Talk:Riso–Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator

This page was proposed for deletion by 2602:306:cc83:12c0:a82b:4bc6:f67c:547d (talk · contribs) on 15 August 2017 with the comment:
Articles fails to meet notability guidelines
It was seconded by PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs) on 2017-08-16 with the comment:
Should probably be merged/redirected to Don Richard Riso
It was contested by Syrenka V (talk · contribs) on 2017-08-16 with the comment:
Google search on "riso hudson enneagram type indicator": numerous scholarly sources, including secondary

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LadyRazzBerry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Third Party

Secondary on RHETI

Primary RHETI

Related Research

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Making fun of my glandular problem is not fair. In any case, you are not required to guess. jps (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and I am not sure it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. One I removed unsourced material all that was left was the PhDs and those simply compare this test with others. It may be valid material, but the entries were written to imply wider validation. Material in the one magazine was written by a practitioner so you can't say the magazine says. I could go on, but its a mess. I've pulled it back to a stub. --Snowded ^TALK 10:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good move. I think we can begin to gather some references for this article from various sources. jps (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone above intent to re-add the sources material in a fair and balanced view? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs?

I just removed

from the refs. The url, as you see, is to a Time article entitled "What Breed of Dog Are You?". It doesn't mention RHETI. It does say "The Enneagram, which identifies people as one of nine personality types (such as the peacemaker or the enthusiast), is available at enneagraminstitute.com for $10. " but that isn't clearly relevant here. The real article [9] is available, but it only mentions RHETI once in passing.

I'm beginning to think that the refs adduced here are merely as props for a POV statement William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what a "finite POV concern" [10] might be, but the refs should not be there just to prop up the statement that it has been researched. If the refs are to have any meaning, we should attempt to read them, not to merely know that they exist. Having done so, I find However, minimal scientific research has been conducted investigating the reliability and validity of any Enneagram test fro the 2008 work [11]. Either this statement is true - in which case it is valuable, and should be used - or it is false, in which case we should not be using the reference, which must thereby be considered unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you propose some content, to your own satisfaction, which supports including the sources relevant to this article? Frankly, just deletaing them doesn't seem to help the Wikipedia cause. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forget that removing error is as valuable as adding truth - indeed, possibly more so. In this case, I removed a link to a Time article entitled "What Breed of Dog Are You?" - are you really suggesting that deleting that link didn't help "the Wikipedia cause"? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed ", which investigated and confirmed the reliability and validity of RHETI. " - whoever added that had clearly not read the ref William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHETI → Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator — Per WP:DEFINITE's admonishment to "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided..." jps (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How will the talk pages be treated during the move? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

The move is in effect instantaneous - taking far less than a second. "During the move" makes no real sense William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per policy on avoiding abbreviations in titles. The move will leave a nice redirect so searches will still turn up both forms. Moving is faster than making a regular edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No source support

[12] for the reason see wp:v. Where does this pseudoscience POV come from? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen

According to WP:MOS, the term should be spelled with an en dash; so I just moved it. But then it occured to me that the term Riso-Hudson Enneagram Type Indicator refers to a publication that is always spelled with a hyphen; it's trademarked with the hyphen. So I guess that an admin would have to undo my redirect. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

A Google Scholar search on "riso hudson enneagram type indicator" reveals numerous scholarly sources, including some secondary sources. I've added one of the latter. Please do due diligence before PRODding or AfDing pages.

—Syrenka V (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROD doesn't seem to be a problem here, but your contestation was also legitimate; thanks for adding some sources. The IP editor could not file an AfD without signing in and I don't see an urgent need to nominate the article myself. If another editor does, it'll gather more attention... Considering that the article is only a stub, it would not make much difference if it was a redirect to the author's article. —Paleo Neonate – 08:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RHETI isn't the only Enneagram test with scholarly sources. There's also the WEPPS by Wagner, the Essential Enneagram test (formerly the Stanford Enneagram Discovery and Inventory Guide) by Daniels, and others. Either feature a page for all of them, or none of them. Personally, I don't think they're significant enough to have their own pages. Gempolisher (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]