→Reliable Source Policies: Published PhD research is acceptable: who ... what grudge |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::Nah, they lack [[peer review]] and the ones included here look like they were essentially [[diploma mill]]ed. 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. [[User:Joshua P. Schroeder|jps]] ([[User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder|talk]]) 17:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC) |
::Nah, they lack [[peer review]] and the ones included here look like they were essentially [[diploma mill]]ed. 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. [[User:Joshua P. Schroeder|jps]] ([[User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder|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?[[User:ZuluPapa5|Zulu Papa 5 *]] ([[User talk:ZuluPapa5|talk]]) 17:55, 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?[[User:ZuluPapa5|Zulu Papa 5 *]] ([[User talk:ZuluPapa5|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. [[User:Joshua P. Schroeder|jps]] ([[User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder|talk]]) 20:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Tagged== |
==Tagged== |
Revision as of 20:05, 13 January 2011
Psychology NA‑class | |||||||
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)