Talk:The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Books Start‑class | |||||||
|
Business Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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)
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)
- Chase is weird --Thesoupnzi (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I also want to vote for a criticism section. I recently was forced to study this in a mandatory work environment. I would like to see criticisms on this training. It makes the claim of life changing results, and a high degree of efficacy yet I have not seen any empirical data to support any of these claims. I would like to see a section regarding this. I would also like to see a section on coveys business model which involves licensing it to large corporations, regardless of its unsubstantiated claims(lack of empirical data on performance improvements). The content has developed a religious following and relies on the same faith based logic.-DH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.82.120.230 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
- Given that the content was removed per copyright, I have redacted it from here. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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": [[1]]
- This is the only hit I can find that uses the original phrasing: [[2]], 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": [[3]]. 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.": [[4]]. 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)
- 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)
- 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:
Adamant refusal
Covey adamantly refuses to conflate principles and values ...
This is verging on puff language. In my own notes, I reworded this as "rigidly separates". In my private lexicon, this is at most sadly pejorative, because this brand of instrumental fixity almost invariably comes to a sad end, once systems theory presents the grand tally.
Here on Wikipedia, surely there's a suitably neutral phrase that splits the difference. — MaxEnt 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fascinating use of language. I have toned it down from "adamantly refuses to conflate" to "deliberately and mindfully separating" (with some other minor tweaks to make it flow better). Davidjcmorris Talk 01:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: The decision has been made to keep the related image. When I uploaded the image, for some reason I could not then add it to this page, so it looked (to all intents and purposes) as it if were an orphan image. Once I had successfully added it to this page, and explain on the deletion discussion, all was OK. Davidjcmorris Talk 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)