Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1

12 != 11
there are 12 americans not 11.who corrected that ?it is silly Furthermore, France has won 13 medals not 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.82.9 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

2006 rumour
There is a rumour about Terence Tao for 2006, but we can't get ahead of the official announcement from the International Mathematical Union. Charles Matthews 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Has the rumour been published by anyone? Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 10:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What counts? ? I expect the invitations to the ICM go out, and then you get some rumours from those in the know. In any case it is not particularly encyclopedic to put this in the page, yet. Charles Matthews 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a rumour about russian Pereleman for 2006 too. This was published by the italian Il Giornale 3 days ago. 81.211.207.32 10:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave you all to argue about whether Terry Tao is US or AU...Cancerward 10:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also need to note somewhere that Perelman declined it. Cancerward 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Still only a rumor though. You should probably wait for a official statement, or until the conference actually took place, until stating that as a fact... --17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiles and the medal
So the current fix of having Wiles listed under "laureates" as having received a silver plaque, is quite unsatisfactory. He's not a laureate and shouldn't be listed there as that just would confuse people not familiar with the whole story of the plaque. I think it may just be best to mention Wiles and the whole age limit thing. Plenty of sources have discussed this, so we would not fall prey to the NOR policy. It would make for a useful and interesting addition to the article --C S (Talk) 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a new section entitled "unusual circumstances" which includes this stuff and other unusual events. I added a couple of good sources and tried to phrase things in a careful manner, but it could probably use a bit more sourcing and perhaps more content (if anybody can find an interesting quote by a famous mathematician, say).  --C S (Talk) 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "unusual circumstances" is an unsatisfactory heading, but the best I could think of...--C S (Talk) 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "He's not a laureate and shouldn't be listed there" There is no "Nobel" for pedantics, in case you were wondering.  Maybe WP will institute one eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Age limit
Why is there one?


 * To give winners time to enjoy. --Alextalk 03:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The genesis of the rule that it be awarded only to mathematicians no older than forty is evidently the statement that “… while it was in recognition of work already done, it was at the same time intended to be an encouragement for further achievement on the part of the recipients and a stimulus to renewed effort on the part of others”. The above is a quote from the website of the Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences treesmill 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Fields was shortsighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.29.81 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

John G. Thompson
Why is he marked as GB? kuszi 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Field of research of each recipient
One improvement that could be made would be to add a phrase next to each recipient indicating his/her general field of research.


 * that would work better for some than others. At any rate, I think this is potentially misleading and should be avoided.  --C S (Talk) 13:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why it there no Wikipedia category...
..for people who have been awarded the Fields medal? Apokrif 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Fields Medalists...? Regards, David Kernow 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert mention
Is the mention of the Colbert Report really applicable/necessary? Wclark3 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem necessary to me although that is a funny stunt. If no one else objects I'll remove it. JoshuaZ 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I removed it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it not as relevant as the mention of Eureka and others?

I'm not dead set on having it, but it does seem to fit the bill of example in popular culture. Of course, that may just be an example of systemic bias. I think it does no harm (at least not any more than the other examples), and these examples, I think, occur rarely enough that "cruft" should not be an issue. Presumably that is why there is such a section to begin with... --C S (Talk) 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section has been removed and I agree with the removal. I don't think it added anything crucial.  Cruft may not be an issue but the section sticks out like a sore thumb.  --Horoball 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

photograph
Polish Wikipedia has pictured of the medals. --64.229.224.60 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the licensing of the pictures in the Polish article appears to be questioned at present... Thanks, though, for the pointer, David Kernow 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Found one at |http://www.pnl.gov/energyscience/03-00/nms_medl.gif. Its from a national lab that allows noncommercial use, but I don't think it's public domain.Enjoyhats 05:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The IMU has put up some public domain images, which are now in the article. Interesting note: the pictures are supposed to be of the actual medal that was to have gone to Perelman.  --C S (Talk) 20:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to the Nobel prize
The article implies that the Fields Medal is more special as it's only awarded every 4 years. However, since up to 4 mathematicians can be recognised at once, the point is a little moot isn't it? Stevage 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Typically the Nobel prize is awarded from 2 to 4 people yearly for each field. Med 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually no more than 3 nobel prizes are handed out per year and field. Otherwise your point is correct though.


 * I think that Abel Prize is more similar to Nobel prize. It's awarded annually, there is no age restriction, and laureat receives cca 755 000 €. Maybe it should be mentioned in the article. --Ondrejsv 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics' greatest prize?
At the beginning of the article it says that the Fields Medal is widely viewed as the greatest prize in mathematics. Although I give credit to the writers for documenting this -- including a recent article in the Notices of the AMS -- I think that most people are simply repeating the "mathematics' greatest prize" tagline by force of habit. I am a mathematician, and if you ask me what prize I would most like to receive, it would certainly be the Abel Prize. Part of this is that the cash award of the AP is about 100 times that of the FM, but the fact that AP is not age restricted (so is more fair) and that at a moment when the worldwide mathematical community is at a larger size than ever before, fewer AP's have been awarded makes the AP seem more competitive are both additional considerations. I ask that the text be changed to something like "which has traditionally been held to be" with an explicit comparison to the Abel Prize. Plclark 06:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Plclark


 * You may prefer an Abel Prize over the Fields Medal for whatever reasons, but that's not sufficient to change the statement as you wish. --Horoball 10:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing ceremony locations
At times the location of the ceremony was a move issue (like boycotts by Alexander Grothendieck and soviet government restrictions, etc). Maybe we should list the city/country where each ceremony was held next to the year. If noone disapproves (or does it before me) then I will try to add them after my exams --DFRussia 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurama film
Several IP editors have inserted the fact that some Futurama film mentions the Fields Medal. I don't think that adds to the article. I know that the film Good Will Hunting is already mentioned, but that is a famous film that has won several important awards, so I guess an argument could be made there. I removed the Futurama stuff a couple of times, but after it was added again I thought that it may be better to hear what others think about this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, it seems very trivial. I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like it was a passing one-liner and so not important within the film, either. C RETOG 8(t/c) 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why even have a section devoted to the medal in popular culture if you all are not going to include any pop culture references? Just take the whole thing out. 74.131.50.178 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's indeed a better approach. I removed the section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of mathematicians that did not receive a Fields because of the age limit
I removed this list because it's growing too large. It looks like everybody is adding his/her favourite mathematician. While I'm not against the list per se, I do think it's important to base it on references except of opinions of the people who happen to edit here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy in the medal
Who is the guy in the medal? Pythagoras?  franklin  21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *Oh, is Archimedes!  franklin   21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Double counting in the 'Ranks by countries'
Ngô Bảo Châu, with links to both France and Vietnam, is counted twice in the 'Rank by countries' table. Arguably, in this table the numbers for France and Vietnam should be 10.5 and 0.5 respectively, not 11 and 1. I tried changing them but somebody at 78.52.136.178 undid the revision immediately. The current summation system 'double counts'; as such, it's misrepresentative. Mebden (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we even have this section? &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do other editors support the existence of the section 'Ranks by countries'? My feeling is that it's unnecessary, and that the article is better off without it.  It was created less than a week ago  (by ), so it's probably a good time to discuss its presence.  &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that ranking by countries has no place on this page. I think it should be removed. 131.111.184.95 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So we need to delete all the pages of Nobel prize by countries too? I revert! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.14.184 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good time to reopen this discussion. The list makes less and less sense. A lot of modern mathematicians have multiple nationalities, worked and studied in country they are not citizen of and their actual achievement have very little to do with where they were born. Then, lumping the Soviet Union and Russia together is very questionable and we have the issue of Grothendieck who is likely French by now. From my point of view, the ranking by countries add nothing to the article. Nationalism has no place in the mathematical world. I read the newspapers this morning and all the articles mentioned the medal as some kind of national victory without a line about the actual work. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should strive to do better and yes, we should probably do the same thing with Nobel prize recipients. 91.103.43.50 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous nationalities
On a similar subject as the previous comment, I think the national flags for each recipient should be checked more carefully. For example, by what standard is Yau (1982) under USA but Tao (2006) under Australia? At the time of both awards, they were at US universities but neither is a US national. Likewise, Ngo's entry should have to choose; either place of birth, or place of residence at the time of award. (Ryan Reich) 66.30.14.194 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: This seems to be a real problem. For personal reasons, people will want to see where a mathematician was born, where educated, and where employed (especially when they were awarded the medal). None of them is really meaningful on its own, and some are misleading in particular cases: Grothendieck (1966) being a good example, since he is stateless, and Perelman (2006) another one, since he was not actually employed or even practicing when the medal was given. The goal of saying what a mathematician "is" is probably misguided since (especially for those at the highest levels) they could come from anywhere, move around a lot, and often end up at one of the few national centers of mathematics regardless of their origins. For this reason and also because the Fields Medal is pretty rare, its distribution is not a good indication of national prominence in mathematics, so I think it is best to limit these flag icons to place of birth only, which contains more information about the individual awardee than under what circumstances they found themselves in one of the countries which, at the time, happened to be available. For more detailed information the individual pages are (by design) more appropriate. (Ryan Reich) 66.30.14.194 (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: Whatever system is chosen, there is also the issue of denoting countries which no longer exist or did not exist at the time concerning the awardee. For place of birth, I see: I may have missed some. There are unpleasant political issues lurking here; I suggest that *strict* adherence to the rule is probably not desirable (e.g. Borcherds was born in South Africa but left at the age of six months!) (Ryan Reich) 66.30.14.194 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the Soviet Union (Novikov (1970), Margulis (1978), Drinfeld (1990)), plus all other Russian mathematicians thus far.
 * East or West Germany (Faltings (1986), Werner (2006)),
 * Prussia (Roth (1958)),
 * North and South Vietnam (Ngo (2010)),
 * Finland (Ahlfors (1936)).

Witten is not the only physicist who won the award (at least the phrase is obscure)
I mean the phrase "In 1990, Edward Witten became the first and so far only physicist to win this award".

Cédric Villani got the award in 2010 for the contribution to the Boltzmann equation and Landau damping. His first work is on condensed matter. http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+villani_c/0/1/0/all/0/1

Also it's worth to mention there were other contributions to physical models/theories.

File:FieldsMedalFrontAndBack.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:FieldsMedalFrontAndBack.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 23, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Fields awarded every 4 years?
This wasn't explained in the article. Can someone please explain if there are sources that motivate why the Fields Medal is awarded every 4 years? Is it because of tradition, or lack of funding? Why couldn't it be awarded every 2 years, for example? 195.229.241.180 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Women and Fields
Not even going to bother attempting to add this before discussion, but is it worth mentioning variance regarding the lack of a female winner? Link 1, Link 2. Doubt that would be allowed as RS, but what about this? 🇦🇹, Sex and Gender (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Turn to p. 187. "The variability hypothesis still evokes controversy, but recent data and analyses may bring some closure to the debate […] Data from a number of representative mental test surveys, involving samples drawn from the national population, have become available in the past twenty years in the USA. These have finally provided consistent results. Both Feingold (1992b) and Hedges and Nowell (1995) have reported that, despite average sex differences being small and relatively stable over time, test score variances of males were generally larger than those of females. Feingold found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. […] Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals." LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a note about the 2014 winner Maryam Mirzakhani 86.148.21.177 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Latin
The inscription, said to be in Latin, uses a word that is mostly Greek.

Fields Medal 2014 Technical Glitches
When the wiki is updated we should maybe mention the two website glitches that revealed the names, the first on the 11th on the ICM2014 webpage which seems to have gone relatively unnoticed and the second on the IMU webpage. Below is a reference mentioning the second glitch but not the first: http://www.nature.com/news/iranian-is-first-woman-to-nab-highest-prize-in-maths-1.15686?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews

AnonymousMath (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Grothendieck
Wikipedia says Alexander Grothendieck Nationality	French Residence	French Pyrenees How to Register an institution without ID, must have had ID, so I do not know what it's missing identity

He receives a salary From .... He pays taxes to .... He drives a car with insurance From .... Should go to the doctor From .... He needs an identity card From .... From .... He received an award for university establishment under the rule of France Where he studied first degree, a master's degree earned a doctorate, based on what was recorded in an academic institution And received recognition, money received under a place This is ridiculous because its about Wikipedia is a French citizen and stateless award Fidls

Grosse escroquerie américaine
Il n'y a pas une recension mondiale des médaillés par pays qui donne 18 médaillés aux USA !!!

Par exemple : soit on retient le pays de résidence habituelle et Alexandre Grothendieck est un Français, soit on retient la nationalité et Mirzakhani n'est pas une Etats-Unienne mais une Iranienne qui est sa SEULE nationalité !

WK english se ridiculise aux yeux du Monde par cette escroquerie  !

Il suffit de se reporter aux  notices biographiques   Wikipedia de 5 mathématiciens  cités mensongèrement  comme de nationalité US    pour voir  qu'ils sont de nationalité russe, iranienne etc

La vérité est France = 13 et USA = 13 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.116.48 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (traduction automatique) Nous sommes d'accord. Nous ne voulons pas "escroquerie". Je pense que nous ne serons pas compter les points. Aucun chef d'accusation de score = pas de "escroquerie".

I used machine translation to read the above post. In short, this person felt the page was a huge American scam and the counts by country were very wrong. My answer, machine translated into French and back to English, returns as ''(machine translation) We agree. We do not want "scam." I think we will not be keeping score. No count score = no "scam"''. The round-trip translation looks adequate. I kept the sentences deliberately simplistic to minimize the chance that the machine translation could butcher it. Alsee (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock the medalists and number of medalists by country
I propose to lock the sections of the medalists and number of medals per country and institution to only a few SERIOUS users.

This seems to get a lot of messing up and changes several times a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.9.251 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially user Rezameyqani, whose efforts are greatly appreaciated, but he keeps making unjustified changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.9.251 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how a person registered academic institution, in which language he writes and undergraduate studies and a master's degree and then doctorate in what and where, on the moon? How he received a scholarship? , is represented by the nation as well as Temporary resident Temporary resident so he was, he refused to serve in order to receive a certificate of permanent citizen, he moved to 4-5 different locations in France and was accepted as a citizen to speak French with a certificate, He received the award French citizen, could not move forward another ten steps ahead 'll Notice it's different French wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.126.95 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes are needed in Fields medal page.
I think we should add two new columns to the existing table.One column should indicate current or later (if the laureate died) residency/citizenship of Fields Medal laureate and the other one to mention his/her current (if the laureate is still alive and working in a different institute) or later (if the laureate died,withdrew,etc) affiliated institute.If you agree with me about this suggestion, please reply. Rezameyqani (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Cela n'a pas beaucoup de sens !

Les Mathématiciens travaillent dans des tas de laboratoires  de pays différents !

Si on veut parler de nationalité, seuls "les papiers" font foi. Est un Etats-unien celui qui a des papiers US ... Est  un Français celui qui a des papiers français !

If we consider what you are saying,then we, for example, should consider Maryam Mirzakhani,Effim Zelmanov,Vladimir Drinfeld and many others American because they are living in US for many years or holding US citizenship!Am I right? Rezameyqani (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Maxim Kontsevich est naturalisé français !
L'état final est donc bien France =13 et USA = 13 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.116.48 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Kontsevich received his citizenship after been awarded the Fields medal. So we should maybe include his French citizenship with a footnote. There also probably should be a footnote for Grothendieck's citizenship. I am yet to see any evidence that Manjul Bhargava has US citizenship. It seems like his residence in the US has been interpreted as citizenship and there has been a bit of wikiality going on in the media AnonymousMath (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2014
The Fields Medal Page contains biased information about laureates.We need to change this page as we have done about Nobel Prize laureates Page.I do not understand why Wikipedia chief editors insisting on not to change this biased information which now exists on Fields Medal page.The main suggestion is to remove Nationality and add Birthplace and current institution and residency.

Rezameyqani (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated full protection. Work out the issue here with other editors.You have been edit-warring yourself and will be blocked if you do it again.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Table format
The current table format allows the information in each "row" to get out of alignment (especially the institution information versus the rest) when long lines get wrapped. Recommend we change to strict table rows: This makes the information much easier to read in the article and to edit in the source editor (and maybe in the visual editor, as well—I don't know). Also, the current table is not actually sortable even though the wikicode contains a "sortable" class. This attribute, and the related "unsortable" class attributes on the individual columns, should be removed. - dcljr (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When you mention the current institution there is no need to add another column for "residency."Drako (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. One possible solution is the remove the column and add a flag next to the institution. Actual residency seems much more difficult to verify than birthplace and affiliate institutions. AnonymousMath (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnonymousMath who said:"One possible solution is the remove the column and add a flag next to the institution.". for having a more reliable table about fields medalists,We can put some information about current residency or citizenship status. We should keep this in mind that though almost anyone knows where Harvard university is,It is unclear whether when someone reads this article and sees current institution as for example Lund university,would know where Lund university is. So I guess the suggestion by AnonymousMath is the best solution. 222.66.115.233 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Table format which has been suggested by dcljr is fair. We should probably use this Table format. 222.66.115.233 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC
Hello Everyone,I prepared a table for Fields Medal page which,in my opinion,would help us to reach a consensus about edits which have to be done to the page.Of course,I did my best to make it as complete as I could.I think it can be replaced with existing table in the article.(I must greatly thank dcljr for proposing a new and excellent table format): RfC started 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

about above table
There are other tables in the article in which they contain information about fields medalists.Should the above table replace with them? Rezameyqani (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be glad to hear your valuable comments.Rezameyqani (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks great to me AnonymousMath (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me Fraulein451 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yau was not born in Hong Kong. He was born in mainland China shortly before the government of the Republic of China was overthrown, according to his website. --Stomatapoll (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Stomatapoll Yes,You are right. I've just corrected it. If you have any other ideas about this table,please don't be afraid to inform me.Thank You Rezameyqani (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of delaying consensus, I'm wondering whether it might make more sense for the birthplace info to use the format "country-at-birth (country-now)" instead of "country-now (country-at-birth)". - dcljr (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the actual RFC: If the relevant columns of the table are made sortable, then, yes, the other tables (by country of origin and by working institutions) should be removed, IMO. - dcljr (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @dcljr I just changed the format of birthplace coloumn to "country-at-birth (country-now)".Rezameyqani (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I originally came back here to lament that a table using "rowspan"s couldn't be sorted, but I guess I was wrong! In my FF 17.0.9, anyway, the rows get sorted properly with the "rowspan" info duplicated in the right places. Cool beans! I had no idea... - dcljr (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rezameyqani, you accidentally left two "former"s in there, which [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fields_Medal&diff=622038912&oldid=622038276 I have changed] to "now"s. Also, I've converted the Moscow entry in the "ICM location" column. I see that in Vladimir Drinfeld's entry, " 🇺🇦(former ) " was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fields_Medal&diff=622023864&oldid=622022805 changed] to " (now 🇺🇦) ". Was that a mistake? - dcljr (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * dcljr Yes,I discussed with other editors,and they suggested this:USSR was consisted of several Soviets, and all of theses soviet albeit autonomous,was representing under USSR flag.So I changed those flags(i.e.Russian SFSR,Ukrainian USS,etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Australian Academy of Science should be removed from Terence Tao's listing. He is a member, but this is not the kind of affiliation that belongs in the table. Listing all the academies of science that Fields medallists belong to would be a mess -- indeed Tao is also a member of American Academy of Science and the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. AnonymousMath (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AnonymousMath Yours assessment is right.I changed that.any further comments?Rezameyqani (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Current/Last Institution should be change to Affiliation because this is the standard word in academic area.Monfie (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Monfie To make it more readable and reliable,I just changed that. Thank you for your precise assessment.Rezameyqani (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should be "Current/last affiliation". The last column is not the person's affiliation at the time of the medal.  Probably the word Institution should also be changed in the "Institution (At the time of the medal)" column.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sławomir Biały I just corrected the table. Also there was an error regarding Columbia University.It's corrected by now.Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani (talk • contribs) 20 August 2014
 * Why there is no flag in "Affiliation (At the time of receiving the medal)"? I suggest if we use just "Affiliation", it means Affiliation at the time, and then if it has never changed, no need to mention it again in "Current/Last Affiliation" Monfie (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Monfie There is a consensus to not to put flag in "Affiliation (At the time of receiving the medal.Also I believe It will make the table messy and,furthermore,disrupt the way the table looks like now.Yet if you can convince other editors on your suggestions,I'm ready to make changes immediately.Thank You.Rezameyqani (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, it makes more sense to have flags in the "Affiliation (At time of receiving the medal)" column (the name of which should probably be shortened to something like "Affiliation (When Awarded)") than in the "Current/Last Affiliation" column, although I could personally do without either. On another topic, why were the present-day-country indications ("now X") [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fields_Medal&diff=622076148&oldid=622073764 removed] from the table? - dcljr (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I would prefer to see the name of the country written out instead of the flags if country information is to be included. There are some flags that I do not readily recognize, and as Rezameyqani says, it does make the table rather messy (see WP:MOSFLAG for general arguments along those lines). It also encourages nationalistic flag waving which this page seem to suffer already too much from. Shortening the column name seems a good suggestion and I also agree to include country info with affiliation at time of award if it is included in current/last affiliation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that User:JohnBlackburne in the discussion at WT:WPM has come down rather strongly against the idea of including flags, under the explicit recommendations of MOS:FLAG, it seems like the only thing for it is to remove the flags entirely.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am only now seeing the discussion over there for the first time. It would have been better to keep the discussion on this talk page.... - dcljr (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MULTI, there should not be parallel discussions. What happens if their final outcomes are opposite? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @dcljr,@Jitse Niesen.I just made some changes. "now X" has been removed because all of the medalists explicitly cite their birth place as for example France,US,USSR or West Germany. I believe we should preserve what they have cited about it.Rezameyqani (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I'm not sure the current state of the table is what Jitse Niesen had in mind. (Sorry to make you go round in circles, Rezameyqani — hold off implementing any changes based on this comment until JN, at least, weighs in.) Now that I've seen several options, I guess my "ultimate preference" would be to do something like this:


 * Notice how it looks cleaner to have the flags in front of the institutions; in addition, they result in more logical sorting of institutions by country, which I believe can serve as justification for their inclusion in this table. The spelling out of the country names in the Birthplace column, OTOH (a big improvement, IMO) make flags there completely unnecessary. - dcljr (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @dcljrYou can make changes in the table,since it's based on your proposal.Of course,Your suggested version is much more cleaner.I was looking for a way to make it looks like this.I gonna leave for couple of days,so if you'd take responsibility for making changes(not substantial ones, of course!),I'd be really glad!remember,please do not make any substantial changes to the above table,unless you can reach a consensus.ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, OK... well, I'll leave this little version of the table for a day or two to get people's immediate impressions, then if it seems appropriate I'll convert the entire table above. - dcljr (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My preference would be no flags at all (in common with Sławomir Biały and JohnBlackburne, it seems). That does indeed make the sorting useless, so I would also remove that possibility. I would also de-link the country names. Concretely, this gives the table immediately below (where I removed the references to avoid messing up this talk page, but they should of course be included in the version going live.). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

. Yes, no flags. I gave full reasons at the maths project but basically MOS:FLAG is clear and the flags are just decorative clutter and don't belong. As an added benefit the question over which flag to use no longer needs to be dealt with.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No flags at all please. I am not sure the "Country of origin" field is particularly useful anyway, as it makes it look as if Grothendieck and Werner are mathematically German, while they are definitely mathematically French (not to mention their citizenship). —Kusma (t·c) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than Nobel prize, which has a full article about winner's nationality, in other academic awards flags are used (e.g. Turing Award) and it make more clear and can get lots of information with one look. another issue: I suggest Venue instead of Location.Monfie (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I vote for dcljr's suggestion with flags AnonymousMath (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you all,for your time and vigorous efforts to make the table as the best possible. As I mentioned above,I cannot come here often in next days,So I: believe any of you who feels that he/she can contribute to this table,I appreciate it.Of course,Since the above table is mainly based on dcljr's proposal,I think probably it'd be better to consult with dcljr,before make any changes to the table.Finally,my opinion about the table is close with what JohnBlackburne has suggested,though I think it'd be better,in current/last affiliation, to put flags before affiliation name(s)(just like the second table which is propposed by dcljr).In case of any deadlock(s),my vote goes for JohnBlackburne.ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Kusma If by saying "I am not sure the "Country of origin" field is particularly useful anyway, as it makes it look as if Grothendieck and Werner are mathematically German, while they are definitely mathematically French (not to mention their citizenship)" You mean that we should remove this field,I completely agree with you.In my opinion,It suffices to have the above table which we are discussing about,and list of the medalists by affiliation.Rezameyqani (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I just updated the above table,with respect to the concerns which has been addressed by @Brightnsalty, Joseluismb.I also de-linked the countries in the birthplace referring to Jitse Niesen proposal. Yet I modified the flags regarding dcljr's proposal,since the current table is based on his efforts,though my opinion is to remove all of the flags,just like what JohnBlackburne said.I'll be glad to hear your invaluable comments. Cheers.Rezameyqani (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm leaving this for others to hash out. Please don't involve me in the conversation anymore. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Watch out, folks! This is getting into the thin end of the committee design phase, where everyone spoils everyone else's efforts by tinkering and bickering over details. Quit while you are ahead. I have just come on on the RFC, and already like Dcljr, and probably for the same reason, I'm outtahere immediately. Good luck all! JonRichfield (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Cet article est le village Potemkine !
Tout est fait pour dissimuler que la vérité est France = 13 et USA = 13

Truquez ! Truquez mes petits amis ...

Vous vous ridiculisez aux yeux du Monde !

Il est bien évident que le seul critère  à retenir est la nationalité effective du chercheur ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.116.48 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Le plus extraordinaire dans votre hypocrisie, totalement anglo-saxonne , est le fait d'attribuer "statless" à Grothendieck. Si la nationalité n'a plus aucune importance, ce que je contexte totalement , Grothendieck ne vivant pas sur la Lune  ,  son lieu de résidence est la France
 * The editors should correct this error.In the table,and under the current/last residency,It is mentioned that Alexander Grothendieck is statelss which it seems to be wrong,According to his Wiki page,he's currently resides in France.222.66.115.233 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear friend,Nationality is not the matter of having a passport of a certain country!please do not use racist-like and slang-like words or phrases.if you think about this issue you will realize that we should separate birthplace and residency.222.66.115.233 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend, quand on voit ce qui se passe à Ferguson , on se passerait aisément des leçons anti-racistes qu'administrent les nouveaux convertis  des  EU au Monde entier , depuis 50 ans.IRRELEVANT !.Alors ,  merci ! PAS cet argument !. Si racisme il y a, il est dans cette contribution où toutes manipulations sont bonnes pour nier FR = 13 et EU = 13. C'est quand même incroyable d'en arriver à nier le fait national, comme dans cet article , pour arriver à dissimuler cette évidence ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.236.116.48 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Trêve, mon ami. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2014
It's necessary to modify many flags amongst the medal winners. Many of them are wrong (i.e. Soviet Union instead of Russia for recent winners).

Tropicalia115 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Redidency
It is insignificant for a mathematician to mention his/her residence, when you mention their institution it suffices. It is also hard to verify. Birthplace is also needs to be changed to nationality as it is important to know where the person has been raised and educated.--Drako (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is a good idea,I believe if anyone wants to know about where a medalist raised and educated,he/she can click on the name on the table which will direct him/her to medalists wiki page.Fortunately, each of medalists wiki pages contain great deal of information about where a person raised and educated.Rezameyqani (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Birthplace is a much more concrete, verifiable fact than nationality (or even residency). It is true that it only conveys meaningful information by proxy, and that this information can sometimes be misleading.  For instance, although Michael Atiyah was born in England, he grew up in Sudan.  But things like "nationality" tend to get Balkanized fairly rapidly on Wikipedia, so I think it is best left as birthplace.  As Reza says, full biographical details can be found by following the Wiki link to the biography.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection
Since there is a productive and amicable ongoing conversation concerning updates to the page, I would like to remove the protection I applied as a result of last week's edit war. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to leave it in place for another 12 hours or so, then remove it.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Acroterion   (talk)   With respect,I think if you keep the page protected for another 48 hours it would be better.In my opinion,We should build much more stronger consensus here,to prevent what was happened to this page,few days ago. Thank You.Rezameyqani (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If that suits you, that's fine with me. I don't like to keep full protection any longer than it is needed, so let me know if you think it can be unprotected any earlier. I appreciate your effort to work it out here.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Acroterion   (talk)   No Problem.Please keep the page protected for another 24 hours(instead of 48 hours).After that period. Please remove protection.Thank you.Rezameyqani (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the discussion is coming to a close, with a few issues remaining. I'm going to leave protection on for a little while longer until there's a solid indication of consensus over flags, etc.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed protection. Please be careful about reverts or appearances of reverts.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Acroterion   (talk)   I'm glad that:1)Editors who are interested in this page are finally reaching a comprehensive consensus about table format and its content,though there is a little bit of a debate about flags issue,which I think It will be solve in coming hours.I hope that the consensus here,set a basis for reviewing similar tables on Wikipedia. 2)The protection which is imposed on editing(which in part was result of fault!) finally is removed. Yet,I am a little worried,because though we are really close to reach a comprehensive consensus,we are not there yet, and this may cause unwanted harm to page by other editors whom they did not participate in the above discussion. Is there any Bot which can handle this concern?Also Is there anyway that we can make page a featured page?ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep an eye on the article. There are no bots that can help with anything but simple vandalism, that really needs to be done by humans. By all means, this is a top-importance mathematics article, and I encourage its improvement to GA or FA standard.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Seoul1978 permanently, since they have made no effort to participate on this talkpage before repeatedly reverting and because they have a history of using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny on this subject. Accordingly I have semi-protected the article, which will prevent logged-out users and new users from editing. Please remember that anyone who breaks 3RR in a content dispute is liable to be blocked: call for help from an administrator if you encounter such an edit-warrior, then stop - don't get drawn in.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Clark medal
I reverted an edit which added the following remark after mentioning that the Fields Medal is often compared to the Nobel Prize: "though the "mathematician's Clark Medal" would be a more appropriate analogy to economics, given the age restriction". My main reason is that this smells of original research: is this the editor's opinion or has this argument been made? The only source mentioning both prizes together which I found in a cursory search, is the pretty interesting article by Borjas and Doran with the title "Prizes and Productivity: How Winning the Fields Medal Affects Scientific Output". Besides, I think that we should not dwell on the comparison between Nobel and Fields in the first paragraph of the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only your reason is right,I myself believe that subject of "Comparison of Awards" would need a completely new wiki page, and a great deal of discussion.Rezameyqani (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like it's been moved out from the first paragraph to the "conditions of the award" section. I approved it.Rezameyqani (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What were the awards for?
This article is severely lacking w/o at least a brief sentence on what problem/research each Fields medal was given for. I see on this Talk page that someone brought this issue up 8 years ago, and it remains a huge glaring omission. It was the only reason I came to the page in the first place! Brightnsalty (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the winners' work can be hard to understand in detail, a quick statement such as "For his work and developments in XXX" would be informative. --Joseluismb (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brightnsalty, Joseluismb You're right. I really appreciate your efforts to make the table more readable and more importantly, a reliable one.Currently, I'm preparing an updated version of the above table in which your concern has been addressed. ThanksRezameyqani (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Group by countries in "Number of Fields Medallists by working institutions"
It seems the birthplace/nationality debate is somewhat settled. However, I reckon it would be a good idea to make a table grouping number of medals by countries according to the institutions in which the winners were at the time (perhaps even merging it with another table). This would be fair because it would inform about where are the leading research centres based, i.e., even if many of the prizes won by American or French universities were won by foreign mathematicians, it would be fair to recognize the countries' institutions.

This way, for the US we would have Princeton's 8 + Harvard's 4, etc.; for France, 7 from les Universités de Paris, 5 for IHÉS, etc.; for the UK, Cambridge's 4 + Oxford's 3, etc... Joseluismb (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

About "fields medalists table by country of origin" section.
Hello everyone, As some other editors mentioned above,with current changes in fields medalists table,the information in "fields medalists by country of origin" is somehow meaningless and may lead to misinterpretations. In my opinion,It'd be better to remove this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani (talk • contribs) 24 August 2014

Nationalism
Maybe Wikipedia can avoid nationalist nonsense by just plain declining to participate in it? Getting rid of the flags was a great start, but I think you could go further. Do we really need birthplace in there? Is there any genuine relevance in that, aside from trivia for nationalists to scorekeep on? Dropping it would make the table less heavy (and it's very heavy). It crossed my mind to try lighten the table up more by dropping an affiliation column, but I guess they both have legitimate relevance beyond mere scorekeeping. And I probably gave someone a heart attack just by suggesting it, chuckle. A nitpick, some of the affiliation boxes are awkwardly tall due to triple listings - which I assume is just plain real world facts. If you did find some way to avoid that, it would be very nice to smooth that awkward edge off of a very heavy table. Alsee (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first posted I didn't even see Medallists by country of origin and  Fields_Medals_by_Affiliation at the bottom. Before I was merely commenting on flags and birthplace in the table. I just reviewed Manual_of_Style/Icons and all of the flags on the page appear to be rather inappropriate. Do we really need Medallists by country of origin with medal icons stacked like trophies?? And stacking trophy icons on Medals by Affiliation isn't much better. I just removed Medallists by country of origin entirely, removed the flags and trophy icons from Fields_Medals_by_Affiliation, and I applied alphabetical sort order to any ties. Alsee (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the edits made by Alsee. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Jitse Niesen, there were edits made to the article just moments before you commented here. Could you clarify whether you saw those changes? (nevermind) Thanx. Alsee (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alsee (talk),Jitse Niesen (talk).OK.Whatever you do,please do not add "Nationality" column to the table,Since there is enough consensus to not put this on the table. Also, you can remove all of the flags from "Fields medalist by institution",but you do not need to change table format from sort-able to unsort-able or remove trophies. I believe It would be better to remove "Fields medalist by country of origins" section. If you could reach a consensus about it,remove that,too. Cheers Rezameyqani (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rezameyqani, just to let you know, your comment appeared just as I was about to post a rather strong notice to people not revert without participating in talk, and I was about to revert your reverts on that explicit reason. I found it extremely ironic when your revert edit comment "invited" me to talk when I had done so, and you had failed to do so. I also find your comments above puzzling. Did you look at my edit or read the talk I left? Your comments here seem to be combatively agreeing with me! I am tempted to revert to my version, as I can find absolutely nothing in your comment disagreeing with what I did. However we are here talking, and I'd rather not amplify the reverts. I request you (and anyone else) to look at [this version] and tell me if there is anything about it you have a problem with. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alsee (talk) As I said above, you do not need to remove trophy-like icons from fields medalist by institution. Also there is no need to make that table unsort-able. That's all. And about reverting issue, that was my bad! sorry! Cheers Rezameyqani (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rezameyqani Ok, we're all good now. My intent was to leave sort on for every column, and I'm pretty sure I did? As far as trophy-like icons, do we really need to present that table in such a glaringly competition-winner format? I think the focus should be on the Fields winners and their accomplishments, rather than trying to use the Fields winners as mere trophy-pawns. Alsee (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Alsee (talk) Those icons were used in the previous version of the page,i.e. the version before 15 Aug. 2014. I believe it would be better to put them there to show where the main flow of math is. Yet, if you can get a consensus on this matter, you can change the table and remove those icons. Thanks Rezameyqani (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rezameyqani I accept that we still have different preferences on the icons. I'm going to revert the page back to my edit version - but note that I am doing it mainly so that other editors can immediately see what we are discussing. I am not trying to push my version as permanent. Alsee (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rezameyqani I see you made some tweaks to the table contents. Would you be agreeable to making the temporary revert to my version? I don't want to mess up your work on the table contents. Alsee (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee No problem. I agree.The tweaks were necessary since there were some errors on the table. Cheers Rezameyqani (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rezameyqani I waited to see if anyone would jump in. It's been quiet. I merged your edits and my edits as discussed above. If you want to ping recent participants on Talk for input and consensus check, I'm good with that. Alsee (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

War-time
No doubt as a result of war-time disruption, the Fields medal was not awarded from 1936 to 1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.236.192 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Current/Last Affiliation
I'm not making any changes... I'm not arguing.... I'm just tossing a question out... what's the value in the Current/Last Affiliation column? I see it basically divided into two categories: There are people who are currently affiliated, and people who are dead or retired. If the person is dead or retired then their last affiliation seems just as arbitrary as their second-to-last affiliation. If the person is alive, I do see significance in noting that a Fields Metal winner is currently affiliated there, but this is information that can go stale. It just seems a very low quality column left over from when the table was keeping score by birthplace and nationality and whatever else. I'm not touching Current/Last Affiliation, but if it happens to go away I won't complain. Alsee (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Current/Last Affiliation column is not appropriate. In almost all cases, affiliation at the time of the award is considered important. Zenqueue (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view,it's a good thing to maintain, and to update current affiliation(s) of a recipient,if one has some solid reference about the current affilation(s).2.190.99.138 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobel and Fields
I see that there is too much comparison of the Fields Medal with the Nobel Prize on this article.

The Fields Medal should NOT be refereed as "Nobel Prize of Mathematics". What would you think if someone called the Nobel Prize in Chemistry as the "Fields Medal of Chemistry"? That is wrong...

Yes, talk about how prestigious it is, but there is no need to mention Nobel... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloryEvans (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.No need for comparison between Nobel Prize & Fields medal.By the way,I heard that Abel Prize is the closest thing to Nobel Prize of Math.2.190.99.138 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Fields Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927193530/http://www.icm2002.org.cn/general/prize/medal/1998.htm to http://www.icm2002.org.cn/general/prize/medal/1998.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060831020716/http://www.newyorker.com:80/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 to http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Those annoying flags came back!!!
After so much discussion and time that has been spent here to make a consensus about to not put any flags in this article,I see those flags came back again!!!,Why is that???Rezameyqani (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding photo to each winner's row in the table
I suggest to add a photo of each winner on the table ,any comments or thoughts?Rezameyqani (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rezameyqani, I'm from the FRS and I agree with not adding a photo due to the massive amount of scrolling already in the article Maybe think about spliting? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that 1) the table is already fairly massively long, that the amount of scrolling inherent in a version with even scaled photos would outweigh any benefits for even general users on decent connections, 2) such a large number of photos would present significant load-time issues for certain users on slow connections, 3) WP:accessibility issues would be significant for those utilizing mobile devices or small displays, and 4) anyone who cares to know what each of winners looks like can always pursue the links to their individual pages. There's also the matter that there are quite a great many entries in the list for which we have no photo, which would give the table an uneven look.  Thus, I personally think photos would be superfluous, technically problematic, and a questionable format choice, from a design and aesthetic perspective. B all of that said, it's not the manner of addition that I would feel inclined to revert, personally.  However, I would still strongly recommend reading WP:ARTICLESIZE before deciding whether to proceed.  S n o w  let's rap 04:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally stick to the idea that pictures of people normally aren't particularly useful or really even needed in articles unless it is their BLP page. Since the table links to each BLP anyways, a picture would be redundant since a reader interested in a specific person will just go to that specific BLP page instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated above, there are already wikilinks directing readers to the winners' pages. It would make more sense to include images of the winners on their associated page if it is not ready included. The table is already incredibly long and adding images would convolute the page. Appreciate the good faith contributions but I think in this instance, would not improve the quality of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snow Rise. Making the article much longer would not be good. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Accessibility (some readers have slow internet and limited data, especially in developing countries) trumps the benefit that adding images for each subject would give. Esquivalience t 01:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was also asked to comment by the feedback request service. I have to respectfully disagree with the other comments because I believe adding photos to an article makes it better. Here is an example of one of my articles in which I used small (I will probably make them smaller) photos: List of prominent microbiologists. I still consider this article that I created incomplete and intend to reduce the size of the text within the table. But for your current table I would recommend combining columns to allow more room for very small photos and reducing the text size a bit. I don't like galleries in articles and suggest thumbnails on the right and left. Thumbnails can be made smaller by inserting the coding :..|thumb | 75px |.... Best Regards,  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bfpage: The markup for that page is a mess. -- Forridean  (T/C) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No to the pictures Summoned by a bot. I don't think adding pictures to the table is very useful. There's not much understanding about the subject at hand to be gained by knowing what the people who won the award look like at a glance. If you're truly interested in seeing what one or more of them look like, the image is just a click away. Leaving the images "behind a click" lets the reader decide if they want to see a picture, putting them on the table forces them to "pay the bandwidth" (time+money) to see the pictures they may not be interested in anyway. There's also the matter of relevance: I'm here to read about the Fields Medal, so pictures of that are great -- we're missing one side (the image of the reverse ought to be at the top, in my opinion!), maybe if it's on a chain or a ribbon? Pictures of the ceremony would be neat. Pictures of the winners? Seems tangential at best. -- Forridean  (T/C) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The pictures might be nice in a subpage or separate article devoted to them, but they would clutter up and slow the main page. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you every one for your invaluable comments.The table will remain as it is,since the consensus says it clearly.Rezameyqani (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No images would not add much to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The table is barely wide enough to fit on my laptop screen as it is, and on my phone I have to sidescroll to see a badly-wrapped version with very narrow text columns; additional clutter would only make it worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fields Medal. 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:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20061214211631/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 with https://web.archive.org/web/20060831020716/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2 on http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Status of École Normale Supérieure
In the section on Fields medals by alumni institution, the page says this: "École Normale Supérieure is a combination of schools (in its anglo-saxon definition) representing the elite of the scientific community in France". First I would like to point out that ENS is in no way a "combination of institutions". Far from being such a "combination", it is in fact itself a constituent college of the collegiate university PSL Research University.

I suppose what was meant by this is that ENS is host to many different laboratories, some of which are organised in collaboration with external institutions such as CNRS and Institut Henri Poincaré. While these many different laboratories that ENS plays host to might be relevant information when considering scientists under the "working institution" heading, it makes no sense at all when considering them as alumni of ENS. Why? Because, in counterpoint to the school as a place of research, the school considered as a place of study is unified and there can be no doubt that it is not under this angle of analysis in any way a "combination of schools". For those unfamiliar with the peculiar workings of France's grande ecole system, I would suggest reading the article about CPGE. All this to say that, of the eleven ENS Fields medalists alumni, ten of them entered the school through a competitive exam that left no doubt that they were entering a specific school (the exception being Grothendieck).

I also hasten to point out that, if what was meant by this sentence was the existence of others ENSes in France (in Lyon, Cachan and Rennes) - and abroad for that matter (the SNS in Pisa being the most notable example) -, these institutions are completely distinct and independent from one another.

I am therefore removing this misleading sentence from the text. Lansonyte (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fields Medal. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105133237/http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pdfmem/Cohen_P.pdf to http://historicalsociety.stanford.edu/pdfmem/Cohen_P.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204111241/http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/CurrentCV.pdf to http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/CurrentCV.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.icm2002.org.cn/general/prize/medal/1998.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fields Medal. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.ams.org/samplings/this-math-month/thismathmonth-aug
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827194548/http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9090319 to http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9090319

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fields Medal. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://celebratio.org/cmmedia/essaypdf/19_main_3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806082228/http://math.berkeley.edu/~vfr/vita to http://math.berkeley.edu/~vfr/vita/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010040126/http://www.ihes.fr/~maxim/CVAnglais.html to http://www.ihes.fr/~maxim/CVAnglais.html/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

On even years?
I am confused by this quote from the article "a meeting that takes place every four years (on even years)". Is there some interpretation of this that I am missing? It reads to me like someone made a basic error. The congress takes place on years that are 2 mod 4. If I don't get a reply to this soon, I will edit it. For now I will leave it, in case there is some technicality I missed. Triangl (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit warring
I have temporarily protected this article to stop the edit warring over whether it should mention both Maryam Mirzakhani and the gender disparity in awardees. Please discuss this issue in talk rather than continuing to edit-war over it. Per WP:BRD, once it becomes clear that a proposed change to the article is contentious (as this one is) it should not be repeated until the consensus of editors can be determined. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to add the fact Olga Ladyzhenskaya was being considered in 1958 (mentioned in a recent paper in Nature), but the block hasn't quite run out. Not sure how to proceed given the edit warring. 129.127.37.121 (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've lifted the protection; we'll see how it goes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that I come to think of it, it's probably better to mention all the known potential candidates that we now know were shortlisted (now at home, don't have an account, but previous comment regarding Ladyzhenskaya was also by me), for instance Weil, Nash and Harish-Chandra. Also maybe worth including is discussion about how the perceived criteria changed a bit until the current rules set in 1966 and tweaked in 1998, but that Fields' will left the discretion of the method of choosing to the Medal committee (this is documented in the Nature article) and perhaps that the criteria are being re-examined. This last point was raised during the last ICM, and I'd have to track that source down before adding it. Or else wait until any news comes from the current committee later this year on any considered changes. 211.27.221.218 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to mention the discussion of the gender disparity that was pretty widely present in the news coverage when Mirzakhani won the prize. The above proposal about the shortlist also sounds reasonable to me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Engvar
Per this early revision, the article was written in US English ("honor"). --John (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The branch
The branch on the back of the medal is an olive branch, a fact which in my opinion is noteworthy because of its meaning. If there is no resistance I will note this in the article.נחום אולמן (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed for citations
The citations column on the list of fields medalists consists of quotes taken from other sources. Surely by the rules it is supposed to specify where these quotes are taken from? This is especially confusing as many of the quotes are from different sources, with some more official than others. I propose that some explanation be added for the source of the quote. Someusernames (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued ugly removal of Mirzakhani material
Going back to January 2017, there has been a nasty pattern on this page of editors (mostly IPs) removing discussion of Mirzakhani, either from the lead or body or both (maybe comprehensive list:            ). See also this discussion from a year ago. It seems to me like there is a clear implicit consensus that this material (well attested to in sources) is positive and should stay in the article, so the purpose of this thread is merely to alert other users to the fact that this has been a low-level systematic issue. --JBL (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

丘成桐的國籍 Yau's nationality
I am from Hong Kong and I will just say it in Chinese. I am too busy to entertain ignorance of some foreigners with bad attitude. I can't find the so called discussion anyway so I will put it here. If I have time later I may write in English. I did put Chinese sources but you guys ignored and deleted them and replaced with your own and now you blame me for not giving sources. Maybe you should try reading some Chinese yourselves.

丘成桐是廣東省出生，中國的國籍根據中華民國是血統法，1949年新中國成立後未有立國籍法，直到1980年成文法典國籍法，採取出生同血統結合. 但是看1950年代中國同印尼政府商討的消除雙重國籍協議，當時在印尼居住的華人是視為同時具有中國同印尼國籍，他們需要兩者選擇一個. 也就是說，就算是居住海外的華人當時都是視為有中華人民共和國國籍，至於在香港的華人更是如此，因為不論中國民國及之後的中華人民共和國，都不承認清朝同英國割讓的不平等條約，一直視香港為中國的一部份. 即是說就算是殖民地時代香港出生有英國屬土國籍的人，都是中國國籍. 何況丘成桐是中國大陸廣東省出生，父母都是中國人. 他的家庭遷居到中國一直保留主權的香港，當然是不會改變他的國籍歸屬. 而且中國已經清楚表明，就算是回歸前，中華人民共和國國籍法都同樣適用於香港的華人，即是不承認英國屬土公民或英國海外公民國籍. 凡是在中國出生有中國血統的人都是中國籍. 這一點在1984年中英聯合聲明中方備忘錄中就申明了，中方當時已經指出根據《中華人民共和國國籍法》，所有香港華人，不論是否持有英國屬土護照，都是中國公民，而1996年全國人民代表大會常務委員會關於《中華人民共和國國籍法》在香港特別行政區實施的幾個問題的解釋也再次講明. 假如國籍法只在回歸後適用香港，而回歸前不適用香港，那麼香港華人的中國籍就無法理依據，所以中方備忘錄以及國籍法的解釋表明《中華人民共和國國籍法》早在回歸前已在香港適用. 中國之所以無在1997年前發放護照予中國籍香港居民，是因為香港仍然由英國治理，中英協商容許英國繼續發放護照同身份證明書給香港居民，中國護照由未來的特區政府發放. 至於丘成桐的所謂「無國籍」的問題，是因為他在香港只有中國籍，無英國籍. 當時全港中國大陸出生的香港華人都是無英國籍，除非宣誓歸入英籍，否則人人都是手持「身份證明書」CI出外旅遊，丘成桐未拿美國綠卡前都不例外. 香港老一代人都知道，身份證明書不是國籍文件，出外旅行任何國家都要先拿到簽證，而且極不容易得到簽證，在外國出入境也會受到留難，所以拿CI的人都會說自己「無國籍」. 不單止丘成桐，我在CI的維基條目已經引用了幾篇文章來源，指出這個「無國籍」是大家共同的看法. 但是「無國籍」是實務方面的，實際上根據人大常委的解釋，香港回歸之前香港華人就算香港出生都是有中國國籍，這個是法律地位的認定. 更何況法律上要喪失中國國籍，根據該法是要滿足兩個條件，第一是在外國定居，第二是在外國拿到國籍. 所有在香港因「居英權計劃」拿到英國國籍的人，都是因為不滿足第一項在外國定居的條件，被中國視為仍然有中國國籍，因為他們的定居地香港不是外國，是中國一部份. 丘成桐1990年入籍美國之前，只符合第一項條件，不符合第二項條件，所以他仍然有中國籍. 就算是遷到台灣的中華民國政府，亦是視香港為其領土一部份，在香港回歸前香港華人有資格申領發給華僑的中華民國護照，雖然丘成桐從未向台灣申領這個護照. 總而言之，丘成桐在1990年入籍美國前，不單單是文化情感上的中國人，即使法理上亦是中國國籍的公民，所以他得獎時國籍是中國，你們說他無國籍根本站不住腳！

If you still want source, here you are an indirect one from Macau. I searched the Hong Kong Immigration Dept website to no avail. The situation is similar and they even borrowed the name C.I. from Hong Kong despite its Portuguese name. It's his C.I. that the British consulate took away from Yau. There had never been such a thing called "Hong Kong resident card".  --Stomatapoll (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yau's nationality
Your of the endnote and link to China isn’t justified. Per the New York Times: You are conflating holding a passport with nationality, which is also not the same as citizenship. Yau was born in mainland China and clearly stated that he was Chinese when he was awarded the Fields Medal. Not having a passport doesnt negate that and also doesn’t mean that he had no nationality (or even no citizenship), unless you apply significant WP:SYNTH/WP:OR assumptions.That’s also what the endnote clearly explained and why there was a slash China/None. — MarkH21talk 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC) So from 1978 to 1990, he had only permanent residency in the US, did the work at American universities, and at the time of being awarded the Fields Medal, US residency was the only legal status he held. Koh1989 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yau's own unfounded claims do not make him Chinese. Nationality must be based on the law. Although nationality and citizenship are not exactly the same, citizenship is usually a legal nationality. "Stephen Hawking invited me to discuss [the proof] with him at Cambridge University in late August 1978. I gladly accepted.... Travel was difficult, however, because the British Consulate had recently taken my Hong Kong resident card, maintaining that I could not keep it now that I had a U.S. green card. In the process, I had become stateless. I was no longer a citizen of any country.... until I became a U.S. citizen in 1990."
 * Nationality and citizenship are both legal terms that are distinct from each other. In the Sino-British Joint Declaration for instance, Many residents of the SARs (Hong Kong and Macau) do not have full Chinese citizenship rights despite being Chinese nationals though.Yeah, I added that quote about his loss of Hong Kong residency to the article Shing-tung Yau. You're trying to use his own statement about his citizenship to negate his own statement about him being Chinese when he won the Fields Medal; Yau's statement that he did not have citizenship does not negate his own statement that he was Chinese when he was awarded the Field Medal. — MarkH21talk 05:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time of 1982, Hong Kong was not returned to the People's Republic of China. China's claim has no international legal basis. If you tell Taiwanese that they are Chinese under the Chinese nationality law, they will be angry. Koh1989 (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you realize, but the Sino-British Joint Declaration occurred in 1984 before the handover of Hong Kong, with that part a clarification for the current Chinese nationality law that was enacted in 1980. Plus, Hong Kong is not the same as Taiwan (although residents of Taiwan are PRC nationals just as residents of mainland China are legally ROC nationals; this is a well-known fact in the nationality law of both the PRC and ROC that you can find in dozens of reliable sources). — MarkH21talk 05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government's claim that Hong Kongers are Chinese in the Sino-British Joint Declaration was a one sided argument by the Chinese government, but there is no evidence that the British government agreed to recognize Hong Kongers as Chinese prior to returning Hong Kong to China. And Yau won the Fields Medal before the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Koh1989 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was from the joint declaration by both governments. The Chinese nationality law is also from before Yau won the Fields Medal. — MarkH21talk 06:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Nationality Law is not internationally recognized because it contains China's expansionist ideology and China's unilateral claim to sovereignty in Taiwan. If there is a conflict between Chinese nationality law and international law, Wikipedia should prioritize international law over Chinese nationality law. Koh1989 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nationality laws are within the confines of each state's legal system. It is dependent on the legal recognition of the sovereign state itself and is not derived from international law. But this is now getting quite off-topic.The situation is that Yau said he had no passport, Yau said that he had no citizenship, and Yau said that he was Chinese at the time of the Fields Medal award. There is no internal contradiction here and it is also corroborated by what is recognized under Chinese nationality law. This is why the entry had a China/None with endnotes that precisely explain this situation. Erasing that leans heavily on WP:OR or a misunderstanding of Yau's situation while obfuscating the precise scenario. — MarkH21talk 05:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Nationality Law is not internationally recognized because it contains China's expansionist ideology and China's unilateral claim to sovereignty in Taiwan. If there is a conflict between Chinese nationality law and international law, Wikipedia should prioritize international law over Chinese nationality law. Koh1989 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make any sense. There is no such thing as international law on nationality; each country has its own nationality law. — MarkH21talk 06:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If China enacts a law that says I am Chinese, will I become Chinese? Koh1989 (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are a Chinese national under Chinese law, then you are a Chinese national under Chinese law. If you are an American national under American law, then you are an American national under American law. Every sovereign state determines who it recognizes as its nationals and citizens. The only governance on nationality law in international law is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits the deprivation of a person's nationality.But this explanation of how nationality law works is way off-topic now and a waste of time. It's very clear-cut. — MarkH21talk 06:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Prior to 1982, Yau himself had never made any legal attempt to obtain Chinese citizenship. Nationality must be legally recognized. Koh1989 (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:OR to me. Cut it out. — MarkH21talk 06:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing the entire nationality column
Looking back at the talk page archive, there actually seemed to have been consensus here to remove the "nationality" column entirely, which I also agree with. It seemed to have been only been added back by an IP, so there are grounds to actually just remove the entire column. — MarkH21talk 06:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any reason to remove nationality from the Wikipedia article. The nationality of the Nobel Laureate or Abel Laureate was not removed from the article. Koh1989 (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe read the linked discussion between and  again. It leads to a lot of problematic edits and nonsense, particularly from nationalist editors, fly-by editors who don't bother to use reliable sources, and in more ambiguous cases. This particular case previously had a back-and-forth involving, IPs and editors changing Mirzakhani's and Birkar's nationalities, and much older nonsense before the long-standing consensus to remove the column. — MarkH21talk 06:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the consensus that removes nationality from the article is no longer a long-standing consensus. This is because it has been a long time since the nationality was added and there was no issue of the edit war in the article. The past consensus is no longer a valid consensus. Koh1989 (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That it has been a year since the IP inserted the column back into the table isn't a reason for keeping the column. — MarkH21talk 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The award is given to mathematicians, not to countries. It is not like the Olympics where competitors are explicitly part of a national team. Yau, Mirzakhani, and Birkar are not the only problematic cases; see also Grothendieck and even Bhargava. I agree we're better off without. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not the Olympics, showing the nationality of the winner in an article is better in terms of information than not showing it. The nationalities of the Nobel Laureates and Abel Laureates are also shown on Wikipedia. Koh1989 (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we shouldn't show the nationalities of the Fields Medalists on Wikipedia because the nationalities of some winners are controversial, should we not show the nationalities of Nobel laureates and Abel laureates as well? Koh1989 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX. And we probably shouldn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

More difficult cases: Zelmanov is listed as Russian despite not every having lived in Russia as a country (he left the Soviet Union for the US before its collapse). Martin Hairer is by birth legally Austrian but was born and grew up in Switzerland, so because of a quirk of national citizenship laws we again list him in a country he never lived in. Terry Tao is stated in his article as Australian-American but this is unsourced and here he is listed as only Australian. Klaus Roth is listed here as only being from the UK but is originally from Germany. I'm beginning to think that more of these are problematic than not. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense not to show the nationality of all medalists because the nationality of some medalists are controversial. If the description of the nationality of the medalist in this article is incorrect, you can refer to the medalist's own Wikipedia article and correct it. 124.49.87.171 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You already said that. The nationality is not pertinent information for the Fields Medal table, just like including their birthdates or birthplaces isn’t pertinent. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. — MarkH21talk 08:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The nationality of some Nobel Laureates is also controversial, but I have never seen a claim to not show the nationality of all Nobel Laureates in a Wikipedia article. 124.49.87.171 (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The nationality is pertinent information for the Abel Prize table. So why not at the Fields Medal table? 124.49.87.171 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MarkH21 and David Eppstein. Koh1989 (the same person as 124.49.87.171?) has not provided any good reason for inclusion. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the citizenship / nationality at either birth or time of award is particularly important for this list. Personally, I'd be more interested in the country/countries where Fields medalists learned their mathematics, which would be Switzerland for Hairer, Hong Kong/USA for Yau, and France for Grothendieck. The citizenship / nationality comparatively seems about as relevant as the weekday the medalists were born on. —Kusma (t·c) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with omitting nationality. It doesn't seem particularly relevant. Reyk YO! 09:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --JBL (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also concur with omitting nationality. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, but find removing recipient nationality strange. For example, ICM 2022 lists the nationalities of all of its plenary speakers: https://icm2022.org/blog/the-list-of-plenary-speakers-of-the-international-mathematical-congress-2022. The fact that there are a handful of complicated cases isn't a convincing reason not to have the column, and as others have mentioned Nobel prizes pages still do. As a prominent example, Mirzakhani was in the United States when she won, but her Iranian origin is key to her story. Horacelamb (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe, having watched the edits from the sidelines, it was a response to the Yau's Nationality controversy (above) which was getting too hot. So it was in a sense a sacrifice rather than a judgment on the value of having it in the page.Oblivy (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion
On the basis of the overwhelming consensus above, I have nominated List of countries by number of Fields Medalists for AfD at Articles for deletion/List of countries by number of Fields Medalists (2nd nomination). — MarkH21talk 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Reasons" in the table
As it stands, the "reasons" column in the table has the appearance (to me) of providing the official citation for the medalist's work. However, it seems that (except in a few cases) this might not be the case. For the awards up through 1986, the quotes are taken from the IMU website, e.g. from here for 1978. This would seem to be official, but the website directly sources the material as being "reproduced with permission" from the book "International mathematical congresses. An illustrated history 1893 - 1986." That book, as far as I can tell from looking through it, makes no claim at all to be quoting official reasons or citations. I am suspicious that they could all be official, since they are all written in essentially the same style - and suddenly, in the years which the book does not cover, the content on the IMU website changes quite a bit, see e.g. this from 1998 and this from 2002. In 2006 and 2010, they just link to the medalist's personal websites (so in Perelman's case, to wikipedia!). There are unambiguous and clearly official citations for the 2014 medals and the 2018 medals.

Can someone clarify the situation? If there is not a clear reason given by an official source for the award to a certain person, then probably one should not be given here. For instance in the early days of the award, apparently it was awarded more in the spirit of "encouraging future good work" and so it could be simply incorrect to say that it was given for specific achievements. It may give a false impression to suggest otherwise on this page. So perhaps some entries in this column should be left blank? Gumshoe2 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've checked the proceedings of the 1962 congress, which I happen to have a physical copy of. I cannot find anywhere where Milnor is cited specifically for his paper on the 7-sphere, as is suggested now on this wiki page. It is of course mentioned in Hassler Whitney's "Work of John Milnor" article, along with other results. Lars Garding's "Work of Lars Hormander" article has the sentence "He has been given a Fields Medal for his outstanding work in the theory of partial differential equations" in the first paragraph, but it does not seem that this is meant as an official laudation. It seems also too vague to be taken out of context. Gumshoe2 (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently came across some discussion on mathoverflow on this point: see comments under Polizzi's answer. I think it's clear that the "Reasons" column is (at present) inappropriate and un-encyclopedic, although some of the entries are legitimate. Would appreciate any thoughts on this before I put effort into finding which entries to remove. Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My edits have now been reverted by . There are two points in question here. One is that which I discussed right above here, reflected by this edit, which I am yet to hear any particular objection to. On the other hand I am very unsurprised that my second edit caused a reversion, although I do think it may be worth considering. The "current/last affiliation" column seems uninteresting and hard to keep updated, and I also don't know why ICM location is of any interest here. Personally I think the selection committee is very interesting information, and definitely moreso than those. Just my two cents. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted because at first glance it looked like you were listing all of those committee members as Fields medalists. It took me quite a long time to realize that you had not somehow made a mistake and listed a lot of people as winners who were not winners. They were listed in a more prominent position in the table than the winners themselves. I don't think they should be in the table at all. They are a behind-the-scenes role, not the main event. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand that thinking, although I would be very happy to hear opinions from others as well. I suspect that most would agree with you but I would like to know. Anyway I am much more seriously concerned with the first edit, to do with "reasons" for award. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest I didn't check carefully exactly which of the edits made which change. But now that I look more carefully, I don't like that change either. It by and large replaces text describing why the person won the medal, with text describing who said why they won it. That is not a useful piece of information to make so prominent. If we can't properly source a succinct reason for the medal, we should omit that field altogether, not make a table filled with uninformative text. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My claim is that that first edit of mine, despite its lack of aesthetic appeal, is carefully sourced and 100% authoritative. The present version is not so at all, given its clear and seemingly wrong implication that official reasons are being given in all award years. I should also point out that even where I wrote, e.g., "Laudatio given by C. Carathéodory", the indicated reference contained a link to the pdf of the Carathéodory's laudatio, so that there is highly valuable and highly relevant information contained in the edit. You just have to click through the reference. Perhaps there is a way to make that more transparent as part of the table, but I couldn't think of a way. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This response suggests that to you, information is fungible: it doesn't matter whether it is informative, as long as it is properly sourced, so if it is informative but inadequately sourced, it should be replaced by something uninformative that can be better sourced. I disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If I said that, it was by accident. Maybe the real point of disagreement is that I view this as a page solely about one particular award, and as such, as a page only indirectly about mathematical accomplishments. So I think information about the person's accomplishments, if they are not officially given as part of the award, should be put on the person's wiki page and not on the wiki page for this award. Does that make sense/do you disagree? Gumshoe2 (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope my new edit will be more agreeable. I have added explanatory paragraph, and changed the column to official citation wherever possible. The existing entries for Drinfeld, Jones, Mori, and Yoccoz were problematic, since quotes were given but I could not find where they came from. I replaced them with quotes from the laudatios, trying to match the spirit of the other entries. Please let me know if you think it suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For Drinfeld, Manin writes "Langlands' conjectures for GL(2) over global fields of finite characteristic". That is usually rendered as GL2 instead of GL(2) (cf Laurent Lafforgues). Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean GL2, not GL2. I think both GL2 and GL(2) are common, and if part of a quote it is usually considered proper to leave notation unchanged. But I don't think it's terribly important, I don't have a strong opinion. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments. The Proceedings on the ICM can be found in the reference sections of almost all university or mathematical departmental libraries; aside from plenary and section articles, there are commendations for Fields medallists. The 1986 UC Berkeley volumes for example were edited by Andrew Gleason; pages 1–21 of Vol I give reports on Simon Donaldson by Michael Atiyah, Gerd Faltings by Barry Mazur, and Michael Freedman by John Milnor. With the advent of the internet, the International Mathematical Union has made all the proceedings of ICMs available online. Here for example is the 1970 Nice actes de l'CIM, tome I. The commendations of Alan Baker by Paul Turan, of Alexandre Grothendieck by Heisuke Hironaka (in French), of Sergei Novikov by Michael Atiyah and of John G. Thompson by Richard Brauer are easy to read and to summarise; given the WP:RS, other editors can confirm WP:V by consensus.

On the other hand MathOverflow is not a WP:RS: it's an off-wiki forum and discussions there about Fields medallists appear to be WP:OFFTOPIC here. There are five summaries from the commendations: for Drinfeld by Manin, for Jones by Birman, for Mori by Hironaka (in English) and for Witten by Fadeev, on behalf of Atiyah. The summary for three are inadequate:


 * aside from isolated papers, Drinfeld's principal contributions were to integrable systems & quantum groups. and the proof of Langland's conjectures for GL(2) over global fields in prime characteristic;
 * Jones' work on index theory of operator algebras is unmentioned in the table although their application to knot theory and statistical mechanics are mentioned;
 * the summary of the completion "Mori's Program" for 3-folds and the proof of Hartshorne's conjecture seems fine;
 * Faddev quotes Atiyah. Atiyah & Fadeev list Witten's work on supersymmetry and the Dirac operator (Morse theory and index theorems); the positive mass conjecture; rigidity theorems arising in string theory; topological QFT for invariants of knots in 3-manfolds.

Blanking content reliably sourced content about the Proceedings of the ICMs seems unprecedented. Since it seems unhelpful for any lay readers of wikipedia, I have restored the current table. The OP can work out on their own how to tweak the summary to match previous proceedings of ICMs. They are available online, so the existing summaries can be verified/amended by carefully reading each entry. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can easily see that I added references to every single one of those commendations in my first edit. Your comment "I have restored the current table" is also baffling since did that, not you. Please focus. Gumshoe2 (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * please respect the WP:TPG. Please also have the courtesy to read what I've written: you seem incapable of listening to others. I wrote, Blanking content reliably sourced content about the Proceedings of the ICMs seems unprecedented. Since it seems unhelpful for any lay readers of wikipedia, I have restored the current table. The OP can work out on their own how to tweak the summary to match previous proceedings of ICMs. They are available online, so the existing summaries can be verified/amended by carefully reading each entry. User:David Eppstein was quicker off the mark to restore the current table: I was busy writing careful reasoning here. My edit summary for restoring the content was initially, "restoring content which so far has no consensus - unexplained WP:BOLD extensive "blanking" of reasons for Fields medals, e.g. Selberg, Atiyah, Thom, Thompson, Serre, Hironaka, Kodaira, Deligne, Mumford, Bombieri, Faltings, Donaldson, Thurston, Freedman, etc - completely unhelpful to lay wikipedia readers - ICM vols & reports available in almost all dept univ libs - MathOverflow not a WP:RS". That was at this stage. But then you made this edit. Edits are done cumulatively and by consensus. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Female recipients
The fact that there is a section of female recipients is not neutral: the section has no more meaning than putting a section about different ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc. and there is no such section nor should there be one without a neutral justification for it to be (with reliable sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgc1994 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate section with one name when the fact has already been mentioned more than once in the article. PaulGS (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. The lead (introductory section) is a summary of what exists in the body . Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Johnuniq has said, I would also point out that blanking/reversion of the Female Recipients section has been a recurrent issue and should be addressed on the talk page, through discussion aimed at consensus rather than blanking. The comment from PaulGS post-dates blanking of the section by about five hours and appears a belated defense of the action rather than an attempt to explain. There's some grounds to say calling out the single female recipient is trivia, and deleting does not seem clearly "anti-feminist" as the revert comment suggests. However, it is of note that the award has only been awarded once to a woman, and also a credit to her success to mention that it happened.Oblivy (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DE's revert comment is explained by the long history of this section being deleted, frequently with explicitly anti-feminist edit summaries; see Talk:Fields_Medal/Archive_1. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JBL I looked at the edits linked in that comment, and do see that one anonymous editor engaged in a string of blanking blanking edit/reverts with obnoxious comments. However, I don't think the rest of the edit history re:Mirzakhani's award is explicitly anti-feminist. No doubt there's implicit gender bias in editors' focus on this section. But it's not like the section is about how the award excluded or overlooked women mentioned in the article, or some explicit feminist issue either. I just don't see David Eppstein's revert comment as justified. To be 100% clear, I'm happy he reverted the edit and am not in agreement with OP or PaulG.Oblivy (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mirzakhani's win as the first woman is already mentioned above in the Landmarks section. That seems to be a much better place for it, along with other firsts. It's duplicative, and adds nothing to the article. There's no commentary about it, nothing about her or her work (other than she's a woman). What purpose does the section serve that isn't already covered in the Landmarks section? PaulGS (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" do you not understand? This sentence in the lead is a summary of a later part. As it should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP and PaulGS are not referring to the lead text. They're clearly referring to the standalone section Fields_Medal.&mdash;Myasuda (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is, that the information is in the article in two places because the lead is meant to recapitulate the body. (It is not true, as PaulGS implies, that the Landmarks section conveys the same information.) --JBL (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in three places: the lead, the Landmarks section, and the Female Recipients section. If it must be mentioned that she's the only woman to win it, change the Landmarks section to read In 2014, Maryam Mirzakhani became the first and only woman as well as the first Iranian...' or something like that. Do we also need a section titled Iranian Recipients? And where's the popular culture section, since the lead mentions Good Will Hunting? PaulGS (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt in my mind that it is appropriate to bring attention to the dearth of female recipients. At the least, it's more worthy of comment than, say, the fact that Witten is a physicist or that Serre was 27 (??). Unfortunately, the "female recipients" section is currently written as a random trivia fact, and so holds very little value, given that it might as well be a verbatim repeat of the exact same comment in the "Landmarks" section. It would be highly appropriate to expand the section so that it is not simply a trivia fact, especially given that it is a topic that has been widely discussed in media around Fields medal. There should be plenty of source material to draw on for that. But as currently written, unfortunately I think it isn't appropriate. Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)