text:
Talk:Proof that 22/7 exceeds π

Required calculus
There are plenty of pages that involve math on Wikipedia. Why is this one getting so much attention? There is no rule that all encyclopedia articles must be accessible to all people.

"The following argument will be readily understood by persons with no knowledge of mathematics beyond first-year calculus. "

Well, what about those of us who don't even have that? It's all just funny looking symbols to me :) Adam Bishop 03:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, "simple" is a subjective term. I don't think its possible to give a simpler proof than this, because even defining π involves calculus (the length of a curve is the limit of a sum, an integral). -- Arvindn 03:52, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The only part I had trouble with was that... I'm not sure what its called... curly thing with the 1 and 0 Nat2 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * So, in other words, you didn't understand the proof at all!

I suspect that any reasonable proof of the same proposition that avoids knowledge of calculus would be more complicated. As for calculus being involved in defining π, if someone who knows no calculus asks me what π is, I would not hesitate to answer that it is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter; multiply the diameter by π to get the circumference. Michael Hardy 21:26, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Do you know a (formal) definition of circumference that doesn't involve integration? If not, what I said still holds, doesn't it? -- Arvindn 03:27, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It can be formally defined in terms of the limit of circumferences of polyhedra. This does need the notion of a limit, but not the fully machinery of integral calculus. However, since the formalization of the limit was done precisely to facilitate the development of calculus, the distinction is perhaps not a strong one in the history of formalism. However, in the history of Pi the earliest estimates of Pi make informal use of limits, but not of integration. (BTW, thanks for the name change from A very elementary...) ~ Jeff 18:33, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Many characterizations of π do not mention integration. Which among them should be considered definitions is perhaps a subtler question. The notion of limit is not really needed, since one can say simply that it's the least upper bound of the set of all perimeters of inscribed polygons. Michael Hardy 21:40, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we use the continued fraction as definition, the proof is even simplier!!!wshun 21:49, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How can the continued fraction be used as a definition? Somehow, you would have to say which continued fraction you're talking about without relying on some prior characterization of π. Michael Hardy 21:55, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit further on the point above: It is not as simple to understand how it is known that π = 3.1415926535... or that π = a certain continued fraction, as it is to learn calculus and then read this Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy 01:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Arctan integral
So, where does one go to brush up on the fact that integrating 1/(1 + x2) yields arctan? I had added a link to a page that included the formula, but it was removed. ~ Jeff 03:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I suspect there may be a page that covers it, but I will add it to trigonometric substitution. Some of the calculus pages on Wikipedia have lots of problems. Michael Hardy 20:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Jake

Which polygon is the crossover?
So how many edges would a regular polygon (centre O, vertex V, edge bisector P) need before the ratio of the perimeter to OP was less than 22/7 ? That proof would not require caluclus, nor even limits, but only trigonometry. mike40033 03:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * oops. I meant, the ratio of the perimeter to 2*OP should be less than 22/7. Anyway, the answer is n=91. Using n = 96 and only trigonometry should yield a proof (with no calculus) that pi is less than 22/7. But I don't think the proof would count as "simple"

The title is misleading
The point of this whole page is the funny integral. That is no "simple" proof for the fact that 22/7 exceeds pi, but rather a mathematical joke; the page is relevant and informative, but the caption is misleading at best; this is a page about a putnam competition problem and some subsequent analysis on a particular definite integral. Funny, but miscaptioned. This is not THE proof for that thing; THE proof is indeed naively using the calculator so readily available to anyone who has gotten this far... --sigs

 * The article is of interest quite independently of the Putnam Competition. Of course, the brute-force calculation yields no understanding of this simple argument, and the brute-force calculation is far more complicated than this argument. Michael Hardy 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

title
the title of the page says &pi;, not π , somebody should fix that!

 * I've change the name to "A simple proof that 22/7 exceeds Pi" hopefully I changed all the links correctly ;-) Paul August 21:14, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * And now I've moved it to "a simple proof that 22/7 exceeds pi" (with a lower-case "p" in "pi") as a compromise. Until a couple of days ago, the π in the title looked like the lower-case Greek letter.  I don't know why that changed.  I'll look into it.  But probably not today. Michael Hardy 23:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the title - its meant to be ironic. It should be obvious that ironic titles are not NPOV.-SV
 * I don't think the title is meant to be ironic. Why do you say this? Paul August 11:18, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * :) -SV
 * I suspect that he is thinking of the word "simple", because the proof isn't simple if you don't know any mathematics (see above). Pcb21| Pete 12:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I suck reely bad at numbers and stuff, so I think your page should be named more simpler, no offense, but it makes the reader feel stupider than I think I is. -SV

I am the person who named the article originally. I did not intend irony! It's just a prosaic descriptive title. Michael Hardy 01:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a tricky one because the page plainly isn't simple if you are not mathematican (so don't feel bad Steve :)), however the reason for the pages existence is that it proves something about pi without relying on "heavy machinery" (at this point you kinda have to take it on trust that despite appearances all the machinery is fairly lightweight. And without some suitable adjective (we had elementary before, but that evokes the same probs as simple) in the title this raison d'etre gets lost. I vote that we merge into pi then the problem goes away. Pcb21| Pete 17:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The proof uses only high school maths, so I think it deserves to be called "simple". Gdr 17:46, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

 * Yeah, and others disagree. How are we going to compromise? Pcb21| Pete 17:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * By teaching these others some simple calculus? Or perhaps by expanding the Pi section to a new article with discussions of the techniques used to establish approximations to π such as Archimedes' inscribed/circumscribed polygon method. This page could then be merged and redirected. Gdr 19:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

 * Something like that could be ok, as long as this proof is kept too - it is kinda neat. Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simple is a comparative term. As compared to all other mathematical proofs this one is extremely simple. Even in the context of proofs in a high school calculus class it is quite simple. It is simple because:

 * It is short
 * It is straight forward (no twists and turns)
 * It uses only basic mathematical tools (i. e. high school level advanced high school level (see below Paul August 23:49, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)))

However because it is a "simple proof", does not mean it is necessarily "simple to understand". It is simple to understand if you know calculus. If not then not only is it not simple (to understand) it is impossible. In which case, calling it a "hard proof" (to understand) would also be misrepresentative. Paul August 19:59, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone has suggested that calling it a hard proof would help. I repeat, I understand why mathematicians call this proof simple/elementary. Those words (simple/elemnentary) convey a special meaning to all mathematicians from first year college level up. However outsiders do not have that mathematical experience or "culture" if you like. This is not mathepedia. Calling it a simple proof can all too easily, in the eyes of the general reader, create an impression of arrogrance and aloofness. An impression we are not doing too well in dispelling on this talk page! Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, you are right Pete, no one has suggested calling it a "hard proof", that wasn't my point. My point was, that the word simple, in this case, is being used to describe an objective property about this proof, namely it's brevity, directness and (as you put it very well above) it's lack of "heavy machinery" - rather than a subjective property concerning it's ease of understanding.  I agree that this distinction might not be clear to every reader, and therefor the title might be misunderstood.  This might point out the need for a better title, but I can't think of one.  One could try to be more explicit, by " A short, direct proof that 22/7 exceeds pi, using only high school calculus" but this strikes me as inelegant. Paul August 16:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * (An aside, you say this proof is about a simple a proof as you can get - I would say that a geometric proof of Pythagaras would be simpler still. In its way Euclid's proof of infinity of primes is simpler too). Just some examples. Pcb21| Pete 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you Pete, there are many proofs even simpler than this one ;-) Paul August 16:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

There are many proofs that are simpler than this one, but are the any proofs of this proposition that are simpler than this one? Michael Hardy 01:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That's an irrelevant question, since "simplest" does not imply "simple" (think about asking the same question about the proof of the 4 color theorem). -- Jibal 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

High School?
I would be very curious to know where most of you went to high school. In the U.S., even simple calculus is not commonly thought of as a high school level math. It is taught in high schools, but the majority of students don't take it, ie: it is usually offered as an advanced elective course, and often under a name like pre-calculus or as a part of elementary functions, etc. To the average U.S. citizen, calculus is a college-level math. Indeed, the very small percentage of eggheads...er, students who take calculus in high school are commonly said to be doing college level work. func(talk) 01:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That is true, but for the most part, people reading this article probably did take advanced courses in math, or are naturally curious (in that case, more power to 'em). Just wondering, does anyone know when this integral was a Putnam problem? Jonpin 01:03, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it was at least 25 years ago. Michael Hardy 22:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * According to John Scholes' archive, it was 1968. Mindspillage 02:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a tradition by which differential and integral calculus is the first college math course. But in recent decades, it has frequently been available to high-school students. Most members of that "vast majority" who don't take calculus in high school never go into a field where they need mathematics anyway, so they're not really relevant to this discussion. Perhaps most college students who take calculus don't take it as their first college math course, but most of those are also not people who go into fields where they think about math daily, so they're not really relevant to this discussion either. Michael Hardy 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Michael said: "Most members of that "vast majority" who don't take calculus in high school never go into a field where they need mathematics anyway"
 * That may be true at MIT or Berkeley or other elite schools, but for the rest of us, it's not uncommon at all to see many math and science majors taking calculus for the first time in college, so your own experiences may be clouding your conclusion, here. Revolver 02:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, not "high school level" but "advanced high school level", I stand corrected ;-) Paul August 23:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

0 < integral of [x^4(1-x)^4/(1+x^2)] from 0 to 1 = 22/7-pi

 * $$0<\int_0^1\frac{x^4(1-x)^4}{1+x^2}\,dx=\frac{22}{7}-\pi.$$

/ \ | | | | That's not very simple!

 * It's a routine calculus problem. One expects secondary-school students to do such problems in a couple of minutes.  Sheesh.  Michael Hardy 22:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, one expects calculus students to do such a problem in a couple minutes, but certainly not your average secondary-school student. I think your time at MIT has warped your sense of reality. Revolver 03:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think so. I never said one expects this of all high-school students.  But at typical high schools, there are some students who take calculus, and are expected to evaluate integrals.  Some of those integrals are challenging, but for this one you just plod through the steps mechanically and you've got it. Michael Hardy 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

statement
Although many people know this numerical value of π from school, far fewer know how to compute it.

 * I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean, or how it is supposed to relate to the rest of the introduction. Revolver 03:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what's puzzling about it. Many people know that π is about 3.14159... etc. But few know where that came from, i.e. if you're stranded on a desert island and need to know the first ten digits of π and have only paper and pencils, how would you compute them. How do you find something hard to understand in that? Michael Hardy 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Does anyone have any idea what's going on behind this result? I will clarify what I mean, and if anyone knows an answer to my question, it might belong in the article. Those who don't know calculus might not get much out of what I have to ask - sorry about that. I certainly don't advocate making the article more confusing, so if that's the only possible result of this, let's drop it. At this stage though, it can't hurt to ask the question, which follows without further ado:

The integrand expands to a polynomial minus 4*arctan(x). That polynomial is p(x) = x6 - 4x5 + 5x4 - 4x2 + 4. Have a look at a graph of that integrand - it's rather symmetrical. That prettiness leads me to believe that p(x) is some kind of canonical approximation of the function 4*arctan(x), and not just a polynomial that happens to equal 22/7 at x = 1. It's not a Taylor approximation, or it would be closest at one point and diverge on either side. What is it, and is there a reason based on numerical approximation theory that one would be certain it's an over-approximation, and that its error should have such a pretty factorization? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * GTBacchus has clarified on my talk page that it is p(x) - 4/(1+xundefined) that is symmetrical — in the range [0,1]. Also, p(x) could only approximate 4/(1+x2), not 4*arctan(x). -- Paddu 18:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Details of Archimedes' Proof
There are, obviously, many different proofs for this result. While this page was loading up, I was fully expecting to see the Archimedean proof given here; it is obviously the most historic and arguably the most notable proof. I think the article would gain from having that proof reproduced here more fully. The proof presented is certainly notable, it a proof I have seen before (and indeed, I am sure far more people have seen the details of this proof than Archimedes') but I have only seen it given as a piece of "fun" maths, an exceptionally elegant method that is presented for instructive purposes on the topics of calculus and polynomial long division, with the interesting historical backdrop that 22/7 was a classical approximation to Pi. Archimedes' proof, on the other hand, was a serious (and relatively important) piece of mathematical research, so it seems a little unbalanced to cover it with a one sentence summary! On a slightly different note, it would be really nice to know who discovered, or at least first published, the particular integral given here; it would add a lot to the context of the article. TheGrappler 13:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Move suggestion
Does anyone object if I move this article to 22/7 (number)? The article is really about the number; the proof that it exceeds pi is interesting & notable because 22/7 is an important approximation of pi. It was suggested on the AfD debate that the article be renamed, and this seems like the best suggestion to me. Mangojuice 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely should be moved! This page is not about the proof but rather about a definite integral involved in a putnam competition; imho you should move this under Putnam competition 1968, first assignment or similar and link to it from 22/7 (Number). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.246.7.59 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

 * It's not about a Putnam problem. This argument is of interest quite independently of its appearance in the Putnam.  See the AfD discussion.  Obviously the argument has great charm, and that has nothing to do with the Putnam. Michael Hardy 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I object. The article is about the proof, not the number.  I can't make heads or tails of your reason for disagreeing.  We might as well argue that the Pythagorean theorem article  is really about right triangles so should be moved to right triangle.  --C S (Talk) 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the best is to keep the main part of the article (proof part), and merge some of the introduction as a stub at 22/7 (number). Certainly a lot more could be written about 22/7 and its historical importance.  But the rest of the article should be here.--C S (Talk) 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be moved to that title.

I also don't think Archimedes' proof should appear here. Perhaps a separate article on Archimedes' computation of π should be created if it does not already exist. The reason why it should not be in this article is that this article is really about a particular method rather than about the bottom-line result. If the title doesn't make that clear, perhaps another could be found. Michael Hardy 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of this move. In the AfD discussion this renaming was suggested by AySz88 and me, deemed acceptable by Fg2 and GTBacchus, and opposed by Oleg Alexandrov. I still think this is a better name for the article, even though (currently) the proof takes up the better part. The way the article is written, it is already "about" 22/7; the only thing that needs to change is the title. The proof is only "notable" because 22/7 is a widely used approximation of π, so it derives its importance from 22/7. An equally straightforward proof that 85/27 exceeds pi would not be interesting, would it? Lambiam Talk 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, a proof that 85/27 would probably not be as interesting. 85/27 is actually further from π than 22/7 despite the fact that the denominator, 27, is bigger than the other denominator, 7.  You can't come closer to π than 22/7 with any rational number until the denominator is actually more than 100.  I think the fact that 22/7 is a convergent in the continued fraction is relevant here. Michael Hardy 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I would have to see the proof that 85/27 exceeds pi in order to deem it interesting or not. Much of the interest of this proof is because of certain mathematical aspects of the proof.  --C S (Talk) 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * OK. We start with the observation that $$0<\frac{1189}{189}+\int_0^1\frac{x^4(1-x)^4}{1+x^2}\,dx$$ :) . Lambiam Talk 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * $$\mbox{That should be }\frac{1}{189}\mbox{ instead of }\frac{1189}{189} \mbox{.}$$ -- Paddu 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't move to "22/7"
This article is not primarily about that number. It's about the fact that this proof is though-provoking and causes one to suspect some deeper and enlightening fact is a large iceberg whose tip is this argument. Michael Hardy 04:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I "hostile"?
Does it constitute "hostility" or "vitriol" or some of those other characterizations of some of my responses on the AfD page if I say clearly that people who know nothing about a subject should not pontificate about it as if they are authorities? If one "assumes good faith" initially, must one continue to assume good faith when people do that? Is that sort of behavior consistent with "good faith"? Michael Hardy 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no context regarding the comment you make, as I'm new to this. However, keep in mind that an expertise in math does not equate to an expertise on the editing of encyclopedia articles, even ones on mathematics (no doubt they will be authoritative regarding matters of factual accuracies in an article, but an encyclopedia article's quality is more than just that).  Also keep in mind that an encyclopedia is different from a paper you might published in a math journal or a textbook you might write; different goals and standards apply.

 * You are free to make you own judgment about "good faith" and "bad faith" as you see fit. Of course, if this judgment is somehow involved in a dispute or discussion, obvious some may agree and others disagree. 131.107.0.73 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on recent edits on June 2006
I forgot to add this in my edit comments, and since your recent revert was so broad I don't really know which part you are actually trying to revert:

Based on your edit summary for the revert, I would like to point out that the "citation needed" template is tagging this specific sentence:

"It is easier than most Putnam Competition problems, but the competition often features seemingly obscure problems that turn out to refer to something very familiar."

I don't believe the first link in the external link section (which you mentioned in the edit summary) makes any claim about "seeming obscure problems that turn out to refer to something very familiar". Without a citation this sentence is subjective and cannot be included in an encyclopedia, no matter how accurate the case might be. 131.107.0.73 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; this is why such matters should be discussed on the talk page to begin with. You are correct that this statement could use a source; you exaggerate to claim that it is unencyclopedic without one. I'm sure a search of AMM would come up with a statement that this is the intent of the PE, as well as the experience of those who have taken it. Septentrionalis 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First-hand accounts are generally not considered suitable sources, so "as well as the experience of those who have taken it" doesn't matter, no matter how true. If you are sure that the search of AMM will yield a suitable reference, then please do the search and let us know where you find it.

 * There's also the separate fact that this opinion, again no matter how true, doesn't really add much to the article. The statement seems better placed in the article on PE.  So in addition to the missing citation, there's also the issue of whether the setence in issue should even be kept.

 * Finally, your reverting ignores the fact that I made multiple edits for different purposes. Regarding the edit where I took out the paragraph in the intro, that's because it is POV.  Not to mention it is wordy and redundant:  if the proof is so simple and beautiful, why not just let the reader see the proof and decide for themselves?  131.107.0.73 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, it doesn't. I have considered all the changes; one is now explained, but the others seem valueless. Septentrionalis 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, see below for the discussion on the paragraph in contention. 131.107.0.73 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also the fact that the template I put on top of the page is talking about not the lack of sources, but the way the citation is shown. For example in one of the sections, the citation is done by having the text "(see references below)". That doesn't seem like a good style to use for citations. I have leave the tag off for now in case you're talking about something else, but do expect me to either re-add the tag or possibly just make the edits I'm aiming for. 131.107.0.73 23:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Either fix it, or leave it alone; the purpose of references is to be clear about sourcing, and as long as they fulfill that purpose, all else is Christmas tree decoration. If your calling on Wikipedia is to paint the lily, do so by all means. Septentrionalis 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but just because I see a problem doesn't mean I have the time or interest to invest to actually fix it; that's what cleanup tags are for. 131.107.0.73 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

if the proof is so simple and beautiful, why not just let the reader see the proof and decide for themselves?

 * That's exactly what I did when I wrote this article originally. Then someone nominated it for deletion, citing the fact that there was no authoritative source attesting to its elegance (as if readers could not see that for themselves). Michael Hardy 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, but since there is already a citation in the reference section to the source you are citing, you paragraph would seem to be duplicating the information.

 * Rather, the great elegance and simplicity of the argument may serve to make the reader suspect that this is the tip of a deeper iceberg of understanding of the theory.

 * Unfortunately, the article provides little context to this "theory" being mentioned. If you are talking about diophantine approximations, the article should better explain the connection of this proof to the theory.  Also, this sentence, depend on interpretation, is either making a speculation on how a reader may react, or is trying to make the readers react in a certain way.  That would definitely has POV issues (no matter how justified the view) which shouldn't belong in the article.  The sentence might warrant being mentioned in the talk pages here as it has more relevance to the debate about the article's importance etc.

 * Overall, I would say that it suffice to just keeping these sentences

 * Lucas (cited below) calls this proposition "One of the more beautiful results related to approximating π". Havil ends a discussion of continued fraction approximations of π with the result, describing it as "impossible to resist mentioning" in that context.

 * The rest seems mainly useful in regards to the debate people have about the article's merit and such, and are therefore better off being put in the talk pages here instead. 131.107.0.73 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposed rewrite of the disputed parts of the intro which I think will serve the intent of those who wrote them, but more in line with Wikipedia standards:

 * What follows is a different mathematical proof that 22/7 > π, requiring only an elementary understanding of calculus. It is notable for its connections to the theory of diophantine approximations.  Lucas (cited below) calls this proposition "One of the more beautiful results related to approximating π". Havil ends a discussion of continued fraction approximations of π with the result, describing it as "impossible to resist mentioning" in that context.

I don't think we need to say anything in this article about how short and straightforward the proof is. Even amongst mathematicians, "short", "straightforward" and "elegant" are informal terms generally derived from intuition and defying precise definition. That it is "elegant" is probably better expressed by noting (and hopefully better explaining) its connection to diophantine approximations. That it is "short" and "straightforward" is meaningless to those who have little experience with calculus or mathematical proofs anyway, and readily apparent to those who do, so explicitly saying them doesn't really help anyone in that regards. 131.107.0.73 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to note that I intend to give this discussion about 3 days for initial feedback. If there are no comments at all after that, I will resume editing by substituting the proposed replacement above into the article. Just a hats-up. 131.107.0.73 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this requires some editing, but I will put a version in to see how it looks. Septentrionalis 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much my first edit outside sandbox so ignore me but wouldn't all the "short" "elegant" stuff come under rainbow words which should be removed? Also as a 16 year old with an ok grasp of maths taking it in an english college i found this proof easy to understand but it would be nice to understand where it comes from Extended phenotype 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Diophantine approximation
It would be useful if Diophantine approximation explained why this gadget works, which it doesn't now; in fact, it's rather stubby. (That is the title, the present link from the article is a redirect.) Septentrionalis 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Equal signs
In the 'details' section, shouldn't those equal signs be less than signs? --Carifio24 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Certainly not. Why would you say that? Michael Hardy 22:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't mind me, I didn't really read the whole thing right...wasn't totally awake. Now I've made myself like a fool, great --Carifio24 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, people
You all know what brought me here, but that isn't what I want to talk about. What I want to say is simply "thanks". Because even though I had seen the proof before, I found it nowhere as succinctly and yet as clearly stated as here. Shinobu (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible rename?
I hate to nitpick, but I'm so busy these days I don't have time to make substantial contributions. But I was thinking, would this not more properly be titled "Proof that 22 sevenths exceeds π"? Maybe I'm splitting hairs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I haven't recently looked at Manual of Style (dates and numbers), but there is a difference between "every number except one" and "every number except 1".  When writing about the number 1, rather than using it in such a sentence as "There is one excecption", I think it should be written as a digit, and this seems to be a somewhat similar case. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your point about "all but one" vs "all but 1" - I don't know that the same could be said here (how could one confuse "sevenths" with say "7ths" or "over 7" - not to mention "over seven"). It's just always been my experience that unless ambiguity is possible, one says "nths" whenever n is a reasonably small integer (as opposed to "over n"). It's not so much whether or not we spell it out, but whether we say "over 7." I am aware that I'm certainly being a bit picky, but I'm just curious about it. I presume a / is not possible in a title, is it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a slash is a good idea, but it is certainly possible per WP:Subpages. I don't have any strong opinions on the title, but I would prefer twenty-two sevenths or 22/7 or 22 over 7 rather than 22 sevenths.  I find "22 sevenths" hard to read, but I cannot reliably distinguish 2+b from 2+5 from s+5, so feel free to ignore. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From the MOS on numbers:
 * Fractions are normally spelled out; use the fraction form if they occur in a percentage or with an abbreviated unit (⅛ mm, but never an eighth of a mm) or they are mixed with whole numerals.

Looks to me like it should be spelled out. However, it may also make sense to write 22/7. I am uncertain of what we'd want, although my preference would be 22/7 now that I've realized that a / is acceptable in articlespace titles. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Another consideration is that how fractions are written when writing about mathematics is different from how they are written in other contexts. It makes sense to say that in order to override the president's veto, at least two-thirds of the senators must vote for the bill, with "two-thirds" spelled out like that. But if one says the fraction 2/3 is in lowest terms, then one should write "2/3", not "two-thirds".

However: This is an article title, and those are not as flexible in some respects as the text within the article. In particular, slashes in article names are used to indicate subpages. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * That's actually not a problem, according to this policy that User:JackSchmidt pointed us to. I remember seeing people repeat "mainspace subpages do not exist" and this appears to be the case. So I suggest renaming it to 22/7 - anyone agree/disagree? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added a clause to the "Exceptions" in the MOS on numbers, saying: "Numbers in mathematical formulas are never spelled out (3 < π < 22/7, not three < π < 22 sevenths)." (That's what I like about Wikipedia: if you think the rules as formulated get in the way, you can not only ignore but even change them.) It can be plausibly argued that in the context here 22/7 is a formula. Count this as agree. --Lambiam 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Move/Copy to Wikibooks

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep, clear consensus against transwiki. --Salix alba (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This ought to be in The Book of Mathematical Proofs. (Transferring to Wikibooks was proposed in a 2006 deletion debate, but that was before this particular wikibook existed.)

But we still need to decide which section it should go in. While π's most familiar use relates to geometry, that doesn't necessarily mean that Geometry is the best section. But what is? Analysis? Some whole new section?

That said, you could claim that it's still a Euclidean geometry theorem, if you rephrase it as something like but I'm not sure that that's the best course of action either. -- Smjg (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The circumference of a circle is less than 44/7 of its radius
 * The area of a circle is less than 22/7 of the square of its radius

 * I don't think that the article should be moved to wikibooks, i.e. copied there and deleted here. (The template at the beginning of the article suggests to copy it, which to me seems something different than "move"; I have edited the header of this section accordingly.)
 * If you want to have this article in wikibooks, the "Analysis" section is more appropriate than "Geometry". The number pi is important both in geometry and in analysis; but this proof that 22/7 exceeds pi does not refer to geometry at all, except for the trigonometrical fact that tan(pi/4)=1.  --Aleph4 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. It's an important, elegant, and accessible little bit of math, perfect for a wikipedia article. More depth can of course be made in wikibooks if someone wants to do that.  Who is arguing to remove it, and why? Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * There can be little doubt that transwikiing to Wikibooks will be followed by deletion per WP:CSD. --Lambiam 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The presence of a proof in other books (say, Proofs from THE BOOK) does not act as evidence that the proof should be deleted from Wikipedia, but rather, as evidence that it is notable enough to have an article describing it in Wikipedia. Why should a book that happens to be hosted on wikibooks be treated any differently in this respect? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WHY is it proposed that this be moved to Wikibooks? Is there a reason? If fits beautifully where it is. It would fit far worse in Wikibooks, I would think, at least if I am right in understanding those to be somewhat like textbooks. This is not at all a textbookish sort of thing. Note that in this case, the proof, not the theorem, is what the article is about, so this doesn't belong in a list of theorems. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see any reason to move the page. It's possible that it should be copied (I don't know what the standards are for wikibooks), but I think it belongs on Wikipedia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to transwiki this. --Cheeser1 (talk)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * "The result of the debate was keep, clear consensus against transwiki."

A consensus to keep it, maybe, but certainly not a clear consensus against having this content on Wikibooks. I intended merely to propose transferring the content to Wikibooks, not that it should be done by one particular method or not at all, nor to hard-wire any decision on what would happen to this article should it be transferred. In any case, an open, constructive debate that considers the possible approaches and the pros and cons thereof would be more in order than what has actually happened in the discussion so far.

It's not my fault that some of the content of Copy to Wikibooks doesn't seem right, but I couldn't find a more appropriate template. Maybe it's time to write one.

Moreover, please point me to the Wikipedia policy that allows debates to be closed before the proposer has had any chance to defend his/her position, let alone for a proper consensus to be reached. This is disrespectful and ought to be changed.

My main motivation in the first place was simply that we have The Book of Mathematical Proofs and we ought to have this there. Even in the absence of this, it would seem to me that mathematical proofs would make good material for a Wikibook. I don't suppose there's any compelling reason to remove it from here while at it. I am sorry if the template I used to make my proposal gave a different impression. -- Smjg (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that it would be appropriate for inclusion in Wikibooks, but I was horrified by what appeared to be a proposal to delete it from Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, no problem with copying to Wikibooks. I suggest listing it on Wikibooks:Requests for Import to facilitate the transfer, with page history. --Salix alba (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it.
Sorry if this seems stupid, but I don't know why this article exists. Do we also need to prove that 4 is bigger than 3? That 50 is bigger than 1.2? No. I can see it now:

'Proof that 4 exceeds 3'

Proof that 4 exceeds 3 go back to antiquity, with most using the simple sum. 4-1=3. The use of the minus sign indicates taking away, therefore a positive difference. QED, 4 is bigger than 3.

Thelb 4 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Sigh................
 * We already had this discussion. At great length. Here it is. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already had this discussion. At great length. Here it is. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, good point! I see now the mistake in having this page.  Obviously 22/7 - π is positive.  Thus 22/7 > π.  QED.  Wow, why didn't I think of that?  --C S (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, but if: The purpose is not primarily to convince the reader that 22⁄7 is indeed bigger than π; systematic methods of computing the value of π exist., then what is the purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelb4 (talk • contribs)

 * The purpose is primarily to show you something that will at once delight you and make you suspect this is the surface of an interesting iceberg. The integral is completely elementary and startlingly simple.
 * Consider: It is well known that an irreducible quadratic factor in the denominator of a rational function can result in a rational multiple of π showing up when the integral is found. Therefore it may not be surprising that a rational function can be found whose integral from 0 to 1 is 22/7 − π.  And maybe it's not much more surprising that one can be found that is obviously positive, so that 22/7 − π must be positive.  But who'd have predicted that almost the simplest rational function you could write down that could conceivably have the necessary properties (8th-degree polynomial in the numerator, the simplest of irreducible quadratic polynomials in the denominator, the numerator having such symmetry and being equal to zero at the two endpoints) would be the one that works?  It's surprising, to say the least.  Everyone I've shown this to who hadn't seen it before has been instantly struck by all of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider: It is well known that an irreducible quadratic factor in the denominator of a rational function can result in a rational multiple of π showing up when the integral is found. Therefore it may not be surprising that a rational function can be found whose integral from 0 to 1 is 22/7 − π.  And maybe it's not much more surprising that one can be found that is obviously positive, so that 22/7 − π must be positive.  But who'd have predicted that almost the simplest rational function you could write down that could conceivably have the necessary properties (8th-degree polynomial in the numerator, the simplest of irreducible quadratic polynomials in the denominator, the numerator having such symmetry and being equal to zero at the two endpoints) would be the one that works?  It's surprising, to say the least.  Everyone I've shown this to who hadn't seen it before has been instantly struck by all of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Why stop reading there? The lede paragraph is pretty self-explanatory.  --C S (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Just to confirm: I'd never read the article before. The lead explains the purpose of the article quite clearly and establishes notability with reliable sources.  The proof itself is very nice; thanks for including it.  I'll probably use it and the "upper and lower bound" section next time I teach calc II, as I usually have the students do such simple substitutions to get estimates.  All the steps are covered in introductory calculus courses, such as those offered in many U.S. high schools. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Extensions section with even n?
The section Proof that 22/7 exceeds π is quite intriguing, particulay these subsections:

The above ideas can be generalized to get better approximations of π. More precisely, for every integer n ≥ 1,

\frac1{2^{2n-1}}\int_0^1 x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}\,dx <\frac1{2^{2n-2}}\int_0^1\frac{x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}}{1+x^2}\,dx <\frac1{2^{2n-2}}\int_0^1 x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}\,dx, $$

where the middle integral evaluates to

 * $$\begin{align}

&\frac1{2^{2n-2}}\int_0^1\frac{x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}}{1+x^2}\,dx\\ &\qquad=\sum_{j=0}^{2n-1}\frac{(-1)^j}{2^{2n-j-2}(8n-j-1)\binom{8n-j-2}{4n+j}} +(-1)^n\biggl(\pi-4\sum_{j=0}^{3n-1}\frac{(-1)^j}{2j+1}\biggr) \end{align}$$

involving π. The last sum also appears in Leibniz' formula for π. The correction term and error bound is given by

 * $$\begin{align}\frac1{2^{2n-1}}\int_0^1 x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}\,dx

&=\frac{1}{2^{2n-1}(8n+1)\binom{8n}{4n}}\end{align}$$ .............

The results for n = 1 are given above. For n = 2 we get

 * $$\frac14\int_0^1\frac{x^8(1-x)^8}{1+x^2}\,dx=\pi -\frac{47\,171}{15\,015}$$

and

 * $$\frac18\int_0^1 x^8(1-x)^8\,dx=\frac1{1750320},$$

hence 3.14159231 < π < 3.14159289, where the bold digits of the lower and upper bound are those of π. Similarly for n = 3,

 * $$\frac1{16}\int_0^1\frac{x^{12}(1-x)^{12}}{1+x^2}\,dx= \frac{431\,302\,721}{137\,287\,920}-\pi$$

with correction term and error bound

 * $$\frac1{32}\int_0^1 x^{12}(1-x)^{12}\,dx=\frac1{2\,163\,324\,800},$$

hence 3.14159265340 < π < 3.14159265387. The next step for n = 4 is

 * $$\frac1{64}\int_0^1\frac{x^{16}(1-x)^{16}}{1+x^2}\,dx= \pi-\frac{741\,269\,838\,109}{235\,953\,517\,800}$$

with

 * $$\frac1{128}\int_0^1 x^{16}(1-x)^{16}\,dx=\frac1{2\,538\,963\,567\,360},$$

which gives 3.14159265358955 < π < 3.14159265358996.

Now if, instead of n = 1,2,3,4,..., similar formulas are developed with n=2,4,6,8 - something like:

The above ideas can be generalized to get better approximations of π. More precisely, for every even integer n ≥ 2,

\frac1{2^{n-1}}\int_0^1 x^{2n}(1-x)^{2n}\,dx <\frac1{2^{n-2}}\int_0^1\frac{x^{2n}(1-x)^{2n}}{1+x^2}\,dx <\frac1{2^{n-2}}\int_0^1 x^{2n}(1-x)^{2n}\,dx, $$

where the middle integral evaluates to

 * $$\begin{align}

&\frac1{2^{n-2}}\int_0^1\frac{x^{2n}(1-x)^{2n}}{1+x^2}\,dx\\ &\qquad=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\frac{(-1)^j}{2^{n-j-2}(4n-j-1)\binom{4n-j-2}{2n+j}} +(-1)^{n/2}\biggl(\pi-4\sum_{j=0}^{(3n-1)/2}\frac{(-1)^j}{2j+1}\biggr) \end{align}$$

involving π. The last sum also appears in Leibniz' formula for π. The correction term and error bound is given by

 * $$\begin{align}\frac1{2^{n-1}}\int_0^1 x^{2n}(1-x)^{2n}\,dx

&=\frac{1}{2^{n-1}(4n+1)\binom{4n}{2n}}\end{align}$$ .............

The results for n = 2 are given above. For n = 4 we get

 * $$\frac14\int_0^1\frac{x^8(1-x)^8}{1+x^2}\,dx=\pi -\frac{47\,171}{15\,015}$$

and

 * $$\frac18\int_0^1 x^8(1-x)^8\,dx=\frac1{1750320},$$

hence 3.14159231 < π < 3.14159289, where the bold digits of the lower and upper bound are those of π. Similarly for n = 6,

 * $$\frac1{16}\int_0^1\frac{x^{12}(1-x)^{12}}{1+x^2}\,dx= \frac{431\,302\,721}{137\,287\,920}-\pi$$

with correction term and error bound

 * $$\frac1{32}\int_0^1 x^{12}(1-x)^{12}\,dx=\frac1{2\,163\,324\,800},$$

hence 3.14159265340 < π < 3.14159265387. The next step for n = 8 is

 * $$\frac1{64}\int_0^1\frac{x^{16}(1-x)^{16}}{1+x^2}\,dx= \pi-\frac{741\,269\,838\,109}{235\,953\,517\,800}$$

with

 * $$\frac1{128}\int_0^1 x^{16}(1-x)^{16}\,dx=\frac1{2\,538\,963\,567\,360},$$

which gives 3.14159265358955 < π < 3.14159265358996.

'''then similar relationships involving n = 1,3,5,7,..., will give relationships involving the natural logarithm of 2 (ln 2 - 2/3, 38,429/55,440 - ln 2, ln 2 - 1,290,876,029/1,862,340,480, and 356,281,790,621/514,005,972,480 - ln 2) instead of pi. I shall show that info (verifyable on TI-89 and similar calculators) on this page in the near future.''' --Glenn L (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Proof that natural log (2) exceeds 2/3
Is there an article that similarly proves that the value of the natural logarithm of 2 exceeds 2/3 ? It appears that the main article's proof that 22/7 > π can easily be used for this proof:

Basic idea
The basic idea behind the proof can be expressed very succinctly:
 * $$0<\int_0^1\frac{x^2(1-x)^2}{1+x^2}\,dx = \log(2) - \frac{2}{3}.$$

Therefore log (2) > 2⁄3.

Details

 * $$0\,$$
 * $$<\int_0^1\frac{x^2(1-x)^2}{1+x^2}\,dx$$
 * $$=\int_0^1\frac{x^2-2x^3+x^4}{1+x^2}\,dx$$
 * (expanded terms in numerator)
 * $$=\int_0^1 \left(x^2-2x+\frac{2x}{1+x^2}\right) \,dx$$
 * (performed polynomial long division)
 * $$=\left.\frac{x^3}{3}-x^2+\log{(1+x^2)}\,\right|_0^1$$
 * (definite integration)
 * $$=\frac{1}{3}-1+\log(2)\ $$
 * (use log(1) = 0)
 * $$=\log(2)-\frac{2}{3}.$$
 * (addition)
 * }
 * $$=\left.\frac{x^3}{3}-x^2+\log{(1+x^2)}\,\right|_0^1$$
 * (definite integration)
 * $$=\frac{1}{3}-1+\log(2)\ $$
 * (use log(1) = 0)
 * $$=\log(2)-\frac{2}{3}.$$
 * (addition)
 * }
 * $$=\log(2)-\frac{2}{3}.$$
 * (addition)
 * }
 * }

-- Glenn L (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If combined with this one without any exponent, it yields $$\frac{2}{3}<log(2)<\frac{3}{4}$$

Tags that need improvement
the section on background adn "Details of evaluation of the integral" are not sourced, makign this seem like a math tutorial instead of an encyclopaedia. likewise the "proof" and the the IIT exam stuff is WP:Trivia, likewise the Putnam part which doesnt have lasting notability based on which question appears there.(Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)).

 * Excuse me: The proof is trivia?? The proof is what the article is about!  Without that, the reader has no way of knowing what the topic is.  Like an article about George Washington that nowhere mentions George Washington. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously Lihaas has missed the entire point of the article. But perhaps that means that the point isn't expressed clearly enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Details of evaluation of the integral" uses standard techniques that are taught to first-year students. It seems worth including just so that naive readers don't think there's something mysterious about this particular integral; its evaluation is just routine stuff. If an article mentions that 17 × 47 = 799, I don't think of that as something that has to be sourced, and this seems somewhat similar. I didn't know the IIT part was there. The Putnam is a standard part of the culture, so it seems interesting.

I'm still in a mild state of shock over the seeming suggestion that we exclude from the article the thing that the article is about. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. the proofs are the crux of the issue. but the IIT stuff does fall into that category, no encyclopaedic notability, i think we can agree on that.
 * Seems, like i missed my punctuation ;)Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if I'm understanding the "punctuation" point correctly, you meant:
 * "Details of evaluation of the integral" are not sourced, makign this seem like a math tutorial instead of an encyclopaedia. likewise the "proof".

and then:
 * and the the IIT exam stuff is WP:Trivia

My gut reaction to the part about the "proof" is that it does only things that everybody learns in infancy. Only an initial gut reaction. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Putnam question has a solution published somewhere that we can cite as a source for the details? I agree it's more in the nature of a routine calculation than original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Yep, pretty much. Not anything against the page. In fact i think a page like this is one of the best reasons for wikipedia. certainly over the political pages ;)Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Values of n other than the positive integers
Has anyone looked into what
 * $$\int_0^1 \frac{x^{4n}(1-x)^{4n}}{1+x^2} \, dx$$

evaluates to for $$n=0$$, or even for an arbitrary real number $$n>-1/4$$? If π shows up in some of these cases that would be cool.

Thanks —Quantling (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, WolframAlpha will let you test any combination of this type.
 * For example, typing "4/2^0 * int (x-x^2)^0 / (1+x^2) dx, x=0 to 1" into the box results in "π ≈ 3.14159" being displayed.
 * It turns out that there are four patterns that oscillate in sequence:
 * (a):$$ \frac{4}{2^{2n}} \int_0^1 \frac {(x-x^2)^{4n+0}} {1+x^2} dx$$
 * approximates π≈3.14159265...: π, 22/7 - π, π - 47171/15015, ....
 * (b):$$ \frac{4}{2^{2n}} \int_0^1 \frac {(x-x^2)^{4n+1}} {1+x^2} dx$$
 * approximates (π+loge4)≈4.52788701...: (π+loge4) - 4, 11411/2520 - (π+loge4), ....
 * (c):$$ \frac{4}{2^{2n+1}} \int_0^1 \frac {(x-x^2)^{4n+2}} {1+x^2} dx$$
 * approximates loge4≈1.38629436...: loge4 - 4/3, 38429/27720 - loge4, ....
 * (d):$$ \frac{4}{2^{2n+1}} \int_0^1 \frac {(x-x^2)^{4n+3}} {1+x^2} dx$$
 * approximates (π-loge4)≈1.75529829...: 53/30 - (π-loge4), (π-loge4) - 421691/240240, ....
 * — Glenn L (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point
People really do know how to miss the point completely. This edit is one of the most extreme cases of stupidly missing the point that ever happened, but I'm finding out this is not an isolated case. Googling the title of this article shows a yahoo answers page about it. A huge number of people asserted that "just" (sic!) knowing that π = 3.14159265...... is enough to show that 22/7 > π. And so it is, but you have to do a lot of work in order to "just" know that. A lot more work than needs to get done in this article. It is appalling that so many people are so gullible. If all the books say that π = 3.14159265......, then they think it's the self-evident innerant word of God. Appalling.

Should we say something more than we've said in this article to correct that mentality? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move: "Proof that $22/7$ exceeds π" --> "Proof that $22/7$ exceeds pi"
It is unconventional to use a math symbol in a title even when that symbol is universally understood. It's Three Blind Mice, not "3 Blind Mice", a Dirac delta function, not a δ function, and so forth. In this case, we can't avoid the use of "$22/7$", but that is all the more reason not to throw in additional symbols. "Pi" is a far more common usage than "π" according this ngram. CNN uses "pi", the BBC uses "pi", and the New York Times uses "pi". This entry in Merriam-Webster is entitled "pi". The "pi" entry in Britannica is a good model. They have no policy or technical issue that prevents them from producing a "π", yet they use it only for equations. Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia does the same, and that is an even better authority (p. 4105 -- sorry no link). The math journals can go either way. Check here and here for journal articles with "pi" in their titles. Although the symbol "$>$" is better known than "π", it is spelled out in this title as "exceeds". Kauffner (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Those who use pi instead of π generally do so for technical do so for technical reasons:
 * Not using anything other than ASCII in titles ensures that systems that count citations for your paper don't get anything wrong. So it's in the interest of both the journal and the author for reasons that have nothing to do with the reader or with our situation here.
 * Journalists generally don't know how to enter special characters, and even if they could, they can't risk that somewhere in the publication process something gets lost. This can happen even with TeX in mathematical journals. There is a paper by Saharon Shelah that can only be read sensibly using two versions in parallel: The final version in the journal, which has some key symbols replaced by boxes, and a very old preprint on arXiv to find out what the boxes mean.
 * There is no need for the move, and for esthetical reasons I oppose to it very strongly. Hans Adler 18:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Proof that π is irrational which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"striking"
In a recent posting to mathoverflow, Harvard professor Noam Elkies wrote about the proof that this article is about: "Possibly the most striking proof of Archimedes's inequality π < 22/7 is an integral formula for the difference:
 * $ \frac{22}{7} - \pi = \int_0^1 (x-x^2)^4 \frac{dx}{1+x^2}. $

Is this something one could fairly cite in this article? Would it help satisfy those who have strangely claimed they see no elegance in this proof (not that those people are active now, but they've made themselves memorable)? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Background section
In the section currently:
 * $$\begin{align}

\pi\,       & \approx 3.141\,592\,65\ldots \end{align}$$

Shouldn't it be like this:
 * $$\begin{align}

\pi\,       & = 3.141 \,592\,65\ldots \end{align}$$

or this:
 * $$\begin{align}

\pi\,       & \approx 3.141\,592\,65 \end{align}$$

What's going on in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th4n3r (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting the integral of [x^4(1-x)^4/(1+x^2)] ??
The article jumps straight to integration without giving any reason. Why is it integral of [x^4(1-x)^4/(1+x^2)]? I understand integral is interpreted as the area under a curve. Evidence before the integral would convince me and other readers. Otherwise it is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.15.239 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, why was that integrand chosen? Because it works. What sort of "evidence" do you mean? And what is it that you need convincing of? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an unrelated anonymous user. Hello from nearly a decade into the future :)
 * Anyways, yes, they probably want a reason for how this particular integral was chosen. "Because it works" (or more precisely, because applying enough identities to it gets you the desired string of symbols) might be good enough for loosy-goosy mathematicians, but laymen typically need a lot more rigor than that. 50.236.115.194 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are using "loosy-goosy" and "rigor" in ways so completely opposite to their mathematical meanings that it is difficult to make sense of what you are asking. Why do you think there must exist any better-motivated or intuitive way of explaining this than "because it works"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that "loosy-goosy" even had a mathematical meaning! (Also, I'm not asking anything.)  I think that this illustrates how different things are between mathematicians and laymen.
 * In the real world, the fact that something works at present does not ensure that it will continue to work in the future. Something which succeeds in testing might fail in the field.  A financial product which grows in value now might crash in the future.  That is what I mean when I say that "it works" is not particularly rigorous. 50.236.115.194 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess a real question is this: what was the method used to work towards that particular choice of integral? I feel like that would satisfy 98.253.15.239.
 * I know a modicum of actual math with proofs, so I'm aware that the answer is likely "a mathematician used a bunch of intuition and threw stuff at the wall until it stuck, as is the case with most proofs. And I suspect that for laymen, that will be unsatisfying (even artists often profess to have more sophisticated methods than that). 50.236.115.194 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an unnatural integral to try randomly, or as an exercise. Its evaluation does not use any nonstandard techniques. Once one evaluates it, one sees that $$\int_0^1 \frac{x^4\left(1-x\right)^4}{1+x^2} \, dx = \frac{22}{7} - \pi. $$ This article is aimed at an audience who would look at that equation and think "That's neat!", and not at an audience who would look at it and think "That's scary and unmotivated and must be replaced by lots of explanatory text". All the rest is elaboration on that initial discovery. For the target audience, the mathematics alone is sufficient. We do not need an origin myth. If we had one we could include it, but that requires sources that say more than "Look at this integral! Isn't it neat?" —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 50.236.115.194 here from a different computer!
 * Yeah, that's pretty reasonable. I think I'm getting it.
 * It's far too late now, but I'm wondering if the article could have been reframed with that integral as the primary topic, and its relation to π and the 22/7 approximation as the reason why it is notable. An added benefit would be getting rid of the first chunk of the article, which is just there to counter "why not use [x method of computing pi] and compare against 22/7?"
 * Incidentally, I'm now wondering if 98.253.15.239's confusion in 2014 (and mine today for a good bit) was that the "The proof" section isn't really the proof, but a first step, with "Details of evaluation of the integral" containing the actual meat of it. Of course, just showing the steps immediately might spoil the fun, so maybe it should stay the way it is. 108.16.53.123 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Why we use 22/7 as approximation of pi for primary school?
Why we use $22⁄7$ as approximation of π for primary school? Exessia (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, Exessia (talk)? Secondary school may use $333⁄106$ or $355⁄113$ instead of $22⁄7$ for more precise approximations of π. Exessia (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Proof that 22/7 exceeds π


text:
Canadian Kennel Club

The Canadian Kennel Club (or CKC; Club canin canadien), founded in 1888 and chartered under the Animal Purebred Act, is one of the national kennel clubs of Canada. It maintains breed registries services for those purebred dogs approved for its control by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and provides governance for all CKC-approved dog conformation shows, dog trials and canine events. The CKC is a non-member partner with the Fédération Cynologique Internationale.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Canadian Kennel Club


text:
Talk:Proportional Representation using the Single Transferable Vote

Re a change at Instant Runoff Voting, Jtdirl wrote:
 * rv. stop trying to claim that instant-runoff voting is what is used in single seat PR. It is still called PR.STV

Cool, my first edit war! Since the issue is the definition of "PR.STV" rather than "IRV" I figure this is the best place to discuss it.

I have never seen PR.STV used to refer to single winner STV, but more importantly "single seat PR" doesn't make any sense. By definition there is nothing proportional about a single winner election.

I agree that the many names for STV and its relatives are a confusing mess. Wikipedia is possibly the first forum detailed and international enough to have had to deal with it in full. Terms I've seen used are: seats > 0       STV  Hare Preferential seats = 1       STV  IRV   Preferential seats > 1       STV  PR.STV  Quota Preferential  Hare  Hare-Clark So the 'best' meanings of STV, Hare and Preferential can be debated, but IRV and PR.STV are unambiguous. -- Pm67nz 03:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


text: Talk:State University of New York

title: Talk:State University of New York


text:
User talk:Davodd/Archive 10

Cleaned May 11, 2006. To add comments click on the + in the tab at the top of this page.

Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)
You left a cleanup tag in the references section of this article. Can you explain why you think it needs cleaning up on the article's talk page? Thanks... Aplomado talk 20:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Nice work on this article BTW, I don't know where you found all that new information. Aplomado  talk 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tinea versicolor
I note from the edit-history that you previous contributed significantly to Tinea versicolor. I have grouped together the topical treatments as there is no distinction, in the UK, as to which agents may be obtained over-the counter or on prescription. I have previously summarised advice obtained from the UK Institue of Dermatology on treatment into a protocol factsheet, however wikipedia policy is not to add links to ones own website (but other editors may of course). - Please have a look at the Talk:Tinea versicolor page and comment as appropriate. Thank you :-) David Ruben Talk 01:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rdefined.com
You deleted this article a short while ago... why??? I worked on this last night, added some notability items, and wanted to continue on this when I had time. The article was also edited by the founder of the group, and you deleted it on grounds that it was an advertisement??? SocalR32 and Rdefined.com have existed as a community of owner/enthusiasts of the VW R32 (Limited 5000 production VW for the US in 2004), and this was serving to document some of the history of the group.

No, I didn't
I didn't vote for Fourteen points. Anyway, thanks for the invitation... --Francisco Valverde 17:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:LGBT
Unless I misread the discussion at Portal/Proposals the consensus is against the creation of Portal:LGBT. You have created the portal though. Appreciate your thoughts on moving this forward, perhaps listing the portal at WP:MFD for wider discussion of the issues. Hiding Talk 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the process at Portal/Proposals is built for getting a consensus on a portal's creation: "it is necessary to propose new portals so that their necessity can be ascertained with discussion." I'm not looking to get into an argument on this, and I should declare I helped set the process up so we're obviously going to have to disdagree on that point.  What I am more worried about is that the consensus there is being ignored.  The proposal system was set up because people were, and are, creating portals as they so desired and it soon became hard to keep a track of them.  We need these sort of processes in place as a weeding process, and if people ignore it there will be a call to have it tightened. If you've got enough editors who see this as a good idea, please point them to the discussion and cast an "aye" vote.  As an admin, I have to treat all portals created out of process in a similar fashion, regardless of their merit.  Those portals which have merit, as you obviously feel yours does, should demonstrate that merit in discussion.  Fair play and all, let's all keep on the same page and point people to that discussion to get a consensus.  I don't imagine it will be that hard, and whilst you are keeping an eye on your portal, maybe you could lend a hand at Portal:Sexuality and keep the two on the same page where topics overlap.  If no consensus gets demonstrated, I would imagine someone will take the portal to WP:MFD at some point. Hiding Talk 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to beat this any further. I've asked for a couple of favours, help me build a consensus at Portal/Proposals for this portal's creation, and help maintain Portal:Sexuality where the topics overlap.  I'd appreciate it, but if you don't feel you can, that's up to you.  We can dicker about process all day long, but all I'm doing is asking a favour.  The portal process is broken, yes, but here I am asking you to help me fix it by directing people there to get the consensus that, I hope you will agree, surely exists.  Your call. Hiding Talk 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs
Ello there, Davodd.. I'd rather like for you to give your input on the future of List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs since it may invariably suffer the same fate as Other films aired on The SciFi Channel, so please do so if time permits. I feel it a rather pertinant piece of information concerning the Sci Fi Channel, and its demise may compromise the article in its entirety. DrWho42 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

AID
Hi. Thanks for doint the AID rollover; however, you did something weird:. I think I've fixed it, but you might want to be careful next time you copy/paste. ;-) PruneauT 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country). Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Astronomy
Posted by → Lzy Genius 11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

Kent-Meridian High School
Per Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, I just thought you'd like to know that the consensus for deleting High School articles now appears to be swinging back in favor of deletion. So this may indicate the beginning of another campaign to remove most High School articles. Your opinion on the AfD article would be appreciated. It might be helpful if a notability standard for High Schools could be agreed upon. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss changes before doing anything drastic
You have mistitled the article that discusses spider venom. Venom is not poison. Please see the discussion page for that article. P0M 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Hi!, CotW nomination period has expired for this week and I don´t know how how to update it. Would you be so kind to do it for me? Thank you for advance, --Garcilaso 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns article
Hi... you did the good article review, and I don't know if it's procedure to ask like this... but I've gone through it with what I hope is a scythe to clean the hell out of it. Would you mind taking another quick glance at it for me to know what needs the most immediate attention? I put a summary of everything I did just now on the talk page there, and have been trying to de-fan-ize, de-cruft it, de-weasle it, and NPOV it, and I think it's beginning to get there--some of the sections need a lot of work yet, especially the mess that is reactions. Any additional suggestions would be really appreciated. I've got like 40+ edits into it in the past 24 hours trying to fix it. rootology (T) 01:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your response on the template work
I appreciate your effort to be communicative and thorough, and I appreciate your attempt to be inclusive. Unfortunately you seem to be arguing from a position of misinformation and misapprehension, which renders many of your admonitions a bit off the mark, and subjects you to many of the same criticisms you direct at me, and then some. If you are interested in analyzing this further I would be glad to discuss this with you. If you are not, I still look forward to ongoing co-operation with you but perhaps in a more reflective and collegial atmosphere than that of our last exchange. I am sure there is a lot more common ground between our views of proper work etiquette than might first meet the eye. Regards, Haiduc 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty
I resent that the Pederasty article has been associated with LGBT studies. I resent seeing our flag associated with the practice of pederasty. It is the same as associating the American flag as symbolic of American studies with race-based murders. Pederasty is not part of the GLBT movement or our struggle for equal rights, represented by our rainbow flag. I would like to know who decided that Pederasty should be included in this project, where there was consensus and how to contribute, because I certainly do not wish to see this association. This is not a denial that there are GLBT pederasts, but it is a legitimate wish to not have this practice included as some how integral with our community. Enzedbrit 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I understand your personal opinion, and may share much of it. Technically, the definition of pederasty includes a form of same-sex behavior that has historical and sociological importance, therefore fits within the LGBT Studies area. Your argument could also be used by people who resent that drag queen or gay bathhouse or gay slang or twink or barebacking are included. To dis-include any of these because a faction finds it distasteful is academically dishonest and hurts the credibility of the LGBT Studies project. It is the purpose of the LGBT Studies Project to work in a constructive and collaborative way to make sure all LGBT-related articles (which does, in fact, include pederasty by definition) are well written and reflect the consensus of the academic world enough to become featured articles. It is not the purpose of the project to advance one person (or faction's) ideal of what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior since that form of advocacy is not encyclopedic. We need more people who are willing to put aside their personal biases to work with others of differing opinion enough to write a quality encyclopedia of LGBT-themed articles. You are welcome to be a part of this collaboration. Neither you nor I can justify forcing our personal opinions on others (see: Wikipedia is not a soapbox) to the detriment of scholarly work on Wikipedia or deciding that because of our personal opinion, that some same-sex themed articles are less worthy of inclusion in this project than others (see: Wikipedia is not censored). As editors, it is not our job to put 2 and 2 together on our own to decipher what is and is not a valid LGBT subject (see Wikipedia:No Original Research). - Davodd 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what you want to say is that this is then part of same-sex studies. GLBT is the umbrella term for our community and attachment to this community at the grass-roots level is entirely subjective.  Pederasts naturally may identify themselves with being GLBT and their minority sexual preference as being an integral element of our community, but the community is based on being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.  There is a difference between the community of Queer people and sexual practices of people who are of the same sex.  My argument could be used about other things, as you have said, because these are facets attached to gay and lesbian people.  Drag Queens are associated as being in the community and that needs no justification, Twink is a term used in the community to describe a certain person, barebacking is a sexual practice between men, gay slang or Polari is a language associated with gay and lesbian people.  I do not believe that sexual practices need to be attached to our community and I negate your statement that pederasty thus comes under the scope of our community.  There are lots of gay people - I can say without proof - who will enjoy sex with their siblings, with animals, with excrement, and there is every justification to attach that too to the GLBT study area we are identifying, because they are undertaken by gay and lesbian people.  Why should practices of GLBT people then be studied as a part of our community?!  I do not wish to see this, or for that matter any sexual practice, associated with our community.  It is not about that.  I am certain to find a majority opinion in that, and I only wish that this were a live forum, because I would easily gather that support right now.  Pederasty is a practice between men and boys.  I’m very sorry, but that doesn’t make it part of our community, or a gay-themed article, anymore than gay on gay murder would be. Make your study about sex, not about our people. Enzedbrit 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are not really very cogent, sorry. You are playing semantic word games and using circular logic which is confusing the real issue, basically, that in your personal worldview, you do not like a certain article associated with a topic with which you are emotionally attached. Although I empathize with your frustration, that is not a valid excuse for censorship. The LGBT Studies Project is not about bettering the image of or empowering or reaffirming the gay community - it is about bettering the content of Wikipedia — specifically Wikipedia articles that deal with same-sex (LGB) or transgender (T) issues. This includes non-flattering or distasteful same-sex issues. To be academically honest, you need to distance yourself from your emotions or any "yuck" factor that may be clouding your judgement and be willing to admit "heterosexual pederasty" cannot exist - since it requires a same-sex act or desire. Then, you need to look at whether pederasty is at all notable. For instance, has it had any social, historical or legal importance? It has. Therefore pederasty, a same-sex topic has valid academic value to students of sociology, law and history. It fits within the Wikipedia LGBT Studies project. - Davodd 08:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument is only incoherent because I lack the time to spend editing replies into logical format. Here comes some arrogance on my part: you are completely wrong.  The association of a sexual practice with a community based on sexual identity is distortive to truth and confuses the term and classification of the community.  Even the Wikipedia article on GLBT refers to it as a community composed of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.  People, not sexual practices; sexual identity, not sexual practices.  The indulgences of these people is irrelevant.  Again, I state that the article on pederasty should concentrate on sexual activities.  The fact that the sexual activity in question I find disgusting, is irrelevant, likewise consensual monogamous sex between same-sex couples would be.  This association does a great disservise.  So many of us have spent much energy in really living up to 'keeping our sex lives in the bedroom' and fighting for our rights, our equality and liberties by removing sexual behaviour from the equation, and here it is now being thrust back in our faces with some legitimacy as though it is beneficial to understanding ourselves.  I can't understand that, nor can I be appreciative.Enzedbrit 09:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then hopefully the conflict of this impasse will cause both of us to challenge our biases and preconceptions. Davodd 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FLCL Nom
Could you please at least put your reasons for failing FLCL on the talk page? -Litefantastic 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. I did give the reason why I failed FLCL from WP:GA status on the discussion page immediately after I failed it. You can see the comment by going here: (Talk:FLCL). With the vast number of substantive edits in the past few days, the article clearly fails the Stable criterion. It merely needs to stew for a while in its goodness to be stable enough for re-nomination. I hope that clears things up. By the way, when you leave messages on people's talk pages, it may better serve you in the future if you do so in a polite manner (WP:Etiquette) since not every editor is forgiving of what may be considered a rude or false accusation. You may want to choose your words and tone carefully, keeping in mind that communication via talk pages puts certain impediments on communication of meaning that are not a problem in vocal/visual communication. - Davodd 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't think I was overly crass, but then again I don't think I'm really an unbiased judge of myself either, so: sorry about that. As for the article, I'm afraid stability will be a long time coming, but I'll be back when it does. Thanks, -Litefantastic 01:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gerber/Hart Library and charity
Thanks I appreciate the good will of the message that you left on my talk page, and I assume it was made in good faith. That having been said, I do take it personally when I try to engage someone in a discussion on Wikipedia, and I feel slighted or summarily dismissed, as I did and do on the library's talk page and the AfD.

The article was one of several dozen I've recently nominated for deletion, and I stand behind my reasoning for all of them. I don't think that there is any special standard of notability for any kind of subculture or sect, and obscure topics belong at community-run wikis, like Wikia, where the scope of the encyclopedia can be narrowly defined. As for your other examples of equally non-notable articles, I'm consistent - I say delete them also. There are only so many hours in a day, though, and the ones that I've nominated recently are the ones that I've happened to see. The only differentiating factor here is I was there at the time.

Again, if you write something like "as a resource of the LGBT community in the Midwest U.S., the library is a big deal," sure, I can't argue with that. What I can say is, that is irrelevant to the scope of human knowledge of an encyclopedia. While nothing that happens in Tunisia may ever be as important to a given individual as the resources of this library, a topic like Tunisia is inherently more important and has more potential to be a well-written article; a resource that other people can read and use. What could possibly be written about any encyclopedia with 14,000 books - one that is ho-hum as a library? Again, you could create articles on the first person to own 10,000 comic books or the world's largest ball of wax or the first woman to drive a Buick, and those would be of some value to a segment of the population. They would also not be encyclopedic. To establish credibility, some things that could be included in the whole of human knowledge must be selectively left out (e.g. don't create List of all lists on Wikipedia or Category:People who aren't twins), and this is an obscure enough topic to not merit inclusion.

Lastly, let me stress that it is not intended as a personal slight that I nominated your work or anyone else's for deletion. For instance, see my comment here. I've had my work deleted before, and in many of those cases, I still feel that it deserved to be as I left it. That having been said, I don't own Wikipedia, so I don't always get my way, and sometimes I feel like the community makes the wrong call. I hope that if we can disagree, it can be with charity. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

COTW
Hi, thanks for your work on COTW. Maurreen 06:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[image:smiley.png|20px]] ... and thank you! - Davodd 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on WikiProject LGBT studies
When you've got a few minutes, I was wondering if you'd take a look at my ideas regarding increasing participation in WikiProject LGBT studies? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GLBT Awareness
Davodd, I appreciate your involvement with many aspects of Wikipedia. I understand that everyone is motivated by their own internal points of view. I have an agenda, you have an agenda, all that is OK. I realize that you have a strong interest in increasing awareness of GLBT issues. I am fine with that. Heck, I hosted the local GSA party a few months ago and the entire crowd was back last weekend to celebrate the end of summer. I really do not have a problem with the topic, and given the right circumstance I might even help out (I'm just not particularly motivated to do it).

However, when there are attempts to leverage the celebrity of another person, for the purpose of increasing awareness for an unrelated issue, just because they CAN, I get a bit put out. A know lots of people want to hang on celebrities coattails for attention. Grimy little porn star wanna-be's telling fanfic for self promotion reasons, PETA advocists using shock tactics, money grubbing authors that could not get legitimate publishing houses to publish their books, so they pay for their own publishing and try to recover the costs via lawsuits. It is all about "users" trying to make a buck and get attention at someone else's expense. Just because many celebrites have to fend off continual attempts at being used, does NOT mean that Wikipedia needs to give those "users" page space (which just accomplishes the "users" intended purpose to begin with). Especially when in the scope of things those attempts are just pesky irritants in the life of the celebrity. Even if one of those attempts happens to sync in with an issue that you happen to care about, that is not a reason for exagerating the impact of minor events of attempted scandal that did not succeed. I would not want to put the GLBT folks in the same "user" category with those others, willing to damage a celebrities image or career just to further their own cause.

I just want you to know where I am coming from if we happen to not agree on other pages. Thanks for your time. Michigan_user 14:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appears that you have been browsing my user page, which is there to remind both me and others on my personal biases. As for your attempt to write me off as some form of gay activist, the facts are to the contrary. As a professional writer and editor for almost 20 years, I have faced on a daily basis the challenges of how to balance a writer's personal interests with obtaining professional distance in writing about subjects. Looking at my edit history, your presumption that I am a POV-pushing gay activist is just plain wrong. By browsing my non-Clay Aiken edit history for the past two weeks (feel free to go further),the results show my main interests here lie mainly in areas other than LGBT-related topics:
 * LGBT-related | Issues | 12 edits
 * * Categories for deletion | vote Category:LGBT rights organizations | 2
 * * Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other | Added LGBT Studies project tag | 1
 * * LGBT studies related | Various user talk page discussions | 1
 * * Gay Blue Jeans Day | content | 1
 * * Talk:Matthew Shepard | hate crime or not | 2
 * * OUTNOW (ON magazine) | content | 4
 * * Window Media | content | 1
 * Non-LGBT | Issues | 189 edits
 * * Rankin/Bass - Cleanup, poor quality of article | 3
 * * Collaboration of the week | Administrative-related | 14
 * * Article Creation and Improvement Drive | Admin/vote | 58
 * * User:Davodd | Edit/update page/talk Page | 9
 * * Indiana and related | Various| 3
 * * Law school and related | Content edits | 14
 * * Good article candidates-related | Non Clay Aiken only| 25
 * * Ottoman Empire | WP:GA Passed | 1
 * * Delhi | WP:GA Passed | 1
 * * El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda | WP:GA Passed| 1
 * * Póvoa de Varzim | WP:GA passed | 1
 * * Diego Maradona | WP:GA failed POV issues | 4
 * * 1 Ceres | Nominate for WP:GA | 1
 * * Talk:Saturn Nominate for WP:GA | 1
 * * Louvre | Nominate for WP:GA | 1
 * * Suzuki SJ | Content | 1
 * * Cleaning User edits to various articles | Cleanup/Vandlaism | 17
 * * User talk:24.60.177.155 | bogus edits to (Three's Company), (Judy Garland)-realted articles. | 12
 * * User:JudyGarlands | Bogus fancruft issues {Judy Garland)-related | 4
 * * User: 68.114.120.127 | revert vandalism to Blue balls | 1
 * * Wp-bio tags | Added to peronalist bio patk pages | 6
 * * Various article | Random vandalism reverts | 1
 * * James Daly (journalist) | 1
 * * Categories for deletion | vote Category: Human over 8 foot tall | 1
 * * 2006 in film | update | 2
 * * Steampunk | tag spam links | 1
 * * MyNetworkTV | various content-related/talk page | 10
 * * Telenovela | content-related | 4
 * * Television serial | make disabig page | 4
 * * Trio (TV network) | content | 1
 * * Talk:Pluto | Demote to Class-B quality | 2
 * * Talk:1 Ceres | Call=B, nominate WP:GA | 4
 * * Talk:History of the World Wide Web | fmt | 1
 * * Village pump (policy) | talk | 3
 * * Communities strawpoll | vote/talk | 3
 * * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay | vote | 1
 * * Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard | comment | 1
 * Conclusion
 * It is quite clear that the only real "agenda" I have in dealing with Clay Aiken is two fold:

- Davodd 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Explaining why the article does not meet the criteria for WP:GA
 * 2) Defending Wikipedia's quality from an apparent cabal of fans who are harming the quality this project.
 * I did not mean to give the impression that I thought you were just some sort of gay activist. That is why I said "I appreciate your involvement with many aspects of Wikipedia."  Really the entire GLBT thing is beside the point.  I must not have explained myself well.  I  have no objection to including critisisms in articles, if they are based on FACT.  If there was really a scandal and the celebrity was involved in it, then by all means include a mention of it in the article.  What I have an objection to is when there is no involvement, and someone is tring to invent one to gain attention for themselves and their gay porn ambitions, then I have a problem with giving them the attention and publicity that they could NOT get from mainstream news sources.  And no matter what you say, mentioning a non-existant gay scandal in a source like Wikipedia will create doubt in many folks minds, and it will do damage to careers, fair or not.  The Wikipedia policy is "Do no harm". "When in doubt err on the side of privacy".  Yet you are pushing to do the opposite. I understand that you do not want the articles controlled by fancruft (is that the word?)  but there are also other factors to consider.  Thanks.  Michigan_user 22:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm stopping by to introduce myself as well. I have been an editor on the Aiken page for years now, and have been through two edit wars during that time. I won't be participating in another, so I'll just be stopping by from time to time and maybe I'll make a comment or two. I asked you a question in the comments on that page, which are already extensive, and got no response to that particular question, so I will ask it and another here. I asked, regarding the "fan lawsuit" you alluded to, what are we to do if no media organization has done the research to find that it was merely a publicity stunt, although we as editors are aware of that fact. A second, and related question. You cite a NY Daily News article about John Paulus which you say has now been debunked--can you show me a legitimate news source for that debunking? Because I've never seen one, although I am of course aware that Paulus is a nut job. The problem with incorporating tabloid style material in Wikipedia is that these issues are not subjected to the kind of rigorous investigation that takes place in the case of real news (or should, but that's another issue). Retractions are not printed when errors are made, because they were presented as gossip and "entertainment" in the first place. No one will be coming to Wikipedia to clarify anything about these rumors in CNN or the NY Times because they were never published there to begin with. Celebrity gossip is its own universe, and it is extremely difficult to address this kind of gossip because of the constraints I describe.

ETA: Thanks to my colleagues' hard work, hopefully an edit war has been averted. -Jmh123 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I found this by accident (following links) so I guess I'll say hello too. You said "As a professional writer and editor for almost 20 years, I have faced on a daily basis the challenges of how to balance a writer's personal interests with obtaining professional distance in writing about subjects."  The biggest challenge we face editing the Clay Aiken article is attempting to keep salacious gossip from being stated as fact. Especially when we have to deal with those who delight in gossip mongering and smearing because of their own POV.  Sloppy journalism does not help. Neither does confusing gossip with real news.  As JMH said, retractions and corrections don't get reported.  I watched one edit war and got involved in the other.  It's not fun and I don't want to do it again. Sticking to facts is not always easy but it's what I do best.  - Maria202 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OUTNOW
Hello Davodd, thanks for the comment - I have usually felt a bit intimidated by the Wikipedia boldness but am trying to embrace it. I have started to add some comments on other areas of interest - in the past I did not as I felt a bit unqualified to do that. There was an AfD discussion that involved Out Now Consulting earlier this month and it was made very clear to all there who I am and my involvement with that article. The changes I made on the weekend related to a different 'Out Now' - a magazine that is published in the US and to avoid confusion I added a disambiguation link. They are nothing to do with Out Now Consulting though. I corrected their title to correctly reflect their magazine's name (as per their Media Kit) and added the disambiguation. One of my other (varied) passions is music so added an entry about the disbanding of Macquarie Trio today and added an additional citation to the Wal-Mart article regarding their new gay market steps. I will feel a bit more emboldened in relation to my other topic areas. Relating to Out Now Consulting, the page was subsequently edited by some of the contributors involved in the AfD debate with respect to corporate notability, and I last tidied up some minor text there. Thanks. Out Now 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Davodd/Archive 10


text:
User talk:Thirteen~enwiki

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Dori 03:45, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Thirteen. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Thirteen~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thirteen~enwiki


text:
User talk:JD Jacobson

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Dori 03:48, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:JD Jacobson


text:
Charles Tucker

Charles Tucker may refer to:
 * Charles Tucker III, a fictional character in Star Trek: Enterprise
 * Charles Tucker (politician) (1857–1928), Australian politician
 * Charles Tucker (British Army officer) (died 1935), British Army General
 * Charles Tucker (police officer) (died 1910), British police officer
 * Charles Tucker (test pilot) (1919–2010), test pilot employed by Northrop
 * Charles E. Tucker, Jr., retired Major General in the United States Air National Guard

title: Charles Tucker