Talk:Integral theory

Original research

I am concerned regarding claim in the lead of

"The concept is also referred to as integral approach,[7][8] integral consciousness,[9] integral culture,[10][not in citation given] integral paradigm,[11] integral philosophy,[12][13] integral society,[14] integral spirituality,[15] and integral worldview.[9] "

seems like inference and a wiki:original research should we delete this claim ?Shrikanthv (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:NAMB

Can we discuss here please regarding ambiguity or "disambigator" the WP:NAMB itself mentions an example of tree where it could be allowed and this makes sense here --Shrikanthv (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of hatnotes is to show a reader who accidentally landed on the wrong page, where the right one is. A person looking for "integral theory" will not land here, they will end up at Integral theory. Therefore this is a redundant hatnote - The only way to get here is to search specifically for Ken Wilber's integral theory. --Muhandes (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing New Here

For three years, I taught a course on integrative and postmodern psychology at a doctoral clinical psychology program where "Integral Psychology" was a required text (not my choice). After years of grappling with his ideas through his books and recorded interviews, I found there is little to Wilber's "philosophy" beyond arranging others' ideas to reach the conclusion that Wilber's spirituality (much of it borrowed from Sri Aurobindo) is the highest form of human development. Wilber essentially repackages the concept of self-actualization as a transcendent spiritual achievement. He attempts to co-opt most other traditions; and those types of religion and spirituality that don't conform to his synthesis he derides as primitive. The logical parts of this theory are actually fairly basic: developing oneself in all areas to be a well-rounded and self-aware person. The rest is simply his attempt to make himself out as a guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C100:18D0:0:0:0:F32E (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Unclear

@Mforman30: some minor points:

• the phrase "A multi-year exchange was had vis-à-vis multiple symposia" is not clear yet.
• "participants at the first academic Integral Theory Conference in 2008 had largely mainstream academic credentials" - the addition of "academic" to ITC makes the phrase "had largely mainstream academic credentials" odd: for an academic conference it's not unusual to have academic participants, is it? And it raises the question what "academic conference" means, and if only academics were allowed.
• "In addition, a select group of the white papers submitted for the 2008 conference were later edited and compiled by Esbjörn-Hargens in a peer-reviewed text."

• did they bundle the white papers to counter criticisms? If not, "in addition" should be removed;
• "peer-reviewed text": I suppose that text is "Integral Theory in action

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the edits. The conference was "academic" in the sense that 20-page, formatted, and cited white papers were required for all presenters. Many/most presenters were academically affiliated or had advanced degrees, so this was not outside of a normal request for those in attendance. This standard was held through the succeeding US conferences in 2010, 2013, and 2015. The European Integral conferences, which I will mention in some part of the post because they are large (600 persons usually) and ongoing Integral events, do not require this standard.

I believe, however, that only papers from the 2008 event were compiled into a book and put through an additional peer-review process (that is, additional to our team that originally reviewed all papers for selection into the event). Yes, that text was Integral Theory in Action. The peer-review process is something that academic publishers such as SUNY require. For example, my book on psychotherapy was reviewed by two anonymous peers and suggested changes were incorporated into the text prior to publication.

I can add some of this for clarification.

By the way, the capitalization of Integral is the accepted and appropriate way to refer to Wilber's Integral Theory. If you pick any substantive text written about Integral after 1995 it will have this form. The lower-case word "integral" is understood as a general adjective. Aurobindo's Integral Yoga is also capitalized, but the writer just needs to make the clarification of what type of Integral is being referred to. 24.206.71.22 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sri Aurobindo table

This table does not seem to belong here. Is there an article on the topic? If so, we should just link to it as a main article. If not, the table is simply a form of original research or synthesis, even though there are citations, the material should be presented in a textual, explanatory form somewhere. Is it? Same with the other table. This is not how we normally present complex theories. Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Laundry list

@24.206.71.22 and Mforman30: Wikipedia is not a WP:Laundry list. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not added anything irrelevant, nor will I... I am correcting massive oversights in the article that should be contested through the use of objective data. For example, the claim that there is no Integral movement is directly contradicted by all the types of involvement that have been demonstrated over the past 25 years, which I will try to talk about if you don't erase them all. If you call that type of thing "laundry listing" you're actually suppressing reality. If I can't list some of the very important books that have been written, how can I contest the idea that Integral is some dead, cult movement only inhabited by Wilber? Many of the claims in this article are fifteen to twenty years old... don't you care about Wikipedia having up-to-date information?

I am dealing in facts and you are clearly dealing with MOTIVATED REASOING. Chill out and let me fix this article to resemble reality, ok? Mforman30 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

To list books, you need a source for the list. You can't just pull the list out of thin air. It should be cited to an overview, review, or bibliography of integral theory. Otherwise you are the source of the list, and that's original research, which is prohibited. Please provide a secondary source that finds the book(s) notable in the context of integral theory: that's how you show you're not just assembling a personal "laundry list". Skyerise (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, just list the books in Further reading, without any commentary on them. Books listed in the article need sources establishing their relevance. Books listed in further reading simply have to be on topic and not self-published. Skyerise (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

Please note that the title of the article is "Integral theory". This means that the phrase should not be capitalized except when at the beginning of sentence when Integral only should be capitalized. This is common practiced for theories: they are not proper nouns, they are phrases made of common nouns. We don't write "Relativity Theory", we write "relativity theory". Also note that headings use sentence caps: only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized. So "Four quadrants", not "Four Quadrants". There are a lot of other improper capitalizations in the article. We Don't Capitalize Words Just Because We Think They Are Important. If they are not proper nouns, they should not be capitalized. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so you guys don't care about accurate capitalization, just your idea of capitalization? I'm just doing what PhDs actually do - which is represent the language accurately as it is represented in actual academic articles and texts that have been published. That you don't care that Integral Theory is everywhere written as Integral Theory, then you guys have screwed up standards. Mforman30 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to make an argument to move the article from "Integral theory" to "Integral Theory" using the process described at WP:RM. (But you may want to review Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format first.) However, the kind of capitalization you assert is correct is more commonly known as "Occultist Capitalization", where words are capitalized simply because they are Thought Important, rather than for any other reason. If Einstein's theory of relativity doesn't get capitalized, why should Wilber's? Skyerise (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Visser

Are we citing Visser only to his own self-published web site? Does he meet the exception for self-published works by being independently published on the topic and/or widely considered a subject-matter expert? If not, everything cited to his website should be removed. Skyerise (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

He has also published a book (or two?), and yes, he is a "widely considered a subject-matter expert," even if limited to the people who are interested in discussing Wilber's theories. A discussion which, indeed, does not take place in the academies; Wilber's model are indigestible for scientific research. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We should still not be sourcing things to his self-published website. We should only source to his independently published material. Because Wilber is still alive, this is a WP:BLP issue. The exceptions do not apply when criticism of a living person is involved. Skyerise (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Visser's website is the place where Wilber's work is discussed; you can't abort such a central source. And note that we're talking here about the theory, not the person. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've put in a query about it at WP:RSN. I don't think we should be sourcing to it. Rather, we should be sourcing to the sources he cites. Skyerise (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are secondary sources that refer to Visser's website; I'll look them up after work. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I mean that Visser lists a lot of sources of criticism: instead of citing Visser, we should directly cite the critics themselves. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Nevertheless, a few secondary sources that mention Visser's site: Versluis, Esbjorn. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)