Talk:The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2018; 2020; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Business Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

FALSE STATEMENT in the "First things first"

The article says: "Priority should be given in the following order:

   1) Important and Urgent
   2) Important and not Urgent
   3) Not Important and Urgent
   4) Not Important and not Urgent"

If I remember correctly, Covey underlines that the best leaders, in fact, put most of their attention to quadrant 2 (Important and not Urgent). This way the important stuff never becomes urgent. I.e. she can truly be a proactive leader instead of just constantly "putting out fires". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.59.206.179 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive

I had thought that Covey's definition of "proactive" was the ability to choose your reaction to any situation or thought, as opposed to just reacting to it? I don't recall Covey ever saying that proactive means, specifically, to take responsibility for your own actions, in those very words. Not that it wouldn't mean that, anyway, but it just sort of comes off as, forgive me, right wing rhetoric while Covey has always been careful about keeping his religion and politics away from his self help career. Pro active essentially means to choose your reaction, that's all. It doesn't necessarily mean to take responsibility for your own action. After all, it's already bad enough that corporations have hijacked the word to make it mean "aggressive" and/or "productive", which the word does NOT mean.

Chase poops sparkles: "[Proactivity] means more than merely taking initiative. It means that as human beings, we are responsible for our own lives. Our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions We can subordinate feelings to values. We have the initiative and the responsibility to make things happen. Look at the word responsibility - "response-ability" - the ability to choose your response. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility. They do not blame circumstances, conditions, or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling."--208.120.164.97 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a criticism section in this article. I was just wondering what has been the effect of a person who has written a book on "highly effective people." Does writing a book that sells millions of copies justifies the adjective "highly effective"? There are literally thousands of book titles which are sold in million copies and I don't believe their authors have achieved anything worthwhile, let alone effective.

I added some additional information regarding the corporate following of this book. I am personally reading it as a requirement for a job interview, and posting is for a class assignment.4/19/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llevins (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for a Criticism section

And it reads like an advert or publisher's blurb. --78.147.28.172 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase is weird --Thesoupnzi (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening says the book was first published in 1939, when the author would have been a child. I'm thinking the correct date is 1989, as it is in the information column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.185.217 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article even close to NPOV?! It reads like an advertisement. The guy couldn't even come up with a sensical definition of proactive, for Pete's sake!66.170.219.136 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

content removal

I've removed a lot of stuff from this article. It seemed over promotional and almost like a guide. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see the 7 habits listed. --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 Habits [re-]RESTORED!! Again, trying to "save the INTEGRAL baby" (NOT "promo crap")! Although WP:NOTADVICE&WP:NOTMANUAL, even "highly ranked" OUTSIDE articles like Forbes.com RELY on WP's list! [1] [2] --Curious1i (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can WP's "own" material/edits BECOME "copyrighted" and FORCIBLY removed from WP articles??

I recently (2016-March-25; above content removal) copied (in order to "restore" it) the following FROM https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People&oldid=704974271

(Redacted)

Soon after, it was "permanently" removed (blocked) for Copyright infringement.

It SEEMS that this info (or similar) has been a part of THIS article for most of it's existence, so much so that OUTSIDE article(s) seem to rely on it:

   "I went to Wikipedia to look up the 7 habits..." (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/07/24/the-only-thing-you-need-to-remember-about-the-seven-habits-of-highly-effective-people)

I do not wish to further antagonize(?) User:Diannaa (who seems to be a "Copyright Expert")...

THANKS for any help/pointers/links in helping with my [mis-]understanding(s)....

--Curious1i (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the content was removed per copyright, I have redacted it from here. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's copyright material, and we can't add it here, not in the article and not on the talk page. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically this article has been copied from many, many times and there are a bazillion hits on Google that implies it's been copied. However, a clear history and evolution of the article (and it's copies) can be demonstrated. Diannaa has restored the content. I've also added a reverse copyright violation template to this talk page. The relevant proof:
  - Here is where the "paradigm shift" phrase is first introduced, containing "it makes the reader to": [[3]]
  - This is the only hit I can find that uses the original phrasing: [[4]], which was established in July 2012, so it's possible it copied from Wikipedia - the other book descriptions on that page have google hits, so they look copied too.
  - Then there is the part where the phrase is changed to "it helps the reader": [[5]]. After that, many many hits show up. This strongly implies that Wikipedia was repeatedly copied by external sites.
  - The final change in phrase is the addition of "i.e.": [[6]]. Again many hits show up.
- In conclusion, it looks to me like there is a gradual change in phrasing, documented on the page history, and repeated backwards copying from Wikipedia to many external sites. GoodStuff (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much the "paradigm shift" paragraph I was concerned about but the summary that follows of the seven habits. Looking back, although it has been edited heavily since then, we have had a version of that summary since 2003. It looks like the material has been removed and re-added a couple of times, which is what triggered the bot report. Looks like you are right, it was a false positive. Sorry about the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]