Alan, I'm not sure what you think is compromised ... could you clarify? The core issue we are discussing relates to the template/contents of an Integral portal page that actually reflects the integral movement as it exists. AQAL is one author's (Ken Wilber's) name for his particular developmental model. It is already described in the wikipedia's Ken Wilber article and nobody has suggested that a separate page be added for it. The issue is whether thinkers who call themselves integral and are generally understood and acknowledged as "integral thinkers", doing work that is called "Integral Studies", can simply be identified in the Integral portal page as such, no matter what their particular sect or affinity, (which is all that I have suggested), or whether such thinkers need to be divided a priori into pro-Ken Wilber and anti-Ken Wilber camps, or "Integral (AQAL)" and "Integral", as it seems you may now be proposing. Obviously term AQAL (or even Wilberian for that matter) can be used inoccuously to describe Wilber's own writings. But how does a wikipedia editor decide that a work that calls itself integral (not AQAL) is not suitable for an integral portal page but only an AQAL portal? Even I did so once, as you noted. But it is quite another for a wikipedia editor to declare that certain thinkers or books cannot be linked or acknowledged at an integral portal but only an AQAL portal, based on some subjective interpretation of their use of elements of AQAL theories. I still do not see an answer for whether you would allow Robert Kegan into the integral portal or whether you would insist that he be listed under AQAL only, and I could ask the same question about dozens of writers who cite Wilber as one of many influences. Without a principled and objective answer, I think you are asking wikipedia editors to step into a totally untenable position. As I wrote earlier:
...usually thinkers use some aspect of Wilber's thought combined with the thought of many other sources, seldom use every feature of AQAL, and often disagree about key points. On what basis do you insist that people who call their thought integral actually be considered Wilberian? How much of Wilber's thought must one agree with to be so classified, and who decides? When you acknowledge that a thinker such as Robert Kegan has "mutually influenced" Wilber and yet is part of the integral school of thought, would you propose to create a new Integral portal for such hard-to-classify thinkers, and segregate every thinker that displays too much affinity to Wilber or his model into a separate category, either explicitly called "Integral theory (Wilberian)" or "Integral theory" (but with the Wilberian association implicit, with a wikipedia editor such as yourself presumably determining whether every new thinker is sufficiently anti-Wilber to be listed in the main category)? 
I have not proposed that AQAL be used as a synonym for integral at all, only that any thinker who describes their work as integral and is generally acknowledged as such by independent sources be listed or linked at the integral portal in an appropriate fashion. Since, perhaps, some 90% of thinkers describing themselves as integral today are influenced to one degree or another by Wilber, the consequence of using the term integral in a neutral, objective way as I have proposed may very well be that many themes and ideas treated at the integral portal will be connected to AQAL in some fashion. Again, I will say that in my opinion the right place for your concern about AQAL being inappropriately used as a synonym for integral is in reviewing the content of the pages rather than in denying the usefulness of an integral portal at all.    Joe Perez