Talk:Fish! Philosophy

Business Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

The FISH! Philosophy is not a "workplace management system" and has never been promoted as such by ChartHouse Learning. I also gave credit to ChartHouse Learning for creating the philosophy. John Christensen got the idea of making a film, but a number of people helped develop the philosophy, video, etc. This gives them proper credit.

Under History, I tightened the edit describing Christensen's first encounter with the fishmongers, drawing directly from first-hand accounts in ChartHouse guides, adding historical dates to satisfy requests for such. And I added the official definitions of the four practices with citation.

This article is still biased and incomplete. It includes several criticisms, some of which are not cited and based on opinion, without any mention of the positive effects of the philosophy, of which there are many examples backed by real people and real numbers. It needs some of these examples to be balanced. Minnesota history fan (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some cited examples of some of the main ways that The FISH! Philosophy has been used, along with statistics, to add critical balance to the article. Apple8888 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history section needs some dates to actually be a history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.46.213 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed links to "film", "spin-off", and "book" from the first sentence. It's unreasonable to assume that somebody reading about FISH! will need to look up the definition of a film or book.

WP:BTW. If the article were egreciously overlinked then it might be worth removing such links, but they're fine right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, all readers are not humans. The best way for a machine to know that this article refers to a film, book or spin-off is to explicitly link to the concept somewhere. This will become increasingly important. 76.10.128.105 (FiSH! Philosophy"talk) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading section[edit]

I have edited the leading section to summarise the contents of the article with a view that the 'tooshort' tag may be removed. ProlixDog (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Your Attitude[edit]

I've restored the paragraph on criticism of "Choose Your Attitude", since contradicting "choice theory" is unimportant if that theory is inconsistent with, or seriously underdetermined by, the evidence. However, I think that without citations the paragraph should be rewritten so as to rely on elementary reasoning (that if solving mental health problems were as simple as "choosing your attitude", there would be no need for antipdepressant medication and psychotherapy) and not the contentions of specific employees.

H Remster (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fish has some criticisms, but it was created by a survivor of the WWII Japanese concentration camps who believed life has more meaning than suffering. John Yokoyama. His current mission is world peace and prosperity for everyone. The criticisms sited on this page are unfounded in my opinion! Please provide alternate interpretations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.113.180 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Business Use" reads like a testimonials page for an advertisement.[edit]

Nothing to add beyond the subject heading - it reads like an advertisement and is almost completely pointless for an encyclopedic article - "Customers such as Bill Bean are well aware of when the energy in a business is negative. In an article, he wrote for “The Recorder” he talked about how when he usually visits Ontario Ministry of Health the atmosphere is very dark and cold. On his last visit, the team excitedly welcomed him into the office to renew his Ontario Health Card. The sudden change in the attitude of the staff was all thanks to the implementation of the fish philosophy in day-to-day operations of the business.[9]" really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.219.198 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The line "as far away as the Middle East" definitely sounds like it was pulled from ad copy. Far away from where? This assumes a reader's location and oughtn't be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.193.156 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]