Talk:Hong Wang

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 17:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Hong Wang in 2024

• ... that a recent paper by Hong Wang (pictured) claims to have solved the three-dimensional Kakeya conjecture, described as “one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory”?

• Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3300958/chinese-maths-star-wang-hong-solves-infamous-geometry-problem?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article

• • ALT1: ... that Hong Wang's (pictured) latest paper claims to have resolved the Kakeya conjecture in three dimensions, which has been referred to as “one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory”?Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3300958/chinese-maths-star-wang-hong-solves-infamous-geometry-problem?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article
  • Reviewed:

Created by EleniXDD (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

EleniXDD※Talk 03:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC).

• I just learnt that this may be too early. Are there any methods for me to undo this nomination? ThanksEleniXDD※Talk 05:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@EleniXDD: You are free to withdraw a nomination at any point; ALT0 could probably be solved by attributing, such as ALT0a: ... that a recent paper by Hong Wang claims to have solved a conjecture subsequently described as "one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory"? You'll need to add Terence Tao's quote to the article though. Let me know what you want to do; I may adopt this.--Launchballer 12:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer:Thanks so much for the thoughtful solution! The alternative approach sounds perfect—I'll definitely go with that. EleniXDD※Talk 13:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• @EleniXDD: I'm happy to review this. Are you still thinking of withdrawing the nom? Tenpop421 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tenpop421:No, I have decided not to withdraw and have made the changes as suggested by Launchballer. EleniXDD※Talk 01:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• This article is new enough, long-enough, well-sourced, and presentable. It is BLP compliant and has no copyvio problems. The image a lot, which I like a lot, is free and legible at low resolution. As it stands, however, both hooks are a little misleading. Tao is describing the general Kakeya conjecture as "one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory", not the special case that Wang has resolved. @EleniXDD: What do you think of:

ALT2: ... that Hong Wang's (pictured) latest paper claims to have resolved the Kakeya conjecture in three dimensions, a special case of what has been described as "one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory"?

ALT3: ... that Hong Wang's (pictured) latest paper claims to have resolved the Kakeya conjecture, described as "one of the most sought-after open problems in geometric measure theory", in three dimensions?

Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tenpop421: Thanks for your effort, the modified hooks look amazing! Should I place them in the upper part, or does leaving them here in the comment section have the same effect? Regards, EleniXDD※Talk 15:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@EleniXDD: No need, but I'll strike through the hooks at the top. Good to go with AL2 or ALT3. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your help EleniXDD※Talk 15:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

A media article and a social media post about a preprint aren't enough for Wikivoice

@EleniXDD: Regarding this revert and stating that Wang has proved the conjecture in Wikivoice, the SCMP article qualifies the proof as a preprint paper that has not undergone peer review on the open-access repository arXiv. A news article mentioning that Terry Tao called it a proof in social media doesn't mean that the mathematical community has accepted the proof yet.

Major scientific claims generally require very strong sourcing (WP:RS gives published academic articles as an example and preprints as a non-example). There are many claimed proofs with social media and press attention that turned out to be wrong or needed serious revisions after peer review.

There was an extremely similar situation in 2022 where a discussion at WikiProject Mathematics and a discussion at the article talk page had consensus in this direction. Wait until the paper is published. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed explanation! Do you mean this can only be added after actual publication? Before then, any citation on reliable sources are not solid enough EleniXDD※Talk 05:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

For Wikivoice, essentially yes. It could be attributed in other ways, for example as a claimed proof as it is now. It's probably not worthy for the lead though, unless there really is significantly more attention (such as the case with Shinichi Mochizuki and the abc conjecture). — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I have learnt a lot, and more about Wikivoice. EleniXDD※Talk 15:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference, keep in mind that media outlets such as SCMP, NYT, Guardian, etc... are not reliable sources on academics/academia. They almost never are. The only reliable sources on such matters are from related parties and institutions such as relevant journals and universities. FunctionalPhil (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. EleniXDD※Talk 15:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, this claim simply should not be made at all. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: Just to be specific, the previous discussion was talking about the statement 'the problem is solved and proved', which is too early for this stage. The claimed proof should still be in the career section, and this has reached consensus if you check the article's revision history. EleniXDD※Talk 01:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it is a preprint and thus not a reliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Being a preprint, it is regarded as a 'claimed proof' rather than a 'proof'. Thus, apart from the preprint itself, there are other reliable sources supporting its existence. The claim is not proved to be 'solved' yet, but it exists and is notable. So removing the claimed proof from the career section and saying this is 'per talk page' is a misunderstanding - by previous talk page discussion, we reach the consensus that its attributed as a claimed proof as it is now, and the claimed proof is not yet a solved 'proof'. Yes, it's still not worthy for lead, but should be included in the career section. (e.g.this edit moving it to career section) EleniXDD※Talk 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What reliable source for mathematics reports on this? Wikipedia isn't supposed to report on breaking ideas and novel theories nor should we report on some unapproved preprint. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

just to name a few, the current citation are from South China Morning Post, Dainik Jagran. (there are more but it will be overcitation) I hope you understand that the previous discussion is about adding 'claimed'/'proposed' to the proof, cause it has not yet gone through peer review...not removing the entire claimed proof...Like it's basically they explain to me that claimed proof doesn't equal to an accepted proof in academia (even if non-academia reliable source says 'it has solved') and should regard the proof as 'claimed proof' for now, rather than removing the notable claimed proof. EleniXDD※Talk 07:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

None of those are reliable in context of novel mathematical claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

so it is regarded as a 'claimed proof' instead of a 'proof' to the problem EleniXDD※Talk 08:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do we present a subject's unsubstantiated claims that have yet to be reviewed? We're an encyclopaedia Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The claimed proof itself is being considered a breakthrough in geometric measure theory by multiple reliable sources - it's just the current sources are not enough to say it's proved yet EleniXDD※Talk 09:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable for mathematical claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This also has quanta and the institute (nyu) press releases. Indeed very similar to the 2022 case MarkH21 suggested above, so I agreed on taking the previous approach some while ago(naming it as preprint and attributing it as claimed proof, which is the previous discussion consensus. I hope you get it? There was never a suggestion of 'removal', and so the removal is not and should not have the reason like 'per talk page' ) EleniXDD※Talk 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

plus this session is considered well-soured and previously passed the dyk coloumn. If you have time, I hope you can reread the previous discussion, where MarkH21 suggested It could be attributed in other ways, for example as a claimed proof as it is now. And those relevant edits that initiate this previous discussion, which is adding 'claimed' to the 'proof' ('claimed proof'), instead of removing it from the career session. So if you think that removing the claimed proof from career session is per talk page, it's definitely a misunderstanding. EleniXDD※Talk 08:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just returning to this, I do think it's okay to leave the claimed proof in the article. The cited sources are not reliable for mathematical claims, but they are being used for a non-mathematical claim here: they are secondary references for the statement that her preprint claims to prove the conjecture.

With the current wording, this inclusion question is more about due weight than reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

score of 653 in the Gaokao.

Could we add some information about what percentile this is? I can't find anything that shows her score, and the percentile ranking. It also seems that the scoring system may differ by province Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 11:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to see this. Is this just a random fact, or is this conveying that the score was surprisingly high, surprisingly low? ~2026-30366-97 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Current person template

@Cfls Hi, why did you remove template:Current person by this edit? Thanks, Rais-Ali Delvari (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)