Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Motivational Theory
There has been a lot of argument as to the credibility or lack thereof, for this theory. However although unintended for management theories for motivation by Maslow; in practical terms if there is a manager with a small team of deflated workers, it's a little start, a 'so basic it might just help' theory that when a manager, whose head is full of figures and responsibilities that are so far away from the likes of arguments of principals and credibilities or science versus pyscho-babble, that when that manager thinks yes that might help! I'll put a drinks vendor in the office, or i'll put a security light up just by the exit where some workers stand at night waiting to be picked up, or lets have one to ones to address peoples goals, then that is when something as incorrect or not may just make that bit of a difference to peoples spirits, maybe even just for one day, but it could just add a bit of warmth to a usually cold, mundane place. That in that sense may just turn out to be more important to those people than even whether the earth go round the sun. On that day at least!

Many claims lacking of supporting documentation
Despite many sources, there are no documents supporting many of the claims made in the first few paragraphs (and graphic) that Maslow said certain things. The only document that has Maslows own words is source 1, and in that source Maslow never mentions the words "deficiency, growth, transcendence, aesthetic, or beauty" despite very specific and direct claims made to the contrary with out a supporting direct source.

Additionally, many of the sources that are mentioned in these first few paragraphs directly and explicitly contradict the claim that "One criticism of the original theory which has been revised into newer versions of the theory, was that the original hierarchy states that a lower level must be completely satisfied and fulfilled before moving onto a higher pursuit; there is evidence to suggest that levels continuously overlap each other." from source 3.

Source 3 also is apparently a book written 5 years ago that still has no cover art or description, has 1 rating, 1 "have read" and 3 "currently reading" at 5 years in (fairly suspicious if you ask me.) https://openlibrary.org/books/OL28909326M/Motivation

Finally, source 2 also has a lot of sources, but only 2 claiming to have been writen by Mazlow himself. The first is the same as source 1 in this wiki, and the other is this https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221546.1965.11774448 That link goes to an alleged article where the cited article and the previous article are mashed together, and the "next article" and "previous article" buttons go to mostly blank pages. The website is at best broken, and at worst a hollow and empty front. The page also no longer lists Maslow as an author in the header, only in the text below. It does, however, let you purchase the article for just under $60, so there's that I guess...

If a wiki page is labeled as high importance, it would be nice if some source and document verification was done. 2601:280:CA7E:4420:7D66:7660:C810:75B6 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, Maslow's original theory has been expanded upon countless times by other researchers, and it's generally okay to include those developments in this article too. Regarding what Maslow did or did not say in quotes, unsourced statements can be removed or tagged with the cn template. Also note that according to MOS:LEAD, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article and this is especially relevant for articles such as this one. A lead should act as an introduction to the topic and not separately introduce information.
 * Regarding source 3, readership statistics such as the one you mention are generally insignificant when trying to establish the reliability of a source. Most readers will not leave an entry on any specific website to report that they've read it; a good way to determine source reliability is how reputable the publisher is - and Routledge is generally reliable. suggests page 211 may have the information used in the claim in this article, although I do not have a copy and someone else would need to verify it. However this is a common criticism and there are other sources which can be added in addition, such as  which states the existence of a rigid order of needs for every individual is questioned.
 * Regarding source 2, the Taylor and Francis website is not broken, but what you see on the website is only a first page preview. Journals are published in such a way that they can be read as a full "book", and the side effect is it damages one-page previews that TandF uses. The full article is three pages but is paywalled, if you really want to read it and verify the claim I suggest considering making an account and reading information about the Wikipedia library, through which the source can be accessed. Darcyisvery cute (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)