Talk:Steven G. Krantz
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
"Known for" section is being used incorrectly
editThe list of topics under "Known for" implies he had some role in creating those subjects, which is absurd. The whole article reads a bit like a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.179.80 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Autobiographical
editIs it not WP policy to discourage autobiographical material on the grounds that it might violate neutrality? I point directly to the paragraph:
- In 1989 Krantz wrote a book review that was very critical of fractal geometry--see Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 11, no. 4, December, 1989, pp. 12–16. Krantz notes that the Mandelbrot set was not invented by Mandelbrot but rather by Brooks and Matelski. The famous pictures of fractals were conceived and created by John Hubbard, not by Mandelbrot. Finally, the noted ideas about the length of the coastline of England were originally conceived by Lewis Fry Richardson in the 1940s. Krantz also wrote a book review that was critical of Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science. Wolfram claims that his ideas are so important that they will imminently be taught in grade schools. This is not true. His ideas are so vague and inchoate that nobody can evaluate their true merit.
I invoke WP:NPOV on this. --Matt Westwood 08:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hard to tell from your negatives which way you are arguing? I would say something that can be verified from a cited source which states what actually happened: X was critical of Y <ref>Cite blah</ref> would be much better than the litany of personal details like how many people attended his birthday party, which is totally uncited. Needs to be reworked into Wikipedia style, although now is fairly close. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Sgkrantz would do well to wait for the posteriority to write e.g. about his "awards", see this edit. I'm going to revert it because it's just plain ridiculous. Erdös number of 1, while cool, is not an "award". Wikipedia is not your CV, see WP:NOTCV. --Sigmundur (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)