This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Graphology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed Max Pulver was removed on the grounds of _undue coverage_. His research is the framework for Holistic Graphology. If you want to understand the why of the Wittlich Character Diagram, The Psychograph, The Muller-Enskat Protokol, The Personal Worth Chart, Sisteme de Xandro, The Psychograph, or other holistic approaches, you need to understand Pulver.
Pulver, like Szondi, Moretti, Xandro. Wittlich, and Ploog were not discussed by the original contributors, and thus a US-centric pov dominated/still dominates the article. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B07D:949B:E939:BD79:1C4:3BFB ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, I am determined to be a pacifist here on Wikipedia, but I disagree with the good-faith "Simpler" edit of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Graphology&diff=1193791510&oldid=1193791003
My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, since proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there.
You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification).
So this is just to say that I still prefer my wording, and although I won't add it back, I would be happy if somebody did. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmepgr ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Graphology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I noticed Max Pulver was removed on the grounds of _undue coverage_. His research is the framework for Holistic Graphology. If you want to understand the why of the Wittlich Character Diagram, The Psychograph, The Muller-Enskat Protokol, The Personal Worth Chart, Sisteme de Xandro, The Psychograph, or other holistic approaches, you need to understand Pulver.
Pulver, like Szondi, Moretti, Xandro. Wittlich, and Ploog were not discussed by the original contributors, and thus a US-centric pov dominated/still dominates the article. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B07D:949B:E939:BD79:1C4:3BFB ( talk) 20:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to start an edit war, I am determined to be a pacifist here on Wikipedia, but I disagree with the good-faith "Simpler" edit of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Graphology&diff=1193791510&oldid=1193791003
My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, since proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there.
You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification).
So this is just to say that I still prefer my wording, and although I won't add it back, I would be happy if somebody did. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmepgr ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)