Talk:Spiral Dynamics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Category "New Age"

There is repeatedly inserted the category "New Age" to this article, without a source for this claim. The issue has been posted on WP:OR/N but now two other users keep adding the category. Pevos (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose without some sourcing to indicate that the label is apt, it can't really be used, since Spiral Dynamics does not self-identify as New Age.
• Oppose. No sourcing has been provided. — goethean ॐ 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as no sourcing. Having read it, it seems unlikely sufficiently solid sources will be found to say this is "new age" - but I am open to being persuaded otherwise - from sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Should it go in the "popular psychology" category? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article and it's content are not academic and it's insertation of Ken Wilber who is not an academic and has no degree related to the academic field in question. Nor is the article one about a subject that has been peer reviewed (as far as I can find) and nor can any of it's content and subject be validated as peer reviewed. So what is the content then supposed to be labelled? Pseudo science, maybe? Why is Ken Wilber called on the Integral Institute article the American mystic Ken Wilber if it's not New Age or mystic content? Why is this article not open to a critical eye?LoveMonkey (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are welcome add well-sourced criticism to the article. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:OR. --Pevos (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I realize that the category was allowed to stay on the article for years, but it didn't have any source justifying it then, nor does it now. If sourced it can be included. -- Atama頭 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article need better consensus and openness. Discussing is better then unilateral editing by some edit warring editors.Dances with donkeys (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question - What does needing "better consensus and openness" have to do with whether or not the New Age category is appropriate in the article? -- Atama頭 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do believe that question can only be answered from a transpersonal viewpoint. I suggest meditation. or psychoactive drugs. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK how about Chris Cowan himself saying Wilbur's influence is new age?

How many more times must we say that “Green” values and lifestyle are not the same as the FS (green) level of psychological existence? In the case at hand, in Boomeritis, in his attempts to defend the ‘mean green’ myth, and elsewhere, Wilber fails to differentiate sixth-level thinking from “green”-sounding values, attitudes, and beliefs rooted in pop culture stereotypes: hippies and PC fanatics, lefty liberalism and eco-sensitivity, New Age chic and spiritual enlightenment. This is a huge blind spot he seems unable to resolve; perhaps the anti-green bias is simply part of who he is, based on his own life experiences. We don’t know and don't particularly care except when he passes the blinders on to readers. The incredibly broad brush with which he paints washes over essential details and muddies important distinctions within human nature. The stay-on-the-offensive style of an Ann Coulter gets attention to sell books, even as it polarizes and deceives an audience; Wilber's tactics here share much with hers when he's on a tear.[1]LoveMonkey (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Now how about some valid and inline with wiki policy sourcing on how this article in part or whole (that means unbiased uninvolved secondary sources) is peered reviewed and valid science. As even its originator stated that since he was not a neurologist he could not test his theories. [2] And we all know what Karl Popper (same one shamelessly exploited in this article already) says about untestable theories NOT BEING SCIENCE. Please ditch the sarcasm, insults as all the wiki consensus in the world will not validate this article anymore then it could change the sky to blue. Snowded was offering a very good compromise.

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This article isn't Ken Wilber, so finding sources calling him a New Age personality isn't helpful. Determining that the article on the theory is New Age because a person characterized as such has popularized it seems a stretch. Cowan and Beck wrote it based on a theory by Graves. Those people are psychologists, not New Age gurus from what I understand. -- Atama頭 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole issue that Snowded had was that Ken Wilber brought the New Age label to the subject with his take on Chris Cowans work in Spiral Dynamics. I just posted Chris Cowan as a source that is readable on line saying exactly that thing. Sourcing was requesting sourcing was provided. Lets see if people then do what they promised. As again in my opinion this article is not scientific at all.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources to the effect that this is considered a pseudoscience, it could go in the pseudoscience project in addition to the Psych project. However, I don't see why a non-New Age theory should be labelled New Age because some allegedly New Age Guru has taken it up. Wilbur seems to have taken up most things to develop a sort of Universal Theory of Everything. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My view had moved in that direction. Hence the compromise suggestion to make sure the article focused on Spiral Dynamics sans Wilber (bar a section) --Snowded ^TALK 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

just as an FYI - my sense with Wilber is that he's gotten a bit older and lazier; it's not so much that he's new age as that he's been lax on his integral approach, and a lax integral approach starts to look a bit like new age agglomeration. Pseudoscience I won't comment on, because I have tremendous issues with the way pseudoscience is handled on wikipedia (there's just too much sadistic angst expressed by science editors for me to be entirely comfortable), except to say that I don't think this quite qualifies; it's a bit too spiritual for true pseudoscience, IMO. --Ludwigs2 09:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggestion by snowed is a very good idea: that the article focus on the actual theory Spiral Dynamics, with a mention of the different interpretations--and be sourced to specific discussions of that theory by others, if they can be found, rather than be more generally on Wilber or the movement. It doesn't matter how it is tagged. The content is vague and over-generally sourced. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The section on Wilbur's "departure" can be brief, separate, clearly labelled and link to his article. The disagreement with his approach by the original theorists can no doubt be sourced. Don't see why this article should be categorised New Age though without a source to that effect.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that's a good idea. Focus on the theory itself, I think that would make for a stronger article as well as resolving this dispute. -- Atama頭 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Snowded has not began rewriting the article to separate up the Ken Wilber Spiral Dynamics from the Chris Cowan Spiral Dynamics, I have added the category New Age back to the article as it is outlined in the article by Chris Cowan that Ken Wilbers take on the subject is indeed "New Age". Since such a category is now sourced. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Sourced to what? You have not added any source to the article. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add the category to the article, you should add text to the article saying "According to [reliable source], Spiral Dynamics is new age.<ref>blah blah</ref> — goethean ॐ 17:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The weather has delayed delivery of one book I wanted for changes I planned to make. In the meantime I suggest leaving the article with the tag. --Snowded ^TALK 18:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the sourcing and re-added the tag. I can only say that Goethan is still edit warring and being disruptive. As all I did was copy and paste from this topic on this talkpage the source I named and as anyone who reads here can see the New Age label is relevant, until Snowded's rewrite has been completed. Goethan has no other explanation for what he just did.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

and I have removed the tag since that seems to be the current consensus.

Snowded: I suggest not. there is no hurry to add this tag, and we can wait for your book to be delivered. this is a categorization issue, not a major content issue. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am not sure what the "suggest not" references. I am been prepared to edit war with aggressive editors such as Goethean, or to claim a false consensus. The way forward (and the support above is appreciated) is some rewriting, pending that I have done nothing to the article. --Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack noted. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mild compared with what other editors have said, you might want to think about that--Snowded ^TALK 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I should have let you use categories to mischaracterize your company's competitors. — goethean ॐ 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You tried that game at the relevant forum and got no where but you seem unable to accept the judgement. You claimed consensus to change the article on a 2:1 vote. Sorry Goethean, I'm not impressed. Tell you what though, My identity is transparent why not reciprocate? Same is true on the Integral pages where the other protagonists are very open about who they are, other than you. Of course you don't have to but it might make your moral position a little more sustainable when you throw around accusations.--Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I can speak for myself in that I have an interest in integral knowledge by way of V. Soloviev. As the Western take on the subject is markedly different then the East. As for consensus that went out the window once a source for the label was provided. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gothean, Snowded - Stop it, both of you. the tag stays off for now, and I am seriously considering removing the Wilber reference from the lead since it seems to represent wp:undue weight on a subject that we all seem to have decided is a minor point in Spiral Dynamics. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check above removing WIlber from the lede was one of my proposals to change this to focus on Spiral Dynamics and thus resolve the issue. Agree that I should have used combative rather than aggressive. :-) I still don't know what you "suggest not" references. --Snowded ^TALK 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove all references to Ken Wilber please..LoveMonkey (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he has to be there, linked to Beck and the creation of Spiral Dynamics Integral - that is a valid section--Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded. the 'suggest not' referred to the category tag. category inclusion is not really part of article content, but rather a tool for users to find related information. Category:New Age will take the reader to a set of references that aren't really on the same page as Spiral Dynamics, and so therefor is not a useful category to include. besides, I suspect the category isn't being added as a guide to users in this case, but as a backhanded effort to make a content statement about the nature of Spiral Dynamics. can't agree to that without some fairly definitive sourcing. --Ludwigs2 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as I said, I gave up on the category tag in favour of a compromise solution many days ago, which is why I didn't understand your comment--Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ludwig here. I just had a a look at LMs source. The Spiral Dynamics people seem pretty pissed off at Wilbur's adoption of Spiral Dynamics. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cowan is, Beck isn't from what I have seen so the founders are split. But as stated I agree with Ludwig on removal from the lede. --Snowded ^TALK 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded - I think we just talked past each other, is all. no worries. I'll see if I can balance the lead a bit right now. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There we go.. Now thats more like it.. A step in the correct direction. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and South Africa

The article claims Don E. Beck committed several years to applying the theory of Spiral Dynamics in an extended experience in South Africa to help bringing an end to Apartheid. Therefore he received a legislative honor from the state of Texas. citing two sources:

• [3] - this resolution is basically a paean to Dr. Beck with vague remarks about developing "sucessful strategies" for a peaceful transition, vague remarks about being the only US citizen to be allowed in (unspecified) high-level negotiations. This doesn't tell

us anything and as it's not clear what criteria are required to get such a resolution, this may not be a reliable source.

• [4] - this page is describe as "written with input from Dr Don Beck" which makes it a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS) hence difficult to use as a source in Wikipedia. (It also contains a copy of the previous source.)

A further source cited is Don Beck and Graham Linscott, The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future, Denton 1991, ISBN 0-62016241-4 - again, a primary source.

Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, these sources are not enough to support them. Independent reliable sources are needed to support these claims.Autarch (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The claims are excessive. My understanding is that they were involved in visioning activities post the effective end of Apartheid,, but they were not the only consultants involved. Beck does have high level contacts arising from the period. It is one of the major claims of SP supporters however, a part of their creation myth. --Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues with article - particularly relating to mention of South Africa

As mentioned above, the references used in the claims about Don Beck and South Africa have problems. There is a lot of emphasis on this topic in the third paragraph of the Overview section: it has several issues:

1. That Don Beck used Spiral Dynamics to help bring an end to Apartheid - very POV, such claims should be backed up, but the existing references aren't suitable.
2. That severe racial tension led to a colour scheme being used to communicate the theory - the claims that the colour theory was used to overcome tensions needs a good secondary source - the only source given is primary. It also is rather POV.
3. The claim about what colours remind people of is not clear - it uses terms like "Life Conditions" and "Mind Capacities" (capitalisation in orginal) that aren't clear (the latter phrase occurs once in the article).

Issues 1 and 2 are so POV that it makes that part of the article look like an advertisement.Autarch (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to a new applications section, and I think the process of how and why the colours came in is not so important that it needed to be included. --Pevos (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues 1 and 2 are resolved, so I removed the POV and advertisment tags. -- Pevos (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Palestine

I reverted the recent "it has been used in Palestine" as lacking any notability. The body referenced is not any part of the state, its just an organisation that called Beck in to run the odd workshop. So what? --Snowded ^TALK 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reinsert the tab "dubious" (with wrong parentheses, btw) to the Apartheid sentence after I provided an imho reliable source. And the palestine sentence is well sourced too, it does not need the same notability as if it got a whole article.--Pevos (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

While Beck was involved at the time, the implication of the current phrasing implies a far greater influence than was claimed and is not supported but the references. It is simply not notable to run a workshop for an NGO is a territory. The organisation in the reference is a California based organisation based on spiral dynamics (seehere and is therefore not a reliable source. You have not made the case, or got consensus for the change here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The source for the Palestine activity is an article in the Palestine Times which I consider a reliable source. If in addition there is a pdf copy of the article it should be included because it improves the article. - Why not make an applications section? It's also an improvement of the article. - Is it just because you dislike the model? -- Pevos (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the applications section was a waste of space as there was only one legitimate entry and a short one at that. However it was the default position so I will not revert that. The Palestine article on the other hand is your addition and you need to make the case for its inclusion. My view as clearly stated above is that it is non notable as it reports the activities of a California based company that appears to have adopted spiral dynamics. I don't see any response from you on that subject so I will remove it until there is an agreed position on the talk page. Also you have not addressed the issues raised by the editor who added the tag so you should not remove it. My views on the model are irrelevant, hopefully yours are too. --Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 90 days and keep 3 threads. -- Pevos (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

no objections --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

South Africa, Palestine: Tags, reliable sources

On 25 January there were inserted some tags, and since then there has been a dispute regarding reliable sources referring to the application of Spiral Dynamics in South Africa and Palestine. -- Pevos (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the South African material now its being edited to a less grandiose claim. There is a dispute as to the notability of the Palestine data (see above)--Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does the dispute concerning Palestine entail? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability. The reference basically says that the method was outlined in presentations by a California based Spiral Dynamics based organisation (Centre for Human Emergence) to the future of Palestine in 2007. It report an interview with one of the founders of SPiral Dynamics, and simply reports his claims. There is no reporting of any third party take up of those claims so it would not be notable even in 2007, in 2010 without any supporting material it lacks any notability whatsoever. BerhardMeyer has also failed to follow WP:BRD here and reinserted the text four times in a 24 hour period, and at the same time removed (without explanation) the written like an advert tag. The two go together, the Palestine material is promotional material for one of the Spiral Dynamics factions (there are two). --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability determines whether a topic merits its own article (WP:N). The Template:fv tag which Snowded has put in the applications section, is about verifiability. -- Pevos (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability (and add in WP:Weight) if you want applies to all content not just new articles. The tag says that the reference does not support the claims (its a holding operation given your failure to follow WP:BRD and to avoid edit warring). Suggest you try and answer the points above. --Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is about the reliability of sources. The tags on top have been inserted by Autarch for this reason, concerning South Africa (see above: here and here), but imho this is fixed, the tags can be removed and we don't need to wait until Autarch is back. Also the tag in the applications section should be removed. I think Snowded wants to keep all the tags. This remembers me of the odd discussion about the new age tag, above [5]. -- Pevos (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Autarch inserted various tags, including one to say that this article was written like a sales pitch, something you made worse with the Palestinian insert. I worked to get the South African entry to the point where it was not an excessive claim (you found some references but they did not support the words). However that is a minor improvement article still has multiple issues (including some that need to be addressed as part of the compromise solution on the New Age tag. I note that you have not responded to the points about the notability of the Palestine entry, do you intend to concede the point or make an argument? --Snowded ^TALK 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Imho I have provided sufficiently reliable sources, so there is nothing more to say. I am waiting for comments from uninvolved editors. -- Pevos (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an obligation on you (if you want to insert new material which is challenged) to respond to arguments on the talk page. Given that the material was in effect a sales pitch I can understand it may be difficult. Without that engagement I will revert to the stable position of couple of days ago before you inserted the material, per WP:BRD and pending other comments. --Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded removed a sourced and neutral edit, this is disruptive, see here. And Snowded, don't change my discussion edits here. -- Pevos (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not a neutral edit, see comments above. If you choose not to follow normal indentation practice fine, but don't start calling other editors disruptive when they follow due process. I left it in place after your four reverts for 30 hours after arguing the case against it here and you chose not to respond. per WP:BRD I have removed it. If you can make a case and get other editors to agree then it can go back in.--Snowded ^TALK 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So it is about NPOV. Maybe Dailycare has the answer now. -- Pevos (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is an NPOV issue, but its also notability and the fact that the citation does not support your edit. Its compounded by your behaviour in ignoring WP:BRD and edit warring rather than discussing a contested change. That of course relates to the Palestinian issue. The tags (which were placed by another editor, but which I support) have not been addressed by you at all. --Snowded ^TALK 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a notability perspective here as well. I searched and it appears, blogs aside, that Spiral Dynamics has never been mentioned by the BBC, New York Times or CNN in an article. I'm not sure therefore, if it merits an article on Wikipedia to begin with. I'd suggest that you ask for advice from the Fringe theories noticeboard or content noticeboard on how to approach this. If Spiral Dynamics is rarely, if ever, mentioned in reliable sources, then finding properly verifiable content for this page may prove to be an uphill struggle. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur, it deserves a short article but at the moment it looks promotional --Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - promotional material should be trimmed back.Autarch (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics is mentioned by ABC Radio National: here, by Haaretz: here and by the Palestine Times, see pdf. --Pevos (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, the ABC reference is a transcript of claims by Beck with no validation. The Haaretz source reports a meeting with Beck, no reference to who was there or what happened. The Palestine Times reports on a series of presentations by Beck. This is all advocacy and promotion it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --Snowded ^TALK 07:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was my response to Dailycare's statement Spiral Dynamics has never been mentioned by the BBC, New York Times or CNN in an article. I say, well, but it has been mentioned by ABC Australia, Haaretz, and Palestine Times. --Pevos (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Natasha Todorovic's values research study to disprove 'MGM' actually supported Ken Wilber's written definition of what MGM is

The page currently - misleadingly! - states: ″Todorovic[7] offers data and analysis leading to the conclusion that the "Mean Green Meme" conjecture is contradicted by the data. Todorovic further concludes that MGM is a "failure of analysis" based on a variety of misconceptions about spiral dynamics and constitutes an "alarming misdiagnosis" and brands MGM a harmful "form of spiral fundamentalism.″

I've not got time to dig out Natasha Todorovic's paper right now, or Wilber's MGM definition (in a footnote in his book 'Boomeritis', which Natasha was critiquing in her paper) - but wanted to point out that the values research she did in fact elegantly supported the stated definition that Wilber (and Beck?) had given of Mean Green Meme.

If I remember correctly she found that Second Tier/Yellow values didn't dislike Green values, but that it was Orange that had the most antipathy to Green, not Yellow. Perhaps Blue had it too.

She took this to show that she'd disproved 'MGM' - as she viewed this to mean a Second Tier/Yellow should have an irrational dislike of Green. But this was the opposite of how Beck/Wilber described it. They never said Yellow was anti-Green.

When Wilber saw what Natasha Todorovic had proved with her research, he said "Way to go, Natasha!".

After all, it's not every day a major critic of yours actually does some empirical research which appears to prove your own view!(Though they carry on saying it disproves it).

All this is not to say that Beck or Wilber don't have misconceptions etc, they may well have - just that the actual new research Natasha did in the paper referred to here showed something other than what she told us it did.

194.66.90.50 (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Matthew

If you provide a link to Wilber's comment on the subject, we may be able to add it to the article. — goethean ॐ 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Goethean,

It's a footnote in Wilber's 'Boomeritis', that is particularly relevant (And was a major target of Natasha's paper, I think). The footnotes actually appeared on the web, not in the book. (BTW, what kind of author puts footnotes into a novel!?) When I find the footnote, I'll post the ref here. The footnote was discussed on the Spiral Dynamics Yahoo e-group. I might find it there more quickly...

To be frank, I got fairly fed up with this whole issue - as the two sides got pretty entrenched, but it's worth getting it right for Wikipedia really.

194.66.90.50 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Matthew

Another thing, Natasha did make a stronger point against MGM, based on 1960s protests research Wilber referred to with Kohlberg's moral assessment. But I'm not sure this piece was properly published anywhere, not even on the web.

I'm less likely to find much trace of this doc - as it was a non-printable PDF, I think. Of course I tried to get round this with screen-shots, but it was a right pain...

If we could add this strong point of Natasha's, at least it wouldn't look I was just bashing Natasha - as I'd be doing the opposite too!

194.66.90.50 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Matthew

It's footnote 4 in these chapter footnotes from his book 'Boomeritis' where Wilber outlines the 4 directions that he believes criticism of MGM comes from: http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/endnotes/ch10.cfm/ Natasha - if I remember correctly - proved in her research that went into the MGM paper that Blue and Orange were the major critics of Green - rather than 'Second Tier'. She felt this proved Wilber wrong - but Blue and Orange were precisely two of the four directions that Wilber wrote in that footnote that anti-Green criticsm would come from. I don't have time right now to look at the page and see how it needs to be amended, though I think I might've suggested this in a previous comment. 78.149.206.240 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Matthew

Sources from ABC Radio and Haaretz

Two sources from ABC Radio National and Haaretz have been deleted (diff). I put it on the reliable sources noticeboard here. Any opinions? --Pevos (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comment there, its not the sources per se but the use you are putting them to --Snowded ^TALK 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the applications section, I inserted "Based on Spiral Dynamics, Don Beck worked with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela." Please check out if it is supported by the sources. --Pevos (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a claim by Beck and that is all that is reported in the sources. You need a third party reliable source, at the moment it could just be self-promotion. --Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The RS/N discussion is archived here. --Pevos (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We have been very quiet for a month I see. There was no dispute that either source was reliable, the question was the nature of the claims that were made. What is clear is that the ABC source was agreed as not establishing the statement, given that it was a transcript of a talk by Beck, so it was Beck's claim not endorsed by ABC. The other source is reporting an event and is not an investigatory piece and no reasonable reading would imply that the journalist in question had done anything more than read the press statement or talk with Beck or his local promotor. I will repeat what I said before, namely that if this claim was in any way true then there would be sources of a more authoritative nature available. --Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the sources are reliable sources. Snowded, I agree with your last edit in the article. For the next question I will add a new section. (Promotional material? -> Content issue.) --Pevos (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never disputed that the ABC is a reliable source Bernhard, it was the use made of it which was in question. --Snowded ^TALK 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)