Talk:Positive thinking

Untitled
Comment. It could be expanded. It definitely deserves a better treatment than the current article. --Randolph 04:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not the same as Positivism Zephyr103 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Largely overlooked on Positivism is that Comte was looking for the positive approach to life in general. He viewed, or tried to style himself as, a messiah of a new religion although his main body of, or most acknowledged work was in restructuring education. The main goals were things like sociology, behavioral sciences and new religion. If that is not a fine example of positive thinking by definition I do not know what is. It shouldn't have been a redirect to Affirmations (New Age) which it was when I changed it and is proposed for a merger with the current Law of Attraction. It has also been a redirect to Optimism and Attitude (psychology). We are supposed to write each article as though a reader has not heard of the subject before. Optimism and Positivism are probably good adds. Limiting to Affirmations (New Age) and Law of Attraction is pointing the view of the reader to "New Age".
 * For instance, when writing "fine" above I tried looking up "fine point" but phraseology (such as Positive thinking) is often missing from the wiki. If Bill Gates wrote the Microsoft book tomorrow and caled it "Positive Thinking" we would have another phrase lost, "That's that Microsoft book, isn't it? Who is more notable than Bill Gates?" We are supposed to write as though a reader has never encountered the topic not as though we are providing what most of them are looking for already and not as though "positive thinking" was something created by new age which it certainly was not.
 * Law of Attraction says Positive thinking under "See also". ~ R.T.G 14:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW there are about 46 pages that link to "positive thinking" Zephyr103 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a very important phrase. One of the magical learning tools of Wikipedia is the etymology to the extent that any phrase or word which probably doesn't have a major example, such as "positive thinking", too much reference to focus on one example, people expect it to have a nice little etymology or concise description in better form than found in dictionaries and thesaurus. I am rattling on here but its true, once you are out of school a couple of decades and you may write a lot but plenty of words will escape you, or you think they escaped you, you will need a dictionary but you will appreciate the like of what we have on Wikipedia much more. Just read Wisdom. You could subscribe to Oxford dictionary and you probably wouldn't get such a page for one word, everything from first class literary, cultural reference and religion to psychological study (maybe you would get that from Oxford, they do a big bag which I haven't looked at... but...). That's why I don't want to see the like of positive thinking and Positive action, which I have been argueing about recently, redirected to anything particular, something that some one person or group did. The phrase is not attributable to one person or groups actions alone. It equates WP:SCHOOLONEDAY and that doesn't fit the great style of articles like wisdom on the still growing Wikipedia. Language has been around since the days that history struggles to remember. A lot of rich, famous, ordinary and infamous peoples around the world will think and act positively tonight because they are celebrating the new year. They will do it again next year and most of them will not think about Affirmative Action or the New Age. That is something that counts. Now that's one big soapbox but I think it is important. ~ R.T.G 07:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Theme
Defenition of positive thinking 27.123.136.255 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)