The Apu Trilogy

de Bono in anime

The appearance of the "lateral thinking" theme and lateral thinking puzzles in anime, both of which were coined and conceptualized by Edward de Bono (and thus not "coincidental"!), is entirely relevant when discussing the influence of the man and his work. Much is made of de Bono's work and influence in English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia, but his ideas surfacing in Japanese popular culture in the form of anime (a very popular and important medium in Japan) prove that his cross-cultural appeal extends to the sphere of popular culture as well as business culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.163.82.88 (talk • contribs) 21:21, March 2, 2007 (UTC).

Can you find a website, book, manga or anything else that can give evidence for your statement, preferably one from the Azumanga Daioh anime which you speak of?

The whole article needs some help with sourcing, there's not one reference in this article. Some websites and links will be good in showing people how influential he allegedly is. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I just seen your source, I've missed it before. However http://en.anime.wikia.com/wiki/Azumanga_Daioh is not a reliable place to prove your facts, as that is also an editable wiki, something that not allowed on Wikipedia (see WP:EL). Worse still, that website does not cite its sources either (it doesn't even mention de Bono!). So sorry, but you need to find another source. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

de Bono's writing is clear?

The article suggests that de Bono's writing is simple and clear. Well, no. de Bono's prose takes simple concepts perfectly well explained by his predeccessors and then spends whole books reiterating quite simple points - at book length rather than the paragraph or two they require. On top of that, de Bono seems to make a habit of using predecessors work (e.g. making liberal use of concept from Wertheimer's (1945) gestalt 'Productive Thinking' approach, Koestler's (1964) bisociation approach, or the Creative Problems Solving (CPS) approach following on from Osborne's work in the early 1950s) without attribution to the sources that he's clearly been exposed to in some form or other and drawn from. Take another example, the 6 thinking hats - there have been similar (and more powerful) conceptual models in psychology for yonks, but we don't hear about it from de Bono. In other words, he does precisely what every university student is taught not to do, and obscures the line between his contributions and the contributions of predecessors. The net effect is that for the very simple concepts he tries to communicate, the prose is remarkably uneffective in communicating that simple message. What it is good at is communicating the mystique that maybe there is something important and original being communicated. But if you happen to know the creativity literature, it is hard to see what is so original in terms of content (as opposed to how it is communicated).

De Bono's writing is not necessarily without value. If people haven't come across the ideas before or they are of practical value to someone, great. But I think that an encyclopaedic article should spell out both points of view - the views of those who see value and originality in de Bono's work, and those that have a more critically appreciative view grounded in an understanding of the previous creativity literature that by and large de Bono draws on but fails to reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.132.148 (talk • contribs) 10:09, December 23, 2006 (UTC).

Vandalism

Roderick, Another Wikipedian has already clearly (and rather explicitly I might add) explained the situation of Dr. De Bono's nationality, and this is depicted below. I do not understand why you persist in re-editing our factual work to score points for Malta.I consider this very puerile behaviour for Malta's Administrator. Kindly refrain from misrepresentation with regards to this matter or I will have to report this page as frequently vandalised, like Adolf Hitler's. Is that really necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.196.68 (talk • contribs) .

Excuse me dear Anon but I also find your slandering quite childish and puerile for a lot of reasons:

1. I never edited the article in question;
2. This therefore means that my persistance to re-edit factual work is an unfounded lie;
3. I have no interest in scoring points for Malta. Wikipedia isn't a game between people of who scores the most;
4. Before accusing me of childish behaviour you should have had the deceny to take a look at the history and see what edits I made to the article - lo and behold you would have found none. My only contribution was to the talk page only, and I asked as simple question without editing the article. I know I can be in the wrong too - no one's perfect. Reason why I refrained from editing but asked a question instead;
5. You have also damaged my reputation as an admin. Don't you think I probably know better then you do about policies?
6. And last but not least, before throwing mud at people at least have the decency to sign with your name.

Having said that, I demand at least an apology. --Roderick Mallia 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also it would be interesting to know what happened to my original question in this page. Since when are comments on talk pages deleted to make way for slandering comments? --Roderick Mallia 13:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

De Bono's Nationality

You need to update your knowledge regarding what the term 'Nationality' means, and how its concepts are applied exactly. Nowadays, nationality is defined as 'the status of belonging to a nation', but this is often misinterpreted or misunderstood so as to read that a person's nationality cannot change or is determined by the country in which he/she was born. Edward De Bono is Maltese-born. That is the term you are looking for. Having lived in Britain for a number of years, his citizenship and hence nationality have since changed from his Malta years. For example, Zlatan Ibrahimovic is a Serbian-born Swedish footballer, and Edgar Davids is a Surinami- born Dutchman, Roman Polanski is a Polish-born Frenchman and Joe Adonis is an Italian-born American. This means they was born in their respective countries, but their nationalities have since changed due to their citizenships. Citizenship is usually awarded first, and comes with a work permit. Nationality follows according to different nations, for instance, in France it is five years, in Germany six, etc. Nationality usually entitles a person to hold a passport belonging to that nation, which is like a ticket that shows the person belongs to that nation. Edward De Bono holds a British Passport, British Citizenship and British nationality, therefore he is British and not Maltese. His ties to the Maltese nation, if you will, have 'expired', though they are not erased. I suggest you confirm what I have conferred about his nationality before wrongfully altering the British to Maltese yet again, and this can be achieved by looking up 'Lateral Thinking', in the 'Penguin English Dictionary 2nd Edition (to which he contributed and wrote the British part himself, might I add!). References to him being British are also available in the inside jacket of the penguin publication of his book 'Lateral Thinking'.

Hope you are no longer addled with regard to this issue, and that from now on we can represent the information that pertains to his nationality correctly.

James Cromwell U.O.S.

Oh... one last thing... his name isn't Debono. Its De Bono. He had it officially changed..

James Cromwell U.O.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.199.133 (talk • contribs) .

Frenchman and Dutchman imply being born or having ancestors from there. Maybe a better way to put it is just French and Dutch, if they don't originate from there. In any case, he is still Maltese because that is his ethnicity, AFAIK. So he is a Malta-born Maltese British. When two of these are the same, people tend to omit one. Compare USA-born African American, or Austria-born German German. 203.218.37.8 02:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

It would be better to talk and reach some sort of consensus on the nationality question so as not to continue a edit war on the first paragraph. Wikipedia guidelines on Resolving disputes may be helpful here, as might be the AMA, although they seem to be a bit backed up. It seems that only one side of the arguments are on this page, although edits continue for both British and Maltese. Just some ideas. Maybe a poll is in order?

Poll

Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~

British

1. Agree - Malta was a British realm from De Bono's birth in 1933 until 1964. De Bono was a UK resident by this time. So the whole time he lived in Malta there was no such thing as Maltese citizenship or any legal sort of "nationality" either. He would have been a British citizen from birth, who was *eligable* for Maltese citizenship (or dual citizenship) later in his life. It appears he has never taken this option up. Now as for his "nationality", in any legal sense it must be British. In other senses, it might be Maltese, though for most of them he would have to believe it was so. matturn 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
   1. It appears he has never taken this option up: Wikipedia should be based on facts not on appearances! Proof it. Maltesedog 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maltese

1. Agree He's recognised his Maltese nationality several times, and the Institute of Thinking. He is not only of Maltese birth but Born in Malta, studied St Edward's College and subsequently gained a medical degree from the Royal University of Malta. Maltesedog 18:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what difference it makes as to what de Bono's nationality really is - and de Bono is written with a small 'de' - I know for certain that he was born in Malta, that he has dual citizenship (UK and Malta passport), and that he spends most of his time travelling, literally living out of a suitcase, with a 'base' in different countries and continents including London in England, Melbourne in Australia and Zebbug in Malta. (White Hat - facts) Could we therefore consider him as a 'global citizen' as his contributions to the world have affected societies and organisations globally? (Green Hat - Possibility, Alternative) (FFMT - born and based in Malta) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FFMT (talk • contribs) 13:35, September 10, 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution

I do not think this is a matter of wars. I have e-mail Dr. DeBono's office for a clarification.. will be back as soon as I get an official reply 18:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs) .

That is great for collecting input. However, I think there still must be consensus as to how the official information is presented, unless it is simply "According to the office of Dr. De Bono... " . 「ѕʀʟ·！」 19:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

will wait but hopefully at least we would have a reply which is official. i mean only for the last ten years he lived in channel islands.. what about before? he spent definitely something like 25 years in Malta if he graduated in Malta. What if he has dual citizenship? Maltesedog 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean!!!

This is a clear example of what I am referring to! CITIZENSHIP is not what we are talking about!!! Being Born in Malta clearly indicates he has a right to retain Maltese Citizenship, but we are talking about nationality. Please read the article posted above, as it very clearly delineates the difference between these two and the issue we are currently discussing. You know, I read a news article this week that warned people about thge perils of relying on Wikipedia for sound information. Initially, I disagreed, as the general public really should be capable of maintaining an encyclopaedia to resonable standards, but some people really go a long way to forfeit other people's useful contributions. I have quoted, time and time and time and time again, several sources , which are at your perusal to verify, that clearly state his nationality, and yet, there are still Wikipedians with the audacity to come back - without having consulted the work of the professionals cited (in books such as the Penguin English Dictionary) - and change the page. No wonder they are slandering us in the News.

Problem not resolved

There has been no reply from his office. Also the last comment, was unsigned. Maltesedog 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Point

Malta was a British realm from De Bono's birth in 1933 until 1964. De Bono was a British resident by this time. So the whole time he lived in Malta there was no such thing as Maltese citizenship or any legal sort of "nationality" either. He would have been a British citizen from birth, who was *eligable* for Maltese citizenship (or dual citizenship) later in his life. It appears he has never taken this option up.

Now as for his "nationality", in any legal sense it must be British. In other senses, it might be Maltese, though for most of them he would have to believe it was so.

Note that Malta very nearly became an integral part of the UK in the 60's. If that had happened a list of the UK nations would read: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Malta.

matturn 11:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank God, it didn't happen but. This point is irrelevant to the discussion. 212.56.128.165 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

name change to Edward de Bono?

Should this article not be called Edward de Bono? (as in the Leonardo da Vinci article) — Donama 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That change should be non-controversial. His "authorised" website http://www.edwdebono.com/ uses "de Bono" and there's no mention in the article or anywhere I can find of him changing his name.-- I@n ≡ talk 09:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Soccer and de Bono

"However, critics argue that this method of deciding a drawn match completely ignores the goalkeeper's skill which can win a game for a team"

I am not yet sure if he said that the quote in that paragraph, it would be nice to get to the list of it. But if you think about it, a penalty will only happen if both teams have equal scores, like 1:1 In which case, the team whose goalie had to touch the ball more often in order to defend his goal, probably had a team that was unable to stop the other team from kicking at the goal. And thus, the whole team is worse, indeed favouring the more aggressive team. Soccer is a team play, and a single player shouldnt lead to the penalty kicking which really often has unfair results (especially if people dont kick at the same time, but instead kick one after the other, this can build up a lot of psychological pressure). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 14:57, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The soccer reference seems too long for a biography about Edward de Bono. Pbachmann (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions

I've moved this here from the article for discussion per WP:BLP. It's unsourced, and contains trivial and negative content:

There are several elements of Dr. de Bono's life that are much to the chagrin of certain members of Maltese society. Firstly, records indicate his surname was 'Debono' before he deliberately added a space between the first two letters of his name and the remaining four, and sought to capitalise the 'B' and lower case the 'd'. Although many Maltese still pronounce his name the way they see fit, for their own agenda, he personally makes a point of pausing between the 'de' and 'Bono', and rounds the two o's in his surname in a British manner, to make a sound like the word 'owe'. He once corrected a student during a talk at the University of Malta who said, 'Dr. Debono...'.

Dr. de bono refuses to speak the Maltese language, and this has led him to ignore his invitation to the Maltese TV talk show 'xarabank' on several occassions, after learning the show's host would not accomodate him by hosting the entire show in English. In Audio book versions of his publications, de Bono can be heard speaking with an affected British accent, albeit one that has been extremely well acquired.

Maltese University students are especially critical of his subjection to Her Majesty's crown, and it is well known that he is often referred to as being 'Maltese', even on wikipedia, despite having lived in the Channel Islands for over four decades, and in the UK for about five and half decades. Unlike countries such as Argentina, Maltese law has never enacted a binding clause on nationality for birth, meaning that Maltese nationality does not automatically stick with a person born to the Maltese Islands irrespective of their country of domicile.

Driving the point home, de Bono's office was contacted by staff members of the 'Penguin English Dictionary' 2nd Edition, published in 2003, to define 'lateral thinking' and its pioneer. The entry de Bono personally submitted for the latter reads 'concept defined by Edward de Bono b. 1933, British writer on thought processes'.

In Malta, particularly, many people think de Bono is a psychologist. This is untrue. Although de Bono does hold a joint psychology and philosophy degree, this qualification is insufficient for him to be refered to as a 'Psychologist' in both Malta and the United Kingdom, as in both countries, 'Psychologist' is a title protected by law, and for which certain, specified degrees/society memberships are required. In Malta, a psychologist is defined as having 'At least Master's Level Education in Psychology', and in Britain, a 'Psychologist' must carry a postgraduate degree approved for membership by the 'British Psychological Society', of which de Bono is not a member, and recognised at a 'GBR' Level. It must be said however that De bono, who is a medical doctor and may be referred to also as a 'philospher', has worked in organisational psychology for well over thirty years.

--Ronz (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

--Pbachmann (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing Affiliates

There are commercial organisations associated with de Bono that would be of legitimate interest to some people reading this article, but whenever any of them have put their name on this article it gets deleted as spam.

Is there a way to make everyone happy?

I suggest that these organisations are listed at the bottom of the article under four separate headings:

• Contact/Management
• Not-for-profit foundations
• Independent commerical enterprises selling de Bono's work.
• Web sites taking a new view of some aspect of de Bono work.

--Pbachmann (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just read through spam policy and decided that maybe we should have a comment in this section along the lines of the following:

When editing this section please observe the following rules:

• Never add a link to your own site unless it is hidden inside a comment (awaiting uncommenting by an impartial editor).
• State either your name or the name of your company, and very briefly (several words) what it does.
• Do not insert multiple links to the same organisation.

--01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Games intro

Ronz deleted this:

"As with ideas, Edward de Bono has been prodigious in his invention of games, only two of which are listed here:"

complaining about "Peacock terms, unsourced".

If I change prodigious to prolific, can we put it back?

He has created many games, eg. There is the de Bono mind pack where he included about 6 orginal games. How would you like me to referennce this?

--Pbachmann (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Provide some references to back what you want to say. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting entire section

Ronz,

Please explain out why you deleted an entire section:

• Without discussing it with the author first.
• Without explaining the change other than provide a couple of simple tags eg.NPOV.
• With no effort to assume good faith.
• Without offering any alternative.

--Pbachmann (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:TALK. I don't appreciate the harassment. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pbachmann, please acquaint yourself with WP:BLP. Unsourced and POV additions to biographies of living persons can and should be removed without notice or discussion, whether the are peacock phrases or potentially libellous. Please refrain from editing BLPs until you have read and understood this policy. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

Harassment? You tore our my well intentioned work in a clumsy, thoughtless way, offering little reason for your action and no alternative text to put in its place. Who is harassing whom?

Why don't you address the points I have made in the previous post?

If you don't have time to do thoughtful editing, why not wait until you have the time to do it properly?

--01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment. As in your focusing on attacking me rather than discussing the edits I made per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. Please WP:REFACTOR your comments so we can continue. --Ronz (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

>> As in your focusing on attacking me rather than discussing the edits

Ronz, there is no truth in this. I have not said anything about Ronz the person (other than I think you should use your real name), everything I have said is about the changes your made.

And you don't want talk about the changes because you "don't have enough time."

And I'm saying, please find the time to discuss, consult, offer alternatives etc etc or please leave the article alone.

--Pbachmann (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. --Ronz (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

My edit summaries are a bit confusing. I'll try to summarize here once I'm done. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tags, removed the inappropriate notice, removed some personal commentary, removed the unreferenced Criticism section per WP:BLP, and tagged other areas as needing references. --Ronz (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. I've deleted some more, but the article is still dreadful, frankly. It shouldn't be that hard to source info on someone as famous as de Bono, but right now the article fails to meet Wikipedia standards by a long way, which is not good for a BLP. If sources (beyond de Bono's own site) can't be found soon, more will need to be removed. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not want my contributions to be removed by Harry the Dirty Dog et al., I will not be doing any more work on this biography.

--Pbachmann (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved for discussion: Critiques

I've moved the following from the article to here for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reliability and efficacy of CoRT, Lateral Thinking, and the Six Thinking Hats have not been validated. Edward De Bono's claims about their effectiveness and robustness are almost entirely anecdotal and should be treated with due skepticism. The following two excerpts represent a common opinion of De Bono's work found among experts in the same field.

In the Handbook of Creativity, Robert J. Sternberg writes, "Equally damaging to the scientific study of creativity, in our view, has been the takeover of the field, in the popular mind, by those who follow what might be referred to as a pragmatic approach. Those taking this approach have been concerned primarily with developing creativity, secondarily with understanding it, but almost not at all with testing the validity of their ideas about it." Sternberg continues, "Perhaps the foremost proponent of this approach is Edward De Bono, whose work on lateral thinking and other aspects of creativity has had what appears to be considerable commercial success."

Frameworks For Thinking is a comprehensive evaluation of forty-two popular thinking frameworks conducted by a team of researchers. Regarding Edward De Bono they write, "[he] is more interested in the usefulness of developing ideas than proving the reliability or efficacy of his approach. There is sparse research evidence to show that generalised improvements in thinking performance can be attributed to training in the use of CoRT or Thinking Hats tools. An early evaluation of CoRT reported significant benefits for Special Educational Needs (SEN) pupils.... However, in a more recent study with Australian aboriginal children (Ritchie and Edwards, 1996), little evidence of generalisation was found other than in the area of creative thinking."

Without better sources than these books, I don't think that this can be included per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you pulled this section after reading over the WP:BLP rule on criticism and praise. The validity of De Bono's claims about the effectiveness of his methods is central to his notability. Moreover, I looked up Sternberg and Moseley using Google Scholar and they both appear to be widely published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and education and hardly a minority view. What would constitute better sources? I found the actual Ritchie and Edwards paper using Google Scholar. I don't think Moseley overstates their findings based on the abstract. Is the research paper itself a better source? I think the critique about validation deserves mention and should be put back. Of course, it could be toned down a bit. rtv125 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be rewritten to remove the POV and commentary ("...and should be treated with due skepticism.") but the sourced criticism can remain. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If the authors of those references are experts, then I think we can use them as long as the sections are rewritten. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why was the critique section removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.133.65 (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I have removed the whole section because the sourcing is inadequate for a BLP. The allegation was sourced to the claimants own website and this is not a reliable source for a serious allegation about the probity of a living person. Lots of famous people get accused of stuff but the allegations are only relevant if they are picked up in mainstream secondary sources and discussed there. Anything else is simply an aggregation of rumour and possible libels. I have no real objection to the section but it must be sourced to a secondary source to show that it is a notable enough allegation to be worth including. Otherwise if we simply take primary sources we end up as deciding on the notability of the allegation ourselves and that's not what we do. Please do not readd the section without further discussion.Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise that admins had special powers in this regard . The fact that de Bono responded to the allegations means that he acknowledged they were made and took them seriously enough to respond. WP:BLP is not about censorship. If the allegations were made and responded to, they should be included. I am reverting. I will try to find other sourcing, but I believe the sources included are sufficient. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is one very quickly found independent source that acknowledges Gleeson's contribution: [1] Harry the Dog WOOF 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry, its independant but does not meet our policy on reliable sources. Please try to find something from the mainstream media. Please read WP:RS. Has it occured to you that de Bono might have responded because it was on Wikipedia? I'm being very clear here. You must find a reliable source if you want to reintroduce the material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the BLP violation and full protected the article. This is specifically permitted in the BLP policy that requires admins to take steps to protect articles from unsourced allegations of this sort. If you find a decent source I'll unprotect but you have no consensus to restore the material unless there is agreement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This controversy is so old that there is unlikely to be anything online in news sources. In any event, if you read the policy, primary sources are not totally excluded in cases like this. We are not saying "Edward de Bono stole the idea from Michael Hewitt-Gleeson". We are saying that Michael Hewitt-Gleeson made a claim (fact) and that Edward de Bono responded to this claim (fact). There is nothing that violates WP:BLP in any of this. Please unprotect the article or I will seek third-party involvement, especially in light of the comments on my TP in which you seem to feel you have special powers in this regard.. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:00, 8 July 2008

(UTC)

Both RS and BLP are very specific about sourcing adverse comments on living people. My comments on your talk page were measured by your refusal to take BLP into account. You have no consensus to reinsert this material without a decent source and I have followed the steps mandated in BLP to handle these issues. You are the one who wants the material and the onus is on you to provide a source if another editor insists on one. You have not done so. If this were a trully notable allegation there would be sources. 1 decent source is all I ask. Since you feel I have handled this badly I will report myself. I am very confident that I have acted correctly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the material was there for a long time, so the consensus was that it should be there. It is up to you to provide consensus for removing it, because it certainly doesn't fall under WP:BLP (which provides for promary sources under certain circumstances, including this oen). I have asked for an uninvolved sysop to have a look at this. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Its up at ANI now [2]. Why don't you just provide a proper source? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article..." de Bono has acknowledged the controversy and has written about it. As such, mentioning the controversy itself in the article (without POV on the rights and wrongs) is perfectly acceptable using both men's writings as the source. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry we are discussing the notability of the allegation and have not yet established if it merits inclusion. This is a direct quote from BLP "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.". Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that in his own writings, de Bono has acknowledged the controversy. That supersedes the bit you quoted. How could he sue Wikipedia for merely mentioning (without taking one side or another) a controversy that he himself has acknowledged? And leaving the same controversy in the Michael Hewitt-Gleeson article without any sourcing whatsoever certainly weakens your case. So it's a notable controversy there but not here? Harry the Dog WOOF 08:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this section must have a reliable source that is independent of both sides of the argument to be included. Otherwise a person could accuse do Bono of pretty much anything and have it included, with some refutation to provide an appearance of neutrality. The onus is upon Harry to provide such a source, as the BLP policy is very clear on this, as has been noted. The length of time the poorly sourced section has stood is not relevant here. I support the actions of Spartaz here. Kevin (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am not being clear. There is a difference between allegations and reporting that allegations have been made and addressed. It is perfectly within the scope of WP:BLP to note that allegations have been made and addressed (using primary sources if the sources are written by the subject of the article). It is not acceptable in the article to say that the allegations are true without adequate sourcing (which has not been done). This is about the fact (adequately sourced as it was in the article) that there was a controversy. This is something that de Bono does not deny, so there is no BLP issue in stating that fact. There would be a BLP issue in stating that the allegations have merit without adequate sourcing. In all of this, no one has addressed that simple fact. Also, I wonder if Kevin supports the actions of Spartaz here, because it would appear he applying one standard to one article and a different one to another. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand exactly what you are saying. The fact (that there was a controversy), as you put it, has not been noted in a reliable source. That de Bono refuted an allegation does not give the allegation any validity at all. Including this section in the article is an acceptance that here at least, the allegation has merit, and therefore it must be properly sourced. I don't quite see your last point, as Spartaz removed unsourced material from that article also. Kevin (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't quite see your last point, as Spartaz removed unsourced material from that article also." While leaving in exactly the same material (mention of the controversy) that he removed from this article.

Removed from this article:

About two decades after the publication of Edward de Bono's book "Six Thinking Hats", the Australian academic Michael Hewitt-Gleeson claimed that he had helped originate the concept and that de Bono has unfairly claimed ownership of the work. This claim has been strongly disputed by de Bono, who has levelled his own charge of plagiarism.

Remains in the other article:

There was also a dispute over ownership of course materials such as the School of Thinking's Six Thinking Caps.

If it's a BLP violation here, it's a BLP violation there. Why the inconsistency? I would accept a rewording of the entry in this article to be more like the other one, but in essence they say the same thing - there is a dispute of intellectually property rights. In any event, a reliable source in this case can include a primary source. De Bono has acknowledged the controversy, and therefore cannot sue Wikipedia for mentioning it. To paraphrase WP:NPOV "Party A accused Party B of plagiarism, which Party B denied". Fact (as acknowledged in the writings of both men). "Party B is a plagiarist." POV and a BLP violation, unless backed up by a reliable source. What was in the article was the former; it is being made out to be the latter. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Harry - I work a 60 (or more) hour week. I have a wife and two young kids who like to see me from time to time. I also travel two weeks out of four and am on call 24/7/365. This means that I do not control my free time. I cannot take on more then job at a time as its a cardinal rule for an admin not to take admin actions they cannot defend or discuss. I saw the other article. It was next on the list. You disputed my actions. It would have been madness to get embroiled in that article when I was far from sure I had time to deal with this one. You insinuations and accusations are offensive and assume bad faith. They do not reflect well on you. This horse has been flogged to death. Step away and let the poor thing get buried. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not making any insinuations or accusations. I am questioning your actions and judgement as an admin, which any editor has the right to do. Far from not getting "embroiled" in the Michael Hewitt-Gleeson article, you went there and removed a huge amount of it. But you did not remove the same offending bit that you removed from this article. In fact it was one of the few bits you left. I think I am entitled to ask why since you reacted so hastily and definitively on this article. Either something is a WP:BLP violation or it isn't. Maybe you should step back and reconsider your actions. If reporting something that someone himself has said is a BLP violation, then things are in a pretty sad shape on WP. Can we really not include in an article that, for example, Person A says "Sometimes I act like an ass" and the source is their website? That is quite different from an unsourced comment that "Person A acts like an ass". Can you not see the difference. In this case, we have de Bono himself saying in effect "I have become embrolied in a controversy." That is all that the article said. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

{{editprotected}} There is a book I am looking at right now is not mentioned in the bibliography - Water Logic: The Alternative To I Am Right You Are Wrong, first published 1993 in Great Britain by the Penguin group, ISBN 0-670-851256- he states in the introduction it is closely related to his book I Am Right, You Are Wrong', but which demonstrates it is also distinct. If someone with the authority could add this, being edit protected and all, that would be great. Thanks.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Happy‑melon 10:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Marmite

Much of what is said about be Bono's ideas, involving Marmite and seven words, sounds like a sarcastic parody.