Talk:Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Arthur Rubin, has edited Wikipedia as
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Real editor

It's nice for Wikipedia to have accomplished editors such as Mr. Rubin! Shawnc 09:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)~

  • STOP attempting to change the facts regarding NCAHF and Stephen Barrett. I will report you for violations and see that your bias is exposed in every way possible. You will not be able to censor me without a fight I assure you. NCAHF has no legal corporate status and you are trying to bury that fact with bullying and censorship. STOP IT NOW! YOU may think you know more than the seven justices of the California Supreme Court but that is only a delusion. Leave my factual posts alone.

Ilena Rosenthal Ilena 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This comment in the bio could use a citation: "Rubin went directly from high school to graduate school at Caltech, enrolling simultaneously as an undergraduate."

That alone is not very notable. After all, undergrads can take graduate courses. What would be better would be a citation that verified that Rubin was accepted into a graduate maths program straight out of high school. The way it is worded now is ambiguous, unsourced and non-notable. At minimum a citation would help. DrL 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, you're right. Could matching my High School's web site for the graduation date against the math geneology site help? I can't think of a secondary source for the combination, at the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, I was accepted as both an undergraduate and a graduate student (or, to be precise, a dual graduate/undergraduate student); the idea was that I was to get separate BS and PhD degrees in 6 years. However, I failed enough undergraduate courses that meeting the undergraduate requirements was problamatical.... But there would probably be no WP:RS, as admission records are not public records. Still, there is unlikely to be a secondary source, and, as noted before, a primary sources would not be easily obtained.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PROFTEST

This whole Erdős number business seems silly. Do people take this seriously? It seems that Erdős wrote around 1500 mathematical papers and most were co-authored. An Erdős number of 2 sold for $127.40 on eBay. Rubin was second author on his paper with Erdős so it’s hard to tell what his role was. Did Rubin himself ever author any significant work? It would be great if someone could dig up some sources to get this bio on track. As it stands now, this article does not seem to meet the WP:PROFTEST. DrL 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it meets WP:PROFTEST. The first paragraph seems to provide adequate notability, noting I'm one of five 4-time Putnam exam "winners". If you don't like it, suggest an AfD. (And, BTW, the Putnam exam site provides a secondary source that I was an undergraduate, as it's only open to undergraduates. My years as a graduate student have a secondary source at the math geneology web site — and this comment falls under one of the execeptions to WP:AUTO, that of correcting errors.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't questioning the fact that you were an undergrad (obviously you were), but that you were admitted to a graduate program straight out of high school. That would need a source. Hence my edits to the article. The math geneology website is openly editable and contains at least one fictitious entry, so I wouldn't recommend flogging that as a credential. DrL 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
... and the Erdős number sale never went through.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It actually did, according to the CHE: "Your Last, Best Chance to Improve Your Erdős Number," by Richard Monastersky. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 August 2004, page A16. You might be referring to an earlier auction. DrL 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not a deletionist. I am merely suggesting improving the article by including some notable professional works. I agree with you that it doesn't meet WP:PROFTEST. Note that the Lowell prize is not a professional prize, but a student prize and so of limited value and notability. The article may give an inaccurate impression of constructive professional activity where little or none exists. If there are any relevant publications, of any importance at all, it would really help the article to add them. DrL 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Has he contributed anything noteworthy to mathematics? Any noteworthy papers as a mathematician? What does he do today, to begin with? Is he a professor of mathematics at a university? That is, while his achievement in winning the Putnams is somewhat interesting, is he noteworthy for anything else? 66.108.106.230 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
I don't claim to meet WP:PROF, as I'm presently working in industry, rather than as an academic. One could argue that having an Erdos number of 1 might, in itself, meet WP:PROF. As for my most notable results — where could we find a WP:RS as to what was a notable result? I feel that some of the results in joint papers with my late mother were notable in the field of statements of set theory related to the Axiom of choice, but we didn't spend much time allocating credit as to who wrote what.
It's also been suggested that I should post my CV and publication list here and let others determine what is notable. I'm not sure that's in keeping with WP:AUTO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 15:35, September 23, 2006 (UTC) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubins actually contributes to wikipedia as an admin

Thats quite cool. although i dont vloody get why he doesnt expand this, like add a picture, creat couple of sub headings, you know get the ball rolling.--Greg.loutsenko 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AUTO. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's all about me.

Other facts that might be worthy of inclusion in the article, if references can be found. To avoid even the appearance of WP:AUTO, I'm only going to correct information in the article itself, but concensus seems to be I can add information here and let others decide whether it's notable and adequately sourced. (I added my year of birth at the request of the creator of the article, confirming I didn't mind its appearance. I think he/she had the information.)

  1. U.S. Patent 7,089,452 
  2. Third place tie in the first USA Mathematical Olympiad (1972). Greitzer, S (March 1973). "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad". The American Mathematical Monthly 80 (3): pp. 276-281. Mathematical Association of America. 
  3. Listed in 2007 Marquis Who's Who in America (even if the majority of my correspondance with them is their attempts to get me to buy a copy of the book.)
  4. Ran for California State Assembly (55th district) on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1982? (I think it was '82. It could have been '84. I'm sure it was the 55th district.)

I'm sure point 1 is listable, and point 3 can be referenced when the book is published. Point 4 can probably be referenced from the California Secretary of State's records, although records that old may not be online. If I find a cite for point 2, I'll add it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Added citation for point 2 above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me again

I've uploaded a picture at Image:Arthur_Rubin_self.jpg. Please edit it (or a low-resolution image) into the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Done ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any non-trivial published work about this author?

WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple [more than one], non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other.

Non-trivial means I think more than just a mention in the listing or a table (wiki is not a directory). Also, how does a published paper or patent qualifies an author for notability? It qualifies the subject of that paper/patent.

And yes, I would not even bother writing this if you did not do WP:OR when qualifying bios (with multiple published non-trivial works in multiple journals and with multiple authors) as no sense theory. Just exposing bias in your edits. Lakinekaki 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an article in Time on me, probably in 1966 or 1967. But I'm not sure I could find it again; my mother's "brag" file disappeared in one of our moves. However, the articles about the first USA Mathematical Olympiad (where I'm one of eight), and the Putnam exam (one of five or six) may qualify. As for your alleged multiple authors, I don't feel that multiple articles in conspiracy theory journals by conspiracy theorists about conspiracy theorists theorists, or intelligent desgin journals by intelligent design proponents about intelligent design proponents necessarily qualify as notable publications .— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You should cite the Time article then, and just put [reference needed] tag as someone will find it eventually (maybe in Time archives[1]). That makes a huge difference, in my opinion, for this article. As far as your blurb about conspiracies is concerned: Cybernetics and Systems, Kybernetes , Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, Complexity[2], etc. As you say, they are all together in this. Lakinekaki 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried to find article in the Time archive but failed. Maybe you could do the search, as you may remember some keywords used in it. Lakinekaki 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really not notable personality

He really is not notable personality. He looks as a self-made "expert of everything". I would like to see his scientific papers on the web, especially from the last 20 years period. The article includes unsourced materials and should be nominated for deletion asap.

  • In this controversial context his role of administrator has to be verified.
  • On the other hand I see too much Rubin's personal explanations on this page - who is

the real author/editor of such short biography?

--Fedelis 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you should be able to determine, my only edit to the article was in adding my year of birth, as WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays suggests that non-public figures should be able to determine whether information which could lead to identity theft is to be included in the article. I have commented on this talk page, and on the AfD, possibly more than I should have, but I have not edited the article, nor suggested edits except on this talk page and the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with Fedelis. This article appears to be nothing more than shameless self promotion and his role as an administrator here should be carefully reviewed. An American mathematician with a Ph.D. who ranked in the "five top" undergraduates several times in a series of competitions is certainly not noteworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Knowledge Enabler 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Being a 4-time Putnam Fellow is clearly notable, there being 7 (according to the current article) among all math undergraduates in the US and Canada in the past 80 years, which seems an approriate "universe" for the selection. I had nothing to do with its creation and little to do with its editing. On the other hand Fedelis has one edit (here) and Knowledge Enabler has 2 here Talk:Arthur Rubin‎, and 4 mainspace edits, all reverted in part by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT clear that being a 4-time Putnam Fellow is notable in the specific wikipedic sense: exactly this issue is being debated on the page of another 4-time Fellow, Gabriel Carroll. Moreover, not every four-time fellow has a wikipedia page. (However, one should not read too much into who's got a wikipedia page since one of the pageless four time winners, Bjorn Poonen, is a leading mathematician by anyone's standards.) Let us remember that the Putnam Exam is a contest for young students and not for adults. Putnam results are obviously of some interest, as evidenced by the fact that we remember and keep track of who won the exam more than 60 years ago, but there is no clear precedent that any level of success in contests at the high school and college level is wikipedia-worthy. If such pages exist only to restate contest information that is (or should be) available elsewhere, there is little value added. In my opinion, the present page falls under this category: while it is interesting to know a bit about everyone (and I wonder whether the idea of deleting insufficiently notable people will persist on wikipedia), there is nothing in the article that really justifies its existence. It certainly raises the suspicion that it would not exist without Dr. Rubin's wikipedic involvement, both in general and specific to his own page. In particular I think that writing in directly to suggest further information about oneself to be included in the article and to weigh in on one's own notability is...well, unethical is too strong (there is no harm being done here) but it is a bit unseemly, no? Plclark 09:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Plclark

Not notable is right. Self-aggrandizing, yes. Jeeny (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey folks, feel free to nominate this article for deletion. Since it already survived one deletion attempt, putting {{prod}} on it is the wrong way to go, so don't try that. Feel free to review Arthur's editor and admin role, but note that that has nothing to do with this article and this is the wrong place to discuss that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would you view it as "Self-aggrandizing"? As far as i can tell the subject of the article has not made significant edits and the creator of the article created several articles, or was editing other articles for Putnam scholars at the same time. Thus, the original motive for creating this article appears to be to document Putnum scholars, NOT for vanity reasons. David D. (Talk) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)