Talk:Brendan McKay (mathematician)

where can I rate this article ?
There is a request to rate this article. Where can I do that is not clear ? Zeq 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bacon number
Brendan McKay (History's Mysteries (1998)) Yitzchok Adlerstein (Oh My God (2009)) Ringo Starr (200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons (2003)) Kevin Bacon —Preceding unsigned comment added by McKay (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't there been ANY entries about the Azzam quote and Mckay's involvement regarding a Wikipedia controversy?
Interesting omissions from some key players.  Kamel Tebaast  09:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really Nishidani? Your edits are longer than the Azzam article. You've made this section longer than any section that actually made McKay notable, not to mention WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:EDITORIAL. You know this will be moved to the original article. I'll get back to you soon.  Kamel Tebaast  18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography of a computer science and mathematics professor. At most this should have a few sentences. I am going to cut this down considerably right now. Sorry Nish. You are right that things shouldnt be distorted by Karsh, but cmon this person is not defined by this quote.  nableezy  - 01:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you well know, article content is dictated by RSs, not your desired narrative. This article changed when the computer science and mathematics professor interjected himself into the discovery and publication of the original source of the Azzam Pasha quotation, and his reported release of information directly into Wikipedia.  Kamel  Tebaast  23:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop being foolish. Really, it is not to your benefit. What exactly is my desired narrative here? Each of those sources is currently in the article. But this is a footnote in this person's life, and it wont overwhelm his biography. If you have even a little bit of self-awareness you will take this page off your watchlist and move along.  nableezy  - 23:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, from hereon, I will no longer respond to any of your questions if your edit has any ad hominem attack.  Kamel Tebaast  00:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no ad hominem attack there. There is advice for you though. Refuse it as you wish, but Ill remind you are subject to BLP special enforcement.  nableezy  - 07:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe Nishidani can explain to you what is an ad hominem attack.  Kamel Tebaast  07:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I intervened when I saw extensive paraphrasing of Karsh's criticism of both Segev and McKay. This was particularly offensive: like giving more coverage to a thief's whining than to the facts regarding the person robbed. I'm fine with shortening, as long as the proper sequence is observed. (a) McKay made a discovery (b) he shared it with Barnett (c) who with Karsh then published it as 'their' discovery (d) Segev noted McKay's priority (e) Karsh attacked Segev and McKay. I don't think expansion on the last is needed: anyone who reads Karsh's attack, if she has half a brain, will note the risible absurdity of his haganah pe'ila.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not simply write "personally offensive"? As a respected historian, and one of the publication authors of the original source of the Azzam Pasha quotation, Efraim Karsh's published criticism of both McKay and Segev are intrinsic to the article.  Kamel Tebaast  00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Segev is not the subject of this article. What criticism of McKay? The line failed to share his important discovery with the general public so as to keep Arab genocidal designs on the nascent Jewish state under wraps. Are you serious? What expertise in McKay's thinking does Ephraim Karsh have? Why would we include an unsupported, in fact unsupportable, opinion on the motives of somebody? Karsh is cited here. Read and internalize WP:BLP, and stop using this article as a proxy for whatever it is that you think you are doing here.  nableezy  - 07:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * McKay inserted himself into the finding, publishing, and subsequent controversies regarding this document. You can't bury it based simply citing BLP. I'll edit as I please. You revert as I know you will. We'll then ask for a RfC.  Kamel Tebaast  07:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

For your information, Segev was incorrect in saying that I uploaded the Azzam interview to Wikipedia, but correct about everything else. (1) An original newspaper was obtained by a friend of mine in Cairo and sent to me by snail-mail. (2) David Barnett or a buddy of his obtained a scan of it from me by asking under a fake name. (3) Barnett and Karsh claimed all the credit. Any other version of the story is bullshit. The scan of the newspaper at Middle East Quarterly was made personally by me from the original that I still have in my office. As far as I am aware, it remains the only published scan. McKay (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A few things:
 * To clarify, are you saying that David Barnett (or his "buddy") used a fake name to trick you into giving them the scanned document? If so, to what researcher and publication did you think you were giving the scan to?
 * Why didn't you say this to either Segev or Karsh when you spoke to them?
 * Are you possibly suggesting that you never spoke to Karsh and that he never offered you a co-author credit?
 * Why do you think that Segev would write, and give a link [since removed] that you uploaded to Wikipedia, and that Karsh would report the same thing with the same link [not removed]?  Kamel Tebaast  23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An article talk page is not the right place to interrogate an editor. As a matter of fact, no page at Wikipedia has that purpose. Any actionable proposal to improve the article should be posted, but investigating who-said-what-when is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM or WP:OR. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. I did not know that asking an editor questions is a violation. I've been asked questions many many times before. Would McKay's statement to me be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamel Tebaast (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that is not a serious question, but FYI MyKay's above post is very reasonable under the circumstances. Of course it is standard procedure to ask an editor, for example, why they used a certain source, or why they think an edit proposal is good. That is quite different from asking an identified person about real-life actions. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand how asking an editor questions based on statements that he made to me is in violation of policy.  Kamel Tebaast  02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq is correct that this is not a valid use of article talk space. I'll answer your question my personal talk page but this conversation is nearing the end of its useful life.McKay (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brendan McKay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625075656/http://ratio.huji.ac.il/dp/dp_365.pdf to http://ratio.huji.ac.il/dp/dp_365.pdf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brendan McKay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122041752/http://www.nzz.ch/2004/08/18/ft/article9PRR2.html to http://www.nzz.ch/2004/08/18/ft/article9PRR2.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. I note the concerns regarding the long-term significance of the mathematician compared to the baseball player; however, consensus is that there is no primary topic for this title. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Brendan McKay → Brendan McKay (mathematician) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. in this case, the hatnote should suffice: For the baseball player, see Brendan McKay (baseball). It may be noted that Brendan McKay is a longtime Wikipedian who, as User:McKay, has been making valuable contributions for nearly 18 years, since 17 August 2003. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support the baseball player has way more views (3,228) than the mathematician (205)[|Brendan_McKay_(baseball)].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 06:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The maths boffin was internationally famous, and rated a wikibio, when the baseball player was scarcely out of his diapers. WP:Recentism - the baseball player has become notable only in the last four years. If some kid name Albert Einstein throws like Nolan Ryan, he'll get far more hits than the founder of relativity over the 10 years of career he will enjoy having made the big league.  A hat note will do, as Roman Spinner suggests. Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Compared to the baseball player, Prof. McKay is much less notable. Ibn Daud (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The editor above has I/P grievances against several editors and this, coming straight after two such disputes (see his edit history), smacks of personal animus or vendetta ('much less notable') rather than disinterested judgment.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have never encountered Prof. McKay's account User:McKay on Wikipedia, and thus I do not have any grievances against him. My opinion is simpy informed by numbers, as per the points made by User:Crouch, Swale, Prof. McKay’s page receives much fewer views than the baseball player. That is what I meant when I said he is less notable. And on another note, I hope next time you will Assume good faith. Ibn Daud (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. I'm generally not in favour of primary topic at all, but if we are to have it then we should apply it consistently. The mathematician has made a unique and newsworthy contribution in two popular controversies, Bible code and the Azzam Pasha quotation. The baseball player is, so far, one of many. Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support If we consider that the mathematician has the higher notability, and the baseball player the higher pageviews, then neither is a clear primary topic. Create dab, per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There is no clear primary topic here. It is tough to argue a page is primary if it usually has no more than 10 hits a day. The baseball player isn't a star yet, but he is a top prospect. Let readers pick who they want. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the hatnote is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support When page views would make a DIFFERENT page the clear primary topic, the discrepancy in long term significance needs to be even more stark -- like a planet vs. a pop song. In this case, there is very clearly no primary according to our guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly no primary topic. Lennart97 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)