Talk:Six Thinking Hats

Biased Title

its actually a fundamental issue - why is this termed de bono hats and not six thinking hats, aspecially given the controversy over their origins as indicated below. I consider that this page is most definitely biased on this basis.

the title should be changed to six thinking hats and the debate over origins should be included on the page

Biased

The example is biased pro-yellow, green and blue hats.

Why isn't it "de Bono Hats"?

Shouldn't all instances of "DeBono" in this entry be changed to "de Bono"? After all, his name is "Edward de Bono". I will change the entry, but I'm not sophisticated enough to create a new wiki entry ("de Bono Hats") and redirect to it. Could someone else do this? --Nick 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way is this biased?

I don't see how this article is biased. Because the Blue Hat has more entries under the subheading? That doesn't define it as being biased seeing as the Blue Hat needs to represent more points in an argument as it is discussing "The Big Picture". By the way Nickg you can't doing it using the "move" page function. It replies with the message of the source and destination title being the same. Seeing as the actual content of the article is correct, the naming can't make a large difference. If it still bothers you, contact an administrator. Syphron12 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't present a neutral viewpoint. It isn't pure White Hat. In the first paragraph, everything after the first sentence may very well be true but it's somewhat irrelevant in terms of presenting information on Six Hats Thinking.There are several instances such as this where the viewpoint seems to slant towards yellow hat thinking in an effort to persuade others of the benefits of using the de Bono Hats parallel thinking framework. It's understandable that the author believes de Bono Hats is an idea worth putting in Wikipedia but the article needs to be more like:

de Bono Hats, more commonly known as "Six Hats" or "Six Thinking Hats" is a parallel thinking framework designed by Dr. Edward de Bono primarily for use by groups. It's the subject of his book, "Six Thinking Hats"....

It might not be a bad idea to request Dr. de Bono himself to contribute his best White Hat thinking on Six Thinking Hats since he has expressed concern about people using his ideas incorrectly.

136.159.208.39 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a failure to adequately describe the role of the Blue Hat. It is strictly for "thinking about thinking". The role of the Blue hat is adopted by one person only at any time (like the meeting chairman) and determines the sequence of thinking under the other hats. In some ways the Six Hats are a reincarnation of earlier thinking tools devised by de Bono. The PMI (Plus Minus Interesting) tool from CoRT Thinking is similar: P = Yellow hat and M = Black hat. Red hat is emotion/gut feel/intuition. Green hat is creative thinking, and encompasses lateral thinking. White hat is just the facts or immutable and incontrovertible data. At no point does the article suggest the true value of the tool, that it is easy to categorize thinking under each of the hats. The ability to detect fundamental problems in the balance of thinking (eg. we do not have enough yellow hat on this subject) is one advantage. When a hat is announced (eg. give me your best green hat on the topic) it then opens up permission for contributions from multiple parties without fear of immediate reprisal - eg. a creative idea which is offered under the green hat cannot be criticized until black hat comments are invited. StephenSmith 15 April 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the example used for the development of the excercise of going throuhg the six thinking hats trivial and almost useless. The power of the method of thinking of the six thinking hats is best used upon matters of larger significance and consequence, and also, in which there are sizeable goods, bads, and potentials that press one into doubt. If any one has an example of a discussion that they have carried out using the hats that they feel is more informative, please erase the current examplo (August 2008 about teacher-classroom) and type in yours. Thankyou. Felipe Guardiola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.255.72 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

TradeMark?

I have a bias against unsigned comments, especially negative ones. I would, however, like to ask about the TM superscript next to "Parallel Thinking". If I use the phrase "parallel processing", do I owe someone a royalty?

Ernstwll 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it "Six Thinking Hats®" ?

Many people are more familiar with the phrase "Six Thinking Hats" since that is the term Mr. de Bono uses in his many books for this parallel thinking framework.It's the title of his book exclusively about it.Wouldn't it be better to use "Six Thinking Hats®" as the title so other people would be more likely to find it?

I know that Mr. de Bono has concerns regarding intellectual property matters but there is a point at which frequent emphasis on his ownership will have a negative effect on people choosing to use "de Bono thinking".

142.59.90.167 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LAFFER spectramollisol@yahoo.com

Proposal to use de Bono Hats in this discussion

The current declared task is to work on this article so that the viewpoint is clearly neutral to anyone that reads it. Now, maybe this is something where vertical thinking is quite adequate but it might be interesting to use de Bono Hats as an editing group as an example of its use. It would involve some self discipline since anyone could at any time put on a different colored hat than the specific colored hat that is requested. There is also the problem of working out the Blue Hat details as a group since there could be editors that want to monopolize that hat.

There could be more Blue Hat discussion on how to get the required article. The comments so far seem to be Black Hat thinking which is ok, but let's have some more Blue Hat thinking as a fresh start.

I propose more Blue Hat thinking, then making a formal request for more Black Hat thinking and then asking for Green Hat Thinking.

The editing group doesn't have to set out a complete sequence of hats of how to get a neutral viewpoint article but something like Blue, Black, Green and an agreement on how to work together with the Blue Hat would be a start.

Another possible sequence might start with Yellow. It's good that the article exists and it does contain the basic elements of an explanation of what de Bono Hats are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.208.39 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub?

Without references, this article should be stubbed or deleted. I'm guessing that the topic is notable enough that it doesn't need to be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Drive by tagging

The article is multiple tagged, yet there are no discussions on the basis for these tags (notability, peacock etc). Until the antagonists can come up with a plausible argument I propose we just delete the tags. --11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons (or basis) for those tags can be clearly seen in the actual article, if that makes sense. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That forces others to make unfounded assumptions, the starting point of many misunderstanding. In fact the box suggests or discuss these issues on the talk page. If people cannot clearly state their issues here I question the validity of their claims. As for notability the topic of the article is being discussed at LinkedIn as a tool for innovative processes. --12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with you on the notability point - I think the de Bono Hats are notable enough to have an article. But the thing is that when you tag an article you do not neccesarily have to discuss it on the talk page. Remember that the purpose of the tags is to notify people that it needs improving. If you just look at the article you can clearly see that it contains peacock terms and is NPOV. It is also clear that it barely cites any sources and is written in an unencyclopedic manner. So the best thing to do is improve the article as the box says. Joelster (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so can we agree the notability tag goes? I am in favour of consensus rather than bold editing leading to revert wars. Next up is the peacock tag. from what I can see it is about statements such as many agree on X being great.... This article however is quite consistent in stating that it is De Bono who make the claims. Thus the reporting of his statements are objective while one may argue his opinions are subjective. Whether or not his statements hold true is an entirely different question. One could of course point out his web page listing endorsements from several notable companies (such as Nestlé) though that runs the risk of accusations of advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.186.113 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as no one has objected, I yhave removed the notability and peacock term tags. But I still believe that the article is written ever-so-slightly like an advertisement for the Hats, and that the layout and content of the article is unencyclopedic. But the biggest problem of all is that it doesn't cite any sources; even though it does give a few references to books and external websites, these are not cited in the text. What is the address for his webpage? Perhpas there are a few statements I could cite from there. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags removal is much appreciated. Next up is the advertising tag. Could you clarify how you see this as an advertisement? Personally had I paid for an ad like this I would have demanded my money back. You requested address for his web page, I believe it is http://www.debonoforbusiness.com/asp/six_hats.asp which is in the article. His web pages gives links (just not hyper links) to various persons in Nestlé and Washoe Health System but I am not sure how to add these without then making it look like a glowing recommendation. Links can be found in LinkedIn but URLs from there tends to be long, looking like containing session IDs. --22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.186.113 (talk)

Controversy

Link proposed link regarding the origins of six thinking hats:

http://www.schoolofthinking.org/about/the-hats-the-origin-of-the-thinking-hats-idea/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 October 2008

We would need a stronger source than the subject writing in their own weblog, as per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources. Has this issue received any media, legal or academic coverage? --McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Both parties agree that there is controversy, since both engage in discussion, providing contrary statements. it is thus well documented that there is controversy, although the "truth" remains unclear. I believe that we should state that there is controversy and signpost to both sources of material. de bono fails to provide any evidence refuting the claim in his statements, gleeson provides some but it is not easily accessible.

Innovationbrain (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As I say, this issue is not well-documented, in terms of what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. WP:SPS specifically says that "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I also believe that it'd be worth mentioning this controversy, but the current sources don't allow us to do that. We need to dig deeper and find a mention in a newspaper, academic article or similar third-party authority. --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

so is Dr de bonos web page citing the controversy and refuting the claims not therefore adequate to indicate that there is some dispute over the origin. ow how about wording it differently instead of reverting directly to a pro de bono statement which I should point out leaves you equally vulnerable from hewitt gleeson since he also asserts copyright on this material pre dating de bonos. do you really need a third party source to tell you that two people are arguing when they both have arguments naming each other and the issue over which they are arguing posted on their own websites. all I am doing is indicating the existence of these arguments. that is a fact. these arguments exist. hell, heres a third party source that cites the two - is that what you want???? or this one can we say that these men are arguing now or do we have to put our heads in the sand and pretend that all is right with the world because we are afraid of our own shadows...THINK man THINK!

Well, it is cited in the article on dr de bono on wikipedia, and as I wrote originally it is disputed - not definitively proven either way. the issue appears on both dr de bonos and dr gleesons web pages, each providing contrary statements, and neither producing any convincing evidence

I feel that it is important to highlight this controversy in order to apply pressure to both of these gentlemen to produce appropriate evidence and progress towards clarity and balance on this issue so that the general public may more effectivley establish the truth, and therefore have clarity about the copyright status and legitimate origins of this material. Clearly both gentlemen have vested interests in holding their positions, and it is likely that both of them played a part in the development of this idea. I suggest that both of the following lnks be appended until further evidence can be obtained

http://www.schoolofthinking.org/about/the-hats-the-origin-of-the-thinking-hats-idea/ http://www.edwarddebono.com/NewsDetail.php?news_id=69&

Reading them both I have formed my own judgements as to the likely truth of this matter, I believe that others should be able to form such judgements themselves also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Further information is provided elsewuere on hewit gleesons site and elswehere, however there is nothing conclusive that I can find. the issue has never bee settled in court and it appears that both men are profiting from applying and propogating this intellectual property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.97.5 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I have added considerable content to this reference now because I believe that this is an important entry and deserves full and detailed elaboration. I am a certified six hats facilitator. However I believe that this article is incorrectly titled. the title of the book is six thinking hats, the title of the training course is six thinking hats. they are delivered under the umbrella of "de Bono thinking systems"

I would really appreciate it if one of you wiki wizards would do something about this, since I do not have the power

this is especially important given the unresolved controversy over the origins of the method since it clearly makes this page non impartial thanks Innovationbrain (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Unsure that this proposed move is either harmful or helpful. It's probably not possible to say which of Six Thinking Hats or de Bono Hats is the more common name for these. Certainly Google would be a poor guide, there's so much on the web that refers to them and has an axe to grind, but my belief would be they're both acceptable names for this article, and both suffer equally from the controversy over de Bono's priority, as Six Thinking Hats is after all the title of his best-selling book on the subject.

Both this article and the Edward de Bono article need cleanup. My suggestion would be to do this first. Perhaps then a separate article, or at least a stub, at Six Thinking Hats would be appropriate, dealing specifically with de Bono's book by that name. But at present, the article is based on this one source anyway. And if in the process of developing the article we discover sufficient non-de Bono material to move it to a non-de-Bono name, I'd be skeptical that this move would be the one currently proposed. Does everyone else use exactly six hats? We might well find that thinking hats or thinking hat or something similar was a better title for the generic article, if indeed one is justified. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Six Thinking Hats would serve as the title of an article about the book and de Bono's system; when other sources of the idea (Isaac Bonewits?) are added, we can spin off an article on the dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support, given that we don't appear to have a source that refers to them as "de Bono Hats". --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Further supporting arguments and detail There are four primary sources for this article as it is and as I intend to make it - doing a bit at a time. they are:
the book
the training notes (as provided by de bonos franchised training activities so an aputhentic approved source)
websites of and interviews with dr De Bono
websites of and interviews with dr Hewitt Gleeson (including school of thinking)

The title on the training notes front page is:
small type "Edward de Bono's"
Large type "Six Thinking Hats®"
mediume type "Tools for Rarallel Thinking®"

The slide rule that came with the training notes for quick reference is emblazoned with "Six Thinking Hats®"

For me this makes it pretty clear. However, the issue "does everyone use exactly the same hats" is relevant. Hewitt gleeson does methion a seventh hat - grey, representing experience. I would therefore propose on balance that the best home would be "thinking hats" within which the article would contain:

information on the method, its origins and practice,
information about how it is available (the book, the training from debono, the school of thinking articles)
details of the hats
details of the application method and associated tools
example programs or sequences

you may choose to have a separate page about the book as well as this - although I'd personally not find that interesting enough to contribute to

Innovationbrain (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

De Bono appears to refer to them simply as "Six Hats" in the text of his book (as far as I can skim it on Amazon). --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)