Talk:Ken Wilber

Category

Sorry Michael, we are not using user-created categories on CZ. Please see here. Regards, Anton Sweeney 20:09, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Then why is it a Category function? Fix the meta-system or leave it alone. Otherwise, you need to track ever page I have contributed and delete the Catalog page. If you do that, I'll revert every one. --Michael J. Formica 20:16, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Michael, we don't use user-created categories. The categories we use refer to the workgroups that the article belongs in. However, Catalogs are different entirely. Catalogs are lists of items but we don't create a seperate page for those lists or catalogs--catalogs belong in subpages, not as stand-alone articles. --Robert W King 20:48, 23 January 2008 (CST)

If that's the case, then can someone explain to me why the Catalogs subpage is designed to generate the alphabetized content that it does? It makes no sense for a bot to do something that sophistocated and then it be policy not to point to it. I did not create the page "Integral theory catalogs"...I created a catalog subpage within the article "Integral theory" and the system generated the "Integral theory catalogs" page.

Also, if I have been linking all of the articles I have created or have edited via said system-generated catalog pages (see ALL of Psych) to create rings, rather than creating massive See also lists or Related article subpages, why is it an issue now?

This is not an issue of me not following protocol, it's an issue of the protocol not being in line with the system tools, and I think that needs to be addressed. What also needs to be addressed is what that system generated page is for and how can it be used as a time saving/work saving device. --Michael J. Formica 02:15, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Wait, are you confusing categories with catalogues? The catalogues subpage is designed to alphabetize entries within. The only categories we use are workgroup based categories. What seems to be the issue? I am confused by your explanation? Please provide example links so I can understand. --Robert W King 10:50, 24 January 2008 (CST)

intro

Hi everybody. The article says the following:

Defenders of his work suggest that his failure to publish in mainstream journals is a consequence of the meta-disciplinary and meta-theoretical nature of Integral Theory, which the highly specialized orientation of academic journals and the peer review process itself are not structured to support.

I don't think that that's true. Defenders of his work, and Wilber himself, tend to claim that Wilber honors portions of reality that academia ignores (mystical realities, for example). I can't provide a citation for this at the moment. Scott Zimmerle 16:49, 14 April 2008 (CDT)

Interesting position, as this statement paraphrases a statement made by Wilbur himself. --Michael J. Formica 13:26, 17 April 2008 (CDT)