Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:11, 14 March 2010

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Judaism Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The previous editor has confused the "academic advisor" with the "dissertation advisor" and "major professor". At the Ph. D. level, there may indeed be an "academic advisor" different from the "dissertation advisor/major professor". In that case, the "academic advisor's" role is to help the student with the plan of work, and other logistics pertaining to course work and qualifying exams. However, the "dissertation advisor" and the "major professor" are one and the same (and at many universities, is also the academic advisor.68.43.236.4 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cats

Regarding the deletion of Chabad Rabbis cat because he is also in the Chabad Hasidim (sic). If he is both, he could be listed as such. If you feel strongly about it, the redundancy would require deleting Chabad Hasidim, because every Chabad Rabbi is a Chabad Chasid, but not every Chabad Chasid is a Chabad Rabbi.68.40.156.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't think he belongs in the Chabad Rabbis cat because although he does have ordination, he does not practice. And in case you didn't notice, the only people listed in the Chabad Chasidim cat are non-rabbis. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please re-write this article in the tone of a neutral encyclopedia article.

The tone of the article Shlomo Sawilowsky concerns me, as being very point of view and (not just positive but) euphorically positive. It needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone.

The article lists a series of "fallacies" exposed by Sawilowsky, many of which require substantial qualification, imho; could labeling the results of living persons as "fallacies" counter Misplaced Pages policy regarding living persons?

Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic that "substantial qualification" of statistical claims published by others and accepted by textbook authors and statistical software packages are not necessary, whereas a demonstration of counter-examples and extensive Monte Carlo results published in peer-reviewed outlets contradicting those claims require "substantial qualification".

Sawilowsky's publications exposed flaws in statistical claims that were published by others - not flaws in living people.

Why was the reference to the sale of the Hyatt was deleted? If it was because of the source ("blog"), perhaps a more suitable reference can be found. The hotel was put up for sale as a result of the politial attacks. The activity of AERA, an educational institution, was a part of a wider political movement to economically punish a company for not agreeing with their political point of view. 141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that citable? I find that whole section poorly cited at the moment and was looking at trimming the content, are there any reliable sources to support all these claims? Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to. If it is the AERA section, I moved some of the detail to a footnote. I also asked above if some editor can replace the "blog" citation (I don't think the web page was a "blog" but I don't know) with a more suitable cite.

I also removed some adjectives that were positive (e.g., innovative).

Being familiar with many of those articles, I can see where some of the statistical results can be characteried as "limitations" instead of "flaws", so I have rearranged them accordingly. Some of the terms may sound POV, such as "flaw" of the rank transform, but results that show a 100% chance of making a false positive is a flawed statistic. For example, suppose you have a drug that the FDA just won't let you take to market because they discovered it is just a sugar pill, and there are NO experimental results showing a positive effect. If you use the rank tranform (in a designed factorial experiment), Sawilowsky's results show you can have a 100% chance of rejecting the null, meaning a 100% chance of saying the drug works when in fact it is just a sugar pill. That meets the dictionary definition of a flaw, and is clearly non-science.141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found this link: http://www.sdbj.com/industry_article.asp?aID=77915344.420788.1719497.2939526.5791829.446&aID2=132260 regarding the sale of the Hyatt. I would assume the San Francisco Business Journal is a sufficiently vetted source for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I had the time so I put in the San Diego Business journal link.141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolowitz: I agree with you. The entire article is like an advertisement, trying really hard to make him sound notable. Many more fact tags are needed too.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ANOVA Page Wiki Warriors

And so it has begun. I welcome editors from the ANOVA page, who predictably have turned their attention to this page. The first edit was useful - it deleted material once in the body of the text, subsequenlty relegated to a footnote, and now eliminated. Unfortunately, it will leave the issue for which that material was placed into the article in the first place unanswered. AT the Math Genealogy website, many entries have advisors who only served as disseration advisors to math students; others also advised students outside of math (e.g., physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.) The question is OFTEN raised "How many of the descendents were actually related to math?" The material deleted by the previous editor, in classifying this info as wikipuffery, leaves that question unanswered. Moreover, the question is sometimes raised, "of the non-math descendents, how many are at least quantitative-related (e.g., the physical/social sciences vs the arts)? Now, that question too cannot be answered.

The current wiki warrior did not go to this discussion page first and ask if such detail is necessary; instead the material was just deleted.

Similarly, the material regarding the resignation was loped off with the suggestion it was a non notable event. That is certainly an opinion, and again, I note the editor did not come to this page to ask if this material was notable. However, once the material is considered non-notable by an editor, I would leave it out, and request other editors to voice their view on if the event, the resignation of a president from the highest office for social and behavioral science statisticians, is notable, when the reason was the mixing of political opinion with science.141.217.105.21 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An hour prior to these edits (not your comments), I made some technical edits on the ANOVA page (e.g., work was attributed to someone in 1994 that was actually done by someone else in 1985), and I met considerable resistence. When that happens, wiki warriors go to pages the other editor has participated in and hacks them. It is a blight on the thousands of earnest and honest editors in wikipedia.

In the current case, one edit (from the ANOVA web page editor) helped resolve how to handle minutae that is nevertheless important (i.e., just delete it), but in another case, just simply decided to delete long-standing material without discussion on this page on the basis of her/his opinion.

Not being a wiki warrior, I accept the first edit, and although I don't agree with the second, I didn't revert it - I just asked other editors to voice their opinion on the notability of the resignation. If the consensus is that it is not notable, the delete away!141.217.105.21 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I never edited nor visited the ANOVA page, please stop these silly and unfounded accusations. Marokwitz (talk)

If you weren't included in this then accept my apology, but who said I was referring to you?141.217.105.21 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, perhaps read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith before attacking other editors. The removed information had absolutely no encyclopedic value and was cited to a primary source. This is an encyclopedia, not a trivia website. Marokwitz (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith include deleting long-standing material without asking for a discussion on the discussion page from other editors who have worked on an article?

If you are referring to the breakdown of disserations, agreed it is minutae, but hardly trivia to the intent of the Math Genealogy website. If you are referring to the resignation, see comments above. 141.217.105.21 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand almost nothing, I am off, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about vilification wiki warrior

Your labeling of other editors as "wiki warriors" is particularly inappropriate given your recent writing of an article defining wiki warriors: Each of your definitions directly attacks the intentions of the editor, not behavior, and is therefore against the Misplaced Pages policy of "assuming good faith". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume your comments are directed to EDSTAT because I see that is who signed the deleted wiki warrior page you referred to. You make a good point.

However, if you check the remarks of the editors who chose to delete that entry, the material WAS considered appropriate for Criticism of Misplaced Pages and was so stated. Acceptable 3rd party mainstream journalistic articles used terms such as, for example, "editor idiots" and "editor bullies", for which the term wiki warrior, which is used by many, is supposed to be a more benign designation. Here is a cut and paste of EDSTAT's references: .

I will paraphrase a editor who asked another editor why long-standing material was deleted without the benefit of recommending it first on the discussion page? How is that action compatible with "assuming good faith". To that, I add another question: When someone states something is incomprehensible, they should make specific reference to what is incomprehensible, and why they believe that is so.

When someone states something is not notable, they should state under which (among the almost countless) notability requirements the factoid fails to meet, not simply so state and edit.

These points are relevant to this page; it seems that perhaps your comments are relevant to the edits on the ANOVA page. I haven't read ALL of that discussion page, but if I understood the point, the criticism was more about why priority was given to an expository author instead of the one who actually did the original work. I would have thought editors with technical expertise would readily accept corrections to errors of priority.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem at all to me that the appellation that you are troubled by was directed at YOU. I haven't gone back far in the history of edits, but there is no indication that the attribution error was YOURS.

To summarize: all editors are welcome to edit. However, in the absence of the types of material wiki rules support immediate deletion without discussion, there are methods which are unilateral (which are assumed not to be in good faith) and methods that are team based (which are assumed to be in good faith). Furthermore, technical corrections regarding priority should be applauded, and not be the basis of flame wars, for which[REDACTED] is very famous for (see citations.) Think about it; I have. 68.43.236.244 (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Most of these edits really improve the format and flow. A few issue however.

• Singling out JASA as a core journal is POV, when the Current Index to Statistics, the professional indexing service, defines 367 journals as "core" journals in statistics (see new link's .pdf). JMASM, Sawilowsky's journal, is also listed in CIS.

• I don't see anywhere on the page where Sawilowsky is claimed to be a mathematician. Therefore, the choice of Mathematics Review seems inappropriate. Mathematics Review is not a comprehensive data base for applied statistics and data analysis, particularly for social and behavioral sciences (e.g., education, psychology, sociology). There are many such journals in those fields that cater to applied statistics and data analysis that are not included in MR.

• Here is a quote from Harvey Coonce, the founder of the genealogy: "Please notice: Throughout this project when we use the word "mathematics" or "mathematician" we mean that word in a very inclusive sense. Thus, all relevant data from statistics, computer science, or operations research is welcome." In fact, a perusal of many of the entries show dissertations on allied fields broadly defined. The third most prolific person listed, Percival King, has 100 dissertations listed, of which almost all are on properties of radio and microwave antenna propagation!141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the change from Simultaneous career to Rabbinical career. It doesn't appear Sawilowsky has a "Rabbinical" career (see discussion at top of Discussion page on "Cats"). Perhaps Simultaneous is not the best description, but it doesn't seem like he is/was a pulpit rabbi or a talmudic instructor in a rabbinical college. It just seems like he has made contributions to the literature in another part of his career to another discipline.141.217.105.21 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, because I expected to get blasted (given today's editing of my user page, which I reverted!). Forgive my spelling mistakes and imperfections, because it's late here:

* MATH REVIEWS: I tried to say something balanced about Sawilowsky, without removing the true statement that he appears as number 2 at the math geneaology (MG) project in terms of numbers of doctoral students "produced" --- this statistic seems to give the wrong impression about the nature of the dissertations supervised---not up to Kolmogorov or Teman or Lion's students' standards, for example. I would prefer removing the true (but imho misleading) statistic from the math geneology project and my caveat about these mainly being in "social studies" (I wrote "sciences" but that's too generous, imho) and "applied statistics"; similarly I would prefer removing the MG statistic and my caveat about the low significance of Professor Sawilowsky's work as judged by Mathematical Reviews (MR). Of course, MR's coverage is uneven and geared towards mathematical statistics and probability, but it does review a large number of publications by the best statisticians. For example, I would bet that Akritas has many papers reviewed. That Professor Sawilowsky has published so many papers with so few reviews does say something about their standing as mathematics or even statistics.

* JASA as a "core" (sic.) journal: I should have written, "highest ranked", since "core" has a more precise meaning. I think that JASA and JRSS A publish some of the best social-science statistics papers, and that Akritas apparently wrote at least one good JASA paper motivated (at least in part) by Professor Sawilowsky's studies is a quality indicator.

* RABBINICAL: I chose "rabbinical" just because the article mentioned several degrees or acomplishments or schools having the word "rabbinical", and the previous headline needed improving. Perhaps another editor (with familiarity with Judaism and Professor Sawilowsky's tradition) can suggest a better title?

Thank you for your helpful comments and needed corrections. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits have clarified the fields of contribution by Professor Sawilowsky's students, with (I trust) careful documentation---certainly to my satisfaction. Thus, this discussion may now be moot. (I think that the article now has the tone of an encyclopedia article.) I thank the editors for their good works, and for the good-faith tone of the recent discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits were done simultaneously as yours, so they were lost when I saved them. (I never saw that happen before! A "conflict" notice came up that someone else saved at the same time.) Reconstructing them from memory, the ISI SCIENCE Web of Knowledge database, which is NOT comprehensive for social sciences, has Pierre-Louis Lions with 358 citations, Akritas with 100, and Sawilowsky with 51. Lions is a mathematician, Akritas a Math stats prof, and Sawilowsky an applied stats prof. Anyway, notability is not based on such measures. Wiki notability for profs include being designated as "distinguished" by the university, president of a national scholarly organization, yada yada yada.

I also mentioned I agreed that the genealogy stat is misleading, but that Markowitz deleted (jan 5) the footnoted material on the breakdown of dissertatoin topics, calling it "wikipuffery" which is not a wiki term. That is why I restored it.68.43.236.244 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI on Akritas and Math Reviews

Michael Akritas has 86 articles listed, maybe half having a professional review, somewhat less being a quoted abstract, and some are not reviewed at all. Professor Sawilowsky had 2-3 papers noted, with no professional reviews, and only one abstract quoted (there was an erratum noted, so really only 2 papers were noted).

Once again, Math Reviews is inappropriate. The Sawilowsky page doesn't claim he is a mathematician, and Math Reviews has POOR coverage of applied stats/data analysis in the social and behavioral sciences. Once again, wiki notability for profs is not based on Math Reviews. See .

Moreover, Lions has to date only 11 doctoral students, Akritas has even less at 8, and Sawilowsky has 57 (of 102) in applied stats/data analysis.68.43.236.244 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added citations on MathSciNet, and highest cited (first author peer-reviewed) article on google scholar.

• Teman: 104 MG, 279 ISI Science, 2 MathSciNet, 37 Google Scholar
• Kolmogorov: 79 MG, 190 ISI Science, 213 MathSciNet, 937 Google Scholar
• Sawilowsky 57(of 102) MG: 51 ISI Science, 3 MathSciNet, 113 Google Scholar
• Lions: 11 MG, 358 ISI Science, 365 MathSciNet, 929 Google Scholar
• Akritas: 8 MG, 100 ISI Science, 123 MathSciNet, 325 Google Scholar

68.43.236.244 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A "doctorate" with a write only dissertation should be an embarrassment to the Professor and University. Maybe the citation of the Mathematical Geneaology statistics was intended to criticize Professor Sawilowsky?

There are two Lions: The father was a leader in French mathematics for decades.

Compare Mathematical Reviews and its treatment of John Tukey ("data analysis"), Harold Hotelling, Ken Arrow, Peter Whittle, Herman Wold, Karl Gustav Jöreskog, Peter Bentler, etc., (all of whom apparently have some connection to the social sciences). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think to continue pushing MR when the point has been made numerous times and not refuted that Sawilowsky's page does not claim he is a mathematician is pushing a NPOV. I don't understand why you are ignoring this and are being repetitive. I also don't see the point in citing Google scholar and such. I think the editor above who cited the notabilty standards has said all that needs to be said.166.217.228.81 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I spent a little time on google and found Sawilowsky has stat publications in these journals. How many of them are indexed in math reviews?

• Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics
• Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
• Model Assisted Statistics and Applications
• Statistics in Medicine
• Communications in Statistics: Computations and Simulations
• British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.105.193 (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Biometrics
• Psychological Bulletin
• Psychometrika
• Psychological Methods
• Annals of Emergency Medicine
• Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
• Perceptual and Motor Skills
• Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
• Journal of Experimental Education
• Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
• Review of Educational Research

I looked up one of his students who has published this: Todd Headrick (2010, Statistical Simulation: Power Method Polynomials And Other Transformations, CRC Press). If I had the time I could follow up on his other students, but what is the point?68.43.236.244 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A venerable colleague responded that a book-length study of Fleischman's method of simulation fills a much-needed gap in the literature!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert Deletion of Math Genealogy Page

The material on the MG was deleted by 99.157.58.22 who wrote "(Removed inaccurate statements about Mathematics Genealogy Project's scope and inclusion of all dissertation committee members as "advisors".)

It is unclear what is inaccurate. Regarding its scope, see , where it states, "Please notice: Throughout this project when we use the word "mathematics" or "mathematician" we mean that word in a very inclusive sense. Thus, all relevant data from statistics, computer science, or operations research is welcome."

Regarding inclusion of all disseration committee members, see where it states, "20 June 2009—Today we are pleased to announce the rollout of a new version of the database that runs behind the scenes of the Mathematics Genealogy Project's website. For the majority of our records, this will have no noticeable impact. However, the enhancements now allow us to record more than two advisors, jointly awarded degrees, and multiple doctorates properly."

Therefore, 99.157.58.22's deletion was reverted.141.217.105.228 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Mitchkeller, you cannot delete based on "assertion". If you can point to some review on the Math Genealogy page, then cite it BEFORE you delete. There are many mathematicians/statisticians who are listed on MG, and then, ALL their doctoral students are listed, even though some or even most may not be mathematicians/statisticians, etc.

Yes, we do generally include all doctoral students. However, they must legitimately be doctoral students and not just students on whose committee a mathematician served. Mitchkeller (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Harvey Coonce (the founder) also included a number of people himself in the genealogy who don't even have a doctoral degree: e.g.: Charles Hermite, who only had a B. A.

In some cases, Harvey gave his reasons: e.g.: Leonhard Euler: "No dissertation, no advisor, but we show a link to Euler to show a connection in our intellectual heritage. (hbc)" (http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=17864). The '(hbc)' are the founder's initials.

In other cases, Harvey lists a committe memeber FIRST before the disseration advisor: Joseph Liouville (http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=55185), whose advisor was the Chemist Thenard, and Poisson was just a committee member.68.43.236.244 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason is Liouville matriculated in the applied science college, where all dissertations were signed by Thenard even if he was ignorant of their content. Liouville thanks Poisson for the idea and direction for his dissertation topic in an article (in French) Liouville published in his journal.

There are other cases in reverse. For example, Julius Ruben Blum's 1st advisor is listed as Michel Loève, who had nothing to do with his dissertation, but as the major professor of record signed it. The dissertation topic and advising support came from Lucien Marie Le Cam, who was Blum's classmate who had graduated the year before him.

There are many more such cases. In fact, almost none of those listed from 1300 - 1600 were mathematicians by degree or trade. Most were philosophers, doctors, physicists, etc.Edstat (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the Interim co-Managing Director of the MGP, slated to succeed Harry Coonce in the immediate future. I am currently undertaking a review of Dr. Sawilowsky's record. Many of his "students" are being purged at this very moment. We do not issue statements on our site about undertaking a review of one individual's record. Edstat has a much better understanding of our policies than the contributor who is arguing here. We do not recognize "statistics advisors" in our database. Direct communication from the PhD-holder about Dr. Sawilowsky's contribution to their dissertation work may cause us to reconsider including an individual under Dr. Sawilowsky, but this will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be reviewed by the Managing Director and possibly the Advisory Committee. Mitchkeller (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it that I don't understand? If it is about math, are you purging Matthaeus Adrianus (http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=125794), who has 77241 descendents? He was a linguist whose career was entirely on translating Jewish literary works into Latin. He is not known to have any connection to mathematics, regardless of how broadly it is defined. What about George Schneider? Although he was a student of Erhard Weigel, his dissertation had nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics of any kind!

If it is about "committee's", what about Vito Volterra, who is listed as a 2nd advisor for Paul Pierre Lévy. Lévy's dissertation was apparenlty influenced by Volterra's work, but there is no evidence the two ever met, much less that Volterra served even as a "statistics advisor" or "committee member" on his dissertation. Based on what you are saying, you could purge a good chunk of the entire data base!68.43.236.244 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be getting out of hand. First, a technical correction. If I read their web site correctly, Mr. or Ms. 68.43.236.244, it wasn't Eulor who didn't have the degree, it was Lagrange.

Second, Mitchkeller raises a good point, that I would assume as an employee (or volunteer or whatever) of the genealogy website he can answer. If a doctoral student had a minor area in statistics, and the statistician is the "cognate" advisor, does that count in the genealogy?

We do not recognize minor areas, so no, such a "cognate advisor" would not be counted in our database. Mitchkeller (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not my website, but it seems to me that these matters should be well defined and uniformly applied. If not, then the genealogy data base is questionable, and I would recommend removing the entire reference to it on Sawilowsky's entry and whereever else it appears, as well as deleting the reference to the genealogy here ] Edstat (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect consistency is simply not possible in a database of nearly 140,000 individuals, many with unique circumstances that would not fit a strict policy. We add 1,000 new records per month based on user submissions. We generally do not have time to research each case individually. Much like Misplaced Pages, the community polices our database and alerts us to oddities, which we then do investigate. If there are specific records one wishes to question, there is a contact address on the website. We are happy to investigate that record or relationship, as we have in this case. Generally, we recognize an individual's official doctoral advisor as recorded by the university. However, the project is also about preserving our intellectual heritage, and thus there are older records where there was an unofficial mentoring or influencing relationship that we choose to recognize. As time progresses, we intend to change the labels on these relationships from "advisor" to "mentor" or some other appropriate title. Since Sawilowsky is no longer in the MGP's top 50 advisors after last night's update, I believe it is completely appropriate to remove it from his entry here. However, a Misplaced Pages entry for the MGP overall is appropriate, as the Project is valued and respected by the mathematical community, as evidenced through its relationship with the American Mathematical Society. Mitchkeller (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor Mitchkeller is correct. A demand for perfection would cripple all such social-media projects, which operate in good faith.

IMHO, the Mathematics Genealogy Project information at the bottom of mathematician biographies is quite useful for the public. Today's discussion (above) is the first criticism I have seen. Mathematical scientists generally are very appreciative of this project's pro-bono work, and it has the support of not only the American Mathematical Society but also the Clay Institute, etc. A suggestion to purge references to this project (widely) should be resisted, imho!

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would alert other editors to the discussion, where I asked for clarification of the claimed innacuracy (made by this editor, who has since identified himself as Mitchkeller. I believe that Mitch Keller's work has been helpful to both projects. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Did I act improperly by suggesting that an editor act in the real world? Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your action was appropriate and made me think more carefully and clearly. Considering the number of times the MGP is referenced on Misplaced Pages, it's appropriate to have an identifiable MGP staff member who contributes to Misplaced Pages. Mitchkeller (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

___________

References

1. Misplaced Pages Editor Bias
2. Misplaced Pages may approve all changes
3. Is Misplaced Pages Cracking Up?

Mathematical Genealogy

General discussions of the Mathematics Genealogy Project do not belong here, but should be carried out in appropriate fora, especially the Talk page of the Mathematics Genealogy Project and with the advice of the mathematicians in theProject:Mathematics.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert last 2 edits

The two most recent edits are quite a stretch. Reverting was safer than trying to rehabilitate incorrect edits.

The preface to Kelley's book calls Sawilowsky "my statistical hero" and she notes the book is based on his lectures. The book by Headrick is based on his dissertation and other publications with Sawilowsky - which is evident by either reading the title or (gasp!) reading Headrick's book. Clearly these are examples of Sawilowsky's mentorship. However, if the wiki Editor of this concern wishes a citation to her preface and his disseration and joint publications, ask for it and I will happily provide it.

Regarding the breakdown of disserations, they have been detailed in previous versions (from being in the body to being in the footnotes). It would be helpful if new Wiki editors read some of the eariler posts, because otherwise the material's editing becomes circular.

A citation is already given for most of the disserations from the Math Genealogy webpage, but after the flurry of incorrect "deleting" based on no known information, what is left is hopelessly incorrect - many of those deleted were in fact Sawilowsky's students or Sawilowsky was the 2nd Advisor; and some of those left on their web page were in fact students for whom Sawilowsky served either as the Cognate Advisor or Committee member. The haste to do wiki editor's dirty work has sacrificed accuracy for the agenda of the wiki editors.

The request for citations of 102 doctoral disserations is unusual - I haven't seen 102 footnotes on any other entry in Wiki. However, if the consensus here is that a new precedent should be started, I will (when I get the time) provide 102 links to DAI.

As to the proclivity for African American and female Ph. D.'s in applied data analysis, I can only go on the gender as indicated by the first name, so I have also emailed the prof asking who is what gender. I hope the Wiki editor will not ask for a DNA test, or later decide this constitutes original research. In any case, I will accept this endeavor, and then go through as many mathematicians as I can in Wiki and apply the same standard, seeing as how this is the new precedent.

I also propose, instead of a new round of Wiki flame wars, that any discussion about putting back in documentation for the 102 disserations that has previously been deleted be done on the discussion page, instead of a series of edit/revert edit/revert. 68.43.236.244 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from the Prof: "I'm flattered and amused by the interest. I have a good relationship with Coonce - in fact I have published an ad pro bono publicizing his web site in JMASM for years. Much of the information that he posted (and was recently deleted) was originally submitted by me. I apologize if I have misunderstood the requirements, but in my defense the definitions have become unclear. I have no interest in correcting it; if my former students notice it and want to correct it that will be ok with me. In any case, you are correct - many of the entries on his web site are now incorrect by the new definitions. FYI, WSU is soon updating its webpages for all colleges and schools to a new format, and my c.v. will be posted. Anyone interested in the particulars of my former (and current) doctoral students, or any other aspects of my career, will be able to retrieve this data."68.43.236.244 (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles