User talk:CrisBCT

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Erhard Seminars Training, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Erhard Seminars Training. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, CrisBCT, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination)

If you wish to provide support for keeping the article about Hawkins, you need to actually address how the subject meets the requirements for having a stand alone article. see WP:N. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional vehicle. We base content in Wikipedia articles upon what reliable sources present about the subject, not what we might want to infer from someones age nor self promotional content or otherwised biased sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and I removed the reference to "nobel laurate" as someone elses' fame/success/notability does not "rub off".) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether third parties not associated with Hawkins, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, consider him notable and worthy of writing about. (I can also create a webpage and claim that I am the Grand Poobah of 5 countries and 47 million Important Societies have proclaimed me "Teh Bestest at Everything Evah" but that doesnt mean that any of those things have actually happened or if they did, that they were actually notable.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom,

sorry, there's something funny happening here. although this was just another tab in my browser, it said I was NOT logged in. So I've logged in (again) and now your comments has disappeared. [Update - now they're appeared when I went Preview.]

Does your post mean that Wikipedia does not allow co-authors to be named as co-authors for a book? Seems rather strange that presumably verifiable facts like that are deemed to be promotional, or am I missing something? I understand about deleting the fact that Linus Pauling is a Nobel prize-winner, but why would you delete his name as well?

Did I post the previous chunk in the right place? Should I remove it from there and put it here instead?

I look forward your response

Cris Baker, Thursday, 2012/09/06 at 1715 CrisBCT (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to find a listing for that book by the book's publisher saying that Linus Pauling was the co-author and if so will that then allow Pauling to be listed as co-author? CrisBCT (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, co-authors need to be listed as co-authors. However, adding feathers to co-authors by proclaiming them as "nobel laurates" is not allowed. There might be something funky with the way the citation template converts data that may not be displaying the name of the co-author, I did not check that at all.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was formatting within the citation template. I have replaced the "first" field with "author" field [1] and that seems to work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice this page has refused to accept this post: To verify, that book is listed at Amazon with Pauling listed as co-author. See

www.amazon.com/Orthomolecular-Psychiatry-Schizophrenia-David-Hawkins/dp/0716708981 CrisBCT (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get back to the concerns, that is a book written BY Hawkins and so does not do anything to show that other people have considered him and his work notable. Do you have professional reviews of the book? Do the academic referencing tools show that this book/or his other work is cited by many other scholars and therefore he has had an impact in the academic field? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom,

I've just looked at the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29 page where it says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

So I've now Googled David R. Hawkins, and Google gives several suggestions:

1) for "david r. hawkins" it lists 3,720,000 pages.

2) for "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d" it lists 202,000 results.

3) for "david r. hawkins quotes" it lists 523,000 results.

Which seems to suggest that Dr. Hawkins fulfills the criteria of being "the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject."

Is well over three million separate pages enough or should I list some of those millions of pages? Where to from here?

Cris CrisBCT (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"suggestions" are not actual reliable sources talking about THIS PARTICULAR David Hawkins. see also WP:GHITS.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start would be some of these which weed out a lot of completely unacceptable sources :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom,

Sorry, I'm obviously not adequately explaining the Google Search I carried out. For popular queries, Google gives suggestions to complete the search query. So the "suggestions" mean "david r. hawkins" is a popular search query! And, given the uniqueness of the name with the middle initial R., they are all for this Dr. David R. Hawkins.

For the first search query - "david r. hawkins" - Google comes back with 3,720,000 pages found.

For the second search query - "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d" - Google comes back with 202,000 pages found.

For the third search query - "david r. hawkins quotes" - Google comes back with 523,000 pages found.

If you Google one or all of these three search terms, you'll see the millions of pages Google finds.

Is well over three million separate pages enough or should I list some of those millions of pages for you? If so, how?

warm regards, Cris CrisBCT (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to keep missing two important concepts: 1) just having google hits is irrel. there needs to be specific content that is WITHOUT A DOUBT about the subject of the article and not just vague claims that "a middle initial makes it likely to be about him". but more importantly 2) most pages on the web are NOT reliable sources and therefore no matter how many of those pages are about this particular guy, they do not count for a hill of beans in meeting the wikipedia requirements for having a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

Using your suggestions which "weed out a lot of completely unacceptable sources", I see that your first search suggestion - for ""David R. Hawkins" -wikipedia" - Google finds 326,000 pages.

your second search suggestion - Archives, Google finds 98 results.

your third search suggestion - Books, Google finds 8,950 results.

your fourth search suggestion - Scholar, Google finds 470 results.

How many "multiple published[3] secondary sources" is enough to make a person notable? If you can give me a number then I'll check through these results to find and post that many for you here.

Cris CrisBCT (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How many" depends upon the content level of each source. There needs to be enough to provide "significant content" about noteworthy work/context. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Red Pen of Doom

Let's address the first of your "two important concepts that I'm missing." You want to know that the many hits on Google for "David R. Hawkins" are for the subject of the article and not someone else. But the number of hits for "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d" addresses this point. The number of other David R. Hawkins who are also Medical Doctors (MD) and also Doctors of Philosophy (Ph.D) is probably pretty small if not zero. Google gives the number of pages found for "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d" as 202,000 pages.

Which says that there are a large number of pages that are "WITHOUT A DOUBT about the subject of the article." Given that Google found 3,720,000 pages on the web without including his qualifications, probability theory suggests that most of this two hundred thousand - if not many many more - are about the subject of the article. Are you familiar with probability theory, distribution, and bell curves?

The Facebook page for the subject of this article is the first url given by your first suggested search, '"David R. Hawkins" -wikipedia.' It is indeed him, I recognize his photos, and that page has 5,529 likes. So there are thousands of people who like him/his work. Does this count towards "reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject?"

Your first independent search has an Amazon link to his foreign language books, some of which have been translated into French, German, and Spanish. So his books are known and read internationally.

Now let's address the second of your "two important concepts that I'm missing." You want reliable sources that mention him, yet don't say how many. You just say it "depends upon the content level of each source." But what counts as providing'"significant content" about noteworthy work/context?' I'm happy to provide you with a list of urls that are reliable sources, but without knowing what you deem reliable, I don't want to waste any more of your valuable time.

Does Amazon count as a reliable source? Their page on his books at http://www.amazon.com/David-R.-Hawkins/e/B001H6MLOO/ref=sr_tc_2_0 contains 11 books. The about him section is a reprint of the extensive - over 3,000 words - Biography Summary printed on his web-page.

This Amazon web-page reports that the first book listed has 304 customer reviews with a average four out of five star rating - 198 five star and 34 one star reviews. Are 304 customer reviews considered as independent sources? The other books also have been reviewed multiple times.

Let me do some more investigation, and then perhaps you can tell me what else you need to know to determine that he's notable. Looking at his list of over 50 memberships, I've selected a dozen or so of the most reliable and most noteworthy sources.

1. When I search on "American Medical Association" AND "Life Member"AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 191 pages listed by Google.

2. When I search on "American Psychiatric Association" AND "Life Member" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 3,100 pages listed by Google.

3. When I search on "American Association for the Advancement of Science" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 214 pages listed by Google.

4. When I search on "International Academy of Preventive Medicine" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 202 pages listed by Google.

5. When I search on "International Council on Applied Nutrition" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 176 pages listed by Google.

6. When I search on "International Society for General Semantics" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 177 pages listed by Google.

7. When I search on "Academy of Religion and Mental Health" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 182 pages listed by Google.

8. When I search on "New York State Medical Society" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 180 pages listed by Google.

9. When I search on "New York Academy of Science" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 238 pages listed by Google.

10. When I search on "New York State Psychiatric Association" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 186 pages listed by Google.

11. When I search on "Schizophrenia Foundation of New York State" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 184 pages listed by Google.

12. When I search on "Nassau Academy of Medicine" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 185 pages listed by Google.

13. When I search on "Nassau Psychiatric Society" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 181 pages listed by Google.

14. When I search on "Arizona Medical Society" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 184 pages listed by Google.

15. When I search on "Arizona Psychiatric Society" AND "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", there are 182 pages listed by Google.

Then there's the number of pages found by searches using your "more reliable sources": 326,000 pages for your first search suggestion; 98 pages for your second; 8,950 pages for your third; and 470 pages for your fourth search suggestion.

So it appears there are thousands of pages about both him and his noteworthy achievements which help to make him notable. Would you like me to extract some of their urls and post those here for you? If so, how many?

warm regards, Cris Friday, 2012/09/07 at 1030 CrisBCT (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to keep going down the "so it appears" path and not providing any specific reliable sources with actual significant content about the subject of the article, and merely quoting the number of search results you can continue to have your !vote disregarded.

But I am done here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops - i missed your amazon question.

amazon is a commercial site designed solely to peddle merchandise, and so no, listings on amazon cannot do anything to show a product is notable, only verify its existance (and mere existance does not make a topic notable - ie my dog exists, but that does not mean she should have her own encyclopedia article).

amazon might be able to provide leads to professional reviews of books; which, if you are able to cite the original publication in a reliable source, might be used to establish a specific notability for a book which could then be a redirect target for the author; or if several books have gotten minimal reivews, the totality might support a stand alone article for the author.

but these ALL depend upon you providing the actual specific content and not just search results pages. The search results themselves establish NOTHING. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Red Pen of Doom

I say "it appears" and "it seems" because I'm not arrogant enough to think that just because I've spent a day researching something, I know all about it. Far too many people become certain on far too flimsy evidence, and then they insist they know. Stalin's useful fools.

Thanks for your answer about Amazon. I have checked your reliable source link and sorry to report this but I find the page arcane, its complexity is stupendous.

Does the American Medical Association count as a reliable source? I note that their raison d'etre is to promote the commercial interests of their members....

But in case they are, I have searched the American Medical Association website, and David Ramon Hawkins is indeed listed there as follows:

DoctorFinder Quick search results for AMA member physicians

We found 1 AMA member physicians matching your criteria. All AMA members must adhere to the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics.

Name Specialty Location David Ramon Hawkins, MD PSYCHIATRY Sedona, AZ 86336

See the DoctorFinder page at: https://extapps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/nameSearch.do?lastName=Hawkins&firstName=David&state=AZ&city=&zip=

Clicking the link on his name, it gives the following info at page: https://extapps.ama-assn.org/doctorfinder/member.do?id=1347029180915&index=0&page=1

DoctorFinder The information contained in the AMA DoctorFinder report does NOT meet the primary source equivalency requirement as set forth in the credentialing standards of accreditation organizations such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) or the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).

David Ramon Hawkins , MD

Medem Web Address: www.drDavidHawkins.yourmd.com

Primary Specialty (Self Designated) (note): PSYCHIATRY

Gender: Male

Location: Sedona, AZ 86336 Office Phone: 928-282-5446 Accepts New Patients: Yes Hospital Admitting Privileges: Verde Valley Med Ctr, Cottonwood, AZ Health Plan Participation: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ARIZONA Accepts Medicare: Yes Accepts Medicaid: Yes

Medical School: MED COLL OF WI, MILWAUKEE WI 53226

Residency Training: MANHATTAN PSYCH CTR, PSYCHIATRY

                                       COLUMBIA HOSP, FLEXIBLE OR TRANSITIONAL

Major Professional Activity: INACTIVE Physician Availability: Office hours are available by appointment all day Monday through Friday, and Saturday morning.

Key Professional Achievements and Awards: Publication (1995), Power vs. Force The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior

Is this the sort of information you wish me to provide? If so, tell me how many such pages and their details you wish me to list here and I'll see what I can do...

For amazon, if I extract and list the contents of the 304 customer reviews of his first book, would that help? should I do this for all his books?

I look forward to your response. Warm regards, Cris Friday, 2012/09/07 CrisBCT (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I looked at this discussion and it looks like it got sidetracked somewhere. The major issue is NOT the availability of information (in reliable sources) about a person. In order to have an article about the person this information must demonstrate how this person is notable. Please review the general WP:NOTE rules, as well as specific notability guidelines for persons . For example I may google myself (under my real name) and find thousands of hits. But all this available information makes me worry about my privacy more than about whether I should have a wikipedia article :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had said I was gone, but Actually the issue seems to be that I have not properly communicated that all three conditions need to apply at the same time: 1) the content itself must indicate why the subject is of note - what impact has the subject made AND 2) the content must have been made available by a third party, someone not conntected Hawkins (or in the case of an "award" not connected with the award) AND 3) the content has to have been made through a medium that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - a widely respected source in the field, not just a random website or a user generated review. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Staszek and TheRedPenOfDoom,

Thank you so much for your replies. As must be painfully obvious - and let me apologise for any frustration I'm causing - I'm brand new to this and so don't yet know enough to give you what you need. But I am trying to understand so I can provide the proof of the Dr. Hawkins' enormous notability. It seems to me that the best place to start is right at the beginning.

1 The "so it appears" path

I continue to say "it appears" and "it seems" and "apparently" because I'm not arrogant enough to think that just because I've spent a day or two researching a subject, I know all about it. "Knowing all about it" is not authentic knowledge. Far too many people become far too certain on far too flimsy superficial knowledge, and then they stop thinking and instead insist they know all about it. Perhaps you've come across some of them? There's a page on my web-site at http://www.lifestrategies.net/change-my-life/understanding-vs-real-knowledge/ which explains the crucial difference. I understand that people who ignore this distinction were labelled as "useful idiots" by the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin.

2 Electronic Communication Okay?

This is the Internet, so we communicate electronically. Now I can't see how to attach a document to this page, so hopefully copies of actual documents are not needed. This suggests that electronic communication is entirely satisfactory, check?

3 Satisfy all conditions sure, but serially or simultaneously?

Let me now check if, in my attempts to satisfy your three conditions on content, The Red Pen of Doom, it's okay to satisfy them one at a time, or must I satisfy them all at once? Your last post suggests the latter is the case, but this only makes the task enormously more difficult. It would be good if you'd let me know if serial satisfaction of your three conditions would be acceptable. This would also make things less exasperating for you.

Then your feedback could be positive instead of appearing to be unrelentingly negative. Instead of saying no, because I'm not fulfilling all three conditions at once, you could say: 'Yes, that's a good start, that fulfils condition b (or whatever) and now we need proof for conditions a and c.

4 How to Furnish the Needed Proof?

To provide the proof needed over the Internet, I can only see how to give it to you in three ways. The only three paths seem to be: a) counts of pages apparently providing the proof needed; b) urls of pages apparently providing the proof needed; and c) copies of the content of pages apparently providing the proof needed. If there are any others, then please let me know...

4a) Counts of Pages apparently providing the proof needed

It seems that a) counts of pages apparently providing the proof needed, is not seen as reliable in any way. One of your replies above stated that # of hits in a Google search is irrelevant. Even though I researched the numbers from the more reliable searches you've suggested.

Fyi, I don't want to disagree with you here, but contrary to your assertion, a Boolean AND Search with more info such as his middle initial and MD and PhD is indeed guaranteed to provide a more reliable # of hits about Dr Hawkins. It's not that "vague claims that "a middle initial makes it likely to be about him"." Are you familiar with probability theory, distribution, and bell curves? It's actually true that the more specific the search, the more likely you are to come up with more solid information. That's not a "vague claim" - that's a mathematically sound statement. And it's backed up by empirical evidence:

Googling "david hawkins" gives 20,300,000 - twenty million - pages. When expanded to "david r. hawkins" it gives far less, only 3,720,000 - three million - pages found. When further expanded to "david r. hawkins m.d. ph.d", the search gave 202,000 - only two hundred thousand - pages found. This is not to say that the lower numbers are the only pages on him, but they are more reliable to be on him - it's not just a "vague claim."

4b) Urls for Pages apparently providing the proof needed

Can b) urls for pages apparently providing the proof needed, provide the proof you seek? Is it acceptable to furnish you with urls with a brief description of their content?

I guess I should have included the url, but searching with your more reliable search criteria brought up Dr Hawkin's Facebook page which has 5,529 likes. Does Facebook count in any way towards "reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject?"

Facebook are totally independent, which seems to fulfil your condition #2, that url is: http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-R-Hawkins/31185597474 I have just retrieved this link, and the number of likes is now up to 5,552 likes. and doesn't include mine which I need to add... So there are thousands of people who like him/his work and 23 more people have liked his Facebook page since yesterday. Seems he is having a big positive impact...

4c) Copies of the Content of Pages apparently providing the proof needed

Your replies could be interpreted to mean you need c) copies of the content of pages apparently providing the proof needed. Is this what is needed?

I can't see I've received approbation for anything yet, an example is always good. If appropriate, it would be good to receive your approval so I know when, although incomplete, I'm starting along on the right lines...

I say this because I gave you the content of what I think could be an acceptable authoritative source - the American Medical Association's pages on Dr. Hawkins - yet this also failed to elicit any positive feedback. But posting such content also be voluminous, there's lots - LOTS - of stuff about Dr. Hawkins - around twenty million pages - and so posting the content of more than a few pages could take serious amounts of space.

5 Summary

So please let me have answers to all these questions. What would provide the proof you need in particular: a) counts of pages apparently providing the proof needed; b) urls for such pages; or c) copies of the content of such pages - then I would be far more able to provide the firm evidence you need...

warm regards, Cris Saturday, 2012/09/08 CrisBCT (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Adolf Hitler— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]