Talk:Raymond Cattell

message: I've revised the Innovations and Accomplishments section, to put the most important accomplishments first and provide explanations more readable to the layman.  However, I mostly left alone the accomplishments relative to factor analysis (e.g. Scree Test, Procrustes, P-technique, Taxonome), they are difficult to put in simple terms.  I plan more work here... or would someone else like to jump in?  I'd like to put all of the factor analysis innovations under one bullet... but that makes for an awfully long bullet, yes?  I also think we need a bullet on Cattell's work on Motivation.  Comments? 
We still need a section on biographical background, as well.  Anyone want to help on this?  I'm thinking that the ordering of sections in the article should be:
*Overview (existing text at the top)
*Innovations and Accomplishments
*Biographical background (one or two sections?)
*Sections on work (Multivariate Research, Personality, etc.)
*The remaining sections of the article
Does this sound good?  Or perhaps the biography should go before the Innovations and Accomplishments list?  Comments? WikiRepairGuy (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted some biography sections. The Biographical Background Hawaii is brief. When I have more time I'll extend it. Meanwhile it might be merged with the Continental USA section. MetaMax (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks great, MetaMax! The article is now filled in nicely. I went ahead and merged the USA sections for now, I agree that the Hawaii bio is too brief to merit a section by itself.  I also made a dozen minor edits.  There is still a little redundancy left with later text, e.g. about founding IPAT and SMEP, but these both seem important to mention in the bio.  It's a pain that the same reference appears multiple times in the footnotes when you need to cite a source in multiple places (e.g. Cattell's autobiography in Lindsey's book).  Can anyone tell me a way around this? WikiRepairGuy (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography and Innovations Sections 

message: I've gone ahead and inserted 4 sections describing Cattell's work.  We still need something on Ability and Motivation, if someone wants to work on those.  My Factor Analysis section could also use more work, I haven't explained all of the factor analysis contributions that WikiRepairGuy mentions above. The Scientific Orientation section seemed important to include, because Cattell's application of scientific methods he learned from the physical sciences was an overall theme in his major contributions to psychology.  
There is a long list of references from researchers around the world in the Personality section, validating the existence of 16 personality factors.  Despite its length, this list seemed important to include because the extensive scientific validation of Cattell's personality factors is what distinguished his work.  In contrast, other personality tests (including some still popular today, like the MMPI) were based on factors that were "invented" (by psychologists) rather than "discovered" (by factor analysis of data).  Perhaps this long list of references should be moved the wikipedia article on the 16PF?
Suggestions welcomed.  Please send me email and post here.
Cattellbiographer (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! I agree that the Scientific Orientation section is important. I also agree that the extensive validation of the 16PF work is important, but stylistically I don't like the 14 consecutive reference footnotes, so I've combined these into one, is that OK?  These footnotes might better be moved into the wikipedia article on the 16 Personality Factors, when someone has time to work on that. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific Orientation, Multivariate Research, Factor Analysis, Personality Sections

message: The whole first paragraph of this section needs a serious rewrite for NPOV and WP:OPED.Autarch (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see what you mean about the tone of the wording.  I will do some work on this too, and see if I can improve it. --PsychologistForJustice (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific orientation 

message: I have posted a bibliography of   Intelligence Citations 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 those 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 and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: I see User:Gjboyle has been by far the most active editor on this article recently. Now is a good time to discuss among all the other editors watching this page what sources to rely on here and how to handle inline citations to specific facts about the life and work of Raymond Cattell. I know of two biographical works, one an encyclopedia article and one a book, that are  reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines for this article. I am sure there are some other sources. It's a good idea, I think, to reach a consensus here about citation style and the degree of inline referencing (generally "good" articles and "featured" articles have inline references for all major factual assertions) so that the article is easy to check for future readers and editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, WeijiBaikeBianji.  For me, I think that too many inline references is distracting in this article.  I agree with Gjboyle removing extra references to the same source, especially in the same section, in response to the input he got.  And I see that you have not only reverted Gjboyle's removal of extra references, but you've also reverted some other edits he made.  I'm not sure what the proper Wikipedia protocol is here, but could we put Gjboyle's edits back until we decide on a better way to deal with extra references?  Incidentally, there are other biographical references on Cattell, such as Cattell's autobiography in G. Lindsey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973, the biography on Prof Gillis's web site on Cattell (first reference in External Links), and Cattell's autobiography The Voyage of a Laboratory, in Multivariate Behavioral Research 19 (1984).  BTW, I notice that some of the external links are broken, I can try to fix these and add additional biographical references. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for mentioning other sources for Raymond Cattell's life here, which is helpful for improving the article. I have been looking for sources too. The most active editor here is new, and works about a sentence at a time for each edit, which makes for a complicated edit history after a while. I suggested to him when he visited my user talk page that there are various approaches for detailed inline references for specific page numbers in specific sources, including one approach that  I have documented, following the example of another editor. There are some other possible approaches. For the moment, I think is safer to leave source citations in place near each edited sentence as the article edits proceed and we reach a consensus about how to make the article reader friendly for readers who don't follow footnotes but also for readers who do. Thanks for your constructive comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and referencing 

message: WeijiBaikeBianji, Well, the only inline references that were removed were those that I had inserted multiple times throughout the article in response to the message sent from Jtydog that I was inserting references willy-nilly. It was just overkill really inserting the same references over and over to make sure every assertion was backed up. There were multiple citations of these 5 references, and all I did was remove some of the replications of these same references throughout the text--that I had myself inserted in order to tighten up the article and give a cleaner presentation.  Gjboyle (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: To WeijiBaikeBianji,
You state that: "That professor is entitled to express his personal opinions on his personal webpage. But to be cited in Wikipedia, a statement about a living person must be cited to reliable sources, and self-published personal webpages are not reliable sources." The fact is that "that professor" (Cattell's Official Biographer) does not host the official Cattell website. It is hosted and published online by St. Thomas University, Canada. "The Analysis of Accusations" published on that website is absolutely verifiable by reading the original sources as I have now taken the time to do myself and the misrepresentations that have been highlighted are factually correct. St. Thomas University is a reputable institution of higher education and the official Cattell website hosted by St. Thomas University is indeed a "reliable" source. Therefore you are not entitled to remove the statements from the Raymond Cattell article re Cattell's academic colleagues (many of whom are/were distinguished professors in major universities): "Cattell's former colleagues assert that, although some of Cattell's views are indeed controversial, Tucker and Mehler have exaggerated and misrepresented his views by taking quotes out of context, by inserting derogatory words between quotes, and by referring back to outdated writings from almost a century ago.[78]"   Where does integrity and truth sit with Wikipedia??? Gjboyle (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the website is a reliable source for the opinion of its own author - it should however be given explicit attribution in the text, if included.  Both critiques and defenses of Cattell are relevant for the article and should be included based on reliable sources. Critiques of his critics are not necessarily relevant - and should only be included with attention to BLP policies and to the policy on due weight. We should not give the St. Thomas University, with its close relation to Cattell, John Gillis undue weight and his arguments should not be presented as definitive rebuttals of the many notable critiques. It is a wise suggestion not to include critiques of third persons based on website sources, due to the BLP concerns voiced by WijiBaikeBianji.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tucker himself cites Gillis' biography at the St. Thomas university site.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. And Gillis ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

text: After carefully and objectively considering this issue, I am in support of both Maunus and WeijiBaikeBianji. I suggest, with all due respect, that you read the various articles that these experienced editors have advised you to read, before making any further edits. Thank you.Baroccas (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the sentence in question and attributed it directly to Gillis which in my view solves any problem with it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your effort Maunus seems like a good solution.Baroccas (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Reliable Sources 

message: I just noticed this Conflict of Interest banner up here, and it asks for people to comment.  My comment is that I don't quite know why this banner is here.  I'm guessing it refers to the recent edits by GJBoyle, given Barocca's criticisms and changes of GJBoyle's contributions. Then I see the administrative notice of Baroccas's alleged hounding of GJBoyle.  I will study this further.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai Chi Fan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that GJBoyle has made great improvements to the article.  That COI notice didn't belong here.  And thanks for the improvements you've made. WikiRepairGuy (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Conflict of Interest