Talk:Gunter Sachs/Archives/2014

First name

Per his website, this guy's name is GUNTER Sachs, not GUNTHER Sachs. Someone threw in an extra 'H' in his first name. I would fix it, but since I am unregistered I can't move the article. I'll change the errors on this website, though. --64.12.117.13 16:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's no "H", as his suicide note illustrates. -- LeoDavid (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia biography is weird

This Wikipedia biography is weird - it describes Gunter Sachs as a "mathematician, photographer, author and multi-millionaire industrialist" and then only later mentions "playboy". This guy is known for the women he was able to bed as a result of his having money. I can see him being described as a "multi-millionaire", but a "multi-millionaire industrialist"????? What companies/industries did he build up/champion??? I mean, didn't he spend most of his time on the Riviera and at the Playboy Mansion??? And he is NOT a reknowned "photograph" . . . . except if you include the girls his photographed, most of them lacking certain normal items of clothing. How about including his opening the Hotel Byblos in St Tropez, and the associated Les Caves du Roy??? This bio is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.150 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro more interesting than article

This Article is weird because the intro seems to have alot more infomation than is expanded underneath. I don't know anything about Gunter Sachs and only came here from the recent deaths page. If anyone knows more could they flesh it out.(Morcus (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Mathematics background

I think one should provide the mathematical background for a mathematician: where did he study? what were his diplomas? Are there references to his publications? If there are no diplomas and no scientific publications, he should not be called a mathematician. Therefore, pending this, I have removed the qualification of mathematician.82.126.213.177 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Several points of standing, any one of which I think would qualify one to call him/herself a "mathematician", have not panned out: (1) He is not listed in the MGP, which logs around 150K pure and applied mathematicians, (2) he's never published a paper in mathematics or any of the allied areas, according to WoS, (3) none of the bios outside of WP indicate he ever earned an undergraduate or graduate degree in mathematics or any of the allied areas, (4) his [http://www.amazon.com/Astrology-File-Scientific-Between-Behavior/dp/0752826956 book] similarly makes no claim of earned degrees or mathematical work. The last point is perhaps the most telling because he certainly would have had enormous motivation to furnish any mathematical credentials to support that book, had they existed. Rather, the editorial review can only muster the observation that he cooperated "with the statistics department of the University of Munich". It appears that, although he may have worked with mathematicians and statisticians, he himself was not one. The unsupported pronouncements of Sachs as a mathematician, e.g. at Facebook seem to be nothing more than a meme. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

File:Gunter Sachs 1968.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gunter Sachs 1968.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding criticism of his Astrology research

Hello all,

For your information: the German language W.P. article offers a rather nuanced view of the academic discussion about the methodological issues of his work on Astrology. It does not just mention one publication critical of his book, as does your article at present, but two critical ones and several in his defence, apparently all by experts. /

I am far from making any claims myself, as I do not know much of mathematics, just I point out that matters seem to be not as simple as your piece suggests to readers.

Regards, -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Declared a follower?

Can somebody explain what 'follower' means here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.150.199.210 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)