User talk:Breathmike

Spam in Dennis Lewis
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dennis Lewis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dennis Lewis is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dennis Lewis, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Howdie, do you have any secondary reviews or sources for Dennis Lewis? I did some searches and didn't find any critiques really or books that include comments on his work. That would go miles for establishing his notability. If the only citations are from primary sources, meaning self published or by his web sites or his publishers, than those won't really count toward establishing WP:BIO notability requirements. That's I think the biggest hurdle to keeping the article. Sorry that your first contribution has had such a mixed reception. We're all just hyper sensitive to promotional material and spam on the encyclopedia here, so when something looks promotional it gets a quick, knee jerk reaction sometimes. Best Regards. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issues. I took care of the original problem (I'm new at this--didn't know all the rules). By the way, his books are not self-published. They are published by Shambhala (see reviews on citation I added) and Rodmell Press. His audio program was produced by Sounds True. Just looked up The Tao of Natural Breathing on Google Books: 32 books refer to it. Here's the link.

Nine books (so far) refer to "Free Your Breath, Free Your Life" (but that is a more recent book). Here's the link.

There's so many references to his books, I'm not sure where to start. But here is a story from The Voice Council about the importance of Free Your Breath, Free Your Life for singers.

And here is a reference to the book from the famous management counsultant Tom Peters. He apparently loves the book and carries it with him for stress relief whenever he travels.

Also, take a look at the encyclopedia.com reference that I added to Dennis Lewis.

And if you look at Amazon.com, you will see that Free Your Breath, Free Your Life is the top selling book on breathing on Amazon.com (beating out Andrew Weil), and his book the Tao of Natural Breathing and audio program Natural Breathing are also in the top 10 sellers for books on breathing.

Lewis is a major force in the breathing/health/meditation world.

Let me know if you need more.

Breathmike (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is some more reviews, articles, etc:

Natural Health Magazine (2008) (Well-known magazine distriubted nationally, includes practices from Lewis and they fashioned a contest to receive copies of his book "Free Your Breath, Free Your Life"

ForeWord Magazine (long article, do a search on Dennis Lewis)

Daoist Alchemy in the West: The Esoteric Paradigms (long article, do a search on Dennis) Lewis

DragonDoor-Qigong News (do a search for Dennis Lewis)

PezCycling News (do a search on Dennis Lewis)

Health Discovery: Deep Breathing: It's Easy When You Try

The Empty Vessel Magazine (Contemporary Taoism--Lewis has written many articles for them--you can read one by clicking on the link)

Also, do a search on Dennis Lewis breathing on Google Book Search. Many substantial references to him and his books by other books.

There is so much stuff in so many different areas where Lewis is referenced in depth: breathing/health, singing, Taoism, Qigong, stress, and so on. All the above references from yesterday and today should give you a good idea. Interviews with Lewis have also been in Oprah magaine, Self, Glamour (how breathing can help the belly), and numerous others, though those are not available on-line as far as I know.

I think that his "notability" should now be demonstrated.

Thank you.

Breathmike (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a moment to review some of these citations and see what I can add to the article. By self-published, I mean any web site that he has control over or self written biographies. The issue here is really what's a trustable source of material. For basic biographic info like birthdays a self published source may be fine, but for reviews and demonstrating notability and popularity it's perhaps not as trustable. Better to find critical third-party reviewers. Reviews included selectively by a publisher - like the second citation - are also not as trustable as a truly neutral third party reviewer or critic. So the more removed a source the better. Notability might just be established though by how many people cite his work as definitive. In looking at some of the book sources above, he does seem to have written one of the early works on Taoist breathing and is thereby recommended often. The article should probably include that aspect. Overall, let's look to write a balanced, neutral discussion of the person which in no way sounds promotional. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I added what I could from the above citations that you found. You might not like all the edits, because I tried to include critiques as much as I could to keep the article balanced and not sounding like it was promotional. But perhaps you will appreciate the result. Some of the citations that google book results produced were just quotes of his used by an author to make a basic point, and in and of themselves they were not talking 'about' him really. But a few were talking about him or commenting on his impact and those were really good citations. Perhaps next you could expand on what he teaches and how others critique or support the specifics? The hyperventilating comment I added is one example. My guess is that additional detail in that vain is what other editors will appreciate as not sounding promotional but adding encyclopedic value. Finding a free use picture would be good too, perhaps a fair use rational with a low resolution photo might work if no free alternative can be found. Best Regards, - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your work, and I'm starting to understand what you folks are looking for. Over the next week or so I will see what I can add per your suggestions, as well as any other thoughts that come to mind. I just changed one of the words from "most" to "many," since when I looked up the reference about hyperventilation, it said "many people."

In the meantime, can you take the "notability" problem off the page? Breathmike (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're ok with the changes. I just left a note for the editor that tagged is a not notable, to see if he agreed that notability has been established. I'm somewhat neutral on the notability now, even with all the citations. The WP:BIO requirements are subjective and notability tends to be one of those things that is based on consensus around here. If we can find any more critiques of his work, especially if they include both positive and negative commentary, I think that will help further. And if you're curious about the current consensus around notability generally, read some of the recent deletion discussions that are about notability and see how people are voting. That's the best way I've found to see how notability is critiqued and commented and established. Best to you, - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This notability thing is a bit confusing. Lewis has the top selling books on breathing in the country, with numerous references in other books, magazines, on-line articles, etc. I'll add some other stuff over time. Breathmike (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Breathmike (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Question:

Also, in doing some further research on Dennis' workshops and people that he has done workshops with to add to the page, I noticed that David Hykes, who Lewis has done several events with at Esalen and dother venues, has a listing with absolutely no references, no "notability" issues, etc. Nothing! How does this happen? Breathmike (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The WP:BIO notability guidelines are up to interpretation but it is very much a core issue here - what should be included in an encyclopedia and what should not - that is perhaps also an ongoing process. Having popular published works might be enough to establish notability, but that's more up for argument compared to if other third-parties have commented on the popular works. Given the logic that if a subject's publications are truly noteworthy, that they will be commented upon, then there's a strong preference for notability to be established by neutral, third-parties commenting upon the work and less by the act of popular publication itself. But I can see how this might omit some well known people. You can read more about the underlying logic here: Notability which summarizes with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". As for David Hykes, that article was just severely cut back one week ago (review that article's history) and may have appeared more notable before that change. Also, the article was started in 2003 before the notability guidelines were as well established. Also be weary of using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. In summary, there's no clear line to establish notability but the more secondary sources we find talking about an author the more we establish notability. Critiques and comments by people discussing the importance of an author's impact and influence on a field are perhaps best. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Added two more book references today--and discussion tag needs to be fixed

Added two more book references today, from authors who discuss Lewis in relation to issues referenced in the article ("calm, presence, and clarity"). It seems to me that by now "notability" has been established. In looking around at other articles, I think I (with your help) have done a great job in establishing that. I hope this notability tag gets taken off soon. In any case, I will continue to add more references as I find them, as well as other material.

Also, when one clicks on the discussion tag for the Lewis page (not logged in), one gets a paragraph that no longer is accurate in relation to the page as it stands now. Can that, at least, please be updated?

Thanks. Breathmike (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's give the person who tagged it a little more time to weigh in, if you're ok waiting a little bit. The tag has only been on there for two days now and it's just been a day or so since we were able to add lots of the citations. Not sure how frequently people are signing in and if has had a chance to look at it or not. If we don't hear back in a little while though I think it's fine to remove the remaining tags on the article. I generally wait at least a week around here, but not sure what the standard is for user talk page comments. p.s. thanks for pointing out the David Hykes article, I just added three citations to it. He was a little easier to demonstrate notability, a few folks have written about him. Seems he was one of the first to bring overtone singing to the west by studying it in Asia and he's well known in music circles for that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Will probably add some more stuff over the next few days. Breathmike (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Added one more reference tonight (from Los Angeles Magazine that refers to Lewis and other leading people in the breathing arena). Breathmike (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Per your suggestions, added some more material about what Lewis teaches and how. What do you think? Breathmike (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The qualification to the FDA blood oxygen claim looks fine and balances it further. Supports the disagreement about the value of oxygen. The only thing I'd suggest generally is being careful about the tone and any adjectives that sound supportive or advocating a viewpoint. Calling Hykes a "pioneer" is probably OK but might also be a little too positive (or non-neutral in other words). Other than that I think some subtle copy editing will make things sound less like foregone conclusions and more like claims. If you don't mind I'll take a quick pass just to show what I mean about the claims/conclusions, but you're welcome to revert it or take a different approach. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also started a "teachings" section since some of the WP:LEAD material was no longer just summation.

Great--the teaching section makes a lot of sense. I made a few changes within it, but tried to keep in mind what you said about claims/conclusions. I quoted from his webpage with regard to his aims to be more accurate, but I noticed you took out a reference to that page that I added last time so I kept it out. I think it works fine but please let me know if you see any problems. Still a bit more to do. Breathmike (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just added some more material to the teaching section. Breathmike (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)