|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
edit · history · watch · purge
I didn't rate this article, but since this is the second time in the last month or so that I've noticed someone alluding to the fact (or directly stating) that the Wilber article is not up to "encyclopedic standards", I would like to see some discussion as to what exactly is wrong with it. I'm not saying the article is perfect, and I'm not somehow taking offense to such an assessment. I really would like to hear from "experts" what specifically is wrong with the article from an encyclopedic standpoint.
I realize that in the not-so-distant past the article was subject to a fair amount of edit warring, but it seems to have been stable for a while now, so perhaps it's time to work on getting it up to GA-class (or better), if it isn't there already. I've looked at the GA-class criteria, and apart from past edit wars I'm personally not able to point to any specific reasons that the article shouldn't qualify for a GA-class rating.
Since I admit that I'm not an expert on "encyclopedic quality", I really would like to hear some expert opinions since the person who rated this article hasn't bothered to provide any explanation. --Grey 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
the article could use a personal infobox, more pictures, and an expanded intro. other than that i agree that the article is GA/A quality. --Sapphic 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, cool. That's something concrete to work on then. Thanks! --Grey 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Ken Wilber, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
edit · history · watch · purge
I didn't rate this article, but since this is the second time in the last month or so that I've noticed someone alluding to the fact (or directly stating) that the Wilber article is not up to "encyclopedic standards", I would like to see some discussion as to what exactly is wrong with it. I'm not saying the article is perfect, and I'm not somehow taking offense to such an assessment. I really would like to hear from "experts" what specifically is wrong with the article from an encyclopedic standpoint.
I realize that in the not-so-distant past the article was subject to a fair amount of edit warring, but it seems to have been stable for a while now, so perhaps it's time to work on getting it up to GA-class (or better), if it isn't there already. I've looked at the GA-class criteria, and apart from past edit wars I'm personally not able to point to any specific reasons that the article shouldn't qualify for a GA-class rating.
Since I admit that I'm not an expert on "encyclopedic quality", I really would like to hear some expert opinions since the person who rated this article hasn't bothered to provide any explanation. --Grey 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
the article could use a personal infobox, more pictures, and an expanded intro. other than that i agree that the article is GA/A quality. --Sapphic 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, cool. That's something concrete to work on then. Thanks! --Grey 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
[edit] edit war
The current slow edit war on "critics" is getting silly. Is there any reason why that material, while not a separate section, should not be put in narrative form in the reception section?--Snowded TALK 14:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- This? It's just external links. I don't have a problem with incorporating it, if you want to write it up. — goethean ॐ
-
- I'm not sure critics are really something that is notable. Everybody has a critic. Controversy and critic sections invite people to find and insert criticisms. With that said, it doesn't mean I'm opposed to inserting notable criticism, but I've found that sections like this are generally to pacify and they really don't work. Basileias (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is Mr Wilber has critics with legitimate criticism. This bio is unbalance, unless their points are added.GuyFawlks (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see Goethean has no objection to those criticisms been summarised, just to the list of external sites . Why not do that? --Snowded TALK 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now there is now no criticism in this article. Perhaps its appropriate in the realm of pseudoscience to refrain from critical thought, but to pose the sorts of interpretations of the world that are presented in this article, and not include any of the criticism that is floating around, at least *outside* of the pseudoscience community is to rob the wikipedia viewers of a thorough view of this man and his work. Most other similar articles and similar people who are leaders of alternative philosophies have some level of criticism in their article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.149.161 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The whole article is a longstanding example of how to use selective attention to violate WP:FRINGE. 271828182 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] User 149.168.27.243
"Pseudoscience" was insert into the "See also" and I'm questioning whether that should be there. If there's solid sources for this content labeled as such then I'm fine with the entry. User 149.168.27.243 reverted my removal calling it Vandalism and placed a POV tag. I don't like a POV tag being added without a specific problem identified. Basileias (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] biography: wilber says he has a master's degree but bio only mentions bachelor's degree
At present, the biography for Wilber says that he "completed a bachelor's degree in chemistry and biology." But Wilber says, "I have a Master’s degree in biochemistry, and a Ph.D. minus thesis in biochemistry and biophysics, with specialization in the mechanism of the visual process” (he says this in a comment he posted to an Integral Naked forum in 2005; the forum is no longer on the web but the content of Wilber's comment may be found here, as well as at a few other places on the web). If he has a Master's degree, his biography should say so instead of saying that he only has a bachelor's degree. Someone must be able to confirm this one way or the other. Daphnis9 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
