Talk:Norman Vincent Peale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

216.15.124.235 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Melcsw 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 "Positive thinking" has no article? 2 Controversy section 3 Keep it cool 4 Next steps on Controversy section? 5 Great example as to why Wikipedia is useless 6 Gaining consensus on the controversy section

[edit] "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)

If you want to write an article about The Power of Positive Thinking (the book), by all means, be bold and do it. But positive thinking as a philosophy seems to have changed or adapted to modern times (in at least subtle ways, I can't describe it) since Peale's original publication. I don't know much about this subject area, so I'm not a good candidate to write the article. Tinlinkin 09:20, 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)

[edit] 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 politicians 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

[edit] Keep it cool

Please read the most important general editing guidelines in case of disagreements at Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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#Undue weight. 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

[edit] 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

[edit] Gaining consensus on the controversy section

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)