Talk:David G. Stork

It doesn't make sense that someone wrote that his h-index is inflated by 2 papers where he is the third author. First of all, they're a single textook, essentially expository work, which was reprinted in 2012; this is why it appears twice on google scholar. Secondly, it's impossible to inflate an h-index in this way. With only 2 document items you can increase the h-index by, at most, 2. His h-index is 53, so even without those 65,000 citations he still has h-index of 51 which indicates it's not inflated. His citation count is certainly inflated at 80,000 but that's actually not as uncommon for people who were working in machine learning/image processing/pattern recognition in the early days when he was. Finally, to say he's third author is disingenuous. While it's true, many mathematics/physics/computer science journals list authors alphabetically regardless of the significance of their contribution to the research work. Indeed, the ordering of the authors here is alphabetical which leads one to believe that it's not necessarily the case that Stork did the least work of the three or somehow doesn't deserve the citations generated by the work.

Publication history
This page has been the target of repeated edits by an IP editor looking to add their own analysis of the subject's publication history and take on his import. This has been reverted by multiple editors, myself included. I recommend the editor reach consensus here on the talk page before reattempting this change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And once again, same editor tried to insert opinions like the subject's contributions being minor and that " his h-index can be considered very inflated", then making believe he's not inserting opinions. That sort of WP:OR analysis is not appropriate to a WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)