Talk:Ken Wilber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removed

I removed the time of birth that had a link to astrology, it is not needed, how many other biographies on wikipedia that has the time of birth included in their biographies. Astrology certainly wont make academics ever take Wilber seriously. Besides, the main argument is that its not needed, if you want create a Trivia section - for miscellous stuff, rumors, etc, but still it doesn't look like a credible article to have trivia added in!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

I removed "psychologist" from the categories. Wilber has not any formal education in psychology, and consequently, isn't a licensed psychologist either.

Davis

hi, I'd like to create a link to the American singer-songwriter Stuart Davis, but I would need to disambiguate him from the American Painter Stuart Davis, for who a page already exists. Help?

AQAL

I added Wilber's five phases to the article, but it would be great to give a brief outline of the elements of the 'Wilber Five' Kosmos--wilber's holons and twenty tenets, the four quadrants, and his basic levels and fulcrums, pre-personal, personal, and trans-personal (psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual). Perhaps his intersubjective (cultural) levels as well

Transpersonal psychology

The Article mentions wilber as a founder of Transpersonal psychology, but he has become somewhat critical of the movement of late; if I can find the time, I'll track down the interview on the Shambhala site where he criticizes the Transpersonal movement.Tom Radulovich 02:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have incorporated Wilber's disasociation from transp'ism into the article.Goethean 17:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

didn't stanislav groff invent the term 'transpersonal'?! - hopleton

No. This term was used by Carl Jung, albeit in German, as "Ueberpersonlich" as long ago as 1918. More recently, in 1965, Abraham Maslow began to refer to transpersonal psychology, which generated its own journal in 1969 (The Journal of Transpesonal Psychology). I am open to any one who can think of any usages of the term "transpersonal" in any language that predate Jung's. English is my first language, but I am aware that a more direct translation of Jung's term would be "overpersonal" although the term is typically translated as "transpersonal". Does any have any knowledge of whether William James, who died in 1910, used the term? ACEO 08:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard that James used the term, but I can't remember where. I read about it in a book on the Esalen Institute by Kripal. Would Jung have gotten it from James, or come up with it independently, I wonder? — goethean ॐ 15:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

changed it to "a founder". Goethean 21:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone be offended if the page was changed to state that Ken Wilber is considered the father of Transpersonal psychology? From my experience and the recommendations of others, it seems like this is a closer expression of the sentiment. Thanks.Quantumlotus 18:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. — goethean ॐ 18:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He is not the father of transpersonal psychology, look above it has been discussed!!!! If anyone is the father of transpersonal psychology it would be Maslow, with Jung as grandfather! Wilber is only easily the most known transpersonal psychologist as of now.

copyvio

I've removed the text from Wilber's Five Phases as it was almost a word for word copy from http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/phases.html. Unless there is permission to use the under the terms of the GFDL, it can not be used without being severly rewritten. It might be best to use a link to it rather than including it here. Angela. 21:44, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Reading room articles

I have removed two links to essays critical of Wilber and replaced them with a link to Visser's "Reading Room". There's no reason to privilege the two essays that were linked to, presumably by the authors, over the other essays at Visser's site. And there's no reason to link to each essay written on Wilber when they are already collected at one site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goethean (talk • contribs) .

So you agree then Goethean, the six articles that Wilber writes on beliefnet.com shouldn't be listed individually, since it is already in one site? So, goethean, go ahead and erase the 5 individualized articles under beliefnet.com? Since there is no reason to privilege Wilber's six essays over other articles to use your arguement here?

--Dasein512

Well, this article covers essays by the subject of the article more closely than articles about the subject of the article. I personally find that to be appropriate. Presumably, readers came here for information on Ken Wilber, not on Michael Zimmerman, for example. This question should really be dictated by Wikipedia's policy on external links rather than by debate between fans and opponents of Wilber. If this is the worst form of bias you can come up with, then I'll take that to mean that we are doing pretty damn good here. So thanks for the unintentional compliment. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Critiques

Norfalk, how is it wrong because it is highly critical of Wilber? If the Falk article is linked from Visser's website, why have 6 articles from beliefnet.com written by Wilber, the arguement doesn't make sense. 6 articles under beliefnet.com, but its wrong to have an article thats link in one page, to have it appear directly. So by that arguement, one should delete those 6 articles that are in primary sources and sites of ken wilber fans. --Dasein512

I agree with User:Nofalk's assessment of the Geoffery Falk piece. I find it inappropriate for this page. It's an essay by someone with a deeply studied ignorance of Wilber's writings. It's inaccurate to call it a critique. To dismiss something out of hand without understanding it is not a critique. It's an unsympethetic dismissal. I had the link under that topic heading before the edit war started. There are writers who believe that Wilber's influence on culture has been nothing but negative, and who eviscerate Wilber for what they percieve as fundamental theoretical errors. I can accept and even applaude those critiques, and will gladly link to them from the article and describe those critiques in the article. But Falk doesn't even make a small attempt to understand the work that he's criticizing. He's like a bumpkin looking at a Jackson Pollack saying "I don't know what art is, but that ain't it."

By the way, someone once tried to create a Wikipedia article about Falk's book, "Stripping the Gurus". After some research, it was deleted by the Wikipedia community (more of whom, it should be noted, are biased against Wilber, or have never heard of him, than are biased for him) on the grounds that the book was self-published on the internet and was not notable enough to merit an article. — goethean ॐ 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to Falk's ranting because he criticises Wilber - I object to it because it is without merit. It would be great to have a decent critical analysis of Wilber. Various people have written excellent criticisms of one part of his work or another; Dallman, Edwards, De Quincy, Grof, Washburn even Deida, but there is yet to be a full-scale serious criticism. Falk's work is endlessly repetitive and he seems to believe that abuse is a substitute for argument. His objective appears to be setting up as many corny one-liners as possible and did I mention the repetition? Pages and pages of adolescent self-loathing vommitted onto his self-published platform obscure even those second-hand issues he has managed to dig up. Do you really consider this to be a decent critical analysis? What about the repetition? The reasons it should not appear here are: 1. Informing our readership: it would be embarrasing for anybody consulting Wikipedia to be directed there. 2, Quality control: If someone farted would we link to it? 3. Promotion of serious debate. There is some around if we care to look. 4. It is already on Visser's site, for the fourth time. (the reason for the detail regarding Wilber's Beliefnet articles is that it forms a complete list of his work - completely irrelevent to the location of the Falk criticism - put it on Falk's page -oh whoops- it was deleted due to not being notable enough.)-

As someone else noted Dasein, you seem to have an axe to grind, care to share?

Nofalk1 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Nofalk

No Nofalk1, I just think an article that is unfavorable to Wilber, should be posted, along with positive critiques of Wilber. If Wikipedia is a place for just facts, why are you judging what is and is not appropriate, thats my axe to grin, not on Wilber per say! My axe is that some people are deciding what they think is truth on wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is a great idea, but to stay great, it needs to be above reproach, and have a 'fair and balanced' - hope Fox news doesn't sue me, presentation on a subject. I mean if we were talking pure science like discussing the water molecules, we wouldn't be having any debate on that page, on people, we have subjective judgements and values to contend with. Therefore I am putting back the critique. Is there anyone who agrees with me? Nofalk1 and others need to know that they are not the majority.

positive critiques

Positive critique? What's a positive critique? I assume that you mean a critique that genuinely attempts to understand its subject matter. But that leaves open the question of why Wikipedia would link to material that doesn't attempt to understand its subject matter.

I mean if we were talking pure science like discussing the water molecules, we wouldn't be having any debate on that page

Yes, we would. We would be debating whether to link to articles that do not exhibit an understanding of the subject. And I would be on the same side of that debate.

My axe is that some people are deciding what they think is truth on wikipedia.

No, my stance is merely that some articles are of too poor a quality to link to. In fact, that's a Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nofalk's arguments. Hey Nofalk (whoever you are), did you read my new section on Thompson's critique of Wilber? — goethean ॐ 16:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article reads: Wilber's response to this would surely be that there is no true confusion here – differentiated non-dual doctrines and truly unitary monist doctrines are describing (or coming from) different levels of consciousness, the former from a causal perspective that differentiates between Emptiness and Form (and hence must see Form as emanationary), and the latter from a non-dual perspective that equates Emptiness and Form (and hence renders emanation a redundant concept).

Its not appropriate to suggest a hypothetical response by the person criticized, it is too close to admissable hearsay.L Hamm 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a proposal to replace that line? Can we delete it? Is there a piece that can be cited, because that 'would surely be' paragraph is really not appropriate. L Hamm 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I hope will mollify your concern. — goethean ॐ 17:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean thats much better in my opinion. L Hamm 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deutsche

Hello this is Kathrin from Berlin Germany and I've just translated your Ken Wilber stuff into German, thanks for providing!!! Kathrin

text removal/revertion

Goethean, there is already too strong of a bias in favor of Wilber when, I first started editing this page. Let's make this page of facts.

I have removed the following two paragraphs from the Ken Wilber article. I feel that they were redundant, POV, and inaccurate. I will try to integrate any new material that I can find in them into the current article more smoothly.

What separates him from so many other philosophers of this time and previous ones is that he sought out an "integral world philosophy" that explains everything. From the time he started, Wilber felt that all the knowledge spheres and disciplines fit together in an overall spectrum, that they all had something important to say, they were all true, but only partially true. This led to his attitude that "Everybody is right"! With that, he has integrated the contributions of numerous thinkers from all times across all cultures, pre-modern, modern, post-modern, east/west...a truly remarkable effort.

The other aspect that makes him unique is that so much of his knowledge and wisdom is grounded in practice. He has been an intense practitioner (of Zen and Tibetan Buddhism) and has always urged his readers to take up a spiritual practice intstead of merely reading "book junk". That attitude is found nowhere else in today's world, not the philosophers and thinkers who largely try to explain society, nor is it found in the "new age" style pop-seminar world, where people talk about things without grounding it in practice, the result being that the philosophy is dry and detached and the seminars are anemic and diluted.

--Goethean (2 August 2004)

Hi - Regards, but I had to remove the reference that Wilber has influenced many 'New Age' writers. Anyone familiar with his work would know how far he dissociates himself from this genre. I have also added a bit more about why his work is (currently) not embraced by academic philosophers.

--Kosmoan (29 March, 2005)

I seem to have a much broader sense of the term New Age than you do. I consider Andrew Cohen, Michael Murphy and other authors who have appeared on Integral Naked to be New Age writers. Thus I feel that my description is accurate.

I personally agree with your characterization of analytic philosophy as remaining at the rational/strategic level of consciousness. But no philosopher would accept that characterization. Thus it is not really a neutral characterization.

As a fan of Wilber, I tried to be objective in my writing on him. I caution you against making the article too positive towards Ken Wilber. As is clear from some of the posts on this talk page, there is a great deal of animosity against progressive, integral thought on wikipedia. If this page were to erupt into a flame war, I am afraid that the fans of Wilber would lose, due to our smaller numbers. We do not want this article to be written by opponents of Wilber. That is why I was very careful to give a balanced, neutral account. --Goethean 15:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Übermensch

I have removed the reference to Nietzsche's Übermensch as a transpersonal entity. Apart from the question of whether Nietzsche could be considered a transpersonal thinker, transpersonal entities are psychic (soul-level) entities that are more ontologically expansive than the individual (e.g., Emerson's oversoul).

Nietzsche's Übermensch, on the other hand, is an individual who creates values for a nihilistic culture. I feel that they are two different categories, but am open to debate. Goethean 16:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From my opinion, Nietzsche's Ubermensch is pretty much the same as the "Yellow" in the Spiral Dynamics proposed by Wilber. It is not a physical man, but a way of thinking. I refer to you the "Three Metamorphosis" in "Thus Spake Zarathustra". It creates new values from a naturalistic moral point of view. It is not "personal" in this way. It is not really a man, but a type of man which has evolved through nihilism. Whether it fits your definition of transpersonal or not, I will let you decide, but I think it does. I did not read what you took out, so I cannot say if it is appropriate or not.--142.59.218.190 11:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Episthene

Wilber = mumbo jumbo

I removed the following paragraph:

Although few academics are currently aware of Wilber's writings, Charles Taylor, one of the most important contemporary North American philosophers, has acknowledged Wilber's importance. (In Sex Ecology Spirituality, Wilber had frequently cited Taylor's work.) The slowness of academic philosophers to warm to Wilber's work is undoubtedly due to its mystical nature, and to Wilber's association with the New Age movement.

The claim that as distinguished and intelligent a philosopher as Charles Taylor would applaud chicanery like this is difficult to swallow, and if he did in fact "acknowledge" Wilber in this way then a specific quote needs to be provided. I hunted around and couldn't find one; and Ken Wilber and his fans are, in my experience, the sort of people more than happy to lie or exaggerate such facts to try to legitimize their mumbo-jumbo.

As for the last sentence, that academic philosophers are "slow" to warm to Wilber implies that they eventually will do so; I submit that the considered opinion of educated philosophers will remain that Wilber does not merit noting; and it is not at all undoubted that this dismissal stems from Wilber's associations and the "mystical nature" of his work. I submit that it stems from Wilber's ignorance and his work's being a load of bunk. - Anonymous (04:24 29 Jan 2005 UTC)

Reference and quotation added. --Goethean 14:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I have tremendously appreciated Wilber's work. He has managed to integrate so many things, and to keep his horizons open, where most of our culture keeps closing them down. It is magnificent work."

~ Charles Taylor

Robert L.12.155.9.21 16:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) Additionally:

According to the Shambhala Sun , Charles Taylor —"probably the world's most respected and admired living philosopher"—wrote:

"I have tremendously appreciated Wilber's work. He has managed to integrate so many things, and to keep his horizons open, where most of our culture keeps closing them down. It is magnificent work."

From the webiste: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/interviews/interview1220_2.cfm/

Besides as sourced by his publisher, is there any other documented case of Charles Taylor supporting Ken Wilber? A search on Charles Taylor does not reveal any quotation supportive of Ken Wilber other than the one claimed by Shambhala Publications. Considering the interests of Shamabhala to promote their publications, I do not feel comfortable with Taylor's quotation unless it can be cited from some place other than Wilber's publisher. -Fuse

Biography missing

What is missing here is any sort of biographical material, which one generally expects to find in an encyclopedic article. I realize that Wilber leads a somewhat reclusive existance, but can anyone supply some of his life story? I understand he wrote of his wife's demise in "Grace and Grit". What about that? --Blainster 21:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe I'll try to put something together. I was concentrating on his ideas first---and that section's not even complete yet (see my user page). --Goethean 20:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there may be too much detail on AQAL. Do you think some of this can be better discussed on its own page? If we condensed it and pointed to a new article, there would be more space for a bio. What little info there is available on his life seems to be in the bio by Frank Visser, Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion. I will see what I can come up with from that book to include here. --Blainster 03:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do any thinkers other than Wilber use the term AQAL?

If not, a seperate article on AQAL runs the risk of getting deleted. I created a seperate article on Neo-Perennial Philosophy and Wetman made it a redirect to Ken Wilber. I questioned him about it (although now I can't find the conversation in his usertalk archives), and he claimed that the deletion was in accordance with wikipedia policy. --Goethean 15:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Wetman might have deleted it because of it's stub nature. I wouldn't hesitate to kill the redirect and expand the article. In any case it would have been only a guideline and not 'policy'. He was being overbold. --Blainster 23:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

At last, I have included some biographical material from the Visser book. See what you think. The article is now pushing the 32k recommended maximum. I think there is too much material on Da Free John in the influences section. If there is no strong objection I will trim it after awhile. --Blainster 22:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Good biographical section. I would be happy with a trimming of the Adi Da section, but the subtleties should be retained. It was added by an anonymous user in the first place. --goethean ॐ 00:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I just can't see all the material on Adi Da being included here beyond a deserved mention— it's Wilber's article. If you think the material should be saved, I suggest putting it in Adi Da's article. Getting into the details does not seem kind to Wilber. --Blainster 23:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that you cut the Adi Da material excessively. --goethean ॐ 18:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

My edits represented my opinion only. Feel free to put back what you want. I won't guarantee I like it, but I don't foresee an edit war. :) --Blainster 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Another option is adding the AQAL text to the article on Integral (philosophy) --goethean ॐ 19:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I also think it is time to begin putting some of the theory into linked articles as the Guide to long articles suggests. How about moving the name Integral to Integral theory (philosophy) and putting some selected material (your decision) there? --Blainster 23:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I moved the AQAL stuff to AQAL. I like your idea. Maybe I'll merge AQAL with integral and put it at Integral theory (philosophy).--goethean ॐ 18:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does the Beatles song "Getting Better" (Sgt. Pepper's) keep running through my head? The treatments look much more balanced now (in terms of length). If we find a picture or two I think we will soon have a candidate for Featured Article status. --Blainster 20:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't the current version does justice to Wilber's involvement with Adi Da. Wilber has said, almost in so many words, that Adi Da is the greatest guy in the world today and possibly ever. The article should reflect the depth of that praise. - Nat Krause 09:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

True - Wilber still (as far as I know) considers Adi Da's writings and teachings to some of the most radically enlightened around. However, there was a sexual scandal involving Adi Da some years ago.

Wilber said something to the effect that it's not at all uncommon for someone to reach the heights of realization, with sexual-emotional unfinished businsess "lurking" below, which will present itself in symptoms and acting out (to be worked on and healed, in my opinion).

So, my take (guess) on Wilber's endorsement of Adi Da is that he still fully (or near to that) endorses the teachings and writings of Adi Da as universal wisdom of the highest order, but separates that from the personal man and his foibles, if you get my meaning. Centerlesscenter 03:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Centerlesscenter, Wilber never fully seperates from Adi Da, and when does chide him, it is mild and then one finds other places around the same time period, where he openly embraces Adi Da. I find it all confusing and sad that Wilber tries to wiggle out of the situation by saying in essence "we all have our foibles." Adi Da has more than just mere foibles! -- Dasein512

holons

In regard to this edit, are ideas, poems, and theories holons? I'm not sure. --goethean 18:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, they are artifacts. See [1] on Frank Vissers site. --Nils 08:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Both Koffman and Wilber needlessly confuse the issue. I took this up on a conference call with Wilber two years ago, and he was still offering confusing accounts of holons (and all ideas he associates - heaps, artifacts, individual/social). I suggest to keep it simple. Define holon in the most basic terms (something whole that is also a part of some other whole), and then define subsequent distinctions as necessary (sentient vs non-sentient, for example). An artwork, no matter the quality, depth of beauty, or consciousness of the creator, is a holon, no exceptions. Objectively the poem, song, building, ballet is a whole 'thing' (it is 'framed' in some way), and it is also part of a larger whole 'thing', such as the overal discipline (poetry, music, architecture, dance, and so on). There are also smaller wholes within the piece of art. A music composition is made up of notes, rhythms, timbres, etc. That you have to be very careful in the terms you use to discuss artwork holons (which are, also, artifacts) compared to, for example, human holons, is elementary, and should require no long explanation why. It should also be clear that Wilber's work primarily concentrates on the human holon (through broad psychological inquiry and assertion) and leaves discussion of non-sentient holons for, at best, a couple footnotes or toss off sentences here and there. This is a choice of his, one entirely his to make. Wilber has been confusing on the issue (confusingly forwarding the notion of artwork holons in EOS, then switching to an endorsement of Kofman's alternate view, that for intents and purposes does not consider artifacts to be holons). So again, I say keep it simple. An artwork is a holon, end of debate on the label; cue discussion of what the actual ramifications of that assertion are on the world of art - a far more interesting direction, one I take in my own work. -- Matthew Dallman 13.Dec.2005

Dallman's comments should be read with caution, since Dallman has publicised a very unpleasent falling-out with Wilber and is currently creating an alternative approach to an integral theory of art which is set out on his blog. Dallman's disagreement with Wilber on the definition of a holon should be seen as a disagreement among theorists rather than fact and should be treated NPOV.

Wilber's illness

Wilber has had a chronic illness since 1985 (see bio section). In Visser's book (p. 159) and on Wilber's website it is identified as "RNase Enzyme Deficiency Disease" (REDD). Strangely, there is only one similar reference (to RNase Enzyme Dysfunction Disease) and no other references on any websites other than those related to Wilber (example: Visser's Integral World. So I left out a specific mention in the article. Any ideas on what the disease might be? An aquaintance who attended a seminar at the Integral Institute last month mentioned that Wilber seemed to lack energy and lectured sitting down. --Blainster 00:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I found 26,000 hits. [2]--goethean ॐ 00:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a few more, but if you don't quote the whole phrase, a lot of what's there is completely unrelated. I see there is an RNase-L form which I didn't see earlier, and from what info there is, it looks like what he has might be what's known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. If so, the Wiki article certainly doesn't indicate any conclusive diagnosis as indicated by Wilberites. --Blainster 00:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Try to read this http://www.cfids-me.org/redd/ --[Moscow, Russia] 27 October 2005

I think I have heard that's HIV/AIDS that he has. Only a rumor though

The neo-perennial philosophy - a question and suggestion for the author

The article states. in the section/subsection "Ideas > The neo-perennial philosophy":

"Others, including Georg Feuerstein, argue that this is a confusion between concepts of differentiated nondualist doctrines...."

I did not edit this, but I find the "this" a wee bit vague. I'm assuming you mean "this" to refer to Wilber's "neo-perennial philosophy", but it's possible to take it to refer to Arvan Harvat's comment. I feel the article would be clearer, if you replaced the word "this" with a clear phrase denoting what GF is critiquing. Acutally, I want to make sure (and am asking here whether) you mean that Feuerstein is referring to Wilber's neo-perennial philosophy. Are you? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centerlesscenter (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 October 2005.

Good point. Fixed. — goethean ॐ 14:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The pre/trans fallacy - a minor edit

I edited "The pre/trans fallacy" section thusly:

I capitalized "Divine" (a quibble) -

I added - "....and can appear on the surface to be the same...." and "....a fallacy of reduction...." and "....a fallacy of elevation".

I also changed "Wilber characterizes his early work to falling victim to the pre/trans fallacy" to "Wilber characterizes himself as falling victim to the pre/trans fallacy in his early work." This may be a syntactical quibble, but I think it is a tiny bit more on point syntactically.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Centerlesscenter (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 October 2005.

I liked the decapitalized "divine" for some reason. — goethean ॐ 14:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean - more egalitarian and immanent/transcendent - less (Sprial Dynamics blue meme/level) "Kingly" (as in mythic Jehovah or whichever mythic-membership level Daddy-God). I changed it back to lower case. - Centerlesscenter 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a psychologist

Wilber isn't a psychologist, a common misconception. From the American Psychological Association website: "Psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology from an organized, sequential program in a regionally accredited university or professional school." I didn't feel it was important enough to put all that in the main article, but I'll put it here if anyone wonders what the difference is. - Memoryis 6 December 2006

Perhaps that is a bit of overstatement. The APA's definition specifically refers to a "professional psychologist", by which they mean a clinical psychologist, and rightly wish to restrict to persons with a terminal degree. A mere "psychologist" on the other hand might be anyone who has studied the subject sufficiently to merit a bachelor's or master's degree. Otherwise the APA might be bringing lawsuits against uncounted universities who award those other degrees. --Blainster 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

article protection

I put this page under protection, because I want the page to be clear of bias in favor or unfavor of Wilber and his work. I am willing to discuss improving this entry of bias. Dasein512Dasein512

Only administrators are allowed to insert the "protected" template. Please discuss here any other changes that you plan on making to the article. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? Anyone can edit Wikipedia. How can I become an administrator then? And again, I offer to discuss more fully on how to rid this page of bias. Dasein512Dasein512

Stop inserting the "protected" template into this article. You can be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do not follow the rules. If you have specific problems with the article, you may bring them up here. No, I am not an administrator. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Daesin - What are your concerns regarding bias? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.59.221 (talk • contribs) .

For instance bias shown: Primary sources and "authorized" websites Authorized by whom? Wilber? His followers? If one thinks a website, is not pro-Wilber, then this is not the place to let people know. By putting "authorized" can have a debiliating psychological effect on how people will perceive Wilber and his work. This is a place of knowledge, not of opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

Bull. But nonetheless, when you deleted the phrase "authorized websites" I left your edit intact. You have about five minutes to give me your problems with the current version of the article or I am removing the NPOV template, which MUST be accompanied by NPOV complaints on the talk page. As for your other complaint, that it is Shambhala who quoted Charles Taylor, it is also completely without merit. The quotation was attributed – correctly – to Shambhala. That's who said it. That's who the article claims said it. There's no bias here, except mine own of course. Your edit will be reverted.

In my opinion, this article needs work, and could be more critical of Wilber. But the constructive resolution is to write some decent prose, not to delete correctly attribited material and insert inappropriate templates. I suggest that you learn a little about Wikipedia before you start trying to bully editors. — goethean ॐ 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, goethean, but I haven't been hostile to you, I would appreciate the same. The fact that Shambhala quotes Charles Taylor, but doesn't tell us where they GET the quote from? --- means the quote is dubious and unreliable, therefore, doesn't merit it as factual. It is not a verifiable source, to state what Wilber's publishers state, as meaning to be objective. It is not objective if it is not verifiable. No one has yet found a source from Taylor himself making such a statement. If so please post it otherwise, it is a subjective opinion. I have asked several times for you to email, please do so. And there is bias, Goethean, if the publishers of Wilber are posting a statement without stating where they got from it, shows BIAS. Yes, the publisher was the source, but even that source didn't give a source. I believe others have argued this point on this talk page. Am I making sense here anyone? I think I am. I am honestly trying to make this page better. Therefore, I am reverting to the original edit.

An disputed issue with a single quotation hardly adds up to impartiality, Dasein. Is that all you got? You sound like you have an axe to grind, frankly. Perhaps you should let us know something about your interest in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.59.221 (talk • contribs) .

When I started editing, there was numerous statements that showed bias, look back to my revisions. The 'Taylor' issue is the most poignant that I've seen so far. Once again, I invite you to email me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

The article does not claim that the Taylor quotation is authentic. All it claims is that Shambhala quoted it. "According the Shambhala Sun, Taylor said x." That's all the article says. Do you have any reason to believe that the quotation is not authentic?

And I have no reason or inclination to email you. Wikipedia conversations should be public. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, gee, Wilber who is looking to be view as authentic to academia, what motive is there not to post a more known philosopher, who seems to argue in Wilber's favor? The reason I want to email you to discuss your hostility. I have made public time and again what I feel when I came to look at this site, the pro-bias for Wilber. What is wrong with making this article about facts and not as a post board for Wilber's agenda? I —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

So in other words, you have no evidence that the quotation is false, you just can't believe that Charles Taylor said it. Don't you think that Charles Taylor would have made a little bit of a stink if the Shambhala Sun was going around attributing false statements to him? I know he's a big name, but I think he would have gotten wind of it by now.

If the Taylor issue is the most "poignant", then you've got nothing. What is stopping you from editing the article? — goethean ॐ 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to email me, you can do so here. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think someone like Taylor would get wind of this, not if he has his students checking online every hour on the hour, for statements that might be false about Taylor, this may be a habit of others, but I highly doubt he has the resources to do such a thing. It is most poignant because it shows reckless disregard for the truth. Did the author look to back up such a statement with another source. Otherwise putting it on Wikipedia is tantamount to hearsay or just plain telephone game! I am an admirer of Wilber's work, and would like to see a truthful description on the personhood of Wilber and his work. And p.s. do you think Taylor even would know what in the world is Shambhala Sun, this publishing press isn't as recognized as say Doubleday or Random House. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

At Wikipedia, we attribute quotations to their source. It's called research. Look into it. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides scroll up to Wilber = mumbo jumpo, I am not the first person to make the same concerns, concerning Taylor. So, doesn't it show that Taylor statement is not based on a verifiable source. If you are interested in having a clear representation on Wilber, why not email Charles Taylor himself and ask if this was a true statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

I will email him. But if I get an email from him and forward it to you, how will you know that I didn't forge the email? It's easy enough to do. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, goethean, thats why i wrote an email to him too, but then again, you wouldn't believe me if i forwarded it to you either.

If you are right, and in the end Taylor himself says he said this, then I apologize on the Taylor matter. But if he says, he did not say such a comment, the whole paragraph should be subjected to deletion.

Either way, I am rather tired of trying to get my point across, I believe differently than you goethean. I believe having objective facts are important to an encyclopedia and not citing a source that is not objective on the matter of Ken Wilber, since their main objective is to sell Wilber to academia and sell his books for their profit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dasein512 (talk • contribs) .

goethean, I guess Taylor affair continues to prove that Taylor does not support Wilber's philosophy? I agree with Reid, this page should have the NPOV stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.191 (talk • contribs)

What "Taylor affair"? Please elaborate. Who is Reid? — goethean ॐ 14:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice goethean, that Taylor never answered email back to verify the quotation, therefore the facts remain that the quotation is a deliberate fabrication on the part of Shambala Sun! IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.191 (talk • contribs)

The article makes no claims regarding the accuracy of the Taylor quotation. It attribuites the quote to Shambhala Sun magazine. In my opinion, the fact that a high-profile philosopher neglected to reply to your email proves nothing. — goethean ॐ 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm Goethean, I didn't write that comment, but the fact that Taylor or his staff didn't notice the email by now, means that the likelihood is that "Shambhala Sun" deliberately either (a) took things out of context ---geeze that sounds something Wilber and his fanatics would do or (b) it was an all-out lie just to gain Wilber's ego a boost. Wilber has a terrible need to feel validated by academia. Or in reality Wilberians have this need even more, to prove that their philosophy is the best, their way of thinking ideal, their way of, you get the point. The whole paragraph IMO shouldn't be there BECAUSE it can't be independently verified. Dont make Wilber's page another example of Wikireality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

As we have discussed repeatedly, all that the article claims is that the Shambhala Sun said something. And that the Sun said it is verifiable. Furthermore, I'm afraid that the fact that one of the world pre-eminent philosophers didn't reply to your email says more about his schedule than it does about this article. — goethean ॐ 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sun says its verifiable! Have them back it up! To be verifiable, you have to proof each words you say as verifiable. I am sure that in this day and age, the publishers have to have a signed document from the quoter to give permission to use the quote. Its called copyright law I believe. Maybe you are write that Taylor is too busy to be involved in all email questions. But still its unverifiable. If it was a quote from Adi Da, I would not question such a quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

Tribalism

I'd dispute the understanding of tribalism as pre-rational and a classic example of the fallacy. In the context it would seem to be directed towards indigenous, primitive cultures, but the quote from Brief History of Everything seems to be referent to cliquishness of nation-states, rather than indigenous societies. It has yet to be demonstrated that indigenous societies are 'pre-rational,' Marvin Harris has described the apparentally irrational behavior that we see in tribal societies is in fact recognized to be functional, and quite rational. L Hamm 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good point. I skipped BHoE for SES. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this edit fix it? — goethean ॐ 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate. Thanks.L Hamm 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a press release

Could this article get any more kissy-face? It goes on and on with more information than anyone really needed to know ("Wilber on Science", "Wilber on Darwinism", etc., etc.) And shouldn't such glowing remarks like "A number of important spiritual teachers have embraced much of what Wilber has to say" and "Wilber has a growing influence among scholars, business and organizational theorists, political analysts, and left-handed diabetic housewives" be sourced?? This totally reads like a promotional piece for Wilber in every way. And most telling of all, the "Critiques" section consists of one small paragraph with only one person's criticism (William Irwin Thompson, himself hardly a reputable source). There are a lot of serious professionals out there who are extremely critical of Wilber, and this article deliberately ignores them. wikipediatrix 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Which professionals? Professional whats? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.193.80 (talk • contribs) .

It goes on and on with more information than anyone really needed to know ("Wilber on Science", "Wilber on Darwinism", etc., etc.)

This doesn't strike me as a valid criticism. These are all areas that I found interesting. Material can be added and these sections can subsequently be made more concise, of course, but I don't find the current structure to be biased. YMMV.

And shouldn't such glowing remarks...be sourced??

I agree, and I'll remove the offending remarks. They could be the indirect source of the pushback the article is receiving here on the talk page. In my defense, I don't think I wrote them.

And most telling of all, the "Critiques" section consists of one small paragraph with only one person's criticism.

There is more criticism in the "Neo-perennial philosophy" section. But you're right. Point me to a source, online or off, and I'll read it and report on it. Or you can do this yourself. I welcome criticism of Wilber being added to this page and have from day one. But note that I don't consider dismissals by adolescent hacks like Geoffery Falk to be criticism. And I don't share your contempt for W. I. Thompson. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have contempt for Thompson, far from it! I just don't consider him the best of sources. I like him just fine, but I tend to sometimes take a grain of salt with him, like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, John Lilly, Alvin Toffler, Tony Robbins, Alan Watts, etc. Don't know Geoffery Falk. wikipediatrix 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with wikipediatrix's sentiments, I found this page to read like a glowing endorsement, and it is funny that one small paragraph explains Wilber's critics, and as someone points out it is also found in 'neo-perennial' section, why does one have to tease the criticisms out? It just seems to be highly favorable to Wilber and nearly similar to Integral Wiki, IMO. Goethean, I respect your thoughts, but I also find it funny that you seem to feel you are gatekeeper on the page, but then concede anyone can edit, but you will reedit afterwards to what you feel is correct.--Dasein512

Dasein - You talk tough, but when challenged, you have no further comments to add of your own. How would you change the page to better reflect what you see as an NPOV. The only point you have come up with despite numerous requests is the moronic Falk document. Tell us now what would 'even it out' in your view or stop criticising Goethean. Put up or shut up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.1.45.6 (talk • contribs) .

Whoever wrote last comment seems to talk to the talk, but not walk the walk. And I am not the only one who feels these sentiments. -- Dasein512

The very fact that Wilbur is essentially unknown in the Academic Philosophy community and that nearly all of the references in this article come from the author or his movement's journals makes the case plain. This article is a good start, but needs greatly expanded criticism. In short, it needs the NPOV stick. Reid 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

American to Buddhist

I edited the first line so that instead of "American Philospher" it reads to "Buddhist Philospher". Ken Wilber being a Buddhist is more relevant to his ideas than his being an American. That he is an American is anyway said earlier (when his birth location is given). MT 2005

I disagree leave American and add Buddhist - I don't even think Buddhist would be the right term either since he wants to be "Integral" which means IMO beyond just Buddhist, etc. But thats my opinion. Look at Jon Stewart's wiki page it refers to him as an American comedian, etc. We do know that Stewart was raised in New Jersey, because its in the biography section. So leave the American part in. -- Dasein512

Jon Stewart's comedy is very much a commentary on American current events. Furthermore, I'd say the pidgeonhole of him as a Buddhist Philosopher is much more descriptive. Besides, didn't Wilber receive a 1 million dollar payment from the Japanese government to expand his theories? This seems to suggest that his role expands greater than him just being American.

Reworking

I've edited the article to add footnotes, comment out some unsourced quotations, and remove some of the more adulatory prose. I've noticed that there are some disputes about the section on Wilber's ideas and criticisms thereof, and if the editors here are willing, I'd be happy to act as an unofficial mediator to develop a version that is acceptable to everyone. --bainer (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Critique section

I've just added a whole lot more material to the critique section, to help in balancing this entry out, as some people have expressed concerns that the entry as it now stands is too one-sided. We need to get more people to add aditional critiques, because I am not conversent in all aspects of Wilber's tecahings, or in what all his critics are saying.

I notice that we currently have two Critiques sections here, so either they should be merged, or one of them should be renamed.

I'm not sure if you guys want to keep all the criticism in one area (at the bottom of the page) or spread it throughout the page, so that the criticism of Wilber's anti-darwinism can go in the section "Wilber on Darwinism", and so on. Anyway I'll leave that to you  :-) M Alan Kazlev 03:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Alan -- great job on the criticism section! — goethean ॐ 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean :-) M Alan Kazlev 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Critiques should remain in one, or adjacent sections. Some of the more contentious articles on Wikiipedia read more like debates than encyclopedia articles, with alternating pro/con statements. That kind of style is unacceptable. We need a coherent presentation of the philosophy, and either a summary or links to articles about alternative viewpoints. --Blainster 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "critique"

I have removed the text on Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's "critique" of Wilber, and moved the link to the external links. I don't find her critique – which is really more of a rant – notable. The claim that it will be published in the future is not something that Wikipedia would document. — goethean ॐ 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

charles taylor

'scuse a newbie for butting in, but here's a link to a ken wilber website that mentions an anthology put together by wilber; it includes such names as john searle, charles taylor, and howard gardner. i can't claim to have read or owned the book, but it does at least seem to establish a more than accidental relationship between taylor and wilber. 172.160.132.135 7 march 06 2059 est

As far as I know Kindred Visions has been "about to be published" since 1999[3]. — goethean ॐ 21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There must be a reason why it was never published, maybe Wilber couldn't back up those he said who were going to write in it? a la Taylor? Wilber really does have this need for acceptance, but isn't he satisfied with his cult following?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.191 (talk • contribs)

ideas/critiques

provided a more direct route to "shunyata" entry (buddhist term transl. as "emptiness")

172.140.213.108 02:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ken Wilber's observations on truth

The following material was placed on Truth. I have moved it here in the hope that you may be able to use it in the main article. If someone could be so kind as to summarise and place a short paragraph on Truth, I would be grateful. Banno 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did so and it was removed after about ten minutes. I'm moving the full text to the AQAL article. — goethean ॐ 16:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you did so in the middle of a brief (?) edit war. Perhaps you might try again when things cool down. Banno 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Banno, goethean is always in an editing war, he somehow thinks he is the owner of the page, crazy huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.191 (talk • contribs)

References

There are some url links and footnotes. The links need to be converted to footnotes, since footnotes are the more thorough method.--Esprit15d 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Found this article in Category:Wikipedia references cleanup. I've started the conversion. There are about a dozen left. I've using the {{cite web}} template that was used by the existing <ref>.... </ref> footnotes. —ERcheck (talk) @ 03:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Completed. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilber's recent reaction to critics

I find this section deeply problematic. It is being used to further critique wilber, so is not genuinely 'Wilber's reponse'. Wilson's June 8th responce is not mere polemic, he does argue.

Wilber's attitude to critics of his work is one of antagonism and hyperbole. This was especially brought out in two blog posts. In the first, dated the 8th of June, he compared himself to Wyatt Earp, launched an emotional diatribe against anonymous critics, while not addressing any of their arguments, and concluding with an ad hominem attack against his collegue Frank Visser, for no other reason than that Visser hosts Integral World, a website which contains a number of cogent critical essays against Wilber's work.

This whole section is simply to misrepresent Wilber's responce. His language is not the usual academic discourse, but this seems fair enough given its blogging context but he does clearly argue his case. It seems that most criticts in trying to attack Wilber as 'puerile, ranting' are doing it themselves and the slant of this section is 'hyperbole' itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketha (talk • contribs)

I have edited this section to include Wilber's rationale for this "outburst", which can be gleaned from having read the entirety of the blog texts surrounding it. I do not believe my characterization to be either flattering or denigrating, whereas the remainder of the text seems to have evinced a number of negative adjectives regarding Wilber's work without a corresponding "laundry list" of positive characterizations of his work. Experiment IV 11:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ketha, I put your response in the article. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think something along these lines should be added: "His critiques go beyond a mere need to correct, but to try to make the critics feel incompetent and to increase Wilber's stature." Wilber is a wannable philosopher who wants to be treated by academia, he has a clear cult following, but that has never satisfied him. In essence, Wilber's critiques try to demean and make critics feel incompetent. Also, a clear fact is that his critiques rarely seem to address the issue the critic brings to the discussion. Wilber invites dialogue, but talks above the person in dialogue. Wilber would do best to learn that being spiritual means being humble. Clearly Wilber is no Gandhi or no understanding that buddhism transcends the ego, and Wilber is all-ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.191 (talk • contribs)

It will be difficult to write on the incident in a way that will be acceptable to both Wilber's admirers, such as User:Ketha, and his more dismissive critics, such as User:Dasein512/68.194.114.191. The best policy is to describe exactly what happened in a concise and unimpeachable way. I found the original description by User:M Alan Kazlev to be largely accurate and fair. Does Wilber have permalinks to the blog posts? — goethean ॐ 14:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi goethean, in this section, you should explain tiers than with the truth, his talk of upper and lower tiers. Wilber likes to dismiss those attacks that he thinks are 'below' him, so he states they are mean green memes! Don't you love the simple language Wilber tries to use, "mean-green memes" Poor dear Wilber! Wilber loves to dismiss critics, talk over them, not respond to their critique but attack them personally. Actually, come to think about it, he would do well in the academian world!!! Wilber forgets the simple truth of projection - we attack what we are afraid to admit about ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dasein512

Dasein: Somehow you managed to delete Goethean's original question, which was "where can Wilber's posts regarding this subject be found as permanent links?" or some such and managed to replace it with your own bullshit "Wilberian" analysis. Please take your own Freudian issues and have them analyzed before you "project" them onto figures who are visible because they have made themselves so. Experiment IV 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Permanent links to the relevant blog entries are found at What We Are, That We See. Part I: Response to Some Recent Criticisms in a Wild West Fashion; What We Are, That We See. Part II: What Is The Real Meaning of This?; and The Unbearable Lightness of Wyatt Earpy. Followup #1. These are directly linked at Ken Wilber's Blog on kenwilber.com. Experiment IV 07:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow Experiment IV, you fail to even response to the arguement at hand, a classic Wilberian mistake. Why does a man like Wilber get his panties in a bunch, when he is criticized, especially when it comes in his opinions from "Green memes" His philosophy is one of elitism and should be rejected on that premise alone. Putting people into different memes is clearly meant to prove superiority over others, to label and to discrimate. Any Freudian issues here comes not from me. Having a negative opinion of someone's philosophy has nothing to do with Freud. Read Freud, much more truth from Freud than Wilber and thats saying a lot! Experiment ,if you value Wilber so much, and Wilber values himself so much - ie boomeritis!, why do you care that many disagree with you? Why do you need to be validated? Go on and believe a philosophy that takes things from psychology, philosophy, science, and uses them out of context to further one's one agenda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs)

Facts and opinions

Hi,

I've changed the following passage:

"The reluctance of other academic philosophers to warm to Wilber's work is undoubtedly due to its embrace of mysticism. To put it in terms of Wilber's philosophy, much of modern philosophy remains within (...)"

to:

"Some of Wilber's supporters believe that the reluctance of other academic philosophers to warm to Wilber's work must be due to its embrace of mysticism. According to Wilber's philosophy, much of modern philosophy remains within (...)"

because it's simpy not a fact, much less an "undoubted" fact, that that's why academics in general don't "warm to Wilber's work." That's rather an *opinion*, and should be given as such -- in the reader's (and in honesty's) best interest and in conformity with Wikipedia's quality standards. As for the second part of the passage, it's also not a fact that "much of modern philosophy remains within (...)" The only fact is that *according to Wilber's philosophy* "much of modern philosophy remains within ..." It's just a detail, but, especially in an encyclopedia, an important one. IsiSev 02:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

long article

The article is now very long. The AQAL section has already been broken out. I would appreciate any suggestions regarding which section(s) to break out next. — goethean ॐ 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I've put the references section in small type. You might want to break out the bibliography into a separate article? See-alsos may not be necessary in such a long article.

Also, whoever the primary contributors are here, have you looked at bringing this article to featured article standards and then bringing it to WP:FAC? It seems well progressed. Outriggr 10:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic credentials

Academic authority is not absolute in its claims of who or what is important in a field like philosophy. Here is a statement by Roderick T. Long, professor of philosophy at Auburn: It's a mistake, though, to think that the validation of <insert name here>'s legacy depends on academic approval. Human progress is often driven by people either outside or on the margins of the academic establishment, as for example the philosophes of the 18th century or the Austrian revival of the 20th.--Blainster 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ken Wilber/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I didn't rate this article, but since this is the second time in the last month or so that I've noticed someone alluding to the fact (or directly stating) that the Wilber article is not up to "encyclopedic standards", I would like to see some discussion as to what exactly is wrong with it. I'm not saying the article is perfect, and I'm not somehow taking offense to such an assessment. I really would like to hear from "experts" what specifically is wrong with the article from an encyclopedic standpoint. I realize that in the not-so-distant past the article was subject to a fair amount of edit warring, but it seems to have been stable for a while now, so perhaps it's time to work on getting it up to GA-class (or better), if it isn't there already. I've looked at the GA-class criteria, and apart from past edit wars I'm personally not able to point to any specific reasons that the article shouldn't qualify for a GA-class rating. Since I admit that I'm not an expert on "encyclopedic quality", I really would like to hear some expert opinions since the person who rated this article hasn't bothered to provide any explanation. --Grey 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC) the article could use a personal infobox, more pictures, and an expanded intro. other than that i agree that the article is GA/A quality. --Sapphic 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC) OK, cool. That's something concrete to work on then. Thanks! --Grey 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)