Talk:Ken Wilber

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)