Talk:Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator

Additional sources

In Search Of

Author: Diane Warling

Publisher: Ottawa : National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 1995.

Dissertation: Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Guelph, 1995.

Series: Canadian theses = Thèses canadiennes see [1]

Questionable

• J Shannon [2]
• LE Taylor [3]
• Donna Marie Nutile [4]
• Kale Sudhir [5]
• Walter Geldart [6]
• The Enneagram and the MBTI [7]
• Javier Finez [8]

Reliable Source Policies: Published PhD research is acceptable

From the Reliable Source policy page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

Nah, they lack peer review and the ones included here look like they were essentially diploma milled. They'll be removed, don't you worry. See also WP:MEDRS since we're sliding into that territory. You've got no leg to stand on. jps (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review is the way a scholar PH.D. is a awarded. Who is pushing this article in the medical territory? What's your grudge here?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, peer review is done through journal submission, not dissertation committee. I removed the "scientific claims" that were only sourced to primary sources earlier. They were reinstated. So it must be that people who are trying to get these shoddy studies included want the subject to be evaluated from a scientific perspective which will, incidentally, result in a thorough drubbing of the so-called "evidence" that there is anything more to this than the fancies of some pseudoscientific psychotherapists trying to make a buck off the disaffection of the guileless and the unwise. jps (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's making fanciful claims that they are "shoddy studies" to cause an affect on the guileless and unwise? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? Or just a loaded question? The fact that the company who invented this high-grade baloney is hawking their wares as though it has any validity is plain for the taking. jps (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What sources give the idea that "the company who invented this high-grade baloney is hawking their wares as though it has any validity" ... did you make that up? Nice pseudoscience claim.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are giving ideas now? I'm so behind on the times. Meanwhile, we've got a whole lot of sources manufactured by the RHETI folks. I cannot even establish independent notability. Has anybody who isn't gaga over these charlatans even noticed what they're doing? (Besides Carroll, I mean.) jps (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged

This article has a lot of issues. I tagged it to get some more eyes on it. Edit warring is a big problem here, I see. jps (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific please. What is bothering you? Maybe we can scientifically diagnose your issues. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The tags are specific. jps (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do they point to specific content issues which can be edited to improve Wikipedia, or maybe they a result of your weight. Must I guess? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)