Talk:Pay it forward

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bible 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heinlein was the earlier source for the concept 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oprah section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm confused regarding the category of "1784 introductions" 

message: 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) 
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)
thread_title:  Generalized reciprocity; Franklin