Talk:Dermatoglyphics

References Needed

This link has many references for dermatoglyphics to expane the article apers0n 07:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is pure woo science. While the references cited are for real medical conditions none of that relates to the main body of the text. The start relating the whole thing to palmistry gives the whole thing away Philip Machanick (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Other article

Triradius, which appears to be on this topic, needs work, for someone who might know something about this. --Xyzzyplugh 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dermatoglyphics from All Chinese Ethnic Groups Reveal Geographic Patterning

Dermatoglyphics from All Chinese Ethnic Groups Reveal Geographic Patterning

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808343/

Rajmaan (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article needs help.

Several of the diseases listed have no references in this page. I haven't checked the individual pages themselves to see if they contain anything regarding the subject, but if they do, then those references should be added to this page.

The "section" of works related to the subject needs to be cleaned up. I attempted to make it a bit more readable, but I think that it has a long way to go. To that end, I recommend separating the related works and the "current state" of the field into their own sections.

Also, since the potential of doubt regarding the scientific basis of the subject is mentioned in the lead, it needs to be described later in the article, probably in its own subsection.

In general, the page needs to be cleaned up so it reads less like a bunch of research notes and more like an encyclopedic article. I plan on working this in the coming days.

Syko1096 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned about the neutrality about the statement regarding the scientific basis of the subject. Does that source question the effectiveness of dermatoglyphics? That is how the text currently reads. Or does that source state that dermatoglyphics is valid but could be better if it were based on more valid underlying assumptions? I do not have access to this book, and thus could not confirm the statement here... But it seems to me that there can be techniques that we consider valid--and which have their effectiveness verified scientifically--but which do not have scientific bases. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)