Talk:Jim Propp
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
edituser:Dream Guy has TWICE removed the part about the "self-referential aptitude test. I don't think that's non-notable trivia. The fact that Albert Einstein wrote frivolous rhyming couplets may be non-notable trivia, but if a person is notable for being a poet writes frivolous rhyming couplets in addition to more substantial poetry for which he is notable, that's not necessarily non-notable trivia. Similarly the logic of self-reference is within a mathematician's professional competence. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing could be more ludicrous than suggesting the subject of this article is in any relevant way like Albert Einstein.Daqu (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Untitled
edit- Well then please provide a reliable source that says it's notable part of this guy's life instead of just ridiculous personal trivia. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I think some people just don't get Wikipedia
editWikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website or fan listing for some guy. You can't just toss random details about someone's life here and expect anyone to care. On top of that, we now have someone repeatedly trying to use NPL membership lists and newsletters as if they were reliable sources for personal anecdotes and wild trivia. This site is for notable information about important people to the real world, not to people in a club where paying $18 or whatever a year makes you think you are special. If you want to create a NPLpedia, by all means create your own site and do so, but that stuff doesn't belong here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody's claiming he's notable because of his membership in that club. Rather the claim is that his membership in that club is a notable fact about an otherwise notable person. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- What Dream Guy said: As it currently reads, this article belies unbelievable egotism and lack of comprehension of what Wikipedia is.Daqu (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Jim Propp here, weighing in on this entry. I believe it must have been created by a well-meaning former student of mine at the University of Wisconsin (not sure which). I don't think it's my place to make changes on anything other than factual matters, but I will say that if I were writing a blurb about myself and trying to objectively assess which of my efforts have had the greatest impact on the field of mathematics, it would look very different. I encourage the guardians of Wikipedia's reputation to remove anything that (based on quasi-objective measurements like citation-counts) seems to be unimportant. As for the reference to the SRAT, I suspect it should stay, since no matter what I achieve in mathematics research, the SRAT is likely to be the thing I am most widely known for in the world at large. Everymonkey —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I consider the NPL newsletter to be a reliable source about routine, noncontroversial matters about its membership. I believe this is similar to the policy about considering personal web sites of notable individuals to be reliable sources for similar information. I am not weighing in on the question of whether the information is encyclopedic, only that it is well-sourced. Matchups 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)