Talk:Cantor's first set theory article: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:28, 29 April 2016

Revision as of 20:15, 29 April 2016

Line 388:

The ref at the end of the first paragraph is also a candidate for removal since it doesn't seem controversial. There's one ref in the 3rd paragraph. I'm leaning towards keeping it since it's a bit surprising, not commonly known, and did not appear in the literature until 1976. Anyone have thoughts about these two refs or about removing other refs or adding refs in the lead? Thanks, --[[User:RJGray|RJGray]] ([[User talk:RJGray|talk]]) 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

:My general feeling is that we need references in the lead either for direct quotes or when the lead says something that is not repeated in more depth later. So for instance the quote "Cantor's revolutionary discovery" in the lead needs a reference, but the last sentence of the first paragraph (the claim about what the title refers to) doesn't, because it is expanded in more detail in the "influence of Weierstrass and Kronecker" section. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)