Talk:Plimpton 322

Proposed resolution of the Mansfield/Wildberger edit war
I'm about to publish a new article on Plimpton 322 and it would be strange if this page contained no mention of the conjectured, some would say speculative, proto-trigonometric interpretation from 2017. --Daniel.mansfield (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is false that we do not mention this explanation and it is false that this interpretation is original to Wildberger. See the paragraph of the article that begins "Buck (1980) and Robson (2002) both mention the existence of a trigonometric explanation, which Robson attributes to the authors of various general histories and unpublished works, but which may derive from the observation in Neugebauer & Sachs (1945)". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The 2017 paper conjectured it was proto-trigonometric, which is different to the earlier trigonometric suggestions you reference. --Daniel.mansfield (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Different in that it uses the "proto" prefix and is credited to Wildberger rather than to any of the many earlier researchers who discussed this issue, or different in some substantive way? Where can we find a non-self-serving reliable source that reports on this supposed distinction? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The article must have contained something new beyond the word "proto" otherwise it would never have passed peer review. The trigonometric way of thinking briefly described by Buck/Neugebauer/Price/Robson or anyone else (except Norman Wildberger) was based on an understanding of trigonometry that involved angles. Those brief mentions never developed further because they are technically anachronistic (which is not to say they are without merit, actually I'd say that Buck/Neugebauer/Price were on to something but couldn't develop it further without running into anachronism). I seem to recall that Christine Proust and Alexander Jones both described this approach as "speculative". They did not describe it as similar to previous conjectures. As I said at the start, happy with calling it speculative.--Daniel.mansfield (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * More on the novelty of the 2017 paper - If the new interpretation is right, P322 would not only contain the earliest evidence of trigonometry, but it would also represent an exact form of the mathematical discipline, rather than the approximations that estimated numerical values for sines and cosines provide, notes Mathieu Ossendrijver, a historian of ancient science at Humboldt University in Berlin. and A thorough search of other Babylonian mathematical tablets may yet prove their hypothesis, Ossendrijver says. “But that is really an open question at the moment.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/ancient-babylonian-tablet-may-contain-first-evidence-trigonometry --Daniel.mansfield (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote from Alexander Jones in the New York Times, along the same lines as Ossendrijver and I think something along these lines should be included. “I think the interpretation is possible,” said Alexander R. Jones, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University, who was not involved with the research, “but we don’t have much in the way of contexts of use from any Babylonian tablets that would confirm such an intention, so it remains rather speculative.” Daniel.mansfield (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument from the failure of peer-reviewers and hype-passers-on to get past Wildberger's hype is unconvincing. You are not actually answering the question of what is new in this work, any more than you did when this came around before. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you believe the peer-review was faulty? That is a serious accusation. As for your request for reliable sources attesting to the novelty of my work, I refer to the Ossendrijver quote above.Daniel.mansfield (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This would probably be a good point to stop arguing and ask for a third opinion. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly new jargon is frequently allowed past peer-review even in cases where old jargon would suffice. But the above discussion suggests that there is a difference between these interpretations. Unfortunately, it is unclear what the difference is. Please clarify: what precisely is the speculative interpretation that should be mentioned in the article, other than the use of a different jargon term? ParticipantObserver (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Robson (and others) dismissed the trigonometric interpretations as conceptually anachronistic. In 2017, MW revived this interpretation in a way that was not anachronistic. Although it is just a hypothesis because there are no know examples of Babylonian tablets that could confirm such an interpretation.Daniel.mansfield (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So when someone introduces a theory and someone else disagrees, that provides license for you to step in and introduce the same theory again and get credit for it? Good to know. Also, "in a way that was not anachronistic" is in no way close to an explanation of a conceptual difference between these contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the Ossendrijver quote above explains the difference and could be a reasonable thing to include on this page. Plus its a reliable source. Daniel.mansfield (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel.mansfield - why is your 2021 article published in a journal that has papers whose abstracts say things like "For Riemann, hearing was a unitary physical and mental event, and parallels with modern ideas about consciousness and quantum biology are made. A unifying quantum mechanical model for an atom of consciousness—drawing on Riemann’s mind-masses and the similar “psychons” proposed by Eccles—is put forward." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-021-09813-1) or "Medical missionaries made a breakthrough in Korean history in healing and caring for many Hansen and tuberculosis patients. There was a missionary who had no less good influence than medical missionaries at this time. The person is missionary Sarah Barry, who inspired and developed one of the most influential student movements in South Korea. The aim of the present study is to examine life of Sarah Barry and her ministry, focusing upon her positive influences on Korean intellectuals." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-021-09805-1) and "Physical and biological measurements might display range values extending towards infinite. The occurrence of infinity in equations, such as the black hole singularities, is a troublesome issue that causes many theories to break down when assessing extreme events. Different methods, such as re-normalization, have been proposed to avoid detrimental infinity. Here a novel technique is proposed, based on geometrical considerations and the Alexander Horned sphere, that permits to undermine infinity in physical and biophysical equations. In this unconventional approach, a continuous monodimensional line becomes an assembly of countless bidimensional lines that superimpose in quantifiable knots and bifurcations. In other words, we may state that Achilles leaves the straight line and overtakes the turtle." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-020-09674-0). While I am all for mathematics being published in venues with a wider readership, this does not look like good company. 121.45.89.81 (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Daniel, Without going into the merits of your thesis it's absurd that it's not mentioned but don't be too downhearted, there is a world beyond Wikipedia and more and more people seem to be becoming aware of wikipedia's shortcomings which give rise to situations such as this. I don't see much point in using energy trying to change things. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Si.427
The discussion tags have been removed without waiting the prescribed seven days and the remover additionally failed to close the merge discussion so even though the prescribed period has not elapsed I will now close it as proposer.Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The merge candidate is a stub and it's current notability derives from a recent paper making new claims about Plimpton 322. There is controversy and it is being discussed there as well as here (eg section above) so it makes sense to merge. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and speedy close. This makes zero sense. You're taking two random texts on different subjects (one a land survey like many other land surveys, the other a table of numbers) and saying that, of all the thousands of Babylonian texts known, these two are so close that they should be a single article. The only connection between them is Mansfield's hyped-up non-discoveries. That's not enough for a merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "the purpose of Plimpton 322" has been the object of much back-and-forth in academic publications and is entirely off-topic here. Any content on its purpose belongs on the Plimpton 322 article" <- What you said on Si.427 talk page, changed your mind?Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Read what you are quoting. The debate over the purpose of Plimpton 322 belongs on the Plimpton 322 article, not the Si.427, exactly as I said. That has nothing to do with Si.427 and it provides nothing in the way of support for merging material on Si.427 into the Plimpton 322 article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said on the page the current controversy relates to a paper with abstract ""Plimpton 322 is one of the most sophisticated and interesting mathematical objects from antiquity. It is often regarded as teacher’s list of school problems, however new analysis suggests that it relates to a particular geometric problem in contemporary surveying." and the paper is entitled ""Plimpton 322: A Study of Rectangles", this seems quite clear to me. That paper is the reason why the editor created the article Si.427 in the first instance.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If this text had a point, and wasn't just randomly generated, I have no idea what that point might have been. Try to write more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that you appear to have done talking, I am happy to wait for the opinion of others.Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with David Eppstein that the explanation for this merge does not make sense. Either Si.427 is notable or it's not; either way this is a separate topic.  I also wouldn't call the article Si.427 a stub (and in fact I've gone ahead and removed the stub tag there). --JBL (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also may I suggest that each of you strike your last comment of the exchange above? --JBL (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason the two articles should be merged otherwise I will reverse this proposal. Any shortcoming in another article (Si.427) due to WP:NOTINHERITED or whatever is a problem to be resolved at that article. If it is discussed at WP:AFD, an outcome might be a suggestion to merge it here (although why not merge it to clay tablet or Pythagorean triple which seem about as relevant). In that event, any content to be added here would be resolved by discussion on this talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Si.427 was created on 7 August and as part of the creation, material was merged from a connected contributor, namely Daniel Mansfield (who is not known to me). He is the author of the paper that I referred to above (he is also engaged in the discussion at the section above this one) and which theorizes an alternative interpretation of Plimpton 322 based on the author's new work on Si.427, a previously obscure clay tablet that sat in a Turkish museum for many years. The two things are inextricably interlinked. There was a discussion at Pythagorean triples here but it went nowhere as editors decided that Mansfields' paper constituted a primary source. Essentially there is disagreement between editors over the content itself with the discussion spilling over into various related pages so it makes sense to have that discussion at the place where it begins ie with Plimpton 322 and Si.427 being merely the basis for one of the alternative explanations of Plimpton 322 put forward over the years (merged with due weight).Selfstudier (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The history of the article does not appear to be relevant and I see no reason for the proposed merge in the above other than that some previous discussions failed. If there is a reason the merge should occur (WP:MERGEREASON), state it. It seems to me that you are suggesting Si.427 should be deleted (which should be discussed elsewhere), and you are also suggesting that a "2021 controversy" should be added here. By the way, editing a comment to add a notification does not work, see Help:Notifications. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Context.("If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.") Si.427 has become relevant only in terms of Plimpton 322 (the 2021 Controversy section of the article, although much more is being made of this controversy than it deserves), the only reason the article exists is because of the authors paper making use of that tablet as the basis for his explanation of Plimpton 322.(The lead of Plimpton 322 refers "There has been significant scholarly debate on the nature and purpose of the tablet." That is exactly what this is.) If it wasn't for the controversy then it likely would be a deletion candidate for lack of notability, there are 3 refs for the tablet dated 1895, 1902 and 1973, all the other sources on the page are to do with said controversy.Selfstudier (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Repeat backdoor merge proposal
Please see Articles for deletion/Si.427 where (again) a merge has been proposed, and contribute if you have an opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Front door actually, I linked it back to the discussion here. Merging as an alternative to deletion is a normal option.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My position, which I have expressed repeatedly in many unrelated AfDs, is that when a merge proposal to a non-nominated article is made at an AfD, then the merge proposal must be announced at the talk page of the merge target. To do otherwise is to risk a conflict between the local consensus of AfD participants to add material to an article and the local consensus of editors of that article not to add that material. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Inline Must Be Enclosed in Tags
Per the following excerpt from Template:Harvard citation, I am correct in stating that all instances of MUST be enclosed in tags, regardless of whether it is part of the article or not:

I understand that editing guidelines may have changed since you last checked the style recommendations on this topic, User:David_Eppstein, but that is no excuse to be rude. This has been depreciated for over three years at this point, so please be respectful, especially when you are provably wrong. Avereo (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That message and that discussion is for inline use of harv for parenthetical inline references that are not part of the article text. For instance, a footnote is not a grammatical part of the sentence that it footnotes. Neither is a parenthetical inline reference like the one in this sentence (Avereo 2023). In contrast, a different template, harvtxt, is used to create inline text that is text and not purely a reference There is NO REQUIREMENT that referring to the work of Avereo in 2013 must avoid the exact phrasing "Avereo (2023)" in favor of other phrasings like "In 2023, Avereo", or "the work of Avereo in 2023" or "a 2023 work of Avereo". Such a requirement could only be imposed through Wikipedia's manual of style, not its citation guidelines, because the citation guidelines do not apply to the formatting of text that is not a citation.
 * You are edit-warring to impose a mistaken idea of how article text should be written based on an RFC that was not about article text. Further that RFC did not prescribe the removal of parenthetical references; it only deprecated them, something very different from forbidding them.
 * I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but please stop your bad edits and your bad faith and condescending assumptions about what other editors may understand, especially when you are provably wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, I feel like we got off on a bad footing. I am not trying to edit war with you, nor do I think our ideas for the article are incompatible. I apologize if I came off as rude, as that was not my intention. Additionally, I want to emphasize that I am not editing in bad faith, nor did I mean to come off as condescending. In fact, I initially assumed your reversions were also in bad faith, but that assumption was wrong. For that assumption, I apologize. This debacle ultimately stems from a miscommunication in terms of what our visions are for the article, which is why I created this talk post. My goal here is to collaborate with you, and to understand why you're saying what you're saying, while also explaining my position in the process. I don't want to fight with you at all, we just need to communicate our goals clearly and professionally. I ask that you treat me with the same respect I am treating you, because I really do believe we can work this out, and have a higher-quality article because of it. With that said, I'll do my best to respond to your comment so we can get on the same page. Please let me know your thoughts on this, I genuinely care about what you have to say.
 * That message and that discussion is for inline use of for parenthetical inline references that are not part of the article text. For instance, a footnote is not a grammatical part of the sentence that it footnotes. Neither is a parenthetical inline reference like the one in this sentence (Avereo 2023).
 * As far as I have been able to find, the most current recommendation is for all uses of both Template:harv and Template:harvtxt to be placed within a tag, not just in the case of parenthetical inline references. It's very possible I may have missed something, so if you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but pretty much everything I have found indicates otherwise.
 * In contrast, a different template,, is used to create inline text that is text and not purely a reference There is NO REQUIREMENT that referring to the work of Avereo in 2013 must avoid the exact phrasing "Avereo (2023)" in favor of other phrasings like "In 2023, Avereo", or "the work of Avereo in 2023" or "a 2023 work of Avereo". Such a requirement could only be imposed through Wikipedia's manual of style, not its citation guidelines, because the citation guidelines do not apply to the formatting of text that is not a citation.
 * I understand this, which is why I purposefully didn't just slap a tag on all instances of Template:harvtxt and call it a day. Like you said, that would break the article's flow, which I do not want to do. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the article's wording, the current approach to referencing isn't as clean as the standard CS1+ reference style. I don't think we should remove the text from Template:harvtxt from the article entirely, but it would be beneficial to convert to the more common Wikipedia reference style (and minorly reword where necessary). My preference would be to convert the references to templates like Template:Cite_book and Template:Cite_journal inside tags, but Template:harv is completely acceptable within a tag too. Is your concern with the necessity for rewording that a conversion to CS1+ would require, or is there something else causing you to prefer Template:harvtxt without tags?
 * You are edit-warring to impose a mistaken idea of how article text should be written based on an RFC that was not about article text. Further that RFC did not prescribe the removal of parenthetical references; it only deprecated them, something very different from forbidding them
 * While it is not forbidden, I believe it would still be in the best interest of the average reader to convert away from the depreciated reference style to a more current one. My preference would be CS1+, but I'm open to other suggestions if you have any. Is there a reason you have for wanting to stay on the outdated/depreciated reference style? Avereo (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not involved regarding this article but am watching from an earlier fuss. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the above boils down to an opinion in which case there is no justification for tagging the article, particularly when reverted. Editors are free to contribute to the article but should not pass by to impose their preferences. Either remove your tag or point to a discussion showing that articles like this must be tagged. Did the people in that discussion know what deprecated means? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG I just examined the wording in the tag. It's deprecated not depreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Puzzling attribution claim
I removed the following from the introduction: Explanation: First off, why do we need this sentence that seems to answer an argument that has not been made in the introduction. Second, detailed objections: (a)  It seems to mean "only a scribe". How can we know the writer was only a scribe? Was there anyone who wrote a tablet who was not a scribe? (b) Were there any professional mathematicians? I would be surprised if there were. (c) If the writer was only a scribe, the scribe was using a source for the numbers; presumably the source was knowledgeable about mathematics, so the question of who wrote this tablet is not relevant to understanding its significance. (d) There is some reason to believe the table is trigonometric; the introduction should not be dismissing that idea without even mentioning it. Such a matter should be treated in the body, not the introduction. Zaslav (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At the same time, one should recall the tablet's author was a scribe, rather than a professional mathematician; it has been suggested that one of his goals may have been to produce examples for school problems.


 * The sentence in question is a, perhaps too concise, paraphrase of the discussion on page 117 of Robson's 2002 article in the American Mathematical Monthly, which is in the bibliography but, unfortunately, not referenced in this passage. (I think an older version of the Wikipedia article was based almost 100% on Robson's two papers on this topic and was written in such a way that the reader could assume the ideas all came from Robson, so citations were not included everywhere they are needed now that the article contains many other sources.)
 * About your points: (a) Robson makes clear that scribes in ancient Mesopotamia were highly educated members of an elite, not mere copyists. (b) Robson makes exactly this point. (c) See (a). The scribe is generally assumed to be the same person who produced the numbers. (d) Although sets of numbers like those on Plimpton 322 appear elsewhere in ancient Mesopotamian mathematics, there is no evidence of them being used for trigonometry. Indeed there is no evidence of trigonometry at all in the Mesopotamia of this time period. I would call the suggestions of a trigonometric purpose highly speculative and am not aware of any professional historian supporting a trigonometric interpretation.
 * About the removed sentence being an answer to an argument that has not been made, I can see your point. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that Robson wrote this as an attack on a particular group of modern mathematicians who wrote on historical topics and who had a tendency to see the mathematics of ancient cultures as the product of kindred spirits. Robson very much wants to argue that the author of Plimpton 322 was not like a modern mathematician and had some other purpose. My personal opinion is that she takes this line of argument much farther than the evidence supports.
 * Having said all this, I won't miss the sentences you deleted. But in case anyone wants to try to restore a nuanced discussion of these points to the article, I wanted to provide some relevant background. Will Orrick (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Mansfield
Can we acknowledge Daniel Mansfield's work on this ? Onanoff (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you've read the prior discussion of this, some on this very page? To reopen this question, I think there would need to be some new development that hasn't already been discussed. Will Orrick (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't see the archived discussion, there is lots of it:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plimpton_322/Archive_1 Barryriedsmith (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)