Talk:Self-verification theory

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Untitled

There are a mass of references but can we see some links to show that this theory has rceived any sort of peer review beyond the classrooms of William Swann. Good self-esteem is one thing, vanity is another. -- RHaworth 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references cited in the article are peer reviewed. Wbswann 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)wbswann[reply]

Prof. Swann's being, if anything, modest: His defense that the references were all peer reviewed doesn't mention the calibre of the journals in which his results were published. JPSP and AMR are both top-end journals in the fields of social psychology and management. Publishing in these outlets is extremely challenging and their acceptance rate is quite low. I'm appreciative that Prof Swann took the time to write a crisp and straightforward primer on SV theory on Wikipedia. I think RHaworth's critique is off-base here.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Helenamcharles.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section is not given an objective enough treatment; all criticism seems to be simply brushed off as baseless. I don't think this is what a criticism section is intended to be - it should contain different viewpoints, if they exist, and they should be defended as well as possible. Then a counter-criticism may be added, but I think even this should be reserved for the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szkott (talk • contribs) 07:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost – this page needs a disambiguation signpost.

I entered self-verification and landed here. I'm looking for the concept where one cannot necessarily trust:

a malware check of an antimalware program performed by the program itself;
an authenticity verification of a message performed by software attached to that message;
an investigation, audit, or review of a government, corporation, or other entity carried out by themselves;
a proof of a theory proved within the theory itself.

—James Haigh (talk) 2013-06-27T16:59:03Z

Lack of unbiased research

All the sources stem from the creator of this theory. There are no sources that he is not at least an editor on (if not the main author). There needs to be better research from other parties to prove this theory or further explain what this theory means in more recent years. Helenamcharles (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]