Talk:Algebra

@Bjørn Leon Søren Riedel Thank you for your contribution, but I've undone your edit for two reasons. One is that this is word-for-word from the source. Even if the source is public domain, you should still either summarize what it says in your own words, or present it as a direct quote with attribution. The other problem is that claims of something being "the first" or "the earliest" are hard to be sure of and often turn out to be incorrect. I note that Christies, when they sold a copy of this book, said "is often regarded as the first printed book on algebra", which is a much more justifiable statement than unequivocally calling it "the earliest". RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Another potential problem is that the source for this claim is almost 150 years old. Maybe this view was accepted back then but contemporary scholarship presents a very different picture. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate the critique. Bjørn Leon Søren Riedel (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted two recent changes ( and ) to the subsection "Polynomials" since it is not clear that they are improvements. They remove references for the factorization of polynomials and other terminology without an explanation while adding unsourced material. It's not clear why the explanation of factorization was changed, but the new explanation is more difficult to follow for someone who does not already have a good understanding of it. Maybe some of the changes, like mentioning algorithms, can be restored but we would have to figure out how to source them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To me, the removal of factorization's definition in the second given edit tells something missing background: what is the purpose of telling the readers the history of how to find the zeroes of a second-degree polynomial, and even explaining the high degrees of a polynomial greater than two? And my impression here, I don't think there are some kind of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK phrases. Speaking of the factorization's definition, the phrase feels fine, even though it is recursive, but the missing part is have this article shows the factor's meaning? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think its a good idea to better clarify the purpose of factorization. I added a short clarification at the beginning of the paragraph but I'm also open to other ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To my eye, the edits in question made the text more difficult than is desirable for a section called "Polynomials" early in an article called "Algebra". That portion of the article is explicitly about elementary algebra, and should be pitched accordingly. It's true that we're not trying to offer a whole course on the subject here, but there is such a thing as going too far and producing a text that is opaque to most of its audience. There were also phrasing issues, e.g., similar—but much more complicate—formulas are given by the cubic and quartic formulas. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

With no desire to get into an edit war on the Featured Article, the article currently mentions "the so-called Abel–Ruffini theorem." I edited this to "the Abel-Ruffini theorem". I see no reason to include "so-called"; the word is completely superfluous here as it is plain from the sentence what the theorem is called, but moreover including it is misleading: it implies the name is somehow inaccurate or not called what it appears to be. User:Remsense, can you clarify why you think the word should be included here? Perhaps others can chime in with their opinions on this sentence. Suriname0 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, I see no reason to remove it. I think my edit summary communicated the core of my point: while so-called is listed as a word to watch for the reasons you state, there is simply nothing problematic about its usage in this context. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson, if I may: biased against who, exactly? I feel our particularly sensitive spin detectors as editors can sometimes indicate problems where there are none. I get the "better safe than sorry" approach to an extent, but I really think one should at least be able to concretely articulate what exactly the biased connotation could be before they edit to avoid it.Remsense ‥ 论 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• As used it reads like biased or weasel wording to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the Word to Watch page describes the issue quite clearly: "So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart." No reason to include the word, and it might mislead, so we should remove it. Suriname0 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the same page: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. [...] The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be.

I'm only putting a fine point on this here because I really don't think it can mislead in context. No one here has been misled to my knowledge. If we accept the above lemma at face value, e.g. that there can be situations where so-called is acceptable on-wiki, then we have to start making finer discernments based on context. In many other situations, its use would clearly be inappropriate. I just haven't seen it articulated yet why it should be unacceptable here, or what specifically its use could imply. Again, I appreciate "better safe than sorry" to an extent, but this instance is beyond that extent for me right now. Remsense ‥ 论 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

My apologies if it seemed like I was being cagey or I otherwise wasn't clear: I was mislead in this specific context. That's why I made the edit! My initial reading of the sentence implied that the theorem was misleadingly or contentiously named, a common reality for math theorems e.g. Rolle's theorem. Suriname0 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, see! I like wrangling with my reasoning for things, and I appreciate when someone tells me some of my assumptions were wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 21:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 50 items in the see-also section. Does anyone oppose a major trim? I'll go ahead and delete 40 or so of them, most of them don't seem relavent enough to the body to be kept. If so, feel free to revert me or re-add any if you disagree with what I remove. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Daughter of Algebria ~2026-67780-8 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A web search for that phrase turns up a BBC television special about Maryam Mirzakhani. Mirzakhani did great work, but it's not necessarily closer to "algebra" per se than to other branches of mathematics, and I don't think is particularly noteworthy to mention in an article of such broad scope. Or did you have some other person in mind? –jacobolus (t) 23:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)