Talk:Wholism

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Holism
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Holism

Debate

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wholism

Basic principles

The basic principles of Wholism can be found on the web site http://wholism.org . I found this site to be very interesting as it presents a new way of understanding humanity's place in the scheme of things. --203.220.118.225

I can't understand the differences between Wholism and Holism. If I can't, I expect most readers can't. In fact, I'm not convinced they are significant. Can you add something about the differences?

Holism is the idea that the properties of a system cannot be determined or explained by the sum of its components alone.

Wholism is a religious philosophy/lifestyle based on the principle that God is the Whole. --203.220.117.212

Wholism is not the same thing as holism and I think it deserves a better fate on this web site than to be referred to the holism page. Check out wholism on google to see that it is in fact far from being the same thing. --203.220.116.139

Reverted prior to redirect

I reverted to the version just prior to the article being redirected. Googling "wholism" gives 8,710 hits. To avoid those pages where someone may have written "wholism, or holism" I googled "wholism" minus "holism" and got 7,680 hits. It may not be easy to discern a clear distinction from the current state of our articles on the two, but this article probably deserves a chance to expand independently. SWAdair | Talk 09:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that wholism is something other than a synonym for holism. My strong suspicion is that it is nothing other than our anonymous editor's website. --goethean 15:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any evidence that wholism is indeed a "religion/lifestyle" distinction from holism, I have added a disputed tag to the article. I don't appreciate anonymous editors using the wikipedia for PR purposes for their pesonal website. --goethean 19:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What sort of evidence would you like? I don't think the web site concerned needs any help from wikipedia for its promotion since when checked out it appears to rate higher on google and other search engines than this site does. Goethean certainly does not appear to be very dispassionate or neutral on this issue for some reason....... Oh! Now I think I know why. Is Goethean actually Ken Wilber? --203.220.117.234

Funny. That fact is that you are using wikipedia for promotional purposes, which is wrong. --goethean 13:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just made this a redirect to Holism. The article contained no real content except for the link to an external Website, and thus could be speedily deleted. If the topic has any genuine substance, then a genuine article can be written and placed here, but nothing that has been here so far warrants keeping. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just entered some of the principles underlying Wholism.

I have not placed the wholism.org web site url on the page as this seems to annoy one particular person, who it seems to me is almost certainly doing that which he accuses me of. Unlike him I am a very private person. I am not after self promotion. Not for myself nor for the Wholism.org web site, which already attracts plenty of traffic and has done for the past 5 years or so. I note that his holism article was first posted about 2 years ago. 203.220.116.101 05:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in feuds, real or imaginary, only in the quality of the article. At the moment, though it's probably doing enough to stay, it's just a list — that's not suitable for an encyclopædia article. It needs to be written as a connected explanation, and needs to include critical material as well as pure exposition. Reputable sources are also needed; without those it's likely to be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help with this clean up. I am really not very interested in learning the ins and outs of the wiki systems. Isn't there a master page available that simply needs the relevant information input into it? If not why not? If so, why doesn't it simply appear when a new topic is started? 203.220.116.101 05:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please 'sign' your messages with four tildes (~~~~): that creates your User name or IP address and the date.
I'm afraid that stating your lack of interest in Wikipedia isn't the best way to garner support for your article.
The most important thing that you need to do is provide a couple of genuine, independent citations that demonstrate the reality of the the subject. Without those, the article will again be deleted and made into a redirect to Holism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest Mel. I only tried to make this entry and show there is a distinction to be made between holism and wholism because when I googled wholism the other day to check if my site still held the number one position, wiki popped up as number two. I had never actually seen the wiki site before then. Wiki claimed that holism and wholism are the same thing. I really have no problem with this if it is what people want to believe. For me, however, it is similar to saying that over here is the same place as over there. Both words certainly describe places and even look similar; but are they really the same place?

Oh, incidently despite the accusations made by Goethean, if you care to check out my article's history you will note the fact I did not put my website's url into it. I put it on the discussion page, for discussion! Someone else put it into the article.

I really don't need the extra work of updating wiki. Working on computers is neither my hobby nor my profession.

I will check back in a week or so. If people want to delete my entry then fair enough. If it is still there when I come back I will expand on it over the coming weeks. Tony 203.220.116.101 05:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accept ?

I would prefer the use of "contend" or "believe" rather than accept. Wholists "accept" gives the impression that the subject of discussion is an undeniable truth. Using accept suggests to me that the author is not coming at the subject from a NPOV but is promoting his own beliefs. --User:Jeremy P Lewis

The article is on VfD now, and I suspect won't survive. If you can improve it significantly, and supply citations, then that might change the result. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary added

I have added a summary to the wholism article but won't add any more at this time because people seem to have already made their minds up as regards the deletion of this page.--Ogb 04:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Added

I have added some citations.--Ogb 03:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]