Talk:Jinyoung Park (mathematician)

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

"Widespread recognition"
Regarding of she received widespread recognition, I don't see sufficient independent RS evidence in the cited references. We only have a few statements from affiliated institutions and a handful of mathematicians' reactions to a recent arXiv preprint in interviews with a popular mathematics magazine. The paper has not been published yet nor has there been enough time for any broader recognition (recognition from mathematical societies, major awards, etc.).It may well come in time, but it seems far too soon and unsupported to state she received widespread recognition in WP:WIKIVOICE (plus it's not in the cited references, so it's not directly attributable either).I didn't mean to remove the year, so thanks for catching that! — MarkH21talk 03:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark! Perhaps we can find a wording we both agree with here. I don't mean to imply recognition from the mathematical community or awards, rather press coverage. You are right that the references don't support academic community recognition. Would you be OK with just (1) "she received recognition" or (2) "she received press coverage" or (3) "she received press recognition"? I'll make a tentative change in that direction. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just a single Quanta article? It's WP:UNDUE and even borderline (& minor) OR/SYNTH to call this "press recognition" ourselves. I would just say that she "released a preprint containing ..." and cite the Quanta article (without trying to draw our own conclusions about the single Quanta article that isn't in the sources). In other articles featured in one or two popsci articles, we also don't try to summarize that coverage ourselves through some kind of "X has received press coverage". — MarkH21talk 04:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree: it's Quanta together with the press rooms of both Stanford and IAS (BTW, both of which refer to her as having proved the theorem, not proposed a proof). I think you are minimizing something clearly indicated in the references as a major contribution. At any rate, time will show whether Stanford and IAS are wrong, but I'd bet on them against you. I will not edit war, but please come to a consensus with me here, I am prepared to compromise. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Stanford and IAS website refs are just quick press releases by the department/institute secretaries/communications officers (e.g. Lee Sandberg). Basically every math department at a major university has little blurbs and updates like that without a press team or peer review. They're not independent news sources. But we can just ask WT:MATH for broader opinion on calling this press recognition ourselves if you don't believe me. I don't doubt that it will be published in some time and recognized as correct, but this is too soon.Regarding you the proof being proposed at this stage The paper hasn't been published. Quick snippets and interview quotes from press releases and popsci articles don't provide the peer review and academic consensus necessary to call something proved in WP:WIKIVOICE. — MarkH21talk 05:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion opened here — MarkH21talk 05:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * An independent, though only marginally-reliable source is the (expert) blog of Kalai . The preprint looks to be the sole claim to notability so far, so I think something needs to go into the article if it is to be kept (although it may be WP:TOOSOON for the subject here). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur that the Quanta item counts as "recognition" while the press releases don't. This story may also count (see here for our article on its publisher); it's not obviously just a recycled press release. While the most recent arXiv paper hasn't been formally published yet, as Kalai writes, Two years ago Keith Frankston, Jeff Kahn, Bhargav Narayanan, and Jinyoung Park proved a weak form of the conjecture which was proposed in a 2010 paper by Michel Talagrand. That earlier related work was published in the Annals of Mathematics . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Caleb Stanford I agree with MarkH21. It would be better to keep the article in a neutral voice (WP:WIKIVOICE) and remove the words "received recognition".  Just say "In 2022 she released a preprint ...".  There is no urgency to inflate the accomplishments prematurely, the work will speak for itself in due time. PatrickR2 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you all who gave input here! I've updated in favor of the consensus. I agree that this will also resolve itself in due time to properly recognize the accomplishment when it is vetted/reported more widely. Best Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)