This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Twice in the first paragraph of the "Tree of Knowledge" section there is a mention of a graphic or picture that isn't present: "The novel ontological claim made by the ToK, and depicted pictorially above,..." and "The difference is most clearly seen pictorially."

There are no imbedded footnote references to tie together the statements in the article to the sources below. Is the material copied verbatim from elsewhere? If so it would need to be rewritten.

There is no criticisms section. For example:

• Some aspects of different theories can not be reconcilled - they contradict - how does the Tree of Knowledge System handle that?
• How does the system expect other epistemological theories to relinquish their claims to validity?
• Isn't this just an attempt to have a Theory Of Everything that has to be accepted in-toto?

Steve 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your comments. The image you speak of is not allowed (hopefully temporarily) until the issues listed here are dealt with. In the meantime, I added an external link to the diagram in the words "depicted pictorially" so people can at least see the ToK diagram. Hopefully that will be OK.
  • The article was taken from the Psychology Wiki here and written by Gregg Henriques himself.
  • There's a link to the ToK target article, The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology in the references section.
  • A criticisms section would be perfectly appropriate. Many of the links below are links to articles that offer criticisms from which to possibly draw from.

EPM 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is copied from the Psychology Wiki I have appended the GDFL template to that effect. Please do not delete this template as it maintains the link with the original article where people can monitor updates. A similar notice is used on Psychology Wiki to notify material copied from Wikipedia, making the licence clear and giving assess to the list of authors.Lifeartist 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "...developed by Gregg Henriques, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Combined-Integrated Doctoral Program, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA." This sounds like an ad. Don't list all the credentials...perhaps something like "...developed by professor Gregg Henriques at James Madison University." (Done EPM 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• The second sentence is awkward...consider splitting it. (Done EPM 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• The lead needs an overview of what the model actually says. Review WP:LEAD.
• The rest of the article reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia. For example: "The most difficult problem in psychology as a discipline is that while there is incredible diversity offered by different approaches to psychology, there is no overall consensus model of what psychology actually is." Is it really the "most difficult problem in psychology"? Says who? Consider ways to change the language to being more encyclopedic. Please review WP:MOS and WP:WIAGA

Although the article is well-written, it really needs a rewrite to make it a good Wikipedia article. The information is interesting, so I think it would be worth your time to do so. Psykhosis 20:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title pretty much explains it. I've had a quick glance over this article, and the system reminds me greatly of Pirsig's conception of things as put forward in his book Lila. I'll elaborate on this further later.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entire page is an ad by this Gregg Henriques with even references linked to external pages to purchase his book. Most references, which there are few, are to other webpages, e.g., Fandom.com. I'm not sure how this individual's info-ad was not removed 15 years ago. I will go now and learn the correct way to remove it. Go4eagle (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]