This article was nominated for deletion on February 20 2015. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Reviving... below for why the article page once again exists after the AfD produced a delete outcome. |
The history here is rather complex. This page "Spiral Dynamics" was nominated for deletion in 2015, with a result of "delete", it seems mostly due to the old page being too closely tied to the 1996 Spiral Dynamics book and not enough other references being present to satisfy notability.
The page " Spiral dynamics" (note capitalization- although it is a proper noun so "Spiral Dynamics" would be the correct page) was nominated for deletion in 2005 with an outcome of "keep."
Either way, the topic was merged into Don Edward Beck's page. However, certainly at this point there is a great deal of activity around Spiral Dynamics beyond what Beck does, including two active variations other than Beck's. Plus recent work revising and extending the concepts further (e.g. Hanzi Freinacht). The discussion at Talk:Don Edward Beck#Spiral Dynamics further explains the rational for reviving this page.
I believe I have included enough references outside of the four main SD figures (Beck, Cowan, Todorovic, and Wilber) to establish notability. I also think I have avoided a promotional tone (feedback on that is most welcome).
-- Ixat totep ( talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion to add Laloux' book to the works that where inspired by DSi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.134.184 ( talk) 17:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Author "Said Elias Dawlabani" Foreword "Don E. Beck" should be a reference as well. This book, 286 pages with full index and 150 references/endnotes, is a direct (almost exact) extension of this 8 stage model into economics where we (could) have a smart model of government supporting people through the full cycle of human development (as we currently envision it.) This article and this topic is just beginning to grow, and definitely should not be deleted or relegated to a section under Don Beck (or Clare Graves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthambly ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Autarch:, as with your tags on Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence, I would greatly appreciate some guidance on what needs to be done to resolve these issues. Per WP:TC: Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. I am asking that you please follow through with these tags.
This is a tricky page to maintain because of various controversies associated with the topic (see above – I am sympathetic to some of the objections, TBH, but that's irrelevant), and past debates regarding the page have conflated controversies over the topic with issues with the page. I want to be sure we're addressing issues with the page and not with the page's subject.
I have read back through the article after reading up on the various tags and associated policies. Please see subsections below for individual tags and explain what motivated each of them in actionable terms. If I can fix them, I will. If they require another editor's involvement for additional perspective or some other reason, I can try to recruit someone. If there's nothing I can do to fix the problems, I'm happy to leave the tags in place pointing here for others to pick up. But I do need to understand the problems in order to do any of those things.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As noted on the other page, this is a pretty drastic tag to use without any guidance or context or prior discussion. When I found the Spiral Dynamics section of Don Edward Beck's page (where a short version of this material was previously located), it was essentially in that state. So I did what I would normally do for this tag which was consult with other editors on the talk page, as can be seen at Talk:Don Edward Beck#Spiral Dynamics. Having done that already, I am not sure what else to do.
Autarch why do you think this page needs a total rewrite? I'm happy to leave this tag up with some guidance, but without further guidance I feel that this should be removed as non-actionable and/or covered more usefully by more specific tags.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The documentation for this tag refers to WP:PROMO. Taking the points in that policy one at a time:
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I grepped the page text for all of the words listed under WP:PEACOCK. The few matches were appropriately descriptive, e.g. "leading" in The culture around Spiral Dynamics has also been viewed negatively due to the prominence of the business and intellectual property concerns of its leading advocates, or in quotations such as "respected" in Avoid shame, defend reputation, be respected which is a description of the mindset of a specific stage.
I think it is self-evident that "real information" is imparted on the page.
I realize there are many other possible ways the article could run afoul of WP:PEACOCK but nothing is jumping out at me. I think this template should be removed unless you can provide some guidance on specific problematic wording. A few examples would do, I do not need a sentence-by-sentence account.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Autarch, this tag's documentation states: Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.
WP:NPOV is extremely important to me, particularly because of the tendency of Spiral Dynamics and/or Integral practitioners towards promotional tone that has plagued this page (on its own or as a section of Don Beck's page) in the past.
I believe I have laid out the theory and its motivation in neutral terms, feedback on this would be most welcome.
Regarding the factions, I chose the timeline format because it conveyed the information without needing to write a narrative account of the (often intensely personal) disagreements involved. That would have been challenging to do in a neutral manner, hence a graph of who worked with whom and a simple listing of significant publications and actions without (I hope) any value judgement of them. Please let me know, with specifics, if this attempt at neutrality has not succeeded.
I continue to expand the Spiral Dynamics#Criticism section (really, this whole article is only about half done), but have made a point to keep it more thorough than Spiral Dynamics#Influence and applications, which I think has produced an appropriately neutral presentation. There is no commentary on how great (or not great) any of the applications are.
What is missing in order to provide an appropriately neutral view?
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As with the same tag on Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence, I'm baffled by this one. Objectively, there are 64 citations for about 15 paragraphs, a table, and a timeline. No paragraph (and few sentences) lack citations, and there are no "citation needed" tags. Autarch I am inclined to remove this as other tags are more appropriate if there are problems with existing citations, but please do let me know where you see the need for more (as opposed to different/better) citations.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This is fairly plausible, but I would still appreciate some guidance. Most of the citations to Beck and Cowan's 1996 Spiral Dynamics book are for the factual quotations in the table of stages. That seems like an appropriate use of a primary source to me, as it is the subject of the page. Citations to Graves and other closely related figures in the timeline simply document the publications referenced in the timeline. Even there, the introductory paragraphs cite other sources (primarily Albion Butters's history of Spiral Dynamics, from the peer-reviewed journal Approaching Religion) for determining what should be in the timeline. While the format of the timeline is specific to this page, the significance of the things it identifies comes from other sources such as Butters.
The Spiral Dynamics#Criticism and Spiral Dynamics#Influence and applications are supported a variety of academic and applied sources. I do not consider Ken Wilber or others involved in the Integral community via either Wilber or Beck to be primary sources, as they all offer different perspectives on SD (which is part of what qualifies something as a secondary source, as I understand it). They also contradict each other (most notably Frank Visser's refutations of Ken Wilber's changes to the model), and Integral is its own thing with its own Wikipedia page separate from Spiral Dynamics.
Autarch, could you please provide some specifics of what is not appropriate about the sourcing? I'm happy to work on this but I think that, given the current level of detail of the article, there is a good balance.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Please join the conversation here before tagging this page regarding notability. This should serve as something of a notability FAQ. Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics is an umbrella term for several variations on an approach to things, which has persisted for a quarter-century and counting with (ahem) lively debate among the variations that continues today. The original theory has been published by major book publishers and in peer-reviewed journals. Many subsequent books/journals from mainstream publishers or university presses are cited by the article, making note of work done in North America, Europe, the Middle East, West Africa, and Southern Africa, demonstrating that the idea has global reach (it appears in east Asia as well, but that is not (yet) cited in the page).
There are several reasons why people think this, and incorrectly interpret the frequent appearance of the word "Integral" as a lack of independent sourcing. (Please note that I am not expressing an opinion about the legitimacy of Integral theory, only the degree to which SD and Integral are or are not the same thing.)
Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The primary sources are mostly used for factual information such as a date, or for a person stating their direct, relevant opinion (e.g. Cowan stating that his objection to Integral was a reason to split from Beck- he is an authority on his own opinion which is not further interpreted in the Wiki page). These are valid uses of a primary source.
Additionally, some who would be primary sources for Spiral Dynamics are instead being cited for information about Clare Graves, as relevant background material. In that sense, they are not primary sources for the subject of the page, even though the same people are involved.
Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Original conversation highlighted in the color "cornsilk".
Your edit comment states "Almost all citations are non-independent from SD or "Integral theory", and the rest are primary", but Spiral Dynamics is separate from Integral Theory. Please note that I am personally not associated with Integral, am generally skeptical of Wilber, and dislike the self-promotional tendencies of many people associated with Integral and/or Spiral Dynamics. I am not working on the page to promote them, and in some cases would be quite happy to leave them out entirely. But that would not be accurate.
Regarding notability, articles published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, or books by mainstream publishers are a commonly cited standard. The Spiral Dynamics page cites publications from:
While some (but not all) of the authors cited are associated with Integral, Wikipedia relies on the notability of the publisher and not a value judgement of the author or their ideas. Can you help me understand why you do not consider these sufficiently mainstream to be supportive?
Integral Leadership Review is cited, but only for book reviews indicating what information was published in which book, rather than citing the books themselves, and generally to support a point on how Integral views Spiral Dynamics (since, again, they are not the same thing). They are not used to support general notability.
Not all of the sources mentioning Integral are supportive of the "movement", or even associated with Wilber. For example, Frank Visser (who has published on the topic of Wilber through SUNY Press) is a noted critic. The California Institute of Integral Studies predates Wilber and is not associated with him. There are many people in history who have used the word "Integral", and the citation template does not have a field for "Integral but not Ken Wilber" :-D
Integral is also not the only philosophy cited as building on Spiral Dynamics. Metamodernism is a different and much more recent school of thought that (in one strain) builds on Spiral Dynamics, establishing a different and independent usage in a similar field.
What else is needed to properly establish notability? I feel like the very presence of the word "Integral" makes the page a recurring target (a position with which I have some sympathy). Since I don't care about defending Integral theory, I did my best to find publishers independent of it, with reputable peer review, association with research universities, or long mainstream publishing history. But it would be inaccurate to avoid mentioning Integral entirely. How can I improve this? What publishers would be considered acceptable?
Thanks for reading this far!
Ixat totep ( talk) 06:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JoelleJay: Thanks so much for engaging on this! Ixat totep ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding a subsection for feedback/discussion on the Spiral Dynamics#Timeline section. JoelleJay's feedback above included:
[The] whole timeline section come[s] off as overly-detailed and "in-universe". If the model is indeed only practiced by a small group of people and ignored by the majority of the field, then going into this much depth is definitely undue.
This went along with concerns that the table of levels had accessibility issues due to color, and was too jargon-y. I have addressed those concerns (and I think the updated table is far superior now), but have not done anything with the timeline.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
People new to SD/SDi are often confused by the conflicting material put out by different factions, and the acrimonious interactions among the advocates. It is very confusing when different SD sources may alternately praise or condemn the same aspect or related area. Or use conflicting color schemes (colors are the main way to identify stages). All of these conflicts may be apparent from the same person at different times, or different people at the same time.
The timeline provides a visual to understand who was collaborating or feuding at any given point, providing important context for understanding any sources or other material someone might find elsewhere on the internet.
It is also helpful to visualize where the key shifts appeared in publications.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I do think the basic visual of the timeline is fine. They are de-facto standard for any rock band with significant lineup changes, and for long political contests with many candidatesoften with more complex coloring (e.g. three colors per bar). Advocates and books/articles seem close enough to bands/albums or candidates/voting days for this to be an appropriate visualization.
It may be that the timeline is trying to do too much, though. I find it helpful to understand when key areas of practice were happening, or who owned the trademark in what, but should this be removed? The most important thing is understanding the collaboration/opposition changes.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The chronology was originally a way to show the key events without writing a lot of narrative and getting into a gossipy tone of who did what to whom. It is important to show which publications appear in the timeline, but I could see cutting it down to just those publications and making sure other truly key events are covered elsewhere now that there are sections with increasingly better sourcing describing the different approaches. Throwing the timeline up there was a quick way to get key points across. Feedback on this would be most welcome.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
There are red error messages throughout the Timeline section of this article as of August 27, 2023. Please fix. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Some sources looks like they don't fit the WP:RS criteria:
This article was nominated for deletion on February 20 2015. The result of the discussion was delete. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Reviving... below for why the article page once again exists after the AfD produced a delete outcome. |
The history here is rather complex. This page "Spiral Dynamics" was nominated for deletion in 2015, with a result of "delete", it seems mostly due to the old page being too closely tied to the 1996 Spiral Dynamics book and not enough other references being present to satisfy notability.
The page " Spiral dynamics" (note capitalization- although it is a proper noun so "Spiral Dynamics" would be the correct page) was nominated for deletion in 2005 with an outcome of "keep."
Either way, the topic was merged into Don Edward Beck's page. However, certainly at this point there is a great deal of activity around Spiral Dynamics beyond what Beck does, including two active variations other than Beck's. Plus recent work revising and extending the concepts further (e.g. Hanzi Freinacht). The discussion at Talk:Don Edward Beck#Spiral Dynamics further explains the rational for reviving this page.
I believe I have included enough references outside of the four main SD figures (Beck, Cowan, Todorovic, and Wilber) to establish notability. I also think I have avoided a promotional tone (feedback on that is most welcome).
-- Ixat totep ( talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion to add Laloux' book to the works that where inspired by DSi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.134.184 ( talk) 17:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Author "Said Elias Dawlabani" Foreword "Don E. Beck" should be a reference as well. This book, 286 pages with full index and 150 references/endnotes, is a direct (almost exact) extension of this 8 stage model into economics where we (could) have a smart model of government supporting people through the full cycle of human development (as we currently envision it.) This article and this topic is just beginning to grow, and definitely should not be deleted or relegated to a section under Don Beck (or Clare Graves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthambly ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Autarch:, as with your tags on Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence, I would greatly appreciate some guidance on what needs to be done to resolve these issues. Per WP:TC: Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. I am asking that you please follow through with these tags.
This is a tricky page to maintain because of various controversies associated with the topic (see above – I am sympathetic to some of the objections, TBH, but that's irrelevant), and past debates regarding the page have conflated controversies over the topic with issues with the page. I want to be sure we're addressing issues with the page and not with the page's subject.
I have read back through the article after reading up on the various tags and associated policies. Please see subsections below for individual tags and explain what motivated each of them in actionable terms. If I can fix them, I will. If they require another editor's involvement for additional perspective or some other reason, I can try to recruit someone. If there's nothing I can do to fix the problems, I'm happy to leave the tags in place pointing here for others to pick up. But I do need to understand the problems in order to do any of those things.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As noted on the other page, this is a pretty drastic tag to use without any guidance or context or prior discussion. When I found the Spiral Dynamics section of Don Edward Beck's page (where a short version of this material was previously located), it was essentially in that state. So I did what I would normally do for this tag which was consult with other editors on the talk page, as can be seen at Talk:Don Edward Beck#Spiral Dynamics. Having done that already, I am not sure what else to do.
Autarch why do you think this page needs a total rewrite? I'm happy to leave this tag up with some guidance, but without further guidance I feel that this should be removed as non-actionable and/or covered more usefully by more specific tags.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The documentation for this tag refers to WP:PROMO. Taking the points in that policy one at a time:
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I grepped the page text for all of the words listed under WP:PEACOCK. The few matches were appropriately descriptive, e.g. "leading" in The culture around Spiral Dynamics has also been viewed negatively due to the prominence of the business and intellectual property concerns of its leading advocates, or in quotations such as "respected" in Avoid shame, defend reputation, be respected which is a description of the mindset of a specific stage.
I think it is self-evident that "real information" is imparted on the page.
I realize there are many other possible ways the article could run afoul of WP:PEACOCK but nothing is jumping out at me. I think this template should be removed unless you can provide some guidance on specific problematic wording. A few examples would do, I do not need a sentence-by-sentence account.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Autarch, this tag's documentation states: Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.
WP:NPOV is extremely important to me, particularly because of the tendency of Spiral Dynamics and/or Integral practitioners towards promotional tone that has plagued this page (on its own or as a section of Don Beck's page) in the past.
I believe I have laid out the theory and its motivation in neutral terms, feedback on this would be most welcome.
Regarding the factions, I chose the timeline format because it conveyed the information without needing to write a narrative account of the (often intensely personal) disagreements involved. That would have been challenging to do in a neutral manner, hence a graph of who worked with whom and a simple listing of significant publications and actions without (I hope) any value judgement of them. Please let me know, with specifics, if this attempt at neutrality has not succeeded.
I continue to expand the Spiral Dynamics#Criticism section (really, this whole article is only about half done), but have made a point to keep it more thorough than Spiral Dynamics#Influence and applications, which I think has produced an appropriately neutral presentation. There is no commentary on how great (or not great) any of the applications are.
What is missing in order to provide an appropriately neutral view?
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
As with the same tag on Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence, I'm baffled by this one. Objectively, there are 64 citations for about 15 paragraphs, a table, and a timeline. No paragraph (and few sentences) lack citations, and there are no "citation needed" tags. Autarch I am inclined to remove this as other tags are more appropriate if there are problems with existing citations, but please do let me know where you see the need for more (as opposed to different/better) citations.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This is fairly plausible, but I would still appreciate some guidance. Most of the citations to Beck and Cowan's 1996 Spiral Dynamics book are for the factual quotations in the table of stages. That seems like an appropriate use of a primary source to me, as it is the subject of the page. Citations to Graves and other closely related figures in the timeline simply document the publications referenced in the timeline. Even there, the introductory paragraphs cite other sources (primarily Albion Butters's history of Spiral Dynamics, from the peer-reviewed journal Approaching Religion) for determining what should be in the timeline. While the format of the timeline is specific to this page, the significance of the things it identifies comes from other sources such as Butters.
The Spiral Dynamics#Criticism and Spiral Dynamics#Influence and applications are supported a variety of academic and applied sources. I do not consider Ken Wilber or others involved in the Integral community via either Wilber or Beck to be primary sources, as they all offer different perspectives on SD (which is part of what qualifies something as a secondary source, as I understand it). They also contradict each other (most notably Frank Visser's refutations of Ken Wilber's changes to the model), and Integral is its own thing with its own Wikipedia page separate from Spiral Dynamics.
Autarch, could you please provide some specifics of what is not appropriate about the sourcing? I'm happy to work on this but I think that, given the current level of detail of the article, there is a good balance.
Ixat totep ( talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Please join the conversation here before tagging this page regarding notability. This should serve as something of a notability FAQ. Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics is an umbrella term for several variations on an approach to things, which has persisted for a quarter-century and counting with (ahem) lively debate among the variations that continues today. The original theory has been published by major book publishers and in peer-reviewed journals. Many subsequent books/journals from mainstream publishers or university presses are cited by the article, making note of work done in North America, Europe, the Middle East, West Africa, and Southern Africa, demonstrating that the idea has global reach (it appears in east Asia as well, but that is not (yet) cited in the page).
There are several reasons why people think this, and incorrectly interpret the frequent appearance of the word "Integral" as a lack of independent sourcing. (Please note that I am not expressing an opinion about the legitimacy of Integral theory, only the degree to which SD and Integral are or are not the same thing.)
Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The primary sources are mostly used for factual information such as a date, or for a person stating their direct, relevant opinion (e.g. Cowan stating that his objection to Integral was a reason to split from Beck- he is an authority on his own opinion which is not further interpreted in the Wiki page). These are valid uses of a primary source.
Additionally, some who would be primary sources for Spiral Dynamics are instead being cited for information about Clare Graves, as relevant background material. In that sense, they are not primary sources for the subject of the page, even though the same people are involved.
Ixat totep ( talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Original conversation highlighted in the color "cornsilk".
Your edit comment states "Almost all citations are non-independent from SD or "Integral theory", and the rest are primary", but Spiral Dynamics is separate from Integral Theory. Please note that I am personally not associated with Integral, am generally skeptical of Wilber, and dislike the self-promotional tendencies of many people associated with Integral and/or Spiral Dynamics. I am not working on the page to promote them, and in some cases would be quite happy to leave them out entirely. But that would not be accurate.
Regarding notability, articles published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, or books by mainstream publishers are a commonly cited standard. The Spiral Dynamics page cites publications from:
While some (but not all) of the authors cited are associated with Integral, Wikipedia relies on the notability of the publisher and not a value judgement of the author or their ideas. Can you help me understand why you do not consider these sufficiently mainstream to be supportive?
Integral Leadership Review is cited, but only for book reviews indicating what information was published in which book, rather than citing the books themselves, and generally to support a point on how Integral views Spiral Dynamics (since, again, they are not the same thing). They are not used to support general notability.
Not all of the sources mentioning Integral are supportive of the "movement", or even associated with Wilber. For example, Frank Visser (who has published on the topic of Wilber through SUNY Press) is a noted critic. The California Institute of Integral Studies predates Wilber and is not associated with him. There are many people in history who have used the word "Integral", and the citation template does not have a field for "Integral but not Ken Wilber" :-D
Integral is also not the only philosophy cited as building on Spiral Dynamics. Metamodernism is a different and much more recent school of thought that (in one strain) builds on Spiral Dynamics, establishing a different and independent usage in a similar field.
What else is needed to properly establish notability? I feel like the very presence of the word "Integral" makes the page a recurring target (a position with which I have some sympathy). Since I don't care about defending Integral theory, I did my best to find publishers independent of it, with reputable peer review, association with research universities, or long mainstream publishing history. But it would be inaccurate to avoid mentioning Integral entirely. How can I improve this? What publishers would be considered acceptable?
Thanks for reading this far!
Ixat totep ( talk) 06:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JoelleJay: Thanks so much for engaging on this! Ixat totep ( talk) 18:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding a subsection for feedback/discussion on the Spiral Dynamics#Timeline section. JoelleJay's feedback above included:
[The] whole timeline section come[s] off as overly-detailed and "in-universe". If the model is indeed only practiced by a small group of people and ignored by the majority of the field, then going into this much depth is definitely undue.
This went along with concerns that the table of levels had accessibility issues due to color, and was too jargon-y. I have addressed those concerns (and I think the updated table is far superior now), but have not done anything with the timeline.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
People new to SD/SDi are often confused by the conflicting material put out by different factions, and the acrimonious interactions among the advocates. It is very confusing when different SD sources may alternately praise or condemn the same aspect or related area. Or use conflicting color schemes (colors are the main way to identify stages). All of these conflicts may be apparent from the same person at different times, or different people at the same time.
The timeline provides a visual to understand who was collaborating or feuding at any given point, providing important context for understanding any sources or other material someone might find elsewhere on the internet.
It is also helpful to visualize where the key shifts appeared in publications.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I do think the basic visual of the timeline is fine. They are de-facto standard for any rock band with significant lineup changes, and for long political contests with many candidatesoften with more complex coloring (e.g. three colors per bar). Advocates and books/articles seem close enough to bands/albums or candidates/voting days for this to be an appropriate visualization.
It may be that the timeline is trying to do too much, though. I find it helpful to understand when key areas of practice were happening, or who owned the trademark in what, but should this be removed? The most important thing is understanding the collaboration/opposition changes.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The chronology was originally a way to show the key events without writing a lot of narrative and getting into a gossipy tone of who did what to whom. It is important to show which publications appear in the timeline, but I could see cutting it down to just those publications and making sure other truly key events are covered elsewhere now that there are sections with increasingly better sourcing describing the different approaches. Throwing the timeline up there was a quick way to get key points across. Feedback on this would be most welcome.
Ixat totep ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
There are red error messages throughout the Timeline section of this article as of August 27, 2023. Please fix. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Some sources looks like they don't fit the WP:RS criteria: