Talk:Pay it forward

Bible

The philosophy of paying good deeds forward is clearly articulated and exemplified in the book Pay It Forward, but Jesus taught this same philosophy to His disciples in Matthew 25:34-46. Comments? --John Rigali 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but Jesus didn't just say to do good deeds to others when you've had a good deed done to you, but also when you've had a BAD deed done to you, or for no reason at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", not the banker's creed "do unto others what they have already done to you in direct proportion." --98.165.15.98 (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Matthew 10:8 --Waldir ^talk 20:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein said and practiced this philosophy. http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:22, 20 March 2006 (talk • contribs) 70.109.131.199

I'll add that to the article, but it's beside my point. Since no one seems to have an opinion on the matter, I'm going to add my point to the article and see what happens. --John Rigali 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein was the earlier source for the concept

The novel and movie took a concept long earlier espoused by Heinlein in his 1951 book Between Planets.

Excerpt:

At the (until recently named) Bank of America & Hongkong, at New London, Venus:

The banker reached into the folds of his gown, pulled out a single credit note. "But eat first — a full belly steadies the judgment. Do me the honor of accepting this as our welcome to the newcomer."

His pride said no; his stomach said YES! Don took it and said, "Uh, thanks! That's awfully kind of you. I'll pay it back, first chance."

"Instead, pay it forward to some other brother who needs it." The banker touched a button on his desk, then stood up.

Don said goodbye and left.

WyldRaven 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

By now (2012) the article has the concept going back much further, and the name going back at least to L.H. Hammond in 1912. --Thnidu (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins

Given the significance of the two others cited as having reference to the origins of this concept model, I feel it's inappropriate that the article significantly place a pulp-fiction author above them due to the fact that her exact use of the phrase is the title of her book and the subsequent movie. Perhaps a rewording of this article to better represent Heinline and JC would make this a little less ambiguous? 211.30.80.121 02:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Either this article or the the film's should be renamed, as they are distinguished only by capitalization. Please see the discussion at the film page --Bdoserror 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate and enjoy Ryan Hyde's novel turn movie Pay It Forward, this concept has been around for centuries. The Wiccan Threefold Law (aka Law of Return): "All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold." I suggest this topic be merged with Serial Reciprocity and that article to be expanded to include world religions that incorporate this practice into their doctrines. Elite5091 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I don't know exactly what merging would do, but i just read this and it was very helpful to me in understanding the term 'pay it forward'. It's a phrase I've heard many times, but never understood until now. As long as the term remains searchable, merging might be fine, but it is helpful to see the origins/background on the term and how it relates to other ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.161.233 (talk) 16:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend against merging -- while there is some overlap, "Pay it forward" can be used as a proper noun, is a useful article, has already a rich content, has also a interlink. "Serial reciprocity" is a common noun, but has poor content, has no interlink, seems not universal.

I'd recommend creating "see also" section in the artile "Pay it forward" and putting the term "serial reciprocity" there. Anybody who wants to add some article on "serial reciprocity" can do it freely. --PediCruiser 08:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC) — PediCruiser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd like to concur - it's the links in Wikipedia that are it's strength, not collapsing ideas together. The followed links allow users to expand their thinking and increase their options. Don't merge unless there is clear and pointless redundancy. -- AndrewMWebster 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — AndrewMWebster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

I just did the merge before I noticed that the above posts were posted under the wrong headline. I also don't see any real argument against a merge in them; the doubtful difference that one can be used as a proper noun and the other certainly is not convincing. Conversely, the two articles had almost verbatim the same definitions, which alone should be reason enough for a merge. — Sebastian 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oprah section

the section on Oprah doesn't really seem to be and example of this concept - the audience members didn't get a good deed they were asked to pass on, they were simply tasked with making donations for Oprah. Did this receive coverage that would make it a significant thing to cover on this page? Is it important in some other way? Or should it be removed? -- SiobhanHansa 08:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see that "they were simply tasked with making donations for Oprah"? If that's true then of course it would not belong here. I agree that it isn't important, but as long as it fits, it adds some value to the article. — Sebastian 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I inserted three of the external links that had been removed with the edit summary "Removing section as none of the links add encyclopedic information about the concept - they're deadlinks, or links to orgs useging people to "Pay it forward" see WP:SOAP." WP:SOAP does not forbid all external links, and I don't see any reason to delete links to sites that are precisely dedicated to the topic of an article. — Sebastian 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest SOAP forbid all external links - But that links to sites that do not provide encyclopedic information about the concept of "pay it forward" but rather merely encourage people to participate in the sites' version of paying it forward are a form of advocacy - they also promote the idea that the concept originated with Hyde - which is not supported by our article, making them slightly unreliable advocacy. Just as our article on walkathons should not have a directory of links to walkathons, and our blogs article should not have a directory of blogs, this article should not have a list of sites that simply encourage people to pay it forward. The also fails our WP:EL#Links to be avoided not being by a noted commentator (it also appears to be a dead blog - last posting was June 2006). Good links for an article like this might be articles from philanthropy or social science focused magazines or journals that look at the impact of the concept on people's lives; or contrast it with other ways people give or receive help; or a reliable history of such giving. Articles that actually provide reliable, additional *information* about the concept itself. -- SiobhanHansa 09:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, we don't want a directory of links or a directory of blogs. I'm fine with removing the link to the blog, leaving only the links to the US and UK page for the Pay It Forward Foundation.

I also agree with you that the links to the Pay It Forward Foundation alone may not be sufficiently balanced, and that we would like to have links to articles from philanthropy or social science focused magazines or journals. But the solution can not be to remove the former, it has to be to add the latter. This is how I understand WP:NPOV#Balance. If you are aware of any, please be my guest!

BTW, thanks for catching my typo (or should that be "copy-and-past-o"?)! — Sebastian 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How do the foundation sites add to a reader's understanding of the subject? They don't seem to contain any further information that isn't already in this article. -- SiobhanHansa 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do:

• several pages of Educator resources
• current news

This is no less helpful than the external links in some featured articles, such as Megadeth.

Anyway, I really want to thank you for raising your concerns first here on the talk page. I wish more people were as considerate as you! — Sebastian 00:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused regarding the category of "1784 introductions"

There is no mention of such in the article. Can someone kindly provide such reference? Or should the category be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.128.161 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Generalized reciprocity; Franklin

The lede section had the sentence

In sociology, this concept is called "generalized reciprocity" or "generalized exchange".

But the article Generalized reciprocity, which redirects to Reciprocity (cultural anthropology), defines the term quite differently:

Generalized reciprocity is the exchange of goods and services without keeping track of their exact value, but often with the expectation that their value will balance out over time.

(reference) Bonvillain, Nancy (2010). Cultural Anthropology. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 10: 0-205-68509-9. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

In other words, the "generalization" in the term "generalized reciprocity" applies to values, not to beneficiaries. I have removed the sentence.

Also, in light of the history of the concept at least back to ancient Greece, I've removed "invented" from the Franklin mention. --Thnidu (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pay It Forward Movie

What about Pay It Forward movie from 2000, the article doesn't mention anything about it and I think it's a quite good example.