Jump to content

Talk:Graphology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Neutrality of "Validity" section

IMHO we can remove the "Neutrality" tag in the Validity section. Also we might include a basic definition of "Effect size" as the line is not intelligible to anyone who isn't familier with the term. thanks. Amit@Talk 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

did it Amit@Talk 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GA?

Can we have a shot at sending this article for GA review? Amit@Talk 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we verify Freud's position first. (FWIW, the only thing I could find in Freud's writings implied he did not think much of graphology.)jonathon (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Couple of comments from a quick skim: The lead should be a bit longer (see WP:LS) and there are a lot of red links in the references - how many years will it be before they all have their own articles (assuming these people are even notable)? Also, I think this needs to be better integrated with the rest of the encyclopedia. A summary appearing in handwriting would probably be a good idea, for example (integration isn't part of GA criteria, but nonetheless a myopic view of articles won't make a good encyclopedia). Richard001 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The red link biographies probably won't become articles, due to the policies and practices of Wikipedia. I'd forgotten I'd said I'd find Marcel's paper for the citation about the problems with Barry's book. I can't find the cite by Klages in his material I have access to. (Criticism: Vagueness)jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
on a different note, this article might be nice with a few examples and pictures.

Duinemerwen (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

20080204 edits

Deleted Sigmund Freud reference, because the data suggests that he was not a supporter of graphology.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Added citation needed tag to significant historical interest in India. Nothing I've read indicates that there are any systems of handwriting analysis that were formulated for the analysis of any Indus Valley writing system. By contrast, there are at least two systems of handwriting analysis designed just for the Chinese Writing System. (One dates back to circa 1500 CE, and the other to circa 1980 CE.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted "or court evidence" in second paragraph. Case Law is that graphological testimony is not acceptable.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Training: Added "currently" to the phrase the world that currently offer an. I don't have a list of accredited institutions that no longer offer degrees in graphology. (It is longer than the list in the history section implies.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical graphology: Kopp et al: Rewrote the paragraph. Half it repeated the prior paragraph. The other half was misleading in its implications.jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical graphology: Kanfer: Deleted " he treated patients". Kanfer did not treat people. Rather, he analyzed the writing of insurance policy holders, after their demise, to determine if the cancer was detectable when the policy was taken out.(I'll also point out that reliable but unconfirmed reports suggest that most of Kanfer's research was destroyed by the custodian of the material.) jonathon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph About Graphology

Here is what I wish to add to the article (first paragraph).

Graphology is a scientific study of handwriting and handwriting analysis is an art of representing this empirical science.

The difference between forensic document examination and graphology may be discussed in a different paragraph as it dilutes the concept of graphology.

The grapho-theraputics related to medical graphology is a small developing branch of graphology again given prominence in the first paragraph.

Second paragraph negates graphology. This article is about graphology. Does an article about insurance talk about delayed claim settlements in the second para introducing insurance?

Two defenses. One claim by whom (by what authority) and second are the claims real? Where have the claimants or the claims referred from?

For example, anger for the opposite sex can be clearly seen in graphology through the stinger formation but its source (origin of anger) or manifestations (resultant action) cannot be told. When people start discussing source and manifestations they are on thin ice and that brings us to the concept of Handwriting Analysis being an art form of how you present the science of graphology.

All the wiki based errors are mine as this wiki concept new to me, but I am an excellent graphologist.

Bhekare (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For further reading The lowdown on handwriting analysis

Bhekare (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of the first paragraph is to define what the article covers. The article is not about Forensic Document Examination, which a number of people do confuse with graphology. The easiest way to clear up that misconception is to direct people to that article in the first paragraph, if not before.
I can't tell if you want graphotherapy added to the first paragraph, or are confusing graphotherapy with medical graphology, or are trying to say something else. At any rate, medical graphology and graphotherapy are quite separate fields with graphology.
Graphology is general seen as a pseudoscience. The overwhelming majority of studies on the validity of graphology imply that it is not a valid means of determining personality. (To paraphrase one journal article: "This is yet another failure in a long string of failures to validate graphology. Any further research in this field would be a wasted effort.")
I can't tell what you are referring to, in your "Two defenses" paragraphs.
As far as seeing anger through a stinger formation goes, only one system of handwriting analysis makes that claim. Other systems give that structure a different meaning, depending upon what else is indicated.
The Psychology Today article is from 1992. The subject of that article does not have the credentials claimed in that article.jonathon (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon

Your para 1: Your response is on the dot. Please take action.

Your para 2: I do not want graphotherapy or medical graphology or any sub branch of graphology added in the first para. Rather the first para needs cleanup. Perfection is not about what you can add rather what you can take away.

Your para 3: I do not want to argue about classifying graphology as science or pseudoscience, I read the wikipedia article about pseudoscience and found they have added astrology as pseudoscience and this is where another argument can occur. Science is not an exclusive domain on the western world, yet the western world will look at everything within the ambit of its own scientific view and disregard scientific studies of cultures thousands of years old. The simple principle used is what I do not understand is not true. I will not get into an argument as it will only open a new can of worms, most unproductive. Again I am not here to blame any one. My mission is to represent graphology with honesty and do justice to the subject.

Second view, my personal view is that this article is authored by people skilled in the methods of wikipedia not graphology. For an article to get a flavor of originality a graphology chef is required with the help of experts in wikipedia methods. I believe it is the other way around.

In continuation with para 3, "This is yet another failure in a long string of failures to validate graphology. Any further research in this field would be a wasted effort." Please cite the source and this is a view of the author, a personal view like I have my own. They mean nothing.

Your para 4: The two defense para refers to two arguments for one wrong statement.

Your para 5: The beauty of graphology analysis is that only the person being analyzed needs to agree.

Find a person with a stinger formation and ask her about her experience about the opposite sex and they will have in their memories negative experiences about men and vice versa. Now, everyone gets some negative experience about the opposite sex in onces life time, yes. But the person with a stinger formation has been influenced by that experience and now has a unique thought (her perspective) about men.

There are manifestations of the stinger formations seen in women. They are as follows.

In a young woman, she will prefer physically strong men as mates. In a woman with a male child, she will be the best mother till the age of 7 after which she will hurt the child physically by using harsh methods. In a woman married, she denies nuptial pleasure to her mate and sometimes does not care to provide food.

There are different set of manifestations seen in men. Men too destroy the very women they truly love. They are on auto-pilot status, they mean good but their actions hurt.

The stinger formation goes into generations in alternation. So a harsh male will pass the stinger formation to his daughter (if he is an influence over her and if they have stayed together) and the daughter will pass of this formation to her son, she loves!

Also the graphologist has to consider the cultural differences in various societies and classes of people. How you describe the stinger formations manifestations is an art not science, this takes maturity and experience in the practice of the art of handwriting analysis.

Your para 5: "The Psychology Today article is from 1992." What date was the Newtons law of gravity stated? How does date have a bearing on the validity of an article?

The only objective of the article is to show that, experts are taking pains to understanding graphology with an open mind. They have no right to prove or disprove graphology.

Finally, my teacher says what can be experienced should not be discussed. The best way to prove graphology is to do handwriting analysis. Let me offer to do your handwriting analysis just to prove my point. You may visit Graphologist.Org for the same.

Bhekare (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph currently defines what the term means, and what the term does not mean. For that reason both the reference to forensic analysis and medical usage should remain. The definitions might need to be tightened up.
Wikipedia content policy is for articles to:
  • Have a neutral point of view: NPOV. All major views that have support are to be represented in the article;
  • Be verifiable: WP:V.This means that recognized authorities in the field, have to be cited for any statements that might be "surprising", or counter-intuitive, or otherwise questionable;
  • No Original Research:NOR. This means that unpublished analysis, or synthesis can not be included;

Furnham, Adrian & Gunter, Barrie: Graphology and Personality: Another Failure to Validate Graphological Analysis. Personality And Individual Differences 1987, 8 , 433-435. is the article I was paraphrasing.

"The beauty of graphology analysis is that only the person being analyzed needs to agree." That premise violates the fundamental methodology of Daoist exploration, Vedic Science, and Western Science. All three require that the observations conform to a theory, and can be applied to other individuals with the same set of criteria. My major point was that only one of the roughly fifty systems of handwriting analysis that I can use, both accept that the stroke structure "stinger formation" exists, and has the interpretation that you provide.

I don't have the court cases which ruled that the individual's resume was a fabrication. :( That is the major reason why that article can not be considered to be credible.

They have no right to prove or disprove graphology. This article neither proves, nor disproves graphology. It provides a synopsis of the evidence for both claims.

The best way to prove graphology is to do handwriting analysis. All that does,is add weight to the theory that all graphologers are con artists, and that graphology is nothing more than cold reading.

jonathon (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon,

Please re-read your contribution and see you are duplicating the content, when you can simply point out the source. You are the uncontested expert on wikipedia methods!

They have no right to prove or disprove graphology. does not mean this article but people.

I believe graphology has greater problems to handle, beyond the scope of Wikipedia or even this article, like the occultisms tries to add graphology and handwriting analysis in its folds. This makes it easy for common people to believe that graphology is a pseudoscience. There are no major active formal organizations to validate, test or certify graphology professionals. These limits are circumstantial and do not effect the science of graphology.

Graphology and handwriting analysis is different. Graphology is the study of handwriting formations and relating them to the thoughts, science. Handwriting analysis is more about representing the thought back to the person being analyzed, art.

Contrary to your ideology, I believe in science, observation precedes theory postulation. Theories are then put to confirmation test. Even after a theory is proved it is put to further research to find out its limits, scope and variants.

Graphology has a collection of handwriting formations which have a meaning. When we do handwriting analysis, we uncover other thoughts and their formations. So its a cycle of knowledge and theory and research...

Handwriting analysis leads us to formations and traits. These formations have a meaning and they have a thought behind a formation. This is studied and proved by observation and testing.

How this formation is represented by the handwriting analyst is an art form. This is so because the manifestations or result of having such a formation is not clear, mostly unknown. This is where your claim of Cold Reading fits in.

For example, a running nose (formation) is the trait of common cold but how will one handle his running nose (manifestations), using a kerchief, sleeve of his shirt, a towel, sneezing out aloud, blowing his nose, etc cannot be predicted just stated and cold read.

Con artist is not an exclusive domain of graphologists, even wikipedia has its share of con artist for example John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy so your statement is irrelevant and intent maybe to confuse.

You are in the domain of graphologists, we are expert at analysis!

I take back my offer to do your handwriting analysis for free. If you have any claim of being a graphologist or even a handwriting analyst, please analyze my handwriting.

Thank you for your effort to edit the article.

Bhekare (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes it easy for common people to believe that graphology is a pseudoscience. Binet criticized graphologists of his day for refusing to accept the results of the research that demonstrated that their pet theories were incorrect. Contemporary graphologists are equally prone to reject the findings of research that contradicts what their instructors taught. jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no major active formal organizations to validate, test or certify graphology professionals. http://www.wmin.ac.uk/marketingresearch/graphology/2162abbrevs.htm is a list of organizations of handwriting analysts. Most of the national and international bodies offer certifications for professional graphologists. The issue is that none of those certifications have any recognition outside of the organization that issues them. jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Graphology has a collection of handwriting formations which have a meaning. Graphology has a collection of structures which allegedly mean something. There is no peer reviewed research that has been replicated, that demonstrates that a specific set of datapoints in handwriting corresponds to specific behavioural patterns in an individual. There are major disagreements within the field as to what type of structure one should pay attention to, when doing the analysis. (Look at the difference between holistic graphology, integrative graphology, and symbolic analysis, to see how discongruent their ideas on what the fundamental datapoints are.)jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is studied and proved by observation and testing. The best documented datapoint in the graphology research literature is also the most rejected datapoint by graphologists. There are 250 studies that indicate that this datapoint can be determined from handwriting, with no studies that are either inconclusive, or indicate that it can not be determined. This factoid supports the hypothesis that graphologists neither study their research literature,nor accept the results of peer reviewed research studies that contradict their instructors.jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is where your claim of Cold Reading fits in. Cold reading has nothing to do with the manifestation being unknown. It has everything to do with observation, and knowing how people usually behave. (If you adhere to what Singer states a graphologist needs to know, prior to an analysis, you have hot reading, not cold reading, because the person's life story is given to the graphologist, before the handwriting is even looked at.) jonathon (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon,

Your para 1: What is your point? How does that make the science of graphology obscure/whatever? There are people who make claims and there are people who disprove. This is how science progresses.

Your para 2: The link has been analyzed and many links are outdated, the domain names lost as it was created in 2002 and not updated. We are looking at 6 year old links base.

Your para 3: It means nothing to disprove the graphologists community. It rather proves there are active people, diverse thoughts and activities happening in the graphology front.

Your para 4: Please state your source and add more detail on this. This seems to be your view point.

Your para 5: Wrong claim. I offered to do your analysis without knowing you. Please respond.

Bhekare (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading all that has been discussed I believe we (bhekare and jonathon) are at an impasse and to progress further I am initiating a process as per the Dispute_resolution protocol I am adding the Wikipedia:3O tag to this discussion. I will escalate this matter as is necessary. I really respect jonathon's ability as an wikipedia expert. I cannot accept his anti-graphology stand on an article explaining graphology. I want to accept his views but not on a graphology page, so I wish to propose another article which can be anti-graphology and linked to the graphology article.

Bhekare (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking your points in reverse order:
  • What would the anti-graphology page consist of, that could not be stated on the graphology page?
  • I'm sticking to NPOV here. That means that the article will contain criticism of graphology, if verifiable sources can be cited.
  • I don't see any justification for a request for dispute resolution at this point in time. For starters, what is the dispute?
  • I won't take you up on your offer, becuase I doubt that you'll be better able to analyze my handwriting than Charlie Cole, Emilie Stockholm, or any of half a dozen other published graphologers were able to do. I'll also point out that you retracted your offer;
  • The best documented datapoint is that physical gender can be determined from handwriting. You can read about that in the archives of the talk page;
  • Do you know what the difference between Holistic Graphology and Integrative Graphology is? It has nothing to do with diverse thoughts. So much so that adherents of either approach can barely discuss the subject with those of the other approach;
  • The point of that link was to give you the names of graphological organizations. Organizations that refute your allegation that there were no organizations that certify handwriting analysts on a professional basis. Maybe http://web.archive.org/web/20030306142141/www.eskimo.com/~hwa/faq/020.html would have been more suitable for your purpose, even though it omits most of the known certifications in the field.
  • I cited Binet specifically because the criticism he made of the acceptance of research in field by graphologers was essentially the same as that made by Barry Beyerstein roughly 80 years later. There has been zero progress in the field since Crepieux-Jamin, and, arguably, Michon wrote their material in the late Nineteenth Century. jonathon (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just found out the other party is Jonathon Blake as jonathon and he definitely knows his subject more than I do. My attempt to edit graphology page overstepping jonathon's authority embarrasses me! My sincere apology and an appeal that my intentions were honorable. I rest my arguments and will like to have no say in this matter. Will still like to do an analysis just for the pleasure of practicing graphology :-)

Bhekare (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion and seeing its progress toward resolution, I removed the listing from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Well done, both of you. — Athaenara ✉ 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No pictures

How about some pictures? I'd like to be able to see all the different kinds of handwriting. 86.81.228.168 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without getting unencyclopediac, what would a picture of handwriting demonstrate? jonathon (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have samples of connected vs disconnecred, garland vs angular handwriting etc. But the question is how to get such images. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Images for most features are easy to obtain. (Either from my collection for which I do have permission to use for articles like this, or from scanning books in the field that are in the public domain.) jonathon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What I want to avoid, is turning this article into "How to analyze handwriting". There are 72 datapoints for the Wittlich Character Diagram. There are roughly 250 stroke structures in Graphoanalysis, 150 datapoints in DBTL, 1,000 datapoints in Erika Karoh's course on handwriting analysis. Each of those could easily be illustrated. To avoid that, I'd suggest specific criteria to determine whether or not a datapoint should have an image.jonathon (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I'd like the justification for including graphology in the category "Pseudoscience", since it fails the criteria for that category as provided by ArbCom. jonathon (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything presented as science but without scientific merit and verifiability is pseudoscience. This article details that studies are unable to verify graphology. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The research studies cited in the article were specifically chosen to reflect a specific POV --- one that graphology was not valid. The studies published in the last five years, that demonstrate that graphology is valid, were ignored. Also ignored were the papers that analyzed the methodology of graphology research.(The most common flaw was scoring the handwriting for one datapoint, and a second tool for a different datapoint, then concluding that because there is no correlation between the two, that handwriting analysis is invalid. This flaw is present in at least half of the studies that allege that graphology is not valid.)jonathon (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You are defending it with OR? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Only if Ze'ev 2007 constitutes original research.jonathon (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

Introduction | "R" Reading | Curse of the Pharaoh | End-of-the-World Prophecies

Index | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Y | Z

graphology (also, graphiology, a spelling invented by the practitioners) Graphology is not to be confused with graphoanalysis, the art of identifying samples and classifying styles of handwriting for legal and forensic purposes.

Graphology is a pseudoscience by which it is claimed that the character, disposition, fate, aptitudes, and potentials of a writer may be determined. Slant, flourishes, pressure, size, regularity, and curvature are some of the features that are believed to reveal characteristics of the writer.

To quote John Beck, secretary of the National Society of Graphologists in the U.K., some practitioners are so accurate that “sometimes they can tell what a person had for breakfast that morning.” Graphology, he says, is “the most precise of the 'ologies,'” and it has shown that “99 per cent of persons in the U.K. are not in the right jobs.” He also says that graphology is a brand of psychology. In contrast, Professor Michael Rothenberg of the Department of School Services, City College, New York, defines graphology as largely “pseudoscience, closer to fortunetelling than serious research.”

In Israel and in Europe, many companies rely on graphologists to make decisions on employment, promotions, contracts, and other business matters. French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857-1911), the originator of a well-known IQ test still in use, embraced graphology as genuine and published material on the idea in 1906.

Though certain very obvious physical traits and failings of the subject (tremors, lack of co-ordination, dyslexia) can clearly be established by studying the individual's handwriting, graphologists claim that hidden thoughts and attitudes, weaknesses and hidden desires, can be revealed through their pursuit. The fact is that double-blind tests of graphology have shown that it cannot perform as advertised, and certainly does not serve to indicate career choices or capabilities. The percentage quoted by Mr. Beck is perhaps more indicative of the failure of graphology to correctly determine proper career directions.

However, Susan Morton, who professionally practices graphoanalysis (not graphology!) for the U.S. Postal Service Crime Lab in San Bruno, California, can indeed tell the future of one whose handwriting she identifies. If it matches what she is looking for, she says, she can clearly tell where the writer will spend the next four or five year

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/graphology.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.185.115 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphoanalysis is a system of handwriting analysis, or graphology.To attempt to define it as QDE, is to misappropriate the registered trademark. Binet did research in the field, but did not embrace it. There are no peer reviewed published double blind studies in the field of graphology.jonathon (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

http://forensic.to/webhome/qdman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.179.189 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That URL has nothing about Graphoanalysis in it. Nothing in either the article,or the talk page suggests that QDE and handwriting analysis for the determination of character are the same thing. jonathon (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Document Examination v. Graphology: http://forensic.to/webhome/qdman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.183.184 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You've cited that page twice. Wikipedia is not the place for an indiscriminate collection of links, repeated multiple times. jonathon (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the answer to your previous remark. 190.51.146.177 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That page neither addresses Graphoanalysis, nor makes any claims about handwriting analysis qua pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, it does about graphology (this article). But for you here is a page where graphology is a little more clearly classified as a pseudoscience Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience 190.175.205.54 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyerstein is interesting. He claims it is a pseudoscience, but also admits that his research indicates that it is statically valid. The significant issue is the effect sizė. IOW, his own criteria demand that it not be considered a pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hans Knoblock Graphologie: Lehrbuch neuer Modelle der Handschrifenanalyse Econ Verlag, Wien: 1971;Anne-marie Cobbaert Graphologie: Schriften erkennen und deutenAriston Verlag, Genf: 1973; F Girolamo Moretti, Die Heiligen und Ihre Handschrift F H Verlag: Heidelberg provide further proof that graphology is not a pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Beyerstein does not consider Graphology a pseudoscience? 190.51.184.153 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyerstein's own research indicates that graphology is scientifically valid. If he is logically consistent, he would admit that graphology is scientific. jonathon (talk)

IOW, the studies you cite in fact say: graphology is a pseudoscience. by their own criteria graphology is a pseudoscience 190.51.178.67 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mueller, Enskat, Knobloch, Pulver, et al clearly explain why Graphology is not a pseudoscience,in their books that I cited. Their published research further supports the position that graphology is a valid science. Claiming otherwise demonstrates either total ignorance of what they wrote, or willful misunderstanding of what they wrote. jonathon (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, demonstrates that i was paraphrasing you and the proofs of graphology being a pseudoscience. 190.51.190.48 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Your position is one of pure malice. Willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misconstruing what is written, to support an invalid agenda. jonathon (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If graphologists were logically consistent, graphologists and graphology would not exist. 190.51.188.78 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The practitioners are at least as logical as the skeptics are. Furthermore, the professional graphologers consider it to be an art, not a science.jonathon (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they call it science. And they are not skeptics: for them graphology works no matter what.190.51.139.126 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the sources you cite, one of them fabricated the quotes and one of them is about the difference between forensic document analysis and personality evaluation. The third source is not based upon an examination of the data, but an axiom that prohibits the validity of handwriting analysis.02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)"one of them fabricated the quotes"<< simply false190.51.171.130 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, demonstrates that i was paraphrasing you and the proofs of graphology being a pseudoscience. sounds familiar? 190.51.186.229 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The graphologists admit that the scientific research isn't always positive. The skeptics deny that any scientific research supports graphology. jonathon (talk)

Why do you have to lie? 123456789qwe (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Graphologists tend to dismiss research that doesn't support the validity, but they do admit it exists.jonathon (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are different types of human beings. You can find out what type of human being a person is by observing it or using graphology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.192.41 (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is objection to the following external links.

Under Formal Organizations

What is the logic in the order of the above list?

Handwriting Analysts India

What makes it a formal organization? It is more geared to teach graphology like numerous other web sites.

Under Informal Groups

Handwriting-L – a handwriting analysts group

On the main page Copyright © 1997-2006 we are on 2008! The site is not active anymore.

Handwriting Events page is dated February 2 - 28, 2006

Graphology.ws – a graphology information centre

The group link just points to a collection of other sites.

Graphology Internet Clubs Where is any group activity?

Under Other Resources

Graphological analysis based on Moretti's method

This link is the only link for this method. Where are the other links to other methods?

Free Signature Study - free graphological signature self-test, a brief demonstration of the potential

Free analysis search on goolge gives 10000+ site so why is this site singly listed here?

I believe there is a huge bias demonstrated by the maintainer/s of this page. Someone please take due note!

59.182.64.127 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The links in "External Links" are not ordered. For both Handwriting-L, and Graphology.ws, group discussion takes place on mailing lists. Group output appears on the websites. If you think links to other system specific websites should be added, add them. I'm not aware of any such sites. Editors can be bold. jonathon (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Its good to see the imperialists learn the democratic ways. 59.182.43.38 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Can we add http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=graphology the DMOZ link as an external link?

Bhekare (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear jonathon, I am adding the DMOZ link to the main page. Please edit or delete the same if found incorrect. Bhekare (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include DMOZ, use http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Alternative/Handwriting_Analysis/, and not the general search string for "graphology". From my perspective, DMOZ is an unmoderated link farm. jonathon (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about your quality issue. Please delete if not suitable. Bhekare (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mysticism and Graphology

It's my observation, that lot many websites related to astrology and other occult sciences are adding graphology to their pages and some websites even have people do cold reading stating that its graphology.

The above site uses graphology to bring people to its astrology services and is ranked within first 10 in a google search for graphology.

Register - This software is a POSTWARE ( Click here to know more about POSTWARE) and comes with certain limitations. You are required to register yourself on www.mysticboard.com and make at least 50 posts or a donation of US$9.95, which will help the community grow and to support the development of more softwares. For more details on registration CLICK HERE.

Please study the links given above and see the classification of graphology...


Its my belief that graphology is a rather pure science dependent solely on handwriting formations and their traits. Nothing to do with the occult.

So, we must have a small inclusion of text which differentiates between occult and graphology. Explicitly we have to show that there is no connection what-so-ever. This will educate people interested in graphology and expose the mis-informers. Some graphologists have used the occult methods to do handwriting analysis with some success, but this cannot be taught or duplicated by people without occult skills.

Please discuss and we can formulate some text here for addition to the main article after approval.

Bhekare (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why the section Divination exists. Unfortunately for the profession, there are numerous books on handwriting analysis, and occult practices.jonathon (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The closest that article comes to occult practice, is Barry's comparison of graphology with sympathetic magic. That comparison might explain symbolic analysis, but it doesn't even begin to explain Holistic Graphology. jonathon (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


The next section was taken from pseudodaoist(jonathon) talk page.

Graphology

Please try to assume good faith when dealing with other editors on this page. I see you throwing the word "vandalism" around a bit in edit summaries there, when reverting edits that aren't vandalism. For example: [1], [2], and [3]. Please take note of WP:OWN and assume that these users are trying to improve the article. They appear to be good faith efforts, for the most part. Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean it is "vandalism". Also, keep in mind WP:3RR and note that further revert warring could lead to blocking of your and / or other accounts, or protection of the page. Thanks , Rjd0060 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

a) The first article that is cited, contains quotes that were not made by the people to which they are attributed. The second article that is cited is a general criticism of graphology, none of which are supported by citations to the literature in the field. This cite might be useful in a discussion of specific objections to the field. The third citation is about the differences between QDE and personality evaluation. The fourth citation has one paragraph about graphology. "graphology, which claims that personality, ability, and moral stature can be discerned from the configuration of one’s handwriting, has also been thoroughly discredited," Beyerstein (1992) criticizes the field because it does not accept the research that indicates that graphology might have some validity! None of these are appropriate as citations of research studies in the field. Beyerstein (1992) is cited in Effect size, as a specific objection to graphology.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
b) The discussions on the archived talk page indicate that the article is biased against graphology. The material I deleted reinforced the position that the article is slanted against graphology.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not "vandalism". - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When the edits are deliberately disruptive, then it is vandalism.jonathon (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bunge did say that. Please, stop laying. 190.51.135.192 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bunge also ignored the evidence in support of the validity of handwriting analysis. jonathon (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At least now you are admiting you were laying. are not you? 190.51.135.192 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: "The third citation is about the differences between QDE and personality evaluation."

You might have a problem with your browser, the third reference says this:


Forensic Document Examination v. Graphology

Graphologists claim to be able to determine personality traits based on an examination of your handwriting. I personally have as much faith in this as I do the astrological forecasts in the newspaper...in other words, not much.

But I still read my horoscope occasionally. Why? Because it's fun! So if you want to have a graphologist examine your handwriting, go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

But asking a graphologist to do Forensic Document Examination is like asking an astrologer to help you land a rocket on the moon. Graphologists and Forensic Document Examiners look at some of the same things (handwriting) but using different methods and for different purposes.

190.51.184.98 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

End of section

Skepdic.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Skeptic.27s_dictionary states when, and why Skeptic's Dictionary is not a prefered source. Published peer-reviewed research studies in the field of graphology are available. jonathon (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We can´t use references to astrologists in order to establish that astrology is a science 190.51.184.221 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)P.S:Published peer-reviewed research studies in the field of astrology are available.<<< when wikipedia says that peer reviewed are the most reliable sources it referes that for cancer, it is. But this is not if the peer reviewed study is published in a peer reviewed magazine of homeopathy.

If a peer reviewed study is published in a standard journal, it is acceptable. If you want to push the point about rejecting research done by graphologers, then we also have to reject all citations that refer back to research done by, or made by members of BC Skeptics needs to be removed, because that organization is biased.jonathon (talk) Weren´t you doing that?190.51.129.59 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

¿QUÉ SON LAS SEUDOCIENCIAS?

This is a general laundry list of why the writer thinks that graphology is a pseudoscience. The majority of claims made in that article have refuted by published research studies done by professional graphologists. jonathon (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How many psychological associations from those that doesn´t consider psychoanalysis a science does consider graphology to be one? 190.51.184.221 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

a) The first article that is cited, contains quotes that were not made by the people to which they are attributed.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 <<< this shows Pseuodaoist intentions190.51.184.221 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The misattributed quotes are libelous, and, as such, are potentially the cause of a lawsuit against Wikipedia. jonathon (talk)

They are not misattributed quotes, you are just lying190.51.129.59 (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The graphologists found that graphology is a science. Were you expecting otherwise?. On the other hand Geoffrey Dean has reviewed two hundred different studies into whether graphology can tell us anything about personality (Dean, 1992).190.51.184.221 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you reread Geoffrey Dean's study. His meta-study found that graphology was valid, but the effect size was negligible. BTW, studies by graphologists don't always support their hypothesis. Studies by non-graphologists don't always support their hypothesis either --- Dena's study is one such example. jonathon (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Document Examination v. Graphology

This is one Forensic Document examiner's opinion of why handwriting analysts should not do forensic document examination. Fails both WP:RS and WP:V jonathon (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The author considers graphology a pseudoscience. You have to be blind if you don´t see it 190.51.184.221 (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The author is merely saying what he believes. He provides no support to substantiate his claim. He is differentiating between those who analyze handwriting to determine personality, and those that analyze handwriting to determine authenticity. jonathon (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing Science form pseudoscience

This is a generic article on what constitutes pseudoscience.jonathon (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Know Your Expert

This document describes the qualifications and training that a Forensic Document Examiner has, in contrast to those of a handwriting analyst who determines personality.

I would have expected that the subsection "Forensic Document Examination", which links to the Wikipedia article would suffice in explaining the difference between the two fields. jonathon (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How Graphology Fools People

This is a generic article (replete with errors) about why the author considers graphology to be a pseudoscience. Some specific objections the author raises are discussed elsewhere in the article.jonathon (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with you that the choice of links (and also the editing) were poor and that's why I reverted the edits done by the anonymous user. I also generally agree with your reasons to reject them. That being said, the "Validity" paragraph of the article needs a complete rewrite. Graphology is squarely in the Pseudoscience category as shown by many independent studies and the text doesn't reflect that. I'm going to take a stab at it, we'll see how it goes. --McSly (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the articles cited in the talk page archive, before rewriting the Validity section. jonathon (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I support Jonathon here, he knows what he is talking about. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I just went through the past activity on this page and I'm exasperated at the kind of nutjobs Jonathon is having to deal with. His edits that reverted calling graphology a pseudoscience were perfectly legitimate, the other editor's comment about WP:OWN on Jon's page notwithstanding. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original researchSo jonathon is more imprtant than britannica and Mario Bunge?190.51.129.59 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)P.S:I'm exasperated at the kind of nutjobs i am having to deal with in order to reach a neutral point of view, instead of an article saying."graphology is a science. The end"

Where should I go to prove graphology is a science editor? We have trouble getting business because a lot of people believe graphology is a pseudoscience, we have to pass blind test after blind test for free to get work. It be nice to be able to just send them to a wikipedia link. So can we do a scientific test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.191.14 (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite studies that have been published in peer reviewed academic journals. Between 6 and 12 such studies that support the hypothesis that graphology is a valid science, have been published since 2000. However, citing those articles violates the anti-WP:NPOV policy that has been inflicted upon this article, at the bequest of pseudoskeptics.jonathon (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Graphology in Court Testimony

For the benefit of the anon IP 190.51.x.x et al I'll rephrase the Cameron v Knapp ruling. Graphology testimony fails the Frye standard, and, as such, a handwriting analyst giving testimony about personality does not qualify as an expert witness. I realize that papers such as http://www.sheilalowe.com/HWInfo/courtdec.pdf exist, but those cases are, theoretically, anomalous. Furthermore, that list implies that some courts do not consider graphology to be a pseudoscience. jonathon (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For Anon IP 190.51.x.x, 456hjk, et al

The reason the "disputed" tag was added to the "Validity" section, is because of your unceasing efforts to add claims that graphology is a pseudoscience to that section. Read the surveys of the literature for the research on the validity of graphology. The Library of Congress changed the classification to Diagnostic Graphology (155.2), Personnel Selection, and Documentary Evidence (363), from Divinatory Graphology (137.7). jonathon (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The text says that the scientific status of graphology is controversial, and is true. But you are making unceasing efforts to add claims that graphology is a science to that section and eliminate any reference to a different point of view and that goes against the neutral point of view! 456hjk (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Validity is about research results. Sitting down and looking at "x" samples, to see if there is a correlation between what is claimed, and what the data shows. The article cites five studies that imply that Graphology has no validity. It cites two studies that suggests that graphology is valid. I am deliberately excluding the results of roughly a dozen citation in the article, that imply validity, on the grounds that the majority of graphologists reject the results of that research. Beyerstein(1992) accepted the results of a number of similar studies that indicate that graphology is valid. He used the validity of those studies, as the rational for declaring that graphology is a pseudoscience. IOW, graphology is a pseudoscience because an unstated number of research articles indicate that graphology is validjonathon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It can has some utility and still be considered a pseudoscience. Homeopathy has placebo effect and yet is a pseudoscience, you could also read the article from Mario Bunge. I also remember you that Wikipedia:No original research. And again:you are making unceasing efforts to add claims that graphology is a science to that section and eliminate any reference to a different point of view!456hjk (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read Bunge's article,. It is nothing more than a general laundry list, all of which have been refuted.jonathon (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If Section 6.1 Specific Objections omits any of the various objections that the laundry lists contain, add them there, explaining what and why the objection exists. The article also needs the cite in Klages' material on the difference between low form level and high form level, and why the former is never found in the upper class, and the latter is never found in the lower class. jonathon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
again:you are making unceasing efforts to add claims that graphology is a science to that section and eliminate any reference to a different point of view!456hjk (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You have consistently failed to add specific objections. A generic laundry list of objections adds nothing other than push it even more into the pseudoskeptical camp.jonathon (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Palmistry and parapsychology are also in the psychology section of the Library of Congress. Again: you are making unceasing efforts to add claims that graphology is a science to that section and eliminate any reference to a different point of view 456hjk (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Palmistry has a Dewey Decimal number of 133.6. This is the section for paranormal phenomena, not psychology. (130 - 139 is paranormal phenomena. 150-159 is psychology.) IOW, neither of those are considered to be branches of psychology, using the Dewey Decimal system, which is what I was quoting. For the Library of Congress Classification System, "B" indicates that the field falls under " Philosophy, Psychology, Religion". "BF" refines the field to one of " Psychology, Parapsychology, Occult Sciences." The subrange BF1-BF940 is used for psychology. The subrange BF1001-BF1389 is used for Parapsychology. The subrange BF1404-BF1999 is used for Occult Sciences. Looking at the specific fields: Graphology in BF889 - BF905; Palmistry is in the range BF908-BF940; Parapsychology is in the range BF1001 -BF1389. Again, graphology does not fall into the paranormal section.jonathon (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So palmistry is in the Psychology range. 456hjk (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)P.S: I never said it falls into the paranormal section, maybe when you read you imagine words. Let me tell you what you told me: "Your position is one of pure malice. Willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misconstruing what is written, to support an invalid agenda."

I wrote that after you accused me of a number of things, all of which I demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt were false. Then you repeated those accusations, knowing that they were false. In both British and American courts that is defined as malice. jonathon (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BF -Psychology

1-990 - Psychology

  • 38-64..........Philosophy. Relation to other topics
  • 173-175.5......Psychoanalysis

176-176.5......Psychological tests and testing

1001-1389 - Parapsychology

BH - Aesthetics

  • 81-208.....History
  • 301........Special topics

456hjk (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 456hjk (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

One of the articles that is cited contains information that is false, and violates WP:BLP. Two more of the citations are irrelevant, because they address the difference between forensic document examination and determination of personality. The remaining citations are merely a random laundry list of objections, all of which can be traced back to "British Columbia Skeptics", and Barry Beyerstein. 456hjk has repeatedly ignored requests for specific objections, or research studies that support their position. Any conclusion requires both evidence to support itself, and an explanation of why the evidence that supports alternative conclusions is inapplicable.jonathon (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You are willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misconstruing what is written, to support an invalid agenda (add to the article that the graphology is a science as a fact). 456hjk (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The invalid agenda in question, is one of citing published research studies as evidence, to support the various positions about the discipline. Furthermore, it mandates listing specifics, mandating both what the specific is, and why it is an issue, and providing a source for that specific. In that respect, the article is inconsistent, because not everything is adequately sourced. jonathon (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
None of the things in the article that are inadequately sourced have been addressed by 456hjk. (I just noticed three such omissions in the section on the ADA. The entire section "Basic Tenets" is no longer sourced. Furthermore, the book that was cited when it was originally created, is no longer listed as either a reference, or in the bibliography.) jonathon (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Validity section

So I rewrote the section on validity. I don't think I removed any of the previous sources from the section, everything that was there before should still be here. All the material I've added is properly sourced and follow the rules of WP:RS. Everything is coming directly from published journals, peer review publications and even better, meta-analysis. I followed the advice of one of editors here to check the archive of the talk page to make sure I wasn't using any previously dismissed sources. Well, I'm not using any, it's all new material, but even if I missed one, I have additional sources available. So I think I'm on solid ground when I say that the validity section now reflects the current state of science on the subject, including statements such as "[studies] indicate overwhelming evidence against its predictive validity" since these are direct quotes from the studies.

The section has been subject to a lot of reverts in the last few days so I left the "Disputed" tag in place for now, we'll see how it goes. Please discuss here any changes you want to make BEFORE you make them. Since the section is properly sourced now, any un-sourced addition or removal of sourced material without previous discussion will be summarily reverted. --McSly (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the articles are cited two or three times. I substituted refnames for the cite. jonathon (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kanfer

I deleted the bit about Kanfer because it was misleading.

  • Issue # 1 is that he did not detect Cancer, but rather found neuromuscular system anomalies, that might be correlated with degenerative diseases, such as Cancer.
  • Issue # 2 is that nobody knows exactly what he was looking at. (The records from the research were destroyed. Everybody who saw the data, prior to its destruction was sworn to secrecy.)
  • Issue # 3 is that neither he, nor anybody else could replicate his preliminary results.

Is there a compelling reason for the Kanfer research to be mentioned in this article? jonathon (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Un-Signed IP Address Brigade

Dear Un-Signed IP address brigade,

86.81.228.168 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

And the unknown domains from Argentina

Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.185.115 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.179.189 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.183.184 (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.146.177 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 190.175.205.54 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.184.153 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.178.67 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.190.48 (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.188.78 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.139.126 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.171.130 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 190.51.186.229 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 190.51.129.59 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

123456789qwe (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This user does not exit!

Also the unknown domains from India

59.182.64.127 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 59.182.43.38 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


The first rule is to sign your postings. Signature fixes you and your position. You may be a Superman or Don Quixote about the article in discussion. Either ways you can be talked back to and held accountable for your words. When you do not sign your posts, it mounts to hiding. When you hide, you mostly have malice or unhonorable intentions.

The poster specially from Argentina, may have a valid position based on experience or study. Then why does the poster have to hide behind an IP address. Why is there a lack of moral courage to stand by the posters posting with his own signature?

It is my humble request to one and all. Please login and add your signature at the end of your posts. The best of wiki admins and master editors sign their comments. I really hope to see all further posts signed.

You do not have to be correct, you just need to be correctable.

Bhekare (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with examples

The examples shown in the table are not straightforward, undisputed ones. The contain many questionable examples such as ornate t bar indicating perverted state of mind, amongst others. I suggest we redo the examples table. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted that section. jonathon (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Graphology Forum Inclusion

The Graphologists.Org is a generic website with no commecrial ads and has Total posts 1242 • Total topics 751 • Total members 343 as of today. The site does not allow signatures, smilies, flash content and every post is moderated. Moderation is to keep spammers off but not to control the content.

There is a daily graphologist section which has handwriting for analysis. The global graphologist locator. Graphology and handwriting analysis experts. Q&A section etc.

Registerd users get to see 350+ handwriting formations. The registered section has forums for Basic graphology, Formations, Alphabets, Traits and Clusters etc.

Anyone can upload a handwriting sample for analysis, which is done by the forum member graphologists.

The site ranks within 10 ten google search.

Does it qualify to be added as an external link on the graphology article page on Wikipedia? Bhekare (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Forums pretty much always fail the rules on external links. See 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. So, no, it would not qualify. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

Multiple reversions of edits is not the Wikipedia way. Discuss disagreements here and aim to arrive at a consensus. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

can we get this on the front page somehow?

i consider myself educated and this is definitely not something most people know: being considered a pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.125.67 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Whoever wrote this article, or did the majority of the editing, is incredibly biased against graphology... neutral my ass... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.11 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One major issue is that research that supports the validity of handwriting analysis to determine personality is published in sources that fail W:RS. A secondary issue is that opponents deliberately misrepresent the results of their research, to conform to their prejudice against handwriting analysis. A third issue is that research on both sides uniformly suffers from fatal flaws.jonathon (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And now it appears that yet another wiki admin thinks that one source, cited six or seven times, is well sourced. A source whose sole objection to handwriting analysis is on ethical, and moral grounds. A source whose own research in the field did show validity.20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://forensic.to/webhome/qdman/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graphology/Archive_2&oldid=1092069644"