Talk:Tai's model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a 1994 paper tried to pass off ancient Babylonian mathematics as a new discovery in diabetes care?
Created by Zanahary (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: What a fun read— thank you for making this page! Looks new, good in length, neutral, sourced, and nothing concerning on copyvio. It'd be nice if the article had a lead before going on the main page, but that's up to you, and not a requirement for DYK. Passing, cheers! Johnson524 07:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with ALT0. Tai clearly made an embarrassing mistake, but "tried to pass off as" has a distinct connotation of intentionality that the sources do not support. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering her continued defense of her model as novel and distinct from the trapezoidal rule, I think it is a reasonable description. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The alt, as written, implies that Tai knew her model was ancient Babylonian mathematics when she published the paper, which is not supported by the sourcing. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. How about the following: …that a 1994 paper tried to claim ancient Babylonian mathematics as a new discovery in diabetes care? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be fine with that. Thanks for the consideration! Eddie891 Talk Work 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a new favorite: ... that a 1994 paper tried to claim ancient Babylonian astronomy as a new discovery in diabetes care? This hook is supported by the source Orlin, Ben (2019). "XXII. 1994, The Year Calculus was Born". Change is the only constant: the wisdom of calculus in a madcap world. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers. ISBN 978-0-316-50908-4., which specifes the rule's known origins in Babylonian astronomy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, thoughts on the alt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that's fine, just wasn't a fan of the "pass off" phrasing, even if it is mostly a difference of semantics. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

The statement "It is likely that most of these citations are made in jest" is cited to two sources:

Forbes, and IFLScience
, which is not a reliable source. It is inappropriate to cite IFLScience; the citation to IFLScience should be removed from the text of the article.

It has been claimed that, because a statement about speculation on people's motivations is cited to numerous sources, it is not necessary to attribute the speculation to anyone. This is a flawed belief. It is a bad idea to present unattributed speculation in

Wikivoice
, even if it is cited. It is obvious to everyone that including unattributed speculation in Wikipedia articles will increase the likelihood of new contributors believing it is acceptable to include uncited speculation. It is clear and evident that best practices should be based not on what people should do, but on what they will do.

It is likely that at this moment, you are irritated that these opinions are being presented as if they were inarguable facts rather than attributed as the opinions of any specific person. It is obvious that this text has been written in this way as an example.

Several sources agree that even such a weak attribution as "Numerous sources have posited that X is likely" is preferable to an unattributed "X is likely", as this makes it feel less like the opinion or speculation of a Wikipedia editor and more like a cited fact. DS (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IFLScience is indeed a reliable source; hundreds of Wikipedia articles cite it, and you’ve given no evidence to support your claim that it’s unreliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They’re now both attributed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding re: the attribution.
Would you feel differently about IFLScience if they had retained their original name of "I Fucking Love Science", which they only changed because it made monetization difficult? DS (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, why would I care about that? If you want to get consensus to consider it unreliable, you can go to RSN. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IFLScience (discussion in progress) DS (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misphrasing of the DYK

I think it would have been better to say "... that a 1994 paper tried to claim a mathematical method used in ancient Babylonian astronomy as a new discovery in diabetes care?". Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tai%27s_model&oldid=1296191986"