Jump to content

Talk:Peter Schönemann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Peter Schonemann)

Neutrality

[edit]

Several comments in the article are POV ("...fallacies in the work of Arthur Jensen"; "Using his exceptional knowledge...") suggesting that the creator and/or contributors are very biased. It reads like an advertisement for Peter Schonemann. At the very least it needs to be toned down by an unbiased editor, with citations and fuller explanations provided for such statements. Weasel words and peacock words need to be removed. I also question the notability of Peter Schonemann, but I will wait to see whether notability is established more clearly before adding a notability template. Ward3001 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes, and I disagree that I have used weasel words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 04:47:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

A number of changes have been made to this page in order to establish “notability”. There are over a dozen references that demonstrate the validity and notability of Peter Schonemann's work. It would appear that the only objection to this page is that all references are from “peer reviewed” sources! This happens to be a very good thing!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk • contribs)

You misperceive the intention of other editors challenging your edits. First of all, it is not true that "...the only objection to this page is that all references are from “peer reviewed” sources." Your edits have been challenged in other ways, including using Schonemann's own publications to establish that he is a "foremost expert." That is a decision to be made by others besides Schonemann. Secondly, publication in peer-reviewed journals is not the gold standard for notability. Thousands of academics publish in peer reviewed journals; most of them are not notable outside their particular narrow area of expertise. Please see Wikipedia's standards for notability of academics. Thirdly, you have a propensity for making sweeping generalizations about Schonemann conclusively showing or proving a fact, based largely (although not completely) on Schonemann's own works. If you know anything about science, then you know that it takes a wide base of acceptance before any scientific study is considered a "fact" or "proven". And finally (and I have hesitated to say this until now but your behavior begs the conclusion), if you yourself are Schonemann (and I strongly suspect you are), please understand Wikipedia's standards for biographies and notability. Autobiographies generally are frowned upon (see WP:AB for details). Let others establish your notability. If you are indeed notable, it should not be a problem for others besides you to add to the article in ways that would establish notability. If that does not happen, then perhaps you should accept that Schonemann may not be as notable as you have imagined him to be. Ward3001 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1) The article cited that referred to Peter Schonemann as a foremost expert on Factor Analysis was Arthur Jensen’s response to Peter Schonemann’s criticism. If you had bothered to check the source you would know that the comment was in response to Schonemann’s article, not in Schonemann’s article itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk • contribs)

This is what you wrote: "...is considered to be a foremost expert on Factor Analysis." And the reference cited is: Schonemann, P. H. (1983). Do IQ tests really measure intelligence? Commentary, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 311-315 (p. 40). The facts speak for themselves. Remember, every edit to Wikipedia is preserved forever. You can't deny what you wrote.Ward3001 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ward, his claim is that, in the book cited, Schonemann's text is followed by commentary by Arthur Jensen, who describes Schonemann a foremost expert on factor analysis. If this is true, I can't think of a better source, as Arthur Jensen is probably the single most prominent proponent of g and opposes many of Schonemann's arguments. There was no attempt at deception regarding his prior edits, as your reminder that Wikipedia preserves edit logs seems to imply. Please try to assume good faith. This was merely a misunderstanding, and my removal of the comment was a mistake. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) You have stated that I make sweeping generalizations. Where have I made sweeping generalizations that have not been supported by numerous researchers in various areas of discipline? Peter Schonemann is only one of dozens of Psychometricians to prove the non-existence of Psychometric g’. Other such names include Louis Guttman (former president of the American Psychometric society), Lee Cronbach (Former President of the American Psychological Association), Robert Sternberg (another President of the American Psychological Association) etc. Beside this, I can provide you with the math to prove that g’ does not exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk • contribs)

It is your opinion that g does not exits. You may be right; you may be wrong. There are experts who disagree with you. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, and presenting only one opinion when there is significant disagreement is a violation of that policy.Ward3001 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3)I am not Peter Schonemann, and I believe you are over stepping your authority by suggesting this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk • contribs)

I will not push this point, but, again, I have read some of your earlier comments on the Talk page (which you later reverted). Ward3001 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify whether you are Charles669? If so, it would be helpful if you would remain logged in so that people can see which edits are yours and so people can call you something other than 70.68.179.142. -- Schaefer (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article for Wikipedia, and so I am still a novice. I will put up with your harassment only until I know how to deal with you directly. Further, I believe notability for this article has been established, and I have provided numerous sources to substantiate Peter Schonemann’s reputation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.179.142 (talk • contribs)

Your claim for notability is based largely on publication in peer reviewed journals. That is not sufficient for notability for academics. Schonemann is one of many thousands who have done that. The vast majority are not notable. Ward3001 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article still uses a lot of POV language ("flimsy nature"). Attacking a field based on methods in use over 30 years ago is also rather POV. If the article is to be maintained, someone should clean it up. --Crusio 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about g and Notability

[edit]

The fact that "g' does not exist" is not my opinion; it was refuted in the 1920-30s by numerous scholars including Louis Thurstone, and then later in the 40s and 50s by lee Cronbach, and Louis Guttman. Jensen has substituted the PC1 for g, but still calls it "g". As long as the matrix is positive (has positive elements throughout), such a PC1 always exists, is unique and always can be scaled to be positive (Perron's theorem). Regardless of this, I have not stated explicitly that g' does not exist; only that a number of world renowned scholars have shown g' to be false.

How do you think I should go about establishing Notability? Unlike less qualified scholars Peter Schonemann publishes in fully recognized Journals; and holds a record for the most consecutive publications in the journal "Psychometrika" in the span of five years (Psychometrika being the most prestigious of Psychometric journals). Jensen and those arguing for a psychometric g have not published a single article in this journal.

If by notability you mean media exposure and internet articles, then I am afraid that Peter Schonemann’s work is not common among lay persons (although, you can find lay articles that reference his work). However, popular media and lay articles do not define the quality of scientific contributions. Most of Peter Schonemann’s admirers are Psychometricians and professionals. I have established his notability by referencing articles from “legitimate” peer reviewed journals in which professionals demonstrate the notability of Schonemann’s work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.179.142 (talk) 09:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

I have now also added references to Robert j. Sternberg and John l. Horn who attest to Peter Schonemann's notability as a scholar.

--70.68.179.142 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous 70.68.179.142. Here are some quantitative data. "Schonemann P*" gives 49 hits in Web of Science (accessed today). These 49 publications have been cited a total of 339 times. His h-index is 11. Searching for "Schonemann PH" removes 3 articles that have been cited 9 times. His highest cited article (49) was published in Psychometrika. The impact factor of that journal is 0.608, ranking it 44th out of 65 journals in the ISI subject category "MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS". My version of WoS only allows searches untill 1975. If I search for citations in the literature published since 1975 to articles published before 1975, I find more articles, cited a couple of times each. There are 6 publications that have been cited more than 34 times, one of them 182 times. Inclusion of those articles would raise his h-index to 13. According to the article text, Schonemann has published 90+ articles. Although these figures are nothing to be ashamed of, they are not extraordinary at all, especially not for someone who has been in academia since the early 60s. There must be thousands of researchers that score much better. Just my five cents on the notability issue. --Crusio 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I did not use Google Scholar. When I search Google Scholar for myself (because there I know what has been published and cited), I find well-cited articles (according to WoS) that score very low in Google Scholar and articles that actually were never cited very much getting high scores due to the imprecise way Google uses to count citations. The number of errors in Google Scholar are much higher than in WoS (not flawless either). --Crusio 23:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your criticism is highly biased and misleading...

Up to 10/4/05 Schonemann has had a cumulative citation record of 1,161 citations in the Web of Science, with the bulk of them to two technical papers on Orthogonal Procrustes(1965) (Cited: 299, his thesis topic) and Rigid Motion (1970) (cited: 176), respectively. Both papers are still cited regularly not just in psychology, but also in computer science, engineering, medicine etc. Further, using Google Scholar Peter Schonemann receives 313 hits; although I note your criticism of Google Scholar, and agree --70.68.179.142 17:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth do you mean by biased and misleading?? I just gave the figures as I found them (and still find them), although I see I actually missed the highest cited article with 316 citations (I missed it because I searched for "author:schoneman ph" and this one is listed without the middle initial). However, even if we take your value of 1161 citations, that does not change much: there will still be thousands of researchers that are much more cited and are not the subject of a Wikipedia article. A highly-cited scientist like Douglas Wahlsten, for example (also a vocal critic of human quantitative genetic research, like Schoneman), who has been really influential in the field, does not have a Wikipedia article devoted to him. (For your information, Wahlsten's publications since 1975 have been cited 2509 times, 2 articles were cited more than 400 times). --Crusio 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps you would like to write an article on Douglas Wahlsten - I do not see how this is my responsibility?

Further, Douglas Wahlsten has also spoken favorably of Peter Schonemann in the past, and was one of the commentators on Schonemann’s (1998) article “Famous artefacts: Spearman's Hypothesis.” I am very familiar with his work. However, I do not see how Douglas Wahlsten not having a Wiki article detracts from the quality of Peter Schonemann’s work.

Further, the two are from different fields of study, Wahlsten a geneticist and Schonemann a Psychometrician. Your comparison is very irrelevant, one that I view as a grasp for straws. In line with your argument, however, I will note that Carol Dweck does not have a Wikipedia article, either (just for example), and she is cited far more than Wahlsten.

It should also be noted that all of the above mentioned scholars are experts in different fields of study; Schonemann certainly being the most technically advanced in relation to Mathematics/Statistics and Psychometrics.--70.68.179.142 08:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahlsten's just an example (you really read too much in things, I don't suggest you should write an article on him, nor am I grasping for straws) and you give another one (Dweck). All of this illustrates the point I want to make that having published peer-reviewed articles that have been cited in the literature is in itself not enough to establish notability.

--Crusio 09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This certainly is a back track from your original argument, which was: “Schonemann is not cited enough.” Now your argument is “So what if Schonemann is cited?” I think you should make up your mind.

Further, I did not decide to write an article for Wahlsten or Dweck, I have written one for Peter Schonemann. Whether Dweck or Wahlsten have Wikipedia pages is not any of my concern. Peter Schonemann is a very notable scholar, especially where technical expertise is relevant (this is indisputable) and this is the reason why I have written the article.

Personally, I believe you are more impressed by the novelty of a scholar than the quality – Coincidentally, Dr. Phil has a following of millions, should this also qualify him as a seriously scholar? You have demonstrated noticeably inconsistent criticisms, riddled by multiple excuses and poor methodology. Your arguments do not appear thorough nor warranted, but simply invoked... --70.68.179.142 11:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (still) anonymous 70.68.179.142, Please note that this is a talk page, not a battleground. I really see no use in continuing this discussion. You are reading motivations in my comments that just aren't there and I don't care at all about what you believe that I am thinking. If you take a few deep breaths and calm down and read my comments again, you will see that my arguments have been consistent: Schonemann is not cited very much, whether one takes the data that I originally posted or whether one takes your figures. If he is notable, that doesn't come from these figures but has to be established otherwise. Ward3001 has explained all this very clearly and concisely above. Please note that yelling at people is not really effective, especially when hiding behind an anonymous IP. This will be my last response to any posting by you that continuous to assume bad faith from my side. --Crusio 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You can read into my critical appraisal of your criticism however you like. I, however, disagree that I have “yelled”- In fact, I do not recall using a single exclamation mark! I have simply pointed out that your arguments have changed repeatedly, and that your citation “counts” have been remarkably inconsistent. I think it is more than fair to conclude that you have been thoroughly inconsistent.

Further, Ward’s criticism had “nothing” to do with the number of citations Peter Schonemann has received. In fact, Schonemann’s citation count was one of the reason’s Ward’s deletion nomination was overwhelmingly rejected. I now find it difficult to understand why you have decided to use this argument against Schonemann.

1161 citations for highly technical papers is a lot. You’re main argument, here, is that other scholars may have more…Yes, and other scholars may have less. As I noted earlier, this is simply grasping for straws; “red herring” rhetoric premised on visibly faulty research and shifty conclusions. --70.68.179.142 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality and factual accuracy

[edit]

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this page is not under dispute. All information is fully referenced and legitimate. If there is a dispute I suggest that you write your complaints in the Talk Page, so that the rest of us may know the reason. --70.68.179.142 03:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized by Schonemann

[edit]

The heritability articles criticized by Schonemann are all from after the mid-70s, not before. Whoever keeps writing that his criticisms are from the early 70s is wrong. In fact the majority of his papers that criticized heritability estimates are from the late 80s, 90s. Further, the other scholars who criticize heritability estimates all published their papers after the year 2000. In referrence to work done well after the 70s....

Sorry, I reverted the edit on the main article before I saw the above remark on the talk page. It would help if you would sign your comments. The articles criticizing heritability have been published since the sixties and well into the 90s, perhaps even later. For some reason, the papers being criticized are almost all from the 60s or 70s. Schönemann criticizes the simple heritability estimation methods used at those times. The much more sophisticated methods used nowadays are not addressed. Of course, this is a well-known debating strategy: set up a straw man and then tear it down. --Crusio 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of Schonemann's criticisms are addressed toward work done in the late 70s, 80s and 90s! Not the early 70s. Every one of the references I provide in relation to heritability is from the 1990s or after the year 2000. By going down the reference list this becomes all too obvious. I would like you to cite a single referenced paper I provide dealing with heritability that relates to work done in the 1960s.

Every other reference I provide is from between the years 1990 and 2005...

--70.68.179.142 22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ward3001 left a message on my talk page relevant to this subject. I'm responding to it here, as this is an issue for anyone interested in the article, not just for us two. Ward3001 asked, "is a citation necessary to indicate that an author has not addressed an issue?" To make the statement verifiable, no. Anyone can read Schoenemann's paper and see what he does or does not address. But verifiability is insufficient. I removed the text because it advances a novel criticism of Schoenemann's article—that his criticisms are contradicted by recent twin studies—without attribution to a notable party who has criticized Schoenemann on these grounds. Most people are not qualified to say whether recent twin studies differ from those Schoenemann cites enough to provide counterexamples to his arguments, and it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to decide this for them.

On these same grounds, I propose removing the entire paragraph that contains the text under dispute. Providing lists of researchers who reach conclusions that, in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, support Schoenemann's arguments is another violation of WP:SYN. Only research that specifically cites Schoenemann is relevant here. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. I have removed the statement and will only put it back if I find a reference of somebody who wrote this in a verifiable source. That may actually have been done in some of the discussions in which Schonemann participated in Behavioral and Brain Sciences and CPC, but unfortunately those are not available online and these very issues are missing from my collections of these two journals. --Crusio 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Peter Schönemann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Schönemann&oldid=1205420437"