Talk:Norbert Wiener

message: Most of the article uses "Wiener", but the anecdote section uses "Weiner" when spelling Norbert's name. Which one is correct?
This inconsistency should be either be fixed or explicitly addressed in the text. --Fredrik Orderud 22:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "norbert wiener" - 82,200 google entries, "norbert weiner" - 7,450 google entries. somebody want to clean up the anecdotes? --Gzuckier 03:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! All ocurences of "Weiner" are now replaced with "Wiener". --Fredrik Orderud 08:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiener or Weiner? 

message: Although this is not a comical anecdote, the story nevertheless deserves telling in this space. I heard this story while I was a student at MIT. LoopTel 21:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdote #5 

message: Anecdotes section lists Norbert's height as 5' even, but I think he was 5'6" which is what I read in Dark Hero of the Information Age, a recently published biography of Wiener. He didn't look quite short enough to be 5' in the photographs, unless everyone was tiny back then.
:The book lists his height as being 5' even as well. I cannot remember the page number now, but I am certain. --A. Belani, 2005-11-15
I saw Norbert Wiener numerous times in 1960 and he appeared very short to me. Since I'm only 5' 7", I would think he was about 5' 0", not 5' 6". --Rjswaney 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: From these sites
*http://www.topedge.com/home/licinfor/stefan.html
*http://www.ici.ro/romania/en/stiinta/odobleja.html 
Our mentor - the father of cybernetics
 
"Stefan Odobleja could be considered not only a Socrate of our times, but also a second Columb, because he had the same destiny: to discover the America of science and at the end this America got another name, not his."
(I.C.Dragan)
________________________________________
  
Stefan Odobleja, the creator of psychocybernetics and the father of generalised cybernetics was born on the 13'th of october 1902 in the house of some poor and illiterate peasants from Izvorul Anestilor - Mehedinti.
He went to the high school in Drobeta Turnu Severin and to the college in Bucharest. He became a military doctor. His most important creation "The consonantist psychology" was presented in Psychological Abstracts (1941) but it didn't receive the deserved echo. The cybernetic model, begining from obsevations, intuition and rationality, created by Odobleja in 1938-1939, but used (as we know) ten years later, in the american literature and then in the european one, was used and applied in many scientific fields. Begining with 1972, when he read Norbert Wiener's autobiography, Stefan Odobleja devoted his time to prove that the origin of cybernetics is in psychology. He published a special creation named "The consonantist psychology and cybernetics". He died on the 4'th of september 1978 in misery. His work was better appreciated after his death - in 1982 began the establishment of Stefan Odobleja General Cybernetics Academy and the participants (from Romania and from foreign countries) decided to establish such an Academy in Switzerland too. In all his work, Odobleja tried to answer the questions based on old enigmas. His true value was discussed and recognised all over the world with appreciations like: "You have a golden man, he deserves a golden statue". --172.193.130.148 2006-01-04 22:51
:Wiener personally had worked on cybernetics in more influential and diverse fields than Odobleja. He firmly established the discipline of cybernetics. It is also known from the book Dark Hero of the Information Age that Wiener himself painfully coined the magical word 'cybernetics'. The Wikipedia article on cybernetics does give claim to Odobleja as being one of the precursors of cybernetics. I believe any additional credit you wish to provide to Odobleja should be in that article. --ABelani 2006-01-05 03:33 UTC
I do not agree. It's like saying that Traian Vuia's FIRST autonomous flight was not actually fair because his wheel was broken and therefore it isn't a "proper" flight (and this has been said in the US, so that the Wright brothers remained in hold of their title, which is false)
Who was first? Odobleja or Wiener? You (and that article) claim that Odobleja is precursor, so you admit he was the first, but you skillfully avoid the truth. That's the story of romanians, and the story of the whole world. Whenever a Romanian did something special he was bashed in the head by the Americans, the French, and any other nation that felt that since they were western they have the right to be the first even when they're not. Darn arrogance.
83.103.179.12 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Odobleja's work was a precursor to cybernetics, then it was, by definition, not cybernetics. If you are concerned with Odobleja's legacy on wikipedia you can find another reference regarding his life and work, so the information on that english wikipedia page does not stem from a singular and unverifiable source.68.34.210.83 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Who really invented cybernetics - Odobleja or Wiener?

message: Finding the article through a general Wikipedia search, I was puzzled by the introductory sentence  "Norbert Wiener was the first child of Leo Wiener, a Polish-Jewish immigrant."  Immigrant to where?  Great Britain, France, Australia, Israel, Kongo?  Readers being aware that the article was written as part of the Missouri project, would presumably (correctly??) guess Missouri, but I would think most readers of the article are not in this category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.215.149 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "immigrant" 

message: Unless I've missed it, the article doesn't say why he died, or explain why he was in Stockholm. I'd posit that a brief mention of this is a necessity for any biographical article. Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, this bio has a bunch more biographical info - is it a reliable source? Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: * In this edit test was copy/pasted here from the Wiener equation, Wiener filter, Wiener process, Wiener's tauberian theorem, Paley–Wiener theorem, Wiener–Khinchin theorem, and abstract Wiener space articles. 
-- Mdd (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: I see that this issue has already been raised before but I thought I'd raise it again.
I would like to appeal to the authors of the article to at least mention that others consider Stefan Odobleja as the founder of cybernetics. It won't make Norbert Wiener look smaller.
Regards,
Dianasisu (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source saying Odobleja was the founder or co-founder. --NeilN talk to me 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please at least mention Stefan Odobleja 

message: Biographical profile of Wiener by Segal: http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/nwiener.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.243.88 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segal profile 

message: This is a very minor point, but should Wiener really be listed under the Harvard faculty category? He was a lecturer there very briefly after earning his PhD but was unable to get a permanent job at Harvard. GabrielF (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, it's not clear that "was not able" is the appopriate way to express this. Typically a graduate school will try to place their graduates elsewhere so as to give them more breadth of experience (and also to free up faculty spots for them to choose the best of the applicants). 2601:200:C000:1A0:8CCD:BE6:81B5:7F9 (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard faculty cat 

message: These comments are based on the "06:26, 5 December 2017‎" version of the article, which is ("was") the latest version "as of" when these comments were written. 
[The "" tag for] Footnote "[4]" is coded incorrectly, and hence it does not work correctly. 
The wikitext for that footnote says:<ref>
and, after looking -- briefly! -- at Template:Harvard_citation_no_brackets . . . (which I myself probably never use) (or -- at least -- so rarely that I have probably forgotten [if I ever knew] how to use it), . . . I suspect that the wikitext for that footnote ("see above") is wrong. 
I haven't taken the time to really study Template:Harvard_citation_no_brackets [enough] yet ... (How much is enough?) (That "IS" the explanation / instructions / documentation for Template:Harvnb ... right?)
... but, at first glance, it seems that perhaps there is something wrong with including that LONG quoted string (beginning with << "On June 2, 1964, >> and ending with << the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita." >>) inside that  template [instance]. Perhaps that LONG quoted string is not allowed at that particular place [as a "positional" parameter] inside one of those "" template instances? OR: (this idea seems quite plausible to me!): perhaps a LONG quoted string like that is not allowed anywhere inside one of those "" template instances? 
It looks like it belongs inside the "quote" field of a template such as  or maybe . (right?) 
I intend to find out, [what should be changed, here] either by reading some reply comments here, or maybe ["the hard way"?] [Haha!] by "looking it up" myself. 
Before I go ahead and launch an effort to figure out what the problem is -- [and maybe even to do so "the hard way"] ... (and/or launch an "editing session", in an effort to be bold), ... does anyone have any advice? Just checking! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikitext wrong in "ref" tag? ... '''some''' kind of '''mistake''' in footnote number "[4]" 

message: I just came across this review by Michael Marcus of the Conway and Siegelman biography of Wiener titled "Dark Hero of the Information Age".  The review is not very favorable but it does find some good things to say about the book, and also about Wiener himself (Marcus was one of Wiener's graduate assistants and knew Wiener pretty well).  The review looks useful to the wiki article, imho.  I personally disliked the Conway and Siegelman biography when I read it some years back, and the review's objections are similar to mine (in particular, the book unjustifably slags on Wiener's wife Margaret).  Marcus mostly favors Masani's biography of Wiener, which I've glanced at but not gotten around to reading.  It does look good imho.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:69F6 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  book review