Talk:Jorge E. Hirsch

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

notability

notable per google scholar cited 1245 for h index. Accotink2 talk 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear War Analysis

This section documents quite a number of specific predictions related to nuclear exchange that never came to pass. Should we consider renaming this section something like "Erroneous Predictions of Nuclear Exchange" or "Erroneous Nuclear War Analysis"? Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jorge E. Hirsch. 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/20091207032215/http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2006/10/your_hscore_1.php to http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2006/10/your_hscore_1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

An article about the creator of the most relevant measure for scientific impact today

No matter which technical or legal problems might have existed with this article in the past, it must not be removed under any circumstances. Jorge E. Hirsch is the creator of the h-index, which is the most relevant benchmark for scientific impact today, for scientists, institutions, and lately also journals. There has been a whole bunch of articles written about the h-index, its value and its limitations. Today the name h-index is being replaced more and more by Hirsch-index, in honor of its creator, although Hirsch made clear in several interviews that not his family name was behind letter h, but that h should stand for highly-cited (Reference [6] given in the article).

The problem with improving this article is that there is an extra-page for H-index in Wikipedia, which is very good as I think, so I think details on the index, its mathematical background, its problems and its reception in science belong there. However, as it is the best known contribution Jorge Hirsch made to science, it deserves maybe two or three sentences more here and better references. The links given in the WP-warning on top of the article provide some interesting sources.

I cannot judge Hirsch's contributions to condensed matter physics, neither his political engagement (which seems to rank somewhere between serious concern and conspiracy theory), but as far I can see these sections are well supported by credible references.

I checked the references one by one and want to provide the following summary:

[1] is an outdated link to his page at the UCSD physics department. Should be replaced by the actual one which is easy to find. The actual one also has a much better photo in it that the one used here. One could write a friendly email to Jorge Hirsch and ask whether he agrees to use this photo for a Wikipedia article about him.

Correction here: It is not an outdated link, but indeed his homepage. Informative, but it seems no web designer ever had a hand on this. I suggest to place the main link one level higher to is official faculty staff page at UCSD, nicely designed. People may dive from there into the home page --84.155.146.167 (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

[2] Refers to Hirsch's original paper on the h-index, the link works, certainly important.

[3] Is a kind of social media blog type of thing where some people debate the h-index. I know the main contributor of the discussion as a credible astrophysicist, may remain imo.

[4] goes empty, has no value, should be removed. The problem is that there are no references about his vita, i.p. all the grants and fellowships he got, and I have no idea how to find them.

[5] is a valid reference to a physics paper by J.E. Hirsch. Received 41 citations according the NASA ADS so far. That is .. oookaay, but not great. I then checked in NASA ADS his full bibliography, and found that he has a single-author Phys. Rev. Letter from 1999 which counts >1700 citations until today. That is great! So I suggest to review his contributions to solid state physics again, it seems there are significantly more important ones than the ones listed. Unfortunately I feel only little qualified for it as I am an astrophysicist, not solid state physics. What I can do is to list his three most cited papers and just tell what is a about, on the danger that I don't understand a thing and only talk nonsense. Ah, and of course, a significant question: Which Hirsch-index has Hirsch? The answer is 58 (ADS). In his seminal paper, he considered a benchmark of h>60 as something only the greatest get. Seems he is almost there!

Actually, looking again, the paragraph containing this references is quite good as it is. Maybe mention the spin hall effect PRL paper additionally as his most-cited work to underline relevance.

[6] is an interview with J.E. Hirsch about his index, very interesting, should remain. As I said there there a few other references I could add on this subject.

[7-9] are newspaper articles written by J.E. Hirsch about his concerns of the US government planning to use nuclear weapons to strike against Iran in the US-Iran conflict at this time. [10] supports the claim in the article the WHO later confirmed human transmittable bird flu. To me, claiming a connection between bird flu and a planned US nuclear strike against in Iran sounds like one of these aluminum-hat theories we have now about the corona virus. He really seems to claim that Iran may attack Europe and the US by infecting birds breeding on their territory with the bird flu virus, and them let them carry it to "the enemy" with their migration flights! I don't know how deeply one should go there, don't have a strong opinion here. Definitely he wrote that stuff, but I think all scientists reading this agree that the WHO finding is by no means a confirmation of Hirsch's conspiracy theories, right? Maybe one should erase Ref 10 and the sentence with it, just remaining with his articles on the subject.

Ok, luckily nobody reacted yet. I have to apologize for my misunderstanding, but let me say to my excuse that I am not a native speaker and sometimes dark irony and sarcasm in an article doesn't transcend to me. After reading again, it is indeed so as written in the WP-article now, that he simply takes the role of the advocatus diaboli and argues in his news article as he thinks the Bush administration would argue to justify a nuclear strike against Iran.

I still think the last sentence about the human transferable H5N1 strain confirmed by the WHO should be deleted. I think it was the one which caused my misunderstanding, as it is the typical conspiracy theorists argument to claim causal connections to unrelated things ("See, it really happened!"). I do not think this discovery has any relevance for Hirsch's engagement against the Bush administration.

Also in response to the comment by Agricola44, I suggest to rename the section simply and neutrally into "No-war engagement" (the articles are published on a platform names no-war.com), or "Anti-war engagement", or something similar. One may close the section with a sentence like "Fortunately, fears of a US nuclear strike against Iran have not turned into reality.".

I am against phrasing like "wrong nuclear war analyses" or something, as Hirsch expressed a political concern and suspicions, but did not do any real analysis. Therefore he didn't do a wrong analysis either.

JPRachen (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

[11] Valid reference to an article about the mentioned letter to George W. Bush, Hirsch is mentioned as the initiator.

In summary: A man who changed the world of bibliometrics, made some apparently important contributions to his research field, and showed political engagement in a dangerous time. Looks to me like something that belongs into Wikipedia.

JPRachen (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)