Talk:Edward de Bono/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pragmatic positivism?

To make one thing clear up front, I am Edwards rep. in Denmark and as such you may find that this is a biased view?

However I can call me both his remote friend and his rep. - because I actually tried to debunk his "crap" for several years! What I got from this was a lot of knowledge on subject like pragmatism and positivism. The first is the indeed an open position that I can relate to, lateral thinking can be categorized as a pragmatic but also experimental approach. However the claim of positivism Critiques#1 is wrong and indeed that conclusion is what lead to my appliance with Edward in the first place.

Now how can I claim that, I can in several ways. First what is it that this guy (Edward) say, well let me quote directly.. and this is the very first words in the book, The mechanism of mind, 1969:

There are those who suppose that the brain will for ever remain a mystery. There are those who suppose that one day the way the brain works will be revealed in all its detail. Of what use would such knowledge be? Would the problems of mankind be suddenly solved by a surge of understanding? Would one be able to make practical use of the knowledge?

As you may know positivism is indeed taking the pseudo scientific position, that when we know everything about something, we will also be able to see and use the laws of nature! Edwards position seems to be somewhat different, and indeed his books does not produce any hard positivist evidence. The hypnotises about the brain may be 100% false, but actually the claim is simply that this 'hypnotises' led him to the concept of lateral thinking... amongst other stuff. No positivism in this?

And indeed there is not cognitivistic position to be found either - more factual knowledge has not falsified the hypotheses, so the stepping stone is still there - step up!

Further more the fathers of positivism was - and that is an other fact - the Greek gang of tree! Indeed this is how I learned about positivism - the guy who was hired to prove the positivist position ended up debunking that position and found that the positivism was founded by no other than Plato! (Please read into the work by |Karl R. Popper.

Now - when you go to one of the official trainer websites you will find a nice little story about the Greek gang of tree, and see parallel thinking is actually an pragmatic (or tactical) approach, and by this you can possibly - but not positively - out balance positivism!

Edward was actually a bit more clever than that, because by this approach he has managed to make a very fine point (this is named Sur/petition™) - because what appears to be simplistic and naive, turns out to be the death of positivism. Look very close again and observe that if you were now tempted to add positivism or indeed a cognitivistic aspects to Edwards tools - and observe what happens and wonder.... this would actually not improve the hats, you would rather devaluate them. By reinstalling the Platonic errors, you can now only do damage - wow!!

Can this be the end of positivism, scientism and Cognitivism - I don't think so...... but I know that Edward de Bono is most probably not a huge fan of the positivistic approach? --AssetDk (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Further comment, from the same source. Now I can not claim to give you a positive proof for lateral thinking, but if lateral thinking can lead to a solution that can eliminate positivism - then that works for me! --AssetDk (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Checks!

I've gone through some of the things written here and decided to do some research. I've consulted the Penguin English Dictionary, since someone here listed it as a source, and indeed, it does verify that DEBONO is written "de Bono", and that his nationality is "BRITISH" and not Maltese. The removal of these facts from the article, and the elimination of other details garnered from research and the reading of his books, in the large deletion by Ronz and other Maltese users is unwarranted. Good faith was obviously lacking here; I believe Ronz and his cohorts were prompted to his edits by patriotic pride- they simply do not like some things de Bono has said/done and therefore want to eliminate them. Please, Ronz et. al., this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for the promulgation of sheding Malta and the Maltese in a positive light. I shall edit according to my research. If anyone would like to add a link to the online version of the penguin dictionary/encyclopedia (he is listed as BRITISH in both, and their facts are checked by a group of 38 researchers, I might add) then please do so - I do not think the issue of whether a man who was born in Malta but has not lived there in 55 years and is patently British requires a reference... and if it does then so does every single sentence on the wikipedia website. I mean, he even changed his surname for God's sake... you know... you'd think the Maltese could take a hint...

I'm really sorry for the non-Maltese people who care so much about this article. You are waisting your valuable time because wikipedia is a numbers game, and not a game of facts. The truth is the Maltese will always have their say on this article, even if what they write is false, simply because they have more numbers 'watching it' and eliminating edits as soon as they are posted. So the facts are suppressed. What is evident to me is that this has become about not hurting the feelings of small little sunny Malta by Big Bad Grey Britain. It's pathetic as the fuming Maltese typing furiously at their laptops to repudiate what the whole world knows - what the man himself says whenever he has spoken on the issue: that he is an Englishman born in Malta, as did Pete Hitchens. Why then is Pete Hitchens not Maltese? He was schooled in Malta and lived there for a decade or so in his childhood.

There is so much good written below that Maltese vandals have cut from this poor article. For example, someone removed how de bono is not a licensed psychologist despite being known as such in Malta, explaining he made the edit because the comments were 'trivial and negative'. Sour grapes again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.9.87 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
2. Agree He is Maltese. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2009 (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)

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)

• I have removed the section again. Source it or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced on the two protagonist's websites. There has been a dispute, and that dispute is sourced on both websites. As such should be included. The dispute is notable. It is not up to Wikipedia to either censor or determine the validity of the allegations made. The fact that de Bono himself refers to them, and that reference is used in the cite, protects us from WP:BLP issues. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• no, its not sourced according to reliable sourcing and we already did this conversation. If you want to accuse the subject of a BLP of effectively being a fraud and a plagiarist then you better come up with a better source then this. If you don't agree take it to BLP/N or ANI but you cannot use those sources to make that claim. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We didn't resolve it. You simply full protected the article and then vanished. I don't really care either way about this article, I am just concerned about your actions as an admin. Have you read the source? De Bono himself addresses the issue. We are not saying that he did or did not steal the idea. We are saying there is a controversy about it, which de Bono himself acknowledges in the source provided. Tell me, how can something (a controversy) that the subject acknowledges raise any BLP concerns? Is he going to sue and say, "Despite what I said in my press release, there is no controversy?" If you continue to abuse your position on this article, I will pursue the matter further. That is all I will say to you on the matter. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting further, earlier.

WP:BLP is very clear that information like this must be referenced by the highest quality sources. Until such sources are provided, I think the situation is resolved. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And the subject of the article making a comment is not the highest quality? What better authority to comment on the a controversy than the subject of that controversy? The fact that the allegation was made is undeniable (de Bono himself admits it) and he refutes it. That is all the article says right now. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not without independent, reliable sources. See WP:SELFPUB --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, answer this simple question: How can a person libel himself? Because that is what you are claiming is happening here. Self-published sources are perfectly acceptable in cases like this. Your actions really are not doing Wikipedia any credit. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since de Bono is defending himself from the libel that argument doesn't fly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense. So you are admitting that there is a controversy (acknowledged by both men) but Wikipedia can make no mention of that controversy, even though both men do in their writings? Cover up? Censorship? Incompleteness? Call it what you want, but omitting the acknowledged fact of the controversy makes Wikipedia look foolish. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says:

"Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

3. it does not involve claims about third parties;"

--Ronz (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for yellow journalism. Just because de Bono defended himself from someone, doesn't make the issue important enough for us to cover, nor should it be used as the sole source for introducing information that violates WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Wikipedia policy states that it is libellous to repeat someone's own words. If that really is the case, then Wikipedia policies are an ass, and the encyclopaedia has far bigger problems than perceived "yellow journalism". Harry the Dog WOOF 08:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What he appears to be saying is that we shouldn't use a self-published source for "claims about third parties" - we shouldn't use Hewitt-Gleeson's blog to source "de Bono stole my idea!", and we shouldn't use de Bono's blog to source "Hewitt-Gleeson is talking utter rubbish!".

All we need to do is find some reliable-source press coverage of the disagreement - if that doesn't exist, then this is still only on the level of a he-said, she-said blog spat, and isn't of encyclopaedic interest. (If I emailed de Bono accusing him of being a blood-drinking lizard alien and he happened to deny it in a blog entry, that doesn't mean he "acknowledges the controversy" and "can't libel himself" and we should report "some have accused de Bono of being a blood-drinking lizard alien, but he denies this" here.) -McGeddon (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a blog entry. De Bono felt it was serious enough to issue a press release, and it is that press release that is the source. As to your analogy, it is false. You are not someone who worked with de Bono. I agree that if any old member of the public made such allegations it would not be encyclopaedic. But a former very close associate is a different matter, and of course the dispute itself merits a brief mention without making any judgement on the merits of the case. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The source given isn't a press release; it's a first-person article in the "news updates" section of de Bono's website (it's not in the "press release" section). WP:SPS specifically mentions "newsletters" as material which should never be used as a third-party source about a living person. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's not a "newsletter". I would imagine it's in the "news updates" section because it's not the release of a new piece of news, and because it has been an ongoing issue since at least 2000, hence it being "updated". If Wikipedia wants to ignore a dispute between two reasonably prominent men who were once close collaborators, that's fine, but there are no BLP issues about mentioning the dispute, because both men acknowledge there is a dispute, and therefore are hardly going to sue Wikipedia for mentioning that simple fact. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter we are not sourcing something like this to primary sources. end of. Find some reasonable secondary sources and we can discuss this, otherwise drop the stick and step away from the dead horse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is perfectly adequate. A primary source is acceptable in BLP situations if the source is by the subject of the article. There are plenty of other BLPs where primary sources written by the subject are used as sources. (And don't give me the other stuff exists argument - I am merely pointing out that inconsistency in the implementation of the rules is one of the banes of Wikipedia.) Drop this stick yourself and stop abusing your position as an admin. But don't worry, I am done trying to improve this article. I will leave you with your substandard version and move on to more important articles. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"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". We can't use a primary source of de Bono calling Hewitt-Gleeson a liar, nor can we use a primary source of Hewitt-Gleeson calling de Bono a liar. The only non-controversial non-BLP claim we can source from the two web pages is the redundant "de Bono says that he created the Six Hats all by himself". --McGeddon (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

... and I wrote that before Harry edited his comment to say he was leaving this article. --McGeddon (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of self-published sources by the subject of the article. That is the bit that you are ignoring. In the source, de Bono specifically says he does not object to the information contained in the source being circulated (even though it contains an allegation against him). I really wonder if all of you objecting to the source have read it. The fact is that they have both called each other liars. To state that, without making a judgement on who is right, is simply encyclopaedic and factual. It's happened. Why are people so intent on ignoring it. There is no BLP issue in this case. De Bono is not going to sue for using material that he has given permission to be circulated. But if people want to keep this out, that's fine. But don't give me the BLP cr*p. There are real BLP issues out there on Wikipedia, and to suggest that this shouldn't be included on BLP grounds does not help those of us fighting real BLP issues on articles like Madeleine McCann and the Fritzl case. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP goes on to say that we can only cite a self-published source by the subject of the article if it does not involve claims about third parties. De Bono calling Hewitt-Gleeson's case "utter rubbish" is a claim about a third party. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if WP:BLP really is the concern, why is this discussion and the earlier one being left on the TP? WP:BLP is clear that if consensus is that something is a violation, all mention should be removed on the TP as well. Just amused that this and the earlier discussions have been allowed to remain because they quite clearly repeat the allegations. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to delete this section if you feel a consensus has been reached. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not up to me as I don't feel there are any BLP issues. I just find it amusing that those who are arguing WP:BLP for removing the section are happy to leave this and other sections on the TP contrary to WP:BLP.Harry the Dog WOOF 17:02, 1 February 2009 (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: 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 de Bono's ideas, involving Marmite and seven words, sounds like a sarcastic parody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.253.9 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

I've fixed the glaring nonsense that has de Bono listed as 'British'. He's as Maltese as hobz biz-zejt.. even if he does speak like a ponce. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1939

See http://www.enermaxinc.com/directional-drilling/ This site notes that horizontal drilling goes back to 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.121.127 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on Directional drilling. This shows it goes back to the 1930's and was not discovered by de Bono. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.84.186 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

davincithinking.org

The www.davincithinking.org needs more detail. de Bono is a member of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.101.111 (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

De Bono Annoyed by Article

From De Bono Site:

"MESSAGE FOR WEEK BEGINNING 26th January 2009

Wikipedia

Try looking me up in Wikipedia. You will probably find some very weak and slightly negative comments. In fact one set of comments was written by an academic who is rather jealous of my success. Wikipedia does, unfortunately, provide a platform for such jealousy.

I suggest you send a message to Wikipedia with your own views and comments. You might want to mention that I have been appointed European Union ambassador for thinking for the Year of Creativity.

Edward de Bono 20th January 2009 " (accessed 9 march 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.33.153 (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

De Bono's nationality again

We need to see a reliable source that states that de Bono has taken out British citizenship before we change his nationality. Without such a source, we have no evidence that he is no longer a Maltese citizen. Perhaps a compromise would be to say he is a "Maltese-born physician living in the UK" and leave it at that, making no mention of his nationality. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone cut out the last two entries

I was following the 'battle' and there were two paragraphes. Were are they now?

By the way, here in Japan he identifies hisself as a british. I made a calls to some companies were he workes and they have a bio as a british. He calls hisself british and come to japan for work - that the tv company must apply for applicant - with a british visa. We had a tvs shows some years back and he was introduced in british and spoke english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.233.165 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbaised Maltese weighs in

So Harry The Dog, from one Maltese to another is it your opinion than that his own testimony is worthless? What more evidence than a book in print of such prestige do you need? As the Brits wrote the penguin dict. is a prestiguous organization and we should take heed. Have you and your cabal even bothered to check the book? De bono has to approve the entry on his person, do you know that? By your statement, harry dog, as written above, then De bono is either really British or a liar, trying to tell people through the dictionary and his other books, and his appearances in Japan according to someone else as written above, that he's British when he's really not. So you're saying Edward de bono, great Maltese professor is really a liar who's ashamed of his nationality. That's your position? I'm sorry but as a neutral who couldn't care or give a single Euro cent whether he's British or Maltese, I really think the Maltese group for this argument has been unprofessional and completely undemocratic. If the article is changed to say Maltese (and I am sure you will change it) than you have won by numbers not reality. There is printed nowhere in recent books that he is Maltese, wheras on the side of the British they have the evidence of the penguin, his personal statements in Japan if you believe the Japanese who weighed in, and other books. I have my penguin and I found lateral thinking in it - where is yours, Harry The Dog? Where is your friend's?

I am not Maltese! I am only interested in the quality of Wikipedia. If you want to change his nationality to British, fine, but you need to find a reliable source that indicates that he has taken out British citizenship. A quote from him saying "I am British" would be fine. But here is his official biography. Where does it say he is British? People keep saying he is British and he says he is British, but no reliable source has been included to back up that claim. That is what is required. Cite the statement that he is British properly by Wikipedia standards and there will be no argument. Until then, all we can say for sure is that he is Maltese. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If the issue of his nationality is contentious, we should just skip over that part of the lead until we get a source that clarifies it either way. If there are no sources on the subject, I don't see how we can "say for sure" that he's Maltese. --McGeddon (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was born in Malta of Maltese parents. That automatically makes him Maltese at birth. It's what happened (or didn't) subsequently with his nationality that needs to be ascertained and sourced. In the absence of a reliable source that he changed his nationality, we have to say he is Maltese. But I agree leaving it out is a good option. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind or somethin? Leave it out when you want but what about penguin? why you guys ignore penguin dictionary? its not a source? its not good enough for you? do you have like the selecting reading and keep to miss the hundred parts on this same page were it say hundred time that his claming to be british in realible dictionary? also here in japan but i have no source! someone must find this page in the book and put it here as the quot - it so simple to get it reading british cause its truth and that what he is now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.233.165 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet seen the Penguin Dictionary properly cited, so no, I am not blind. If it says what you say it does, cite it properly. Then we can weight that single source against the others that say he is Maltese. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Right right. i guess you missed the part were it say you guys were born a british coliny if happen before 1964 and had the passport from there in britian too. since you write 'single' source you also forget all other fact written on here. stupid wikipedia and stupid japan tv but clever maltesers right? malta constituchion comes after this and so he was actually born british colony and first travel with 'foreign' passport you people use! jeez, aiming at my head but shooting yoursefl in the foot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.233.165 (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. None of this is properly cited. Do you understand what that means? If they are "facts", cite them properly and they can go in the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If de Bono's nationality is disputed, all we need is one single reliable source that says "de Bono is British" or "de Bono is Maltese". It's inappropriate synthesis to say "well, he was born in Malta in 1933, according to local laws this means he was definitely British at birth, and I guess he's probably still British". --McGeddon (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to say he is British? He may have dual nationality, Maltese (jus soli) and British Naturalization(?), is there a reliable source to say he has a British passport?. If a reliable source can not be found to say he is British or has a British passport then it makes no sense to have him listed as British. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article refers to his background as "upper class". It would be more accurate to describe his upbringing as "upper-middle class" since his family possessed neither hereditary titles (typically required to be considered upper class in Britain) nor extreme wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.242.166 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

For those disputing nationality, I am Edward de Bono's eldest son and I have a copy of his birth certificate. He was born in Malta, May 19th 1933.

From a legal perspective, he has joint citizenship Malta/UK, is domiciled and resident in Malta as a returned Maltese migrant, which might help disambiguate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaspardeB (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and photo

I took the liberty of adding the {{Infobox person}}; it could use some filling-out, but I figured I'd leave that to people more familiar with his work. Also I removed the picture--you could hardly see him. I won't object if someone wants to put it back, but maybe we have a better picture of him somewhere. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ideas

Since someone thinks the section called 'Ideas' is 'written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject', why not rename the section to 'Trivia'? And the so-called idea is repeated in the criticism-section (last sentence). That seems like an overkill. Arne J B (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Shortlisted for the Nobel in Economics in 2005"

This appears to be false. It turns out there is no list of "shortlisted" for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, at least not a published one.Limit-theorem (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Degree and honorary degrees

Does anyone know what degrees and honorary degrees he has been awarded? This list seems incomplete. He seems to have also honorary doctor in psychology and physiology and Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Manchester Metropolitan. Also, which degrees did he get through regular study? I am assuming the degree in medicine and MA, but any others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Having been reverted without explanation by User:Mlpearc, I am bringing the matter to the talk page. What concerns do you have with the changes? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

One of us is mis-interpreting the MOS, again. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: What is your interpretation? You haven't made any allusion to what your concerns are, and until you do, I don't know how we can work towards building consensus. Again, what concerns do you have with the changes? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The de Bono code

"In this book, he proposed a suite of new words based on numbers, where each number combination represents a useful idea or situation that currently does not have a single-word representation"

Actually in his code summary, a few are one word... "chat", "patchy", "mediocre", "disappointing", "crisis". There are also 2 word summaries - e.g. "let's talk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legowolf3d (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward de Bono. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412162906/http://www.edwarddebono.com:80/about.htm to http://www.edwarddebono.com/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward de Bono. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220163726/http://create2009.europa.eu/ambassadors.html to http://create2009.europa.eu/ambassadors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Ambassador for marmite"?

Does anyone have a primary citation for this? I do not own The Book Of General Ignorance. It may sound amusing, but it is quite an accusation really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.78.214 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed until someone gives a primary reference. I'm going to track down the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.131.252 (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Lack of substance/book summaries

I happened on this article and saw the note re the 'other ideas' para, which is, I agree, a little woolly. But nowhere does the article attempt to explain De Bono's actual concepts and ideas, as expressed in his writings, moving straight to some very peripheral ideas (like the infamous 'Marmite') and to critiques of his work, which hasn't been mentioned in any detail.

Surely what he did and thought is more important (in terms of this article) than what critics thought of his work. The latter should of course be said, since the usefulness of his work is disputed. But the fact that his work is disputed doesn't mean that the views of those who dispute it deserve more space than De Bono's own.

Sure, there are articles on lateral thinking and his Six Hats concept, but it would be useful (and is common practice on WP) to summarize them in this article under the heading 'Work' or similar, with a link to the full article. The Other Ideas could then be tacked on there. I don't have the time or expertise to do this (though I once attended a De Bono seminar) but commend it to someone better qualified as a small but useful project Chrismorey (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)