Talk:Is the glass half empty or half full?

message: Shouldn't the title have one? Thomas Ash 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Question mark ~ Oni Lukos ct 15:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right, couldn't we use % 3 F ? Thomas Ash 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question mark? 

message: I made a few minor changes and removed the following from the article:
"If this page hasn't helped enough, check out an example video of the common expression:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hpJYeVvyBs0"
MastaFighta 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up a little 

message: I am wondering because I am watching the TV series Mad Men. It is a TV series set in 1960 for the first season. One of the characters states that she is a "glass half full" type of person. I don't recall this being a common method of referring to pessimism or optimism in the 60s. For example, I have never heard, in a movie or TV series prior to the TV series "Get Smart,"
the phrase "Sorry about that". It is amusing to see some period type of performance where that phrase pops up. Corollaryone (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more likely to get a response at the reference desks. This talk page is reserved for discussions on the article itself, and the desks are far more heavily trafficked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, I would ask if the Mad Men series includes scenes in bars or cafeterias, but I see I am late for ages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.57.107 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bet he's right. I would love to have an origin added to the article if there's been research done to cite. Thmazing (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did this become a common statement? 

message: The section was just a variation of the standard Physicist/Engineer/Biologist etc jokes, which can be extended ad infinitum. It is unlikely that all of these can be listed, so it is better to list none. SiegeLord (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variations Section 

message: I'm not sure why the tokengeek reference was removed. It clearly demonstrates a literal, or alternate view on the problem and raises a good point. It certainly more relevant than the entry from "Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10".
I've replaced it and invite a discussion on the issue. --Drphallus (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever your feelings may be re a literal or alternative view, the "External links" section is for sites that cannot be included as sources for reasons unrelated to their reliability. In other words, one of the primary criteria is that the site theoretically could be a reliable source. However tokengeek is a blog, which is virtually never a reliable source. For a simpler approach, we have a list of Links normally to be avoided. #11 is, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." This particular blog entry is written by "Stefan". Honestly, I can't say that I know anything about Stefan, but I see nothing to indicate ze is a "recognized authority". So far, the blog has all of 8 entries. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: This talk page is for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading section 

message: * I would like to challenge the veracity of the following sources:
** Stephanie Stokes Oliver (2001-11-27). Seven Soulful Secrets for Finding Your Purpose and Minding Your Mission
**Terry Bookman (December 2004). A Soul's Journey: Meditations on the Five Stages of Spiritual Growth.
*** Both on the grounds of a) lack of credentials in the fields of psychology, linguistics, and philosophy, and b) lack of ability to put forward logically sound statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.76.99 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity of sources 

message: Solution
Isn't it both half empty and half full at the same time?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic chat

message: The current source, Seven Soulful Secrets: For Finding Your Purpose and Minding Your Mission is written by someone without expertise in psychology or linguistics, or anything like that. Mucube (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree—the cited source hardly shows much, just that there is at least one drugstore self-help book which says this phrase is "like the litmus test for how you see the world." That tells you...something...but it doesn't even really support what the existing article says. I looked around and it's honestly pretty hard to find decent sources that address the idiom directly, but the OED and the Quote Investigator do have entries on it that cite primary sources, so I think we could at least apply those here in place of the Soulful Secrets book. I'll edit the article to that effect. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources are needed