Talk:Ken Wilber

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Puffery comment

An edit war is occurring as an editor is attempting to add promotional descriptions in the lede, calling the subject variously a scholar (subject has no degrees and does not teach at an accredited institution), a philosopher (subject is not known for any contributions to philosophy), or both. I do not know the subject, but I do know he is neither a scholar nor a philosopher. Ifnord (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "fan favorites" somewhere in the body?

There was a poll on IntegralWorld.net about which books are Wilber's best. Although the results of the poll shouldn't be featured in the lead section (because the opinions aren't professionally published ones), I think that it should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article what the top picks were, in order to give other readers interested in Wilber a good idea of where to start with his large output. Do you agree? If not, why? AndrewOne (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on scholarly sources, not on fan's favorites. That's what fansites are for. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q-link?

So nothing about the pseudo-scientific 'Q-link' that Wilber endorses (see: 'Norman Einstein ...')? And no mention of 'NORMAN EINSTEIN, The Dis-Integration of Ken Wilber', and 'Stripping the Gurus: Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment' by GEOFFREY D. FALK? YadaYadaYetMoreYada (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]