Talk:Well-being contributing factors

Creation of page

I have created this page to collect all the empirical research on well-being, happiness, eudaimonia and positive psychology, which are related terms and topics. It provides an overview of otherwise scattered info, and it shortens the main articles considerably. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan. Would a title like Contributing factors to [overall] well-being be more appropriate? Just a thought. = paul2520 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know, though I can imagine that "well-being" is the primary topic, and the primary search-term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Well-being contributing factors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115021035/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.tools/01/24/c.keyes/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.tools/01/24/c.keyes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115020515/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1015902-1%2C00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

this article needs to be split between happiness and well-being

this article is a mess. Many factors here are about happiness (the net of positive and negative affects), others about flourishing, others about well-being (happiness is one part, only, of well-being). Thus the article lacks accuracy and the article title is wrong. I suggest it be broken into 2 articles;

• Happiness contributing factors.
• Well-being contributing factors

and other content returned to the article on that topic (e.g. flourishing content to the article on flourishing).

JCJC777 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This article was created to collect together all the empirical research scattered over four different articles. See the opening thread of this talkpage. If happiness is (only) a part of well-being, than that can be mentioned in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

'scatter' is the word. would you put content on petrol, car and transport all in same article? JCJC777

Well, if you've got an article on research on the improvement of logistics or so, yes, maybe. But check-out how it was before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

shall we get a third opinion? JCJC777

Okay, #3 here, and strongly support. However, I'd go MUCH further. For starters:

• it's vastly overlong. Per Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline any article that tops 100K of prose "almost certainly should be divided."' The one at hand weighs in over 246K.

• Given that it's not of interest to the average/typical WP user, I'd contend that the suggested 60K limit is far too generous, and what remains here should be <40K.

• This appears to be one of those articles that is held up as "popular" largely due to waves of lazy undergrads who show up only to pilfer stuff for a class paper, being too cheap to shell out for Cliff's Notes.
• I accept the "it combines four previous articles!" claim at face value, and surmise that those pages were themselves bloated, redundant, repetitive, and of very little general interest. To be blunt: collecting multiple trashpiles into one big pile is certainly a service of great worth (and undertaken by far too few!), but in the end there's still that HUGE pile of trash.
• Supporting that prejudice, I note there are idiot superlatives (a.k.a. peacocks) scattered liberally throughout, such as

The broader picture in all is to increase your life span , reduce health disparities, and altogether live a long, happy, and healthy life!

• I count all of ten illustrations, so not a major contributor to the bloat. But I will point out that half the pictures have ZERO direct bearing on the topic, and seem placed merely to make it more like a textbook (and of course Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal which this article seems hell-bent to contradict. This reminds me oddly of porn films that used to paste in awkward plots and dialogue and "arty" cinematography so they had a chance of claiming they had achieved some "redeeming social value" and were actually thereby art films. So, even if the pictures made this a text, WP is precisely NOT a text.
• The title is also misleading. I arrived here via another article. In hopes of finding some way to prune this morass responsibly, I searched for Well-being but noticed Well-being therapy, which at first glance seems a MUCH better source of this article. But, it is a redirect to a stub for Giovanni Fava (psychiatrist), apparently the man who FOUNDED "well-being therapy" yet is somehow not mentioned at all in the present article.
• As Well-being is a mere 29K, that indicates to me that an apparent subsidiary/derivative article such as Well-being contributing factors should be no longer.

I propose to begin by removing all sections that have no supporting citations — certainly, if FOUR whole actual articles can't substantiate a claim, it's nonsense.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

verification of meditation as coping mechanism

Under Well-being contributing factors#Cultural factors, in the "Spirituality" subsection under "Religion and spirituality", is the following statement:

Coping mechanisms involving spirituality include meditative meditation, creating boundaries to preserve the sacred, spiritual purification to return to the righteous path, and spiritual reframing which focuses on maintaining belief. One clinical application of spirituality and positive psychology research is the "psychospiritual intervention," which represents the potential that spirituality has to increase well-being.

This cites the 2002 edition of "Handbook of Positive Psychology", edited by C R Snyder and Shane J Lopez. (More specifically, this should cite chapter 47: "Spirituality: Discovering and conserving the sacred" by Kenneth Pargament & Annette Mahoney.)

I see no support for the reference to "meditative meditation" (or any form of meditation) as a coping mechanism involving spirituality.

The source is available for short-term borrowing at https://archive.org/details/handbookofpositi0000unse_l8c9, the chapter starts at page 646.

Here is the edit which added this content and the edit which originally added the "spirituality" section to a predecessor article. Fabrickator (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Financial Planning II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2023 and 17 October 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sld3333 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Qwerasdzxcjyx (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)