Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

My hope is that someone will add secondary sources to this article. I will show gratitude. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder#Requested move 25 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 08:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lust murder#Requested move 8 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Please address the tags for this article. I am unfamiliar with this assessment, so I would probably just make it worse. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Article should be deleted because it fails notability. The article also looks like it might be an ad, because it's citing a product page. See WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ADS. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Article has been deleted. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friends.

I have a working article edit about self harm - its located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaworu1992/Self-harm

I am pretty sure the edit does not violate any copyrights (I checked with the copyrights scanner). However, as I am a non-native speaker of English, I could commit errors of linguistic nature. Could some of you check my grammar, vocab etc?

After you would give it a "ok" I would edit the Wikipedia SH article based upon the sandbox.

Also, I believe the scientific article is open-access, might I archive it on Wikimedia Commons instead of archive.org or how it's called?

Best wishes my friends --Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It contains a lot of superficial analysis which a researcher might write, but which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Let me give a few examples.

The biological phenomenas that could some day fully explain NSSI exist in such areas of study as genetics, neurology and research related to autonomic nervous and neuroendocrine systems. Research within sciences studying these areas could result in new solutions for self-harm, such as medicines or neuromodulation techniques.

Should be removed.

The reward system is very interesting from point of view of self-harm researcher. It's important to know whether SI is maintained by negative or positive reinforcement, and if people who self-harm have lessened responsiveness to positive awards. Main components of the reward system consist of the orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and ACC. So far (2021), results of the research are not conclusive - scientists have at their disposal one study in which the reward system activity was increased and one in which it was decreased. The behaviour of decision-making studied under reward conditions are not linked to self-injury in a conclusive fashion. This all means that the reward system working in self-harm should be further studied in order to get more knowledge and data in this context.

The entire paragraph could be reduced to just one sentence. For example.

Research on how self-harm relates to the reward system has been inconclusive, with one study showing increased reward system activity and another showing decreased activity.

Everything else is superficial. There would be no point in listing brain areas, for example, if it's not expanded on in a way that makes it interesting for an explanation of self-harm.

An example of how delving into basic neuroscience could be interesting is that self-harm has been believed to be related to an abnormal mu-opioid receptor system (responsible for hedonic or 'liking' aspects of reward). So for example, rather than just listing brain areas with no context given, if I was writing something like this, I would write a blurb explaining hedonic hotpots and the mu-opioid receptor system. An example that I wrote is at Biology of romantic love#Brain opioid theory of social attachment. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

However, let me also say that I think writing about this kind of thing effectively on Wikipedia is complicated, because it requires a careful understanding of how citations are supposed to be used here.

In the BOTSA section I linked to, for example, I have several reviews that I'm going by (WP:SECONDARY sources), but I also cite individual studies in places (WP:PRIMARY) to add extra details. Additionally, the sources I use all either refer to each other, or I have other sources relating them, to avoid accidental WP:OR. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

So, basically, I went into too big detail here? Hm... I thought if I would write extensively, the article would be better and more informative? Sorry, maybe I was wrong?

Also, I got no idea how to change that :'( sorry, I feel like I am giving you all trouble right now :(

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

A scientific review paper is written for other professionals in the field, telling them what research is available. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so our readers are mostly laypeople.

I would guess that a typical reader of the self-harm article here, for example, is actually a parent or friend of a young person struggling with mental health issues.

Researchers will write things in a review paper that readers of Wikipedia won't understand or care about.

For example, a review paper might talk about future directions of research. This is intended for other people in the field (e.g. grad students) to suggest where they should concentrate new studies. A layperson reading Wikipedia won't be interested in this or understand why it matters.

A review paper might also summarize an experiment by just listing areas of the brain that were associated in a study, without explaining why it matters, because other people in the field already know what those brain areas might mean. A layperson reading Wikipedia would need some additional explanation to understand.

So in some cases, you are summarizing things from the source that a Wikipedia reader isn't interested in. In other cases, I think you could go into more detail that would help a reader here understand.

(This is why I mentioned the brain opioid research, for example, because it's biological research which a layperson might find useful or interesting.)

It's also helpful to have other types of sources on hand. Scientific reviews have a certain use here, but books and internet articles are often written with a more casual reader in mind, so they might contain details or context which a scientific review doesn't go into.

But again, if I'm writing stuff like this, I try to make sure the sources I use are related somehow, to avoid doing accidental WP:OR. For example, if I was writing about brain areas associated with self-harm, I would look for a self-harm researcher's interpretation of what those brain areas mean. If the review paper doesn't contain this type of analysis, the papers they are citing might.

Authors of the scientific review expect that their readers (professionals in the field) will read the studies they are citing, so their summaries are not always the most detailed or useful. They will say something like "John Smith performed an fMRI experiment this year (Smith, 2026)." without expanding, and they are telling you to go read Smith (2026). In cases like that, it's not useful to cite the review here. You need to cite the paper of the study they are referencing for details that would be relevant here.

It's just a difference between types of sources. We are an encyclopedia, so what is interesting content here does not always match up with what a scientific review is going to contain.

We like review papers because they synthesize information for us, but they are not always a good guide for what info should be included in an article here. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing I should add to what I said, however, is that internet sources about psychology are often unreliable. (Check the noticeboard before using them.) Websites like Healthline often show prominently in Google results, but the noticeboard has a negative assessment of them. There is a whole slew of them, including PsychCentral, SimplyPsychology, etc., and the articles tend to be written by people who know hardly anything about the topic they are writing about. Usually books written by experts are better sources for Wikipedia, when I am looking to add context to something scientific. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend.

Thank you for your explanation. So, basically, Wikipedia is written for the laypeople and not for experts. I will try to keep that in mind. I will try to redact my draft according to this principle.

Best wishes

--Kaworu1992 (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Re-posting issues I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine recently, because they're more relevant here:

The EMDR article would benefit from improvements in sourcing and possibly balance; some of it is based on sources that do not seem up to MEDRS standards. The discussion at Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing#Lopsided and out-of-date because it is locked includes suggestions and a list of review articles and other peer-reviewed articles, published within the past five years, that could be used to improve the article.

The article at Three Principles Psychology has a long history of connected contributors, and it remains largely cited to books by practitioners and advocates instead of peer-reviewed articles. I cut some of it, but it basically needs a rewrite. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

An editor has requested that 2022 Hungarian LGBTQ in education referendum be moved to 2022 referendum on Hungarian anti-LGBTQ law, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ambition (character trait)#Requested move 14 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-39838-32 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Persistence (psychology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persistence (psychology) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). George Ho (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Persistence (psychology) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persistence (psychology) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I found the article at Control by deprivation by looking for long articles that have been orphaned for a long time, and I don't know if it's had much review from other editors since it was created in 2019. I also can't figure out what other articles should link to it, if any. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all - just over a year ago I put up this talk page topic regarding a specific caption to File:Jessica Alba Face Proportions.png on both articles specified with a CN on one of them. That talk page topic didn't draw any comments so I wanted to bring it up somewhere with some more eyes...

The caption claims that the study found celebrities with similar ratios to their 'golden ratio', but the actual paper doesn't say that anywhere. I suspect that caption is actually synthesising the study and this Daily Mail article about it if I'm not mistaken. Any thoughts on what to do with it? applecuckoo (he/him) 09:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

I was advised to crosspost this here. I've started a Talk thread on the Attachment Theory page because the page seems to contain a considerable (50k+ words) amount of uncited original research seeming contributed by (and later reverted by) a single editor. There is a considerable amount of unsubstantiated, uncited research which focuses on the criticism of attachment theory that appears to be out of step with the dominant psychological research. I find this concerning, and wanted to bring it to your attention: Talk:Attachment theory#Improper Citations and Original Research

I'm going to begin working on editing in needs for clarification and citation, but I would welcome any help or insight you could give. Thanks for your time! Conas.Lans (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I actually have an issue with your framing of this, because the criticisms of attachment theory are not out of step with 'research'. Attachment theory is wildly popular among therapists, while actual scientific research has shown that its original assumptions made by Bowlby and Ainsworth are generally shaky at best.

The issue with the article here has to do with the way this editor was using citations. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I know we get into this in more detail in the Talk thread, but I agree with you that it is incredibly important that criticism and scholarly review be highlighted in each article, and that scholarly criticism of this theory in particular have pointed out blind spots that need further research. I also agree that subsequent scientific research has certainly shown that many of the originators' assumptions needed deepening, which the research has addressed (though certainly not in enough detail) by adding onto and changing the original basis of the theory. Like I say in the other thread: that's just good science.

There is also a history of pseudoscientific, bogus "attachment therapy" such as the kind that resulted in now-widely-outlawed and very dangerous "holding therapy", "age regression therapy" and "rebirthing therapy." ATTACh (later called the Association for Training on Trauma and Attachment of Children) was a widely-accessible purveyor of these bogus therapies that received widespread professional backlash from research scientists and professional organizations after the death of two children during one of their abusive "treatments." This is also incredibly important to highlight in the article--and it is, but it deserves expansion.

However, this does not mean that the article on attachment theory should be written, as it currently is, as a dissertation. The problems with the article go beyond simple mis-citation: they are rooted in synthesis of sources, misuse of citations to support unsupported claims made in the article, clear instances of original research, and a stylistic construction and tone that attempts, seemingly wherever it can, to lead the reader to the conclusion that attachment theory as a structural framework of understanding is unsupported, bogus nonsense. While that may well be proven true in the future--and if that's the case I hope we get to that point sooner rather than later--that's simply not the conclusion of the vast majority of the current research at this moment right now.

I do not agree--and neither does the American Psychological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association--that attachment theory is a non-scientifically-based theoretical model of human behaviour, and I don't believe there is convincing scientific evidence that's the case. In one overview book alone, The Science and Clinical Practice of Attachment Therapy--published by the APA, peer reviewed in its original form, and quoted more directly in the other thread--there's hundreds of citations to scientific papers to back up the claims made in the text. Another considerable aggregation of attachment theory scientific research is a massive compendium handbook called Handbook of Attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.) by J. Cassidy and P.R. Shaver.

Additionally, to your point about the credentialed academic: that does seem to be true, but it's an unfortunate truth of life that a credentialed academic can still have biases, especially in fields they do not practice. This is the root of academic confirmation bias often exemplified by books like Guns, Germs, and Steel, in which the academic-author assumes that their very real and verifiable skill and expertise in one field makes them able to synthesize or creatively disregard the complexity of the research in other academic fields. This problem is especially pernicious in the social and psychological sciences, where it's commonly the stance of researchers in "harder" sciences to find social scientific research methodologies less conclusive than those of fields that do not measure human behaviour or which are beholden to much more rigorous and restrictive safety and ethics guidelines than many others. Conas.Lans (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I just looked this guy up and if this is the case, and the username actually matches the academic, it's rather odd that the Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Charles Sturt University would be creating this content with so little citational rigour. I'm going to look into this a bit more and possibly try and contact Professor Bradley at his university email address to confirm these are indeed his edits. Conas.Lans (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

He probably just did this for fun; academics in psychology don't use citations in a very rigorous way to begin with. Wikipedia citations are supposed to be rigorous, but academics don't know this. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, as I said over at the other talk page, if you look up who this editor is based on their username, they are in fact a credentialed academic of some kind. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eating mucus#Requested move 31 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated the article on avoidant personality disorder for good article review. I welcome participants in this WikiProject to get involved in the process. Improvements and suggestions are also welcome. BlockArranger (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC)