Talk:Jock McKeen/Archive

I am a first-time editor in Wikipedia. I object to the two pages I am editing being removed while I am developing them. Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen (the two pages in question) should not be removed. They are significant figures who deserve to be represented here. The problem is that I don't know how to make the changes necessary to keep the pages (Jock McKeen and Bennet Wong) alive. Please send me specific suggestions about how to prevent the deletion of the pages, and I'll get to the editing lickety split. Thanks William Meyer 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Wikipedia page WP:NOTE for a good start. Also read WP:PROD for steps you can take to contest the deletion. Thomas Dzubin _Talk 19:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll research this .... I am removing the tag now that this discussion has begun. I want to get this right! William Meyer 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE FEB 22, 2007 McKeen page updated with Career Path and References. The reference section needs more work ... to embed the references in the text. It is a beginning. William Meyer 01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing to Reliable, independent third-parties

I have completed the basic text and the references now. I believe this satisfies the Wikipedia standards for "reliable independent third parties." I will continue to add references and refine the text. William Meyer 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Addressing Comments re: Bennet Wong

To: DGG (talk)

Thanks for your detailed response about the Bennet Wong article. I have taken your comments into consideration and worked on both the Wong article, and the Jock McKeen article.

too much description of the general medical and social background.

I have cut this down ... have I gone far enough?

I have by doubt about the reliability of any publications from Phoenix Centre Press or Science and Behavior Books, And the Fewster book is in almost no WorldCat libraries, so i wonder also about its reliability when used for evaluative comments.

I understand ... the Fewster has a lot of information about the men, so I hope I can keep this. As for the Phoenix Centre Press or Science and Behavior Books, should I simply remove these references?

The problem is going to be reliance upon self-description, about local sources which tend to express a Public Relations attitude to local institutions, and books written with a similarly promotional purpose. I would feel much more confident about the article if there were some national or internationally known sources.

This has turned out to be difficult. They have been noted in local newspapers on the Canadian Press wire service a number of times, which has resulted in a lot of local papers reporting about them; for example, when they were keynote speakers at the 25th Anniversary meeting of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, there were reports from papers in five provinces (which I can provide). However, there was no national newspaper that carried the story. The meeting was in Ottawa, and the Ottawa Citizen carried the story, with reports across the Canadian wire service in many provinces.

I do have one national source ... footnote 10 in Wong's article is for an article in The Medical Post, which is described as "A national, weekly tabloid newspaper serving Canadian physicians, featuring a mix of clinical and political news, opinions and feature articles written for and by doctors. (The Medical Post is a trade publication, and is not sold on newsstands.) The Medical Post, 777 Bay Street, 5th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1A7 Canada. P(416)596-5000. F(416)593-3177. Email: medpost at rmpublishing.com. Website: http://www.medicalpost.com. Joe McAllister, News Editor; Colin Leslie, Features/Opinions Editor. 40% freelance. " This article reported when Wong and McKeen were keynote speakers at the 100th Anniversary of the University of Manitoba Medical School.

Also, I think the South China Morning Post is a national newspaper in China/Hong Kong (footnote 8 .. McKeen)

But neither is the Washington Post or NY Times to be sure ....

Doctors with a local reputation only are unlikely to be notable. e.g., was he known a the "hippie doctor" only around Vancouver? Even if he was very prominent there, there should be some source from outside the area that recognizes it..

I could not find a source to confirm a broader picture ... although he was hosting a national CBC-TV program on youth at that time, and I expect that there were mentions of him on the wire service. I have simply failed to find something to corroborate this, except for Fewster's book, which you question. So, I have removed the reference.

Some of the notability is vague: eg., "consulted for", doesnt mean very much unless one knows the scope of the consultation. The BC Atty General presumably has hired hundreds or if not thousands of consultant over the years. similarly with addressing " teachers' conferences, schools and parent/teacher associations." Or "Lapierre credited Wong with helping him to discover his authentic nature." If he can be shown to be the main influence, there might be reason to include it.

I have simply removed these items.

similarly, we usually don't mention mere memberships on Boards of Directors in an article, certainly not of local corporations.

I have left the reference to Wong's work on the Board of Directors of Moffat Communications for now, because it grew increasingly into a bigger, broader company before it was sold. Although it originally was a family business with a local focus, it grew into a much larger entity owning the Winnipeg Jets NHL hockey team, and having operations in Texas and Florida, and beginning a significant television network, WTN. Anyway, if you still think this is not relevant, I'll remove the reference to his 25 years on Moffat board.

Wong's longstanding board membership with Moffat was not for business acumen, but in recognition of his understanding of people and their needs. The company was exemplary in how they dealt with their employees as people. I want to get this across in the encyclopedic way ... humanistic approaches in business. This is a vision of corporate culture that Wong has championed. Instead of a cold remote view, this company had heart. It was a kind of "corporate medicine."

There's circularity-- Wong & McKeen are notable for founding Haven. Haven is notable because W & McK worked there. You've got to find something from outside the circle.

I see what you mean ....

What is "outside the circle", I believe, is the work with east-west (especially for McKeen), their crosscultural work (medically, socially and politically) and working with businesses to bring their medical/psychological approaches into the business realm.

Part of my dilemma is that much of what they have done in recent years is outside of the reporting of the media, and outside of North America. Their work with business (Wong with Moffat and both with Hua Wei) are not reported in the general press, with the exception of short reports.

And the work they have done in China has been mostly reported in the Chinese language press (and I don't read or write Chinese, so this is inaccessible to me). The work they have done in meetings with Chinese government officials has not been reported in the English press ... but it has been considerable. They have met with the Chinese ambassadors to these countries : Cuba, Brazil, Ukraine, Emirates, Jordan, and Kenya (the meetings were in the countries in question).

I have a photograph I took of Wong and McKeen with former Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing at a private dinner meeting in Beijing, which was by his personal invitation to them. He was still in office. Does such a photograph fall outside of the encyclopedic notability ... or should I consider including this photograph as part of Wong/McKeen's article(s)?

Whatever was written in the media on this visit was published in the Chinese media. I know of websites with articles about their presentations in Beijing on one of these trips ... but again, only in Chinese.I also have photographs of these men with a number of the Chinese ambassadors I mentioned above. Is any of this relevant to getting "outside the circle"?

They have been involved in the humanistic training of over 2000 Hua Wei managers and executives in seminars in many of the countries where Hua Wei operates, in such different places as Moscow and Lima, Peru. Hua Wei is huge .... 83,000 employees in over 110 countries.

These guys have been at work on a number of fronts, and I want to find a way to show how significant they are. I hope they don't simply fall outside of the purview of the encyclopedic realm.

The critical article here is probably the one on the Insitute. I'll get to it in a few days.

DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay ... I really appreciate your patience in helping me as I learn my way into this.

And get full inclusive page numbers for all publications, because a medical article of 1 page is almost always a mere case report or letter to the editor.

I now have this information. I have purposely only included "Selected Articles" for the men ... there are more of similar quality ... but I gather this would be excessive.

I look forward to your comments so that I can take the next iteration of improving this article. William Meyer (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)