Talk:Peter Hilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Nationality

We say that Hilton's a "British-born American mathematician". He obviously works in the US, but, just to be careful, do we know that he identifies as American? It would be somewhat unfortunate to get this wrong ;-) — Matt Crypto 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he spent the vast majority of his career in the United States. He was in Binghamton since about the 60's -- I will need to look it up to be more precise. I should also note that Peter Hilton has 349 (!) papers listed under his name at MathSciNet (certainly almost all these written in the US), making him one of the most prolific mathematicians I know of. As for how he identifies himself, I'm not sure, I need to look into that. In the meantime, if you think there is a better formulation, please go ahead. At any rate, I think this article is worth expanding -- thanks for starting it. I will try to add to it when I get a chance. Turgidson 16:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The current formulation is OK: "British-born" is safe enough, and then we describe the places and times (times would be good) he's worked overseas. But it's quite possible that someone would still identify themselves as British even though they have been working in the US for decades. Yes, darn prolific: one page gives the figure as over 500! — Matt Crypto 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! This sort of info needs to go in the article per se (the article is growing by leaps and bounds!) I will try to work on it tonight. Turgidson 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)