Talk:Serge Lang

message: Does anyone have a reference for
:"Lang died of AIDS in 2005."?
mat_x 10:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause of death

message: The article mentions a need for citation concerning the text:
According to one legend in circulation within the Princeton University math community during the 1970s, Lang typed one of his textbooks over a single weekend on a bet..[citation needed]
I was active in the math community at Princeton in the 70s and struck up a friendship with Professor Lang- Professor Lang was then a guest professor and avidly sought out contact with students. 
I can confirm that this story was then in circulation, but I have no evidence to attest its veracity. In fact, many of the stories making the rounds of the Princeton Math Department were likely to be exagerations, more akin to urban legends than to sober, verifiable accounts. Although the entry provides an interesting (and probably representative) telling of Professor Lang's work style, I agree that it does live up to the requirements for an encyclapedia entry. I am removing the text.
--Philopedia 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says, According to one legend in circulation, in my opinion, all we need is a citation that such a legend was around, not that the legend was true.  John (Jwy) 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can "confirm" the accuracy of the legend from the best possible, but alas no longer in any way verifiable source.  He also said "Of course, not with the exercises."  Didn't seem to want to say anything more.John Z (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for citation 

message: From Wikipedia:External links:
WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED TO:
5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
Arguably, it would not be good to integrate all the new (referenced, well-written) material from the AIDS Wiki into the Wikipedia article, not least because my tar would get feathered, but because it's off-topic of Lang's major aspect of his life, his mathematical work. The level of detail into his AIDS dissention is too great, there. But it is neutral and accurate material not already in the article, on a topic of his life which is relevant to him and his biography.
If this were ANY other topic, does anyone else here imagine I would have to go through this silliness??? Anyone watching/reading here?? Speak up. ONLY here. I KNEW this would happen. I left for 3 months to catch my temper, and I KNEW within 2 weeks some, stupid, silly, idiotic argument would drag me down. Well, fine, stick with your Wikipedia article on Lang. Stick with your lack of references, your mixed up, poorly written prose, your gossip and hearsay. I'll leave you people to your article here, in the meantime, I'll go work on my "3rd rate" piece of trash. Revolver 21:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, guys, calm down. I respect both of you, I've seen your edits, and edited your articles, you are both very good and know what you're doing. Please try to find some accomodation that doesn't end with hurt feelings and anger! linas 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Firstly, the anecdote is false, and I'm surprised that it is nevertheless put back in. I'd have expected that truth (or attributability, in our jargon) is essential for encyclopaedia articles. Secondly, the true version is not interesting enough (in my opinion) to be mentioned in the article. So Serge Lang got a T-shirt. What is the value of repeating the story here? That's why I removed the paragraph. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of agree.  Just don't like unmotivated removal.  I would still keep the first sentence of the paragraph.  I know on good authority that Lang was idiosincratic, loud and sometime abrasive.  I think we should expand this section on that, adding more anecdotes if they can be found in the literature.  Mhym 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree about keeping the first sentence. but I did remove the anecdote. I'm not really against it, after thinking it over, but it does of course have to be correct. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I know on good authority that Lang was idiosincratic, loud and sometime abrasive.  That may be.  But I would never feel so confident about somebody's traits like this to boldly start adding such descriptions to articles, even if I knew them personally (probably particularly if I did!).  If you can't source it, don't add it.  If you can't find a source, there's probably a good reason for it.  Let's not have the Serge Lang article devolve into a page of gossip.  --C S (Talk) 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is what you are saying different from what I am saying?  I said ...if they can be found in the literature.  I am not in favor of unsourced claims, just want to encourage people look though the literature.  Also, Lang is no Loch Ness Monster.  My friends met him, friends of my friends met him...  I heard one too many stories about him.  They are bound to be written someplace if one looks carefully.  Mhym 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh...sorry!  There's some stuff like that in the AMS Notices.  --C S (Talk) 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation anecdote 

message: I am not sure if 16 was the usual age for leaving that school at that time or if Lang was very good academically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.154.200 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1943