Talk:Daniel Lazard

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because

I know that creating an article about my self is decouraged. But I was faced to two problems:

• My name is cited in the following Wikipedia pages (the citation was not included by myself): Flat module, Resultant, Triangular decomposition, and Regular chain. In Algebraic geometry, the transformation of my name into a red link has not been done by me. Thus a Wikipedia page is needed for bluing several redlinks.
• Michel Lazard is another mathematician (not living), also cited several times in Wikipedia (for example in Lazard ring), who may be confused with me because his research area is not so far to mine. I have done the effort to disambiguate all these pages refering to us, but too many red links did remain.

These are the reasons of creating my page myself, applying wp:IAR. However, I have kept it as a stub limited to my subjects of interest, verifiable on my publications, in order to be sure to remain neutral.

--D.Lazard (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the article being unduly self-serving. However, I am concerned that the sources seem to be primary rather than secondary (WP:PSTS). Are there secondary biographical sources about the subject? If not, it seems unlikely that the article would survive an AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not know any secondary biography of my self, only some sites which indicate some points of my career, for example hrrp:/genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu, for my Ph.D, my advisor and some of my PhD students (not all) or http://www.archicubes.ens.fr/gene/main.php?base=13, where one may see that I was a student of the promotion 1960 of Ecole Normale Supérieure. However, as witness of my notoriety I have found http://www-calfor.lip6.fr/ICPSS/ for the international conference and the special issue of Journal of Symbolic Computation in my honor. Also the translation in 2001 by M. Abramson of my paper of 1979 (ACM SIGSAM Bulletin vol 35; issue 3, sept. 2001).

I do not know how to insert this. The 2 first sites will be useful only when my career will be described. Thus I'll just include the 2 latter reference in the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.Lazard (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a start. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Mr. Lazard, please stop editing your article. Based upon your work, you should have an article on Wikipedia and I don't see the article being deleted. However, the more you edit it, the greater the conflict becomes. This is because of what you want the article to be rather than what is should be by Wikipedia "standards". Bgwhite (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being a little unfair. This is only a simple stub. There is nothing unduly self-serving about it. If there were any doubt, Lazard's comments above clearly show that he is acting in good faith. He added some of the recent stuff at my own suggestion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Daniel Lazard's helpful contribution to wikipedia is in perfect accord with WP:IAR. Tkuvho (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I in no way think or implied that Mr. Lazard is acting in bad faith or is unduly self-serving. He has created a perfectly acceptable article. As I said above, an article that should be on Wikipedia. However, he has already been warned by administrators to not edit his page. He should now walk away and let the article go where it goes, only adding non-controversial edits. This article maybe just a stub, but all articles have the same set of rules. Bgwhite (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

There isn't any reason for this stub. Mr. Lazard's contributions do not lend him to be confused for Michel Lazard nor do they merit this autobiography. Bgwhite (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Lazard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426020128/http://www-calfor.lip6.fr:80/ICPSS/ to http://www-calfor.lip6.fr/ICPSS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

August 2017

The International Conference on Polynomial System Solving (ICPSS 2004) was held in in honor of Daniel Lazard, and best papers were published in Journal of Symbolic Computation.

It's amusing to see the notability of Pr. Daniel Lazard being discussed here. Having an International Congress held in your honor, with B. Buchberger, J. Calmet, J. Davenport, Hoon Hong, Marie-Francoise Roy and Carlo Traverso as invited lecturers should appear as sufficient to anyone. Moreover, the rest of the stub barely says nothing except from: Pr Daniel Lazard published this or that in such and such year. The references of the publications should appear as a sufficient proof of the reality of the publications. Should they ?

Better be a basketball player or a porn-star to deserve a Wikipedia article ! Pldx1 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• User:David Eppstein Undid revision 796849074 by Pldx1 with the following comment: "Lazard hasn't worked on this since 2011. But this has ZERO independent sources."

Perhaps David Eppstein should read the talk page before reverting ? How many International Congress in honor of ... But don't be too cruel. Pldx1 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that he is notable. However, by source, I mean something falling into the Wikipedia definition of a source: a publication that can be used to verify the specific details in the text of our article. The text of our article states Lazard's birth, nationality, occupation, employer, and shifting research interests. Those pieces of information all need sources, and those sources need to be cited so that we can see which information comes from which source. Right now we have none for them. It is plausible that some of it might be citable to a prologue or introduction to the special issue. And the mathematics genealogy project link could be used as a source for his education, something that is not currently even in our article. In one of your attempts at removal of the cleanup tags, you wrote "Perhaps the official website of an university is a sufficient proof", but this site is not even mentioned anywhere in our article and would likely only verify his employment. As it is, the text of our article has no sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Dear User:David Eppstein. After suppressing the only reference, there are no more references. This is absolutely true, as any other theorem. In your honest opinion, what should be the next move ? Daniel Lazard (born December 10, 1941 in Carpentras) is a French mathematician and computer scientist. He is emeritus professor at Université Pierre et Marie Curie.

References

That, or perhaps better [1], sources the "emeritus professor" claim. We would not have much of an article if we only wrote "Daniel Lazard is an emeritus professor". Per WP:BLP, everything needs a source. Having a source for only one claim does not excuse the lack of sources for the others. Also, looking at [2], there is something odd: it says he is emeritus, but it also states a "departure date" of this coming December. Does that mean he has not retired yet, but will in December, or something else? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

According to my own educated guess, born 1941+ 63 years=> administrative retirement in 2004. Meaning a switch from a Full Professor position (with a lot of administrative work) to an Emeritus Professor position (without administrativia). On the other hand, 2017-1941=76 years, the right age to transmit the Emeritus position to some 65 years old youngster. Pldx1 (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Transmit the emeritus position"??? Emeritus professor is just a fancy way of writing "retired professor". What position do you think there is to transmit? Of course, in this particular case we could ask Lazard, but this sort of speculation illustrates the danger of writing things without sources: we don't know some things, and we might guess at them, but by doing so we are likely to commit errors and not even know we might be committing errors. Better to rely only on what's actually published about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The "article 58 du décret no 84-431 du 6 juin 1984 portant statut particulier des corps d'enseignants-chercheurs propres aux universités" appears to be a document published in written form. But, in any case, I have no dog in this race... except a slight doubt about the unproven opinion that templating an article could result into any improvement.Pldx1 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with David on one point. "Emeritus" does not equal "retired." My institution has a number of retired faculty who were not honored with emeritus status. But perhaps this is true at this particular institution? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Promotionnal Page

Hello, I just came across this page and I think it doesn't respect the rules. I was told that i couldn't have nor create a wikipedia page for myself because my name wasn't in any journalistic source, that I didn't have enough notoriety. This page doesn't have journalistic sources either but still makes the promotion of his work and articles, and his biography is dense about where he grew up etc. even with unsourced material. Can I also create my own page and publish my own work on it ? Thanks in advance Username1789 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I add a request for deletion, tell me if it is not the proper way Username1789 (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As you saw, your nomination to delete this page was not supported. I was not part of that discussion but I think that this person's work is notable enough to merit a wikipedia page, and I have just spent some time editing it to try to make it a little better.

It's unusual for someone to make their own page, I agree, and often that gets stopped in its tracks, especially when editors feel that it has too much self-promotion. In this case the original author identified themselves as such on this page, and was then asked to stop editing it, and they have, and the page edits since then have been by other people. The original reviewers felt that it was not overly self-promotional (which they normally are, believe me). So it currently meets wikipedia editorial standards, although it does need fleshing out. I'm only a hack mathematician, but it would be great if a real mathematician were to step in with a paragraph or two describing his work more fully.

Finally, if your own work and career are truly notable, I'm guessing that one of your peers would notice your work and either they or their students want to make a page. At least, that's how I get started on the bio pages I write. But if this hasn't happened, and you want it to, of course you can make suggestions to other editors. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit request of February 2023

Please do the following changes:

1. In § Career, change "After his undergraduate education at the University of Paris VI, he obtained a PhD in 1968" into "After his undergraduate and graduate education at the École Normale Supérieure, he obtained a Doctorat d'État in 1968]]".
2. In the inbox, change "alma mater=University of Paris VI" into "alma mater=École Normale Supérieure"
3. In the inbox, change "institution=University of Paris VI" into "institution=Pierre et Marie Curie University"

• Reason for the change: The University of Paris VI was created in 1970, when I was already professor and was later renamed Pierre et Marie Curie University. Before that, there was only one university in Paris, called University of Paris. I was not a student of this university, except that, as a student of the École Normale Supérieure, I followed some courses at the university. Also, the Doctorat d'État is a higher grade than PhD.
• References supporting change: For the École Normale Supérieure:
  • Annuaire des anciens élèves de l'ENS.
  • My thesis "Autour de la platitude" has been published as

    Lazard, Daniel (1969). "Autour de la platitude" (PDF). Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France. 97: 81–128.

Thanks for editing the article. D.Lazard (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Partly done. The Pierre and Marie Curie University change seems simple to change, and I changed PhD to doctor d'etat. While I trust you on the granting institution, however, the reliable sources say that your degree is from the University of Paris. MathGenealogy sometimes has errors, but the library record at ENS [3] also lists University of Paris, unless I am misunderstanding something. So I'm leaving this part alone for now. I'll leave the edit request open in case someone else has something to add. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Many French doctorates are listed in theses.fr but I guess this one is too long ago for that: [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The “docteur d’État” degree was effectively granted by the University of Paris, which was, in 1968, the unique institution in Paris that was allowed to decern this degree. In 1968, I was not really a student, since I was appointed as searcher by the CNRS since 1963. My undergraduate and graduate studies occured from 1960 to 1963 at the École Normale Supérieure, which was an institution distinct from the university, even if the students had to pass exams at the University. So, University Paris VI is definitively wrong for the education and the alma mater. University of Paris would not be wrong, but École Normale Supérieure is much more accurate. D.Lazard (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, for recording the pun, I suggest to change "Autour de la platitude” ("Around flatness") into "Autour de la platitude" ("Around flatness", or literally "Around the platitude”). D.Lazard (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the "VI" -- I have been editing with frequent interruptions today, and inadvertently left this in in some placed where it shouldn't have been. Removed. The article now refers to the University of Paris for education, which is at least not wrong; and to P+M Curie University for later work. Changing the undergrad education to ENS doesn't seem like a problem, as I'd added a citation needed tag there already. (Do you have a CV publicly available? A SPS would be fine for a routine fact like this nonterminal degree.) Including the thesis pun also seems fine. For graduate education, I suggest that we might mention ENS as a secondary institution in the article text (and I think the sources support this) while leaving it out of the infobox. I'm still thinking about wording for that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"After graduate work at the École Normale Supérieure and the University of Paris, he was granted a PhD by the University of Paris in 1968"? I'm not sure that's really an improvement, though. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the edits. The sentence about my doctorat d’état is perfectly correct, even it may seem odd for people not accustomed to French administrative subtleties. About sources: for the moment, I do not know better public sources than the above one to the library record at ENS, for my birth year, and the above link to the “annuaire” for my incoming date at the ENS.

So, I’ll close the request myself. D.Lazard (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: Happy to edit, and thanks for your patience. My wikipedia time has been coming in short windows lately... I did go ahead and tweak to mention ENS as far as graduate studies, and to add the library record to the sources. As you allude to, I've added a few cn tags (and probably there should be a few others), but I take you as saying that the personal information in the article such as birthdate/place, undergraduate study, etc is accurate. I think the cn tags should stay in, as we should in the fullness of time satisfy WP:V, but I think the information should also stay in. I know that you're a well-established and pretty active wikipedia editor, and so I'm probably overexplaining. One last thing: perhaps you or someone close to you would have a picture to add to the article? Possibly a picture of you in midcareer times, or from the retirement conference, or ...? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: adding a photo to the page

It would be a good idea to add this photo to the article, if this allowed by the copyright. Thanks in advance.D.Lazard (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the copyright to that picture is held by MFO, the low resolution image should be licensed under creative commons (see the copyright policy on MFO). So it should be ok to upload to commons, I think. Adding an image to the article usually falls under WP:COIU, and this image is certainly not overly promotional -- go ahead and add it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)