Talk:Personal development

message: On 2010-05-02 at 0857 hours a Wikipedian removed the date-stamped template:Peacock "" from the article, stating in the edit-summary "Undid revision 359100945 by SmackBot [...]". (The  SmackBot edit involved actually had the revision number 358916522, and related to a previous manual insertion of the  template, such that the template has now disappeared from the article entirely and without substantive discussion.) Since the article then included (and still includes) "wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information" - as several included tags suggest - I propose restoring the  peacock template pending the inclusion of relevant and reliable-source citations for much of the content. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of peacock template 

message: The "Personal development planning" does not need its own article, better if merged with "Personal development".  Srinivasasha (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Lova Falk talk 20:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Me vote Nay. Tristyn (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

text: The personal development and the personal development planning articles should remain separate; otherwise, the article will become too large. The planning article should be linked from the other page and be more about application of the information from the general page. Nay
Yes, it should be merged-- in any case the planning entry is short and incomplete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobauthor (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This article is riddled with uncited claims. I think it's enough to warrant a caution template.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.89.125 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: I'm new to wiki editing, so let me know if this is possible. I think it would be a good idea to move the "Contexts" section to be right under the "Overview" section. I feel like if we did that readers would have a little more information and be prepared for the "As an Industry", and "Origins" sections. What does everyone think?SydneyChristiansen19 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging Order of Sections 

message: Is it not the height of orwellianism to define the development of a person by their ability to "build human capital, facilitate employability"? surely theres an alternative definition that could be used here, persons have existed a lot longer than the modern concept of employment has.
:Apparently, this is because someone used a dictionary as a reference, a dictionary in which the given definition describes only a very narrow aspect of the topic at hand. A better source is needed and the lead needs to be rewritten.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Definition 

message: This article has a lot of great information in it. I do have a suggestion though, to add more information to certain areas. I read this and find myself lost during most areas except the psychology section. There is not enough information provided as to what is being talked about and why it pertains to personal development. I would also say that some of the sources need to be stronger. The first source, for example, leads to a one-sentence definition of what one university says that personal development is. I think this could be found in other places and from a stronger source. Breckann (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Breckann: If adding missing content means refspamming, then please don't. The website you used is not a reliable source. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @NJD-DE: The source I added is almost word for word when looking at the lead compared to the first paragraph of the link I provided. I would say if it is not a reliable source then the information needs to be re-worked or removed. This is plagiarism. Breckann (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that it was Wikipedia that copied the blog and not the other way around? - MrOllie (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Content 

message: Hi! I found this page while doing research for my adult development class. I think that if you were to add more about the subjects you will be discussing later on, it would help readers better understand what will be discussed. Ameaganl (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition for lead 

message: — Assignment last updated by Colgate-owl (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2022

message: — Assignment last updated by Srh2023 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023

message: There is more information that needs to be added in the origins section, especially within the south asian traditions & islamic personal development. I am currently working on added additional information, I have edited this section and it is in my sandbox. Please let me know if information or wording could be different. 
User:Srh2023 Srh2023 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins - South Asian Traditions & Islamic Personal Development  

message: — Assignment last updated by Tsuki2023 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023

message: There are few places where it's been said that quotations are required to verify the information, I have those quotations from a credible and renowned personalities, I want to insert them on this page, can I? 
Thank you Optimistaaa (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to base your additions on reliable sources (see WP:RS) such as peer-reviewed journal articles or books from major publishers, sure. If you are going to link to your own website or write based on your personal knowledge, no, you can't. See WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations are required