User talk:24.206.71.22

Sign in

Don't forget to sign in. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will make sure to sign in, although I thought I was.

Also, just to prepare you: Many of the comments about the Integral movement are sourced from 2005 or 2010 - 15 years ago! I will do my best to replace or reframe them, but be prepared because this article is pretty badly out of date in a lot of ways. For example, there is zero mention of Wilber's return to using colors language to describe altitudes. Hence, the use of Teal as a synonym for Integral. Pretty amazing absence since he's been using colors to describe altitudes ever since Spiral Dynamics came on the scene in the 2000s. He then later changed the color schema a bit while still using them to represent the levels. I will write one up because it's the lingua franca of the movement at this point and of Wilber's writings.

Also, you have no substantive section dealing with criticisms and responses. Be prepared that I will write one capturing the major pieces. I will do my best to source everything properly. Try not to immediately erase things that might be missing, this article really requires A LOT of updating! Mforman30 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of update is a sign of the wained interest in Wilber: nobody cares to update him. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Integral theory (Ken Wilber). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not intend to do this and have no idea how I did. I will look up the issue so as not to repeat. Mforman30 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to articles

When you add material to articles, you must supply citations to reliable sources. If you do not thoroughly cite new material, it will be immediately removed. Skyerise (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but take a breath before you erase because I might be just about to do it. Mforman30 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to add the citations with the text. We won't wait for it. Skyerise (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are incredibly difficult to work with. It is your job to be difficult like this, or is this some special treatment because you hate Wilber's work or something? It feels like you are just looking to interrupt the BADLY needed improvements I am making. This article as I found it was terrible, dated, and poorly written/worded. How about "Thanks for bringing us into the 21st century?" Mforman30 (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more difficult than academic teachers. There are policies, and with a good reason: without them, Wikipedia would be a collection of fringe theories and personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

You should always add an edit summary for each edit so other editors can better understand what you are doing.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Integral theory (Ken Wilber) did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do so, though I am saving periodically so as not to lose work and many of the edit summaries will be redundant in that they involve conceptual clarification and changing language usage to reflect the way things are actually described/narrated in Integral literature. For example, no one refers to the Four Quadrant model a "grid". Just one example. Mforman30 (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. See [1]: "Although this model is set up as a grid...". And [2]. Also [3]: "In becoming atman, the individual disappears off the grid of Wilber's four quadrant model ..." (note also that four quadrant model is not capitalized here). A search of Google books provides other examples where the term grid is used with respect to the model. Guess you don't know as much as you claim to! Skyerise (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding books as their own sources

When you add a publication to a list and say things about it, you should cite a third party source such as a review. You can't source a summary of a book, especially any claim to importance, to the book itself. You need a third party source about the book. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but please pay attention because I know how to cite things according to PhD standards - you must cite the text that actually contains the words you are using or attributing. So I will stick to that. If I make claims about a book or event I will always try to cite where the claim comes from. In the list of books, for example, I am only citing the books themselves so that a reader can find the primary source. Mforman30 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not adequate. That's original research, in which you are the source of the list and there is no secondary source for the list, which Wikipedia standards require. Please note that Wikipedia's standards may actually be even more strict than "PhD standards", at least as presented by you. Skyerise (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many primary sources?

One section is giving me some comment about using too many primary sources. How can you use too many primary sources and what is a secondary source?! If I am going to list even some of the books that have applied Integral I need to cite the books themselves as the primary source. Please suggest fixes. Mforman30 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a list without providing a source for that list. Who says "such and such books are relevant to integral theory"? It has to be someone other than you or the author of the book itself. That is, a secondary source. Skyerise (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Mark is trying to prove that IT is academically relevant, by listing all the books that are inspired by it. But basically, IT is academically ir-relevant; while quite a lot of authors have been inspired by the model, there's no research program which investigates it's premises and predictions. Worse, there is not a single scholarly publication which validates Wilber's basic notion of transpersonal stages following structural stages - or even a scholarly publication which validates the hierarchical presentation of aspects of the wisdom tradition. Not to mention the inclusion of the notion of collective conscious-development, which is a harmonizing of different categories. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.