Talk:George Lusztig

Untitled

• Where is the his birthplace?

--Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 16:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate

Lusztig's birthdate has already been published in books. No reason for Wikipedia to censor this information on personal request. --bender235 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DOB: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year.". The subject is getting extremely annoyed at the inclusion of his private information in the article, and has requested that it be removed at least three times. Its getting to the point where he's threatening legal action. Whilst I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored, policy and good manners are quite clear on this. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. His birthdate has already been published. What harm can Wikipedia do?

By the way, we already had those "people want their article censored and threat with legal action" episodes. I personally remember those about Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, who both sued Wikipedia for having there names removed. And they lost. —bender235 (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also think the complain is bizarre considering the inclusion of his birth date in the book, but we can be considerate and only the year. Month and day don't add that much in defining the lifespan compared to the year, but the year should definitely stay. Hekerui (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOB is not a guideline, but a policy, which we really need to respect and follow.

Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

Censorship bugs me to no end, but when the subject of an article requests revisions that are in line with policy, we really need to honor their request. When they make requests that are not in line with policy, we need to respectfully explain the concern to the subject, along with links to the corresponding policy presented on Wikipedia. Then sit back and cross our fingers. Cindamuse (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd understand this if Lusztig had kept his DOB private. But instead it is published in the International Who's Who, which is on Google Books, and that means anyone who wants to can look up his DOB. Under these circumstances, it is utter nonsense to censor it on Wikipedia.

In my opinion, WP:DOB says (or should say) that Wikipedia respects people's wishes not to publish their DOB unless it has already been published elsewhere. --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be utter nonsense in both your opinion and my opinion, however, it is policy. I've experienced my own frustration with subjects of an article demanding changes. I completely understand what you are saying. Hang in there. At least you got the year in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, this may be a perfect time to ask the subject if there's anything glaringly incorrect in the article. He only spotted one thing so far, but if you like I could ask him to give it a quick review? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Invite more censorship. As an aside, the OTRS ticket above provides no information to ensure compliance with his requests. The only thing editors can ensure is that edits are supported by reliable sources. Cindamuse (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If he sues the foundation, he will ensure that his DoB is in very newspaper which reports the case. When & where was this policy agreed? Looks like it's time to review it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Kinda hilarious actually. It's unbelievable when things of this nature are widely reported in reliable sources, yet Wikipedia is censored from supplying the same information in the subject's encyclopedia entry. I think that the date of birth along with other contested information should not be included if unsupported by reliable sources. But this is beyond ridiculous. Cindamuse (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

The Wikipedia article "George Lusztig" contains a reference (#4) to a paper of Carter,R.W. in Nagoya Math. J. (2006). That article contains an error which has been corrected in a subsequent issue of the Nagoya Math.J. in the following short note written by the Editorial Committee:

(*) A note on the paper "A survey of the work of George Lusztig" by R.Carter, Nagoya Math.J. 183(2006),i-ii.

It would be very desirable when citing Carter's paper to include a reference to the correction (*). 173.76.154.248 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)] comment added by 18.41.1.185 (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 173.76.154.248 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 173.76.154.248 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)