Talk:Polycon

Dubious template

David Eppstein added a template to the claim that appears in the article, that David Hirsch was the first to introduce the sphericon. Epstein claimed that Hirsch had been preceded by Collin Roberts and Alan Boeding. This is baseless for the following reasons:

• As can be seen in Hirsch's patent documents he filed the patent in 1980. Colin Roberts published his discovery in an article by Ian Stewart 19 years later .

• The device (or sculpture) created by Alan Boeding does not seem to be a sphericon at all. The sphericon is a geometric shape. It is a solid made of two halves of a bi-cone. In the source associated with Boeding's work he describes it as: "crosses from my religious faith and circles from my Boy Scout background when we would sing vespers around the campfire. We would make circles that would not close so there would be a place for someone new" What does that description have to do with the sphericon?

• Reading the source relating to Boeding's work reveals that Boeding himself did not claim to have published it in 1979. He says that he conceived it and created a prototype at that time. He himself notes that he started performing with it only two years later.

• The article was written by Boeding himself. Isn't there a need for an " in-depth published source independent from the inventor"?Thinkingarena (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

First to publish is a legal fiction that has nothing to do with intellectual honesty and the assignment of proper credit in Wikipedia articles. So your argument about Roberts is specious and disingenuous. As for Boeding: it is a rolling device made from two semicircular arcs (constructed of metal, larger than a person, so that a dancer can stand within it and roll it) that, as far as its rolling motion is concerned, is identical to the sphericon. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable YouTube video?

David Eppstein claimed that the YouTube videos added to the article are unreliable. Source number 4 is a film accepted and screened in the 2019 Bridges Conference Film Festival.Thinkingarena (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been wondering about a related question. Thinkingarena, all your contributions have been related to David Hirsch and his work. Wikipedia policy requires that contributors declare any conflict of interest they might have. You have not made any such declaration. But the linked video is by someone going by the YouTube username thinkingarena and claiming to be Hirsch himself (which makes it, again, primary and therefore cannot contribute to notability). Do you have a personal, business, family, or other connection to Hirsch, or other conflict of interest related to this subject? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My relationship with David Hirsch does not affect the objectivity of my writing. I make sure to base everything I write on established facts. What is written should be judged by its content and sources. David Eppstein I do not understand why you do not refer to the fact that the polycon topic has been recognized and appreciated by four independent reputable bodies - The Journal of Mathematics and Arts, The Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Research, the Bridges Conference Film Festival and the Bridges Conference Art Gallery. I also do not understand why you do not address the facts in my responses on the talk page. It seems to me that in my writing I have contributed to a new and interesting topic in geometry and I hope that the Wikipedia community will enable me to continue to do so.Thinkingarena (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You are conspicuously avoiding answering the question about a COI. Not only do you appear to be in violation of our policies on conflict of interest, you also appear to be in violation of our policy on user names, which forbids company names as user names. And I do question the objectivity of edits that create an article that (like this one does) claims sole credit for invention of the sphericon to Hirsch without mentioning the earlier work on the same shape and its rolling properties by Colin Roberts and Alan Boeding. As for why primary sources by a single author in multiple publication venues do not count as independent reliable secondary sources: read WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, about three years ago, I was associated with a small company whose name was the same as my username. I was not aware of the existence of restrictions in this regard. In any case, the company was founded years after the username was created, and two years ago its name was changed to PYRAMiDAblocks. During the short time it operated it dealt with issues which have nothing to do with the subjects I write about in Wikipedia. The patent named "A device for generating a meander motion" in which a solid known today as sphericon is described in detail, is the first publication ever on that subject. This is a fact not an opinion. As mentioned, I take great care to adhere to the facts. Unfortunately, instead of addressing the factual matters mentioned on the talk page, you choose to attack me personally. I hope that other members of the community will relate to this issue differently.Thinkingarena (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References