Jfgrcar

Math Genealogy Page

Excellent contribution to the Math Genealogy page. Note that there is an editing cabal that is particularly protective of what is written about the MG page, and more than once they have edited out any criticism. The MG project, during Harry Coonce's (the founder) tenure was excellent, but IMHO the new regime has run it into the ground poste haste.Edstat (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of any institution, including Math Genealogy, is welcome as long as such criticism is based on reliable sources (rather than original research).

Editor EdStat has frequently been reminded of the Wikipedia policy on Original Research, and has improved the editing of Sawilowsky since, I happily note.

Unfortunately, Editor Edstat has been also reminded repeatedly of the Wikipedia policy to avoid personal attacks and questioning others' motives. Given the history of warnings to EdStat, it is unfortunate that EdStat characterizes me (and others?) as members of a "cabal", since EdStat had avoided such slams in recent months (in my experience). (And the word "cabal" is particularly obnoxious given EdStat's repeated suggestions that other editors may have been motivated by anti-semitism.) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jfgrcar, Kiefer.Wolfowitz must have a guilty conscience. I wasn't referring to him. In response to your question, good luck. There is indeed a cabal that will WP:bully any edit you make if they don't agree with you. They will selectively interpret WP policy as they see fit, and they will get three or four like-minded editors to back them up. All I can suggest is that you recommend to your colleagues to try and replace your edits that they seek to censure, and of course, to document with footnotes each and every point. The way WP works is the only items that need to be document are those that are deleted by the cabal. The rules are clear - anyone (including the cabal) can edit out your work, and the responsibility for restoring the edit is for you to document your point, although no one needs to document their point before deleting your work.

The mathematics genealogy entry is carefully controlled by the cabal to make sure only certain blessed mathematicians appear to be prolific. It is designed after the retirement of its founder to systematically demote those in allied fields (e.g., social and behavioral sciences), by not recognizing 2nd advisors or co-advisors in those fields. There is nothing you can do to correct this as long as the editing cabal remains in control. Good luck, but be warned: the editing cabal will follow your every edit if you cross them, and do as much damage as they can until they take off for summer vacation between classes.Edstat (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now corrected information that asserted the purpose for the data base was primarily for "pure" (what a repgunant modifier!) mathematicans, and secondarily for allied fields, and replaced it the a direct quote from their mission page. We will see how long correct information can stand. I have also restored deletions of "direct quotes" by the founder.Edstat (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also added four or five independent, secondary sources that point out criticims of the MGP. An editor there wants to restore them because (1) in one case that editor claims I have distored the reference. I don't agree, but I will abide by the major of editors who take a look at it, and (2) for some strange reason claims that criticisms cannot be mentioned if there are positive statements about the MGP in the same reference. This, of course, is a bizarre requirement that I cannot find in any WP rule. Apparenlty, references are required to make a positive point, but references are inappropriate to make a crticial point, according to the current editing standards.

To summarize: Your point was an excellent example of the limitations of the MGP. I strongly recommend you document (i.e., find references) to support your point, and try to restore your material with references. It is unlikely to stand, but at least you will be following the rules. I just feel, since you have asked me for my opinion, that it is my responsibility to warn you that if you cross certain editors, they will WP:bully you by attacking your contributions to any article that you choose to edit. La Bonne Chance, Mon Amis!Edstat (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted...

I have made an attempt to put in limitations, complete with citations. Check the discussion page and you will see the vigor with which editors attempt to remove any limitations. Even when it is not a personal attack, they have you coming and going. If you elaborate with a long direct quote, they claim it is a negative point of view (NPOV) which is unbalanced. However, if you just put in the citation, they claim it is an interpretation. They make no attempt to help write this section; even if they may have a legitimate concern, instead of trying to improve the article they instead only want to delete, and hence censor, any criticism. As I wrote above, you have made a VERY good point on the limiations, so if you have a thick skin and don't mind being bullied, and having editors ganging up on you to try and prevent you from having this section on wikipedia, good luck in trying! Edstat (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)