This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 17:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonencyclopedic, factual inaccuracy, original research, no references, self-promotion, pseudoscience, external link spam Pedant 19:23, 2005 July 28 (UTC) This article, written and edited by those with a self-claimed 'professional interest in the subject, simply reeks of pseudoscience, is subject to an ongoing edit war from people claiming to have a connection to the so-called theory, is not encyclopedic, and is a vanity article of sorts. Blatant promotion of a quacky theory, article as it stands is not sound or encyclopedic, and looks to be trouble all the way to the core. Apparently (from the email I received) the article is being edited by the author, co-author and opponents of the author's theories... all hanging on flimsy references, mostly references to the book that is being promoted using wikipedia as a tool.
Plus the spam:
I received the following email relating to this topic, UNSOLICITED, and with no previous attempt to contact me on my talk page:
Subject: Disputing the Factual Accuracy of a Wikipedia entry: Spiral Dynamics and Don Beck Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:30:28 -0700
(redacted info, contact me if you need it for some reason)
Message-Id: <005401c5930b$9136faf0$220110ac@your4f1261a8e5> Organization: Spiral Dynamics Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01C592D0.E4D822F0" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X- Msmail-Priority: Normal Show Basic Headers Back To [INBOX] Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Pedant, I've been browsing Wikipedia for some information and decided to take a look to see if Spiral Dynamics was being discussed. I was surprised to see that it was included in your online mentions; thus, I did a little tweaking to improve the accuracy (FYI this is a model my partner Chris Cowan, coauthor of Spiral Dynamics, and I work with - please see our web references below.) Thus, I believe we are qualified to make adjustments to the definition. The reason I am writing to you is the factual accuracy of our competitor's bio (Don Beck) and the content of the current Spiral Dynamics definition on Wikipedia. I've copied the bio below and inserted notes as to the questionable entries. Your site suggests that if 5 or more items are incorrect to insert a dispute. I have done that and the warning has been eliminated. You will find the disputed items below under "Issues" where I have itemized statements requiring fact checking. In essence, yes, we have a professional interest in this, thus disclosure applies (we are rather fierce competitors). At the same time, I feel that the reputation of this work can stand only on fact and accuracy, which is what I am seeking by contacting you. The current definition of Spiral Dynamics suffers from some inaccuracies which I attempted to fix; it was reverted to an earlier version. For example, there is no credible evidence of "the Mean Green meme" under the Pathologies section. I have reason to believe that the person making adjustments to the current entries has some interest in skewing this due to his/her affiliations. To make matters more complex, and more sensitive, we are involved in a legal dispute with our former partner, Don Beck. This matter could get quite antagonistic if it isn't handled well, which is why I am contacting you. Your description suggested I could count on your discretion in a sensitive matter. Could you please advise as to how to proceed? Kind Regards, Natasha PS. See below ... Don Beck is an American management consultant involved in the theory known as Spiral Dynamics. Issues: 1) The term "integral theory" is a marketing term designed for promotion which a number of people are attempting to legitimize and using Wikipedia to do so 2) Greater accuracy would be "coauthor of the book, Spiral Dynamics" 3) Spiral Dynamics is a trademark and refers to training, a book, and a popularization of a model of adult development (not a theory) ==Overview== Beck has elaborated upon the work of his mentor, Clare Graves, to develop a multidimensional model for understanding the transformation of human values and cultures. As cofounder of the National Values Center in Denton, Texas, and CEO of the Spiral Dynamics Group, Inc., Beck is employing the Spiral Dynamics model to effect large-scale systems change in and among various sectors and societies of the world. Issues: 1) 95% of Spiral Dynamics is derived directly from the work of Clare W. Graves; there is no elaboration to it other than some conjecture and the link to memetics - in fact, Spiral Dynamics is a popularization and simplification of the work or Graves designed to appeal to a broader market - it's a contraction rather than an expansion. 2) The non-marketing definition of this model is as a 'psycho-social developmental model' - 3) The final line has no supporting evidence other than marketing claims, a fact check is required. ==Career == Beck's consulting career has taken him to such diverse settings as 10 Downing Street to consult with Tony Blair's Policy Unit; the south side of Chicago to address the problems faced by inner-city schools; the World Bank to consider the future of Afghanistan; and the boardrooms of major banks, energy companies, airlines, and government agencies. Following 63 consulting trips to South Africa between 1981 and 1988, he wrote The Crucible: Forging South Africa's Future (1991) with Graham Linscott. Beck taught for twenty years at the University of North Texas. He served as team psychologist for The South African Springboks, winners of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and associated with the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, the Texas Rangers (baseball), and the U.S. Olympic Committee for Men's Track and Field. He writes a “sports values” column for the Dallas Morning News. He lives in Denton, Texas. Issues: 1) The first line claims that this person has consulted to the Blair government, this requires a fact check 2) The item with the south side of Chicago has not been verified 3) The World Bank item is being put across as consulting to the WB - does a single 1.5 hour presentation where he was not invited back consist of consulting? 4) Consulting to various boardrooms - there is no evidence to support this other than claims on his website - a fact check is required 5) How can a person without a degree in psychology serve as team psychologist?
(the part about consulting to the Springboks also requires a fact check) 6) Have the claims for the Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Texas Rangers, and US Olympic committee for Men's Track and Field been verified - we've checked and have been unable to confirm any of these claims. 7) The "sports values" column would be accurate with the start and finish dates, which were some years ago and not very long lived. ==Bibliography== * Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, 1996 * Don Beck and Graham Linscott, The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future, 1991 ==External Links== * [http://www.big-picture.tv/index.php?id=12&cat=&a=17/ Free video clip of Don Beck at Big Picture TV] * [http://www.spiraldynamics.net/ Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics Integral site] * [http://www.globalvaluesnetwork.com/ Global Values Network] * [http://www.humanemergence.org/ Centre for Human Emergence] .................................................................................... Dr. Natasha Todorovic MBA National Values Center & NVC Consulting "The Spiral Dynamics People" PO Box 42212 Santa Barbara, CA 93140 TEL: (805) 962-0366 FAX: (805) 962-0306 E-mail: natasha@spiraldynamics.org WEB: http://www.spiraldynamics.org http://www/clarewgraves.com
Sign up for the FREE Newsletter at http://www.spiraldynamics.org/forms/signup.htm [/quote]
I think this is advertising as well, self-promotion. The text is gibberish and contains no references except to works by, apparently, the original author of the book being promoted, this seems to be promotional in nature and original research to boot. And the above spam is enough to bat it out of the park in my opinion.Pedant 19:04, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
- Keep. That you don't like a book or a theory doesn't mean that it is non-notable. google lists 30,300 hits for the exact phrase "spiral dynamics", at least the first several pages of which refer to the subject at hand. I reverted an anonymous user's edits. That anonymous user now appears to be Natasha Todorovic, the partner of Chris Cowan, one of the co-authors of the book. Her edits were POV, poorly written, and evinced little understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. That's why I reverted them, not for ideological reasons. I invite her to make more appropriate contributions to the article. --goethean ॐ 19:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I welcome the removal of the self-promotional material and NPOV-ization of this and related articles. --goethean ॐ 20:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable kookery and snake oil. Requires heavy NPOV. mikka (t) 20:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, pseudoscience is completely legit encyclopedia material, theres a wikiproject called pseudoscience. Also it is obviously a real theory, 480,000 yahoo hits is enough to prove that. The writer of this article is an expert on the subject, but it is not the writer's theory, he just writes about it. Clare Graves seemed to have came up with the theory, but she's not writing the article. Does need NPOV editing though. Uber nemo 20:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as pseudoscience. Fix the content. Mmmbeer 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as legitimate theory of human development. Slark 00:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It would appear that the entire world of Template:Integral theory could use some POV policing and contextualization in order to avoid commercial promotion. Some effort should be put into finding views from outside the "Integral theory" universe to cite and then keeping vigilant over the inevitable revert wars. I wish I had the stomach for it myself. Dystopos 02:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as important element in the nascent "Integral movement", but address views and disputes of both factions (Beck and Cowan) in NPOV manner M Alan Kazlev 05:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – no valid reasons given for deletion. Contrary PoV to an article isn't cause for removal. They should contribute to improving it, such as providing the needed references. The subject is notable and a candidate for encyclopedic coverage, even if in the current state it needs improvement. Clearly a topic with published works is not original research to Wikipedia as was charged. Nominations that bold the words so liberally should be encouraged to delay a bit to enable more cogent reasoning. (It's not the nature of a topic that renders it non-notable, it is the unpublished work of a single person or few people not widely known— not the case here) --Blainster 11:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but Rewrite. I've placed an NPOV tag on the page. Stirling Newberry 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.