Talk:Analytic hierarchy process/Archive 6

similarity to weighted point count analysis

I actually do not see how substantially AHP differs from traditional weighted point count analysis, which is a lot simpler. Should this not be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.50.105 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Googling 'weighted point count analysis' doesn't give much help. It would be useful if you could be more explicit. --Lou Sander (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Archived 2009 material

I've created a new archive of all the material posted to this page during 2009. It can be accessed through the box at the top right of this page. --Lou Sander (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed general refs

To clarify my edit summary [1], it's not apparent that the references had been used beyond what has already been referenced with inline citations. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked more closely, and they haven't been used to reference any new material, yet. Please just use inline references so we can ensure Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being followed. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

References and example

I'm putting a long-awaited improved example into this article. This will involve some major changes to the reference list and the way the references are presented. These changes will be made in steps over a few days. Please be patient -- there will be some intermediate steps that may not seem meaningful when they are made. --Lou Sander (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Please indicate when it is ready for review. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing definition, justification, etc.

This morning I ran across a heavily technical article developing aspects of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, which I'd never heard of until today but which looked very interesting. Wanting to learn more, I looked it up on Wikipedia. But all I found here was how the process was used. There was not a word about what the process actually is, or why one might expect it to work, or anything relevant to it of any technical substance, or anything that made the slightest connection whatsoever to the article that prompted me to look up the subject on Wikipedia.

Figuring the archives would be full of complaints about this, I read them all. However no one seemed to care at all about what the process actually was. The section of the article headed "Hierarchies defined" sounded promising, but the closest thing to a hint of a definition was "Though the concept of hierarchy is easily grasped intuitively, it can also be described mathematically" with a pointer to an article by Saaty.

If the article on quantum mechanics were organized like this it would consist of ways to use Geiger counters, along with pointers to the articles by Heisenberg and Schroedinger together with the promise that "although the principle of radioactive decay can easily be grasped intuitively, it can also be described mathematically."

It's clear that everyone who's ever looked at this article either has no idea what AHP really is or hasn't bothered to complain that the article doesn't say what it is.

In the area of technical subjects I've seen some rubbish on Wikipedia, but this article beats them all. Someone who actually knows what AHP is needs to get in here and fix the article accordingly. Unfortunately I don't or I'd do it myself, all I've been able to discern so far from a quick scan through Saaty's work is that this article comes nowhere near doing it justice. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There is nothing here yet under a Theory section. The article was developed recently over the last couple of years with the idea that it should appeal to general Wikipedia readers and not be mathematical in nature. Wikipedia sometimes warns not to include too much "how to". As you note, there is a great deal of interesting material that could be included about the theory behind AHP, and lets just say it is forthcoming. In its defense the article is heavily referenced, with many of them available to be read at a click so perhaps they will serve in the meantime. Please be patient and check back on the article now and then. MathDame (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to User:Vaughan Pratt:

The article you read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for general readers. It might not be reasonable to expect that it will expand on an unspecified "heavily technical" article that you read, on a subject that you had never heard of before. The article does point out that the best way to understand the process is to work through some examples, and it does provide links to two detailed examples. One thing it lacks is a bibliography of technical books on the subject. Such a thing exists in the Thomas L. Saaty article; I'll copy it to this one when I get a chance.

Done. Skyrocket654 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Archives/complaints. You figured out that the archives should be full of complaints, but you found none. Their absence might have more to do with your own assumptions and expectations than with shortcomings of the many people who have contributed to or commented on the article.

Clarity/rubbish. A reader who states that he has no idea about what AHP really is, finds it to be "clear" that "everyone who has ever looked at this article" is also in that boat, or "hasn't bothered" to make the same complaint that he has. All those folks, including him, might want to read the Wikipedia article on Psychological projection. The AHP article is not rubbish. It has some shortcomings, but overall it is quite a good exposition of the subject for the general reader. Skyrocket654 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism of article or other source

This article has entire paragraphs that are word for word identical to "Multi-criteria decision making based on DSmT-AHP" by Jean Dezert, et al. (2010). Obviously, I do not know which was the original source, but clearly it is problematic to have a Wikipedia entry match a copyrighted source. --TNplinko (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about the identical paragraphs. The key editors of this article DO NOT plagiarize, and I, for one, have never heard of the Dezert work. On the other hand, many people lift material from Wikipedia and use it in their own work. We can try to track this down, but we need to know, very specifically, what paragraphs are problematic, and how we can identify the "other" work. Lou Sander (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a copy of the Dezert piece HERE. It doesn't look very reliable. One of the co-authors is Florentin Smarandache, a rather controversial guy who formerly had an article here, which was deleted after considerable discussion. There is NO WAY that anything in this Wikipedia article was plagiarized from anything in the Dezert piece. Lou Sander (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lou, I certainly was not casting aspersions. Indeed, a quick history search for the article reveals which way the plagiarism went (the text dates back to at least 2007 in Wikipedia, but the article is from 2010). As an academic, such blatant plagiarism (from non-primary sources, no less) drives me nuts! Respectfully, --TNplinko (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed! No offense taken, and none intended in my comments. Lou Sander (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Article reads like a labor of love

This is the article that prompted me to create an account (just now, in fact). There's nothing in it that's factually wrong, but it bothers me because it seems to lack context, and the criticism section is very lightweight (a positive spin on rank reversals, and no mention of the cognitive burden imposed on decision-makers by AHP compared with other systems). There are many techniques (see e.g. the body of literature on voting systems) for decision-making with multiple decision-makers or multiple criteria. The article is very coherent, so I hesitate to jump in and start making changes without understanding Wikipedia's policies and community standards. But I'll be watching this page and considering how to add the missing context. Matthewwoodruff (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a great deal that could be improved with the article. Yes, the article seems to be missing the larger context for the process, a major oversight. The best way to start is finding the most authoritative, reliable, independent sources on the larger topics that cover AHS in detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance! Regarding independence, the vast majority of citations are from people within the AHP community, including many from the proceedings of AHP conferences. I will search for references with a less cozy relationship to the topic. Matthewwoodruff (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are definitely serious problems related to AHP related to the scale (a smaller scale has better mathematical properties), eigenvalues solution (not as good as geometric means), validation (no methodology of validating the results), and unsound definition of the eigenvalue-based inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eto5166 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Analytic Hierarchy Process → Analytic hierarchy process –

WP does not generally cap rules, theorems, principles, laws, etc. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - not a proper noun.--ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.