Talk:Spiral Dynamics

Reviving per plan discussed on Talk:Don Edward Beck

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)

Frederic Laloux - Reinventing Organizations

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)

MEMEnomics - Book Reference

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)

Hi Roberthambly- I know Said and we have discussed adding information about his and Elza Maalouf's work to the page. It will get done at some point, I just haven't had the time to follow up with him. Said and Elza are both referenced in the timeline section. That said, the goal of the wikipedia page is not to catalogue all applications and extensions of Spiral Dynamics, so not every worthy book out there will be specifically mentioned.

I don't think there's any current danger of deletion- the page and the redirects pointing to it have been reviewed since I revived it, and was discussed before revival anyway. The old nomination for deletion is retained for historical purposes only. Ixat totep (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, and the great work you have done writing and editing this page!!! Thank you.

Other than scaring people (like me) what historical purposes does preserving the deletion nomination serve. How much development, and how many years do you wait before removing this misguided nomination. I am troubled by the lack of academic appreciation for this work. Erikson and even Maslow are referenced constantly under human growth and development, and Graves and Beck are never referenced (never is a big word but that is my experience.) An academic coming here would notice others have considered this subject unimportant, wrong, bad, unworthy for some reason and scheduled for deletion. No reasons are given for the deletion suggestion (you did mention commercialization) and there are no discussions that I see of any reviews, or the reasons the "nomination" was "rejected?" Indeed the current message says it should be deleted?!?!.

Please remove the "old nomination for deletion" and it's scary graphic and second sentence, or provide a better discussion of the "history" of the reasons why you are retaining it. I have done lots of work in the past, and had it just deleted. It is frightening, angry-making and sad. Who does these "nominations" anyway, and where are they "discussed?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthambly (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Roberthambly I'm afraid I don't know the etiquette around the old deletion notices that look a bit confusing, and can't figure out from the wikipedia docs how to handle this apparently somewhat unusual situation. Perhaps Snowded, who helped me figure out how to build these pages in a way that would not get deleted, knows what should be done there. As for where they are discussed, the deletion notifications provide a link to the discussions- that is part of their purpose. It's quite easy to see how the discussions played out, and you will find the reasons and links to the policies involved on the discussion page.

Problems leading to deletion included too much of a promotional tone (an encyclopedia does not try to convince you that the subjects of its article are awesome, it just tells you what they are), too much promotion of Don Beck in particular, too much reliance on primary sources (encyclopedia topics are things that other people than their creators have discussed, so citing only Beck and/or Cowan and/or Wilber is insufficient), and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. Anyway, it's not capricious even if it is sometimes irritating. There are guidelines, and the guidelines are documented. Adhering to the guidelines will generally result in articles being kept. If someone nominates it for deletion, or removes big chunks of it, I'll sort out what happened and figure out the best way forward.

I confess I'm not all that worried about the deletion box and academic credibility. Spiral Dynamics and Wilber's Integral movement have far bigger concerns regarding their relationship with academia than that, and Wikipedia is not the place to solve those problems. However, I cited academic work (e.g. a peer-reviewed article by Susanne Cook-Greuter, who has done fairly well-known work based on Jane Loevinger's theories, which were in turn based on Erikson; also Laura Frey Horn's dissertation at George Washington University, which is of course a reputable institution) where available and appropriate. There is a bit more academic referencing regarding Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence directly, as he published through more mainstream channels (if somewhat rarely), which current mainstream research is more likely to cite. I update both pages with better references when I find something that is appropriate, but again the goal is not to be comprehensive or convince anyone (academic or otherwise) of the value of Spiral Dynamics. It is just to explain what it is, and why it is notable enough to warrant an article.

Ixat totep (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am amazed it gets any acknowledgement in reliable sources given the unreliability of the original research and its subsequent use in what seems like a cult. But our personal views count for nothing - we reflect what the sources say. If something was nominated for deletion the notice stays there so that any other editor is aware, all history on wikipedia good or bad is visible. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of tags for related improvements

@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)

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.

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)

This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism.

The documentation for this tag refers to WP:PROMO. Taking the points in that policy one at a time:

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment: The original section was very much in this style, but looking back over this page I think I was successful in fixing that. If you disagree, could you please point to a few specifics? I very much want to avoid this problem.
• Opinion pieces: I think it's pretty self-evident that this is not an opinion piece.
• Scandal mongering: Likewise, this clearly does not apply.
• Self-promotion: I am not the originator of this theory or its notable derivations, so this is not a concern.
• Advertising, marketing or public relations: While various people offer consulting services around Spiral Dynamics or SDi, this page does not discuss those substantially or link to promotional material for them. The only citation to any consulting web site is to Christopher Cowan's bio blurb to support the timeline of when he began working with Graves and Beck, as I could not find that information anywhere else. Is that the problem motivating this tag? If not, but you think there is ad/marketing/pr copy here, could you please point to some specific examples?

Ixat totep (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Having spent further time with this tag, and considering what parts of the article might sound like a press release, I think this is a valid tag. The article is not long (if you remove the large visual elements), and what is present in the "Development of the theory" and "Factions and lineages" sections is factual-narrative in nature. I encourage anyone to tackle this, but if no one does I'll work on it eventually. This tag should stay up until that work is done or someone with a better understanding of the concerns associated with the tag can take a look.

See also the comments below on better sourcing for the timeline bullet point list. I think the timeline should stay (I have gotten good feedback on it for clarifying confusion without taking sides), but it could be handled better.

Ixat totep (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This is still a work in progress although I believe the situation is improved. The sections under "Diversification of views" need more well-supported descriptions of the nature of each school of thought. Right now they are pretty much just factual lists of things that happened which is arguably in the "routine coverage" department. I am continuing to work on this, if slowly.

Ixat totep (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've now shored up the lede with high-quality indications of notability and moved the narrative of what Beck, Cowan, etc. did to develop the theory further down the page. The initial section now describes the theory (not its development) based on secondary sources, mostly from higher-impact journals (e.g. Journal of Business Ethics (H-index 168, Springer) and Leadership and Organization Development (H-index 62, Emerald Publishing)). While there is more work to be done, and some decisions to be made on whether the timeline/chronology should be kept or is too much of a "routine events" list, I think it's safe to remove this tag now as the emphasis at the front of the article is substantially different and less personality-based.

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.

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)

I have gone through the article again in detail, and while I found some things for this tag on the ECLET page, the only possible things I could find here was the "Influence and application" section, which felt a little too positive. I addressed that as explained in the next section below regarding WP:NPOV. With that fixed, I do not think WP:PEACOCK is a problem as of the current revision of this page. Not to the extent that both the peacock and rewrite-PR tag need to be present, anyway. I am going to remove this one, please re-tag with explanation here if you disagree.

Ixat totep (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

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)

I have reworked the Spiral Dynamics#Criticism section to link to criticism of related concepts as they apply to SD/SDi. This provides a broader picture without duplicating material.

I have also reworked the Spiral Dynamics#Influence and applications section to only list management theory and philosophy (specifically integral and metamodernism) as fields that SD has influenced, and demoted the others to applications. I think this provides a significantly more balanced view as the presence of SD in the other fields is not broadly recognized. However, the influence in certain strands of philosophy and management theory is visible through applications and books from numerous people, publishers, contexts, etc. across multiple decades.

Ixat totep (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Due to the work done (including a substantial elaboration of Freinacht's critique of SD that I added today) and the lack of feedback, I am going to remove this tag. Again, please feel free to re-tag with commentary here if you disagree. With these changes, I think the article is appropriately neutral, even with the news article tone which is covered by the rewrite-PR tag which is staying up.

Ixat totep (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

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 article relies too much on references to primary sources.

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)

I did a bit of citation streamlining- citing every row of the table of vMemes individually made it look like this depends hugely on the Beck and Cowan book, but really that's one logical citation and it's just as clear when written that way. As the subject of the page, I think quoting it from Beck and Cowan rather than finding a (probably at least somewhat inaccurate) paraphrase elsewhere is appropriate.

However, I think this is still a valid tag. Some of that will be fixed by expanding the article- a more thorough examination of the factions and what is notable about each is needed, as is an examination of the theory of change which is at least as important as the levels. Butters, Cook, and Reitter are good third-party sources to start with if anyone wants to dive in.

I think that I erred in citing much of the publications listed in the timeline from the publications themselves, and the organizations from the organizations. I think most of it could be sourced to Butters, Visser, or Reitter. The first few publications from Graves could be cited to Lee's preface to Levels of Human Existence, which covers Graves's early publication efforts. Todorovic's paper refuting "Mean Green" is referenced somewhere (Reitter? Cook?) but I need to track that down. A few things might stay primary sources but I suspect most can be sourced elsewhere given that little detail is needed.

The SDi section needs work- only McTaggart is an independent source of the citations so far.

The Criticism section and the "Influence and applications" sections should be fine. Since the subject of the page is SD/SDi and not its applications, a book such as Viljoen's on organizational transformation in Africa should (I think) be considered a secondary source for the purpose of proving application.

Clearly anything involving Beck or Cowan is a primary source, and probably most of the time Wilber (at least when he is writing about SD or his modifications) or Todorovic are also primary sources. It's less clear to me how we should think of practitioners like Viljoen, Dawlabani, Rice, or Christianson, some of whom have connections with Beck or Wilber and some of whom do not. Butters and Visser mainly provide commentary, and Reitter and Cook provide significant commentary and critique in their papers.

As with cleanup-PR above, I encourage anyone to dive it, but if no one does, I'll get to it eventually.

Ixat totep (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently "eventually" arrived quickly. I have followed up on the above, to a point where I feel justified removing the tag.

• In many cases, primary source citations could easily be replaced with citing the alternative sources mentioned in my last comment here, plus I found some additional sources. One of those was Visser's book on Wilber, which bolsters the case for citing Visser's later online article (it's technically self-published, but he wrote an academically published book on Wilber so he is a recognized expert per WP:USINGSPS A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source.)
• Places that cited a book as the reason why it should be on the timeline were mostly replaced with book reviews or other commentary that explained the significance of the publication.
• Many of the remaining primary source references are now paired with a secondary source, usually because the primary source has an important factual detail that the secondary source lacked or got wrong (e.g. not mentioning the date/year of something in the timeline list).
• In a few cases, Cowan and Todorovic are cited for factual information on Graves, rather than as sources for SD, so in that context they are secondary.
• A few primary sources remain for simple things- we can cite Chris Cowan stating his own reason for not wanting to work with Beck anymore, for example, since that is truly a matter of his own opinion (and I haven't found a better source).

There are still some citations to primary sources, but outside of the description of the theory they are now very much the exceptions rather than the rule. The "primary" tag doesn't mean "remove all primary citations", but "make sure that the bulk of the article is supported by secondary and tertiary sources", which I believe is now the case so I will remove the tag. Please re-tag with guidance on what needs to be done if there is disagreement.

Ixat totep (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability Concerns

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)

Longevity, mainstream publication, and global reach

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).

Complaint: Not enough independent mentions, too much "Integral"

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.)

1. Only Beck, Cowan, Todorovic, and Wilber are primary sources for the core SD / SDi / SDi-like Integral AQAL altitudes theories. Everyone else is some sort of scholar, critic, practitioner, or other person making use of, commenting on, or building on some variety of SD. Normally, we consider people other than an idea's originator using / writing about that idea to contribute to notability, not detract from it.
2. Spiral Dynamics was created independently from Integral and continues to exist in distinct forms both outside and inside (and overlapping) Wilber's Integral theory. The section on Cowan & Todorovic's version particularly addresses the non-Integral form. As a profound influence on a "movement" (for lack of a better term) that is not only popular in terms of book sales (by its founder and others) but is also the subject of a series published by a university press, Spiral Dynamics's influence on Integral is a point in favor of its notability. The apparent fact that many think it is simply part of Integral is an incorrect impression that this page needs to address.
3. Not everything involving the word "Integral" is from within the Wilbersphere. For example, CIIS predates Wilber and is an independent use of the term "Integral".
4. Several "Integral" citations are simply book reviews cited for their descriptions of the book's importance.
5. Other "Integral" sources are critiques from within. The "Integral World" site is by academically published Wilber biographer (and now noted Wilber critic) Frank Visser, and is primarily cited for either criticism or for analysis of the distinction between variants. A paper on Integral and Postmodernism is cited for its critical analysis of Integral's aversion to Postmodernism.

Ixat totep (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Complaint: Too much citation of primary sources

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)

Conversation on article improvement moved from user talk page

Original conversation highlighted in the color "cornsilk".

Hello JoelleJay, I appreciate several of your edits on the Spiral Dynamics page. However, I would like to understand your notability concerns and perhaps get a discussion going on the Spiral Dynamics talk page if we can't clear that up here. My concern is regarding the judgement of sources as inadequate. I have no interest in convincing you of the merits of the theory- Wikipedia does cover fringe theories if they are notable.

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:

• Emerald Group Publishing (two journals cited)
• IU Press (Indiana University)
• Springer Publishing
• Edward Elgar Publishing
• Gower Publishing/Routledge
• Free Press (publisher)/Simon and Schuster
• SUNY Press
• Wiley (publisher)

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)

I apparently edited out an important paragraph when commenting yesterday: Part of why I want to understand your concern is that if it is not possible to establish notability, I would like to understand that and not waste my time on the page. I think there should be a page for it, but if I"m just badly misreading the notability criteria I'd rather not keep at it. The last editor I worked with on this agreed that since there are several distinct approaches with different groups of advocates, including references outside of any of the originator's communities, the topic did not belong purely as a subsection on Don Beck's page.

Ixat totep (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ixat totep, I just wanted to let you know I read and appreciate your detailed clarifications and will try to respond more in depth at some point. Reading the article, my impression is SD(i) is WP:FRINGE and not widely accepted or even acknowledged within mainstream management theory, which ties into my complaint about the independence of the sources: there seems to be a lot of self-referential content from a relatively small pool of scholars, with many of the cited texts/opinions appearing WP:UNDUE. In particular, something that stands out to me as a notability red flag is the use of PhD theses and barely-cited books supporting assertions in the text -- if material is not discussed in relatively highly-cited secondary sources or at least well-received primary articles it is likely not important enough for inclusion. The ^VMemes table and timeline also contributed to my concern -- the table colors are unnecessary, and the description and attributes columns and whole timeline section come 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.

If SD comprises substantial coverage in multiple well-cited broader-topic papers like this as well as more focused impactful papers like this, it may be notable enough for a standalone article.

I hope this helps. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response JoelleJay. Spiral Dynamics is a weird pile of things. Management theory, sociology, psychology, philosophy, "consciousness studies"... It depends a great deal on which branch of the concept you look at. I find it challenging to figure out how to present it. I personally consider it more philosophy than science- that is my interest in it. It is a significant influence on one of the more active strands of metamodernism, which also significantly criticizes it. Just to lay out my personal perspective, I consider the philosophy side of things more of interest than management theory.

I continue to work on improving sources and demonstrating impact, and will have more to say about that shortly. In the meantime:

• I have already ripped out a lot of the "Integral" and other primary sources, many of which were not being used (they were just in "References") or were redundant. Ken Wilber is no longer cited at all. (since your notability tag change only mentioned this concern, I removed the tag- you're welcome to re-tag, but I'd appreciate it if we continued to discuss here first to avoid change thrashing- I apologize if that seemed to be premature, but you're the first tagger who has bothered to respond to me or explain themself at all, so I'd stopped waiting as long for responses)
• I'm working on converting the description of the theory to secondary sources-only, and removing a lot of the narrative who-did-what aspect.
• Would it help if I took the color out of the table? I really don't care one way or the other, so that's easily fixed if it's a contributing concern. It's got colors because I saw some other tale with colors somewhere, that's all. EDIT — I went ahead and did this and took out some jargon-y boilerplate in the table cells.
• As far as having the table, most stage theory articles either have a [[table like this or have a subsection for each stage. A subsection per stage seemed like far too much detail so I made a table in an effort to be more concise. A single paragraph felt too smushed. Is it really strange to list the stages? What else would you suggest?
• The timeline/chronology was a stopgap replacing a more gossipy narrative that had been present before. I'm now working to shift the page away from describing the antics of the main advocates and towards what the idea says and how/why it is important. Assuming the sources involved are decent, will that help significantly?

[EDIT: these sourcing questions may be a moot point, see below] Regarding sources, could you point me to the appropriate policy defining what sort of "highly-cited" metric is required? I do not see a clear criteria in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. What sort of impact numbers are you looking for, if this is a numbers thing? Are things like "highly influential" citations on Semantic Scholar meaningful? Given the range of things in Wikipedia, and the fact that being fringe does not automatically mean not notable, "multiple well-cited broader-topic papers" seems like a very high bar for an article that is not attempting to claim to be mainstream science. But it is an approach with a quarter-century of history of application worldwide, that continues to influence new areas such as metamodernism. Whether those applications are scientifically meaningful or not, at what point does the usage of an idea start to matter? Wikipedia is not exclusively a science encyclopedia, as the inclusion of the unsinkably popular but decidedly pseudoscientific Myers–Briggs Type Indicator demonstrates. SD doesn't meet that level of popularity, but it's not obscure, either. Otherwise there wouldn't be a steady stream of books and articles about it.

Ixat totep (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So it's not too hard to fine more reputable/impactful sources. What's challenging is accessing them in order to provide a useful, specific, citation. This is a lot of the reason why I was citing things like dissertations- they're much easier to get hold of.

For example, Springer has published [Handbook of Personal and Organizational Transformation] in which several articles cite one or more of Beck & Cowan's Spiral Dynamics book, Beck's "SDi" training materials, Cowan's "SD" training materials, and Wilber's books in which he began incorporating Spiral Dynamics into his theory. The editor's overview cites the Beck & Cowan book, and [one chapter] with Spiral Dynamics in the title cites pretty much everything remotely relevant. However, the print version is [$448 on Amazon], which is a bit outside my budget.

Another Springer book, this one on [memetics and economics], cites Beck & Cowan and also Beck's more recent book in the editor's overview article. I can find one preview page indicating that he mentions SD in a list of significant applications of memetics, no clue if there's more than that in the chapter. This one's cheaper at $132.

In a [book of conference proceedings] on "lean" and "agile" (which if you're in the tech industry are instantly recognizable business approaches- I have no clue if they're meaningful in other industries) includes an article citing Beck and Cowan's Spiral Dynamics. This one's a bargain at $44 for the ebook.

Somewhat more accessibly, Spiral Dynamics appears repeatedly in the Journal of Business Ethics, which has an H-index of 168. I have no idea if that's a good number, but it's the highest of the journals I've found with articles significantly covering Spiral Dynamics. (various others are in the 20-60 range, several already cited on the page). I've found three articles that I can get as pdfs so that's helpful. Continuing on the ethics theme, there's another book with [a chapter] prominently featuring Spiral Dynamics.

The books go [on] and [on]. Really, it's not hard to find Spiral Dynamics in academic publications. I just don't have any idea how to make a bunch of books I can't easily access (if at all) into a compelling wikipedia citation. Any advice would be much appreciated. And if this is not enough for notability, I would like to understand why not. [EDIT: That last sentence was intended to express curiosity, not be demanding]

Ixat totep (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ixat totep, I'm going to move this conversation to the SD talk page since that'll get more eyes and be helpful to future editors. I do think you've allayed my notability concerns, though. JoelleJay (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Thanks so much for engaging on this! Ixat totep (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Timeline and Chronology

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)

Purpose of the timeline

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)

Timeline changes?

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)

Purpose of / changes to the chronology?

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)

Timeline broken

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)

Uncertain sources

Some sources looks like they don't fit the WP:RS criteria:

• Spiral Dynamics for Newbies - This seems to be the website of someone promoting Spiral Dynamics, thus failing both the secondary source and reliability criteria. I would be cautious about using any page on the site in question or on deep-psychology.com, which it redirects to.
• The role of the individual in organisational cultures : A Gravesian integrated approach. - A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirementof of PhD in PDF format at Sheffield Hallam University. WP:RS says that doctoral theses which are publicly available can be used, but with care as they may, in part, be primary sources. The date is 2008 so if it went through a vetting process, the degree may have been awarded. Is there a way to confirm that?
• Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business - This book is cited as a reference - the subtitle includes "Liberating the Heroic Spirit" which sounds promotional, not like a reliable source.

Autarch (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Critics

In his book “A Skeptic’s HR Dictionary” Patrick Vermeren debunks numerous myths related to the field of Human Resources (HR). In over one thousand pages, he explains why HR managers so often stick to nonsense theories and models. In his guest contribution he writes about the concept of Spiral Dynamics.: "Spiral Dynamics deserved the score of -6 because the theory contradicts physics and biology, and the proponents try to give the impression of it being science-based, and do not accept the scientific method. The claim that we will be the first species to let go of our competitive nature is as unsubstantiated as it is ridiculous. Only if you were to reject all knowledge about evolution collected since Charles Darwin, could you believe such utter nonsense." Michaela2311 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This source has been added, but i have a question: The other criticisms take up only one paragraph, perhaps this one should too? If this were a particularly notable criticism, it may justify the length, but it doesn't seem like it is from what i can tell. Lucafossen (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be more about content than length and format. Also I think that the whole article on Spiral Dynamics should be reworked as it is more or less just promotion. 212.203.51.62 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)