Talk:Oscar Kempthorne
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Oscar Kempthorne be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Categorization
editThis article lists the categories in order of importance, rather than in alphabetical order, following the (flexible) guidelines of Wikipedia:Categorization, from which I quote:
The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. If an article has an eponymous category (see below), then that category should be listed first of all. For example, Category:George Orwell is listed before other categories on the George Orwell page.
(I quote this guideline, because it was unfamiliar to me.) Discussion of the order of categories is always welcome of course. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Secondary Sources & etc.
editMuch of this entry is based on the subject's own writings. Primary references should be kept to a minimum; there needs to be a search for secondary references. I have also learned elsewhere that naming doctoral students and their achievements aren't notable..Edstat (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Naming weak doctoral students of mediocre advisors is undesirable, such as in the case of Shlomo Sawilowsky. The scientist box contains a list of notable doctoral students. Which doctoral student is not notable? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is inflamatory and biased. It has no place on Wikipedia. Shame on you. To be consistent with what you and others have dictated elsewhere, I'm again deleting the names of the doctoral students. Please avoid the multiple revert rule.Edstat (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have not banned the listing of significant and notable doctoral students: Your accusation is false! When did Shlomo Sawilowsky ever have a scientist box?
- You have failed to respond to the point that the SCIENTIST BOX has an item for doctoral students.
- However, as you have recently stated (and as I had acknowledged elsewhere Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)), Wikipedia guidelines suggest that only students with their own Wikipedia articles should be listed: This may suggest that we should hide the other students, even Walter Federer, who deserves his own article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please respond to the argument, which I'll repeat. The Scientist box has a place for doctoral students (and notable students like Walter Federer). Please change Wikipedia policy via the Talk page of the scientist box, rather than mis-representing the discussion on Sawilowsky, which objected to your original research and listing of doctoral students' dissertation and students in the text.
- The selected doctoral students of Kempthorne are recognized as influential in statistics and biometry. The weakest listed student is superior to the best student of Sawilowsky: This is why Kempthorne and his students are discussed in every serious design of experiments book (at great length), and why Bailey and other leaders in statistical research take Kempthorne and the Iowa school seriously. In contrast, I had to hunt to find a note about Sawilowsky in Hettmansberger and McKean and find only one brief mention in Conover's book on nonparametrics: There are several orders of magnitude of quality difference between Kempthorne and Sawilowsky: One was president of the IMS, and the other is a president of a SIG for some educational research association, good but not in the same league. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Another editing issue that should be considered is that there appears to be a lot of Kempthorne felt this, Kempthorne felt that, which should be eliminated. A lot of the material in the Notes section appears to be irrelevant, and I propose deleting it.
- I updated "felt" to "wrote" as appropriate. Thanks for the helpful suggestion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are areas that should be expanded. Kempthorne was reknown for a lot not even mentioned yet.Edstat (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)