Talk:Vi Hart

Please use this photo of Vi Hart, if you like
Hi everyone, I'm a Wiki neophyte but I've contributed photos of other mathematicians (notably John H Conway, Richard K Guy, etc)

Anyway, I took the photo of Vi Hart that she uses on her own personal web site, and I've just created a cropped version of it on my flickr account here, and marked it Attribution only.

Here is the photo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thane/6937438533/in/photostream

Perhaps someone would like to add this photo to Vi Hart's Wikipedia page!

Best wishes

Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tplambeck (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. Ok, I'll work on getting a copy onto commons so we can use it here. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Link her Q+A on Google Moderator?
So recently she tweeted that she was going to have something akin to an AMA on Reddit (Ask Me Anything) on Google Moderator here. Is that link-worthy? Should we wait for her video?

Which SAP is that?
The link to the page about her new employer currently leads to a disambiguation page. Does anyone know which one she works for? --Dfeuer (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Vi Hart is NOT a mathematician
Making YouTube videos does not make you a mathematician. Nor does having your name on a few research papers (otherwise many undergraduates and first-year grad students would be considered mathematicians).

Mathematicians are experts in some field of math. Meaning other mathematicians look to them for advice on their field of study. One way to measure if someone's an expert is to see how many times their papers are cited in other research papers.

And so, those of you who insist on calling Hart a mathematician: I ask that you provide a list of papers which cite any paper which has Vi Hart as a primary author. I am fairly certain you will find few such papers, if anything at all. Jay Gatsby(talk) 05:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mathematicians are people who do mathematics. Hart is doing mathematics in her videos. She has also worked as a research mathematician (though I believe not professionally as one), but popularizing mathematics is what she is notable for and that makes her a mathematician. I wouldn't go as far as Christian Perfect's recent everyone's a mathematician claim, but the term is not limited in application to professors of mathematics. Would you also remove the mathematician categories from Martin Gardner? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That definition is too vague. First-graders do mathematics. Are first-graders mathematicians? No, of course not. I would not consider Martin Gardner a mathematician for the same reason. No publications, and I doubt anyone asks him for advice on research problems.


 * The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that Vi Hart is a mathematician, which by definition (look in up in the dictionary) means that Vi Hart is an expert in some field of math. I propose that we count the number of papers which cite any of Vi Hart's papers and establish a lower bound, and having a number above that lower bound would qualify her as a mathematician. I am open to other ways to measure how Vi Hart's "expertness" in math.


 * Alternatively, you could categorize Vi Hart as an amateur mathematician or a recreational mathematician, and I won't have a problem with that. Jay Gatsby(talk) 06:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But surely being an amateur mathematician or a recreational mathematician is a special case of being a mathematician? Deltahedron (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing any semantics games. Neither is a special case of the other. ("Mathematician" and "Amateur mathematician" are disjoint sets, so to speak; "mathematician" and "recreational mathematician" have a nontrivial intersection, but neither is a subset of the other.) Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In your mind, maybe. For me at least, amateur mathematicians are a subset of mathematicians. Whether someone is paying your bills is not even close to a reasonable way to decide whether what you are doing is mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. But you simply can't make "doing mathematics" the criteria for being a mathematician. As I said before, first-graders do mathematics when they are learning math, but no one would dream of calling them mathematicians. Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For what its worth she is employed by Khan Acadamy so someone is paying her bills.--Salix alba (talk): 07:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe she left Khan last year some time. But the point stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Khan Academy pays Vi Hart for educational videos. They don't pay her for her mathematical expertise. Everything covered in her videos is known, or will eventually be known, by every math student who watches them. Jay Gatsby(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As to "Mathematician" and "Amateur mathematician" being disjoint sets have you looked at List of amateur mathematicians. If we take member of the latter as preventing someone being the former then George Boole, Pierre de Fermat, Blaise Pascal and many other greats are not mathematicians.--Salix alba (talk): 07:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of editing those lists. Boole, Fermat, and Pascal are famous among both research mathematicians and math educators alike. Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not sure what you mean here by "primary author". The custom in mathematics, followed in these papers, is for the authors to be alphabetical. The large number of authors (and some of the names of her co-authors) indicates to me that her publications likely came from group discussions at workshops. There is no easy way (other than asking the authors) to infer which ideas in those publications came from which contributors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That there's no way to tell if Hart contributed anything to those papers other than her name on the attendance sheet? Forget primary author, do any papers/books cite any of Hart's publications? Jay Gatsby(talk) 09:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar is the best resource for that kind of question. I'm finding the following:
 * , cited 8 times.
 * , cited 4 times.
 * , cited 3 times.
 * , cited 3 times.
 * , cited 3 times.
 * , cited 2 times.
 * Pretty spiffy publication record for an undergrad. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jay Gatsby : What is it you consider so absurd about the idea that many undergraduates and first-year graduate students would be considered mathematicians? Will you also say that pop singers are not musicians because they're not Beethoven? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Do you think William Hung a musician? No, he has no professional training, and despite being a pop singer, the only reason he rose to fame was because he was a national joke. There's more to being a musician than being an awful karaoke singer. Jay Gatsby(talk) 06:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

For the rest of the world, if you are writing papers with Erik Demaine, you're a mathematician, full stop. For wikipedia, probably best to wait for the WP:RS to show up where the subjected is explicitly labelled as such. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but mathematics & computer science overlap in many areas. They share a lot of topics and the researchers use a lot of the same techniques. Depending on their areas of study, a theoretical computer scientist can be considered mathematician and vice versa.


 * It's the same with physics. In academia, "applied mathematician" and "mathematical physicist" sometimes mean the same thing.


 * There's a huge chasm between Vi Hart and Erik Demaine, BTW Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two questions here. How to describe her in the article. She self describes herself as a mathemusician so that one is easy. The second question is how to categorise her. We have a well developed set of mathematical categories with Category:Mathematicians and sub cats Category:Recreational mathematics experts, Category:Mathematics educators‎ which both seem appropriate. What does not seem appropriate is to create a brand new virtually empty category Category:Amateur mathematicians. This mirrors List of amateur mathematicians and I have now listed it at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 31. --Salix alba (talk): 07:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually makes perfect sense. Amateur mathematicians are NOT a subset of mathematicians. They are two completley separate and different groups. Any one who is a mathematician (considered an expert) is by definition NOT an amateur. I will reiterate these points on the deletion page. Jay Gatsby(talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to read up on the definition of Amateur, "generally considered a person attached to a particular pursuit, study, or science in a non-professional or unpaid manner.".--Salix alba (talk): 08:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And regarding Vi Hart, she is not paid for her mathematical work at all. Only her entertainment work (YouTube) and her educational work (Khan Academy). Nobody pays her for professional mathematics work (which would involve solving new problems which no one has solved yet). Jay Gatsby(talk) 08:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Amateur mathematicians are definitely a subset of mathematicians. I personally think that Vi Hart falls into this subset, but that's just my opinion as I don't really see any evidence that she has worked professionally as a mathematician. The issue seems to be contentious and without reliable sources saying that she is an amateur mathematician, she shouldn't be categorized as such. (I have already made my feelings of the category known at the category discussion page. Whether someone has ever been paid for their mathematical work does not seem to be a very solid basis for categorization anyway.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jay Gatsby seems to believe that "mathematician" is synonymous with "professional mathematician" and also with "considered an expert on mathematics" and also "solving new problems which no one has solved yet". This opinion seems to be internally inconsistent and, perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a consensus in its favour.  Deltahedron (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many problems with the continuously changing criteria for what a "mathematician" is and none of them holds up under scrutiny. Being recently retired, I am no longer paid for my mathematical output – have I stopped being a mathematician? Am I now to be considered an amateur mathematician? If someone provides a non-computer based proof of the Four Color Theorem isn't that doing mathematics? In my mind, being a mathematician is more a matter of the way a person thinks about problems than it is about any outward signs of accomplishments. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We run into such problems whenever we categorize complicated real-world phenomena. It's not that William Hung is a musician or not. It's that he's (arguably) more of a musician than me, but less of a musician than Liz Phair, who is (in some aspects) less of a musician than Itzhak Perlman, who is less of a musician than Beethoven. Categorizing people into "tall" and "not tall" is similarly fraught.


 * My opinion on the semantic argument here is that most people would interpret "amateur mathematicians" to be a subset of "mathematicians", disjoint from "professional mathematicians". Jay Gatsby's categorization is much too strict. It would exclude the majority of people who hold Ph.D.s in mathematics.


 * I agree that, because the issue is contentious, it is especially important to follow reliable sources. The cited New York Times piece studiously avoids calling Vi Hart a mathematician. (It points out that she has never taken any college-level math.) Mgnbar (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Vi has been a co-author on several papers, many with several citations. She has been the sole author on at least 5 published articles ("Bridges" conferences in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013, and Springer's "Mathematics and Modern Art", 2012). One of those solo papers, "Symmetry and transformations in the musical plane", presented material which I have not seen elsewhere (and I've read a lot of symmetry books), and which has been cited 4 times by other authors. She has presented papers at the annual meeting of the MAA (Mathematics Association of America), and not in the "Undergraduate Research" sections, but in a regular session. That MAA talk was featured by the NY Times in an article in their Science section. It is hard to imagine any objective criterion under which she would not qualify as a "Mathematician" unless either (i) You wish to ban mathematicians who are also successful at popularizing math; (ii) You wish to ban people who do not have a formal college degree in mathematics; or (iii) You wish to ban mathematicians who work in inter-disciplinary fields, such as math and music. Gatsby's suggestion that we not include Martin Gardner as a mathematician seems to imply that he supports (i). And, by the way, lots of research mathematicians DID go to Gardner to ask for advice on problems they were working on. Chaveyd (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The case of Hart is clear from her publication record, and the suggestion that Martin Gardner should not be described as a mathematician is absurd. a13ean (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If getting paid is essential, then where does that put Archimedes? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of my point over at Category:Amateur mathematicians. "We usually think of L'Hopital as an amateur, but he got paid royalties for his Calculus book, so would that make him a professional? Most of George Boole's important research work was done as an amateur, but he was then appointed to a professor of mathematics at Queen's College, Cork (Ireland), and published more, so was he an amateur or a professional?" It's just too hard, and too subjective, to decide between amateur and professional. Chaveyd (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be approaching consensus that Jay Gatsby's criteria for "mathematician" are not appropriate, either because they are too strict or because they are hard to apply consistently. But we shouldn't be judging this issue in the first place. We should be relying on reliable sources, especially since WP:BLP applies. Why don't we just follow the sources and be done with it? Mgnbar (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we don't have a category for "mathemusicians"? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We do now! Category:Mathemusicians Naraht (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To answer the question one must know the definition of Mathematician, irrelevant what opinions on this may exist (and since we are in Wikipedia, its also not relevant if its actually the truth, the only thing relevant is what the current state of knowledge on the subject there is). This kind of information can be found in Wikipedia, namely in the lemma 'Mathematician'. There we can read, currently: A mathematician is someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in their work, typically to solve mathematical problems. So the question is if VH uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics to solve mathematical problems. I guess co-authorship on a peer-reviewed paper would qualify her being an M according to the WP lemma 'Mathematician'. --178.190.224.144 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Up above, under March 31, there's a list of 6 papers that Vi wrote or was an author on. Since then, Google Scholar lists her on 6 additional papers, 3 of which are educational and 3 of which are mathematical research. So that puts her at 9 research publications, well above the threshold for "Mathematician". Darrah (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Papers "written" vs. "authored"
I reverted an edit that changed the word "authored" to "written", since the standard use on Wikipedia is "authored". To verify this, esp. with respect to academic mathematicians, I checked the pages of all Fields Medalists. The term "written" is used for books, Ph.D. theses, and collections of papers, e.g. "three papers written ...". In some cases it is also used for things which were written, but never published (a common academic use of the term). But in essentially all cases, published papers were "authored" or "co-authored" by these people. Chaveyd (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that "authored" is the better term here. I'm not sure why. It may just be idiomatic. Or perhaps it's because the listing of authors is a documented fact, whereas who actually wrote the paper is not. Anyway, thanks for seeking out evidence to support your reversion. Mgnbar (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Authored is correct here.  a13ean (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it time to break this down into sections?
Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Education
 * Career
 * Videos
 * Published works
 * Software
 * Political views
 * Personal life


 * On my (portable, medium-size screen) computer, at least, the entire article still fits on one screen (without references), so that doesn't seem long enough to justify multiple sections. Darrah (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mathemucisian
This article is about... "Mathemusician" Mathemusician is a made up word and not at all encyclopedic. We should find something more suitable. Suggestions: Since she's primarily known through her YouTube videos, I'd prefer "YouTube personality". Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * YouTube personality
 * Math educator
 * Entertainer
 * Educator


 * Youtube Personality 100% She is not known outside of her youtube personality therefore it follows that she be under that. If Mathemusician was notable enough to be its own article, one could make a case for keeping it as mathemusician. Jcmcc (Talk) 07:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If we don't use "Mathemusician", we should use "Mathematician". She is a well-published author of mathematics research publications, her presentations at math conferences are always very well attended, and the New York Times did a feature article about her because of her mathematics, not because of her educational videos. Darrah (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. That's very plausible. Do you have decent sources for that? Maybe sources on her discoveries or research publications? (maybe even a source that specifically states her popularity in the mathematician community) This should definitely be mentioned in the article if she is in fact a well-published author. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a list of publications at . They are in computational geometry rather than pure mathematics. It's an unusually level of publication for someone without any graduate-level studies, but she doesn't seem to have stayed active in research more recently. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since her interests lean towards the ways Math interacts with Arts, much of her recent work has been via the "Bridges Between Math and the Arts" conference (which has a peer-reviewed paper submission process). Here are several additional papers of hers, including more recent work than what David cited:
 * Symmetry and Transformations in the Musical Plane, 2009.
 * Mathematical Balloon Twisting for Education, 2010.
 * Orbifold and Cut, 2013.
 * The Quaternion Group as a Symmetry Group, 2014 (with Henry Segerman).
 * Hypernom: Mapping VR Headset Orientation to S3, with Andrea Hawksley, Henry Segerman and Marc ten Bosch.
 * Darrah (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Content Issues
Hi All. I stumbled across this BLP while browsing, subsequently removing some obviously problematic material not properly supported (e.g. Twitter cruft). However, I also noticed the neologism "mathemusician". We generally try to avoid this sort of thing, for obvious reasons, and I see from below that it's been discussed prior. From some checking I've done, it would seem fair to call this person a "mathematics educator" or a "mathematics popularizer". What think ye? Agricola44 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * One use is their job title and the other says "self-described". Both uses are accompanied by a brief explanation of what they actually do. So I don't think people will be too confused by the term. What makes you think this term should be removed? --ChiveFungi (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, it is a neologism, which an encyclopedia conventionally stays away from (since encycs occupy a "lagging" position in the information hierarchy). Our own MOS:NEO policy reiterates this. So, self-described or not, it seems that the term should be changed to something conventional, like "math popularizer". Would this be acceptable to interested parties? Agricola44 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use neologisms like this in Wikipedia's voice, but here it is in quotes and clearly marked as Hart's own self-description, so it seems unproblematic to me. And "math popularizer" neglects Hart's interest in music (which if I remember correctly was Hart's actual degree subject, though we don't seem to have sources here on that). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems fine to me as written. The New York Times piece we currently have as reference 4 states that Hart's degree was in music. (There was a little glitch with the referencing; that article appeared with two different numbers.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. "Math popularizer and musician" then. The degree has nothing to do with MOS:NEO. A little checking shows several uses of this word mostly trace back to Vi Hart, so it is not in common usage. Agricola44 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in common usage. That's why it's in quotes. MOS:NEO doesn't say "NEVER EVER EVER use neologisms". Clearly there are exceptions. I believe this is one of them. Can you provide a justification for removing the term other than citing MOS:NEO? Like does it make the article harder to read or something? --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:NEO is an established guideline. It is you who should provide justification for violating it. Agricola44 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we did. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Your argument, "I believe", is bald assertion and it's remarkable to me that you'd confuse this with actually demonstrating any sort of objective justification. This seems to be another one of those anti-intellectual WP moments where consensus, by virtue of a bunch of like-minded editors showing up, is confused with fact, truth, or conclusive argument. You and your friends won. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

Gender agnostic
Also, I think "gender agnostic" should be restored to the article. This is a point where a person's self-declaration can be taken as reliable, and it has been discussed by others. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)+
 * 'support' Hart thought this aspect of her life important enough to make a video on the subject. Rklawton (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included for a different reason: to explain and maintain the gender-neutral language within the article itself. Somehow that got lost recently and had to be repaired again. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted this for the time-being. Great, if you can find RS. But, twitter (even self-tweet, as a non-indepdent, primary, unreliable source) and a website are not acceptable for BLPs. Agricola44 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. A direct statement by someone of their gender identity - regardless of the medium - and an independent article that concurs with that are sufficient to have that sentence in the article. I have reverted and added an additional secondary source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pi. For some personal details such as gender identity we don't need a WP:RS and can just go by what the subject says. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. After all, where would a reliable source get their reliable information on gender identity other than the subject themselves? I think we need to accept that this is one of those cases where a primary source is the only reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh
I'm leaving this article to its owners, who believe that personal details don't require RS and MOS is something to be violated. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's probably for the best. Rklawton (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For you, but not for WP. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy (WP:TWITTER) states that self-published sources "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities", provided that the material is not "unduly self-serving", it makes no claims about third parties or events unrelated to the source, there is no "reasonable doubt" over its authenticity, and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". All of these conditions are met here. Identifying oneself as "gender agnostic" is not an extraordinary claim in the sense of requiring extraordinary evidence; it is simply a person's statement about how they live their own life. If Hart had claimed, for example, "I am the most popular gender-agnostic person on Twitter", then we would require an independent source, but that's not the kind of situation we have here. As for MOS, WP:GENDERID states, "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." This means that Hart's 2014 self-identification overrides the 2011 New York Times piece, for example. The Manual of Style goes on to say, "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." I believe the article as it currently stands does a decent job of this, making the statement near the beginning of the biography section and simply avoiding needless pronouns from then on. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Hart's mini-bio in the "contributors" list for the Best Writing in Mathematics 2015 anthology is written in the same pronoun-avoiding style, which in that case is just overt enough to come across as deliberate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note that the two independent sources we are also using for Hart's gender identity refer to the twitter post but do not themselves clearly state Hart's gender identity. So unless better sources turn up we still do need to keep the twitter post as well as those other sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Category transgender nonbinary people
I'm adding all people in the category Category:People with non-binary gender identities into the subcategory, Category:Transgender non-binary people because I think it's silly to have these people divided into two categories, unless this person is intersex. If anyone disagrees in a particular case, then please respond.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an area where it could easily be a big mistake to make mass changes, especially when your claimed basis for making the changes is that subtle distinctions seem silly to you. What evidence do you have that, in general, non-binary people think of themselves as transgender? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with David here. Many if not most non-binary people do not identify as trans (though some do), and lumping them together is not acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe all the transgender non-binary people can be moved into the non-binary category. See the CfD discussion on Category:Transgender non-binary people which decided that all non-binary people should be classified as transgender or intersex. The point is that these categories do not currently represent their identities but that way they are described. If we are to categorize them by identity, it may be better to delete the transgender non-binary category and just categorize them in transgender, non-binary, both, or neither, as they identify.— Naddruf  (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think the subcategory is a non-notable intersection, why are you going through the wrong procedure (moving individual articles manually) rather than the right procedure (a CfD)? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I'm doing what was said in the last Cfd.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is clearly and blatantly false. The CfD in question, which you conveniently failed to link, had a result of "keep", meaning that participants thought it was an appropriate category to use. That is very different from merging with another category (what you first attempted here) or moving all articles out of the category (what you now propose). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The CfD says keep but it says that the articles in the non-binary category should be subcategorized into the smaller categories; nothing about merging. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The CfD concluded nothing of the sort. A single participant within the CfD *asked* whether articles in the category should be moved into subcategories. The responses to that question were inconclusive (two respondents provided different answers) and were not included in the closure decision of the CfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with David here, the CfD clarly did not conclude that every non-intersex non-binary person had to be moved into that subcategory, and a mass change rather than a sourcing-based change to individual articles is a bad idea. If the split in the categories is not intelligible, then the redundant, narrower category can go away again. The justification given for it, that it was needed to coordinate with the 'intersex non-binary' cat, is spurious, since among other things those are not the only two subcategories of the parent 'people with non-binary gender identities' cat (besides the fact that sometimes none of the subcats are appropriate and the most appropriate cat for some entries in the top-level one). -sche (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

21st-century mathematicians vs "defining characteristic"
Hi User:Pi.1415926535, just wanted to give an explanation for my removal of the Category:21st-century_American_mathematicians. I opened this page a while ago while on a kick of adding appropriate subfield subcategories to minority STEM academics, but realized it wouldn't comport with our guidelines to subcategorize Hart as a "computational geometer". Per Categorization of people, categories should be a defining characteristic of the subject. While they published a few papers, Hart is not known for being a mathematician; the article itself treats their referents appropriately, but this single category is at odds with both the way Hart describes themselves and the way they are described in RS (I don't think any of the citations call them a "mathematician"). The "movie star-lawyer" example given in the above page is pretty analogous here, and removing the sole subcategory calling Hart a mathematician would also be more consistent with their other categories (and lack thereof). JoelleJay (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is comparable to the "movie star-lawyer" example. There is overlap between the subjects of their educational productions and their peer-reviewed papers. It seems like splitting hairs to argue that someone who has published multiple mathematics papers, whose education materials focus on mathematics and often use results from these papers, and who is already categorized as a "recreational mathematician" in the mathematicians category tree is not a mathematician. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple mathematics papers including one in The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015. I think this search is reasonably accurate (in contrast to MathSciNet, which focuses mainly on research-level mathematics and therefore misses a lot), and although there are some duplicates in its 32 hits, I think most are at least somewhat mathematical in nature. That's a better publication record in mathematics than many career-academic mathematicians. As for "not known for being a mathematician", that seems to be directly contradicted by the article's current phrasing "known for creating mathematical videos", unless one somehow imagines that only professors of mathematics count as being mathematicians. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, first off I've now read the TP history and see there was an argument a while back on whether Hart was a mathematician -- please don't interpret my comments here as any sort of continuation of that discussion. My position here wasn't to contest that they are a mathematician, just that they are not known for their research contributions to math. My naïve assumption coming into this was that, if there are "recreational mathematicians" and "amateur mathematicians" categories, then either there must also be a "professional mathematicians" category or the main "mathematicians" category is just assumed to hold only professional mathematicians. My interaction with the math categories has been almost exclusively for finding people to add to my "eponymous women" spreadsheet (please leave a comment there if you know of women with major contributions I'm missing!), so of course my overall impression was that inclusion in the mathematicians proper categories was predicated on being a professional mathematician. I assumed contemporary people most famous for being "recreational mathematicians" would typically NOT be included in the "mathematicians" categories (which actually seems to be the case -- e.g. John Derbyshire, Alex Bellos, Sam Loyd, Kate Bellingham, Robert Abbott (game designer), Laurie Brokenshire, Bram Cohen, Norman Laurence Gilbreath, Harry L. Nelson, John R. Hendricks, Scott Kim, J. A. Lindon, Yakov Perelman, Lee Sallows, Jerry Slocum, Ernő_Rubik, and Nob Yoshigahara; even Erik Demaine, Dennis Shasha, and Douglas Hofstadter, who have PhDs in math-adjacent fields and even have some math papers, are excluded from the mathematicians cats) unless they have made significant post-graduate math research contributions (e.g. Eugenia Cheng, Keith Devlin, Alexander Dewdney, Robert Ammann, Bill Gosper, Maurice Kraitchik, Apostolos Doxiadis, Lewis Carroll, Solomon W. Golomb, Burkard Polster, Laura Taalman, Thomas von Randow, and Walter Trump). The only exceptions appear to be María Antònia Canals, Martin Gardner, Royal Vale Heath, Piet Hein (scientist), Matt Parker, Boris Kordemsky, Joseph Madachy, Júlio César de Mello e Souza, and somewhat Ed Pegg Jr.. So, given "recreational mathematicians" isn't a proper subset of any other mathematician category, I do think it's reasonable for someone to conclude these groups are treated differently when assigning categories; and given Hart self-describes as a "mathemusician" to the apparent exclusion of "mathematician", and isn't described as a mathematician by RS, I don't think my edit was so outrageous. As for "not known for being a mathematician", that seems to be directly contradicted by the article's current phrasing "known for creating mathematical videos", unless one somehow imagines that only professors of mathematics count as being mathematicians. I mean...I would at least say "creating mathematical videos" is not synonymous with "being a mathematician", unless all people who demonstrate math at any level for any length of time are considered mathematicians? If this is the case, then it would make the most sense to have a separate category for professional/research mathematicians since, definitionally, those are the people lay readers would expect to encounter when navigating a category for the occupation. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The mathematician categories are for all people whose notability includes some aspect of mathematics: people known as educators not researchers, people who worked in mathematics before these distinctions were made, people who are notable for mathematics contest results but then did not go on to a career in mathematics, people who are notable for being the first to achieve some milestone, like being the first person or first woman with a mathematics degree from their country, and so on. When you say people most famous for being "recreational mathematicians" the first one who comes to mind is Martin Gardner, and he is definitely listed in the American mathematician categories. Some of the examples you list are in fact within the "Mathematicians" hierarchy; for instance Erik Demaine is in Category:Researchers in geometric algorithms ⊂ Category:Geometers ⊂ Category:Mathematicians by field ⊂ Category:Mathematicians. I think the main reason for excluding some people from mathematics categories despite their work in mathematics is that we tend not to do that for people in math-adjacent technical fields like computer science or physics, to prevent too much blurring of the category boundaries, but that does not apply to Hart. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, good to know what the requisite properties are, then -- are there any centralized discussions on inclusion criteria for occupational categories? I suppose my interpretation of the term was more in line with "research mathematician", which I still think would be a meaningful category to collect people known for their major contributions to math research (as opposed to education, etc.) -- it would certainly help with my spreadsheets... Also, Martin Gardner is on my list of "exceptions" -- as in, he is among the 9 people who did not publish post-grad research but are still in the "mathematicians" categories; everyone else in "rec math" who is also in "math" published, and there are 20 in "rec math" who are not in "math". JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun usage
Regarding the usage of "They" vs. "She", MOS:IDENTITY clearly states that we use the pronoun most used by Reliable Sources *unless* MOS:IDINFO applies. MOS:IDINFO only applies when the Living Person has stated they wish to be referred to by a specific pronoun. In this case, the individual has directly stated that they do not care about pronoun usage, therefore, IDINFO does not apply and we fall back to MOS:IDENTITY. I understand that the situation is complicated, but I do not agree that because it's complicated, we have to use "they" to elicit curiosity in the reader. Simply explaining their gender agnosticism and their lack of care about pronoun usage within the article is the correct and encyclopedic way to handle this. Jcmcc (Talk) 03:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to use it correctly, then. Instead of "they wish" you say "they wishes"; instead of "they do not care" you say "they does not care". 66.49.112.52 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @User:XOR'easter and @User:Pi.1415926535 for comment Jcmcc (Talk) 03:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not using singular they "to elicit curiosity", and the fact that you might think that to be the reason speaks a lot about your attitude on this subject. We are using that pronoun because in the absence of a clear statement revoking their previous declaration it is the correct pronoun for Hart. A statement of disinterest in your opinion on the matter is not the same as an expression of preference. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I believed that it is to elicit curiosity is based on an edit comment by XOR'easter's undo stating "a lengthy statement from the subject themself about the topic indicating that it is more complicated needs to be reflected in our prose". If you read the article itself, you would see that she stated that she does not care about pronoun usage and it is backed up by this youtube video that Vi Hard herself released. I fully understand why using they *used* to be important. However, with this updated information, MP:IDINFO no longer applies. Making guesses as to my supposed "attitude" on the subject is entirely uncalled for and out of line. I have spent years on Wikipedia fixing nomenclature and pronoun usage that reflects MOS:IDINFO and MOS:IDENTITY. This page I originally watched so that I could undo changes to the pronouns. It was only recently that I became aware of this new information. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to change it from "they" to either "she" or "he". They don't care so we should go with whatever is most easily/correctly understood by the readers. When talking about somebody who does not identify with any gender it makes sense to use a gender neutral pronoun and "they" is the most commonly used and understood of those. If they have no other preference then "they" is the best option for us to use here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep. "They" is the least misleading of the available options. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They *doesn't* care. Use it correctly, please. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Singular they is handled the same way as plural they, e.g. "they don't care" not "they doesn't care". I appreciate that this is a little counter-intuitive and differs from the way that some other non-binary pronouns work e.g. "xe doesn't care". DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. It isn't "handled". A verb is not a pronoun. You have have whatever pronoun you like, but the verb must adhere to its number and person. A verb that follows a singular pronoun, which "they" is being used as, is a singular verb. "Does" is the singular verb form. "Do" is the plural verb form. You may claim dominion over the functioning of pronouns. You don't get to claim dominion over the functioning of verbs as well or this entire project will get trashed. 66.49.112.52 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As DanielRigal mentioned, this may seem counter-intuitive, but ultimately using plural verbs for singular they is commonly accepted as correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Inflected_forms_and_derivative_pronouns. I definitely see how this could look/sound strange, but it's just one of many unusual aspects of English. - Odin (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some might say you is being a bit silly. —Tamfang (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding YouTube information to infobox
I believe it would be appropriate to add a YouTube information section to the infobox on this page. I wanted to discuss it here first as I'm relatively new to editing on the site. Odin (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with that. All the information in the current infobox can be copied into the YouTube one. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Website link
The personal website linked in the article is no longer functional. Is there an alternative link? Perhaps the current link should be removed. Erythrochroism (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look and they use the same link everywhere, I don't see any alternate link. It's possible it is temporarily down, I sent a message to Vi Hart about it, although I can't know if they'll see it. - Odin (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I need the sources to do research, it is kind of urgent to me.  B-MIKE - (Talk) 16:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You could try using the Wayback Machine: Cerebral726 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks a lot!  B-MIKE - (Talk) 19:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)