Talk:Graphology

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 31 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 August 15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Max Pulver[edit]

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)[reply]

"No good scientific evidences supports graphology" is still an absolute[edit]

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

"No good evidence" is not "absolute" (unlike the previous "no evidence"). It's very common phrasing in sci/med for when evidence exists, but it too poor to matter. Bon courage (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't seem like a good sentence to use for such wide implications. Sure, "no good evidence exists that there is water in Neptune", for example. But you can't say that everything that was studied in this area for decades is of zero value. I provided an example above of good evidence, which breaks the absolute "no" (meaning zero good evidence). Other footnotes in the article provide similar things. I admit my example only proves that minor conclusion from the study; not the whole set of bogus claims from so-called graphology experts. Ok, but we don't have to rule out the entire science just yet. In fact, I believe that AI and large data sets will provide us with more useful scientific clues drawn from people's hand-writing. Why not?

See how the Britannica entry is so much more moderate, while still making the necessary warnings: https://www.britannica.com/topic/graphology Callmepgr (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow good sources, and (unlike Britannica) to be clear when something is pseudoscience. The research article you link is not a reliable source for scientific assertions on Wikipedia and is, in any case, not about graphology. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the lead accordingly. Remsense留 20:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]