Talk:Men of Mathematics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted this to remove rather frequently made, but unfair, criticisms of Bell. In particular the link to criticisms of his treatment of Galois is broken, and in any case Bell is frequently erroneous criticised for being the source of some very fanciful notions concerning Galois. The other was also to an unsupported criticism, and does not seem appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.91.68 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Neither link is broken, is it? Neither of them is actually about Bell's book (they only mention it in passing), so it may be fine to remove it. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Is it ok to put a link to this book, since it's probably a pirate copy? Having died in 1960, I think Eric Temple Bell still has copyright over his works. Also, the text in article Richard Dedekind is a copy-and-paste of this book, and should be removed. Albmont (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rothman's article

It would be worthwhile to expand this article (particularly the parts dealing with criticism of the book) with references to Tony Rothman's article on Bell's "fictionalization" of Evariste Galois:

Tony Rothman. Genius and Biographers: The Fictionalization of Evariste Galois. American Mathematical Monthly 89(84), 1982.

—Psychonaut (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip

The quote from Goldstein is inappropriate commentary on Men o' Math in exactly the same way as Men o' Math is supposedly poorish biography. It's gossip. Has any reputable historian weighed in on Bell's accuracy or at least openly expressed the opinion that such an exercise is not worth a reputable historian's trouble? THAT'S what belongs in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.185.250 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars Walter Pitts and Clifford Truesdell are quoted on Bell's veracity. Their opinion was elevated to higher profile by the quip in the novel.Rgdboer (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

There should be actual quotations from Eric's book in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.65.118 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]