This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Integral theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned regarding claim in the lead of
"The concept is also referred to as integral approach,[7][8] integral consciousness,[9] integral culture,[10][not in citation given] integral paradigm,[11] integral philosophy,[12][13] integral society,[14] integral spirituality,[15] and integral worldview.[9] "
seems like inference and a wiki:original research should we delete this claim ? Shrikanthv ( talk) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we discuss here please regarding ambiguity or "disambigator" the WP:NAMB itself mentions an example of tree where it could be allowed and this makes sense here -- Shrikanthv ( talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For three years, I taught a course on integrative and postmodern psychology at a doctoral clinical psychology program where "Integral Psychology" was a required text (not my choice). After years of grappling with his ideas through his books and recorded interviews, I found there is little to Wilber's "philosophy" beyond arranging others' ideas to reach the conclusion that Wilber's spirituality (much of it borrowed from Sri Aurobindo) is the highest form of human development. Wilber essentially repackages the concept of self-actualization as a transcendent spiritual achievement. He attempts to co-opt most other traditions; and those types of religion and spirituality that don't conform to his synthesis he derides as primitive. The logical parts of this theory are actually fairly basic: developing oneself in all areas to be a well-rounded and self-aware person. The rest is simply his attempt to make himself out as a guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C100:18D0:0:0:0:F32E ( talk) 00:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Mforman30: some minor points:
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This table does not seem to belong here. Is there an article on the topic? If so, we should just link to it as a main article. If not, the table is simply a form of original research or synthesis, even though there are citations, the material should be presented in a textual, explanatory form somewhere. Is it? Same with the other table. This is not how we normally present complex theories. Skyerise ( talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@ 24.206.71.22 and Mforman30: Wikipedia is not a WP:Laundry list. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the title of the article is "Integral theory". This means that the phrase should not be capitalized except when at the beginning of sentence when Integral only should be capitalized. This is common practiced for theories: they are not proper nouns, they are phrases made of common nouns. We don't write "Relativity Theory", we write "relativity theory". Also note that headings use sentence caps: only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized. So "Four quadrants", not "Four Quadrants". There are a lot of other improper capitalizations in the article. We Don't Capitalize Words Just Because We Think They Are Important. If they are not proper nouns, they should not be capitalized. Skyerise ( talk) 22:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Are we citing Visser only to his own self-published web site? Does he meet the exception for self-published works by being independently published on the topic and/or widely considered a subject-matter expert? If not, everything cited to his website should be removed. Skyerise ( talk) 22:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. Nevertheless, a few secondary sources that mention Visser's site: Versluis, Esbjorn. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Integral theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am concerned regarding claim in the lead of
"The concept is also referred to as integral approach,[7][8] integral consciousness,[9] integral culture,[10][not in citation given] integral paradigm,[11] integral philosophy,[12][13] integral society,[14] integral spirituality,[15] and integral worldview.[9] "
seems like inference and a wiki:original research should we delete this claim ? Shrikanthv ( talk) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we discuss here please regarding ambiguity or "disambigator" the WP:NAMB itself mentions an example of tree where it could be allowed and this makes sense here -- Shrikanthv ( talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For three years, I taught a course on integrative and postmodern psychology at a doctoral clinical psychology program where "Integral Psychology" was a required text (not my choice). After years of grappling with his ideas through his books and recorded interviews, I found there is little to Wilber's "philosophy" beyond arranging others' ideas to reach the conclusion that Wilber's spirituality (much of it borrowed from Sri Aurobindo) is the highest form of human development. Wilber essentially repackages the concept of self-actualization as a transcendent spiritual achievement. He attempts to co-opt most other traditions; and those types of religion and spirituality that don't conform to his synthesis he derides as primitive. The logical parts of this theory are actually fairly basic: developing oneself in all areas to be a well-rounded and self-aware person. The rest is simply his attempt to make himself out as a guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C100:18D0:0:0:0:F32E ( talk) 00:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Mforman30: some minor points:
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This table does not seem to belong here. Is there an article on the topic? If so, we should just link to it as a main article. If not, the table is simply a form of original research or synthesis, even though there are citations, the material should be presented in a textual, explanatory form somewhere. Is it? Same with the other table. This is not how we normally present complex theories. Skyerise ( talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@ 24.206.71.22 and Mforman30: Wikipedia is not a WP:Laundry list. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that the title of the article is "Integral theory". This means that the phrase should not be capitalized except when at the beginning of sentence when Integral only should be capitalized. This is common practiced for theories: they are not proper nouns, they are phrases made of common nouns. We don't write "Relativity Theory", we write "relativity theory". Also note that headings use sentence caps: only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized. So "Four quadrants", not "Four Quadrants". There are a lot of other improper capitalizations in the article. We Don't Capitalize Words Just Because We Think They Are Important. If they are not proper nouns, they should not be capitalized. Skyerise ( talk) 22:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Are we citing Visser only to his own self-published web site? Does he meet the exception for self-published works by being independently published on the topic and/or widely considered a subject-matter expert? If not, everything cited to his website should be removed. Skyerise ( talk) 22:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. Nevertheless, a few secondary sources that mention Visser's site: Versluis, Esbjorn. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)