Talk:Integral education

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Untitled section

I don't believe this term should redirect to Sri Aurobindo, as it used to do--there are now numerous scholars and practitioners doing "integral" work. I've just started to try and describe that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.49.66 (talk • contribs)

Here is how the article looked before it was deleted by User:Fireplace, who seems to have a bug up his ass regarding new religious organizations. — goethean ॐ 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For furture reference

Google books search — goethean ॐ 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not critical

This page seems to be written by true believers. It should be a dispassionate look at the phenomenon as it coexists with society and people who may like it, dislike it, or not care. Any cons or critiques? "The Mother"? Really? Five areas, including 'psychic'? Is this pseudoscience? Do they bilk people out of money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.7 (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion

I failed to participate in the recently closed AfD (nominated by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc), but I am noticing that many articles related to integral thought go into more detail than I would've thought and present a view of Wilber's systems as more established and accepted than is my understanding. Looking at this article, I do see that there are a couple books about "integral education", though I don't have a good enough sense of whether they're talking about the same thing -- it seems likely. More importantly, however, is that while one book was published by SUNY, most or all of the others look to be self-published or published within a walled garden-like integral thought community. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to take this much past that evaluation, but if I had participated in the AfD I probably would've suggested merge to integral thought, since once the unreliable/self-published/primary sources are stripped away the amount of content on the subject does not look to merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree to that. Let's try it! jps (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge/redirect to integral thought for the reasons presented by Rhododendrites. That article could also use some cleanup as it appears to make use of a number of non-RS sources.Dialectric (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]