Talk:Michael Hewitt-Gleeson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag
Portal
 Michael Hewitt-Gleeson is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Please rewrite this awful, awful article. It is blatantly positive and completely unsourced: all info is taken from websites that are owned or managed by the subject. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In reference to my removing the tag on 15th October and your retagging on 19th October

Hi Pascal, I note that even after Mhewittg had expanded on the section, Fallout with Edward de Bono, you still put on the NPOV tag. Does this particular "contra" section that constitute some 50% of the article not "overwrite" Michael Hewitt-Gleeson's academic and professional achievement to give a more balanced NPOV and make it less "blatantly positive"?

How much then must we kill this guy before you are satisfied? Or are you merely insisting that you were right all along, even before I could finish my article? You were quick on the gun, a bit rash I must admit. I saved the article while still writing on 15th October because computers are sometimes so unpredictable and unreliable. When I tried to save the section on the Fallout with Edward de Bono about half an hour later, I encountered an edit conflict.

I do agree that the first draft was not NPOV, but it was just a fact-collecting draft that you based your judgement on. And even after so much changes have been made since your first tag, you still insist on your initial judgement. Does all those subsequent additions mean so little to you, or is it your ego that is blinding your judgement?

Maybe by deleting the section on Academic and professional background, and just highlighting all his negative points with Edward, it will please you! In any case, I have reduced the section on his achievements. The point is not whether it is taken from his website, but whether the statements are true. In fact, I have verified the qualifications with ICMI Speakers & Entertainers official website. Can you please identify which statements in the article are false, something more objective and concrete, rather than making sweeping unsupported statements yourself?

You mentioned:

  1. "... completely unsourced: all info is taken from websites...". Completely unsourced and yet taken from websites? Is this not contradictory?
  2. "... all info is taken from websites that are owned or managed by the subject". Any proof that ICMI is owned or managed by Michael Hewitt-Gleeson? I really need this proof from you as my investigation indicates the contrary, otherwise I can only surmise that you are the one who is really biased in this particular judgement! (I am not referring to your other judgements, although I have read some responses from other users, lol).

If you can't, and I hope you have to courtesy to respond, I hope you will VOLUNTARILY remove the NPOV tag that to me, merely reflects your non-NPOV attitude that rest on your two short sentences that you wrote! Otherwise, please generate other "reasons" (meaning finding reasons after the fact) that are more acceptable. — PM Poon 04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Above re-edited PM Poon 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I was quite amazed that the comments at the discussion page of the School of Thinking are very similar in style to yours. Could it be......
I just wonder. — PM Poon 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from such silly accusations. I have never heard of either Michael Hewitt-Gleeson or the School of Thinking and have no particular interest in the matter. If you want to accuse me of sockpuppetry, please open a case so that we can all have a good laugh at you. 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is my humble opinion that the NPOV tag is one of the most abused tag in Wikipedia. What is NPOV in the context of a community portal where all articles are still in the process of being built? Is there one article in Wikipedia that can be cast in stone? The point is not whether it is blatantly positive, or blatantly negative? The use of the word "blatantly" here is misplaced. It's like asking, "Is a stubborn person good?" when in fact, he may be firm.

The point I am driving at is that the facts presented must be accurate. So what if it is positive, unless the writer is PURPOSELY hiding something that is negative in which case, proof must be given before one accuses the unpaid writer of being biased. "Assume good faith." Does anyone remember that? The writer may not be aware of the negatives of the person written about, in which case, we can call it "incomplete", rather than NPOV that implies or have the connotation that the writer is biased. Someone else like yourself can then expand on the article, rather than behave as if it's not their job, but the sole and exclusive responsibility of the first author himself. Isn't this what is meant by community portal? Or someone writes, another just criticize? — PM Poon 07:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I re-inserted the NPOV tag

My concerns are the following. First, the main source of information for the first half of the article is not a reliable source as it is not independent of the subject. For instance, the claim that the US government described him as a national asset is in essence unsupported. We should not take Mr Hewitt-Gleeson's word for it nor should we allow this to remain as a quote unless we have the proper context. Same goes for the claim about "46 countries and over 70 million people". Up until a few hours ago there was also this blurb about the "veritable who's who" which you thankfully deleted. Moreover the last paragraphed is absolutely unreferenced and is again seemingly intended at portraying de Bono as the bad guy. Note that I can say all of this even more confidently since I had never heard of either of these guys before I stumbled onto this article while doing new-page patrol a few days ago. Pascal.Tesson 13:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pascal, at least I have something concrete to work on:

  1. "The claim that "the US government described him as a national asset" and "46 countries and over 70 million people" is supported by ICMI. ICMI is not owned or managed by Michael Hewitt-Gleeson.
  2. I deleted the "veritable who's who", not because I decided it was wrong, but because you complained that I wrote too much of his good points. I simply deleted half of that section without reading what I had written earlier, just to please you and nothing else. I bet Hewitt-Gleeson would not have dared to claim that he had consulted for those quoted "veritable who's who" if they were not true because the "veritable who's who", as you know, cannot be trifled with. ICMI's website (not referring to Hewitt-Gleeson's) also quoted the The Dalai Lama of Tibet, Andrew A Anspach CEO of The Algonquin in New York, and His Excellency Sir Ninian Stephen, previous Governor-General of Australia, amongst others.
  3. The last paragraph that you are referring to... can't be the last paragraph in the section Academic and professional background because there was no mention of De Bono, right? Do you mean the following?:
In an online statement in his official website dated August 5, 2005, de Bono denied any involvement "in the ownership or running of [SOT]", although he agreed that "there may be material derived from, borrowed, or taken from [his] work". [1] In that statement, de Bono added: "Michael no longer has any connection whatever with me. He is not authorised to use my intellectual property in any way. Any courses he delivers are not endorsed by me in any way. I shall also take legal action for any infringement of copyright".
If it is this paragraph that you say is unreferenced, it is not true. Did you not see the reference Edward de Bono's official website: Infringement? If you say that it puts de Bono in a bad light, I would say yes, it does. Reason? Very simple. It took de Bono 26 full years to deny any involvement with the School of Thinking, and I read between the lines and said, "Oh, ohhhh!"

Just like you, I have never heard of Michael Hewitt-Gleeson nor the School of Thinking before, but unlike you, I own five books by de Bono that I had not read simply because they are really very, very dry, although the subject of lateral thinking seems very attractive to me. I was therefore more interested in de Bono, and when I accessed Wikipedia to read more about him, I found the School of Thinking (unlinked) in the first paragraph. As the name, School of Thinking sounds very attractive to me (it seems to make all other schools appear like "School of Unthinking", LOL), I decided to do an article on it. Materials on the internet, however, are very scanty, so I just write whatever materials that I can get. Then I found out that de Bono was not the real person running the School of Thinking, and decided to find out more about who this Michael Hewitt-Gleeson is.

Although de Bono's accusation that "investors claimed that they had not been issued with any shares after investing their money" with Hewitt-Gleeson is unsupported by other sources, the fact that Hewitt-Gleeson left the United States in 1989 seems to tally with de Bono's accusation that he left after FBI investigations on the matter. As such, I came to the conclusion that Hewitt-Gleeson was a #$@!&*%^.

In view of that, I purposely wrote the following two statements consecutively:

Newsell is a reflection that place value on participation rather than observation, cooperation over confrontation, and the means rather than the end.
In 1988, Hewitt-Gleeson started the School of Thinking in Melbourne, apparently after FBI investigations into the School of Thinking as a result of investors claiming that they had not been issued with any shares after investing their money. The school in New York was closed down in 1989.

If you had read between the lines, you would have realized that the article is not at all totally positive! Here was a pinch of arsenic in a cup of aromatic cappuccino. By the way, would you pay money to learn participation and cooperation from a guy who does not issue you shares for your investment?

[edit] Conclusion

  1. I really appreciate your last reply as it is very constructive.
  2. Because there is a scarcity of resources, sometimes we have no choice but to quote from the person's website. Not ALL information from the person's website are false. We have to make a judgement call.
  3. After my explanation, you should by now realize that I do not respect someone who "shortchanged" his shareholders' money, as I myself had been shortchanged before. But if it does not appear in my writing, it is a compliment to me as it shows that I am not biased, LOL.
  4. My estimation of de Bono also falls because it took him 26 years to publicly dissociate himself with the School of Thinking. "To celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the School of Thinking the Co-founders, Edward de Bono and Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, launched The Family Learn-To-Think Project in January 2004." If this last statement is true, it seems that de Bono still continued to associate with Hewitt-Gleeson, even after FBI investigations. I think that he should have dissociate himself after not more than 3 years, LOL. That would be more than a reasonable period of time if he is not a party to the non-issuance of shares, isn't it? — PM Poon 17:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)