Talk:Ken Wilber/Archive 2

message: I removed the third paragraph in the introduction (the citation of the Die Welt reviewer and the subsequent criticism and the criticism of the criticism) entirely. It reads more like a point counterpoint than an unbiased article. Equal parts pov for and against don't equal npov. Focomoso 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Die Welt text is cited, verifiable and notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the removal.  The criticisms were only needed due to the  text lauding Wilber's significance in the study of consciousness. 271828182 04:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, the Die Welt text is cited, verifiable and notable and should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goethean, because something is cited and verifiable does not mean it is npov. From wikipedia:neutral_point_of_view: npov is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." The paragraph in question is both sympathetic and in opposition and as such is better left out. Notable, maybe, but I don't think it's notable enough for the introduction. The article is stronger without it. In fact, the quote, even without the criticisms, read to me like a somewhat random justification of Wilber's notoriety, weakening his case. Focomoso 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This is interesting:However, almost all professional philosophers ignore Wilber's work: for example, his name goes entirely unmentioned in the titles of twenty-five years' worth of peer-reviewed articles and reviews in the academic journal Philosophy East and West (a philosophical journal specializing in Asian philosophy).(Emphasis mine) Can you do a full-text search? Or should we assume that his name was mentioned in article bodies but not in the article titles? — goethean ॐ 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be dubious to assume that Wilber is discussed in the articles themselves, but I don't know.  If I have the time I'll check.  In any case, the issue is whether professional philosophers give noticeable attention to Wilber's work.  If that were the case, he should attract at least an article or two devoted to him, especially in one of the leading professional journals devoted to Asian philosophy.  (Even a fringe thinker such as Aurobindo has three title hits.)  271828182 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy East and West  

message: Gothean, the biography especially education needs revamping, look to Charles Taylor or Richard Rorty's wiki pages, they are not extensive as u have made Wilber, one can only imagine for the sake of showing sympathy and/or to explain why Wilber is what he is. Taylor's page doesn't say if he moved around a lot, or was valedictorian, good in atheletics, and several times elected as student body, or class president. Wow he was a valedictorian, that must mean he is super-smart, that must mean he knows what he is talking about.As to the early career, that too needs some editing, such as to his marriages, why write amicable divorce, just because Wilber says it so. Has anyone asked his ex-wife? As well as his second wife.  REVAMP it Goethean, act like your objective. (and no, im not objective, neither are you, we are subjective beings)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.91.126 (talk • contribs) 
:Your comments would be more effective if they were more civil. I didn't write the biography; User:Blainster did. As far as I know, biographies havent been written about Rorty or Taylor, so their biographical information is not verifiable. The biographical information in this article is based on the book by Frank Visser. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography needs heavy revising.... 

message: Almost all of the references used in this article are not in compliance with WP:RL and WP:BLP. References to the non-reputable sites of critics are not acceptable. The obvious spamming of Alan Kazlev's site needs to be corrected. Kazlev's critiques have not been published by reliable secondary sources or by reputable media. Therefore, they need to be removed. SSS108 talk-email 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tons of original research, blogs, multiple links to one site, critical POV and references not in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NOR. In particular, WP:NOR (no original research). SSS108 talk-email 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References Are Not In Compliance With Wikipedia Policies

message: Gothean, please stop reversing my edits. They are valid edits, there is too much redundant, useless information on this page. Do we need to  know that the great Wilber, had a father in the military? Does that better inform us about Wilber? No. That he moved around a lot as a kid, wow, interesting but not something worthy of being mentioned. Goethean, this is a page based on facts not your wikireality. The paragraph about his "post-metaphysics" not needed redundant, mentioning two books that haven't even come out yet. Let those interested find it on the given webpages, too many buzzwords, not enough conciseness. Goethean, stop trying to edit the history. Stop editing legitimate questions asked on the talk page!!!! My goodness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.183.184.114 (talk • contribs) 
:I have removed comments from the talk page that violated WP:BLP. Established users can examine the history of this page and judge my actions for themselves. I also reverted edits which deleted substantial portions of the article without discussion. This is quite normal. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, User:ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Edits Without A Dictator 

message: I'm going to remove this tag unilaterally, for two reasons:
*First, like him or not, Ken Wilber has been a major personality in the alternate/new age religion scene (or whatever you want to call it) for several decades.  He has a large following and has influenced many other people, and has also been a significant publisher of Buddhist texts in English.  In other words, there is no question about whether the article should exist, only about the form it should take.
*Second, I think the anonymous New Jersey editor who inserted the tag was acting in a bout of rage, that got him banned a few edits later, and which he probably now regrets, after having a chance to cool off.  I hope he will re-enter the discussion in a milder frame of mind.
If anyone disagrees with this, please restore the tag and discuss your reasons here.  Thanks, Eleuther 11:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think that the tag was put in because not the fact that Wilber is encloypedic-worthy, but there are several un-encloypedic elements in it.  Reading more like a propaganda piece than about factual entry about wilber with no bias. I would like the tag to return Eleuther until it becomes more factual, and less about pro-Wilber propandanga. ForrestLane42 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic tag 

message: The criticiques section sounds more like a critique on technical points rather than a critique of his philosophy. Something about it doesn't sound all-encompassing of people's arguments against  Wilber's philosophy. If someone can find more traditional critiques, and also it falls to put in critiques against the personhood of Wilber. Wilber is known to have criticism, for not listening to his criticism, talking above his critics or not even answering the question. Someone should fill in that gaps. ForrestLane42 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section