Talk:Six Thinking Hats

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

message: I have a bias against unsigned comments, especially negative ones. I would, however, like to ask about the TM superscript next to "Parallel Thinking". If I use the phrase "parallel processing", do I owe someone a royalty?
Ernstwll 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TradeMark? 

message: Many people are more familiar with the phrase "Six Thinking Hats" since that is the term Mr. de Bono uses in his many books for this parallel thinking framework.It's the title of his book exclusively about it.Wouldn't it be better to use "Six Thinking Hats®" as the title so other people would be more likely to find it?
 
I know that Mr. de Bono has concerns regarding intellectual property matters but there is a point at which frequent emphasis on his ownership will have a negative effect on people choosing to use "de Bono thinking".
142.59.90.167 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't it "Six Thinking Hats®" ? 

message: :The current declared task is to work on this article so that the viewpoint is clearly neutral to anyone that reads it. Now, maybe this is something where vertical thinking is quite adequate but it might be interesting to use de Bono Hats as an editing group as an example of its use. It would involve some self discipline since anyone could at any time put on a different colored hat than the specific colored hat that is requested. There is also the problem of working out the Blue Hat details as a group since there could be editors that want to monopolize that hat.   
:There could be more Blue Hat discussion on how to get the required article. The comments so far seem to be Black Hat thinking which is ok, but let's have some more Blue Hat thinking as a fresh start. 
:I propose more Blue Hat thinking, then making a formal request for more Black Hat thinking and then asking for Green Hat Thinking. 
:The editing group doesn't have to set out a complete sequence of hats of how to get a neutral viewpoint article but something like Blue, Black, Green and an agreement on how to work together with the Blue Hat would be a start.    
:Another possible sequence might start with Yellow. It's good that the article exists and it does contain the basic elements of an explanation of what de Bono Hats are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.208.39 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to use de Bono Hats in this discussion 

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

message: The article is multiple tagged, yet there are no discussions on the basis for these tags (notability, peacock etc). Until the antagonists can come up with a plausible argument I propose we just delete the tags. --11:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons (or basis) for those tags can be clearly seen in the actual article, if that makes sense. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That forces others to make unfounded assumptions, the starting point of many misunderstanding. In fact the box suggests or discuss these issues on the talk page. If people cannot clearly state their issues here I question the validity of their claims. As for notability the topic of the article is being discussed at LinkedIn as a tool for innovative processes. --12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I agree with you on the notability point - I think the de Bono Hats are notable enough to have an article.  But the thing is that when you tag an article you do not neccesarily have to discuss it on the talk page. Remember that the purpose of the tags is to notify people that it needs improving. If you just look at the article you can clearly see that it contains peacock terms and is NPOV. It is also clear that it barely cites any sources and is written in an unencyclopedic manner. So the best thing to do is improve the article as the box says. Joelster (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so can we agree the notability tag goes? I am in favour of consensus rather than bold editing leading to revert wars.  Next up is the peacock tag. from what I can see it is about statements such as many agree on X being great.... This article however is quite consistent in stating that it is De Bono who make the claims. Thus the reporting of his statements are objective while one may argue his opinions are subjective. Whether or not his statements hold true is an entirely different question. One could of course point out his web page listing endorsements from several notable companies (such as Nestlé) though that runs the risk of accusations of advertisement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.186.113 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing as no one has objected, I yhave removed the notability and peacock term tags. But I still believe that the article is written ever-so-slightly like an advertisement for the Hats, and that the layout and content of the article is unencyclopedic. But the biggest problem of all is that it doesn't cite any sources; even though it does give a few references to books and external websites, these are not cited in the text. What is the address for his webpage? Perhpas there are a few statements I could cite from there. Joelster (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tags removal is much appreciated. Next up is the advertising tag. Could you clarify how you see this as an advertisement? Personally had I paid for an ad like this I would have demanded my money back. You requested address for his web page, I believe it is http://www.debonoforbusiness.com/asp/six_hats.asp which is in the article. His web pages gives links (just not hyper links) to various persons in Nestlé and Washoe Health System but I am not sure how to add these without then making it look like a glowing recommendation. Links can be found in LinkedIn but URLs from there tends to be long, looking like containing session IDs. --22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive by tagging 

message: took my eye off the ball there and now its gone squirly!
In the book the term "six hats" is used, as is the term "six thinking hats" to describe the process. However, his official course materials call it "Six thinking hats" as I indicated above - that is the title given to the process and its associated training materials. That is what has been registered as a trademark.
The term "six hats" is used as shorthand in some elements of the book, and occasionally by practitioners of the process talking amongst themselves. However, when talking with someone who is not already aware of what it is the full title "six thinking hats" is invariably used.
"six hats" is a shorthand expression, and being less descriptive so of less value as a title(IMHO)
Tt should be "six thinking hats" since:
thats what all the official documentation calls it (book title, course documents, official tools
thats a non controversial name given the debate over origins
That is a full and descriptive title
So if you have a strong argument against making this move, in the face of this information, please make it here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovationbrain (talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move - reflection and consensus building 

message: In the example for White Hat thinking, under the classroom application the following example of White Hat thinking is presented.
'Students are not understanding the focused lecture due to lack of concentration'
I would like to challenge this as being White Hat thinking for the following reasons.
-This is an observation but not in itself the facts. An analogy to history would be that this is secondary evidence
-Not understanding seems too speculative to be White Hat without supporting evidence. Rather than state it that way it would be more objective to say 'test results are low with 80% of the class failing' or 'when questioned the students did not demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter'
-Claiming that something is 'due to' something else is not White Hat thinking. State the facts that let conclusions be drawn as a result of those facts.
I'd like to invite debate or suggestions on this. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
J
Papamidnite (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Hat example incorrect 

message: This section really needs re-writing. It is not even close to the correct format. I don't know enough about the subject to correct it, but could someone please?
203.58.7.182 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diadactics and Design 

message: I've shuffled around some of the content so that the narrative of the article is better. It seems sensible to me that an explanation about sequences of hats should come immediately after the section where hats are introduced. I've also removed the listing of sequences in response to a worry about original research posted by someone else - I didn't feel it added much and article (at least at it's current quality level) need not go into that specific level of detail. I feel there's a real lack of encyclopedic quality in the last few sections - there are no references and the text reads like an uncritical explanation, almost to the point where it could be teaching material for a course on this. If it were up to me I'd remove that content entirely - the rest of the article gives a good enough summary of what STH is without it. Someone probably cares about this more though. Jamesd (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Quality 

message: A little tidying up of the redirects, DABs and perhaps hatnotes associated with this page is in order. Under way. See White hat, Red hat, Black hat, Yellow hat, Green hat and Blue hat for progress. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. One is a redir to this article, three are DABs or redirs to DABs, and two are redirs to other articles each with a hatnote to a DAB. All the DABs are MOSified and point here. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific hats

message: Removing claim: "Furthermore, de Bono asserts that these modes are associated with distinct chemical states of the brain. (reference is needed?) However, no details or evidence of this are presented in the book." - it does indeed need a reference if it stays in (but that shouldn't be marked on the page), but I'm not sure it's particularly useful to have the comment without some further discussion.  So, it needs expanding and an attribution, or removing (which I have done) Goodwin57 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed comment on neural states

message: Not sure what to rename it to! Equinox (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that? Article still needs a lot of work though! Sjgknight (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  At a glance it looks much better. Thanks. Equinox (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Summary" section isn't a summary at all 

message: Let's use the green hat to improve the article about Six Thinking Hats. We can use lateral thinking (click to view the article on this) and set up a provocation of the escape type. We take for granted that people read the article on Six Thinking Hats so the provocation is "Po, noone reads the article." Let's use the movement technique "Extract a principle". RLee (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using hats to improve article 

message: The bulleted list in "Underlying Principles" is full of undefined acronyms (CAF, FIP, PMI) and concepts that are not explained.
Over at Coloured_hat there is a much clearer list that could be swapped in to replace the content in this entry. 
    White hat – Facts & Information
    Red hat – Feelings & Emotions
    Black hat – Critical Judgement
    Yellow hat – Positive
    Green hat – New Ideas
    Blue hat – The Big Picture
I'm just not sure whether to fix or replace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmyfowlkes (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These definitions were added.Sandcherry (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set of tools corresponding to all six thinking hats