Talk:Shmuel Weinberger

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

When I found it, the page was brief to the point of perhaps not establishing notability. So I took the research mathematician's approach to establishing notability of other research mathematicians: I looked for papers published in the Annals of Math. and in Inventiones Math. As a good rule of thumb, any mathematician who has published even one paper in either of these two journals is first rate (I certainly do not claim the converse), and someone who has published more than one or two Annals/Inventiones papers is a star. Prof. Weinberger is clearly a star. Plclark (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree :) Weinberger happens to be coauthor of mine. A suggestion for the future: you could add journal of the american mathematical society to your list of first rate journals. By now it has certainly passed inventiones, some think even the annals. Katzmik (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion JAMS is still number three, whereas I personally like Inventiones best of all (except for the price). But these are just matters of taste: all are excellent journals. JAMS is certainly strong enough to establish notability as well -- had Weinberger had fewer Annals papers, I might have gone to JAMS next. By the way, could you put the additional publications in proper alphabetical order and in the same format as the others (or change the format of the others; I don't care whether first names are given in full or not, but whatever is done should be done uniformly). Plclark (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In ISI Thompson impact factor ratings, JAMS has consistently beat Inventiones for a number of years already. I think the pricing practices at Inventiones are having their effect. I personally would not submit a paper there and large numbers of people feel the same way. Today even Duke ranks higher than Inventiones. Katzmik (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, no professional mathematicians take impact factor ratings seriously. A journal is better or worse because people think it is better or worse and submit better/worse papers there, not because of any statistical measures: who ever said that the worth of a paper is determined by the number of citations? I don't want to say more here, because it has nothing to do with Prof. Weinberger and it is purely a matter of opinion, but in my opinion it is unquestionable that Inventiones is better than Duke. Plclark (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with what you write. On the other hand, impact factor is affecting people's judgment of the standing of the individual journals. I do think some professional mathematicians take the impact factor seriously, inspite of all its shortcomings. Katzmik (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invited lectures[edit]

The list of invited lectures appears to be copied from his CV. Presently, most (all?) of them do not have articles on Wikipedia. How notable are they? My guess is that an article on Hardy Lecture may be worthwhile to have, which can then be linked. If the lecture series itself is not notable, I don't think that it should be included here. Was the AMS "invited lecture" one of the named "Special Lectures" (like Gibbs Lecture or Colloquium Lectures — it wasn't one of them, but there are many others) or, perhaps, an "Invited Address"? I can't seem to find a reference to it either on the AMS website or via google. Special session talks aren't all that exciting… Arcfrk (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]