Talk:Andreas Floer

Untitled

I would like to disambiguate monopole in this article, but can't tell whether the link should be to magnetic monopole or some yet uncreated topology monopole page. I'm leaving the link to the disambiguation page for someone more knowledgeable to fix. Wnissen 02:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Posthumous publications

I don't understand the significance or relevance of this section. Naturally, they are different from publications Andreas Floer published when he was alive, but I don't feel that one should bring attention to a math paper by virtue of the author being deceased when it was published. If it is mathematically significant, we can put it under "selected publications", otherwise I see no reason. --C S 02:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

What might be best is just to write more about Hofer in the biography section and perhaps reference a paper that could be considered their best work together. --C S 02:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree (my email to you; maybe Hofer will say something about this posthumous collaboration) --Erkabo 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

leave this term there, I think it's helpful. In fact, there is really some idea in those papers which are only crafts, not published--refer to the Floer Memorial Volume. --wandonye 22:54, 26 September 2005

Dear - regrettably userpageless - wandonye: If this is as you say, well then, ok. But please tell us what exactly "those papers" are and from where you know this. (You mean "drafts", presumably - though "crafts" has something about it.) We would be really grateful for an explanation. If you don't like to put it on the talk, please email: rolf.kaiser"at"utp.de. Thank you! --Erkabo 07:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

By "those papers", I meant "Instanton homology and Dehn surgery". Maybe referring this paper as "craft" is not exact, but at least it is not of the final form. So it's nessecery to distinguish it out, otherwise readers would be mislead by the obscurity there maight be. You can find the paper in the Floer Memorial Volume as I refered.--wandonye 14:00, 7 Oct. 2005

---

Dear wandonye, thank you very much for your consideration. Erkabo 07:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

References

Personal emails are not verifiable and should not be used as sources. Friday (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, they have been. If you want to remove the reference, you will have to blank most of the page. Otherwise, it's misleading to remove a cite to a source used to construct the article.

The page you cite says, "This page is a Wikipedia guideline. It illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases." It does not say the rules are absolute.

The four individuals I've named, friends and brother of the subject, should be considered as reliable primary sources. I've not engaged in interpretation or revisionism in my edits. I've simply stated some facts, about where his parents were born, a childhood anecdote his mother likes to tell, etc. This should not be considered original research, and in particular, uses sources that are accessible offline, although not in book form. (I should note that this material is hard to dig up also, and if not for User:Erkabo, would have been much harder).

To use an example, Jimbo Wales is often used as a primary source for facts about Jimbo Wales, despite the fact that sometimes the written sources disagree with him! Clearly, this is an unusual situation that requires unusual handling and not blind adherence to a Wikipedia guideline. --C S (Talk) 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure what to make of it though. It's very true that Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules. As such, the distinction between "guidelines" and "policies" is often unclear. However, verifiability is a fundamental editorial policy. It's one of the important things that makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia. His published academic work is easily verifiable, but information coming from editors' direct knowledge is considered original research and generally shouldn't be used. Friday (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the "personal life" section for now, since it doesn't use reliable sources. I wonder if anyone's going to come along and try to delete this for lack of "notability"? There are a lot of academics in the world, most of them do not have articles. Friday (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to contest this for now. I'm puzzled why you wonder about possible deletion attempts though. --C S (Talk) 19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully the removal of the personal details will help keep that from happening. The reason I wondered about deletion is, there's not much I can see here to set this guy apart from any other academic. People might think it's a memorial page. Friday (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If your belief is indeed that to "save the page" you need to remove the personal details, you are mistaken. I don't know how experienced you are at determining notability of academics, but generally this would require some knowledge of the subject matter and community of the academic subject. There are more than enough "hints" as to Floer's notability in the article and people on Wikipedia who can recognize the signs. So the page is plenty safe from VFD, but thanks for your concern. --C S (Talk) 20:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly Floer is more than just notable - he was a star. So no question about 'deletion'. Secondly I'm going to look into the matter of cuts made from the page. There is no real reason to apply extreme sceptical standards equally across WP. Charles Matthews 09:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

More Donaldson!?

Hi C S, would you find it advisable to put in this statement by Donaldson:

“One of Floer’s most decisive achievements was his solution of the “Arnold conjecture” on fixed points of a symplectomorphism.”

It is from his text that I put into “Further reading” - hope you will agree. A footnote for the citation would read:

Simon Donaldson, On the work of Andreas Floer, Jahresber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. 95 (3) (1993), p. 107

Maybe you could find an elegant way of joining this citation with instanton homology and the rest of the middle section of the article?

Cheers, Rolf Erkabo 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rolf, I don't think it's necessary to put it in as a quote, so I rephrased it and merged it into the Life section. It's also mentioned in the references already given, but I think the Donaldson article is indeed good for further reading, so good work on finding the reference. Anyway, it's clear the Life section requires more work at summing up Andreas' contributions in a clearer way. Perhaps you could ask a contributor to the Floer homology page, e.g. David Farris, to add a brief historical outline of the sequence of his contributions and how it impacted the then current state of knowledge. --C S (Talk) 04:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi C S, very good! As David Farris (hopefully) will have this page on his watchlist, why not ask him together, here and now? --- So, David, please, could you do that, would you like to do that? Or maybe someone else or all together? Rolf of Erkabo 08:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andreas Floer. 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/20050903084231/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:80/uchistory/archives_exhibits/in_memoriam/catalog/floer_andreas.html to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/UCHistory/archives_exhibits/in_memoriam/catalog/floer_andreas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)