealogy trees for all the entertainers before Wong came to be. In addition I know this dialogue has already caused you great concern, after all it also resulted in having your rollback privileges removed. I was truly surprised by how much you whined and complained about Alison punishing you for what she deemed to be transgressive behaviour in our edit war. Hey I'm not going to lie, it was an edit war and I too was involved. And unlike you, at least I have the honour to admit it! Also unlike you, I didn't whine about anything. I simply continued to approach this discussion as best I could, while you lost a few hairs on the top of your head because, God forbid, an administrator thought you had a part to play in the dispute. I may not agree with some things that Alison does, but at least I don't cry about it. It is also wonderful that all who read this article will be able to come to this discussion page and further be enlightened by the dynamics herein. Janelle-4-elle is a good example of this. Good day dear Robert, and do take care when applying those double standards.--Monshuai (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"You still haven't answered a single one of the factual and comparative statements I have made about people such as her." You still haven't answered the question I posed two years ago--"How did the fact that Atanasoff's father was from Bulgaria contribute to Atanasoff's invention of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer?" That's the controlling question. The rest is noise, as are all of your irrelevant comparisons to other articles. If you think there are ethnic boosterism problems in other articles, go fix the other articles. I'm not going to waste energy discussing them here, since answering questions about the other articles doesn't lead to any productive conclusions about this article. Robert K S (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh but it all matters Robert, and to leave out both the minute details and the big picture is the greatest of injustices to the wonderful source of information that is Wikipedia. Other articles do matter because they have been accepted by Wikipedia administrators in their current form. Are you saying that the opinions of these administrators do not matter? I guess I'm not surprised as you already told Alison numerous times that she was wrong about what she did, even though she objectively punished both of us. Again, you just can't admit it. You are always right, and others who disagree with you are always wrong... It seems a trend is developing with you and it's not a good one I might add. The point is, when articles such as the Wong one are written this way they clearly neutralize your central conjecture. So I am not going to change her article, because I don't believe it is written incorrectly, and furthermore I do not think the administrators involved in that article are wrong in allowing her "first Chinese-American" achievement be mentioned therein. Your standards however suggest her lead is showcasing a form of boosterim and yet your self-proclaimed principles have only stimulated you to focus on the John Atanasoff article and not on hers, or those of other personas for that matter. Again, that's double standards.--Monshuai (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, people, could you put your arguments in a nutshell so that other people can assess them for a brief period of time without the need to read half a novel ? Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Honors and distinctions

Hate to say it Robert but your edition to that section is not appreciated.

The 1970 Sts. Cyril and Methodius Order was originally appearing in the opening paragraph of that section, until removed by someone last September.

I restored it as it rightly belongs there, being an early highest national scientific award Atanasoff got, preceding in particular the other highest national scientific award of Atanasoff's, the 1990 National Medal of Technology.

There is nothing special about the 1981 IEEE Computer Pioneer Medal, or Atanasoff Hall, or 'Project Vincent' in comparison with the other awards, institutions, and features named for Atanasoff, hence the right chronological place for the Medal, the Hall, and the Project is among the other honors listed below.

There is and was no 'Order of Bulgaria' by the way.

As I mentioned earlier — in connection with your biased removal of Atanasoff's ancestry from the lead — I am not going into reversals, so I would expect you to revert your inappropriate (to put it mildly) edit that has degraded the Honors section text. Apcbg (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which edit of mine are you referring to? Robert K S (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This one, the 'Honors and distinctions' section. Apcbg (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Something weird happened when I made that edit. It reverted some of my changes, too, not just yours. I'll try to repair the damage, but feel free to make further corrections. PS--always remember to assume good faith! Robert K S (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Apologies for the mix-up. It wasn't intentional. Robert K S (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I always do assume good faith — both in Wikipedia and out of it. Unless/until the opposite is confirmed, that is; to continue assuming good faith afterwards would be less than reasonable I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My own perspective

The reason I'm here in the first place is due to declining a page protect requested by Robert K S over on WP:RPP. I've no dog in this fight, other than being some random admin. I'm a computer hardware engineer in RL and know who John V. Atanasoff is (who doesn't), but that's about all.

Firstly, I believe all editors here are acting in good faith, and all believe they are correct in what they do. I don't believe "Robert K S [has] shown a very biased attitude towards Bulgarians" nor is he "mutilating the articles of small countries", as Monshuai believes. A little assumption of good faith here would go a long way. Both Monshuai and Robert K S have been revert-warring on this article over the last few days, with Monshuai having come very close to being blocked from editing yesterday.

From reading this talk page, I'm beginning to see agreement forming amongst most editors that the Bulgarian-American statement 'not be mentioned in the lede but that it certainly be mentioned in the article body. I don't think anyone will disagree with the latter part of that sentence and it looks like people feel that adding it to the very first few lines is adding undue weight to the link to Atanasoff's Bulgarian heritage. I feel that Bielle makes a good point in her rough survey of other biographies here and discovers that in the generality, ethnic heritage is not mentioned as desired by Monshuai when that person has not been born in that country (note "in the generality", okay?). For example, John F. Kennedy is not described as being "Irish-American" on Wikipedia, though I've repeatedly seen him described as being so in other publications. Such is the way. I think it's worth re-iterating what Bielle said; "The precedent appears to be that the form "XXX American" is used in the lede when the subject was born somewhere other than the US. When the subject was born in the US, the form in the lede is simply "American"." That certainly appears to be the case.

As for the cyrillic, looking at articles such as Seán T. O'Kelly, for example, I'm seeing that his Irish name is also present, though he was born and lived in Ireland. Same with Douglas Hyde, but the rules may well be different for non-native-born people.

Monshuai - your suggestions above that Bielle is motivated by racial bias is so off-the-wall that I don't know where to start. You took a completely innocuous sentence and stated, "Your premise is that those people of non-white racial backgrounds can be called XXX-Americans, while those who look similar to the majority do not have this right.". I have absolutely no idea how you ended up at this position given what she'd stated prior to that, especially this "non-white" stuff. Then you went on to suggest she was biased based on peoples' physical appearance. This is grossly unfair. Then when Bielle objects to this portrayal, you pull the 'censorship' card and suggest she has a threatening tone. Ah, nope. I think what you said there was utterly unfair to a fellow-editor and you should seriously reconsider this position. Re-read what she said, try to show better faith in your fellow editors and please, don't adopt a "bullying tone" yourself, as you have done there. Your last paragraph smacks of pulling the race card while waggling your finger in her direction. Right now, that's coming over as being bullying and being a veiled attempt to silence her - Alison ^❤ 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison - as you see from my comments, I cannot accept that people of different ethnic backgrounds be treated differently, not in the real world and not in Wikipedia articles. African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Bulgarian-Americans and other ethnic groups should be considered under the same objective lens of scrutiny. This is my premise. I am a Bulgarian-American myself and even in the modern world I have to deal with the biases that arise out of this. Simply because of my Bulgarian name I have been called a "dirty white" (as in non pure), a "Cog", a "poor Slav", a "Vulgar Bulgar" etc... These statements have been made in a derogatory fashion and there are obvious racial or ethnic connotations therein. I came to America in 1990 and know very well what attitude people had towards Eastern Europeans at that time. Although society has now evolved and I do not encounter these problems, the historical context in which I experienced them remains valid, just as it would be even more valid for someone living in a far more conservative American society of the early 20th century. I have also read about American immigration policies and how originally people from Bulgaria were not allowed to immigrate to the USA. I can provide sources for this unless you want to look it up yourself. I can also provide sources describing how South Eastern European immigrants and their descendents were seen in the eyes of the majority. To say it mildly, people of the time saw Bulgarian-Americans as second class citizens. As the immigration policies evolved people of South Eastern European background were able to come here, but they were nonetheless treated in a relatively repressive manner. It isn't different from how Irish Americans were treated in the 18th and early 19th century, a disgraceful period in the country's history when they were despicably called "Irish N*ggers", or of Italian immigrants in the early 20th century and up until the 1980s who were called "Spaghetti N*ggers". We can also mention the Jewish-American community of the late 1800s, which was largely confined to so-called Jewish ghettos and lower level jobs. I don't have to list how they were treated even though they didn't look "visibly unusual" as Bielle puts it. So it is clear that Chinese Americans and African Americans were not the only ones to feel oppression in a largely conservative, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon society. It is also incontrovertible that even racial and/or physical similarities do not necessarily insulate a person from prevalent collective bigotries. Therefore Bielle's argumentative basis is flawed. Thus in retrospect, I will not disregard my first hand experiences just because someone is unfamiliar with the hardships experienced by Bulgarian-Americans in America.--Monshuai (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, your entire comment above is largely a derailment, sorry. Your personal background and experiences are irrelevant to the matter at hand (as are mine), and we need to approach article editing in a dispassionate way and not allow our personal point of view to rule us. As an Irish citizen living in America, I've also experienced bias based on my ethnic background. Such is the way, I guess. And your followup, "Therefore Bielle's argumentative basis is flawed" - well, no. Your discussion before that shows nothing of the sort and Bielle is absolutely not guilty of any bigotry. I dare not even venture a guess as to Bielle's ethnic background as it's wholly irrelevant here, as is your and as is mine - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I note also that Monshuai has also added Atanasoff and his picture to the infobox on the Bulgarian-American article - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how my Bulgarian-American background is irrelevant in an article about a Bulgarian-American, especially when the idea passed off by Bielle was that Bulgarian-Americans were not repressed in American society. Is her opinion on the matter somehow more valid than the personal experiences of members of the Bulgarian-American community? Indeed, just as Anna May Wong was the first Chinese-American to achieve prominence in the American entertainment industry so was John Atanasoff the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in the American science and technology sphere. I also fail to see why this has not been mentioned in the article yet.--Monshuai (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how your background is relevant, frankly. We're all pseudonymous editors here, largely. Where you're from should not make one whit of difference if you're editing neutrally. It's that simple - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree that experiences of a disadvantaged group such as African-Americans are relevant to their self identity and the way prominent members of their ethnicity are described in Wikipedia? Where I'm from and the experiences I have had gives me the insight of how people of Bulgarian-American background have been treated. Are you truly telling me that Bielle or you for that matter know better than me how Bulgarian-Americans have been treated? The supposition seems to be that they were not treated badly enough to have had to emancipate themselves on social and professional levels. After all that was Bielle's argument for why articles about them should not be considered under the same standards as those about Chinese-Americans? If you feel I am misrepresenting her words than I will simply post direct quotes from her. She said that and it's not up to interpretation! Thus, would you tell African-Americans that their personal experiences with racism and prejudism are irrelevant when deciding whether or not they were repressed enough to warrant calling them not just Americans, but African-Americans in various articles? I am also still not sure why (I've mentioned this many times with no response) the line that John Atanasoff was the first Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in science field in the U.S. is still not included.--Monshuai (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor I have any idea as to what Bielle's background is, so neither of us can comment either way. Nor indeed, should we. This is not a game of "my-experience-trumps-yours": we're trying to write an encyclopedia based on verifiable fact. Posting irrelevant questions as you have above (let's bring in African-Americans, why not) has no relevance here. I don't care what "the supposition seems to be" - that' just your personal interpretation and is irrelevant to editing the article in a factual and non-biased manner. Stick to verifiable facts, stick to writing conventions and we should all be happy here - Alison ^❤ 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Alison, we do know that Bielle is not Bulgarian or American. After all she did say that upon entering this discussion. Therefore she has no idea what it is like to be a Bulgarian, an American or for that matter a Bulgarian-American. In other words my experience as a Bulgarian-American does in fact trump hers regarding Bulgarian-Americans. If you don't agree with that, it's like saying that you and I (both caucasian it seems) have experiences that allow us to better understand the contextual reality of an African-American's struggles than an actual African-American. Really? Also, there are many written works about America's immigration policies and the treatment of Eastern European immigrants. Since you tell me that you want sources, I will indeed provide these sources. How many would you like? One, 10 or maybe 50?--Monshuai (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not my place to get into this, but it would indeed be good to be more objective here, as Alison suggests. Reliable source, maybe not 50 but just a couple, would go a long way. Otherwise it's like saying "I've had a lot of German neighbors and many of them have been noisy, so I should probably edit Wikipedia to reflect the fact that Germans are noisy." In particular, my view (with an emphasis on the fact that other people's view may differ) is that in the sphere of science and technology ethnic bias traditionally plays a much diminished role, in comparison with the role it would have played in, say, politics. If you would like me to I could elaborate on the logic behind this statement, though I'm afraid I don't have time to look up resources on it. In the meantime, it would really strengthen Monshuai's point if he/she could present a source indicating that ethnic bias was a significant issue affecting the American scientific community. Tomatoman (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Social biases made it difficult for people of non Anglo-Saxon or Germanic backgrounds to get better jobs. I'm surprised you didn't know that Tomatoman.--Monshuai (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict:we are thinking along the same lines) Our personal views are not relevant to what goes into the article, nor is our history, background or any of our several allegiances. That's what Alison has been saying: nothing more; nothing less. We do need some research. If there are sources that support the view that Atanasoff's achievements are related to his Bulgarian roots, then let's assess them and compose the text accordingly. In addition, I have been looking for a reference that supports "first Bulgarian American to . . ." but have not yet had any success. Thanks Bielle (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So Bielle, my understanding is that since you haven't found the source that states he was the first Bulgarian-American to have achieved prominence in United States science and technology field, you therefore think another Bulgarian-American achieved this before him? How many Bulgarian-Americans do you think there were in these fields? Tell me then, who is the first Bulgarian-American (before Atanasoff) to have gotten this prominence according to your research? Who is the first Bulgarian-American to have received a Medal of Science and Technology from the President of the USA? When you find him or her, let's start an article about him/her. Or are Bulgarian-Americans not allowed to have their firsts?--Monshuai (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Your understanding" is unsupported by what I wrote. What I do think, and thank you for asking, is that he may well be the first American with Bulgarian roots to have received such an honour. However, what I think is of no materiality. It is quite possible, after all, that the mother or grandparent of any of the other recipients was also from Bulgaria. Possibilites are also immaterial. I would like to find a source for "the first Bulgarian American . . .". I am suprised I haven't found one yet. I will keep looking. Bielle (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well in that case we should check if perhaps someone with a Chinese great grandmother made it in the American entertainment industry before Anna May Wong. I am also surprised that I haven't found such a person yet, but perhaps we should take down her "first Chinese-American" designation with respect to the US entertainment industry out of her article until we have confirmed that no one else had a Chinese ancestor. Will you be compiling the genealogy trees of every US entertainer?--Monshuai (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't, though you may if you like. (Anna May Wong's "first" is referenced to a published book.) There were three books written about Atanasoff, according to the reference list on his article; unfortunately two were published before he received the Medal. The one from a Bulgarian house called "World Changer" came later. Is this something we can access? Bielle (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was you who said that others may have a mother or grandparent of Bulgarian background, and therefore I am saying that others may have had a mother or grandparent of Chinese background. It's that simple Bielle, don't play coy just because I am intelligent enough to carefully read what you have written! And guess what, all over Bulgaria (a country of 7.6 million, plus another 5 million diaspora for a total of approximately 13.6 million people) Atanasoff is known as the first Bulgarian-American to win the recognition of a US President and also as the first Bulgarian-American to achieve notability for his world changing invention. He is also the first Bulgarian-American to receive the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Bulgaria's highest honor for scientific achievement. Or do Bulgarian honors and sources not count in your opinion?--Monshuai (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter, though it is thoughtful of you to ask. Both the honours you mention are listed in the article. I specifically enquired above about accessing a Bulgarian source, the book entitled World Changer. I am looking for sources to support using "the first..". Bielle (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome Bielle. Now where in the article is it mentioned that he was the first Bulgarian-American to win these awards? Or are you still building those genealogy trees that you need as proof that he was in fact the first?--Monshuai (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

National Medal of Technology--mention in lead?

Janelle4elle came out of nowhere to propose that "Atanasoff is the first Bulgarian-American to receive a national medal of science and tech. BTW, that's the USA's highest honor in scientific fields." While the former statement is dubious, the latter statement is false. The National Medal of Science is more prestigious, the award being selected by committee and in categories, similar to the Nobel. (The National Medal of Technology is selected by the Commerce Secretary.) Moreover, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal are even higher destinctions and a large number of recipients have received these awards for their scientific endeavors, notably Watson, Teller, or Bardeen (Presidential) or the Wright Brothers, Edison, Salk, or Goddard (Congressional). But that aside, the question becomes whether or not having received the award is essential to Atanasoff's notability and thus deserves promotion of emphasis in the lead, as would be the case, for example, if Atanasoff had won a Nobel Prize.

So I looked at Wikipedia articles for all of the winners of the National Medal of Technology. I examined the leads of all the articles that had proper leads. (Stub articles were discounted.) For articles that were longer than several-paragraph stubs but which were not long enough to have been divided into sections, I considered the first two paragraphs to be the lead.

Out of the 107 recipients of the National Medal of Technology that have Wikipedia articles, only 6 of them mention the award in the lead of their articles: Vint Cerf, Dennis Ritchie, Robert Taylor, Ralph H. Baer, Raymond Vahan Damadian, Donald Keck. That's 5.6%. The most common practice is to mention the award among other distinctions at some point later in the article, often in a section devoted to awards and distinctions. This seems appropriate especially given that most of these figures received multiple awards, and the National Medal of Technology was sometimes not the most prestigious. Clearly if a guideline is to be established on the basis of what other articles do, it's in favor of not including this award in the lead.

Baer suffered hardships as a Jew, but there's (properly) no mention of that in the lead of his article, that incidental fact not being key to his notability. On the other end of the spectrum, Damadian is mentioned as being Armenian American and his lead bemoans the fact that he didn't share the 2003 Nobel, citing an Armenian Reporter article that talks about an Armenian-led campaign for greater recognition for Damadian. There's also one of those "this lead needs cleaned up" tags on Damadian's article. So basically, this article gives the appearance of having some of the very problems of ethnic boosterism that I and others are trying to combat in the Atanasoff article.

No corporate organization lists having won the medal in the lead for its article, though IBM does note that nine of its employees were recipients.

Here is a list of all the recipients not found in the shortened list on the National Medal of Technology page.

1985 - Joe Sutter, Harold Rosen, John T. Parsons, Frank L. Stulen 1986 - Frank Piasecki, William C. Norris 1987 - Joseph V. Charyk, W. Edwards Deming, John E. Franz (listed with middle initial F. on the U.S. gov's National Medal recipient listing web page) 1988 - John Leland Atwood, Raymond Vahan Damadian, Paul Lauterbur, Robert H. Dennard, Harold Eugene Edgerton, Clarence Johnson 1989 - Jay Wright Forrester, Robert Everett 1990 - Donald N. Frey, Wilson Greatbatch, John S. Mayo, David Pall, Chauncey Starr 1991 - Stephen Bechtel, Jr., Gordon Bell (don't know why he isn't on the select list, he ranks as a top notable name in my estimation), John Cocke, Carl Djerassi, Bob Galvin, F. Kenneth Iverson, Frederick McKinley Jones, John Stapp 1992 - Joseph M. Juran, Walter Lincoln Hawkins, Charles Kelman, Norman Joseph Woodland 1993 - Amos E. Joel, Jr., George Kozmetsky, Hans W. Liepmann 1994 - Joel S. Engel, Richard H. Frenkiel, Joseph Gerber 1995 - Sam B. Williams 1996 - Ron Brown, Charles Kaman (ought to be on the list of notables) 1997 - Norman Ralph Augustine, Robert Ledley 1998 - Denton Cooley 1999 - Glen Culler, Raymond Kurzweil (belongs on the list of notables), Robert A. Swanson 2000 - Donald Keck, Robert D. Maurer, Peter C. Schultz 2002 - Carver Mead, Russel D. Dupuis 2003 - Rodney Bagley, Irwin Lachman 2005 - Alfred Y. Cho 2006 - Leslie A. Geddes, Herwig Kogelnik, Charles Marstiller Vest, James Edward Maceo West 2007 - Paul Baran, Roscoe Brady, Armand V. Feigenbaum 2008 - Forrest Bird

Robert K S (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert, first read my response to your second last post. Second, please give me a source that states that the National Medal of Science is more prestigious than the National Medal of Technology. These two honors are not one and the same thing. The former is focused on " behavioral and social sciences, biology, chemistry, engineering, mathematics and physics" while the latter is focused on awarding those "inventors and innovators that have made significant contributions to the development of new and important technology." It is also stated that the National Medal of Technology is the "highest honor the United States can confer to a US citizen for achievements related to technological progress." Can you tell me why you are comparing apples and oranges? Scientific discovery is not the same as technological progress. Science expands our understanding of the physical world, while technology applies our scientific understanding of micro and macroscopic processes/realities in order to create devices that help us to take advantage of the physical world. Why do you insist on discounting your own arguments by constantly giving me the opportunity to refute what you say? Your insistance that this medal is not important is truly perplexing. I am having trouble understanding why you're digging yourself a new argumentative black hole. Next you will say that the Bulgarian Order of Cyril and Methodius is also not the highest Bulgarian honor in these fields. Then you might say that even if the said Bulgarian honor is the highest in the country, it might as well not count for this article because Bulgaria is a small and unimportant country. After that you may say that Bulgarian-American firsts are not important. Wow, incredible! Of course I'm hypothesizing about your future comments may or may not be, but based on what you've already stated I dare say I may be proven correct.--Monshuai (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, please stop fantasizing what editors might think or say. You have done this in response to my writings, to Alison’s and now to Robert’s. It is what we do say that matters. Extrapolating other’s remarks into unvisited territory in order to be disparaging about what you are suggesting might be the case is unkind, misleading and disruptive to the task at hand. Bielle (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, everything in life is about nuances, whether they be applied to concrete or abstract concepts, including ones being touched upon in this dialogue. Thereby the chronological history of this discussion is evidence of what Robert or you have said. It's not my fault that the two of you have based your arguments on double standards. Again, I can show direct quotes that prove this. Would you like me to do that? I can certainly go into more detail than I've done before! Also I already told you that the public and other Wikipedia users can read this discussion and come to their own conclusions, so I don't know what you're worried about. Therefore I have to ask myself, why do you insists that I don't analyze Robert's and your comments in the way that I have. Why do you insist that I retract what I have said? Logically it has to do with some sort of fear, or aversion, or whatever other negative combination of thoughts and emotions stirred by the potentiality that some people will continue to agree with me and that they too may become inclined to feel that you are not impartial when scrutinizing the articles of various ethnic Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything erroneous about letting other Wikipedians read what we have all written! Am I mistaken about this too? Should I also retract this statement? I on the other hand do not mind you saying the things that you've said about me and to me, because I believe that the public will have enough information to make up its mind. Said another way, I have never told you to stop saying anything. So again, I, unlike you, am encouraging you and Robert to continue writing in whatever way you feel appropriate. The content and the style of your statements on this discussion page is for you choose. It is however not for you to choose how others utilize that content and that style to build evidence that exposes your implied messages. Like it or not, you cannot constrict the way they (or I) interpret your comments and therefore it is neither your right nor power to shape people's analytical abilities and the conclusions those abilities lead them to make! You are only in control of what you say! When you understand that dear Bielle you may indeed come to discover the poetic essence of having a free mind that fears not opposing viewpoints. Finally we're all anonymous here (ie: your official name is not exposed), so whatever the outcome of this dispute, no harm will be done to your personal "real life" reputation. That is a wondeful truth!--Monshuai (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Along with the other requests I have made about ceasing to build complicated arguments based on imagined attitudes I and others do not, in fact, hold, I also request that you cease patronizing me. (Note, please, the continuing use of "request" which is not synonymous with "insist"; they are not close in either connotation or denotation.) I am not your "dear Bielle" and my "poetic essence" is not your business. We would all like a first-class article on Atanasoff, one that would stand up, over time, to any test on WP for verifiability, neutral point of view and appropriate weight. I have identified some areas where it would be very helpful in reaching this stable state to have sources and, if such sources are not available on-line or even in English, I am hoping that someone interested in this article can find the information elsewhere. The request about the book World Changer was the beginning. Is there a way to access reputable Bulgarian news sources or repositories of scientific papers that might have such information? Focussing on what the article requires would be very helpful. Bielle (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your request for Bulgarian news sources is appreciated. I am actually positively surprised that you've said this. I will look for Bulgarian news sources although it may take time as I have to go through nearly twenty years of archives. Speaking of your other comments, I was never discussing your poetic essence. Look at my sentence carefully and tell me where I've attributed a possessive meaning to that term. The message of said sentence is that there is a poetic essence to the free mind, which as you know can itself be attributed to a human being that has aquired it through impartial enlightenment. Also, the term "dear" is a polite form of using the English language when communicating with personas that one considers his or her equals. Indeed I do consider you my equal, in the sense that you and I both have the same rights and responsibilities herein. Also the word "dear" is acceptable to use when writing letters or any type of written messages even to complete strangers. However since you don't like it I will not use it when speaking with you in the future.--Monshuai (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am hard-pressed to consider how I "may indeed come to discover", in respect of someone else, the "poetic essence of having a free mind", but I have no doubt at all that you have worked it out. "Dear", as a formal salutation in a letter is quite acceptable; "dear" used otherwise preceding my name is to assume a degree of familiarity that is inappropriate to our Wikipedia endeavours. Thank you for agreeing not to use it. As for your surprise, I don't know why. I, and others, have been asking for sources for quite some time, and foreign-language sources, if meeting the reliability tests, are sometimes used when English-language sources cannot be found. (I have a current question on the Sources’ noticeboard about the matter.) My surprise would be that, if you knew you might be able to find such sources, why you hadn't just said so whenever this whole discussion started. (If you did, and I missed it in all the words, I would appreciate a link.) Take whatever time you need; we are under no time constraint. Bielle (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, if you cannot fully understand the abstract meaning of my complex English sentences please don't blame me for it! Perhaps my use of the language is a little advanced, but of course with practice you have the potential to get there yourself. As for the sources, I already told you that in the absence of evidence that shows that Atanasoff is NOT the first Bulgarian-American to have achieved prominence in the American scientific and technology oriented community, then it is accordingly appropriate to include this in the article. This is the standard that has been used for many articles throughout Wikipedia. On the other hand, since you want Bulgarian language sources, I will find them. Maybe I'll even publish a Bulgarian book or news article stating Atanasoff is "so and so"... That way this discussion would be over, right? So in other words, the interpretations of writers are good enough, but not the evidence presented in Wikipedia discussion pages? Now let me ask you this, how do you think authors of books and news articles come to their conclusions? Do you think they check for the mothers and grandparents of all citizens just so that they are sure there isn't someone else of a certain ethnicity who may have been first? Please answer this.--Monshuai (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"(I)n the absence of evidence that shows that Atanasoff is NOT the first Bulgarian-American to have achieved prominence in the American scientific and technology oriented community, then it is accordingly appropriate to include this in the article. This is the standard that has been used for many articles throughout Wikipedia". That would be unlikely. I found this brief, but informative, article on absence of evidence with particular reference to Copi's qualifier, helpful. All this is off-point, however, as I hope no one is seeking evidence of what Atanasoff is not (which would be an enormously lengthy list, including "alive", though we could verify that, I believe), but rather for evidence of what he is. Reliable sources answers your question in respect of the standards Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia's discussion pages do not meet those standards. Bielle (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, two facts are known: (1) Atanasoff is Bulgarian-American, and (2) no other Bulgarian-American is known to have achieved what he did at such an early time of the 20th century. Also I looked at the sources for the Anna May Wong article and the authors do not cite any research into other people's lineages. I looked at all of the sources therein, and there is simply an absence of evidence that someone else with Chinese heritage made it in the entertainment industry simply because their ancestors are not known. Therefore, the sources used in her article do not use the kind of evidence that you require of this article. This is what I have been talking about all along. I am also researching other articles. I still have not found a source used in Wikipedia or anywhere else that has used lineages of all other people in order to be 100% sure that no other XYZ-American was not first in something. What is written is always done in the knowledge that there is an absence of evidence. That is also how science works, and as we know science is the most objective way of studying the world. All theories about atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc are based on what is known, even though every scientist knows that likely much more is not known. When new evidence is presented through new discoveries, the "facts" of science are molded in order to incorporate the new evidence. So, if ever it is found that another Bulgarian-American achieved prominence in the scientific and technological community of the US, then I will be the first to put it in that person's article. Until then, if ever, John Atanasoff (under the comparative scrutiny of the scientific process) remains the first Bulgarian-American to have achieved said successes.--Monshuai (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" article is simply and plainly written:

Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations – see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

The emphasis is mine. Thus, if you find the statements you are seeking about "the first ..", as the writers of the Anna May Wong article did, in any reliable, third-party, published sources, you (and the article) may rely upon the author(s) as "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". First, we find the reliable source . . . Bielle (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, the authors of the Anna May Wong article did not show the genealogy evidence that you say is required of the Atanasoff article. They show the same evidence that has been presented in this discussion page, which is that Anna May Wong is (1) Chinese-American, and (2) that she is the only known person with Chinese ancestry to have succeeded in the US entertainment industry in the early 20th century. Likewise, it has already been established herein that John Atanasoff is (1) Bulgarian-American, and (2) that he is the only known person with Bulgarian ancestry to have succeeded in the US science and technology fields in the early to mid 20th century.--Monshuai (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you were right, without a source, it's OR. You can go make this your Ph.D. thesis if you want, do a defense, or write a paper or book on it, get it published, have it peer-reviewed. But I don't even think it's an accurate statement to say he was "successful" in the field in the early- to mid-20th century, so far as the typical indicia of "success" go (wealth, recognition, publicity, etc.). The ABC was incomplete, unused, undisclosed, and uncommercialized, and the recognition for the innovation Atanasoff introduced in the ABC came about decades later as a result of the patent dispute and the eventual finding of derivation. Atanasoff had success by other measures (important government jobs, issued patents for other things, etc.), but do you really think he was the only Bulgarian with a government office, or who received a U.S. patent? Maybe he was, I've no idea. But it's not assertable without a source, and even then, it's not his ethnicity that is the key to his notability and so it doesn't belong in the lead. Robert K S (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert no matter how much you tweak your argument everytime I disprove your previous points and no matter how much you try to personally attack me by calling my discussions in my talk page "insanity", nothing changes the fact that Atanasoff is (1) Bulgarian-American and (2) the First Bulgarian-American to achieve prominence in said technology field. For you to say that actually "Atanasoff had success by other measures (important government jobs, isssued patents for other things, etc.)" is contrary to what you've said all along up until this point. Also unlike what you say, he was formally recognized by Bulgarians earlier than the "patent dispute and eventual finding of the derivation." If you really think he had more success with those other achievements, then why is that not in the lead? If he didn't achieve the prominence I refer to, Alison would not say, "I'm a computer hardware engineer in RL and know who John V. Atanasoff is (who doesn't), but that's about all." Above all, nothing changes the fact that his achievement was made between 1939-1942.--Monshuai (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have reason to disagree with either of your statements (1) and (2), I just don't see that they connect with (unlabeled) statement (3). One cannot reasonably say, "If he didn't achieve this prominence and wasn't Bulgarian-American there would not be an article about him in Wikipedia". His computer prominence is independent of his ethnicity, and his ethnicity is irrelevant to his computer prominence. Robert K S (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So now you say you agree with facts (1) and (2), but you feel these facts should not be included in the article. I didn't know that was the policy here.--Monshuai (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed with them, I said I didn't have a reason to disagree. Depending on how you define "said technology field", there may well indeed have been other Bulgarian-Americans of note. I especially doubt that Atanasoff was the first Bulgarian-American professor of physics, or Bulgarian-American government scientist. I've also previously said that Atanasoff wasn't the first Bulgarian-American anything for which he wasn't also the first person. He wasn't recognized by Bulgarians prior to the patent dispute, which began in either 1954 or 1967, depending on which patent you want to talk about. If it wasn't for lawyers seeking him out, we might never have known about him or his work. Robert K S (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you're argument now is that his achievement as a Bulgarian-American should not be mentioned because what he did was also a world first. Amazing!--Monshuai (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned (it is mentioned in the article, repeatedly, and is even already implied in the lead by the "born to a Bulgarian immigrant" bit). My position is simply that mention of ethnicity rather than nationality is improper vis-a-vis the prevailing guideline because ethnicity is not germane to notability for this figure. Robert K S (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No the article doesn't yet mention that he is Bulgarian-American. Nor is it mentioned that he is the first Bulgarian American to achieve this prominence. After all, you've done everything possible to stop those words from being put into the article.--Monshuai (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

His Bulgarian parentage is mentioned at least twice, and he's listed in the Category:Bulgarian Americans at the bottom of the article. Bulgaria is name-dropped 26 times (more than "physics" or "patent"). If what you really want in this article is a link to the article Bulgarian Americans, I'm sure you could find a creative way to put it in, outside of the lead, in a fashion that was sensible and consistent with guidelines and improved the article and the encyclopedia as a whole. Robert K S (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One more time Robert, you are doing everything you can to keep the words "Bulgarian-American" out. You are also doing everything you can to keep the sentence about his "first as a Bulgarian-American" out. Now you even equate the words Bulgaria with the term Bulgarian-American. They are not the same thing. Please don't equate the two.--Monshuai (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Momshuai has made good points. Some of you seem to consider her aggressive in her debating tactics but that doesn't change the fact that she has won this debate hands down. Its already known that the inventor was Bulgarian American (B-A) and that he was the first B-A to invent a world changing invention. It's only a matter of time before this article is changed to include these facts. Double standards are being used here and I can't see them stand the test of time. It's a shame a few of the users here won't admit that.--Janelle4elle (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Research Matters

According to this surprisingly unfinished National Medals’ site, both are “the highest honors for achievement in science & technology bestowed by the President of the United States.“. There have been 400 laureates for the Science Medal since the incorporation of the public body in 1958, although the first such Medal wasn’t presented until 1963. There have been only 170 Technology Medals presented, starting in 1985, though this Medal was established in 1980. On an “honours per year” basis, there have been slightly fewer Technology medals presented (avg. 7.06 per year) as opposed to the Science Medal (avg. 8.6 per year). Not a lot to choose between them in that, I would say, thought the Science Medal has been around longer and is likely better known. However, all this, and both the calculations, are the much distained “original research”. If we can’t find a source for “the highest honor” then “one of the two highest honors bestowed by etc.” may have to do. The key qualifier, without which all is lost, is that the individual recipient must be a “US citizen”. Citizenship does not seem to have been a qualifier for the Bulgarian award. (Has it ever been won by another foreign national, and do we have a cite for that information, either “yes” or “no”?)

Is there a reason that the notation of the Bulgarian honour is followed by reference to the 1973 court case? The chronology is factually true, but otherwise unremarkable., as far as I can see. The reference paper seems to have nothing about the court case in respect of the medal, or about it being “Bulgaria’s highest honor”. (Small, personal rant: I hate in-line citations that are not specific to their content. End of rant.) Surely we can find a citation for the latter. If we can cite a claim, then it will become a part of the stable article and thus will be much less likely to be lost over time.

We seem to know more about his parents’ family life than about his. It appears from the article’s one mention of “with his wife Alice” that he did marry. Do we know anything more about her. Did they have children? Do we know anything about him aside from his scientific achievements? Bielle (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more proof that Robert K S's statement, about "the National Medal of Science [being] more prestigious" than the National Medal for Technology, is blatantly incorrect. Your help in this matter is appreciated. See, you and I can work together! The proof is in the pudding as they say, for Robert will make up information about something like a national honor (ie: saying it's relatively unimportant) just so he can keep Atanasoff's Bulgarian-American firsts from seeing the light of day.--Monshuai (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually my feeling is much closer to yours that the awards are apples to oranges; one is for basic research while the other is for invention and commercialization. Atanasoff was kind of stuck as the ABC didn't involve any basic scientific findings nor did Atanasoff publish, have a patent disclosure, or do anything to promote or commercialize electronic computing. It seems subjectively clear from the recipient selection method and the fact that one prize can go to corporations where the two are esteemed with respect to each other in the overall scheme of things and amongst the scientific and engineering community; if one really wanted to find objective measures, one might look for comparisons in the amount of press coverage each prize receives, or compare the amount of government resources devoted to the administration of each prize, or poll those persons who've won both, which can be done indirectly by looking at their CVs/official bios, or by looking at how the two awards are treated in coverages of those individuals by others. It's hardly a matter of significance, and particularly in light of those other two awards I mentioned which are clearly higher U.S. awards given for scientific achievements. Robert K S (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S, Wikipedia is also a technological innovation. Are you saying that it is not important, because it in itself is not a new scientific discovery? If that's how you think about innovative technologies, such as the first electronic digital computer invented by Atanasoff and the consequent national awards/honours that recognized his achievement, then I have to ask why you so fervently use Wikipedia in the first place? As you're answering this question try to elucidate whether or not technology is the backbone of science and vice versa. Let me help you, technological inventions and scientific discoveries are mutually interdependent. The two are mutually propagating like electromagnetic waves, where a time-varying electric field generates a time-varying magnetic field and vice versa. Similarly, technology generates new science and new science generates new technology. Therefore any attempt to categorize which is more important is futile. Also when you talk about press coverage as a gauge for importance, are you suggesting that Paris Hilton is more important than Dr. Michio Kaku because she gets a bigger piece of the proverbial 'media real-estate' pie? You know, your comments are truly entertaining. You just can't accept that you are incorrect, just like you can't accept that many administrators share this view about you and your former actions. Public users, Wikipedia editors and administrators, please see Robert K S's discussion with numerous administrators here: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ) I don't know how to put this mildly Robert, but your partiality, lack of understanding and adherence to double standards are no longer hidden behind an opaque smokescreen. Your inability to admit error is the actual injustice to your reputation. Therefore the tinted glass, behind which you stand, is becoming clearer by the day.--Monshuai (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, could you please refrain from making grave personal remarks, as it hardly helps the discussion. Everyone's opinion should be taken according to merit, and you have no right to rudely devalue that of others. Nobody's out to get you, or to prove you wrong for the sake of it, so you shouldn't act as if that's the case. Thanks. Tomatoman (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman, upon entering this discusion you stated that "you're becoming increasingly embarassed of being Bulgarian". The actions of one person (me) even if disagreeable in your eyes should never be used to judge an entire nation and therefore you should not have felt increasingly embarassed. Need I say more?--Monshuai (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that I should not have made that judgment (at least publicly) at such an early stage. You may also realize that through your patronizingly self-righteous attitude you have increasingly alienated yourself from any sensible discussion. Even someone (for instance me) who would be inclined to otherwise agree with some of points about Atanasoff, would be automatically repelled by the way you present your arguments.

This page has evolved to a state where very little of what is presently under discussion is actually relevant to the article. It is mostly a competition of witticisms and an unpleasant exchange of personal remarks (primarily originating from you). It appears that your primary concern is proving yourself correct while proving others wrong, at any cost. If this is indeed your sole intention, I would recommend you join a debating club. And a couple of suggestions, which you may well object to, but I believe they would be beneficial in the long run: Please don't dissect every word I've just said into minor points in order to find a problem and yet again derail the discussion from the matter at hand. Please stop trying to paint character references about the editors in order to establish favorites and underdogs - it's not charming anyone. Please also try to be concise in your arguments, rather than writing paragraphs of poetic and witty yet irrelevant text. Please also don't pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks, and I hope we can get this back on track soon! Tomatoman (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not concur Tomatoman! Four people here have disagreed with me, and of those four, one has stated that John Atanasoff is Bulgarian-American. Janelle and Apcbg also agree with me. As more time passes things will become even more clear as to who's seen in what light. Again, after making that remark about the entire Bulgarian nation I cannot take your "advice" seriously. I know you want to redeem yourself by putting me down, but unfortunately your biased statement about the Bulgarian nation from the onset defeats your purpose. That's all. Further more, since you say that very little of the current discussion is relevant to the article, then I must ask who's really to blame? Was it not you who yesterday posted a link to a Ron Burgundy article here? Telling me to join a debate club is also a derailment of the discussion, although it does suggest that you're impressed by how well I've proven my argumentative points. So I'll take it as a compliment.--Monshuai (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to participate in the argument you are trying to start about my "embarrassment" comment, as that is yet another in a series of attempts by you to troll this discussion. I made the statement in reference to the fact that the Atanasoff page has been subjected to some abuse by a small self-aggrandizing subset of the Bulgarian Wikipedia editors. I thought it was sending the wrong message about us as a nation, and that's what embarrassed me. It was not a remark made against any editor in particular. Your interpretation of it as a personal attack is nothing more than paranoia.

My "stay classy" remark was a concise way of saying both "this isn't leading anywhere productive, so I'm off"; and actually telling you to "stay classy" after a particularly ill-tempered outburst by you. I may have been able to express that sentiment though a long paragraph of flowery poetry, but I didn't want to waste my time, nor yours.

"Telling me to join a debate club is also a derailment of the discussion, although it does suggest that you're impressed by how well I've proven my argumentative points." Really, it was my way of saying that I don't want to listen to any more of your "argumentative points", unless you adopt a more cooperative attitude. The majority of your recent statements amount to little more than verbal abuse. Tomatoman (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course you have excuses for both the comment about the Bulgarian nation and for your link to a Ron Burgundy article, even though apparently you believe in staying on topic and in being objective. However regardless of how much you try to excuse yourself, a negative judgement passed unto an entire nation because of what you deem to be the disagreeable behaviour of a "small self-aggrandizing subset" is not ethical. At the same time, you object to the interpretations I have made of people's comments herein. The difference is that my interpretations judge their actions as individuals and not the nations that they belong to, so please try to judge me as an individual and nothing more. Further still, in your above comment you again say that the small subset was sending the "wrong message about us as a nation." Once more you seem preoccupied with the notion that a few people here make millions look bad. That is outrageous, and if anyone does think that way from reading this discussion, then it does beg the question, are they objective? Does a person who thinks that an entire nation looks bad because of a few people have the maturity to claim moral high ground? Is it ever OK to judge a nation because of what someone deems to be the incorrect actions of say three individuals? The answer to that is NO. In addition you also say, "even someone (for instance me) who would be inclined to otherwise agree with some of points about Atanasoff, would be automatically repelled by the way you present your arguments." How can you say that? So while some of the things I say about the Atanasoff article have merit, because of my debating style such information will not be included in the article. Even though the Atanasoff article can be made better with changes I've proposed (a compromise at that), these changes will not be accepted because of negative feelings towards me. Wow, that is very far from the objectivity required of people here and I realize this is exactly what has happened. Thank you for clarifying that. An article should never be denied of proper edits simply because of the repulsive argumentative style, as you basically put it, of one of its editors. A vendetta against me has led to article wide consequences. That's not acceptable.--Monshuai (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)"(T)hese changes will not be accepted because of negative feelings towards me." No, Monshuai, not true. Changes from anyone need reliable sources. In respect of our earlier exchange about finding Bulgarian sources, a search you showed an interest in pursuing, here is a link provided by the helpful folks at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about sources not originally produced in English. Bielle (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No Bielle, negative emotions are indeed what's keeping this article from being edited with the changes I've proposed. After carefully reading through the sources used in other articles, including the one about Anna May Wong, it is clear that the authors therein have not used any geneaology information to prove that others before her were not first. They simply know that she succeeded in the US entertainment industry and do not know of anyone else to have done so, therefore they say she was the first Chinese-American to achieve prominence in the US entertainmnet industry. These are also the standards used for other XYZ-American firsts... No author in this world to my knowledge has used your proposed research into every person's grandparents to be 100% certain that someone else may not have had this background. The evidence that each of these authors have used is no different than the evidence already presented in this herein discussion. I don't like to repeat myself 10 times, but I will do so again. It is known that Atanasoff was (1) Bulgarian-American and (2) we know of no other Bulgarian-American to have achieved what he achieved in the US as early as he achieved it.--Monshuai (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Monshuai. This is ridiculous and shameful.--Janelle4elle (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to Wikipedia, Janelle4elle, you may not be aware that numbers of words or repetitions of opinions (in reference to your comment above about winning a debate) do not trump policy. The Anna May Wong claims are all sourced in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Similar types of sources are also required for claims about Atanasoff. I recommend highly that you become familiar with the provisions of WP:RS; it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia's editorial requirements. There is nothing either ridiculous or shameful about requesting sources for claims; it is policy and thus commonplace. Bielle (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Bielle, sources about specific facts do matter. The sources already provided in the article show two facts. These are that Atanasoff is (1) Bulgarian-American and (2) that he invented "a world changing invention". I like the way Janelle put it, although I prefer to simply say that he achieved prominence in the science and technology field! As I stated before, objective scientific policy is to use current evidence as a way to deduce reality. If new evidence is provided that proves the contrary then perception of said reality also changes. That's how science evolves. For example, it was once thought that the universe does not expand. That was accepted as truth. The reason was that up until the mid 20th century, observations of the cosmos provided evidence that the universe was nearly static (not expanding). In other words, there was no evidence that it was expanding and thus it was accepted that it was volumetrically stable. Then along came a guy who looked at the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background), proceeded to make some calculations about the wavelength alterations to the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the CMB and deduced that the universe was in fact expanding. Suddenly humanity's idea of the universe changed. However every scientist accepts the possibility that yet new evidence will be discovered that again changes even this world view. So you see, one uses the current evidence he/she has to deduce reality and does not discount the potentiality that future evidence may change his/her perceptions of our ever evolving pursuit of truth. Science's understanding of anything and everything is fluid because it constantly evolves, but it is also objective in using the information it currently has and not the information it doesn't have! This is also the type of information provided by the authors of the referenced book in the Anna May Wong article. If one day evidence emerges that so and so had Chinese heritage and succeeded in the US entertainment industry before Wong, then our perception of her currently proclaimed world first as a Chinese-American will also change. Could you or anyone right now say with 100% certainty that someone else with some Chinese heritage didn't do what she did before her? No you can't! So why do you require that of the Atanasoff article? That's the double standard. Likewise, if evidence one day emerges that so and so from America had Bulgarian heritage and succeeded in creating a world changing invention before Atanasoff (or achieved the type of prominence he achieved), then our perception of Atanasoff will also change. However such evidence does not exist at the moment, and in the eyes of science it is therefore not incorporated into its objective view of who he was and what he did. So if and until evidence emerges that disproves currently available information on Atanasoff, his accomplishments as a Bulgarian-American remain one and the same. Therefore Janelle is right and she correctly describes the use of double standards and the prevalence of subjective negative emotions herein.--Monshuai (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is a source for the proposition that Atanasoff’s achievements were in anyway derived, supported or even influenced by the fact that his father had been born in Bulgaria, please provide it. Atanasoff was born in America and thus should be described as an "American physicist" in the lede, in accordance with policy, unless there is evidence to say otherwise. Endless paragraphs saying this and that to the contrary are personal opinions and entirely irrelevant here.

If there is a source that establishes he was known as a “Bulgarian American”, please provide it. Wikipedia doesn't make such determinations unsupported.

If there is a source to declare Atanasoff was the “first Bulgarian American to . . .”, please provide it. Many of us have searched and have so far failed to find any such sources.

If these claims are as obvious and uncontentious as is averred in the many words on tis page on the subject, locating sources in support should be a breeze. All equivalent statements on the Anna May Wong article have clear sources, as required, voluminous repetitions about future genealogy studies notwithstanding. Every time one of us opens the edit window, we see the following: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The fish are beginning to stink. Bielle (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources that he is Bulgarian American and that he invented a world changing invention are already in the article. His Bulgarian ancestry and name are verifiable through these sources. His invention of a world changing technology is also verifiable by way of the 1970 Order of Cyril and Methodius bestowed to him by the country of Bulgaria for his invention of the first digital computer, as well as the 1973 US patent dispute ruling and the US National Medal of Technology granted by George Bush Sr. in 1990.--Monshuai (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward

At what stage do we decide that we are stuck? A wall of words doth not a policy change, nor rhetoric a fact (with apologies to Lovelace). If we are stuck now, as appears to be the case, where do we go from here? Bielle (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated many times, the sources that show he is Bulgarian-American and an inventor of a world changing invention are already provided in the article. Thank you.--Monshuai (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We put the article in the consensus state, possibly lock the article, issue warnings to ethnic boosters which restate the clear guideline being violated by the change they seek. The only editors pressing for the change are ones who edit principally or solely Bulgaria-related articles. (The Janelle4elle account in particular seems to have been created solely to add a voice to this discussion "100%" in agreement with Monshuai.) This is not "worldwide view" issue. This is simple ethnic boosterism. "We claim this individual in our name." Taken to the slippery-slope extreme, if this position is followed, all biographical subjects will list in their lead numerous ethnicities by all the groups seeking to "claim" them. Robert K S (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that in the time since this discussion began, the guideline concerning ethnicity has been expanded to concern sexuality as well. This is a perfectly sensible extension of the rule, since the sexual orientation of an individual is no more relevant to a given figure's notability than his or her ethnicity. It also establishes further correspondences which help to illustrate the wrongness of the boosters' position here. Calling Atanasoff a "Bulgarian-American physicist" is precisely analogous to calling Alan Turing a "homosexual English mathematician" or Oscar Wilde a "gay Irish playwright". Yes, homosexuality is no small part of the life stories of these two individuals. However, it is not their sexual orientation for which they are chiefly notable; it is, instead, their contributions to mathematics and literature, respectively. The sexuality of these men, as with the ethnicity of Atanasoff, is properly developed later in the article. This is in contrast to Harvey Milk, whose sexual orientation is relevant to his notability, and is therefore emphasized in the lead by promoting mention of it to the first sentence. Robert K S (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

“However, it is not their sexual orientation for which they are chiefly notable; it is, instead, their contributions to mathematics and literature, respectively.” Let us not mess up sexuality with ethnicity. I doubt whether César Chávez’s ethnicity is more relevant to his notability than Turing’s or Wilde’s sexuality to their notability. Yet the lead of Chávez article (quoted in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) itself) starts as follows:

“César Estrada Chávez (March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was a Mexican American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who etc. etc.”

If Mexican American is good enough for the lead of the César Chávez article according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), then so is Bulgarian American for the lead of the John Atanasoff article. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that Chávez was a leader of a political movement of Mexican and Mexican American farm workers (La Causa)? Have you never heard of "Sí se puede", even with its adoption by Obama as his campaign slogan? Chávez's ethnicity is central to his notability. Atanasoff wasn't a Bulgarian political leader in America and did nothing to represent Bulgarian or Bulgarian-American interests in America. With regard to Chávez, you might as well be arguing that Martin Luther King's ethnicity or Malcolm X's ethnicity weren't central to their notabilities as political leaders of African American political movements. Robert K S (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP guideline specifically states that where ethnicity is a significant factor in notability, then it should be in the lede. As Robert K S sets out, although Cesar Chavez was American born, everything about his notability as a labour leader, organizer, negotiator and spokesperson for the Mexican-American migrant workers was related to his being born to Mexican parents and living and working in the Mexican-American community in the U.S. This is well-sourced information and the sources are footnoted in the article. For Atanasoff we have a source for the fact that he had a Bulgarian father. We have a source for the medal he was presented with by Bulgaria with the date and a description of its nature. I have found no source for “first Bulgarian …” or “Bulgarian-American” anything. In my view, Chavez and Anna May Wong are appropriately compared; Atanasaoff and either of them are not. Bielle (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So Bielle, above you have stated that we have a source that Atanasoff's father is Bulgarian (as is his family name). Yet a few lines after that you also say that we don't have a source that he is "Bulgarian-American". That's a contradiction. There's something else that has been overlooked here. Atanasoff's notability as a Bulgarian is the reason why Bulgaria was the first country in the world to recognize his achievement. It is also the core reason why Bulgaria is the only country to have streets, monuments and institutions named after him. In other words, his being a Bulgarian-American and an influential inventor made him notable in a country/nation of millions, diaspora included. Denying this, is to deny not only his lineage, but also his notability to all of these people. Therefore the notability you know him for is no more true than the notability Bulgarians know him for. As such, both notabilities belong in the lede, as does the fact that Bulgaria officially recognized him three years before the patent dispute ruling in the US, which currently makes up the second sentence in the lede. This too should change.--Monshuai (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One cannot see the claim made above that "Chávez's ethnicity is central to his notability" as deriving from the article itself, no such claims there. Apcbg (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this statement means. I'm having trouble parsing it. I haven't read the Chávez Wikipedia article, but some neighborhood friends of mine are relatives of his, and I've studied his life and know a fair amount about him. I'm going to take a stab and guess from what you wrote, Abcbg, that you hadn't heard of him before reading his name in the WP:MOSBIO example. Robert K S (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended for a wide range of readers some of whom have not heard of Chávez before, and they would expect to learn more about him from the Chávez Wikipedia article rather than draw from the knowledge of some Wiki editor's neighbourhood friends :-)

Monshuai is making an important point here. Atanasoff's notability is not restricted to the USA alone; his notability in Bulgaria is an integral part of it, and a significant one too, as amply demonstrated by the 'Honors and distinctions' and 'Named after Atanasoff' sections of the article. His being Bulgarian American is central to his notability in Bulgaria, and therefore relevant to his notability in general as required by Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph guideline. Apcbg (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Doctor Johnson, "Worldwide view" is the last refuge of ethnic boosterism. Robert K S (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're running out of arguments Robert and as a result your above "Worldwide view" comment seems to infer that Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is "ethnic boosterism". Are you suggesting that Atanasoff's notability to this country, and thus its nation's reasons for recognizing him first and also naming streets/institutions/monuments after him are not good enough? If that's what you're saying about his notability to the Bulgarian nation, then it's essentially equivalent to making a negative proclamation and a judgement about the perceptions of an entire people. I need not remind you that this is unethical and strictly unacceptable.--Monshuai (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, whether Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria resulted from 'ethnic boosterism' or not is quite irrelevant; what matters here is the very fact of that notability not its alleged explanation.

Robert K S (and Bielle), Wikipedia operates according to established principles and guidelines (Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph in this case) not by periphrasing Doctor Johnson or placing labels around ("boosterism" etc). Sourced fact is that Atanasoff is notable in the USA, Bulgaria, and Antarctica. (He may well be notable in other countries too, although that is not seen from the present version of the article.) Fact is that his notability in both Bulgaria and Antarctica (cf. the Atanasoff Nunatak article for the latter) is essentially related to his Bulgarian origins, which means his ethnicity is indeed relevant to his notability, and hence appropriate to appear in the article's opening. Apcbg (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, Apcbg, TodorBozhinov, Janelle4elle, would you agree to a formal mediation on this issue? This seems like the appropriate place to bring an advanced dispute. Robert K S (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apcbg, you're absolutely right and that is what I implied when I first mentioned his notability in Bulgaria as contrasted by his notability in the US. As you say, regardless of whether or not his notability in Bulgaria is "ethnic boosterism" it is nonetheless just as real as his notability in the US. It is his being a Bulgarian-American that has stimulated Bulgaria to be first to recognize him and become the only country in the world to name and do so many things in his honor. However, I also state that this is not done in the negative context that Robert K S suggests. Either way, Atanasoff's notability in both countries exists and must be stated in the article as per the rules.--Monshuai (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to continue the "notability in Bulgaria" discussion here, so as to keep the thread below more on-topic. On global vs local notability, WP biographies should describe what the person is notable for to the wider public (i.e. the readership). The fact that Atanasoff is famous in Bulgaria is not crucial to him being famous for having invented the computer. His invention of the computer is the reason why this article exists in the first place. In fact, for whatever it's worth, his autobiography shows that he was slightly bemused by the celebrity-like treatment he received during his visit to Bulgaria.

Also on the topic of notability, further to my points below: because Obama's father was Kenyan, Kenya declared November 4, 2008 a public holiday, in order to celebrate Obama's election as US president. Additionally, the schools in his home town of Nyang’oma Kogelo have been named "Senator Obama Primary School" and "Senator Obama Secondary School". Obama's ancestry is clearly very celebrated in Kenya, as Atanasoff's is in Bulgaria. However, Obama's WP article contains no mention of his fame in Kenya - it just objectively states that his father was born there. This does not mean the opinion of 40 million Kenyans that he is a great man has been censored or suppressed, it simply means that Obama's notability is not in any way derived from Kenya's opinion of him. Again, if it were possible to show that Atanasoff's notability (as the inventor of the computer) is derived from the fact he is famous in Bulgaria, that would be a different story. Tomatoman (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to be involved in the discussion but just want to say something. See El Greco - the fact that he was Greek by origin doesn't have anything to do with his achievement but still it is written in the introduction that he had Greek origin and even his name is written in Greek. I think Wikipedia should not have double standards so you should either remove those facts from the introduction of that Spanish painter or leave Bulgarian in the introduction for John Atanasoff and in that logic put his name in Bulgarian. --Gligan (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gligan, thank you for the contribution. I'm not sure whether El Greco's article is really a great one for comparison to Atanasoff's. His name is spelled out in Greek as Greco himself used it on his paintings - thus making the actual lettering relevant. Atanasoff's Cyrillic name does not carry nearly the same level of relevance. Moreover, Greco was born in Greece (or at least on territory that was traditionally Greek), which makes his Greek origin quite objective. Note also that the article refers to him as "of Greek origin", rather than "Greek", which, if the above discussion is anything to go by, makes a significant difference. Tomatoman (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost two years ago when it was proposed that part of Atanasoff's lede be written as, "American physicist of Bulgarian origin" Robert K S rejected it. He has not compromised even whilst others, myself included, have proposed and attempted to do so. Due to his insistance on not making objective concessions, the debate has been protracted and both sides have hardened their stances. The positive consequence of this is that the discussion has evolved and the realization has been made that Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is as real as his notability in the United States, thus clearly demonstrating that as per the rules, both notabilities belong in the lede. In light of this evidence, the "Bulgarian-American physicist" term is most appropriate. BTW Tomatoman, thank you for the polite clarification you wrote on my talk page.--Monshuai (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Monshuai, thank you for replying. It heartens me to see that this conversation is again moving in a positive direction! I think there are a couple of different points here:

• It is of course fully objective to call Atanasoff "of Bulgarian origin". The real question looming over us is whether that belongs in the lede. A lot has been said on that, and I think there is still no clear case for including his Bulgarian descent as a main point of notability. As you can see from my last edit, though, I think it's not entirely unreasonable to leave it like this until a consensus develops one way or the other. On that note, I hope you appreciate that I reverted your edit (as well as that of Robert K S) simply in order to avoid yet another conflict where the contents keep swinging between extremes multiple times per day.
• In order to answer the above question, of whether to include his Bulgarian descent in the first sentence, we need to qualify his notability. In this respect, I think the point that you and Apcbg made earlier about how his notability in Bulgaria is relevant to his global notability is not completely water-tight. It is common for people to become "local heroes" when they gain global prominence (e.g. Obama's rise to fame in Kenya), but their general notability should not be determined by this local recognition. As a very general point, localized perceptions of a person can differ vastly from those shared by the general public: a case in point is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi: a convicted terrorist who received a hero's welcome at home. I am not claiming that Atanasoff's recognition in Bulgaria is in any way unimportant or irrelevant, but we need to figure out if that recognition was a defining aspect of his life and work. Indeed, you correctly pointed out that Bulgaria was the first to officially recognize him for his achievement. If we can establish that awarding him the C&M medal was not a purely opportunistic move (i.e. a convenient way for the government to associate itself with a man with potential), but rather a genuine recognition of Atanasoff for his great invention, then that would be a big step forward. Also, if we can show that being recognized by Bulgaria was a key step in the process that led to his global recognition (rather than an unrelated event), that would really settle things too. I am not claiming to know the answer to either of these questions, or to even have an inclination to answer them one way or the other.
• In fact, I don't think the questions I raised in the preceding paragraph can be answered purely by debate amongst ourselves, no matter how hard we try: Wikipedia is all about sources, sources, sources... I have therefore requested two books from the Oxford library dedicated purely to Atanasoff, which I hope will shed some light on this. They are both published in Sofia, though one is by a Bulgarian author and one by a non-Bulgarian, so I hope overall they will present a neutral picture. Obviously it will take a bit of time to look through these and pick out the key bits, but I hope it will be worth it!
• And a final general question: to what extent is citing other encyclopedias acceptable, and to what extent should we be guided by the way they present things? I couldn't find anything on this in the Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you again for taking a constructive and enthusiastic part in this discussion! Tomatoman (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent news about the books, Tomatoman. You asked about using enycylopedias and the like. Here is what I found on tertiary sources. Such compendia are useful for overviews but not in place of secondary sources for details; the usual "it depends". I would like to echo Tomatoman's call for restraint on the article itself, and even for the removal of the most recent additions, all of which are a part of what is being discussed. To do otherwise may be to invite criticism of motives. Bielle (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bielle, the article as it stands is a compromise between two positions. Again, the notability of Atanasoff in Bulgaria is no less real than his notability in the United States. In fact according to provided sources, Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria is far more pervasive than it is elsewhere.--Monshuai (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting on the books, but have in the meantime read through much of Atanasoff's own 54-page autobiography, published in the "Annals of the History of Computing" [5]. It was an illuminating read, and I do not anticipate there would be issues related to original research in terms of using it to answer the questions here. The article makes many of his views and experiences, which have been debated above, quite clear. I would like to make a few points relating to particular passages, but I am afraid some of you may not have access to the article. On the other hand, if I was to quote the passages here, they would easily flood this page. Therefore, would you prefer me to (a) point to the passages; or (b) quote them in full? Tomatoman (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tomatoman, when I was a young student (nearly 15 years ago) I did read the autobiography/memoirs you mentioned. If I remember correctly, he devotes his memoirs to what he calls his people, the Bulgarians. He also stated that the heritage of the two peoples in his blood (Bulgarians and Americans) had kept his spirit. There was also mention that his father wanted to take his wife and children to Bulgaria, but had not succeeded in doing so. I may be able to find these passages on the internet, as I have seen them online before. Please feel free to share any information you have at your convenience.--Monshuai (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Try here. This is an autobiographical excerpt, detailing his pride in his Bulgarian heritage. Interestingly enough, the following lines are in the first paragraph of their own biography;

Yet, comparatively few people know that John Atanasoff, the genius who invented the first computer and initiated the computer revolution, was of Bulgarian ancestry. John Atanasoff was a prominent American inventor who took pride in his Bulgarian heritage and maintained strong ties to his ancestral home of Bulgaria.

My emphasis - Alison ^❤ 00:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your emphasis is correct Alison. Two years ago I proposed a compromise that this is how Atanasoff should be presented, yet Robert K S rejected it. Moreover, in his memoirs Atanasoff refers to Bulgarians as "our people". Here are some excerpts from a part of his autobiogaphy from the link you provided:

"Devoting this version of my memoirs to the people of my fatherland, I feel great excitement. I need to tell my Bulgarian readers too many things but words do not come easily."

"[...] preparation of our people for an uprising [...]."

"My father wanted to take his wife and children to Bulgaria but he did not succeed."

"I have always felt that the heritage of the two peoples in my blood has kept my spirit. And now, as I am growing old, I am even happier for my good fortune.

"[...] given me a high prize the Cyrille and Methodius Order (First Class)."

Thank you for the link Alison.--Monshuai (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoman's research

I am going to de-indent this, as otherwise things would get messy. I have now got the Bulgarian-language book and compared it against Atanasoff's autobiography. Monshuai, what you say is largely correct, though you may have misunderstood the context of some of Atanasoff's comments quote above. Additionally, www.johnatanasoff.com is run by a Bulgarian company and appears to cover his life from a largely Bulgarian perspective. This does not mean it is inaccurate, but that any bias should be taken with a grain of salt. I will do my best to present the situation, based on the information I now have, as clearly as possible:

Atanasoff's actual autobiography (/memoirs) was written in 1984 and published in the Annals of the History of Computing. It has a foreword by Gordon Bell, who indicates that he prompted Atanasoff to write down his story and publish it. In this Atanasoff candidly covers much of his life and personal experiences, as well as his work-related achievements. He talks about his early influences and the interest in science engendered in him at a very early age both by his father, an electrical engineer, as well as his mother, a math teacher (spends approx. 2 pages talking about this). He describes his education and early career, as well as the state of computing in the 1930s (10 pages). This is a preface his description of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, including many other issues he was experiencing at the time (14 pages). These developments are then interrupted by the war, which also forces him into a career change, and later his own business - which he did not enjoy greatly (8 pages).

He then, on page 33, introduces the litigation process. This chapter of his life was started by a visit by a patent attorney in 1967. After describing this event, Atanasoff states

I did not realize how long a period of study, analysis, and training lay ahead, before the preparatory process was finished and the trials began. Nor have I ever had associates and co-workers of such skill and ability as those who represented Control Data Corporation and Honeywell Incorporated throughout the whole procedure, and in the trials themselves. Our sojourn was to the extreme, and counsel often had good cause to be irritated with me-and the reverse-but these men were gentlemen of the first order.

A little later he also states

Preliminary Assembly of Facts It was soon clear to everyone that these lawsuits would become monumental in computing - and would take some years before coming to trial. There was plenty for everyone to do. I had been chosen to participate, in part, because at the beginning I knew more of the basic facts; so it was left to me to outline these facts.

I include these paragraphs to illustrate what a great role this trial played in his life. In fact, it was so important to him, that he dedicates the remaining 20 pages of the autobiography almost entirely to events related to the trial.

He does, of course, mention Bulgaria as well. He dedicates one section, roughly a single page long, to his visit there. This is on page 39. I will include this here in full, in order to present his view as completely as possible. I hope this does not raise any copyright issues.

14. An Interlude - Bulgaria (1970)

By the summer of 1970, the tempo of the two litigations had slowed, probably waiting on the court calendar. In early fall, I received a letter from Blagovest Sendov, then head of the mathematics department of Sofia University in Bulgaria. He stated that I obviously had a Bulgarian name (I later found that names from the root of Athanasius, such as Atanas, Atanasov, or Atanasoff, were commoner names in Bulgaria than Smith is in this country), and he had investigated my work in computers. Would I write him as to my exact status? I wrote of my father being an infant in my grandfather’s arms when the latter was shot and killed in 1876, at the start of the revolution from Turkey. My father came to the United States in 1889 with an uncle, at the age of 13, and was left here alone at the age of 15. He graduated from Colgate University and married my mother, who was descended from a typical mixture of English, Irish, and French nationalities, all of whom had long been in the United States. In my whole life, I had known only one other Bulgarian at all well; that was Boris Iliev, whom I met when he was a student of agricultural engineering at ISC in 1927, and I had lost track of him in the years of wars in his country.

Sendov must have become quite busy, because soon I received another letter; he had found my friend, in Sofia, and had also visited my father’s home town, Boyadjik, in the district of Yambol, in rural Bulgaria, where the 80 years had not dulled people’s memories of my father and his family. Would I come to Bulgaria?

I thought not, at first, but matters developed rapidly; about November 19, 1970, my wife and I picked up a car in Wolfsburg, Germany, and drove to Berlin and then southeast to Bulgaria. As we entered Sofia, I realized that I had no firm commitment as to date and place. I also realized that I had left behind my language and also my alphabet. There did not seem to be any police or other officials around, so I approached the first man who got off a streetcar. He did not know English, but he recognized that we spoke that language, and he got into our car and directed us to a building that I was sure was a government bureau. It was his own place of work, here he produced a man who could speak English. With his help, I found my friend of long ago, now retired from the Agricultural College, and then contacted Sendov; for the first time we were apprised that while in Bulgaria, we were to be guests of the Bulgarian Academy of Science.

To abbreviate matters: we spent a week in Sofia, during which I gave a lecture on computers in a hall filled with people, with others listening to loudspeakers outside in the cold. The next week we were given a tour of the state, including a good visit to my father’s village. I was told that I drew a larger crowd than Brezhnev, and I was hugged and kissed by a group of over 200 who were related to me. I saw a my ancestors, cousin of my father’s who had been a few years younger, but who still remembered his leaving. Knowing that my father did not write often, I was doubtful when presented with a letter by him (in Bulgarian) in 1954, but the envelope was clearly addressed by my mother. At another town nearby, I saw my father’s half-sister, who had been born after he left Bulgaria.

The last week, we were back in Sofia. I was not really happy to be feted so much, but at the end of our stay, we hated to leave. The day before our departure, I received a call from the secretary of the academy asking that I delay my departure by one day. It seems that various members of the academy had asked Parliament to give me an award, and had just received approval to grant me the Order of Cyril and Method- First Class, for my “great merits and scientific contributions”; I suspect that my grandfather’s having been a patriot may have influenced this decision. Cyril and Methodius, priests who lived in Bulgaria, not Russia, are credited with having devised the Cyrillic alphabet in about 850 A.D. Although they invented this alphabet for religious purposes, Bulgarians have for many years named the highest order given to scientists after them. Even communist Bulgaria is proud of what these priests did.

The order was presented to me the following day, with the U.S. ambassador and some of his staff present. At this particular time, some international incident had caused Bulgarians to treat the American with the minimum required courtesy, and my award occasioned a change in this relation As the president of the academy, Angel Balevski, was finishing his presentation, and I listened to my interpreter, I suddenly realized that I needed a response in a big hurry. Then I remembered that I knew about Cyril and Methodius, so I recounted to the academy my own great interest in writing. I pointed out that Bulgaria is one of only a few nations that have had a system of writing devised in a very short time, and that in spite of this, the Cyrillic alphabet stands shoulder to shoulder with the other great alphabets of the world. I pointed out that my own studies indicated that an effort should be made today to devise a new alphabet for the future good of mankind. Later, the members of the academy expressed great interest in my point of view, and I was invited to visit Vladimir Georgiev, world-renowned linguist of the academy, which I did. I had previously met Georgiev at the home of academy vice-president Ljubomir Iliev, with other distinguished and interesting guests, and with memorable food and cordiality.

The next day, with a warm feeling for the land of my ancestors, we drove into Greece. It was Christmas day.

This is clearly an important passage, but I will refrain from commenting on it excessively. In brief, it seems (and this is substantiated by other sources) that he was at first surprised by this sudden interest, and slightly bemused by his reception in Bulgaria, though what developed was a very warm feeling towards a people that received him exuberantly. However, it seems significant for the present discussion that this is the only place in the whole 54 pages where he mentions Bulgaria. Nowhere else is there any reference to his ancestry or his ethnicity - not before, nor after this passage. In particular, despite the fact that Atanasoff comments freely on various difficulties he faced throughout his career, for instance in obtaining funding or in the quantity of work he had to do, there is no mention of difficulties related to ethnic bias against him. I am not implying that he necessarily did not face any - I am simply stating the above as a fact. In any case, his academic merit seems to have propelled him through the ranks so fast that no amount of prejudice would have gotten in his way (this is a personal observation).

There is only one more passage I would like to quote and it is relating to the end of the trial:

18. Larson’s Decision (October 19, 1973)

The trial in the ENIAC case ended on March 13, 1972; it had taken 135 days or parts of days. A total of 77 witnesses were heard. There were 25,686 exhibits filed by H and 6968 exhibits filed by SR and/or ISD, many of them large, such as a 496-page book on Charles Babbage. The total trial transcript was 20,667 pages. This trial marked the first time, I believe, that both parties used a major amount of computer time to store their documents. [...] Larson signed his decision on October 19,1973. [...]

The decision comprised 248 pages of legal-cap paper, with an appendix of 60-plus pages. The judge found 17 specific claims on the ENIAC patent invalid on a variety of grounds, including two claims taken to be representative of the subject matter derived from me by Mauchly and Eckert. He found the entire patent invalid on three grounds unrelated to inventorship: public use, on sale, and published disclosure, all more than one year prior to the ENIAC patent filing date of June 26,1947. Of greater significance for the purposes of this paper, however, is the fact that he also found the entire patent invalid on the ground of derivation from my prior electronic digital computer.

This illustrates just what a gargantuan undertaking this trial was, and how comprehensive the investigation was. Despite the fact that he was awarded the Order of C&M prior to the above legal decision, the Bulgarian award itself does not necessarily recognize him as the inventor of the first computer, but rather for his “great merits and scientific contributions”. It is difficult to think of anything but this 6-year-long trial that could have given Atanasoff the recognition he deserved, and I think therefore it is correct to give it a prominent place in the article. I will save this post now and write a separate one on the book. Tomatoman (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The book I've got is a compilation called Джон Атанасов - Бащата на Компютъра (John Atanasoff - The Father of the Computer), compiled by prof. Dimitar Shishkov, published by TANGRA TanNakRa and the Center for Research on Bulgarians in Sofia in 2001. It is published for Atanasoff's centenary. The foreword by Blagovest Sendov is titled Pride in Bulgaria and states (excuse my shabby translation):

As well as many other things, today Bulgarians also need a well-founded national self-esteem. The sources of this self-esteem are our history and the talent of people with Bulgarian blood. For the past century, one of the highest peaks in this respect in John Atanasoff, inventor of the world's first electronic computer. The value of every action is determined by its consequences. John Atanasoff's invention is the beginning of the information revolution, which reshaped and continues to reshape our world.

[A paragraph describing what Atanasoff did - the background to his invention]

The principles upon which John Atanasoff's computer is built, as primordial as it seems today, are at the basis of the hundreds of millions of computers, without which today's society cannot exist. Every Bulgarian knows and is proud of the brother Saints Cyril and Methodius, who gave all Slavs their writing through the Bulgarians. The bearer of Bulgarian blood, John Atanasoff, opened the way towards the worldwide information society.

The next page is a fax of a typewritten letter by Atanasoff from 15 February 1985. It states (obviously in English):

MY FATHER'S LAND

As I dedicate to the people of my father's country this Bulgarian version of a paper which I have written, my emotions run full. I have so much to say to you, but words come slowly, and you will have to listen as I say what I must.

My father was born in 1978 January 6 as our people prepared for a revolt from Turkey. When the revolt became imminent, the ruling Turks told the people of Boyadzhik to leave their homes to be burned. But as my grandfather with my father in his arms fled, with my grandmother behind him, a small group of Turkish soldiers shot him through through the chest. The bullet which killed my grandfather left a mark on my father's head which he carried throughout his life.

After two step-fathers, my father came to the US at the age of 13 and was left alone at age 15. After such an incredible beginning, he graduated from Colgate University and married my mother, and American whose grandfather fought in our Revolutionary war. Father always wanted to bring his wife and children to Bulgaria but it did not happen.

I have always felt the heredity I received, the blood of two different peoples, served to buoy my spirits.

And now as I grow old, I feel most fortunate. I have received a warm welcome from my father's people, and important award, The Order of Cyril and Methodius, First Class, was made a Foreign Member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and I maintain highly esteemed contacts with many friends in Bulgaria.

Bulgaria, my father's people, I salute you.

[signed]

In short, he did not dedicate his memoirs to the Bulgarian people - he dedicated what is actually a translation of the autobiography I described above (from what I can tell anyway). After this reprint of his letter, though, the book I have does not go on to publish the translation straight-away. Instead, its structure is roughly as follows:

• On Bulgarians - The people that gave birth to John Atanasoff's father contains 14 pages of generic chronological history of Bulgaria. There is a paragraph inserted at the time of Atanasoff's birth to note that event. There is also one appended at the end to note that John Atanasoff was the "genius American inventor, who took pride in his Bulgarian heritage", and to emphasize the importance of his invention.
• A two-page introduction by Shishkov (the compiler) explaining the sources used, namely the other books written on Atanasoff, mostly in English (especially Molenhoff 1988 and Bonchev 1990), as well as some new research - some conducted in Boyadzhik, and some based on letters and other correspondence with Bulgarians.
• A couple of quotations on Atanasoff: one by William Gardener (sp?) from Datamation magazine, 1981; another by Shishkov
• Long translated excerpts from a couple of the other books on early computers and Atanasoff (31 pages)
• A piece by Nikolay Bonchev (also from another book) called Strong Roots (11 pages). It details events in Bulgaria around the time Ivan Atanasoff (his father) lost his own father, and Ivan's life after emigrating to the US, up to the point he met his wife.
• Finally, it moves on to Atanasoff's own writing. It begins with a translation of his dedication (above). This is followd by an abridged version of Atanasoff's autobiography that I outlined above (77 pages). From what I can tell, several of the more technical parts (e.g. related to the ABC and the patent dispute) have been taken out and included separately, as excerpts from the other books (69 pages).
• The section on Atanasoff's visit to Bulgaria is then included separately, under the title In the land of the ancestors. This section goes on with a short piece by Bonchev on Bulgaria Welcomes her Famous Compatriot, including the circumstances around his invitation by Sendov:

[...] An invitation is sent to Atanasoff from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences by the then professor of mathematics at Sofia University, Blagovest Sendov, who at Atanasoff's request manages to track down Boris Iliev [Atanasoff's Bulgarian acquaintance from 1926 Iowa]. Prof. Sendov finds out about Atanasoff's pioneering computer research at the beginning of the year 1970. The information on John Atanasoff comes from the book Electronic calculation systems by R. K. Richards, who points out the Atanasoff-Berry computer as a predecessor to all electronic calculation systems. This is what Prof. Sendov writes on this topic: "Since the constructor of this machine had the Bulgarian surname Atanasoff, this aroused my interest and I did my best to track him down and ask him for more information." He sends a letter requesting more information to the rector of Iowa State University, which according to Richards is the cradle of the first generation of computers. Having obtained Atanasoff's address, prof. Sendov writes to him in Frederick, Maryland, with a request for accurate biographical information on himself, and more specifically on his Bulgarian heritage. John Atanasoff immediately sends back his reply - on 2 September 1970. His mother is visiting exactly at that time at their house, in Frederick (his father had died in 1956). He asks her for assistance and with the help of his wife Alice she writes down everything that she knows about the early years of Ivan Atanasoff and his family in Bulgaria. Precisely these memories of Ivan Atanasoff, recounted by Iva Atanasoff, are what her son will bring to his father's land during December 1970.

• It continues with the text of the letter with Atanasoff wrote back to Sendov after the initial inquiry. I cannot offer a translation as it is a couple of pages long. Atanasoff seems touched by the sudden interest, and is very cordial. Atanasoff recounts his father's youth, his Bulgarian acquaintance Boris Iliev, and writes broadly on his career and the events that led to the ABC. He ends with

I would like to dedicate more time to more detailed collaboration. Would it be possible for you to come to the USA? On the other hand, I have had a visit to Bulgaria on my mind for a long time, in order to see the birthplace of my father (Boyadzhik) and to feel the nature of the people, from which I originate. However I still have no concrete plans regarding such a trip. I would be able to offer you many more details, however this would of course introduce complications in terms of making photocopies. Please, write back with any questions you may have for me.

The rest of that section goes on to detail Atanasoff's visit, pretty much along the lines of his own description of it above.

• There is then a short section of Alice Atanasoff's memories of John. This is followed by more on Atanasoff's second trip to Bulgaria in 1985, for a conference. Much of that is dedicated to Atanasoff's opinions of the role of computers in life. Some of it is on his actual trip and the places he visited (I haven't read this part but it doesn't seem too exciting).
• There are a few more details, e.g. relating to an obituary by the Bulgarian ambassador to the US, and a statue of him being unveiled in Bulgaria. I haven't got as far as reading these in detail either, but I don't think they are crucial to our understanding of him.

Tomatoman (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, finally, my take on this. This may be termed original research, but I'm not sure on what other basis we would be able to settle this. From Atanasoff's own autobiography it becomes clear that his ancestry did not play an appreciable role during his early years. By this I mean the fact that his father was Bulgarian - of course the fact that his father was an electrical engineer did play a role, but we cannot link Ivan's profession to Ivan's country of origin. John Atanasoff's ancestry also appears to have had no clear effect on his career path or on his invention of the ABC. It would appear that he invented the ABC as a result of having great ability as a multi-disciplinary scientist, as a result of him vigorously pursuing his career and his ideas, and as a result of him working in a conducive environment.

Sendov's "discovery" of Atanasoff appears to have been largely serendipitous, and we can only speculate on whether Atanasoff would have established any significant link with Bulgaria had it not been for that contact. Atanasoff notes his father's desire to take the family to Bulgaria for a visit, but does not express any opinions that indicate whether he was in favor of or against that idea at the time. That is rational behavior, since Atanasoff appears to have had no real knowledge of the place, and no more than a vague intrigue about his ancestry, the way many Americans demonstrate curiosity towards their European roots.

From Atanasoff's response, it appears he was delighted to receive Sendov's letter, and thoroughly enjoyed his visits to Bulgaria. Judging by his words, he does seem to have developed a proximity to Bulgarians, and a great affection for the country. The letter with which he dedicates the translation of his memoirs points at this. It is unclear to what extent that may have been because his audience was indeed made up of Bulgarians (akin to Kennedy's Ich bin ein Berliner), as I am yet to find any remarks to this effect made by Atanasoff in pieces targeted at an international audience. In a way this is a moot issue, though: even if he had developed an outward fanaticism for Bulgaria during his latter years, that would not change the fact that Bulgaria played no part in his life before and during the invention of the ABC, which is what brought him fame in the first place.

In my previous post I also explained how it appears there was no relationship between the Honeywell vs Sperry Reid trial and the award of the Order of Cyril and Methodius. By this I mean that the award of the Order was not in any way consequential to Atanasoff winning the trial. Additionally, there is no clear indication regarding the basis on which the Order was awarded, and the research that was carried out for that purpose. There is certainly no indication that the Order was awarded to recognize him for being the inventor of the first computer.

Based on the sources above I would like to recommend that in the first sentence Atanasoff is named as American, correspending to his nationality. The phonetic pronunciation of his name should be included (as it is unusual), but probably not the Cyrillic spelling - this should be included for his father, in the later section. The Honeywell vs Sperry Reid trial should be mentioned in the second sentence as it embodies the official recognition of the ABC as the first electronic digital computer. Furthermore, it is probably OK to include the fact that his father was Bulgarian in the lede - though it is interesting to note that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ancestry is not mentioned in the summaries of any of the 3 other encyclopedias I consulted, nor the Physics Today or Scientific American articles; one (reasonably long) encyclopedia entry did not mention Bulgaria at all. Of course I don't think that's the right way forward, but it's an indicator of how others have dealt with this. As it happens, after the last edit the article is in a state more or less along the lines of my suggestions, and it may be sensible to keep it this way until any further information arises.

I have done my best to look at this with at little bias as possible, but I am not infallible. Therefore I welcome all your further comments and suggestions on the issue. I believe based on the sources above we should be able to reach a consensus more easily. Tomatoman (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for researching these books Tomatoman. Your hard work is highly appreciated. I mean that! :) I am going to use the sources you have provided to show that there are very important points worth noting that favour the inclusion of Atanasoff's Bulgarian origins in the lede. The evidence will show that he was notable in Bulgaria before being given the Cyril and Methodius Order and that this notability is important to the people therein, especially because of his ancestry. The evidence also shows that in the midst of the Cold War, a Communist country and staunch ally of the USSR honoured an American citizen with the maximal might of its intellectual community. History in the making...

"To abbreviate matters: we spent a week in Sofia, during which I gave a lecture on computers in a hall filled with people, with others listening to loudspeakers outside in the cold. The next week we were given a tour of the state, including a good visit to my father’s village. I was told that I drew a larger crowd than Brezhnev, and I was hugged and kissed by a group of over 200 who were related to me. I saw my ancestors, cousin of my father’s who had been a few years younger, but who still remembered his leaving. Knowing that my father did not write often, I was doubtful when presented with a letter by him (in Bulgarian) in 1954, but the envelope was clearly addressed by my mother. At another town nearby, I saw my father’s half-sister, who had been born after he left Bulgaria." Indeed he was notable in the country and welcomed with more fervour than even Brezhnev, the leader of the Soviet Union, one of two superpowers at the time. This further underlines the importance of including Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria to the lede. To keep the article as is, is to deny the reality of the matter. There are various notabilities, and they all belong in the lede (fully adherent to Wikipedia rules) unless of course someone is under the impression that one notability is more important than another.

I also see evidence that it would be in order to have a section describing Atanasoff's personal perspectives on Bulgaria. I find it strange that his feelings and pride in his Bulgarian ancestry have not been included in the article (despite proposals to do so) in all these years of debating this very issue. One of his declarations is quite illuminating:

"On the other hand,I have had a visit to Bulgaria on my mind for a long time, in order to see the birthplace of my father (Boyadzhik) and to feel the nature of the people, from which I originate." This indicates that the he had a personal interest to visit the country (from which he personally claims to originate) and thus it wasn't simply Sendov's invitation that led him there.

As previously noted, he also calls the Order of Cyril and Methodius, First Class, a "high prize." This tells us that he saw it as being prestigious and he was indeed honoured to have received it. After all it is Bulgaria's highest award in Science and Technology. Every nation-state's highest prize is important, especially to the millions living there.

Something else caught my eye. He emphasizes the bilateral repercussions of having received his Bulgarian award, set in the context of a bi-polar world.

"The order was presented to me the following day, with the U.S. ambassador and some of his staff present. At this particular time, some international incident had caused Bulgarians to treat the American with the minimum required courtesy, and my award occasioned a change in this relation." Based on this account, it seems to me that his award ushered in a new dynamic in the socio-cultural and diplomatic relations between America and Bulgaria. That further emphasizes the importance of the award, not simply on a national level but also as a catalyst for helping bridge two countries that were otherwise divided by the realities of the Cold War. It is truly remarkable that a Communist country anchored on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, no less in the very temporal core of the Cold War, officially bestowes an American citizen (accompanied by the US ambassador) its highest award in science and technology. This is historic!

It is also of utmost importance to mention the influence that both of his parents had on his upbringing. His mother's American roots and background in mathematics must be highlighted, just as we've already done so with his father. It is also rather fascinating that Atanasoff strongly identifies with his American great grandfather who fought in the American Civil War, and with his Bulgarian grandfather who was killed in the Bulgarian rebellions against the Ottoman Empire. His is a symbolic heritage of two peoples in opposite corners of the Earth fighting for their version of justice and freedom. Above all, he is a composite product of these peoples, in a way a true citizen of the world who was able to bring two societies closer to one another in what was arguably the most dangerous period in human history.

I thank Tomatoman for looking at the evidence as impartially as he could. I also hope that he feels the same way about me, for I too have analyzed the text he has quoted with as little bias as possible. We are all fallible, as he himself has stated, and I believe this is the undeniable truth, for we humans are no more than subjective neural networks aiming to claim the great ideal of scientific objectivity. We are also blessed to have the cognitive capabilities to study all sides of an issue, by submerging ourselves in the full spectrum of realities. The notability that Atanasoff had and still has in Bulgaria remains a truth, a reality and a fact that is as real and evidently more prevalent than it is elsewhere.--Monshuai (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that regardless of the arguments either way here (and truly - I've no 'dog in this fight', as they say), I'm delighted to see the diligent research done by Tomatoman here, and indeed with your response, Monshuai. While people will disagree over the meaning of these words, etc, etc - this kind of discourse and research is only excellent! Your final paragraph sums it up. Good stuff :) - Alison ^❤ 03:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I was just editing my previous message and submitted it with a few changes. I didn't know that you had already read it and commented on it so I wanted to make sure that you knew of the additions I have made. This way you'll be able to decide whether or not you still agree with what I have posted. To not give you a heads up would be unethical of me. When you have the time please re-read it. Thanks.--Monshuai (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the notification. Just to clarify; while I agree with the last paragraph in the main, I'll defer comment about Atanasoff's notability in Bulgaria. But yes to the rest :) - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.:)--Monshuai (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai, many thanks for providing your analysis of the situation! I'll only comment briefly here, partly because I think we might be close to coming to a resolution. As Monshuai accurately points out, Atanasoff has received much attention in Bulgaria, and is nothing short of a celebrity. Sendov's own foreword (to the book) is a testament to this fact, as is the fact that a statue of Atanasoff was recently built in Bulgaria. So to me, the real question is: does the fact that Atanasoff is famous in Bulgaria make Bulgaria a notable aspect of his life? Above (in my analogy of Atanasoff's fame in Bulgaria with Obama's in Kenya), I gave my own view on this, though I don't want to pretend that my word is definitive. Would anyone, preferably with more WP experience, like to chime in on this? In the meantime I'll try to think of other analogous examples that could shed some light on the issue.

I think the above is the primary question here, though I have a couple of further points. Monshuai, you say

The evidence also shows that in the midst of the Cold War, a Communist country and staunch ally of the USSR honoured an American citizen with the maximal might of its intellectual community. History in the making...

and

Based on [Atanasoff's account of Bulgaria's improvement treatment of the US ambassador during the C&M award ceremony], it seems to me that his award ushered in a new dynamic in the socio-cultural and diplomatic relations between America and Bulgaria. That further emphasizes the importance of the award, not simply on a national level but also as a catalyst for helping bridge two countries that were otherwise divided by the realities of the Cold War. It is truly remarkable that a Communist country anchored on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain, no less in the very temporal core of the Cold War, officially bestowes an American citizen (accompanied by the US ambassador) its highest award in science and technology. This is historic!

I agree it was a significant gesture - however the above statement may be slightly speculative. There are many reliable and comprehensive treatments of the developments of East-West relationships during the Cold War: if this award really did have such historic consequences, those would undoubtedly be recorded in the corresponding literature. Can we find evidence for this? Such a fact would definitely add to the article, but we can't put it in without actual sources. The reliability of Atanasoff's own account in this respect is questionable due to his one-sided view on the issue: if someone says "what they did for me was of international importance," it doesn't automatically make it so. (On a similar but unreltated note, Atanasoff's statement "I was told I drew a larger crowd than Brezhnev" is not the same as a reliable source noting that "Atanasoff drew a larger crowd than Brezhnev")

Finally, you say It is also rather fascinating that Atanasoff strongly identifies with his American great grandfather who fought in the American Civil War, and with his Bulgarian grandfather who was killed in the Bulgarian rebellions against the Ottoman Empire. - to avoid misunderstanding your statement, I just want to check what exactly you mean with "strongly identifies"? He does talk about his mixed heritage, but I can't find the quote from which you've derived the above statement. Could you clarify this? It doesn't seem to me that this is a divisive point regarding the article content, but it would be good to make sure we're on the same page!

Anyway, I said I would be brief. As I said above, it seems the primary objective at this point is to establish whether Atanasoff's fame in Bulgaria is a good basis for raising Bulgaria's profile in the article about him. Tomatoman (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize to Tomatoman for not having replied sooner. My current assignment (not Wikipedia related) is taking a little more time than expected and contrary to my original statement on the matter (see: talk), I will not be here to answer your questions for at least another four days. We'll get all this sorted out soon enough. Cheers...--Monshuai (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)