Talk:Alicia Nash

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Alicia Nash is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Julia.autumn.reilly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Thanks for starting this page! I hope to read more about this woman who seems to have given up the chance for her own career to further that of her husband's. It would be interesting to see if she tried to do more in the time between the couple's first and second marriage, and about their son. DeWriterMD (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I agree, she is quite the interesting lady. I've been meaning to create an article on her for a while now, and was totally shocked to hear she died. :( HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Career

The material on the 1960's is not quite correct. From 1961-63 I worked for the Astro-Electronics Division of RCA in Princeton & then at the Pentagon. Alicia at that time was working as a systems programmer for a Princeton company called Applied Data Research (ADR), which contracted with RCA to build an early OS for "ACSI" (Army Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence) for a project called "ACSI-MATIC" to automate the analysis of order-of-battle information. A Google Scholar search on ACSI-MATIC, Anatol Holt, BH Sams, or J Minker will yield some information on the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.183.56 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks -- did she have any publications herself?138.38.98.12 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I'd like to confirm that Alicia did work for ADR, not RCA, on project ACSI-MATIC in the early 1960s. I worked for RCA on the project 1961-1963. I differ from the other contributor on one detail - I believe ADR was a subcontractor to RCA, not the other way around. Jack Minker was the (RCA) project manager. Alicia worked on what now is called the "operating system". I believe Anatol Holt was the architect. They attempted to write an operating system that would support multiple users for the Sylvania 9400, which had only 32K words of memory and no memory protect features. Alicia was living in Princeton but in 1961-63 she spent a lot of time at the Pentagon. There was an article in the JACM in roughly 1962 by Holt and Burnett Sams (RCA). I don't believe Alicia was an author. If you google Jack Minker, Burnett Sams, Anatol Holt you may find more information. I left the project in late 1963 to go to grad school, but was hired in 1964 as a contractor to document parts of the application part of the project as it was closing (1964). A very interesting project but way ahead of the capabilities of the hardware/software available at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnarts127 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Known for..."

She absolutely was known for being the wife of John Nash. From the book to the film to everything out there on her, it's because of her marriage to her husband. An editor disagrees and keeps taking it out. I'd like to understand why. From a standpoint of the reliable sources out there, everything confirms that it's her husband's notability that brought hers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFER for an analogous piece of bad writing. It's just tighter prose to write that she was Nash's wife, instead of writing that she was known as the person who through her marriage to Nash became known as his wife. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Except every source out there names her as Nash's wife - and it's through their marriage that she was afforded her most important and prominent notability. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi: That's not what the article says. It says she was "known as" his wife. That's unnecessary verbiage; she was his wife. That current wording sounds (to me) like she was labelled as such even tho it isn't true, i.e. that she wasn't. Perhaps it should say she was "known for being" his wife. Tayste (edits) 03:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to get technical, she was known as his wife even when they weren't married following their divorce. That said, I now see what you are saying, and grammatically, you are correct. In that case, I suggest it be changed to "she was known for being the wife of John Nash". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an internal-to-Wikipedia concept: in an AfD we can say that a person was notable for (or known for) some particular thing. In an article itself, we should just say what they were: that's more important to the actual subject than whether other people knew them for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that policy? Because as far as Wikipedia biographies go, I would think that there are few that don't say what someone is notable (known) for. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lived in Princeton Junction

Alicia and John lived a few doors down from my parents in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, in the 80s. Don't know if this is relevant at all, I don't have any other evidence other than Alicia and my mother (a mathematics teacher) were good friends. --WiseWoman (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]