In this article, the author presents his views on Michael's (1975) and Baron and Galizio's (2005) arguments on eliminating the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement. He first discusses Michael's concept of these two types of operations and contrasts it with the notions of Baron and Galizio. The author provides the readers his own ideas on why retaining the terms "positive" and "negative" might facilitate research: (1) Many stimulus changes involve pre- and postchange conditions in which it is possible to determine that the relevant stimulus is present or absent; (2) Identifying the critical difference between the pre- and postchange conditions of reinforcement facilitates the development of effective contingencies; and (3) Recent development in the field suggest that subtle and perhaps arbitrary terminological differences may be functional.