Talk:Norman Vincent Peale

State of the article as of August 2014: Relentless negative hit-piece on Mr. Peale.
I came to this page to get some general info on Mr. Peale. I was shocked at the bile spilling out from the article. There is practically nothing on why he became so famous, or why his books were best-sellers. Instead, paragraph after paragraph of obvious hate. An article like this is an example of why no-one takes Wikipedia seriously. Looking through the comments below, it seems some obsessive axe-grinder has appointed himself as the sole guardian of this article, and has reversed every attempt to introduce a more neutral tone. This article needs attention from a moderator, pronto. Sarozek (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Re Sarozek's comment from two years ago: bingo! I came here to find out a little bit about Peale. I am not especially an admirer of "inspirational" literature and self-help books, nor that whole Republican side of Christianity, but wow! What an obvious hit piece and smear job this article is. Shame on wikipedia moderators for allowing such garbage to stand. I especially scoff at the line in the lede, "His ideas were not accepted by mental health experts." What on earth is a "mental health expert"? Some atheist shrink? These mental health "experts" have never cured even one mentally ill person, just drugged them into dopiness, so it is laughable to use the word "experts" to describe them. Wikipedia is such an epic fail, and it gets worse every day. Disgraceful articles like this are part of why Wikipedia is becoming a laughing stock. Are there no grown-ups moderating it anymore?77Mike77 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with the two points raised by both these commenters: (1) this is an extraordinarily one-sided hit piece on Peale. I might have my own reservations about Peale's approach but the negative tone of the material here and the volume of it is just outlandish and clearly betrays a personal view. (2) Why is such a piece--in clear violations of WP's NPOV--allowed to stand?--50.68.134.51 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur that this article reads like a one-sided hit piece. Undue emphasis is given negative criticisms of Dr. Peale. I’m not saying those criticisms are or are not valid — just that there’s little to explain the impact Peale had on many people or why some very successful laypeople (i.e., neither theologians or psychologists) spoke well of Peale. —2606:A000:678C:9300:E0A5:7F08:F1CE:65DB (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Positive thinking" has no article?
Presently, the phrase "positive thinking" simply redirects to "Attitude (psychology)," which is NOT the same thing. "Positive Thinking" was a major pop philosophical movement and needs its own article. Someone out there up to writing it? Lawikitejana 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I added an item under "trivia" about Robert H. Schuller, a student of Peale's, who uses the phrase "Possibility Thinking." I hope this goes some way to broaden the understanding of the particular sort of "positive thinking" that Lawikitejana was thinking about.MissGarbo 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I came to this site to get some general information on Dr. Peale and because there was a "warning" felt it should be checked out. What I have come away with is a great deal of contempt for the contributors, commentors, and editors. The amount of visibal bias for both sides, from all, is discouraging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.221.38 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section
I changed the heading "Detractors" to "Controversy." I thought it was a better heading, especially considering the last sentence, referencing those who enjoy Peale's teachings. MissGarbo 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the previous version of this page, as editor Bob Schwartz blanked out, or basically vandalized the entire criticism. Schwartz offered no specific critique of the facts, or questioned the accuracy of the facts presented. Prior to this, Schwartz labeled it NPOV and disputed its neutrality without any specific critique, or any discussion on the talk page. If Schwartz wants to disagree with the facts presented, or present another opinion, then he should do research and present these opinions, rather than blanking out others opinions he may not agree with. The author of the criticism has done a literature review of Peale going back more than 60 years, and the author could not find a single journal article by a mental health expert or scholar which supports Peale's "techniques." The criticisms of Peale are indeed harsh, they are valid, and they represent the consensus view of the mental health community towards Peale. The author has also deliberately stayed away from religious experts criticisms of Peale, though there are many, to keep from non-scientific "my religion is better than yours" arguments. Peale repeatedly says in his books that his "techniques" are scientifically proven, yet he offers not a shred of documented evidence to support these claims. The only evidence Peale's offers is testimonial, which is not scientific or expert evidence. The experts in mental health I have presented refute Peale's claims in the strongest terms. If Schwartz has a specific criticism, then make it. Otherwise leave the article alone. MELCSW


 * Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I encourage you to get an account, read more about how Wikipedia works, and help make this a better encyclopedia.
 * The material added addresses the controvery around Peale's advice, which is an appropriate topic for the article to include. Unfortunately, though:
 * (1) The material added has a strong point of view. To be included, it needs to be written from a neutral POV. WP:NPOV has an overview of this very important and somewhat complicated rule.
 * (2) Much of the material added is original research (as you say), personal opinions, and conclusions. This is not appropriate on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR.
 * (3) The material added in the "Controversies" section is very long -- over twice the length of all the pre-existing content. For inclusion, it needs editing to be much more concise and focused. An extended essay can be published elsewhere.
 * These are the main points of difficulty I see, and which I made a serious attempt to fix. Sources to support claims of a consensus among various groups (psychologists, ministers, etc.) about Peale's methods would be very useful. I hope you and others will help refine this section.
 * Please note that any material added will most likely be edited by others in a good faith effort to improve it (from the perspective of the Wikipedia rules and commonly accepted guidelines in the community of editors). For a "don't change my contributions" environment I would suggest a blog, message board, or other type of site with clear, single authorship; Wikipedia is very different. (Using 4 tildes to sign and date:) Bob schwartz 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a place for criticism in any article. However, the added section is really disproportional to the rest of the article and makes the reader believe that Peale was heavily criticised, even though his book was a bestseller (which didn't seem to be fueled by criticism), his church attendance was high, and the general public seemed to be receptive to his writings. The section also has poor context because there is currently no article about the book The Power of Positive Thinking or any elaboration in the Peale article about what were the important points or ideas in the book (or in the "positive thinking" philosophy). It is as if a personal essay pushing a one-sided point of view was placed upon the encyclopedia article, creating an immediate burden for other editors to reduce biases, which is not always appreciated.


 * There is nothing that balances the criticism. Questions I could ask to help build neutrality are: What were Peale's responses to the criticism? And were there rebuttals from the peers of Peale's detractors to the criticism? (I think there would be, but as I am unfamiliar with the field, I cannot cite particular people.) But before answering these questions, I think the section could be made more concise. The long quote by RC Murphy could be summarized, especially.


 * Finally, Bob is right in that no one in Wikipedia owns an article, even myself. Articles are expected to conform to Wikipedia policies and consensus is built among multiple editors in a disagreement to determine article content. Tinlinkin 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. The author of the criticism welcomes disagreement and other viewpoints. The problem with Bob Schwartz' editing of the criticism is that he blanked it out and vandalized it almost completely, and the few sentences he left standing substantially misrepresent the expert's viewpoints. Bob Schwartz completely edited out one of the expert's major contentions, that Peale was a fraud. These experts do not make these charges frivolously. The mental health experts and scholar quoted are guided by professional standards of ethics, and thir criticisms are considered to be solid evidence.

Mental health experts who make fraudulent claims about others can lose their licenses and their ability to practice. Scholars who make fraudulent claims can lose their professional reputations, and in Meyer's case, his position in his university. Additionally, mental health experts have a "duty to warn" the public when they see fraudulent practices and therapies that harm the public. That is why their criticisms are so strong.

I do agree with Bob Shwartz' contention that some of the criticism is personal opinion, and the author will take steps to edit these out.

Tinlinkin, you make many good points. Within the mental health community, there are no rebuttals or experts who support Peale that I could find. A fraud is a fraud, and no licensed mental health expert is going to support a therapy that is clearly fraudulent and not supported by a shred of evidence.

Another problem is that Peale himself never directly rebutted these charges. How could he? Defending this fraud would have opened him up to further criticism. I would welcome any solid evidence that would rebut the charges and balance the article.

As for the length of the Murphy quote, I beleive it is essential. Murphy is talking about extremely complex psychological issues. The quotation is concise when viewed in that context, and it refutes Peale'e claims that complex psycological processes can be reduced to the simplification of hypnotic autosuggestion. Secondly, the length of the quote gives the Wikipedia reader the evidence to make up his own mind, and it is completely independent of the author's view. Third, there is no limit length on Wikipedia biography. There are otherbiogragraphical articles and criticisms contained therein that are much longer than this criticism.

Finally, just because a book is a bestseller doesn't make it true. There are many examples of bestselling fraudulent books in publishing history.

I have added one more expert opinion, that of Donald Seligman, founder of "positive psychology." MELCSW

Hi. The material contributed by the anonymous editor (the current "Controversy" section) still violates several rules and guidelines required for inclusion in a Wikpedia encyclopedia article, as is noted above. If the problems were limited to one or two sentences, I might suggest marking those areas with citation-needed, POV, or other flags. But this material is much too long (1524 words, compared to just 406 for the main article itself!) and more importantly is too POV, lacks references for many claims, and is written in too much of an essay/advocacy tone, I think. For example, the anonymous editor wants the article to state that experts said Peale "was a con man and a fraud." No reference is offered that supports those specific terms, not to mention the balance and context required. So I'm going to drop the extended material from the article until it conforms to WP policies. It does no good for Wikipedia to retain text that is clearly inappropriate in its live, indexed version. It its place I will attempt again to briefly summarize the controversy, including the anonymous author's key references; I hope more knowledgeable editors than I can improve this section. If the anonymous editor is new to Wikipedia, I encourage him or her to click through to the Help pages, to register, and even consult with experienced editors or Administrators to learn more about the specialized requirements on this site, and to refine the material he or she has researched accordingly. Bob schwartz 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again Bob Schwartz has vandalized this page, seeking to blank out legitimate criticism of Peale, written by respected psychologists. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the Peale organization. As an encyclopedia, it seeks scientific, verifiable knowledge. The author of the criticism has provided that. Bob Schwartz does not contest the accuracy of these statements. They are completely verifiable. The author suggests Bob Schwartz spend his time and his bias working on the pro-Peale websites out there. No other editor but Bob Schwartz has tried to vandalize the sight. Other editors have added to it, some with legitimate criticisms. Bob Schwartz continues to vandalize it. I have again reverted this page. I cleaned up some quotes, and added Bob Scwartz pro-Peale statement from Billy Graham. If Bob Schwartz continues to vandalize the criticism to make this section read like propaganda for the Peale organization, the author will ask the Wikipedia editors to block him from this site. MELCSW

The quotes presented do imply, state and support that Peale is a fraud. Murphy writes that Peale apears not to listen to his words and that he terrifies readers with "saccharin terrorism." Meyer writes that Peale clearly knows his techniques are hypnosis, that he discovered "the power of suggestion over the human mind," that he doesn't inform the reader that his techniques are hypnosis, and he even titled the name of an article "Confidence Man." MELCSW


 * That title is an amusing play on words; we don't have a citation that any expert called Peale a "con man" or a "fraud". Those are your words, they are POV and unsupported by verifiable references, and need to be changed for inclusion in this article. The section now contains many instances like this. For example, the first paragraph has many POV word choices and unverified claims (marked below).
 * Peale came under heavy criticism from all sides during his lifetime - from theologians [citation needed], mental health experts, scholars, and even politician s like Adlai Stevenson, who was famously quoted saying, "I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling."[citation needed] These critics came out en masse in the early 1950's after the publication of The Power of Positive Thinking to warn the public about the dangerous message that Peale was propagating, that he was a con man [verification needed] and a fraud .[verification needed]
 * These would need to be removed, and balanced context added, for this paragraph to meet basic WP standards for inclusion, copyediting aside. Bob schwartz 17:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My main issue with this section - and I'm not a big Peale fan - is that some of the authorities who criticize Peale are being cited as neutral and objective, but their opinions are opinions only. In particular, Albert Ellis completely mischaracterizes Borderline Personality Disorder, an area of mental health I have researched very extensively for the last two years - BPDs do not "self hypnotize" or think positively at all. Ellis's work is itself very controversial because he and his followers have claimed amazing benefits from their own therapies that are not verifiable (e.g., in the treatment of eating disorders - I did a huge research paper on this). The claim that he is one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century is an unsupported appeal to authority. User:3Tigers 8:00 PST, 7 January 2006


 * There is nothing unbalanced or untoward about the controversy section. In fact it is why I came to read the article; I had heard Peale was one of the organizers of the anti-Kennedy/Catholic faction of protestants in the 1960 election. IE many readers come to the Peale article to read about the crazy or odd things he did.... jackbrown (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having such views are not "crazy" or "odd" - the whole Protestant Reformation was based on basically the same premises.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep it cool
Please read the most important general editing guidelines in case of disagreements at Stay cool and also visit Harmonious Editing Club. Trade2tradewell 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a definition of positive thinking in Peale's own words to balance the article and define the problem. In the "keep it cool" section -- thanks treadwell -- Wikipedia guidelines say to avoid deleting material Bob Schwartz. You do not discuss the problem, Bob Schwartz, you simply delete material that you alone disagree with. I have not deleted a single line of any of the material that I disagree with and I would encourage you to do the same. I have even listend to some of your advice and deleted material that I wrote that on second glance did seem to be too opionated. You appear not want to listen to anyone. Don't delete, Bob Schwartz, contribute. I hope that one day this will be a well rounded article exploring all sides of Peale. MELCSW.

Bob Schwartz is not the only person who disagrees with some of the material, MELCSW. We get your point; that you think Peale is a con man and advocates dangerous mental practices. This may very well be true. But many of your assumptions are themselves not accurate. For instance, Ellis is highly controversial and has made claims about his own therapeutic effectiveness unsupported by research. Some mental health professionals, contrary to your claims in the Controversy talk section, are able to maintain professional positions despite ineffective, inaccurate, and fraudulent claims and practices. You are using an "appeal to authority" that does not give enough specific examples except other people's opinions. That's not the same as proving Peale a fraud; you've proven that some people dislike him and that his anecdotes did not include actual names. It's perfectly possible he's inventing the anecdotes, but it's also a common practice among book-writing counselors in order to protect client confidentiality (for example, M. Scott Peck's The Road Less Traveled). Finally, deletion happens all the time at Wikipedia as information is updated; otherwise it would be impossible to clean up inaccuracies. User:3Tigers 8:08 AM PST, 7 January 2006

Your point about protecting client confidentiality is a good one. Peale is not being criticized for this, but for providing endless undocumented testimonial evidence from readers, followers and "experts." Many of these testimonials are not identified as case studies, which would be confidentially protected. None of the unnamed "experts" quoted would be considered case studies. This is advertising, not scholarship, and Peale does not even meet the standards of advertising since the majority of his testimonials are unnamed. You will not find testimonial evidence in Peck, Ellis et al as this is not considered evidence in scholarship, and publishing letters and statements saying how wonderful their therapies are is strongly discouraged. You will find case studies, confidentially protected in Ellis and Peck. Most importantly, if Peck or Ellis say an expert support them, that reference is cited and attributed. Peale does not cite his references at all, yet he repeatedly says "experts" support him, repeatedly providing quotations without names attached or any attribution. In Peck, Ellis et al, you will usually find an index, bibliography, and extensive footnoting so their documentation can be verified. You find none of these in Peale, no name index, no bibliography, and the only footnotes refer the reader to other Peale materials. Factually speaking, Peale's book must be considered more of a work of fiction than non-fiction. Peale creates a world where all these experts and people seem to agree with him, but on close inspection, these experts and most of the testimonials do not exist, and Peale does not prove that they do. Experts like Murphy say the "experts" that Peale quotes are "implausible," not be believed, and yes, fraudulent. Peale is clearly misrepresenting that mental health experts support him, when factually speaking, they do not.

I clarified the Ellis statement to reflect his opinion that Peale presents a black and white, polarized, all positive or all negative view of the world without any grays in it. As I'm sure you know, this is typical of borderline personality disorder. I originally wrote that Ellis said the thinking process of "positive thinking" was similar to BPD, but someone edited that out.

The other point Ellis makes is that he (as does RC Murphy and many other critics) compares Peale to Emile Coue. Coue, a French psychiatrist, is mostly credited with popularizing the form of hypnosis known as autosuggestion. But the critics point out there are many differences between Coue and Peale. Coue was a mental health expert, Peale has no mental health credentials. Coue clearly explains to his readers that he is teaching them hypnosis, and the form he is teaching, autosuggestion. Peale deliberately conceals this information from his readers. Coue explains in great detail the effects of hypnosis; narrowed attention, markedly increased suggestibility, increased dependence on the hypnotist, and an altered sense of reality among other effects. Peale explains none of these effects to his readers. Coue said autosuggestion was to be used sparingly, and over a limited length of time. For example, an individual might be told to repeat an affirmation 10 times upon waking and ten times before he went to bed. The process would continue for a couple of weeks, then discontinued after the desired effect. Coue did not teach his readers to condition themselves into a permanent state of autosuggestive hypnosis, as Peale does. Coue's book, "Self-Mastery Through Autoggestion," contains many warnings about the use of autosuggestion as well. He tells readers that the illness they wish to cure must be realistically curable, and he warns about misuse of autosuggestion by the unscrupulous. Coue said that any individual who would use his autosuggestive techniques on others without their informed consent, awareness and understanding would only be doing so for "evil" purposes. Peale seeks to entrap and enslave his readers in a hypnotic state, neither explaining to the reader what he is getting into or how to get out of it. Coue taught his readers to bring themselves in and out of the hypnotic state at will. Peale wants power over his readers, and he wants them to condition themselves to blindly follow his message. Coue sought no power over his readers, and he taught clients to use autosuggestions that they created tehmselves. Peale is looking to exploit his readers and their lack of knowledge about hypnosis. Coue was looking to educate his readers about the effects of hypnosis. While many critics like Ellis say the Coue philosophy is perfectionistic, shallow, and unattainable, the critics at least do not doubt Coue's honesty or integrity. The critics claim, on the other hand, that Peale uses hypnosis to dominate, exploit, and mislead the reader.

I added the Seligman quote that another editor deleted. I would remind that editor that deleting referenced authentic reference is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia policy, and does a disservice to readers who may want more information on a particular subject. Melcsw 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Next steps on Controversy section?
Hi. A week ago I stumbled on these (I think) inappropriate additions and tried to clean them up. I don't know much about Peale (that's why I went to read the article!) but I'm pretty sure this material is out of place. Unfortunately its anonymous contributor seems persistent in maintaining the section in what seems to be a problematic state. I don't care about Peale, but I do care about WP's quality. I'm frustrated that one determined person not following the rules can create a lot of time-wasting trouble for others who could be spending their time more productively on WP (or elsewhere). I like helping to keep WP in shape, but I want to do it efficiently. I'm new to this kind of situation and wonder what the next step should be. What would you recommend? Should an admin weigh in on whether this material fits WP policies? Should an admin restrict editing by new and anonymous editors? Should we take a poll? Or something else? I'd be happy to see how a more experienced editor deals with this kind of problem. Thanks! Bob schwartz 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPOV. I feel Peale's criticism as it is written now gives undue weight to a minority. There are probably other Wikipedia policies that would be helpful to gain consensus. Lengthy quotes are unencyclopedic prose, and could be summarized and paraphrased, but the sources should still be available to be seen. An admin could look at this article for greater attention, but I don't feel this issue is to the level that needs formal intervention. Finally, MELCSW, I suggest you get an account (if you haven't done so) and edit from it. As long as you edit as an anon, your edits are publicly associated with your IP address through page histories, and you can monitor discussions easier, among some benefits. Tinlinkin 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of your points Tinlinklin. Hopefully we can all agree on an encyclopedic article that fits Wikipedia standards. I have made some changes to the article. I shortened up the lengthy Murphy quote, took out the NVP quote as it is redundant, shortend some Meyer criticism, also added in one more short criticism. I am open to advice to tidy up and shorten this article more. MELCSW

Great example as to why Wikipedia is useless
I know nothing about Norman Vincent Peale. After reading this mess, I know that there are a couple of ax-grinders who hate a dead man.

I learned zero about Peale, but I learned that some shrink writing in the Nation thinks his book is dangerous.

Where is what PEALE said? Why was he so famous? How can you print endless paragraphs criticizing his book without quoting his book? Why no quotes from peale himself, or influential people who liked him?

I actually laughed when I read he was a Freemason! Nothing about Peale's life, history, work as a minister, but he was darkly noted as being a Freemason!

THIS is why Wikipedia is a joke and will remain so as long as any loser with an ax to grind can post useless and irrelevant BS.

Now I'm off to find an HONEST and USEFUL source about Norman Vincent Peale. It sure isn't to be found HERE.

Simplemines 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Simplemines


 * Well said, unfortunately. Agree completely.
 * slinberg 15:20, 10 March 2007 (ET)

I agree with Simplmines assessment of this article, in my opinion the entire "controversy" section should be deleted. Rkubik 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole thing should be scrubbed. How can you write an article that consists mostly of criticism without any description of why the guy was famous and why so many people bought his book? FIRST you have to say who Peale was, why he was famous, and what his influence was before you can start ripping him apart. This "article" starts azz-backwards by ripping him apart without explaining a thing about him!

I really loathe propagandists. Wikipedia's become their mecca. Simplemines 05:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Simplemines

Well I trust all you good people will come back when you have done the research you are demanding other people should provide, remove the dross & give us the benefit of your insights. It may be of course that you have suffered nothing but harm from the contributions of others to Wikipedia. If the contrary, may I recommend an idea to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly agree with Simplemines.

Being an avid WP reader, I think this is one of the worst articles I've ever read.

The same kinds of criticism -- hard to substantiate, concealed hypnosis, exaggerated fears, theological critique, as enumerated in the article -- can be directed to just about every modern motivational speaker, especially those based on Biblical teachings. I have Joel Osteen in mind.

As far as I know, Peale never claimed to be a psychiatrist, or a scientist of any kind. So why was he taken so seriously and heavily criticized by the mental health professionals? Except for his anti-Catholic sentiments, why was he so different from other pastors?

"Now I'm off to find an HONEST and USEFUL source about Norman Vincent Peale. It sure isn't to be found HERE." -- agreed completely.

Greatly Disappointed.

70.248.176.180 (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaining consensus on the controversy section
-

The ideas in the controversy section sound a lot like the anti-cult propaganda of the 70's and 80's on brainwashing or coercive persuasion. The APA does not accept this as a scientific theory, and courts don't use this argument any longer. See http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm for an article on this. I think the entire section should be deleted. --Chriscjs 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this article never mentions "brainwashing," which is an antiquated term referring to coercive persuasion, I will address your entry, as it is at least related to the article. I read the above article that you referenced, written by a sociologist, not a mental health expert, which addresses a controversy within the APA in 1986 as to whether "brainwashing" exists. Since that time, the president of the APA from 2002, Philip Zimbardo, one of the world's leading experts on mind control, has written extensively on its destructive effects, including his latest book, "The Lucifer Effect." Dr. Zimbardo also directly endorses cult expert Steve Hassan's "Freedom of Mind" website and his counseling of cult members as ethical and scientifically sound. Whatever you want to call it, "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," or its current monikor, "mind control," scientific, empirically based work by mental health experts like Dr. Zimbardo leave little doubt that such a process exists. Readers can go to the APA website and search the term "mind control" to read some of Dr. Zimbardo's writings. Further the author of your article does not disagree that deception is used by cult leaders to recruit members. Peale's intent to decieve his readers is clearly evident in his invented quotations from unnamed "experts" and undocumented evidence, as is his transparent attempt to conceal that his techniques are hypnosis. Peale's book does not hold up to the mildest scrutiny, and does not even meet the standards of documentation of a high school paper. Finally the only part of this article which does not meet Wikipedia standards and should be removed is the top section of this article, presumably written by Peale followers. It is almost entirely unreferenced and not beleivable. I checked the claim that "Power" had sold 20 million copies only to find that Peale's own publisher, Simon and Shuster, says on amazon.com that only 7 million books have been sold. There other dubious claims that the book has been translated into 46 languages and that 750,000 copies of his sermons are mailed, as well as other exaggerated claims. This entire section should be referenced or removed. Melcsw 19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Zimbardo is just one psychologist, and while he was president of the APA for one year, 2002-2003, that does not mean he represents the APA majority on this particular subject. In fact from some of the articles on the APA site, one might infer just the opposite. In http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults.html panelists tried to get the APA to create another task force, like the one in the 80's, to investigate mind control. But it was never created. Five years later and no mention of it anywhere. This tells me the APA still thinks its an unscientific theory not worth investigating. The article also mentions "'Mind control, or 'brainwashing' as it's commonly referred to by the media, is often viewed by many psychologists as science fiction." The second article, http://www.apa.org/ed/hsquality.html, mentions "Psychology students learn to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, dispelling misconceptions that mind reading, witchcraft, brainwashing, behavioral programming, and thought control are scientific." Does this sound like mind control is supported by the APA, for them to write this on their website? Most of the other articles that mention mind control or brainwashing are "letters to the editor" of Monitor magazine. I had to do a Google advanced search on www.apa.org because the search function in the website was broken. I do agree with you that Peale should have never quoted from sources that didn't exist, and also that the top part of the article should be removed, at least until the sources are known. The information on Amazon might be dated, so the figures could have gone up since that was written. For those interested there is a very lengthy article on mind control, more recent than the one in my previous post, at http://www.cesnur.org/2003/brain_conv.htm. --Chriscjs 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your criticisms fairly represent the dissenting point of view regarding "brainwashing", but do not represent critics view of Peale. Peale was criticicized for practicing "hypnosis" on his readers without their consent, that is, Peale literally tried to persuade the reader to hypnotize himself to Peale's belief system. Hypnosis has long been authenticated within the scientific community and there is no debate as to whether it exists or not. Psychiatrists from Freud to Milton Ericson to Herbert Speigel today have specialized in it. There is a professional licensing board, the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis founded by Milton Erickson, which ensures that practitioners use hypnosis ethically and responsibly. It has long been known that under hypnosis a subject will believe just about anything he is told, as Erickson proved when he convinced subjects they had committed a crime they hadn't committed, made subjects see objects that weren't there, and Peale's critics said Peale was using hypnosis to trick and fool readers to believe in a belief system that was bizarre, dangerous, and bad for mental health. Any mental health professional who told clients they could have the supernatural powers of God, that they would never fail, and they could always think positively if they practiced hypnosis would soon be out of a job and have his license revoked. What bothered the critics even more is that Peale said, through invented, bogus experts, that the mental health community supported him! That is why Peale has virtually no support in the mental health community. A fraud with a dangerous message is not likely to find many supporters.

Back to "brainwashing," the American Psychiatric Association endorses its existence in the DSMIV Diagnostic Manual for clinicians (the manual that all clinicians use to diagnose and treat clients), under heading 300.15, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, of which one possible criteria is "States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to to periods of prolonged and intense coercisve persuasion (e.g. brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive.) The debate within the "other" APA, American Psychology Association, is not so much an organized opposition as a group that says "show me the evidence." This is healthy skepticism rather than extreme opposition. Skepticism within the scientific community is always present until experiments have been duplicated, dissected and validated over and over again. That is the process that is going on within the APA. As empirical evidence increases for the existence of mind control,(of which hypnosis is often considered a component) psychologist Philip Zimbardo, former President of the APA says "A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torure and kill "invented enemies," engage indoctinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money -- and even their lives -- for the cause." (APA website, "President's Column" by Philip Zimbardo, under search term "mind control.").

Finally Peale's books came off the best seller lists in the mid 50's, so when his current publisher says only 7 million copies have been sold to date, it is highly unlikely the figure is incorrect.

I don't agree the controversy section should be excised completely. His work was controversial and discussion of which belongs in an encyclopedia. That said, what is most needed is expansion of his beliefs. And I invite all those who are critical of the controversy section to contribute to the details of his work and its impact on popular (vs. scientific) society.

The controversy section does violate several WP policies: WP:UNDUE. Not that the section gives undue weight to his critics as, in fact, most professionals do criticize his work. The objective of WP:UNDUE is not to give equal weight to his supporters and critics. My objection is the length of the controversy section in relationship to the rest of the article. One solution to this problem: Summarize the controversies and move the ssection to a new article, say, "Norman Vincent Peale controversy."

User:Bob Schwartz gave an example of the text highlighting words that he felt (mostly justifiably) POV words and uncited statements. That is very productive. I hope user:Mecslw makes these changes. If not, then, Bob Schwartz (or whomever), should place a section here requesting consensus on your specific changes. Once consensus is reached, then you would be free to make these changes. Go through the section a paragraph or two at at time and suggest the rewrite here. Therefore 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I worked hard to improve the controversy section without stepping on any toes. I tried to improve the POV issues by changing some of the phrasing, I did not remove or censor the ideas or quotes from the cited sources.

But I also revised to clarifying ideas which did not involve POV. Some punctuation errors and technical issues which had nothing to do with POV were also changed. I moved one quote for the sake of the flow of ideas. I hope these changes will be at least a starting point toward an article which can get move toward a resolution of this impasse.

I apologize for any confusion that my multiple edits might cause. After my original revision I went back several times and did minor ones. The jist of my revision can be seen in the first edit, the rest are minor.

MissGarbo 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

-

After working on this section for a couple hours, here are my suggestions on content, apart from my attempts to improve the article as it is. I stress I have not at the time of this writing implemented any of the following suggestions in the live article.

As my mind turned to what I personally know about Peale, a term popped into my mind: "The Health and Wealth Gospel." (Which might be loosely defined as the idea that God will make you rich and healthy if you believe enough). More on this in a minute.

Most of the controversy section quotes critics contemporary with Peale and the publication of his famous "Power." These quotes, from the 1950's, are not the best choices for a criticism of Peale in 2007. I suspect there is plenty of contemporary criticism on Peale's ideas (it's obvious from this discussion that his ideas still arouse strong feelings).

I believe a term directly related to Peale has been more recently coined which is a significant omission--the previously mentioned "Health and Wealth Gospel." A preliminary search of Amazon turned up a book with this term in the title which directly references Peale. More titles came up which I did not explore (The one I found was titled The Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel.

Several of the older citations include theological judgments on Peale's work which are too dated for modern readers. Especially as there are contemporary theological criticisms from within the Protestant tradition which could be substituted.

I think that Peale's "legacy" is most felt within Protestant churches today (Robert Schuller was Peale's "mentoree"), and have all but disappeared from medical literature. Medical citations from the 50's are not necessary. I think the medical and psychiatric community has long discarded Peale's ideas (by their very religious nature they may have been phased out)--you're not going to find many psychologists today who advocate Peale's approach. Further, the field of western mental health has undergone such radical change in the last 50 years that again, medical citations should be discarded for the sake of credibility. In the 50's homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder, and many people know this. I believe Borderline Personality Disorder was also defined very differently.

Quotes directly from Peale, and Power, should be included or any criticism has no leverage. This content is needed for any reader to evaluate Peale's ideas, whatever conclusion they reach. If Peale's ideas are indeed unsound, will not the facts speak for themselves?

MissGarbo 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a definition of positive thinking using Peale's own words. My explanation is far from perfect or completely comprehensive, although I think it covers the main ideas.Melcsw 19:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a link to an infomational page on Peale from an answers.com which I really wish we could could quote in near-entirely, it is very well-written and includes many details not mentioned in the wikipedia article as it stands. The facts could be (should be?) incorporated. This could be done without plagerizing. Anyone else want to try?

Added quotes by Peale. (finally?) I found these scattered over the net, and nowhere did I find references to the specific works in which they are found. I am unclear about rules for citation as well. Help?

Added header to "positive thinking" section. I think Melcsw's is a big improvement over the isolated quotes in the controversy section (could we delete that section now?). Quotes from Peale's adherants might be appropriate, or perhaps a link. I think it could be argued that this section still has a POV. In particular, the repeated use of the word "hypnosis" is a problem. Hypnosis is, in my opinion, a "fuzzy" term with a generally negative connotation to modern readers. To brand Peale's techniques as hypnosis immediately, when Peale does not use the word himself, is not appropriate. There is plenty of time to suggest that Peale's techniques mislead the reader after an initial exposition. I strongly suggest the first, or first few, uses of the word "hypnosis" be replaced with a term such as "mental suggestion."

Melcsw I think has really started to move in a good direction here! However, considering the amount of criticism on your work in the past, was it a bit "sneaky" of you to post your work above the controvery section, in a place which does not include a header addressing the issue of neutrality? Would you consider removing some of your previous material? I really think your new section does a *much* better job toward addressing the issues you were interested in highlighting.

Too many quotes? Too few? The man seems emminantly "quotable," as evident on a google search. Added link to the largest repository of Peale quotes I could find (on motivational-inspirational-corner.com). Tho this site definately takes a positive POV toward Peale, as far as I can see it is a fairly exhaustive sampling of Peale's philosophy and so does not necessarily lean to a particular POV. Besides, it's in the external links section, so I don't think it matters.

I'd still like to see a section linking Peale's ideas to modern institutions, in particular Robert Schuller's ministry.

MissGarbo 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am changing the first uses of "hypnosis" to mental suggestion" for the reasons outlined above.

Let's keep working together on this.

MissGarbo 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss Garbo, I commend you for your efforts in trying to improve this article. And I commend the critics above, even the sarcastic ones, some of whose comments were quite funny, for chipping in with their opinions. And I agree with those critics who said that the article needed a description of positive thinking using Peale's own words. I should have added this before.

I first posted this criticism from experts four months ago. In the meantime, nobody, with the exception of Bob Scwartz, has supplied any expert evidence or supportive analysis of Peale. I have asked them to do so and I would welcome a hearty debate. The problem, as Therefore said quite well, is that expert criticism of Peale far outweighs the support. As I mentioned before, I could not find a single mental health expert or scholar going back 60 years who wrote a positive article on Peale. The critics are not just upper crust intellectuals criticizing the common preacher man. Harvard scholar Meyer, for example, was a big fan of Billy Graham, but he was one of Peale's harshest critics. The same could be said of the famous theologian Reinhold Neibuhr, who admired Billy Graham for his sincerity but called Peale a cult leader and sarcastically referred to Peale and his followers as a "cult of success." The problem the critics had with Peale is that they considered him utterly immoral,that his message was deliberately deceptive, and that his message was dangerous and destructive to his followers.

Peale as a man of the cloth was supposed to represent a higher moral standard than the rest of us sinners, but here he was, caught in his own web of lies and deceit. The critics exposed a con man, with great effect. Peale's reputation took a big hit that he never recovered from, though he continued to sell books and attend Rotary luncheons. The criticism after 1960 was sparse, except for Albert Ellis, whose clinic was right down the street from Peale's church, and Ellis was continually treating people with serious mental breakdowns brought on by following Peale. When positive psychology developed later, the criticism came back as positive psychologists sought to distance themselves from Peale. There are no hypnotic "techniques" in positive psychology nor is there a fear of negative reality.

Why is all this relevant today? For many reasons. First there are thousands, perhaps millions of Peale books out there, and I am sure there are many readers that want other opinions of Peale's works. They certainly won't find any critical assesment by reading Peale books or by surfing the internet. The most thorough criticsm is buried on library shelves and was was written well before the internet. I have tried to provide many sources that readers can reference and look into in depth if they like. Second, Peale was perhaps the first religious movement of the modern era to labeled a cult, even in the 50's. Third, a good con like this often repeats itself, and is completely relevant to modern times. "The Secret" is just a new version of Peale and Positive Thinking, "Positive" was a new and more maligmant form of Ernest Holmes, Emmit Fox and Phineas Qwimby from the mid 1800's. Just google Peale and "The Secret" or Peale and the author "Byrne" to see how many writers compare the two.

Miss Garbo as to your questions:

I agree with you that Peale belongs with the mind science folks and the health and wealth gospel types rather than as a Christian preacher. In "Positive" Peale even claims to teach Jewish people his techniques.

I disagree with your point that the criticism is dated. The criticism of Peale made by experts like Murphy and Meyer is completely relevant as it shows a historical perspective on Peale, and it was much more comprehensive than criticism today. If Peale wrote today I believe he would be more properly thought of as a cult leader and his teachings mind control. Because Peale and his teachings were in deep descent by the time the 70's came around, Peale largely avoided being labeled a modern cult leader. Anyone interested in comparing Peale's philosophy to mind control techniques can go to Steve Hassan's Freedom of Mind website. Albert Ellis and cognitive therapy has also proven effective in treating Peale casualties, according to Dr. Ellis.

I agree with you that Peale is largely dismissed by the mental health community today, and he always was dismissed by the mental health community, despite his claims to the contrary.

Miss Garbo, I disagree with you that this section should be labeled controversial at all. You are the one who labeled it controversial, but you have not provided any disagreeing points of view. I think the heading should be changed to What Experts Say or some variation of that theme. Peale supporters and detractors could all way in with opinions, as long as they are expert and verifiable rather than testimonial. Give the reader a variety of points of view and let the reader make up his own mind. I would again remind you it is against Wikipedia policy to delete authentic and verifiable material. If the balance of the critics go to one side, as it appears to in Peale's case, so be it. Otherwise, balance the article by addition and not subtraction of facts.

Regarding Shuller, I have read through or at least skimmed through several of his books. Although I don't necessarily agree with Shuller, he doesn't teach self hypnosis or mind control techniques and when he quotes experts, they are named and sourced. In turn, Shuller has not recieved nearly the criticism Peale has, and Shuller has probably sold just as many books. I don't know why Shuller calls Peale his mentor, since he obviously decided he would not compromise his integrity as Peale did. I think for Shuller to call Peale his mentor only tarnishes his image, although it may help him sell books.

Finally, Miss Garbo, I have issues with your rewrite of the criticism section. I think you were well intentioned and trying to take some of the sting out of the criticism. But I think you went too far in deleting facts such as the factual statement that there is not a single mental health expert named and verifiable who supports Peale in his own book. That is simply a fact and nobody has challenged its veracity. It should be put back. Also Murphy who you say is unreferenced is referenced by first name RC Murphy in the article. Finally the three major points of criticism are no longer identifiable. The three major criticisms are Peale is a fraud, he is teaching people self hypnosis without their consent, and critics almost universally oppose his message. I think the structured points of criticism should be put back in. Other than those major issues, I thought a lot of your rewrite was quite good and toned down the language. I don't have complete control over this article, how it is written, phrased, shaped and so on, nor do I want complete control over it. All I ask is the facts I have suppied be left alone. They are all verifiable, factual, and provide further resources for anyone looking to find out more about Peale. Melcsw 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Melcsw 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the interlinear references to the new &lt;ref&gt; format, if anyone cares. -- DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Melcw, I did not label the section controversial, for the record. A "commendation" from you or anyone else is inappropriate here IMO, it suggests one person is higher than the rest.

Melcw, quotes, even from experts, are not facts! "Sting" *should* be taken out of criticism, otherwise it is just a rant. Rebuttal to criticism *should* be provided or else the result is one-sided, even if only by suggestion. But wikipedia is about presenting all sides of a topic in the least slanted manner possible, so the reader can decide how to think about it. If we're going to present such an overwhelming amount of criticism we should try to dig up as much praise as possible as well. Noone, including myself, has done this. But if you are truly committed to this article could you bring yourself to try it?

Melcw, okay so some of the critics are "historical." Why don't you at least label them as such? Science has come light-years since then. Label them as "experts of the time" if you must. Perhaps it is more comprehensive, but quotes like "I prefer Paul to Peale" make no sense to modern science!

I changing the wording of the header I provided to this section "Modern.. Criticism" and placed it below the Controversial/POV header. Melcw I just don't think the section can be above this header as long as there is so much debate over the content you have contributed, and this section is pretty much all your content.

Melcw, some of the paragraphs you've written in response to my comments sound a lot more interesting than things in the actual article. The further information about Ellis, and in particular the point that Neihbur (who is known even in non-Christian circles, and probably has his own wikipedia article).Perhaps you'd try *substituting* some of this interesting material for what you've already added. It might still be biased, but less so!

Melcw, I suppose it's nice that we are at least talking (I say "we" only as the 2 of us seem to be the only ones discussing anything lately, *please* someone else jump in).

Was the "quotes" section moved? I think it should be immediately under the bio, as it is after all the only primary Peale content in the article at the moment.

MissGarbo 17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that NVP's Power of Positive thinking was what it took to help me end a repeating cycle of suicidal depression. I think critics misread Peales simple approach. For instance, you dont need to read too much of the Power of Positive thinking before you realise that the solution he promotes necessarily exposes the hold negative thinking has on you if that is true in your situation. If you are not in that situation you wont see it. He's wrapped that simple message up in many anecdotes and testamonials and propaganda to make a saleable book, but so what ? If you have a headache you take asprin. You only need one but you buy them in packs of 24. If you dont have a headache, all you'll get from asprin is the side effects and no benefit. NVP needs to be given credit where its due to him. he helped a lot of people, even if he didnt help a lot more people. Techniques of propaganda are tools, not evil. They can be employed for beneficial purposes. Propaganda is after all the foundation of all advertising, but I dont hear anyone damning advertisements to hell. 122.109.59.213 (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I agree with the above. His book was amazing for me and helped me to break through many barriers in my life. NVP's book was the beginning of my understanding of the Gospel (Good News) of the Lord. The Power of Positive Thinking is dangerous because in it Peale explains that the Lord has only the best for you and you can achieve your goal if you just have faith and believe. Many such books have said the same thing. But very few give Christ the credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.119.129 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Help Please
I think this article is in danger of impasse if not already there. If you would like to see this article improved please join in. I didn't intend to spend so much energy here. I think some "fresh blood" is called for. MissGarbo 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess from an NPOV point of view. A lot of garbage would need to be removed, but if it was removed the ax-grinders would probably put it back again. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

MissGarbo, Melcsw,

Frankly, I've been quite reluctant to try and get into this. I believe that Melcsw has appointed himself gatekeeper on this article and would just revert any attempts to mitigate his rant to something more appropriate for Wikipedia, as he has done to MissGarbo's extensive work on several occasions. I have attempted some small edits, and been rebuked for violating Wikipedia policies. Which is a laugh since the whole of Melcsw's contribution, in it's tone and obvious bias, is a violation of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. His insistence that nothing he has put in should be touched demonstrates that he is not in synch with Wikipedia's goals, so I have little hope that he will allow this article to be massaged by the collective into something that does not read like an anti-Peale tirade. And maybe that's okay - if we leave it as Melcsw wants it, people will see that the article has a virulent slant, and disregard the biased information he has presented. 63.119.136.68 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Criticism and Controversy" section is embarrassing, but fortunately it is also (1) clearly biased to almost any reader and (2) so impenetrable that few would read its 2000 words in the first place. Unfortunately, it also shows how one focused person can violate Wikipedia's standards and procedures, driving the vast majority of good editors to either waste gobs of time or just give up on the article (or on WP, as I did for the last 6 months). I'd like to try again and help fix this problem. If we can't fix a case that is this clear-cut, we might as well all head over to Citizendium, whose structure allows reasonable editors to do good work without wasting 3/4 of their time on this kind of ridiculous overhead. Bob schwartz 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The only, and most important fact about this article that you critics never criticize is the truth of the facts supplied. I have supplied dozens of verifiable, authentic opinions, quotations and facts about Peale. No one of you critics argue or claim that any of these facts are not true. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy agrees that facts and truth are more important than propaganda. Rather than provide facts that disagree with the experts opinions, you folks continually delete facts or rewrite the experts opinions and misrepresent their true statements. You argue this article is one-sided, but you never supply any facts that back this up. Where are the critics who say Peale is not a con man but honest and sincere? Where are the critics who say Peale's techniques are not hypnosis but a type of sincere prayer? Where are the critics who say Peale's message is good for mental health? This article is in fact many sided, with opinions from mental health experts, scholars, politics and religion. Unfortunately for Peale and his followers, they all come to the same conclusion, that Peale was a dishonest, bad-intentioned individual with a dangerous message that could be catastrophic for the mental health of his readers. Those are the facts. Please argue with the facts folks. Your criticisms are largely without merit unless you have evidence and facts to back up your statements.Melcsw 18:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine thats it is alright to fill up this article with all the people that praise and support Dr. Peale.--216.52.73.254 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Melcsw, your entire writings in the article and in here are your POV. The so-called 'facts' you state are just other POVs. I could go to the Mother Teresa article and add in thousands of sources that say she is the anti-Christ. If you want to have criticisms, that is fine. However it should not be larger than the rest of the article! Cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and link out everything else. It makes the article look ridiculous and makes it look like you have an ax to grind.--216.52.73.254 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

At first I was just going to revert this article to undoe Panzertank's sabotage, however I didn't want to delete Arnej's contribution and other editors contributions. So I wound up doing a long overdue cleanup of the entire article. First, Panzertank, you cannot delete authentic referenced material from Wikipedia entries unless it is untrue, innaccurate or meets other criteria that does not apply here (see deletion policy). Second, Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes vandalism does not include putting back in material that you deleted (see deletion policy). Blanking and deleting evidence, which you have attempted to do, is part of Wikipedia's definition of vandalism Your threats to label Martinbot and myself vandals for correcting your vandalism is well, ironic, to be kind. Arnej, the quote from Clinton you put in is the kind of evidence this article needs. On the other hand, the exaggerated claims about Peale's book being translated into 41 languages and the claims that his book was on the best seller list for 186 had to be modified, as these claims have been unreferenced for months and months.Melcsw 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anytime somebody modifies this article so it is not a hate article about Dr. Peale gets the title of ‘vandal’ from you. I have already reported you as a vandal and I am reporting you again. It is plain to see for some reason you want to make Dr. Peale come across like a nut job, for whatever bias reason. You have filled up this article with a bunk of nonsense. I could easily fill up this article with praising of Dr. Peale by hundreds or people. Is that what you want? By the way, I have a source (an put in in the article) about the book being on the NY Times bestseller list for 186 weeks. I would take it a NY TIMES ARTICLE is good enough for you!

Your making this article look ridiculous!--Panzertank123 14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Panzertank, you are violating Wikipedia policy by deleting authentic, referenced, sourced material from the article. I will report you as a vandal if you continue and ask Wikipedia administrators to step in, and if necessary, block you from contributing to this article.Melcsw 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added back in sourced documented 186 weeks for amount of time book on the NY Times bestseller list. There is no reason to take out. Last warning. You are vandalisng this article with this nonsense. Your reason for taking it out before was because it was not sourced. It is now.--Panzertank123 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine Panzertank, as this information had been unsourced for months. Please continue to debate with facts rather than personal attacks. The factual, sourced reference material that Arnej provided is a good example of evidence that this article needs. I would also encourage the folks who added the random Peale quotes to properly source these quotes. A sampling of Peale quotations is appropriate as long as they are sourced.Melcsw 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the Criticism section reads more like a polemic than an analysis. Ellis was a bit of a egotist and at times, a bit of a crackpot, and his bogus criticisms contain more than a little resentment of Peale's straightforward approach to something Ellis makes more difficult than it really is. The Nation critique has little to do with the substance of Peale's work, and mainly uses Peale as a touchstone for its standard attack on the modern capitalist state. As for my credentials, I'm ABD in psychology (cognitive and neurophysiological) and know a bit about this stuff. Mje 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A real story I really love
How can I embrace the whole section within the text of the mainpage? without going against copyright??
 * Quoting Norman Vincent Peale:
 * "You can, however, get your self-image normalized and begin to think of yourself as an adequate and capable person. Do this and you will become as visualized.

This is not just theory. This is a fact, as I know from personal experience. As a young boy I had an acutely painful inferiority attitude. I was shy, timid, and bashful. That word means abashed. I shrank from going among people. I imaged myself as very short on ability and totally lacking in any talent. I saw myself as a nobody. Then I found that people were agreeing with me. It is a fact that others will unconsciously take you at your own self-evaluation. [?!?]

But new self-knowledge came one day during my second year in college in a course in economics. The professor, Ben Arneson, later became a lifelong friend. As the class session closed he said, "Peale, stay a few minutes." He looked searchingly at me, "What's the matter with you? Just why are you such a worm? You go skulking around like you're scared. When I ask you a question in class you get red in the face and tongue-tied when I am sure that you know the material very well indeed. And," he added, "why don't you get over this inferiority complex and act like a man?"

Though angered by this seemingly ruthless treatment, I had to admit he was right about me. "I don't know," I said, "I guess I'm just a failure."

"Don't ever say such a negative thing! Never even think it," he thundered. "Draw on your faith. Ask your Heavenly Father, who made you, to change you," he said more kindly.

I stumbled out of the classroom, along the hall, and out of the building down the long flight of outside steps. On the fourth step from the bottom I stopped. And on that particular step one of the greatest things in my life happened. There I started on the road to believing in myself.

This is how it happened. I stood completely discouraged and hopeless. Then I did what I have been taught to. I prayed. It was a simple, desperate prayer............"look, Lord," I said. "You can change a thief into an honest man or a drunk into a sober person. Why can't you change a mixed-up, defeated guy like me into a normal person? Amen."

I guess I expected a miracle, but nothing happened right away except that I felt peaceful and sort of happy."

taken from POWER OF THE PLUS FACTOR, pages 59 - 61


 * cheers, Austerlitz -- 88.72.5.45 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some news about biography inside here?

 * 
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.27.219 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted two sections of this text into the mainpage:
 * 1) Peale and Smiley Blanton, a psychoanalyst, established a religio-psychiatric outpatient clinic next door to the church. The two men wrote books together, notably Faith Is the Answer: A Psychiatrist and a Pastor Discuss Your Problems (1940). In 1951 this blend of psychotherapy and religion grew into the American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry, with Peale serving as president and Blanton as executive director.
 * 2) In 1960 Peale, as spokesman for 150 Protestant clergymen, opposed the election of John Kennedy as president. "Faced with the election of a Catholic," Peale declared, "our culture is at stake." The uproar resulting from that pronouncement caused the pastor to back off from further formal partisan commitments, possibly to avoid offending part of the mass audience for his primary religio-psychological message. He was, however, politically and personally close to President Nixon's family. In 1968 he officiated at the wedding of Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower. He continued calling at the White House throughout the Watergate crisis, saying "Christ didn't shy away from people in trouble."

It has been argued that even his "positive thinking" message was by implication politically conservative: "The underlying assumption of Peale's teaching was that nearly all basic problems were personal."

Maybe I have not chosen the best places possible. Any objections to the text?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.30.101 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references and facts
Why has this contribution of mine been deleted: ?:Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.138 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ''In POWER OF THE PLUS FACTOR Peale states that one of the most remarkable men he ever met was a native of Lebanon, Musa Alami.
 * arneson-institute
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.242 11:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Austerlitz- I agree with your insertion of the political text regarding Peale and his opposition to Kennedy. Kennedy was only one among many other people and groups Peale considered to be too "negative" for politics. Peale had to publicly recant his statements about Kennedy after the public outcry over his flagrant anti-Catholicism, and he was fired by his own committee. It is also good that you mentioned Smiley Blanton, who after the publication of "Positive" distanced himself from Peale. Indeed, one of the most glaring omissions in "Positive" is that Blanton's name is never mentioned within the pages nor did he publicly endorse the book. Finally the insertion about Peale and his inferiority complex is propaganda and should be removed. I could rebut what Peale says in the article, but I don't believe the rebuttal belongs there either. Otherwise, the article will soon fill up with Peale propaganda and counter rebuttals. Look at the articles on Billy Graham and "The Secret" and you will not find a recitation of propaganda. Speaking of propaganda, the Peale quotations need to either be referenced or removed. The reader has no way of knowing if these quotes came from Peale or were just made up. The reader cannot check to see where these originated from, what their context is, who is behind them, and if they are true.

Here is the rebuttal to the Peale statement about his inferiority complex, which you at least referenced. Peale claims that was he is saying is factual to all people, that it is not some "theory," and not just to his own experience. This is simply false. To give an example, suppose Peale believes the moon is made out of green cheese. Now it may be a fact that Peale believes that the moon is man out of green cheese. Peale may try to persuade the world that the moon is made out of green cheese, because he personally believes the moon is made out of green cheese. But science says the moon is not made out of green cheese. Peale cites no verifiable studies, other than his own personal experience, supporting that his claim is factual for all people. According to Peale, his own personal experience, even if delusional, is more important than reality, and that is a dangerous proposition.

Finally I entered some of the findings of Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology. People might be interested to know there actually is a science which studies human happiness, and that there are therapies and strategies that can help improve personal happiness. They strategies have been scientifically tested and verified. They work, and they differ markedly from what Peale says. I would encourage readers to go to authentichappiness.com where readers can take questionnaires and study factually and in depth how to relistically improve their happiness. Melcsw (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Melcsw, you write -among other- Finally the insertion about Peale and his inferiority complex is propaganda and should be removed. I don't understand why you name the cited experience to be "propaganda". Do you think the story is not true? And, I don't understand why you compare it to the belief that moon is man (made?) of green cheese. Of course, when you believe in God and when you believe that he made you and he can and wants to help you to change your character, it will happen. Especially when a teacher whose qualities you do acknowledge tells you so, at the same time making you understand that the feeling of being "inferior" is not truth but caused by a wrong belief. I like this story, and I don't care whether there is some "science" to back it or not. But-since you say that some strategies "scientifically tested and verified"- differ markedly from what Peale says, please describe further how is it that they differ. I'd like to hear your explanation.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.17.171 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected your misspelling of my name, the name I have chosen for wikipedia. Do you agree?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.37 (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

References: I agree with this opinion of yours: ''Speaking of propaganda, the Peale quotations need to either be referenced or removed. The reader has no way of knowing if these quotes came from Peale or were just made up. The reader cannot check to see where these originated from, what their context is, who is behind them, and if they are true.'' Just remove the ones which are not referenced.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.181 (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag on the Controversy Section
I have restored the POV tag on the Controversy section. It was removed by an anonymous editor without any discussion. I feel that before it can be legitimately removed, there should be some sort of discussion and consensus here that the section reads as a dispassionate encyclopedic article without an obvious author bias. Right now, I don't think that a reasonable reader could assert that. I think that the section also violates the undue weight policy, but that is a separate issue. Arnej (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To Arnej- This criticism has now stood for more than a year, and to date none of the Peale supporters has provided any expert opinion from mental health experts rebutting it. It is not biased; it is the consensus view of mental health experts regarding Peale. The criticism is not controversial, Peale is controversial. The tag was rightfully removed months ago because of these reasons, until you tagged it again. The bias tag should again be removed.

Melcsw - Thank you for your input on this issue. I restored the tag because it was removed by an anonymous editor who had only one other interaction with wikipedia, and that was involving some obscure anime. The editor had not participated in this discussion, so I felt that for them to come in and remove the tag was not legitimate. Your position on this section, which is primarily written by you, is well-established. If as you say this is the consensus of the mental health community, then I await input from mental health professionals as to the non-controversial nature of these assertions. No further input from you is required. Arnej 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

++++++From a Casual Reader++++++++ I was shocked at the bile in this entry. It is useless to me as a reference. Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.167.84 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done a major rewrite of this article, which has been long overdue. Many thanks to the Wikipedia community at large who have kept this article fairly intact despite frequent eforts to sabotage it. I have added many more facts to this article, particularly as it relates to Peale and politics. I have also taken out material that is not directly referenced and truthfully referenced, as per Wikipedia policy. I have taken out all the Peale quotations that were not referenced, as readers have no way of verifying their authenticity. I also took out globalprofessor statements that were not directly referenced to a source. Globalprofessors statements are for the most part disengenuous, deceptive and easy to spot. For example globalprofessor says that lawyers "would" say that Peale was covered by HIPPA and the privacy Act of 1974. "Would," "could," "probably," "maybe", are speculative words, not fact. The fact is no lawyer said Peale was covered by HIPPA, and since the first HIPPA laws were written after Peale died, it makes it impossible for Peale to have been covered by HIPPA laws. I left in what was authentically referenced, that is I could go to the source and see it for myself, and I took out all opinions that globallprofessor made and attributed to other people, who actually didn't say what he attributes to them. Global professor threw a lot of red herrings in here as well, rebutting topics not in the article, introducing phony debates (there is no debate among psychologists that the Peale techniques are not hypnosis).

I also took out the tag on the top of the criticism section saying the criticism is biased. Arnej, you keep putting this tag up but is not justified the evidence. You need to show that the mental health experts quoted, two of whom founded their own branches of psychology, are in any way biased towards Peale.Melcsw (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Melcsw, I do not have to show that the mental health experts had an axe to grind or not. It is not their writing that is in question. You, Melcsw, are not writing this article in a neutral way. I would hope that you can at least admit that. Read the discussions above, and the reactions to your writing. I'd welcome someone impartial coming through with the same passion for writing a good article as you have in trashing NVP. Then I could feel fine about removing the NPOV tag. But you are the last person who should be claiming that there is no bias in your writing. So I have again restored the tag. Try again. Arnej (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted vandalism by Gene Ward Smith, who deleted the entire criticism section without comment. I have also again taken off the NPOV tag. Arnej, you can call me all the names you want but you still need to show, with evidence, that these highly repected experts are biased against Peale. Rather than provide evidence, you call me names, as if that proves what the experts say is false. You have provided virtually no evidence to this article, you have done no work on it, you have not rebutted, refuted or disputed a single statement these experts have made, yet you continue to insist they are biased. I didn't call Peale a "confidence man," a man who "endorses our capacity for hatred, a man who shows "blind prejudice," they did. Rebut the evidence Arnej and quit the name calling. I am glad to hear that you finally acknowledge that what Peale wrote is not true, that it is made up of "parables." The problem is that neither Peale nor the critics said what Peale wrote was parables. Peale insisted that what the said was scientifically proven and he quoted phony "experts" to back up his claims. Unfortunately for Peale, when the criticism came, none of his "experts" came out of the wood work to support him.Melcsw (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Melcsw, but what names did I call you? Arnej (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the non neutrality tag put on by Arnej who has yet to explain with any evidence why the experts are biased against Peale. Arenej, you keep telling me I have an axe to grind, that I am not neutral, and apparently you believe this means you don't have to do any work on the article and rebut the experts opinions with evidence. You have provided no evidence that I am biased, that the experts are biased, or that the article is biased. You are making a claim and you need to support it with evidence, not your opinion. You need to find an expert or experts who disagree with the evidence presented to justify your claim that the article is biased.

I would like to again remind readers that Peale and positive thinking has long been disproven by the work and research of Martin Seligman, his colleagues and other researchers in the psychology of happiness. Readers can go to Seligman's website, authentichappiness.com and find evidence, research and tools that can help them find a realistic strategy for pursuing happiness that is supported by evidence. Melcsw (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the POV tag for this article. Again. melcsw, you have again missed the point, either in ignorance or on purpose. I am not calling into question the bias or lack thereof of the cited experts. See above where I told you this before. I am pointing out that this article as it appears does not come across as being presented from a neutral point of view. Go back and read this page and the words of MissGarbo, Bob Schwartz, Tinlinkin, 3tigers, simpleminds, slinberg, Rkubik, Chriscjs, Therefore, Gene Ward Smith, panzertank, mje, Austerlitz, a casual reader, and myself. It's not just me. If you want this article to be taken seriously, feel free to write a balanced article, and the POV tag can then be removed. But please don't remove it again. Just because most folks have given up trying to get through to you does not mean that you are right. Arnej (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What did he even stand for?!?!
Sorry for the tone of that title, but seriously, if an article is going to be so outrageously slanted, you could at least give me a biased view of what exactly his outlook on positive thinking was.

I have just skimmed the conversation above this posting, and all I have to say is, this is why I find wikipedia to be very useful, but also why I will never swear by it. Just a bunch of bureaucratic bickering.

Wait, my mistake, in bureaucracy, #$#@ gets done once in a while. yeesh.

And just to prove I am not in the Pro-Peale camp (and I find it funny that I have NO idea what that entails besides maybe something to do with optimism, but no idea as to what degree, etc.), I opened this article thinking this guy would be an imbicile based on something I read of him from an external source. Basically, I am probably on melcsw side.

I know I have crossed several lines here. and for this I apologize, but you guys sometimes really make it hard to write a frigging research paper. Maybe I will do my social problems paper on wikipedia, or atleast misinformation on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.111.126 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely understand your dilemma, but Wikipedia is NOT a good enough reference for use in a serious research paper. When conducting serious research (as opposed to casual information-seeking), there is really no substitute for academic journals (found both online and in every university's library) and other near-universally accepted legitimate periodicals/outlets where academics, scientists, and researchers can publish their works. POV is such an issue on Wiki, that (without exception) every supervisor, boss, and instructor I have ever worked for/studied under has explicitly stated Wikipedia is not a quotable research tool. MG196 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mg196 (talk • contribs)

A drop in the bucket... ("TPoPT" sales and translation figures)
I am amazed at the persistence of Melcsw. He/She must surely misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia.

Anyway, I've sharpened up the sentence "The book has sold around 7 million copies (amazon.com) and translated into several languages." This statement gives no date, and only a very approximate reference source. It gives the impression that those figures are up-to-date, when in fact they are from 15 years ago.

My version reads "According to the publisher of the 1993 cassette edition, the book had been 'Translated into fifteen languages with more than 7 million copies sold'." It is followed by a reference to a specific Amazon.com editorial review.

I hope that someone will soon be able to replace my version with well-documented sales and translation figures from 2008.

Tptasev (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, I myself have been able to update the sales and translation figures for "The Power of Positive Thinking" (to 42 languages and over 22 million copies sold).

Tptasev (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the misinformation about sales of the book. The direct statement from the publisher says 7 million books, 15 languages. The information Tptasev gave comes from a writer who does not speak for the publisher nor is he authorized to speak for the publisher. He is an author published by S & S. Therefore, the publisher's own statement can be considered more reliable.

Re: Sinebot, you make some good points. I did include a section explaining what Peale taught under "Teachings," unfortunately that section was vandalized out of this article on July 19 by an anon user. Although the Peale teachings are largely incoherent and unsupportable, according to his critics, I did try to break down and explain his main points. Does anyone out there who know how to restore that section to the article? Your help would be appreciated. One of the interesting things about this discussion section and the article itself is that the Peale supporters don't ever tell us what Peale believed in. I expected some of those folks to explain to us what Peale taught. But since none of those folks stepped up to the plate I wrote the section. Nor do the believers tell us in this discussion why anyone would want to follow Peale. Their efforts are mostly vandalism, with some exceptions, such as Miss Garbo, Tinlinkin and some others who have tried to intelligently debate and discuss the issues. My thinking is that these folks don't want to talk about the Peale beliefs, because they are pretty strange, and would open these beliefs to further criticism. The basic tenets are that one should autohypnotize oneself constantly to Peale slogans, that autohypnotizing oneself will give one superhuman God-like powers, and that one should be terrified of one's own thoughts. Not surprising they don't want to talk about it.Melcsw (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Melcsw has once again inserted obsolete sales and translation figures without noting that they were from 1993. (This date can be inferred from the fact that "Publisher's Notes" that Melcsw is presumably referring to are clearly marked—by Amazon.com—as having come from the 1993 cassette edition.) The lack of a source date gives the misleading impression that those figures are up-to-date. The obsolescence of this source presumably explains why Melcsw did not choose to give a proper link to the Publisher's Notes he/she was referring to.

When Melcsw made this change, he/she removed my recent and well-documented sales and translation figures, using the excuse that those figures were supposedly written by the author of another book and not by the publisher, Simon and Schuster. This is incorrect. The notes on the web page referenced were a description—written by Simon and Schuster—of a book published by Simon and Schuster. I believe that a look at the web page in question makes this clear to any unprejudiced reader.

However, since Melcsw seems intent on refusing to acknowledge the validity of this source, I have been forced to use slightly less up-to-date figures in the correction I uploaded this evening: 21 million copies (instead of 22 million) in 42 languages. These figures are from the Los Angeles Times and the Des Moines Register.

Tptasev (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added actual sales figures of TPOPT, coming from the publisher's own mouth, and is on the cover of the newest edition of the book. The figures can be verified by going to the Barnes and Noble website, and clicking on and enlarging the book cover in either hardcover or paperback. The publisher is the only source who could know for certain how many books have been sold, and the publisher says 5 million. I have left in the article Tptasev's figures as well. Even though Tptasev's figures are obviously wrong, they are referenced and meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Tptasev, you raised an interesting point about the origin of the Amazon.com quote. Curiously, the same quote appears under both tapes and books, and you are correct, there is a reference to the cassette tape. I discovered the origin of the quote, and it comes from the 1987 audiocassete tape, apparently Peale's first book on tape. If you click on the tape and enlarge the picture there you will see the figure 7 million copies sold. Apparently the figure is referring to all Peale media -- books, tapes, records, abridged versions etc.. --, as the same figure appears on both books and tape. In any case it could not have referred solely to book sales, since the new figure, 5 million books sold, is 2 million books less than the 1987 figure. I have left in the 15 languages part of the quote, again because it comes the publisher and the publisher is considered the most accurate source. There is no indication from the amazon.com folks that say that this figure is outdated, and the 15 languages 7 million figure appears under current Peale media. TPOPT has been off of the best seller list for more than 50 years, and no longer sells well from its lofty beginnings in the self-help genre. The hardcover book is ranked as the 6,747 best selling book and 3,098 in mass market paperback on Barnes and Noble. Compare this to Steven Covey's "The 7 Habits of highly Effective People" ranked 246 or even the now antique 70 year old "How to Win Friends and Influence People" ranked 417 on Barnes and Noble and you will see how far Peale has fallen over the years. You can only con people for so long, and in Peale's case, only for a few years in the mid 1950's.

I have also re-added the "Teachings" section that was vandalized out of this article on July 19 by an anon editor without comment. To my surprise, as a Wikpedia klutz, it was fairly simple to do. I simply copied and pasted the section, and it transferred with all the refernces correctly added and lined up. I have renamed the section "Beliefs."Melcsw (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry
Removed section titled, "American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry" that read like a gossip piece. The significance of this period of his life is highly suspect and appeared to be an unnecessary buildup for an additional criticism from a former colleague who was of no notoriety other than his brief relationship and falling out with Peale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.130 (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the section because the argument above is nonsense. There is no "gossip" here, just facts about the collaboration of Peale and Blanton, which is important to the article. You want us to pretend that the clinic they formed and worked at for the greater part of their professional lives did not exist and is not part of Peale's history? You want us to pretend that it is not important that his own colleague, a psychiatrist, refused to be associated with his book TPOPT and "positive thinking."? Why don't you rebut some of these facts instead of trying to blank out facts you either don't like or don't agree with. Melcsw (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of facts; however we need to discern which facts are relevant and which are superfluous. How does Smiley Blanton deserve two paragraphs dedicated to him in an article about Norman Vincent Peale, especially when his only accomplishment of note is being a brief colleague of Peale? In a detailed biography, perhaps, but this is a Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.130 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

quotes
"Change your thoughts and you change the world." Norman Vincent Peale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

quotes
"When you become detached mentally from yourself and concentrate on helping other people with their difficulties, you will be able to cope with your own more effectively. Somehow, the act of self-giving is a personal power-releasing factor." Norman Vincent Peale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What's in the book????
Lots of information about disagreements, political fights, but no useful description of the book (Power of Positive Thinking) that was so controversial and influential. Very frustrating. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC) .. The Power of Positive Thinking is a not a huge book. Read it and form your own opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.54.86 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know this article is badly skewed
Gee thanks, Melcsw, for "verifying" the Seligman quote I added. After calling it "vandalism" twice. One might think that you were the owner of this article.

I'm sure you will defeat any attempt to clean this up. I'll try, but frankly I find dealing with your hatred very wearing on my soul. Try and stick to the voluminous quotes - the people you cite are better at maintaining a scholarly tone than you are.

I hope folks who read this article read the talk page as well and quickly seek other sources for information for Norman Vincent Peale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnej (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am shocked you actually added documented evidence this time Arnej, I guess I lost track of it as you vandalized the article at the same time you added evidence, and I was busy removing that vandalism. You rarely if ever have contributed actual referenced material, having spent most of your time vandalizing, but it appears you are finally working within the rules of Wikipedia a little bit. You should have realized by now that you folks are not going to be able to sell "Positive Thinking" on Wikipedia, and that the truth is not going away. I would point out that in the eight years I have been working on this article not a single quote provided by me or other critics has been found to be false or misleading by the individuals quoted or any of the fact-checkers; meanwhile the folks trying to sell the nosnsense of positive thinking have added almost all fabrications, like the unreferenced alleged Peale quotes, that have to be constantly culled from this article in order for it to maintain it's integrity. By the way, this is the same Arnej who admitted several years ago that what Peale wrote was false, that Peale was writing in "parables" rather than scientific fact as Peale claimed, and yet Arnej says we should still believe what Peale said. Go figure. Melcsw (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculously absurd article
I don't know who got hold of this article, but their hack job is just shameful. Norman Vincent Peale was one of the great men of the 20th century. Sure, there was some controversy, but that would be expected because he was so high profile and did so much good for the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe JHN (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So fix it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This article should be flagged by administrators as subjective and bias. The person who wrote it, or edited it, clearly has an agenda against N.V. Peale. Articles like this are really awful, and they greatly diminish the credibility of Wikipedia.com. 96.41.71.229 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I second the opinion of the anonymous user from 31 March 2016. Most people regard Wikipedia as a joke regarding anything remotely political, but nevertheless use it (since it is always prominent on search engines) to find out about celebrities and public figures. For example, one can find out the birthday and height of most movie stars, along with a list of their movies, which is useful. Some of the technical articles on things like biochemistry are also not bad, although almost always way over the heads of anyone lacking a doctorate on the topic. But anything remotely connected to politics is guaranteed to be baloney. Why the drive-by smear on Peale? Because he liked Nixon? And the moderators consider this an "encyclopedia"? I do think that Wikipedia is salvageable if two policies are implemented: first, nobody under the age of 21 can be a moderator; and second, all politically contentious articles must be forwarded to a panel of grown-up moderators from all parts of the political spectrum. Failure to implement policies similar to what I've suggested merely pounds home the point that Wikipedia is a propaganda tool on any topic remotely connected to politics.77Mike77 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "one of the great men of the 20th century", "did so much good for the world" -- surely you see how you're hardly acting unbiased here, right?
 * "subjective and bias", "Wikipedia.com" -- it's biased and wikipedia.org. It makes little sense for you to be claiming that the article is subjective or biased without actually presenting any evidence. Sometimes people are conmen, and it is accurate to refer to them as such.
 * "Why the drive-by smear on Peale" -- there's a bevy of well documented criticisms from across the religious and political spectrum of Peale's blatantly populist teachings. Criticism is not the same thing as bias, much less a "smear" -- you need to demonstrate that what is being claimed is actually false.50.194.115.156 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Norman Vincent Peale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127095208/http://pacificaradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf to http://www.pacificaradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't edit the criticism page because of a bot.
Trying to add info to the criticism section, just a bot that removes anything that is written. Perhaps freemasons "rule" the world as they say since he was a freemason. Nevertheless it's a bias and controlled article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTruther1945 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya kinda need a reliable, verifiable source for stuff like that. Nevermind the bias-bots. Rklawton (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Some of Peale's Books" sections should be improved
As of the time of writing, it lists the following books:


 * 1) The Positive Power of Jesus Christ (1980) ISBN 0-8423-4875-1
 * 2) Stay Alive All Your Life (1957)
 * 3) Why Some Positive Thinkers Get Powerful Results (1987). ISBN 0-449-21359-5
 * 4) The Power of Positive Thinking, Ballantine Books; Reissue edition (August 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91147-0
 * 5) Guide to Confident Living, Ballantine Books; Reissue edition (September 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91192-6
 * 6) Six Attitudes for Winners, Tyndale House Publishers; (May 1, 1990). ISBN 0-8423-5906-0
 * 7) Positive Thinking Every Day : An Inspiration for Each Day of the Year, Fireside Books; (December 6, 1993). ISBN 0-671-86891-8
 * 8) Positive Imaging, Ballantine Books; Reissue edition (September 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91164-0
 * 9) You Can If You Think You Can, Fireside Books; (August 26, 1987). ISBN 0-671-76591-4
 * 10) Thought Conditioners, Foundation for Christian; Reprint edition (December 1, 1989). ISBN 99910-38-92-2
 * 11) In God We Trust: A Positive Faith for Troubled Times, Thomas Nelson Inc; Reprint edition (November 1, 1995). ISBN 0-7852-7675-0
 * 12) Norman Vincent Peale's Treasury of Courage and Confidence, Doubleday; (June 1970). ISBN 0-385-07062-4
 * 13) My Favorite Hymns and the Stories Behind Them, HarperCollins; 1st ed edition (September 1, 1994). ISBN 0-06-066463-0
 * 14) The Power of Positive Thinking for Young People, Random House Children's Books (A Division of Random House Group); (December 31, 1955). ISBN 0-437-95110-3
 * 15) The Amazing Results of Positive Thinking, Fireside; Fireside edition (March 12, 2003). ISBN 0-7432-3483-9
 * 16) Stay Alive All Your Life, Fawcett Books; Reissue edition (August 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91204-3
 * 17) You Can Have God's Help with Daily Problems, FCL Copyright 1956–1980 LOC card #7957646
 * 18) Faith Is the Answer: A Psychiatrist and a Pastor Discuss Your Problems, Smiley Blanton and Norman Vincent Peale, Kessinger Publishing (March 28, 2007), ISBN 1-4325-7000-5 (10), ISBN 978-1-4325-7000-2 (13)
 * 19) Power of the Plus Factor, A Fawcett Crest Book, Published by Ballantine Books, 1987, ISBN 0-449-21600-4
 * 20) This Incredible Century, Peale Center for Christian Living, 1991, ISBN 0-8423-4615-5
 * 21) Sin, Sex and Self-Control, 1977, ISBN 0-449-23583-1, ISBN 978-0-449-23583-6, Fawcett (December 12, 1977)

The problem is that it does not put them in chronological order, starting with the first book published and going up from there. It does not list the dates of original publication, only dates of the publication of later editions.

e.g. Peale's "The Art of Living" was published in 1937.

Or with the two at the top of the current list, 1957 is before 1980.

Or The Power of Positive Thinking is listed as published in 1996 (after the author passed) but was actually published in 1952 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Positive_Thinking

I'll leave it to someone else to tidy up - I'll just highlight that the section, in its current form, is confusing and unhelpful.

FWIW, Encyclopaedia Brittanica says:

"In 1935 Peale began a weekly radio program, The Art of Living, which soon reached a national audience ... Peale’s first book was The Art of Living (1937), and he also wrote You Can Win (1938) and A Guide for Confident Living (1948) before the appearance of The Power of Positive Thinking. Later volumes included Six Attitudes for Winners (1989) and This Incredible Century (1991). He retired as senior pastor in 1984."

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Norman-Vincent-Peale

Lauchlanmack (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a first cut of the changes, as:

Some of Peale's key publications include:


 * The Art of Living (1937)
 * You Can Win (1938)
 * A Guide for Confident Living (1948)
 * The Power of Positive Thinking (1952)
 * Six Attitudes for Winners (1989)
 * This Incredible Century (1991).

See also:


 * The Power of Positive Thinking for Young People, Random House Children's Books (A Division of Random House Group); (December 31, 1955). ISBN 0-437-95110-3
 * Stay Alive All Your Life (1957)
 * Norman Vincent Peale's Treasury of Courage and Confidence, Doubleday; (June 1970). ISBN 0-385-07062-4
 * Sin, Sex and Self-Control, 1977, ISBN 0-449-23583-1, ISBN 978-0-449-23583-6, Fawcett (December 12, 1977)
 * The Positive Power of Jesus Christ (1980) ISBN 0-8423-4875-1
 * Why Some Positive Thinkers Get Powerful Results (1987). ISBN 0-449-21359-5
 * Guide to Confident Living, Ballantine Books; Reissue edition (September 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91192-6
 * Positive Thinking Every Day : An Inspiration for Each Day of the Year, Fireside Books; (December 6, 1993). ISBN 0-671-86891-8
 * Positive Imaging, Ballantine Books; Reissue edition (September 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91164-0
 * You Can If You Think You Can, Fireside Books; (August 26, 1987). ISBN 0-671-76591-4
 * Thought Conditioners, Foundation for Christian; Reprint edition (December 1, 1989). ISBN 99910-38-92-2
 * My Favorite Hymns and the Stories Behind Them, HarperCollins; 1st ed edition (September 1, 1994). ISBN 0-06-066463-0
 * The Amazing Results of Positive Thinking, Fireside; Fireside edition (March 12, 2003). ISBN 0-7432-3483-9
 * Stay Alive All Your Life, Fawcett Books; Reissue edition (August 1, 1996). ISBN 0-449-91204-3
 * You Can Have God's Help with Daily Problems, FCL Copyright 1956–1980 LOC card #7957646
 * Faith Is the Answer: A Psychiatrist and a Pastor Discuss Your Problems, Smiley Blanton and Norman Vincent Peale, Kessinger Publishing (March 28, 2007), ISBN 1-4325-7000-5 (10), ISBN 978-1-4325-7000-2 (13)
 * Power of the Plus Factor, A Fawcett Crest Book, Published by Ballantine Books, 1987, ISBN 0-449-21600-4
 * In God We Trust: A Positive Faith for Troubled Times, Thomas Nelson Inc; Reprint edition (November 1, 1995). ISBN 0-7852-7675-0

If anyone wants to edit the list further, you are welcome to do so.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

20 million copies of The Power of Positive Thinking sold ...
There is a section called "Radio, television, writing and organizations"

In the middle of that rather random title is an account of his writing, with a focus on The Power of Positive Thinking and the number of copies sold.

It reads:

"Peale was a prolific writer; The Power of Positive Thinking is by far his most widely read work. First published in 1952, it stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for 186[7] consecutive weeks, and according to the publisher, Simon and Schuster, the book has sold around 5 million copies. The fact that the book has sold 5 million copies is printed on the cover of the current edition in both paperback and hard cover, and directly contradicts exaggerated claims that the book has sold more than 20 million copies[8][9] in 42 languages.[8] The publisher also contradicts the translation claim, saying the book has been translated into only 15 languages.[10] Nearly half of the sales of the book (2.1 mil.) occurred before 1958,[11] and by 1963, the book had still only sold 2 million copies according to Peale.[12] Since then, the book has sold less than 3 million copies over the past 60 years. Some of his other popular works include The Art of Living, A Guide to Confident Living, The Tough-Minded Optimist, and Inspiring Messages for Daily Living.[citation needed]"

That's a debate about how many copies its sold in the middle of the article, rather than just giving facts.

First, the claim that "The fact that the book has sold 5 million copies is printed on the cover of the current edition in both paperback and hard cover, and directly contradicts exaggerated claims that the book has sold more than 20 million copies[8][9] in 42 languages." is not even logical. "5 million copies" means "more than 5 million copies" which would include 20 million copies. It doesn't mean "exactly 5 million copies."

Second, a 2007 Washington Post article makes the claim for sales of "more than 20 million" copies sold: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500032.html

I assume the Los Angeles Times article cited in the Wikipedia article says something similar - I can't read it because it tells me I have hit my monthly free limit.

Another LA Times article I read earlier - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-12-26-mn-5771-story.html - said it had sold 15 million copies by 1993.

The Des Moines Times link is broken for me.

So all up I think the 20 million copies sold, cited by the Washington Post, is probably correct. I'll update the article to reflect that, and to split up the section to be more readable :)

Lauchlanmack (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It turns out that keeping track of home many copies of a book are published -and what that even means- is trickier than it appears. This is especially true for modern publishing. Modern libraries now offer ebooks. How many "books" have been published as ebooks for public libraries, for example? For physical copies, how many are pulped before reaching shelves? For various reasons, we need to use independent sources for this figures, and we need to be careful about how we contextualize this info.
 * The Washington Post source does not make the claim that 20 million copies were sold, it repeats a claim made by Guideposts: "New Thought probably found its most famous proponent, Horowitz said, in former Methodist minister Norman Vincent Peale, who published The Power of Positive Thinking in 1952. The book has sold more than 20 million copies in 42 languages, according to Guideposts, an organization founded by Peale." (this is the only relevant paragraph from that source).
 * The 2008 LA Times source in an obituary for Ruth Stafford Peale. Here is the relevant paragraph: "She encouraged her husband when his manuscript for “The Power of Positive Thinking” was rejected by publishers, and once pulled it out of the garbage can when he had given up on it. It went on to sell more than 21 million copies." While this is less ambiguous, obits tend to be less likely to challenge specific details, and often fall under WP:ROUTINE. Regardless, the difference between 5 million and 21 million makes this an extraordinary claim, so we need high quality sources.
 * I believe the Des Moines source is this one, which is also an obit for R.S. Peale.
 * There a discrepancy between the book's publishers and distributors, an organization founded to promote the book, and reliable WP:INDY sources. Passing mentions should not be used for this, and neither should partial sources. For this reason, the "5 million" seems more appropriate until better sources have been presented. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The career section doesn't really discuss his career ...
The gaping gap in the "career" section of the article is ... anything about his actual career.

Here is a link to the Brittanica article, who actually cover this well, and provide a guide for how this can be done:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Norman-Vincent-Peale

Lauchlanmack (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

false stories about Peale
Anonymous unpublished allegations made in 1960 by parties unknown are used to attack Peale-- the America First Committee had not been founded at the time alleged. The allegations are NOT based on reliable published secondary sources--of which many are listed in the Further Reading. Especially obnoxious is the main source - an anonymous unpublished hate message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 03:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Franco in New York?
The section on "Political Controversies" asserts that in 1938 Peale appeared with various figures including Francisco Franco at a "Pro-American Rally" in New York. I don't see how this could possibly be true. Surely Franco was otherwise occupied in 1938? As far as I know Franco never visited the United States, let alone in 1938 in the middle of the Spanish Civil War. I'm tempted to simply delete his name but thought I should mention it here first. Royalcello (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Depictions in Media
There is a missing section on the depictions of Peale in the media. Specifically the movie One Man's Way Vk2tds (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)